tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32449760804307277632024-02-18T20:54:08.346-08:00Maxwell C. BridgesAs part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I've been libeled and slandered as "an industrial-strength 9/11 conspiracy theorist."
In reality, I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 were very clear. "Feed my sheep."Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.comBlogger251125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-4965253147087625342023-11-11T00:11:00.008-08:002023-11-11T14:13:05.552-08:009/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons<!-- 9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons -->
<p>by <a href="#About">Maxwell C. Bridges</a>
<br>2023-11-11</p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.refnote {
color: white;
background: #661111;
padding-top: 10px;
padding-bottom: 10px;
padding-left: 10px;
padding-right: 10px;
}
.navigation {
font-size: small;
font-weight: bold;
text-align: center;
}
img {
display: block;
border-width: 5;
border-style: dotted;
border-color: #440000;
padding-top: 5px;
padding-bottom: 5px;
padding-left: 5px;
padding-right: 5px;
margin-right: auto;
margin-left: auto;
width: 80%;
}
blockquote {
font-style: italic;
background-color: #661111;
color: yellow;
padding-top: 5px;
padding-bottom: 5px;
padding-left: 5px;
padding-right: 5px;
}
table {
background-color: white;
color: black;
}
-->
</style>
<div id="sect_intro" style="display: block;">
<p>Fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001. The evidence for nuclear components <b>leaks out of the entire 9/11 record.</b> The overkill energy of the observed sudden complete <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_23');">decimation</a> of the towers is a clue, purposely missed. </p>
<div id="ref_23" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_23');">[Decimation]</a></b> The towers were decimated through their paths of greatest resistance at near free-fall acceleration while also violently ejecting heavy content laterally. These are huge energy sinks. </p>
<p>But according to the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) promoted by government spokespersons and corporate media:</p>
<blockquote><p>"<b><i>NO EXTRA ENERGY WAS ADDED!!!</i></b> The potential energy of the upper block, acting under the forces of gravity alone after structural steel was allegedly weakened by fires fueled by jet fuel and office furnishings, was sufficient to cause the towers to turn dust."</p>
</blockquote>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/GJS-WTC029.jpg" alt="dust cloud" />
<hr></div>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image28.jpg" alt="The tower is being peeled downward." />
</div> <!-- end of section -->
<a name='more'></a>
<p class="navigation"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');javascript: areaHideAll('ref_');">Hide All</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');javascript: areaHideAll('ref_');">Show</a> / <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');javascript: areaShowAll('ref_');">Show with References</a></p>
<h2><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">The Nuclear Evolution of FGNW</a></h2>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: block;">
<p>By definition, a true Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW) is supposedly <i>pure fusion</i>, which is very hard to initiate without assistance. In this paper, FGNW refers to "<i>late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons</i>", which are hybrid fission-fusion.
<p>A conventional chemical-based charge is used to smash fissile material together in the fission stage. The fission stage generates the requisite heat for the fusion stage.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_1');">[1]</a></p>
<div id="ref_1" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_1');">[1]</a> A fission nuclear weapon begins with a conventional kick-starter charge to smash fissile material together, results in an uncontrolled chain nuclear reaction, consumes only a fraction of the fissile material, and has the largest share of its total energy output in thermal heat and blast waves. The blast wave disperses fissile material in the environment. First generation nuke.
<p><a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1978/05/neutron-weapons-and-the-credibility-of-nato-defense">Neutron Weapons and the Credibility of NATO Defense</a> May 4, 1978</p>
<blockquote><p>[fission process] in which isotopes of uranium or plutonium are compressed into a "critical mass or fissile core" and then split by heavy, sub-atomic particles called neutrons. The energized neutrons reproduce themselves in an explosive chain reaction. ... By far the largest share [of nuclear yield] is transmitted through the thermal heat and blast of recoiling fragments of radioactive uranium and plutonium atoms, which comprise most of the weapon's fall-out.</p></blockquote>
<hr></div>
<ul>
<li><p>A thermo-nuclear weapon releases about 5% of their energy in the form of prompt radiation, and the rest is dispersed in the thermal pulse and blast effects.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_2');">[2]</a></p>
<div id="ref_2" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_2');">[2]</a> <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1978/05/neutron-weapons-and-the-credibility-of-nato-defense">Neutron Weapons and the Credibility of NATO Defense</a> May 4, 1978</p>
<blockquote><p>[fusion process] in which the isotopes of the lightest element, hydrogen, namely deuterium and tritium, are combined into a slightly heavier atoms of helium through a reaction that is "triggered" by the <b>tremendous temperatures</b> (between 10-100 million degrees) and pressures generated by a fission explosion. At the instant of detonation, fusion weapons release about 5% of their energy in the form of prompt radiation, and the rest is dispersed in the thermal pulse and blast effects.</p></blockquote>
<p>A standard thermonuclear device will destroy buildings in a vast shockwave of heat and pressure. In addition to fission products, neutron-induced radioisotopes are also dispersed in the environment along with enormous amount of energy.</p>
<hr></div>
</li>
<li>
<p>A "neutron-bomb" instead allows the neutrons to escape. Its fusion stage releases 80% of its energy in the spherical emission of high-energy neutrons and gamma rays, and 20% is the thermal heat and blast waves. <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_3');">[3]</a> <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_4');">[4]</a></p>
<div id="ref_3" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_3');">[3]</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb">From Wikipeia's <b>neutron bomb</b></a>:
</p><blockquote><p>A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. <b>The weapon's X-ray mirrors and radiation case</b>, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of <b>chromium or nickel</b> so that the neutrons can escape. <b>The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.</b>
<br>
<br>The "usual" nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. ... In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV).
</p></blockquote>
<hr></div>
<div id="ref_4" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_4');">[4]</a> <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html">Nuclear 2001-09-11</a> by Maxwell Bridges 2013-11-11.
<blockquote><p>A neutron weapon is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. A neutron weapon releases 80% of its energy in the prompt radiation -- high-energy neutrons and gamma rays that are lethal to living tissue -- while blast effects are kept to a very low level. Some neutrons do react with other material and produce radioisotopes.
<br>
<br>
The fission portion of the device is kept as small as possible to achieve the goal of raising the temperature so as to initiate a tritium-deuterium (D-T) reaction. The amount of tritium and deuterium is kept large. The fusion energy evolved in the D-T reaction keeps the temperature high for a longer duration and thus keeps the reaction going for relatively a longer time. In a traditional battlefield implementation, 14.6-MeV neutrons shoot out in all direction, but can be deflected to some extent. The ones that are directed toward the sky do not harm humans or cause property damage.
</p></blockquote>
<hr></div>
</li>
<li><p>A FGNW takes the neutron bomb to its next level of evolution. It releases 80% of its nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion: not just spherical, but also semi-spherical, quarter-spherical, to variable angle cone or wedge fanning out from the ignition point. Technically, FGNW are in the category of DEW (directed energy weapons). Only 20% of its already tactical nuclear yield is in the form of heat wave, blast wave, and EMP.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_5');">[5]</a></p>
<div id="ref_5" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_5');">[5]</a> <i>"Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"</i> by Dr. Andre Gsponer.
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>To this author's knowledge, Dr. Andre Gsponer has not written a single word of speculation regarding the devices used to destroy the WTC on 9/11. His works on FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11 were peer-reviewed and published in reputable science publications. It isn't as if nuclear scientists were stepping out in droves (or even as individuals) to debunk his efforts; quite the contrary, many of his works went through multiple revisions, which would indicate that nuclear scientists were providing feedback to improve his works.</p>
<hr></div>
</li>
</ul>
<p>FGNW are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can produce direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response within their targets. Depending on design goals, FGNW can:</p>
<ul>
<li>Generate a fireball (in air or a material).</li>
<li>Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).</li>
<li>Heat the surface of a material.</li>
<li>Accelerate or compress a material.</li>
<li>Transfer momentum to a material.</li>
<li>Heat the volume of a material.</li>
<li>Energize a working material.</li>
<li>Forge and project missiles.</li>
<li>Form and send high-velocity jets.</li>
<li>Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it.</li>
</ul>
<p>Collateral effects of the above list of "mechanical" and "thermodynamical" effects are non-thermo-mechanical effects, such as an electromagetic pulse (EMP) and prompt or delayed radiations.</p>
<p>Words like "pulverization", "dustification", and "decimation" were used to describe the WTC towers' destruction. This certainly applied to the concrete and drywall, where trapped water molecules instantly turn to extremely hot steam whose expanding volumetric pressure microfractures.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_6');">[6]</a></p>
<div id="ref_6" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_6');">[6]</a> Listen to what the Governor of NY was saying about the concrete.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fKXyWK9SQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fKXyWK9SQ</a></p>
<hr></div>
<p>As for metal such as the metal pans and trusses supporting the concrete, when the surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted, launching a shock-wave into the material, hence the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust samples.</p>
<p>Because neither the fission stage nor the fusion stage are designed for a destructive blast wave with the FGNW, this changes expectations for its audible effects<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_7');">[7]</a> and for its fissile signatures in the outcome.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_8');">[8]</a></p>
<div id="ref_7" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_7');">[7]</a> <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18308">2013-08-11 A post from Adam Syed with comment from John Albanese</a>, a denier of controlled demolition (using conventional chemical explosives including thermite): </p>
<blockquote><p>There were numerous videos that were taken up close. In some of the videos you hear the actual rumbling of the collapse. No bangs. In the Naudet brothers documentary BOTH collapses were caught up VERY CLOSE. no bangs. In the live TV feed showing buildings 7's collapse - again - you hear the low frequency rumbling of the collapse - but no high frequency bangs.
<br>
<br>9/11 was perhaps one of the most documented historical events ever recorded. this was new York with millions of people - many carrying video devices - every major network with multiple cameras transfixed in the buildings. No explosions no bangs.
<br>
<br>Do u have any idea how loud a controlled demolition is? The idea that ambient noise - even screams - could drown it out is laughable.</p></blockquote>
<p>Video manipulation happened, so the above is not definitive and is contradicted by a <a href="http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/nypd_officer_heard_building_7_bombs.htm">witnesses reported (NYPD officer Craig Bartmer on WTC-7)</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, the explosions could be counted. Or, a single explosion took out multiple floors. </p>
<p>Dr. Sunder in his NIST reports and interviews made a similar argument: <i>"insufficient decibel levels for controlled demolition (using chemical explosives)."</i> Make a note of how Dr. Sunder and Mr. Albanese dubiously frame the argument, which they want the science-challenged to conclude means: <i>"no controlled demolition; gravity did it by itself; no energy was added."</i>
<br>
</br>Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST, in debunking conventional chemical explosives in WTC-7, stated that if they were used (and certainly to achieve observed pulverization), the explosions would have been deafening. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of first-responder survivors.
</p>
<blockquote><p>NIST concluded the following:</p>
<p>- [T]he minimum charge (lower bound) required to fail a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have produced a pressure wave that would have broken windows on the north and east faces of the building near Column 79. The visual evidence did not show such breakage....</p>
<p>- [T]he noise level at a distance of 1/2 mile would have been on the order of 130 dB to 140dB... People on the street would have heard 9 lb of RDX go off a mile away....</p>
<p>- Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection...<sup>1</sup>
<br><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/"><i>Beyond Misinformation</i></a> page 39</p></blockquote>
<p>The detonation of a FGNW is not extremely loud at its ignition point, because the stages leading towards neutron emission were not noisy or blasting air around. The low, consistent rumble that was heard was the results of the penetrating highly energetic neutrons creating within the targeted materials themselves <i>"destroying shock waves"</i>, and is a much different audio signature than shock waves transmitted through air (blasts).
</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>1. Linda Raisch-Lopez "The building was vibrating "
<br>2. EMT RUSSELL HARRIS I looked at the building and it started vibrating
<br>3. EMT JOHN ROTHMUND "The noise and the vibrations."
<br>4. CHARLES WELLS "- a very strong vibration, shaking, and a loud noise like a subway train coming through a station at speed,"
<br>5. LIEUTENANT DANIEL WILLIAMS "I heard a deep rumbling, and I felt vibrations."
<br>6. FIREFIGHTER KEVIN MCCABE SOME SORT OF VIBRATION LIKE VRR VRR VRR GETTING LOUDER AND LOUDER
<br>7. LIEUTENANT JAMES MCGLYNN "THAT VIBRATION THAT WE FELT WAS THE SOUTH TOWER" Hour Later Big Big Explosion
<br>{<a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/his_job_was_to_keep_the_world.html">http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/his_job_was_to_keep_the_world.html</a>}</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Mineta Transportation Institute Reported 30 Seconds of vibrations
<br>"People inside the South Tower felt the floor vibrate as if a small earthquake were occurring. Instinctively, they sought shelter behind the massive pillars in the lobby, then everything went black. The vibration lasted for about 30 seconds. The doors were knocked out, and a huge ball of flame created by the exploding diesel fuel from the building’s own supply tank shot from the elevator shaft and out the doors of the South Tower, consuming everything in its path."
<br>Mineta Transportation Institute's 30 Seconds of vibrations BEFORE collapse clearly was not caused by 1. planes 2. fires or 3. falling debris. Therefore it's something else was used to help the building turn to dust.
<br>{<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXaNBzm90m4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXaNBzm90m4</a>}</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>"You’re hearing the rumble and you don’t see a thing. Everything is shaking around you. building is pulling me in"
<br>
<br>"Then all the sudden I get hit with a blast of heat like I was being burnt in an oven — like a sun’s rays just hitting you "<br>{<a href="">http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm</a>}</p>
</blockquote>
<hr></div>
<div id="ref_8" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_8');">[8]</a> In general, the efforts to debunk 9/11 nuclear involvement created a straw man about large 2nd generation thermo-nuclear devices, which indeed would have exhibited large blast waves to spread considerable radioactive badness everywhere. When those expected levels for their large nukes wasn't measured in the data samples, starting with Dr. Steven Jones, they could have said: <i>"the evidence does not support large thermo-nuclear weapons,"</i>, which is true. Instead, they said (paraphrased) <b><i>"no nuclear devices whatsover were used."</i></b> They don't even mention neutron bombs, much less <i>"exotic (nuclear) weapons"</i>, such as FGNW.
<br>
<br>"Nuclear blasts" was the strawman used by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE9/11Truth) in their <i>FAQ #15: Various authors claim that nuclear blasts caused or contributed to the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Why does AE911Truth not endorse this claim?
<a href="https://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2015/Aug_2015/FAQ-15-supplement.pdf">https://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2015/Aug_2015/FAQ-15-supplement.pdf</a></i></p>
<blockquote><p><b>blast</b>:
</p><ul>
<li>destructive wave of highly compressed air spreading outward from an explosion</li>
<li>an explosion or explosive firing, especially of a bomb.</li>
<li>a strong gust of wind or air.</li>
<li>a strong current of air used in smelting.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>When the framing of the dicussion is <i>"nuclear blasts"</i>, it easy to agree with FAQ #15 that <i>"nuclear blasts were not the primary mechanisms of destruction."</i> Such <i>"nuclear blasts"</i> would certainly have thrown radioactive material great distances, radiated surrounding buildings, and ultimately would have impacted the health of a much larger population in the area, not primarily survivors and first responders. Owing to the <i>"nuclear blasts"</i> needing highly compressed air to spread destruction, they would be very loud.
<br>
<br>When framing the discussion properly as FGNW, it isn't a blast or a bang; it is high amounts of energy suddenly deposited deeply and through out the molecular structure of the content.
<br>
<br></p>
<hr></div>
</div><!-- end sect_ -->
<h2><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_3');">Speculation into the FGNW Configuration</a></h2>
<div id="sect_3" style="display: block;">
<p>The FGNW were multi-stage devices -- kick-start, fission, fusion. Trigger to full nuclear yield was not instantaneous. In addition, the nuclear output had a brief duration; the kick-start conventional charge had kick-back; FGNW were being used in tandem where misalignment can foul others.</p>
<p>Thus, successful implementation required a stable mounting point that would not be destroyed during its own nuclear output. Between angle adjustments afforded by the mounting bracket and the output aperture allowing different fixed output shapes and fanning angles, the FGNW were aimed.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_9');">[9]</a> <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_10');">[10]</a> The FGNW themselves were probably the size and shape of a soda fountain refill keg or a large fire-extinguisher.</p>
<div id="ref_9" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_9');">[9]</a> The initial neutron bombs had a spherical emission. It is reasonable to expect that the emission originating at the sphere's center could be designed to be <i>"any slice or wedge or cone of the sphere"</i>. The simpliest aperature is circular tending torwards cone-shaped outputs.
In general, they are aimed upwards so that excess neutron emissions go into the sky and not create more collatoral damage.</p>
<hr></div>
<div id="ref_10" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_10');">[10]</a> Both towers (but most visible on WTC-2) had outer structure falling away leaving behind for a few moments tall portions of the inner core, which later became known as <i>"the spire."</i> This was the stable platform required for multiple FGNW working in tandem.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC030c_original.jpg" alt="WTC Spire of internal core columns." />
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image42.jpg" alt="WTC Spire of internal core columns." />
<hr></div>
<p>Each of the WTC towers probably had four (4) FGNW per detonation level and 6-10 detonation levels. The following image of the configuration of just two detonation levels, a cone-shaped nuclear emission is assumed.</p>
<img data-original-height="500" data-original-width="361" style="width: 361;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv7FNUtz3i0LIRqK9JadDYXDjAPq1l4b8tsmzIaL69OcKEkhoiT_w6tzH_gqpPjH8BVUROA05rvOFgajXBf_OX79BFnzw5ALLzdizinr6RlUSbD94zUrgTraP8srgNiK0zDA09sZ8d2RE/s320/WTC_innerCore_31.png" alt="mcb speculation into WTC FGNW placement" border="0">
<p>Variable are: whether the emission shape is a cone, wedge, or other; the cone's (or wedge's) angle; the amount of execution overlap from lower FGNW; how many levels above the detonation point before the output cone would start to graze and then penetrate the inside of the outer wall assemblies.</p>
<p>Total number of FGNW required for the observed WTC destruction is probably on the order of 50 to 100. Assuming mounting bracket installation was completed in advance, then transporting the FGNW into the buildings and <i>"clicking"</i> them into their mounting brackets is logistically possible over a long weekend (by one team of at least two per building).</p>
</div><!-- end sect_ -->
<h2><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">Evidence of Fission</a></h2>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: block;">
<p>The <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/sample.location.html">USGS collected dozens of dust samples</a>. The tables in the USGS analysis of their WTC dust samples are noteworthy, because the expected fissile by-product elements <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_11');">[11]</a> and their decay elements are present in the dust.</p>
<div id="ref_11" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_11');">[11]</a> The following image depicts how a nuclear reaction with Uranium creates other elements (Barium and Strontium) and that then decay quickly into other elements.</p>
<img alt="" src="http://www.911history.de/images/911nn072_en.png">
<p>Source 1 (modified): <a href="http://www.nucleardemolition.com/">http://www.nucleardemolition.com/</a>
<br>Source 2 (half lives): <a href="http://www.internetchemie.info/chemiewiki/index.php?title=Barium-Isotope">http://www.internetchemie.info/chemiewiki/index.php?title=Barium-Isotope</a>
</p>
<hr></div>
<figure>
<img src="http://www.911history.de/images/911nn334.png" width="663" height="304">
<p class="caption"><i>Source: <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html">http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html</a></i>
</figure>
<p>The second image of a table snippet documents strontium and its decay elements as having been present in the dust.</p>
<figure>
<img src="http://www.911history.de/images/911nn336.png" width="663" height="304">
<p class="caption"><i>Source: <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html">http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html</a></i>
</figure>
<p>More important is the omission of an explanation in the report for these elements in the dust. The trend for not mentioning significant findings began with <i>"Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001"</i> by The Paul Lioy et al.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_12');">[12]</a></p>
<div id="ref_12" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_12');">[12]</a> Among its flaws of the report <i>"<a href="https://archive.org/details/CharacterizationOfTheDustsmokeAerosolThatSettledEastOfTheWorldTrade_552">Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001</a>"</i> by The Paul Lioy et al:
<br>
<br>- Limited its analysis to <b>three (3)</b> <i>"representative"</i> dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
<br>
<br>- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
<br>
<br>- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
<br>
<br>- Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). The Lioy report only mentions <i>"Uranium"</i> twice: once in the methodology section and once in table 2 indicating metals found. Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
<br>
<br>The Lioy report states:</p>
<blockquote><p>We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.</p></blockquote>
<p>The tritium study re-define <i>"background levels"</i>, so this report might be following the same pattern. Except that this report provided <b>neither the measured values nor the values of what they <i>"background level"</i></b>.
<br>
<br>It is significant when they write: <i>"Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level."</i> For the gravity-driven-pile-drivers that the government attributes to the WTC tower destruction, nothing radioactive elevated to twice background level should have existed at all. Likewise, chemical explosives and incendiaries are not known for releasing radiation, so even <i>"slightly elevated beta activity"</i> should not be left around as a signature if such were the only cause of destruction.
<br>
<br>The Lioy report characterizes the dust as:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]he particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-µm diameter) particles, not the fine (<2.5-µm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-µm diameter)... Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a "star-wars" beam destroying the Towers).</p></blockquote>
<p>This is a straw man created by splitting hairs with regards to the amount of these µm particles and by framing it as <i>"near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke)"</i>.
<br>
<br>First, Lioy does <b>~not~</b> state that there was <b>~no~</b> fine (<2.5-µm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-µm diameter) particles generated in the WTC destruction, because indeed there was and indeed this still represents a massive energy sink even if the greatest abundance of dust particles were supercoarse (>10-µm diameter). It takes much energy to make even the unregulated supercoarse dust particles.
<br>
<br>Second, they make no effort to describe <i>"mini-nuke"</i> correctly for the observed outcomes. They allow the imagination of the readers, formed by many years of nuclear weapons PR hype, to fill in the blanks.
</p>
<hr></div>
<p>Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed this USGS data.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_13');">[13]</a></p>
<div id="ref_13" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_13');">[13]</a> Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed this USGS data in <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html"><i>Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]</i></a> {mcb: Link no longer works; local copy should be made available.}</p>
<blockquote><p>Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
<br>
<br><b>Thorium and Uranium:</b> These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
<br>
<br><b>Lithium:</b> With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
<br>
<br><b>Lanthanum:</b> Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
<br>
<br><b>Yttrium:</b> The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
<br>
<br><b>Chromium:</b> The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
<br>
<br><b>Tritium:</b> A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes. </p></blockquote>
<hr></div>
<p>The following is based on Mr. Jeff Prager's conclusion.</p>
<blockquote><p>The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance.</p>
<p>The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.</p>
<p>The USGS report shows Barium and Strontium present and in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships.</p>
<p>The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship and to other radionuclide daughter products.</p>
<p>The dust samples provide an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. Nuclear weapon scientists, such as Dr. Jones, should have seized this data to analyze it and determine exactly what type of device produced it.</p>
</blockquote>
</div><!-- end sect_ -->
<h2><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_5');">Evidence of Fusion</a></h2>
<div id="sect_5" style="display: block;">
<p>Tritium is a building block of nearly all FGNW. This is why the <i>"<a href="http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf">Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center</a>"</i> was hamstrung and scope-limited from the onset. The study can't be taken at face-value as the final word on tritium, how much was really present, or what the tritium sources could be. <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_14');">[14]</a> <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_15');">[15]</a></p>
<div id="ref_14" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_14');">[14]</a> Section 10 of <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW</a> by Maxwell C. Bridges discusss the issues with <i>"<a href="http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf">Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center</a>"</i> by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
<br>
<br>They limited themselves into attributing tritium to RL devices that <i>might</i> already have been part of the contents of the WTC complex. The shoddy sampling (9/13 and 9/21) were only taken in the run-off from WTC-6, yet it was meant to make conclusions about tritium levels every where at the WTC. They stopped taking additional samples when their analysis indicated levels well below the EPA threshold for what constitutes a health risk. The study re-defines <i>"trace or background levels"</i> to be 55 times greater than they were previously. (<a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x8">More details.</a>)
<br>
<br>The study suggested that only airplane exit signs, weapons sights, and time pieces can attributed to the tritium they measured at WTC-6, the customs house with basement vaults for confiscated contraband: weapons, money, drugs, etc.
<br>
<br>The conclusion buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft exit signs yielded an HTO deposition fraction that was too high in comparison with historical incidents involving fire and tritium, yet was still too small to account for the tritium measurements.
<br>
<br>Worse, FEMA photographer who went below WTC-6 states that its vaults were emptied prior to the event, which removes its weapons sights from being considered a tritium source.
</p>
<hr></div>
<div id="ref_15" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_15');">[15]</a> Ask the average yeoman in the 9/11 Truth Movement (911TM) why 9/11 was supposedly <b>~not~</b> a nuclear event, their answer will undoubtedly reference the works of former BYU professor of (nuclear) physics, Dr. Steven Jones, such as his letter: <i><a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf">"Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers"</a></i> (2007).
<br>
<br>A keystone piece of <i>"evidence"</i> leading to Dr. Jones' <i>"no-nukes"</i> conclusions was that only miniscule amounts of tritium were measured. The source he sites is <i>"<a href="http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf">Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center</a>"</i> by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
<br>
<br>This study achieved its scope-limited goals, but is deeply flawed in its shoddy sampling & analysis to be held up by Dr. Jones as the final authority on tritium at the WTC. The government study notes that they were "unable" to test at numerous places, especially deep underground where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed.
<br>
<br>This should have been a red flag for Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones in his paper accepts this report unchallenged, re-iterates "trace" as the re-defined level, supports the contention of its negligent health effects, and the frames the discussion as a large thermonuclear (fusion) bomb by writing:</p>
<blockquote><p>Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. (Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.) Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionth of a curie range.</p></blockquote>
<p>Dr. Jones accepts unchallenged the Lioy report that characterizes the dust and smoke and does not even question its blatant flaws, such as sample size and location.
<br>
<br>Dr. Jones then introduces a blatant logic error, best summarized as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>"Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z <i><b>nor any other nuclear device.</b></i>"</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, he frames the discussion around certain types of nuclear weapons and legitimately states that the radiation signature did not match those. But rather than taking just those types off of the table, he takes <b>all nuclear devices</b> out of consideration. Other than airplane exit signs, police gun sights, and time pieces from the scope-limited tritium study, Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the radiation signature D (tritium), which is a signature of a fusion device.
<br>
<br><b>The blatant omission are neutron bombs and their exotic
FGNW offspring.</b>
<br>
<br>Dr. Jones then goes on to challenge:</p>
<blockquote><p>Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?</p></blockquote>
<p>This question is malframed in many ways: the nature of the device, how the energy and radiation were directed, and that large releases of tritium supposedly did not happen.
<br></p>
<hr></div>
<p>However, the study proves that not only was tritium present, but that its very presence required interference be run to control the narrative and steer public consideration away from its true significance.</p>
</div><!-- end sect_ -->
<h2><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">Evidence of Very Hot Heat Source</a></h2>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: block;">
<p>The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles associated with high temperatures. Many different metals of very fine particles were found in the samples, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States. There were also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing aerosol. This latter type of aerosol can be produced only by very high temperatures, including vaporisation of soil and glass.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_16');">[16]</a></p>
<div id="ref_16" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_16');">[16]</a> From October 2, 2001 until mid-December 2001, a volunteer research team from the DELTA Group monitored the levels of atmospheric particles and aerosols in the atmosphere of New York, following the collapse of the World Trade Center. Professor Thomas Cahill of the the UC Davis DELTA Group (Detection and Evaluation of Long-range Transport of Aerosols) described some of this finding on February 11, 2002. {<a href="http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/nuclear-atmospheric-physicist-dr-thomas-cahill-on-911">Source</a> with direct quotes from Dr. Cahill}
</p>
<blockquote><p>"The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles, probably associated with high temperatures in the underground debris pile. Normally, in New York City and in most of the world, situations like this just don’t exist."
<br>
<br>"Even on the worst air days in Beijing, downwind from coal-fired power plants, or the Kuwait oil fires, we did not see these levels of very fine particulates."
<br>
<br>The amounts of very fine particles, particularly very fine silicon, decreased sharply during the month of October.
<br>
<br>"The US Davis DELTA Group’s ability to measure and analyze particle size, composition and time continuously, day and night, is unequalled. There were numerous events when bursts of wind lasting 6 to 8 hours carried unprecedented amounts of very fine particles to the sampling site. In the largest spike, the DELTA Group analysis found 58 micrograms per cubic meter of very fine particles in one 45-minute period – "an extremely high peak" Cahill said.
<br>
<br>Many different metals were found in the samples of very fine particles, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States.
<br>
<br>Some of the metals for which there are no guidelines that were present in very fine particles in relatively high concentrations were Iron, Titanium (some associated with powdered concrete), Vanadium, Nickel (often associated with fuel-oil combustion), Copper and Zinc. Mercury was seen occasionally in fine particles but at low concentrations. Many of those metals are widely used in building construction, wiring and plumbing. Some are common in computers. The metal of the coarse particles is still being analyzed.
<br>
<br>Very small particles are particularly dangerous since they can bypass the bodies natural defence mechanisms and if breathed in, enter directly into the bloodstream. They can also pass through HEPA filters, the finest grade of gas mask available and they can even enter the body through the skin. They are a serious hazard.
<br>
<br>Anything with a diameter of less then 2.5 millionths of a meter is to be considered dangerous for these reasons.
<br>The press release further states:
<br>
<br>"There are no established safe limits for inhaled very fine particles. The closest reference is the US EPA "PM2.5" standard, which limits the allowable mass of airborne particles 2.5 micrometers to (0) Zero micrometers. That standard is based on health studies of typical air samples, in which very fine particles are a small fraction of the total mass. In contrast, in the World Trade Center dust samples analyzed at UC Davis, the very fine particles are a large fraction of the total mass."
<br>
<br>So we can understand that Professor Cahill would want to draw attention to the fine particulates for health and safety reasons. But is there more to it?
<br>
<br>Prof. Cahill also explained the meaning of the generation of the particles to reporters more clearly:
<br>
<br>"The presence of coarse particles immediately after days of rain indicated that they were being <b><i>continually re-generated</i></b> from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces."
<br>
<br>Cahills words. <i><b>Continually Regenerated.</b></i>
<br>
<br>Is this another subtle hint by a man who can't speak his mind freely that a nuclear reaction occurred?
<br>
<br>"The very fine particles were high in a number of species generally associated with combustion of fuel oil – such as Sulfur, Vanadium and Nickel, and incineration of plastics and other organic matter."
<br>
<br>"There were also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing aerosol. This latter type of aerosol can be produced only by very high temperatures, including vaporisation of soil and glass."
</p></blockquote></p>
<hr></div>
<blockquote><p>"The presence of coarse particles immediately after days of rain indicated that they were being <b><i>continually re-generated</i></b> from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces."~Dr. Thomas Cahill.</p></blockquote>
<p><i>"Nuclear Fizzle"</i> from one or more of the tandem FGNW is the most likely source.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_17');">[17]</a></p>
<div id="ref_17" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_17');">[17]</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_explosion)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_explosion)</a>
<br>
<br>A fizzle occurs when the detonation of a device for creating a nuclear explosion (such as a nuclear weapon) grossly fails to meet its expected yield. The bombs still detonate, but the detonation is much less than anticipated. ... A fizzle can spread radioactive material throughout the surrounding area, involve a partial fission reaction of the fissile material, or both.[4] For practical purposes, a fizzle can still have considerable explosive yield when compared to conventional weapons.
<br>
<br>In multistage fission-fusion weapons, full yield of the fission primary that fails to initiate fusion ignition in the fusion secondary (or produces only a small degree of fusion) is also considered a "fizzle", as the weapon failed to reach its design yield despite the fission primary working correctly.
<br>
<br><b>Castle Koon:</b> A thermonuclear device whose fusion secondary did not successfully ignite, with only low-level fusion burning taking place.</p>
<hr></div>
<p>The debris pile had many <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_40');">Hot-Spots</a> and exhibited <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_44');">Extremely High Temperatures</a>, that FGNW can address with fizzled nukes but that other consensus 9/11 theories, such as <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_41');">Nano-Thermite</a>, cannot address and therefore do not address.</p>
<div id="ref_40" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_40');">[Hot-Spots]</a></b> The duration of under-rubble hot-spots allegedly without fuel sources is a very perplexing question.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/hotslagil3.jpg" alt="under rubble hot-spots 9/11" />
<blockquote><p>Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings. A small selection is presented below:
<br>
<br>- Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the design of WTC 1 and WTC 2, told an audience: "We were down at the B-1 level and one of the firefighters said, 'I think you'd be interested in this.' And they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel flowing."<sup>2</sup>
<br>- FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." Other firefighters chimed in: "Like lava.""Like lava from a volcano."<sup>3</sup>
<br>- Ken Holden, the Commissioner of the NYC Department of Design and Construction, testified before the 9/11 Commission: "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."<sup>4</sup>
<br>...
<br>[S]tructural steel does not begin to melt until about 1,482°C (2,700°F).
<br>...
<br>NIST assumes that the only possible cause of “melting steel” would have been “the jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers,” which is an implausible hypothesis on its face.
</p>
<p><i>"Beyond Misinformation"</i> page 32
<br><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/</a></p>
</blockquote>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5446.jpg" alt="fuming" />
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5508.jpg" alt="Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt. WTC-5 in back across plaza and WTC-4 on right" />
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5509.jpg" alt="Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt. WTC-5 in back across plaza and WTC-4 on right" />
<hr></div>
<div id="ref_44" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_44');">[Extremely High Temperatures]</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 34
</p>
<blockquote><p>Three scientific studies have documented evidence in the WTC dust that indicates extremely high temperatures during the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 — and possibly WTC 7.
<br>
<br>Released in May 2004, the RJ Lee report titled WTC Dust Signature identified “[s]pherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature” in the dust.
<br>An earlier 2003 version of RJ Lee’s report observed:</p>
<blockquote><p>Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…. Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in the WTC dust…but are not common in normal office dust.</p></blockquote>
<p>The 2003 version also reported that while iron particles make up only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted 5.87 percent of the WTC dust.
<br>
<br>Iron does not melt until 1,538°C (2,800°F), which, as discussed above, cannot be reached by diffuse hydrocarbon fires. Still, even higher temperatures than 1,538°C were indicated by another discovery documented in RJ Lee’s report:</p>
<blockquote><p>The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.</p></blockquote>
<p>The 2003 version also referred to temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” For such vaporization to occur, lead would need to have been heated to its boiling point of 1,749°C (3,180°F).
<br>
<br>Released in 2005, a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) titled Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust identified “trace to minor amounts” of “metal or metal oxides” in the WTC dust and presented micrographs of these particles, two of which were labeled “Iron-rich sphere.”
</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 35
</p>
<blockquote><p>Published by Dr. Steven Jones and seven other scientists in early 2008, the paper Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction connected the dots between the earlier RJ Lee and USGS reports. It also provided new observations based on analysis of WTC dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones. According to the authors:</p>
<blockquote><p>The formation of spherules in the dust implies the generation of materials somehow sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes. The shape is retained as the droplet solidifies in the air.</p></blockquote>
<p>In addition to observing spherules of iron and silicates, their study discussed the presence of molybdenum spherules documented by the USGS study but not included in its report. (This additional data from the USGS study was obtained through a FOIA request.) Molybdenum is known for its extremely high melting point of 2,623°C (4,754°F).
<br>
<br>Jones’ study also discussed evidence of even higher temperatures contained in the RJ Lee report (quoting from the RJ Lee report):</p>
<blockquote><p>Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation)….</p></blockquote>
<p>These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. Dr. Jones and his coauthors observed:</p>
<blockquote><p>[I]f the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is indeed the result of “boiling and evaporation” of the material as the [RJ Lee] report suggests, we note the boiling temperature for aluminosilicate is approximately 2,760°C.</p></blockquote>
<p>They then provided a table (see Table 6 at left) summarizing the temperatures needed to account for the various evidence of high temperatures in the World Trade Center destruction, which they contrasted with the much lower maximum temperatures associated with the fires on September 11.
<br>...
<br>Table 6: Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required
</p><table>
<tbody><tr><td style="width: 70%;">PROCESS AND MATERIAL</td> <td>°C</td> <td>°F</td></tr>
<tr><td>To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel</td> <td>1,000</td> <td>1,832</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation)</td> <td>1,450</td> <td>2,652</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt iron (spherule formation)</td> <td>1,538</td> <td>2,800</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation)</td> <td>1,565</td> <td>2,849</td></tr>
<tr><td>To vaporize lead </td><td>1,740</td> <td>3,164</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt molybdenum (spherule formation)</td> <td>2,623</td> <td>4,753</td></tr>
<tr><td>To vaporize aluminosilicates</td> <td>2,760</td> <td>5,000</td></tr>
</table>
<hr></div>
<div id="ref_41" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_41');">[Nano-Thermite]</a></p>
<p>After Dr. Steven Jones <i>"repudiated the hypothesis"</i> that any form of nuclear device were involved with 9/11, he filled the void with <i><b>Nano-Thermite</b></i> (NT) stemming from energetic particles that were found in <i>his</i> dust samples.</p>
<p>NT is an incendiary, not an explosive. So Dr. Jones suggested that NT was mixed with something having more brisance, such as RDX. Unfortunately, RDX or similar chemical-based explosives -- on paper -- exasperate getting NT to explain the anomaly of under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months. </p>
<p>NT has a burn rate of ~1,100 feet per second (f/s). RDX has a burn-rate of ~31,000 f/s. Hot-spots were several and burned for many weeks. Simplify by considering only one hot-spot that burned 4 weeks = 28 days = 1,411,200 seconds. As but one configuration and so it doesn't burn-up all at once, consider this explosive/incendiary material packed into an imaginary garden hose whose diameter we can ignore for the moment. To sustain such a hot-spot, the fuse-like hose packed with pure NT implies a length of 226,000 miles, while RDX implies 7,510,000 miles. Thus, a mixture of NT with RDX (or equivalent) would still result in something many hundreds of thousand miles long.</p>
<p>Red flags should be going up at this point, because those triple zeros to the left of the decimal point are significant. If we assume "salting" of the material in the pile and grossly simplified it down to "n" thousand miles and a hose diameter of a mere 1/8", the volume of material required (for one hot-spot) is still massive! The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources is stopped at RDX/NT. </p>
<p>Worst of all, this represents material that was unspent and left-over from its original task of decimating the towers. </p>
<blockquote><p>"Hedegaard had earlier calculated, on his own, that at least 60 tons of thermite would have been needed to take down the Twin Towers, and on that basis he found it difficult to believe that controlled demolition had been used to level those two buildings."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ae911truth.org/news/207-news-media-events-danish-high-court-harrit.html">http://www.ae911truth.org/news/207-news-media-events-danish-high-court-harrit.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>When Dr. Nils Harrit calculated backwards from 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust to source amounts of NT, the result was a massive amount, say, between 70,000 and 143,000 metric tons. The amount required to maintain the hot-spots is obscenely over and above that already massive and inconceivable amount.</p>
<p>In Dr. Steven Jones and Mr. Kevin Ryan' paper, <a href="http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Ryan_EnvironmentalAnomalies.pdf"><i>"Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials,"</i></a> they make a good case that such explosive material could account for six or so spikes in the release of dangerous gases. The omission in their paper is that NT used in any combination with conventional explosives cannot explain what maintained the under-rubble hot-spots between those spikes. </p>
<p>In September of 2012, Dr. Jones wrote: <p><i>"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite.)"</i></p></p>
<p>Concerted effort was expended to purposely <b><i>not</i></b> look into that <i><b>"something</b></i> that maintained the hot-spots.</p>
<hr></div>
</div><!-- end sect_ -->
<h2><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_7');">Evidence of Recorded Radiation and Steel Anomalies</a></h2>
<div id="sect_7" style="display: block;">
<p>The FEMA/NIST captured video footage of the mangled state of steel wall assemblies and internal support beams, all of which raise questions about the mechanisms of destruction, their placement, and the energy involved.</p>
<p>However, the video footage as a side-effect also caught real-time radiation emissions from the Ground Zero debris pile and specific pieces from the Fresh-Kills Landfill. The evidence is in the form of camera scintillation -- flashes or sparkles of light -- as a result of radioactive particles in the dust cloud.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_18');">[18]</a></p>
<div id="ref_18" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_18');">[18]</a> Mr. Heinz Pommer discusses this camera scintillation at about 57:46 in <i><a href="https://youtu.be/Ry4UWQjJnSc?t=3466">9/11: a nuclear war crime 2017-01-09</a></i>, also reachable<a href="www.911history.de">www.911history.de</a>. </p>
<hr></div>
<p>In some cases due to the close proximity of the video camera to the radioactive material, the video tape completely glitches out and is unviewable. This was probably unknown to the person running the camera until later playback, and may have contributed to the slow-walking of releasing the FEMA/NIST videos.</p>
<p>The video glitches underscore the nuclear nature of the anomalous pieces of steel.</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><a href="https://youtu.be/xScpRFVVx4w">9/11 - World Trade Center Recovery and debris removal part 4 of 6
<br>https://youtu.be/xScpRFVVx4w</a>.</p>
<p>At around 6:00 as the camera pans up and down, whenever it aims down, more scintillation appears in the lower half of the image that depicts the pulverized debris pile. Other instances in the video (such as around 12:00), the camera will have relatively few glitches, but as it pans over areas of the destruction, the lower portion of the image with the debris pile (and not the upper portion with standing structures) begin to have more white flashes or camera anomalies. When the camera pans over other areas of equipment and workers, not such scintillation.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="https://youtu.be/p4HOCf7WK3g?t=291">Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10
<br>https://youtu.be/p4HOCf7WK3g?t=291</a>.</p>
<p>Notice how it affects the lower portion of the image where the debris is piled up and not the structure in the upper portion.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI">NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
<br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI</a></p>
<p>Right from the beginning are many anomalies pieces of steel whose twisted shapes suggest some form of volume heating of the material to make it suddenly pliable. One of many places the video camera suddenly experiences serious glitches is just before 46:00.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE">NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE</a></p>
<ul>
<li><p>28:51 A box column of a wall assembly exhibited a gash along 1/3 or more of its length and through the spandrel (thicker) area.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_19');">[19]</a></p>
<div id="ref_19" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_19');">[19]</a> FGNW's instant volume heating explains a gash along 1/3 or more of the length of a box column and through the spandrel (thicker) area. The wall assembly was volume heated and made pliable such that something was able to gouge it. The edges of the gash wilted inwards.</p>
<hr></div>
</li>
<li><p>1:23:00 (and 1:44:00) The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_20');">[20]</a></p>
<div id="ref_20" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_20');">[20]</a> <i>"Steel Doobies:"</i> the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly are wrapped into a bundle (or doobie, or joint) and held together by their three spandrels. FGNW suggests sufficient volume heating of the sprandels (across three stories) that they became pliable. The shock wave in ablating materials had a lateral component in their destruction. Easily wraps the beams up by their own spandrels.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5326.jpg" alt="steel doobies" />
<p>In the image, a man is climbing a steel beam underneath of which rests a "steel doobie".</p>
<hr></div>
</li>
<li><p>1:27:00 Column smoothly bent into a C-shape and smoothly <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_25');">bent steel</a>.</p>
<div id="ref_25" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_25');">[Bent-Steel]</a></b> In the non-nuclear real-world, many minutes in a blast furnace is normally required to heat structural steel beams sufficiently end-to-end in order to get it to bend.</p>
<img src="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/DSCN0941_s.jpg" alt="smooth arches, sags" />
<img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hanger17/core4.jpg " alt="horseshoe or core column" />
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5303.jpg" alt="Clean wrinkled wall assemblies" />
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/010920_3984c.jpg" alt="wall assemblies, wrinkles on assembly, back side heated and made pliable." />
<hr></div>
</li>
<li><p>1:39:00 and 1:57:00 Radiation affecting the video camera.</p></li>
</ul> <!-- inner -->
</li> <!-- outer -->
<li>
<p><a href="https://youtu.be/uGaiSrxhRhU?t=52">Video of the South Tower Dust Cloud
<br>https://youtu.be/uGaiSrxhRhU?t=52</a></p>
<p>At about 0:52 the camera is over-run by the dust cloud. Suddenly the video camera, that worked perfectly before, starts registering small flashes in the dust cloud.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>The technology of FEMA/NIST best video cameras betrayed the true nuclear evidence that those of us raised on the snowy broadcast television of last century might not notice.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_21');">[21]</a></p>
<div id="ref_21" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_21');">[21]</a> As a side note to validate various cameras' susceptibility to radiation, <a href="https://youtu.be/ebpscjKRCqo">applications for mobile phones</a> exist that turn them into radioactivity counters. One such company is <a href="http://www.rdklein.de">www.rdklein.de</a>. Cover the lens of the camera with normal black tape which blocks the light while letting radioactive emissions penetrate. The application initiates a form of long-term exposure, collects the radioactive occurrences, and provides statistics and analysis on them.</p>
<hr></div>
<p>The reader is given the assignment to browse their own collection of images and videos of 9/11 WTC destruction and postulate FGNW's abilities as being most likely to inflict such unique and anomalous damage.<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_22');">[22]</a></p>
<div id="ref_22" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_22');">[22]</a> Dr. Judy Wood book <i><a href="http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/">"Where Did The Towers Go?"</a></i> and <a href="http://www.drjudywood.com">website</a> contain many excellent WTC images of destruction that require explaining by any 9/11 conspiracy theory-du-jour, and which FGNW does explain.</p>
<p><b>Disclaimer:</b> Dr. Wood's book is clever disinformation, and that makes it all the more worthy to study for the nuggets of truth, the evidence. Be warned that she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and provided shoddy research into nuclear considerations. </p>
<p>ABL (airborne lasers) and beams-from-space are real things, but the latter in particular has optic issues going through the atmosphere hampering frequencies suitable for energy transmission (to destroy the WTC in some manner). Both ABL and beams-from-space require a source for their energy (such as chemical-based lasers) that directly complicate logistics regarding quantities of source materials required to generate the observed energy at a distance. Unless the ABL or beams-from-space are nuclear powered. But why nuclear power the destruction from a distance when they can nuclear power right at the target a most unique decimation sequence? </p>
<hr></div>
</div><!-- end sect_ -->
<h2><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">Evidence in WTC Destruction</a></h2>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: block;">
<p>When 9/11 is discussed, focus is often limited to the twin towers (or WTC-7) and destruction patterns and anomalies in the other buildings of the complex are ignored. <i>"Nothing to see here, folk! Move it along, keep on walking!"</i></p>
<p>Each building in the complex (except maybe WTC-3) has evidence of FGNW usage.</p>
<!-- Evidence of Buildings -->
<ul>
<li><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_35');">WTC-2</a>: came down first</p>
<div id="ref_35" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_35');">WTC-2</a></b></p>
<p>The following image shows that the upper stories of WTC-2 at the initiation of the destruction had angular momentum, whereby as a cohesive whole that upper block should have toppled off to the side of the lower tower structure. Videos show that in the next moments, suddenly the upper block was no longer a cohesive whole as it accordions in on itself.</p>
<img src="https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1000w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2021_36/1703456/ss-160909-911-attack-mbe-630.jpg" alt="9/11 WTC-2 tower angular momentum" />
<p>The destruction canopy of both towers had <i>"squibs"</i> visible exploding out of the middle of the towers' faces about 10-20 stories ahead of the canopy. This could be explained as either kick-back from the FGNW kickstarter charge, or the mitgated blast wave from the 20% nuclear yield (heat wave, blast wave, EMP) that isn't neutron emission. </p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image231.jpg" alt="Squibs or FGNW blast wave" />
<p>The next images show another anomaly: large falling portions of the tower that had steamy, smoking trails following them. FGNW offers this explanation. The cone shape neutron emissions from their ignition point didn't reach the wall assemblies until they had passed through 10-20 stories of concrete, steel pans, and trusses (three things grossly missing from the debris pile other than in dust form.) The emission contained sufficient energy, though, to heat the wall assemblies top-to-bottom over three stories sufficiently to ignite and burn off things attached to them, like paint, plaster, drywall, asbestos, etc. </p>
<img src="https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/09/us/9-11-photos-cnnphotos/media/images/s_A0AE79177AE22FEDB3174BE4CB5E6C1B34787C78A411A18BEEE28632C821036C_1631117467884_10.jpg" alt="9/11 Photo taken by https://changwlee.com/" />
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image38.jpg" alt="WTC wall assemblies burning off content" />
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/poof_1539.jpg" alt="WTC wall assemblies burning off content" />
<hr></div>
</li>
<li><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_34');">WTC-1</a>: came down second
</p>
<div id="ref_34" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_34');">WTC-1</a></b></p>
<p>When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories [<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk"><i>Downward Acceleration of the North Tower</i></a>], he calculated that the roof fell at a constant 64% gravitational acceleraton. This means that the 20 story structure SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY went to 36% of its minimum strength needed to support itself. The pulverization is visible in the earliest moments of annihilation. There was no cohesive upper-block of stories to act as a pile-driver on lower and sturdier structure.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"What we actually see here, is the falling section of the building turning to dust before our eyes."~David Chandler at 2:30 in video.</p></blockquote>
<p>From <a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/"><i>"BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7"</i></a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>A number of papers ... have measured the fall of WTC 1’s upper section and have observed that it never slowed down in the four seconds before it disappeared from view. Rather, its acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall, and there was never an observable deceleration, which would be required if the upper section had impacted and crushed the lower structure. A lack of deceleration would indicate with absolute certainty that the lower structure was destroyed by another force before the upper section reached it. ... One of the most noticeable features of the two buildings’ destruction was the near-total pulverization of... approximately 8.8 million square feet of 5.5-inch-thick lightweight concrete flooring. ... [T]he buildings’ steel structures were almost entirely dismembered... [V]irtually all of their steel skeletons were broken up into small pieces, with the core structures separated into individual members and the exterior columns broken up into three-story, prefabricated sections. ... As the concrete was being pulverized and the structures were being dismembered, a large percentage of the buildings’ materials was ejected upwards and laterally in an arclike manner far beyond the perimeters of the buildings... as far as 400 to 500 feet from each tower’s base.
</p></blockquote>
<hr></div>
</li>
<li><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_30');">WTC-4</a>: destroyed with WTC-2
</p>
<div id="ref_30" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_30');">WTC-4</a></b></p>
<p>WTC-4 did not get a lot of press, nor follow-up to relevant questions. It had gold vaults in the basement that were in the process of being looted on 9/11.</p>
<blockquote><p>"But engineers and recovery officials say that large parts of the underground perimeter are undamaged, even though the buildings above them are partly collapsed. One area is below 4 World Trade Center, where more than two decades ago, Swiss Bank built a huge vault and storage area. The vault was reached from the Swiss Bank offices by a private elevator. To reach the vaults, armored trucks would drive through what had once been the tunnels for the Hudson and Manhattan railroad, the predecessor of the PATH system. These tunnels had run as far east as Church Street, but were not needed when the trade center was built and the PATH terminal was set closer to the river."
<br><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html</a>
<br>
<br>"Large amounts of gold are stored in vaults in the massive basement below the WTC, and some of this is being transported through the basement this morning. Several weeks later, recovery workers will discover hundreds of ingots in a service tunnel below WTC 5, along with a ten-wheel lorry and some cars (which were, presumably, transporting the gold) (see (Mid-October-mid November 2001)). The lorry and cars had been crushed by falling steel, but no bodies will be reported found with them, so presumably they were abandoned before the first WTC collapse, at 9:59 a.m."
<br><a href="https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any">https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any</a></p></blockquote>
<p>The following video is a mash-up about WTC-4 from Dr. Judy Wood's presentations. <b>Disclaimer:</b> Dr. Wood talks about the emissions coming from an outside source (ABL or beams-from-space), but I disagree and say the emissions came from an inside source (planted FGNW). </p>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRhJgaa3qLw&t=104s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRhJgaa3qLw&t=104s</a>
<ul>
<li>4:23 as WTC-2 comes down, dust from other buildings add</li>
<li>4:47 sound track, no explosions</li>
<li>5:17 after WTC-2 but before WTC-1, and WTC-4 not there</li>
<li>5:54 layout from above, within 33 seconds, 12 seconds to fall to roofline of WTC-4</li>
<li>13:13 precision cutting</li>
<li>13:58 WTC-6</li>
<li>15:10 wilting of WTC-5</li>
</ul>
<p>The 9 stories of the WTC-4 main ediface were destroyed just as the WTC-2 destruction canopy arrived and contributed greatly to the clouds of dust. From images and video, the WTC-2 debris was lying at street level over the WTC-4 footprint and was insufficient in quantity to suggest crushing of all 9 stories thoroughly, symmetrically, and neatly at a line with the its North Annex. Those 9 stories were not founded crushed and layered beneath WTC-2 debris and/or pushed deeper into the ground. </p>
<p>When you look at the debris recognizable from the towers at WTC-4 main edifice and North Wing, the debris was equivalent yet the former was leveled to the ground while the later remained standing.</p>
<img src="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8b98999b-a44b-4692-acd0-4746b02773f5_1120x1280.jpeg" alt="" />
<img src="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd5b8e733-5fd5-4577-91ba-c3d4c2783a2e_800x600.jpeg" alt="" />
<img src="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F252edd10-7338-43d1-962c-1274c932a5af_960x720.jpeg" alt="" />
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/LatherUpSequence.gif" alt="more than the towers being acted on, WTC-4 adding to mix" />
<img src="https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1000w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2021_36/1703396/ss-160909-911-attack-mbe-630_13.jpg" alt="WTC-4" />
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/toast_5223.jpg" alt="lower WTC buildings being creamed from within." />
<hr></div>
</li>
<li><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_31');">WTC-5</a>: destroyed with WTC-1
</p>
<div id="ref_31" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_31');">WTC-5</a></b></p>
<p>The next image is a view from Fulton Street looking across several streets including Church Street and shows WTC-5 on fire.</p>
<img src="https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1000w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2021_36/1703406/ss-160909-911-attack-mbe-630_11.jpg" alt="WTC-5 on fire view from Fulton St near Church St." />
<p>The next image is a top view of WTC-5 with Church Street at the bottom. Several near circular holes in the roof of WTC-5 are the anomaly needing explaining. FGNW suggests these resulted from the cone-shaped emissions within the building at a lower-level, aimed upwards. (Dr. Wood suggests these were generated from above.) </p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image149.jpg" alt="A close-up of WTC5 and its mysterious holes, shortly after the event." />
<p>The next image is taken from West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. WTC-7 is on the right, and also emitting smoke. </p>
<img src="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image20.jpg" alt="West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end." />
<p>The following image shows several anomalies. The WTC-1 spire is visible. The rising dust clouds to the left of WTC-7 are notable, because it it right about WTC-5 and WTC-6.</p>
<img alt="Dustification of material" src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image119.jpg" />
<hr></div>
</li>
<li><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_32');">WTC-6</a>: destroyed with WTC-1
</p>
<div id="ref_32" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_32');">WTC-6</a></b></p>
<p>The next images is looking across the Vesey Street intersection at the remains of WTC-6.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/0084v.jpg" alt="looking across the Vesey Street intersection at the remains of WTC6." />
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/pics/NYC14148.jpg" alt="WTC-7 smoking but up; WTC-6 left not on fire, remnants of WTC-1 standing right" />
<p>A anomaly depicted in many of the images to note are the fumes from many hot-spots.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BBEpics/Image198.jpg" alt="WTC-6" />
<p>As with WTC-5, WTC-6 has similar anomalies of circular vertical holes cut through multiple floors. It should be noted that WTC-6, the US Customs House, also had basement vaults. A FEMA photographer confirmed that the vaults had been emptied prior to the destruction.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image139.jpg" alt="Notice how straight the vertical holes were that cut down through WTC6." />
<p>The roofs of WTC-6 and WTC-5 have lots of aluminum cladding but really insufficient solid WTC-1 debris to account for the larger WTC-6 crater that goes straight down or the seeming bore-holes in WTC-5.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image140.jpg" alt="This photo highlights the depth of the hole in WTC6. While there is abundance of aluminum cladding on the roofs of buildings 5 and 6, there is little or none in the holes." />
<p>The next image has a view over the dome of WFC-2. It shows the damage to WTC-6 in the center of the photo. To the left is the collapsed WTC-7. Its debris stack is at least five stories high. To the right of WTC-6 is the remaining north wall of WTC-1 which leans toward WTC-6. The tower's wall assemblies did not fall on WTC-6 or WTC-7. </p>
<p>WTC-5 is in the top of the photo and has a lattace of WTC-1 wall assembly seemingly cutting into WTC-5. A top-down photo of WTC-5 in the previous section disproves that notion, because the hole in the WTC-5 goes much deeper than the WTC-1 wall assembly debris could create.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc6craterwestair.jpg" alt="" />
<p>Neither the roof nor the bottom of the WTC-6 crater have sufficient solid WTC-1 debris to account for this 8-story anomaly and where the roof punch-out holes are fairly consistent in diameter. </p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image151.jpg" alt="This shows the vertical cut-outs in the center of WTC-6. To the left of WTC-6 are the remains of WTC-1. Note the fairly consistent diameter of the holes. The holes are essentially empty: little debris visible inside the holes." />
<p>Inside the 8-story crater that was WTC-6.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image301.jpg" alt="Inside the 8-story WTC-6 hole." />
<hr></div>
</li>
<li><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_33');">WTC-7</a>: destroyed after 5 p.m.
</p>
<div id="ref_33" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_33');">WTC-7</a></b></p>
<p>WTC-7 before 9/11, top left.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/pics/Image217a.jpg" alt="WTC-7 before" />
<p>WTC-7 after 9/11, decimated neatly into its own footprint and still smoldering. It also has clear views onto the roofs of WTC-5 and WTC-6 and into WTC-6's crater, without any indication of a significant amount of WTC-1 debris that could have caused them.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/pics/Image217b.jpg" alt="WTC-7 after; lower-left WTC-6 exit holes, lower-right WTC-5 exit holes " />
<p>The next image is from the West. To the right is WTC-7 still fuming. The water being sprayed on WTC-7 from the US Post Office is not creating steam; the fumes are coming from a different portion of WTC-7's pile.</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/pics/wtc7_after.jpg" alt="WTC-7 fuming; Looking West over the site of where WTC7 stood. The water shooting out of the Verizon building does not cause steam. The appearance of "steam" is where there is no watering of the pile. holes on WTC-5 explain fires" />
<p>The next image is from Barclay and West Broadway, showing the neat inward collapse of WTC-7 into its footprint, and with WTC-5 in the background. </p>
<img src="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/081swamp.jpg" alt="Barclay and
West Broadway WTC-7 with WTC-5" />
<hr></div>
</li>
<li><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_42');">Banker's Trust Building</a></p>
<div id="ref_42" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_42');">Banker's Trust Building</a></b></p>
<p>The Banker's Trust Building across from the WTC at 130 Liberty Street had facade damage from the decimated towers, which they repaired after 9/11. But before the building could be occupied, the building was torn down. Why?
<br>
<br>Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins made some statements in <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf"><i>"Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence"</i></a> relating to his analysis of an extensive study of the Banker's Trust building performed by the RJ Lee Group.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances contaminating the Buildings' mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are conductive, corrosive and abrasive. WTC Dust has permeated every component in the [Banker's Trust] Building. The WTC Dust has been shown to be corrosive to unprotected metal, to affect the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent failures, and to be severely abrasive when present in lubricants at only five percent of the volume.</p></blockquote>
<p>While the concerns over the unique nature WTC dust are valid, they do not add up to sufficient reasoning to demolish a building. Otherwise, the same reasoning would have been applied to all other buildings in a much greater radius from the WTC. The steel in the building had protective coatings intact. The mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are all designed to be maintained and to have critical portions replaced. Dust -- no matter how conductive, corrosive, and abrasive -- can be cleaned out.
<br>
<br>Embrittlement, perhaps?
</p>
<blockquote><p>Embrittlement is a loss of ductility of a material, making it brittle. Various materials have different mechanisms of embrittlement. ... Metal-induced embrittlement (MIE) is the embrittlement caused by diffusion of atoms of metal, either solid or liquid, into the material. Neutron radiation causes embrittlement of some materials, neutron-induced swelling, and buildup of Wigner energy.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrittlement">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrittlement</a>
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Is neutron radiation exposure always detrimental to metals (steels)?</b></p>
<p>We talk about <b>radiation damage and environmental degradation of metals following radiation exposure.</b> Indeed, there have been numerous conferences and symposia held and planned on this subject, which include research work and discussions with the central theme being <b>the damage created in materials by neutron radiation exposure.</b> Radiation embrittlement in metals is believed to be due mainly to (1) changes in flow properties because of the interaction of dislocations with irradiation-produced defects, and (2) precipitation of transmutation-produced gases and irradiation-induced segregation at grain boundaries which are potential fracture sites.<br><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v308/n5954/abs/308051a0.html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v308/n5954/abs/308051a0.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Banker's Trust Building may have been torn down, because close inspection of the supporting steel may have discovered such <i>"fracture sites"</i> due to embrittlement by the neutron weapons used to destroy the WTC. Brittle supporting columns in a skyscraper are undesirable for their inability to flex without failure to wind loads. The building was hence probably deemed unsafe and demolished accordingly.
<br></p>
<hr></div>
</li>
<li><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_36');">Torched Cars</a></p>
<div id="ref_36" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_36');">Torched Cars</a></b>
<p>The vehicles that were torched near the WTC, particularly those near WTC-7 before it was destroyed, are an anomaly requiring an explanation.</p>
<p>The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance. It didn't affect shaded vehicles or those around corners, or lots of more easily combustible things, like flags, paper, leaves, trees, or people. The pattern to the burns on vehicles is notable, and just as important is the pattern of what combustible things were not torched (e.g., leaves, trees, flags, people).</p>
<p>Consider why cars were seemingly targeted; they contain sheet metal. Depending on magnitude, duration, & distance, electromagnetic energy can induce Eddy currents in metal, heating up the metal, causing its paint to burn, and torching rubber & plastic things affixed, touching, or adjacent to such. Thereafter, the rest of the vehicle may or may not burn depending on other factors. Once one vehicle has flames, this can become the source for neighboring vehicles starting to burn.</p>
<p>EMP was part of the left-over 20% nuclear yield from FGNW. EMP can be mitigated and contained somewhat by the metal floor pans and steel wall assemblies, but the window openings may have allowed EMP to escape.</p>
<img src="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image16.jpg" alt="West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus from WTC-5." />
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/imdf11092001221934a.jpg" alt="'fuming cars' on Vesey Street, facing east, near the Church Street intersection. The Postal Building is on the left and WTC5 is on the right." />
<p>The next image is the view south from the intersection of Barclay and West Broadway. WTC-7 is to the right. WTC-5 is the burning building on the left at the end of the street, with WTC-6 smoking to its right. The Postal Building is on the left. The Postal truck on the left side of the street nearest the camera appears fairly 'eaten up' on its left side, while the Postal truck on the right side of the street appears to be undamaged</p>
<img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/069.jpg" alt="view south from the intersection of Barclay and West Broadway. WTC7 is to the right and WTC5 is the burning building on the left at the end of the street. The Postal Building is on the left. The Postal truck on the left side of the street nearest the camera appears fairly 'eaten up' on its left side, while the Postal truck on the right side of the street appears to be undamaged." />
<img src="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg" alt="cars near WTC-7 before it came down, WTC-5 on fire" />
<img src="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg" alt="cars near WTC-7 before it came down, WTC-5 on fire" />
<hr></div>
</li>
</ul><!-- Evidence of Buildings -->
</div><!-- end sect_ -->
<h2><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">Conclusion: Exotic FGNW were used on 9/11</a></h2>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: block;">
<p>Dr. David Ray Griffin, the patron saint of the 9/11 Truth Movement, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: <b><i>"None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."</i></b></p>
<p>Most 9/11 theory-du-jours do not address the evidence, such as the mangled wall assemblies and steel beams filmed by FEMA and NIST (on cameras prone to radiation glitches).</p>
<p>Once open-minded and objective readers are seeded with the proper descriptions of <b><i>"exotic"</i></b> nuclear weapons (FGNW) that were available for 9/11, even their own collection of anomalous 9/11 evidence will water those nuclear seeds in their understanding. The wonkiness and coordination in the cover-up also becomes clear:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><p>Any whiff in the public's nose of 9/11 nuclear involvement could result in US nuclear over-reaction abroad spoiling the desired gains (e.g., Iraqi oil, Afghani natural gas and heroin, permanent military presence in the Middle East).</p></li>
<li><p>To paraphrase from the <i>"Fields of Dreams"</i> movie for Silverstein: <i>"If you rebuild over the nuked WTC complex, ain't nobody gonna come."</i> NYC might have a mass exodus.</p></li>
<li><p>Rising public awareness into 9/11 nukes could have major figurative nuclear fallout on the credibility of all levels of government, their agencies & institutions, and corporate media: (1) for supposedly not knowing, not asking questions, when it was obvious; (2) for knowing but lying about it and promoting all of the evil spawns of the ruse. </p></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Projection and Public Hypnosis</p>
<blockquote><p>"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."<br>- George W. Bush, November 10, 2001, Bush's address to the UN</p></blockquote>
</div><!-- end sect_ -->
<p></p>
<p></p>
<img src="https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/iconic-091101twintowers1MATT.jpg" alt="9/11 icon by Matthew McDermott" />
<!-- <img src="https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/GJS-WTC029.jpg" alt="dust cloud" /> -->
<p></p>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.flare {
font-family: monospace;
font-size: 20px;
background-color: gray;
color: yellow;
margin: 20px 20px 20px 20px;
padding: 20px 20px 20px 20px;
}
.flink {
color: yellow;
text-decoration-line: dotted-underline;
}
.fart {
font-family: fantasy;
font-size: 30px;
color: blue;
padding: 5px 5px 5px 5px;
}
-->
</style>
<p class="navigation" id="About"><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_199');">About the Author</a></p>
<div class="flare" id="ref_199" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> is an online <span class="fart" style="color: black">Batman</span> (or <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_192');">pseudonym</a>).</p>
<div id="ref_192" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_192');">[Pseudonym]</a></b> </p>
<blockquote><p>Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s.</p>
<p>I believe that from a speech standpoint <span class="fart" style="color: white">a pseudonym provides accountability</span>. A person writes under her pen name and if called on misuse of facts or making stuff up can’t hide behind the "I didn't say that" that anonymous blog commenters can.</p>
<p>So I don’t think using a pen name is itself bad for public discourse. ... <b>Outing people is a form of Ad hominem attack</b> to me. You don’t care about their facts or sources, you are arguing the writing shouldn’t be trusted because of the person hiding behind the pseudonyms.</p>
<p>In a few specialized cases, this could be legitimate. For example, it would be worthwhile to know that a blog purporting to be from an American Jihadi was in fact written by Dick Cheney to try and scare us. Or if a blog purporting to be that of a homeless man trying to get by on the streets of New York was actually being written by George Soros. But unless the outing is to show the writer isn’t in a position to know what he’s writing about, it’s not useful or conducive to public debate.<br>~ alaskanlibrarian <a href="http://alaskanlibrarian.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/pseudonyms-and-anonymous-sourcing/">Pseudonyms and Anonymous Sourcing</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>It is rash, uncharitable actions like the outing of Publius by Ed Whalen that prevents us all from enjoying the thoughts of countless folks who don’t blog because anonymity is prone to leak. This isn’t to say that anonymous blogging hasn’t any downsides, or that outing is wrong in all circumstances. In this case, however, <b>the cost</b> Mr. Whalen <b>imposed on us all seems to come without any benefit to anyone save himself. I hope that the next time anyone decides to out an anonymous blogger, they’ve met a far higher threshold than is the case in this instance.</b><br>~ Conor Friedersdorf <a href="http://theamericanscene.com/2009/06/07/against-outing-most-anonymous-bloggers">Against Outing (Most) Anonymous Bloggers</a></p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><b>People who blog anonymously have a moral responsibility not to abuse their privilege by making nasty personal attacks against others from behind the mask of anonymity.</b> If you do abuse that, I don't feel sorry for you if you're outed. On the other hand, I think bloggers who out pseudonymous bloggers are, as a general matter, doing us all a grave disservice, by making it harder for people who have interesting things to say but who cannot say them under their own name (for professional or personal reasons) to get their ideas into public conversation. Bottom line: <b>if you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you'd better have a very, very good reason for doing so, because the damage you can do to that person's career, and to the online public square, can be real and irreversible."</b><br>~ Rod Dreber <a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/06/on-outing-anonymous-bloggers.html">On outing anonymous bloggers</a></p></blockquote>
<p>In <i>"The Dark Knight Rises"</i> movie, Batman gives some advice to the Police Officer (an orphan with middle name <i>"Robin"</i>) that <i>"the hero dons the mask not to protect himself but to protect those he cares about."</i>
<br>
<br>It is important that an author stand behind their words and be willing to defend those words, to admit error or uncertainty, and to change opinions, when new information necessitates such. This proves how genuine the person is. <i>"Standing behind your words"</i> can be accomplished in many ways, such as consistency in alias-usage forum-to-forum, a "home court" to consolidate words, or a revealing of identities at a time and choosing of the author (e.g., to a select audience.)
</p>
<blockquote><p><i>Doxing:</i> the action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with <span class="fart" style="color: red">malicious intent</span>.</p></blockquote>
<p><span class="fart" style="color: black">Don't be doxing</span> the <span class="fart">Bruce Wayne</span> to <span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> <span class="fart" style="color: black">Batman / pseudonym / pen-name</span>, <span class="fart" style="color: green">bruh!</span></p>
<hr></div>
<p><span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> has a two (2) decades long online legacy <span class="navigation">(<a class="flink" href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com" >http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com</a> and website returning soon)</span> that documents his sincere search for <span class="fart" style="color: white">9/11 Truth</span> and evolution in understanding for his real-life <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne</span>: a mild-mannered, middle-class, (now) middle-aged, short, bald, white, male <span class="navigation">[married with two (2) teenagers, one (1) dog, and five (5) chickens, which itself is reason enough to use a pen-name]</span> who is counting down on one hand the years until retirement and is also <span class="fart" style="color: black">an active Free Mason</span>.</p>
<img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Square_compasses.svg/971px-Square_compasses.svg.png" alt="Masonic Square and Compass" style="width: 30%; border-width: 0;" />
<p>Free Masonry's reverence for <span class="fart" style="color: white">Truth</span> as <i>"a divine attribute and the foundation of every virtue"</i> aligns with <span class="fart" style="color: white">Truth</span> as one of the seven (7) synonyms for God as taught in Christian Science. <span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> is a religious fanatic: he's fanatical about <span class="fart" style="color: white">Truth</span>.</p>
<p>The <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne</span> for the <span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> <span class="fart" style="color: black">Batman</span> does <span class="fart" style="color: black">not</span> have a doctorate's degree or a degree in <span class="fart" style="color: black">nuclear physics</span>. Nor does he have a security clearance or any form of access to any classified materials.</p>
<p>The <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne</span> for the <span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> <span class="fart" style="color: black">Batman</span> from four (4) decades ago instead has:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Four (4) semesters of college physics for engineers deriving Newton's physics equations from calculus earning grades of <span class="fart" style="color: black">C- or better</span>.</p></li>
<li><p>One (1) semester in a small group independent study with the EE Professor of Lasers on the topic of <span class="fart" style="color: black">nuclear weapons</span>.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne</span> for the <span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> <span class="fart" style="color: black">Batman</span> has had library cards at his local institution of higher education, that in turn gave access to online subscriptions to lots of public repositories of information permitting research and analysis from a windowless <span class="fart" style="color: black">Bat-cave</span> in the basement of <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne's</span> mortgaged manor.</p>
<p>The <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne</span> for the <span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> <span class="fart" style="color: black">Batman</span> has three (3) college degrees.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>One (1) degree was in a foreign language, improved his native language skills, and played a role in choosing the countries for <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne's</span> career path.</p></li>
<li><p>One (1) degree along the way expected reading and writing proficiency in the now ancient languages of PASCAL and assembly language and recommended doping (of semiconductors) -- a non-prerequisite course in which <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne</span> earned one of his two (2) college <span class="fart" style="color: black">D's</span> that somehow later helped secure <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne</span> employement at a semiconductor manufacturer for a career record <span class="fart" style="color: white">high</span> number of years.</p></li>
<li><p>One (1) degree required writing a researched, organized, referenced, technical thesis that made use of WordPerfect's cross-references, tables of authorities, and reveal codes, and had a topic that was <span class="fart" style="color: white">OCD</span> into state-of-the-art micro-processors, DSP's, Fourier mathematics, and spoken language recognition.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne</span> for the <span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> <span class="fart" style="color: black">Batman</span> has worked for fifteen (15) different high-tech employers (so far) in engineering support roles since high school graduation about two decades back into last century. <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne's</span> work today is described as <span class="fart" style="color: black">"pushing buttons and watching TV"</span> with some minimal expected proficiency in Perl, SQL, DITA, PHP, Javascript, CSS, and HTML.</p>
<p>The <span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> <span class="fart" style="color: black">Batman</span> super-powers:</p>
<ul>
<li>dogged persistence</li>
<li>written articulation</li>
<li>sincerity and truthfulness</li>
<li>consistency</li>
<li>reasoned, rational, logical</li>
<li>skills in technical research and analysis</li>
<li>naivety and trust of others <span class="navigation">(until given reason not to be)</span></li>
<li>a <a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_197');">two (2) decades long online legacy</a> </li>
</ul>
<div id="ref_197" style="display: none;" class='refnote'>
<p><b><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('ref_197');">[Legacy]</a></b></p>
<p>Legacy <span class="navigation">(<a class="flink" href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com" >http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com</a> and website returning soon)</span> is what sets <span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> apart from others. It proves he stands behind his words written at the time, to the point where he collected his words written in comments to other venues with the expressed intention of later re-purposing to venues that he controls. Even more so, this intention led to writing words from the onset that were worthy of preservation and taking the high-road formal approach to avoid reproach in other venues.</p>
<p>Of course, context is key. A knowledgable response to other discussion participants requires often accurately quoting sentences from them that your comment is addressing. Thus the words of others find themselves (with source URLs) preserved as fringes into the same legacy that, like a database, can be searched when later discussions with the same participants needs substantiation to prove charges of hypocricy or carousel spinning or bot-repeats. </p>
<hr></div>
<p>The <span class="fart" style="color: white">Bruce Wayne</span> for the <span class="fart">Maxwell C. Bridges</span> <span class="fart" style="color: black">Batman</span> was born on the eleventh (11) day of the eleventh (11) month. Eleven (11) days later, assassin bullets violently departed President John F. Kennedy from this world. Conspiracy Truth were how the stars & planets were always going to align, with Nine-Eleven (2001-09-11) being a klaxon call for this Blues Brother on a mission from God: <i>"Feed my sheep."</i></p>
<hr></div>
<p></p>
<p class="navigation"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');javascript: areaHideAll('ref_');">Hide All</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');javascript: areaHideAll('ref_');">Show</a> / <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');javascript: areaShowAll('ref_');">Show with References</a></p>
M. C. Brueckehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11749873350461333806noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-3626546939984075312023-10-22T22:11:00.006-07:002023-11-04T23:31:13.674-07:00Pleiadian Esoteric Masonic Discussions
<!-- Pleiadian Esoteric Masonic Discussions -->
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
// window.location.hash = id;
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function getURLParam(strParamName){
var strReturn = "";
var strHref = window.location.href;
if ( strHref.indexOf("?") > -1 ){
var strQueryString = strHref.substr(strHref.indexOf("?")).toLowerCase();
var aQueryString = strQueryString.split("&");
for ( var iParam = 0; iParam < aQueryString.length; iParam++ ){
if (aQueryString[iParam].indexOf(strParamName.toLowerCase() + "=") > -1 ){
var aParam = aQueryString[iParam].split("=");
strReturn = aParam[1];
// alert(strReturn);
break;
}
}
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
// alert(strReturn);
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
// alert(myTarget);
if (myTarget == "-false-") {
areaHideAll("part_");
areaHideAll("sect_");
} else {
areaHideAll("sect_");
areaShowAll("part_");
sectionShow(myTarget);
// location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<p>This article re-purposes discussions about Masonry, the Pleiadians, and other insightful things.</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
<!-- Start the page here -->
<a name="p1"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_1');">Part 1: Free-Mason Scape-Goat</a></h2>
<div id="part_1" style="display: block;">
<blockquote><p>On November 29, 1864, peaceful Southern Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians are massacred by a band of Colonel John Chivington’s Colorado volunteers at Sand Creek, Colorado. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>With our 2020 condemnation of Col. Chivington, do internet pot-stirrers focus on his ordination in the Methodist Church as the possible key for this barbarous act? Do they condemn the US Military or its government? No. They bring up that Col. Chivington was a free-mason, and that therefore Masonry is the root of all evil. [That is a red-flag into the reliability of your information source.]</p>
<p>Not that Masonry didn't have influence, and not that Masonry in certain countries of the world doesn't still have some greater influence in select communities. Historically, Masonry was an alternative gathering for thinking men outside of church(es) and without specific religious beliefs as a requirement for fellowship. For this reason, powers that be throughout time have scapegoated Masonry for grander orchestrated ills in the world, so that it would weaken the allure of the fraternity in attracting other free-thinking and honorable men.</p>
<p>To be good and true is the first lessons Masons are taught, and aligns very well with my Christian Science upbringing. Truth is the foundation of every virtue, a synonym for God, and what I am religously fanatical about.</p>
<p>Masonry was on my radar from my youth from male & female relatives on both sides of the family, but not pushed on me in adulthood. Quite the contrary, many had become active in the 1950's and seen it at its peak, and had gotten burned-out on it before I was born. In my late-30's, I began my Masonic journey. Coincidently in that same time frame, 9/11 happened. I was born on the eleventh day of the eleventh month, and eleven days after JFK was assassinated: conspiracy theory is in my blood, but nine-eleven was the klaxon call "to be woke."</p>
<p>Masonry was disappointing on the conspiracy front. Conspiracy theory is politics, and like religion, is an area of discussion that isn't often brought up. Masonry has its value in other areas, hence my continued patronage. </p>
<p>Aligning with my chakras and Truth guidance is why I venture to correct misconceptions about Masonry that are purposely propagated by the disinformationalists and those less decerning in their acceptance of information.</p>
<a name="x1"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x1" class="tiny">x1</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_1');">all of NASA's astronauts are Freemasons</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_1" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/john.inacio.927/posts/569703580532377">https://www.facebook.com/john.inacio.927/posts/569703580532377</a>
<br/>
Dear Mr. John Inacio, you are wrong when you write: "all of NASA's astronauts are Freemasons who are sworn to keep an oath of secrecy." How many lies can be crammed into one sentence?
<br/>A few of NASA's astronauts are free-masons, if even that. Were it otherwise and "all", I, as a free-mason, would have known about it. It'd be advertised and promoted among the lodges.
<br/>Secondly, the oath of secrecy isn't what you imply. For example, if a brother doesn't request that certain information be kept as a masonic secret (like a brother venting about his job, wife, etc.), I am under no obligation to keep it secret. With the request for keeping a brother's personal secrets as a masonic secret, I can decline before such is divulged to me. Further, murder and treason are excepted even if I accept.
<br/>When you consider that astronauts have died or that faking the moon landing probably falls into the category of treason, there would be no expectations that any brother would keep any of it as a masonic secret.
<br/>No, the power of Masonic institutions has been on a long, slow, death spiral from a peak in about 1959. Movers and shakers and influencers of opinions have long moved to other groups (like "The Family" and its congressional prayer breakfasts, like Epstein's pedo island). Radio, then television, then cable television, then video rentals, then streaming content, then mobile content ... have gone a long way to gut all types of civic organizations, from church participation to HOA meetings. Everyone has retreated into their own worlds and don't contribute to the community.
<br/>Masonry has been scape-goated for centuries, because in the past it represented a group of free-thinking men not under the control of the church or the government.
<br/>From now on, you will be doing yourself a favor to remove this false Masonic trope from you conspiracy views. Personal experience, Masons can barely host a pot-luck dinner without the assistance from our better halves.
<br/>P.S. The moon has many mysteries; I'm not convinced that man actually went there, particularly with the radiation belt and now the song-and-dance that we lost the technology (and certainly Nixon's real-time phone call to Astronauts on the moon is suspect.)
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 1 -->
<a name="x2"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x2" class="tiny">x2</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">you must be a mason</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>John Inacio</b>
Maxwell Bridges you must be a mason.
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/ztjv9uFdKb8">https://youtu.be/ztjv9uFdKb8</a>
<br/>Freemason ritual at NASA
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>Freemason ritual at NASA
<br/>Freemason ritual at NASA
<b>John Inacio</b>
Maxwell Bridges there's hundreds of videos about free masonary out there most of them aren't saying anything any good about them. Let me know which astronauts are not Freemasons I'll wait for your answer
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/Un1Kfx0JaQc">https://youtu.be/Un1Kfx0JaQc</a>
<br/>? Astronauts Confronted in Controversial Exposé of NASA Zionist Freemasons (Illuminati NWO Agenda) ?
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>? Astronauts Confronted in Controversial Exposé of NASA…
<br/>? Astronauts Confronted in Controversial Exposé of NASA Zionist Freemasons (Illuminati NWO Agenda) ?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name="x3"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x3" class="tiny">x3</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_3');">vast majority are totally clueless</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_3" style="display: block;">
<p>One of the few good things to be said about Freemasons is that the vast majority are totally clueless as to what is going on. There is a reason for the initiation rites at every level of this secret society. ;-)
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 3 -->
<a name="x4"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x4" class="tiny">x4</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">The really big conspiracy of Masonry is that there is no big conspiracy</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. John Inacio, your reading comprehension is called into question, because I stated up front that I am a Mason.
<br/>Over time, many organizations have acquired symbolism from others. For example, alters with holy things on them pre-date even King Solomon's temple. Candles are common place. Alistair Crowley (as an example) was a Mason at one point, and stole / borrowed things for the occult rituals he became famous for later.
<br/>I only watched a few minutes of the shuttle video, where somone circled their hands and suggested it was a Masonic sign. No. It is just them not knowing what to do with their hands, made worse by the weightlessness of space. Not masonic signs.
<br/>Tons of masonic secrets have leaked out over time. Ever hear the expressions "be square with someone", "to be on the level"? Uses the operative tools of masonry to impart and remind us of spiritual lessons, to be square not just with our brothers in masons but with everyone with whom we come in contact. Masonry is about taking an already good man and making him better. Truth is a divine attribute, the foundation of every virtue, and to be good and true is the first lesson masons are taught.
<br/>Point is, I'd be false to my vows if I was telling you lies about Masonry. I am not. Go back and re-read my words.
<br/>The really big conspiracy of Masonry is that there is no big conspiracy. Maybe small ones in the personal secrets we might be asked to hold for brothers.
<br/>Also, in the text under that video, it says that Masonry is a secret organization. No, it is not. Masonry is very much a public organization that has some secrets (like the exact verbiage used in degrees and the aforementioned masonic secrets we might keep for a brother.) But hell, Masonic buildings are clearly marked; you can observe all who enter; lodges today have websites where current officers are listed.
<br/>Mason was on my radar since my youth, when I was a DeMolay. (My father and many relatives were masons, but to my knowledge during my lifetime, few were active.)
<br/>I joined Masonry right after 9/11... because it was time and I wanted to know about conspiracies. I've enjoyed my tenure, but have been disappointed on the conspiracy front.
<br/>You're getting this from the horse's mouth about what free-masonry really is.
<br/>I can say with confidence today that if some otherwise valid conspiracy theory mentions free-masonry, that becomes a huge red flag for me that calls into question the source as well as whatever conspiracy they're promoting.
<br/>Lodges are made up of individual brothers. Their interests determine what the lodge does and its character. Whereas there might be a Grand Lodge over all the lodges in an area, their main concern is the accuracy of the work and masonry's reputation among itself. THERE IS NO SUPER-DUPER GRAND LODGE over all of the individual Grand Lodges, which one would think is required if masonry is taking over the world.
<br/>The point is, there have been "bad lodges". There have been eras when Masonry was used to include and exclude. But extrapolating misdeeds of individual Masons from by-gone eras as being true for their home lodge and true for all lodges and true for all ages is a huge fallacy. By that logic and more correct, we could also say that because some "bad person" was a Baptist (or name a religion or sect), then everyone from his home church and his religion is also bad. It is a very broad brush that is logically wrong.
<br/>At any rate, I've done my community service in disabusing you of falsehoods in your beliefs about Masonry and in some of your sources.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 4 -->
<a name="x5"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x5</a>
John Inacio : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_5');">low-level Masons not part of the club</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_5" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>John Inacio</b>
Maxwell Bridges like I said it figures you low-level Masons not part of the club but you'll still defend it... I skipped over most of it cuz I knew it was going to be bulshit
<br/>
<b>John Inacio</b>
Michael W. Lurie spot-on I just said that in my last comment lower-level Masons unincluded in what the higher-ups are about
<br/>
<b>John Inacio</b>
Maxwell Bridges did you even watch the video every crew that changed over from the International Space Station they're doing Masonic rituals if you're. Mason maybe you can watch it and let me know if it's correct.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 5 -->
<a name="x6"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x6" class="tiny">x6</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">all Master Masons are "on the (same) level"</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. John Inacio, and just exactly what is a "high-level Mason"?
<br/>For what it is worth, both the Scottish Rite and York Rite degrees have been conferred upon me; might be in total over 40 separate degrees. Does that make me a "high-level Mason"? No. Because it doesn't work like that. [And it is your ignorance that has you assume such, and has you not listen to me when I try to disabuse you of the errors in your beliefs.]
<br/>In fact, all Master Masons are "on the (same) level".
<br/>A leadership role in a masonic organization might elevate a brother briefly above the ranks... Because someone has to have the authority to give the final word on what time the pot-luck dinner starts... Geesh! But after their run up the progressive officer line -- each station providing different responsibilities --, they return back to the ranks, and the next guy in line gets to make decisions on stupid shit.
<br/>Here you are, a conspiracy theorist on the internet (like myself). Kudos to your open-mindedness and objectivity that allows you to consider perspectives and theories that were ~not~ rammed down your throat by government propaganda and mass media.
<br/>But let this be proof that even the best conspiracy theorists can suffer from cognitive dissonance, where your objectivity isn't on display.
<br/>Here you have in front of you, as damn close as you are ever going to get to a real, live, active Free-Mason, who is bound by obligations of truth that you could probably Google, and you have the gall to dismiss me and practically label me a liar?
<br/>+++
<br/>Before I could complete this comment, you wrote: "did you even watch the video every crew that changed over from the International Space Station they're doing Masonic rituals..."
<br/>Yes, I watched, but NO, THEY ARE NOT DOING MASONIC RITUALS. A handshake -- and clumsy ones at that -- does not rise to the level of "masonic rituals" and barely fits into the paradigm of a half-hearted masonic handshake... And holding their hands to keep them from drifting while in space, ain't nothing Masonic about that at all. (Astronauts have velcro on their sleeping bags to fix them in place so they don't drift while sleeping.)
<br/>You are being duped.
<br/>Here's a great conspiracy for you, or the debunking of a conspiracy, depending on your perspective. In terms of connections, affiliations, networking, advancement, secret knowledge, or any other imagined right or benefit of Masonic membership, Free-Masonry offers to these astronauts or public leaders VERY LITTLE. Sure, they'll benefit personally with the endeavor to become a Master Mason. By after that, nada, nichts, nix, nill, null, zero.
<br/>Of course, to prove me wrong, I encourage you to go down to your local Masonic Temple and get a hold of one of its members. The secretary is usually the most accessible. [Or contact them through their website and email.] The big disappointment for you will be that they'll tell you what I'm telling you.
<br/>Like me in my curiousness for conspiracy theories, you could go through the steps of becoming a Mason. It won't conflict with any duties you owe to your God, your neighbor, your family, or yourself. But, alas, even after the blind-folds are taken off for the third time, there also won't be anything "illuminati" about it. Sorry.
<br/>P.S. The above takes nothing away from astronauts or military officers being part of other "brotherhoods" (e.g., VFW) or secret organizations, and who knows what symbolism they might have borrowed. But you've been talking Free-Masonry, something I've been intimately involved with since 2002 (if we discount my youth and those in my family who were Masons). On this front, you've been duped and are grossly in error -- as expected when some other nefarious organization (NWO, CFR, Catholic Church, etc.) wants to shift the blame.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x7" class="tiny">x7</a>
John Inacio : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_7');">Buzz Aldrin says the TRUTH</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_7" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>John Inacio</b>
Maxwell Bridges this guy <a href="https://youtu.be/JpQDVcgevMM">https://youtu.be/JpQDVcgevMM</a>
<br/>Finally - Buzz Aldrin says the TRUTH !
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>Finally - Buzz Aldrin says the TRUTH !
<br/>Finally - Buzz Aldrin says the TRUTH !
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 7 -->
<a name="x8"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x8" class="tiny">x8</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">vast majority are totally clueless (as to what is going on), then "what is going on" isn't really part of the organization</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, you wrote: "One of the few good things to be said about Freemasons is that the vast majority are totally clueless as to what is going on."
<br/>If the vast majority are totally clueless (as to what is going on), then "what is going on" isn't really part of the organization and shouldn't be associated with the vast majority or the organization itself.
<br/>Because I count myself as part of the vast majority of clueless Free-Masons, maybe you should enlighten me as to "what is going on."
<br/>Like I said, I went into Masonry with a conspiracy chip on my shoulder. I've been disappointed on that front. And had I discovered "what is going on" and found it objectionable as you imply (and the scape-goating nefarious propaganda implies), then I as well as the vast majority would no longer be a part of it.
<br/>Masonry isn't like the Catholic church and its pedophiles, because the vast majority in the church DO KNOW what is going on. But it is their church, their religion, their very salvation, so they aren't going to dimit.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x9" class="tiny">x9</a>
Nancy Jones : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_9');">chatting about classified material to fellow Masonic brothers</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_9" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I don't think the astronauts would be chatting about classified material to fellow Masonic brothers!!! After all their missions were classified and they would not have been able to just chat about it even in one of your secret co-called meetings. And, BTW, are you perhaps a shill?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 9 -->
<a name="x10"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x10" class="tiny">x10</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">one of the under-informed folk</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: block;">
<p>Nancy Jones, I doubt that he's a shill. Sounds a lot more like one of the under-informed folk that are commonly referred to as "useful idiots" by those in the know.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x11" class="tiny">x11</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_11');">free-masonry adds no secrecy benefit to them</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_11" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Nancy Jones, you are absolutely correct about classified military missions. And of the military members I've known through lodge, nothing they did from their military days would have been chatted about in meetings ... And with charges of treason having stiff penalties including death, they also wouldn't be discussing it one-on-one with other trusted brothers, unless they were also military and could relate. Outside of lodge, mostly the military chatter was stupid things that happened, exotic places they were stationed, how many times they were blown up in Afghanistan or Iraq.
<br/>Masonry does do a lot of military ass kissing and overly patriotic "thank you for your service".
<br/>And because of this, free-masonry adds no secrecy benefit to them. Realistically, the only things that would inspire someone from the military (including NASA) to become a Mason are: respected family members who were Masons, respected military brothers who were Masons, or the longing for a deeper brotherhood.
<br/>You call me a shill! Exactly what am I shilling for? I'm just correcting the record and gross disinformation that swamps the internet, scape-goating Masons as the root of all evil.
<br/>As for you Mr. Michael W. Lurie, you should FB friend me and then school me properly on all of the bad things that Free-Masonry is actively doing today, region by region, state by state, lodge by lodge.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 11 -->
<a name="x12"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x12" class="tiny">x12</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">Ignorance is bliss...</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: block;">
<p>I think not, Maxwell. Ignorance is bliss...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x13" class="tiny">x13</a>
John Inacio : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_13');">In Jolly Old England</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_13" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>John Inacio</b>
And they just signed a contract to get more helium imagine what they do with all that helium. NASA stands for never a straight answer. I wonder what they do with that helium it might involve a fisheye lens though
<br/>Hide or report this
<br/>No photo description available.
<br/>
<b>John Inacio</b>
In Jolly Old England if there's a job for a constable and 21 men want the job but 11 of them are masons it's between the 11 for the job the others are not even considered. What say you mr. Maxwell Bridges????? Would I be correct with that statement?
<br/>
<b>John Inacio</b>
Buzz Aldrin trolling the ultimate troll
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/HGFcC5IZyvs">https://youtu.be/HGFcC5IZyvs</a>
<br/>Hide or report this
<br/>Buzz Aldrin reacting to Trump makes internet go wild
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>Buzz Aldrin reacting to Trump makes internet go wild
<br/>Buzz Aldrin reacting to Trump makes internet go wild
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 13 -->
<a name="x14"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x14" class="tiny">x14</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">conflating what happened in Jolly Old England with what happens in Podunk, Montanta</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. John Inacio, what you wrote about Jolly Old England ~was~ probably maybe possibly perfectly valid and true for a by-gone era.
<br/>The false basis that all of you have is in conflating what happened in Jolly Old England with what happens in Podunk, Montanta or Bueno Aires, Argentina; in conflating a by-gone era with today; and in conflating badness of individuals (let alone from a different era) with the whole institution today.
<br/>Masonry is a product of the people involved as well as political dynamics of the geography and the era and mores of the times.
<br/>Colonel John Chivington was a Mason, and he was in charge of the Colorado volunteers at Sand Creek, Colorado for the massacre of Indians. Not our country's finest moment. He was also an American Methodist pastor. Do you see people with glasses from this century condemning all Methodists for this massacre? No, the propaganda scape-goats the Masons.
<br/>It has only been in my lifetime that AF&AM accepted blacks as Mason. Hence, Prince Hall Lodges were established in the South for blacks; separate but equal in intent. It has only been this century that I, as an AF&AM mason, have even been permitted to visit a Prince Hall Lodge, and vice versa.
<br/>The sensibilities and expectations of the lodge change with the times, just like all other institutions.
<br/>Your cognitive dissonance on the subject of Masonry -- from a complete state of ignorance -- has you misconstrue historical things with what is going on today, and you won't hear my words of truth about how it really is TODAY.
<br/>In your Jolly Old England statement today about 11 jobs for a constable that 21 men want, the number of applicants who are masons would be closer to 1 (or 0) today. What part of "Masrony is dying" don't you understand?
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x15" class="tiny">x15</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_15');">willing to be schooled proper</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_15" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, I wrote: "You should ... school me properly on all of the bad things that Free-Masonry is actively doing today, region by region, state by state, lodge by lodge."
<br/>Your pithy response: "I think not, Maxwell. Ignorance is bliss..."
<br/>Clearly it is not my ignorance, because I'm willing to be schooled proper.
<br/>Because we've had go-arounds in other areas of 9/11, the ignorance you speak of must be your own, and you are happy to wallow in it.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 15 -->
<a name="x16"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x16" class="tiny">x16</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">don't want to mess up your bliss</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: block;">
<p>No, champ. I don't want to mess up your bliss.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x17" class="tiny">x17</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_17');">undermines everything you were trying to accomplish</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_17" style="display: block;">
<p>
In high school sophomore writing class, I learned that over-generalizations in position pieces are easy to defeat. All it takes is for one exception to destroy the whole argument being made.
<br/>At its core, the statement "all of NASA's astronauts are Freemasons" is easily refuted by finding one exception, the one astronaut who isn't a Mason. Turns out, women cannot be AF&AM Masons, and there have been more than one female astronauts. Moreover, I only am aware of two or three astronauts who were Masons, out of a large number.
<br/>I don't mean for this deviant Masonic discussion to distract from the more important arguments about the validity of the moon landings.
<br/>But when you can't get simple facts correct, when an expert in the field (an active Master Mason formerly in Scottish Rite and York Rite) gives you correct and truthful information, and when you ridicule the attempt at a reasoned and rational discussion that corrects your facts, ...
<br/>Why, that just undermines everything you were trying to accomplish, and pegs your efforts as well as your character in an unfavorable light.
<br/>Moreover, I've had unsatisfactory discussions with Mr. Michael Lurie in the past (on 9/11 themes, I believe), where he essentially did the similar weasel moves of "you are wrong, but I'm too stupid to tell you why or where you are wrong". When those circus distractions gets FB likes and LOL faces from others like the owner of this thread (Mr. John Inacio), it undermines both the goal of the thread (moon landing hoax) as well as personally those who participated.
<br/>Sad, because this Master Mason might actually be in the same camp and just wants Truth.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 17 -->
<a name="x18"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x18" class="tiny">x18</a>
John Inacio : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">space changing over Commanders</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>John Inacio</b>
Maxwell Bridges if you watch the video I posted about the space changing over Commanders even the Russian guys were doing the Mason thing stop trying to defend it I'm not reading your big long paragraphs goodnight
<br/>Hide or report this
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x19</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_19');">chatting about classified material to fellow Masonic brothers</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_19" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I don't think the astronauts would be chatting about classified material to fellow Masonic brothers!!! After all their missions were classified and they would not have been able to just chat about it even in one of your secret co-called meetings.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 19 -->
<a name="x20"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x20" class="tiny">x20</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">shook hands is what I saw</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: block;">
<p>
John Inacio, they were doing a thing, but not a Mason thing. Get real. They shook hands is what I saw.
<br/>The circles that some YouTube idiot put over the astronauts holding their hands, isn't a Masonic anything. If it is anything at all, it is a public speaking trick to give your hands something to do (e.g., nothing) rather than have them hang at your sides, or be jammed in your pockets, or float in the air of the space station.
<br/>You just can't admit any sliver of doubt that you are wrong,
<br/>Sad.
<br/>Starts to undermine your character and gives a nefarious agenda to what you post.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x21</a>
John Inacio : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_21');">no matter what you say I'm not going to believe you</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_21" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>John Inacio</b>
Maxwell Bridges. Don't be as stupid as this video no matter what you say I'm not going to believe you
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/RXu3Ng8moDQ">https://youtu.be/RXu3Ng8moDQ</a>
<br/>Creepy video of Malena Ernman Thunberg, the mother of Greta Tunberg
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>Creepy video of Malena Ernman Thunberg, the mother of Greta…
<br/>Creepy video of Malena Ernman Thunberg, the mother of Greta Tunberg
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 21 -->
<a name="x22"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x22" class="tiny">x22</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">Order of the Eastern Star</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_22" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges The Order of the Eastern Star is a Masonic appendant body open to both men and women. It was established in 1850 by lawyer and educator Rob Morris, a noted Freemason, but was only adopted and approved as an appendant body of the Masonic Fraternity in 1873. The Order of the Eastern Star is it not the female counterpart to the Masons?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x23</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_23');">how many female astronauts are members of the Order of Eastern Star?</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_23" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Nancy Jones, and how many female astronauts are members of the Order of Eastern Star?
<br/>The claim you seem to be supporting is that all astronauts are Masons. OES is affiliated with Masonry, has a similar structure and aims, but it is not Masonry. But hey, for the sake of this discussion, let us assume that OES is the same as Masonry.
<br/>You make the claim that female astronauts are either Masons or OES, therefore you prove it. It isn't my job to make your case.
<br/>And let me just add, if there were a female astronaut (let alone your premise that supposedly ~all~ female astronaut) who was a member of OES, by golly, I would want to know. Moreover, I'd see the gray-haired ladies of OES proudly proclaiming this. Astronauts in our ranks would be a feather in our caps! (Neil Armstrong is the only masonic astronaut that I'm aware of for sure, but there could be more.)
<br/>Membership in Masonic Organizations is not secret, except sometimes data-integrity efforts are made to prevent scraping of personal information for the purposes of spam mail.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 23 -->
<a name="x24"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x24" class="tiny">x24</a>
John Inacio : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">commemorative coins for the moon landing with the Freemason emblem</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_24" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>John Inacio</b>
Maxwell Bridges will you shut up NASA has commemorative coins for the moon landing with the Freemason emblem right on it stop already
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 24 -->
<a name="x25"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x25" class="tiny">x25</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_25');">completely and entirely sums you up to a negative number.</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_25" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. John Inacio, I haven't the foggiest clue as to how the video of Greta's mother relates to anything in this discussion. Looks to me like you've reached the bottom of your knowledge barrel.
<br/>I absolutely love your grammar-challenged sentence:
<br/><i>"Don't be as stupid as this video no matter what you say I'm not going to believe you"</i>
<br/>Truly, a statement as stupid as <i>"no matter what you say I'm not going to believe you"</i> completely and entirely sums you up... And it totals to a negative number.
<br/>Only agents toting agendas have the luxury of never considering evidence contrary to their premise and of never changing their minds.
<br/>Thank you for that.
<br/>I now know that you are insincere, and probably everything you promote is in some fashion disinformation. Even if I believe in the Moon Landing Hoax, when I see it defended badly, it points at poisoning the well and not at truth.
<br/>It is good to know who the agents and shills are.
<br/>You can carry on without me. Let's pull the Emergency Stop on this carousel.
<br/>Please don't tag me any more or respond to my comments. No matter what I write, you're not going to believe me. What is the point?
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 25 -->
<a name="x26"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x26" class="tiny">x26</a>
John Inacio : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">it's called humor</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>John Inacio</b>
Maxwell it's called humor I have reached my limit you are correct
<br/>
<br/>Image may contain: 6 people, people sitting
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x27</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_27');">How many female astronauts are members of the order of the Eastern Star?</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_27" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges I don't know. How many female astronauts are members of the order of the Eastern Star? I do not know the answer to that. And what about the Shriners? All Shriners are Masons and all Masons are not Shriners . yes?
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges You did not understand my statement. If you had bothered to look through these threads than you would have seen my reply. I don't know. How many female astronauts are members of the order of the Eastern Star? I do not know the answer to that? And, what about the Shriners? All Shriners are Masons but all Masons are not Shriners . yes?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 27 -->
<a name="x28"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x28" class="tiny">x28</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">no over-riding hierarchy that can push down edicts to the different Grand Lodges</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Nancy Jones, You have to be a Mason in good standing in order to become a Shriner and remain in good standing with a local lodge. (Means keep your dues paid; you don't have to be active.) Same is true for Scottish Rite and York Rite. So, yes, all Shriners are Masons, but all Masons are not Shriners (or Scottish Rite or York Rite).
<br/>The point you miss. There is no over-riding hierarchy that can push down edicts to the different Grand Lodges (in the US, let alone the world), nor to the different "Valleys" of SR, YR, or Shriners. Such a path for information flow would be required to get Masons on the same page to take over the world.
<br/>The OES has some Masonic requirements, like a token number 2 spot who has to be a Mason in good standing. Other than that, the ladies run it themselves and do their thing.
<br/>You've refused to listen to my words of truth as an insider.
<br/>Any Mason (or OES) of notoriety or fame is lauded by the fraternity and promoted to prospects: "See?!!! We be cool!" President Harry Truman, Neil Armstrong, Walt Disney (DeMolay), President Bill Clinton (DeMolay), John Wayne... are a few that come to mind.
<br/>Any OES member who was an astronaut would have received the same treatment, and the Masonic community would be falling over themselves to kiss them on the ass.
<br/>Be that as it may, the original statement that I was simply trying to have Mr. John Inacio correct was that "~all~ astronauts are Masons." The female astronauts alone proves this premise wrong, but even among the males, this premise is false. And if it were true or even a fraction of it were true (e.g., "~many~ astronauts are masons"), it would be used far and wide as a recruiting tool to increase our dying membership.
<br/>When you google Masonry, it is helpful if you study what Masons say about themselves: plenty of lodge and Grand Lodge web pages are available to tell you what we stand for and do.
<br/>THEN go to web pages not associated with Masons but steep in conspiracy theory, and take what they say with a grain of salt. Many were never Masons, so how would they know? And if the only nefarious references are 75+ years ago to isolate instances and geographic to other countries or specific regions and eras of our country, let that be a clue. Let other clues be the (un) reliabliness of the other information in the conspiracy piece.
<br/>[Yes, more than a century and a half ago in Germany, a lodge tried to make themselves special: Illuminati. Because they were being unmasonic, they were expelled by the GL and were no longer part of the order. Yes, Alfred PIke wrote a lot of crazy shit in his comparative religion diatribes that nobody has the patience to slog through today. Yes, Alistair Crowley was a Mason and went on to form all sorts of occult offshoots that re-used many of the trappings of Masonry.]
<br/>You don't want to hear it, but power and influence long ago left free-masonry, and migrated to "the Family", Council on Foreign Relations, NWO, Davos, etc. It is helpful to them to continue to scape-goat Masons.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<a name="x29"></a>
<hr class="comline">
<p class="comtitle"><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x29</a>
Nancy Jones : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_29');">ok, I get it</a></p>
<p>2019-12-17</p>
<div id="sect_29" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges ok, I get it.
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 29 -->
</div> <!-- part_1 -->
<a name="p2"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_2');">Part 2: Jesus Discussion with Eric Sandstrom, P.j. Winters</a></h2>
<div id="part_2" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200329_MCB_FB_EricSandstrum_01.htm -->
<a name="x30"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x30" class="tiny">x31</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_31');">Belief, Judgment, and Eternal Life</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10218160415654357&id=1007676807">2020-03-27</a></p>
<div id="sect_31" style="display: block;">
<p>March 27 at 4:24 PM
<br>
<br>“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
<br>
<br> John 3:16 “...The message of Christianity has always been this, that everybody in the world is headed for eternal hell to be punished forever for their sins—everyone. However, there is heaven. There is eternal heaven of joy and bliss and peace and satisfaction and fulfillment forever. How does one escape hell and get to heaven? That’s the message of Christianity. And the answer is by faith, not by works, but by faith, not by religion but by believing. That’s the message of Christianity, “For by grace are you saved through faith, not of works.” It’s not about your morality, it’s not about your virtue, it’s not about your philanthropy, not about your ceremonies, rituals, religious activities. The only way to escape hell and enter heaven is by believing, believing by faith. ...”
<br>
<br>Belief, Judgment, and Eternal Life:
<br><a href="http://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/43-17">http://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/43-17</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 31 -->
<a name="x32"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x32" class="tiny">x33</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_33');">composite figure of a "Jesus Christ"</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-27</p>
<div id="sect_33" style="display: block;">
<p>I call bullshit on that meme and/or sentiment. The composite figure of a "Jesus Christ" is being misconstrued completely wrongly even before the compositeness of Jesus from many predecessors is exposed.
<br>
<br>Look into Amazon (or in general) for "Pleiadians".
<br>
<br>"Jesus" taught us about what was already within us, what was already our innate abilities, that we could heal ourselves (and others) through loving thoughts & deeds.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 33 -->
<a name="x34"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x34" class="tiny">x35</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_35');">truth is found outside of a person</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-27</p>
<div id="sect_35" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges oh no! Truth does not come from within , truth is found outside of a person . Truth that gets one to heaven is only found in the Bible you have to believe the message about Christ according to the Scriptures that is your only hope of escaping judgment.
</p>
</div><!-- section 35 -->
<a name="x36"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x36" class="tiny">x37</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_37');">Jesus didn't have a Bible</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-27</p>
<div id="sect_37" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr Eric Sandstrom, I call bullshit on that notion of truth only being found in the Bible, because Jesus didn't have one (with the new testament for sure), so your logic fails. You've been brain washed. Apply some objectivity and you'll find truth elsewhere as well. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 37 -->
<a name="x38"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x38" class="tiny">x39</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_39');">Do you leave possibility?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-27</p>
<div id="sect_39" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Lots to address here. Even in your first comment
<br>
<br>Thanks for bringing up the topics, Something to think about In the meantime.
<br>
<br>Question:
<br>
<br>Do you leave possibility when it comes to the things of God/Jesus/The Bible/truth:
<br>
<br>Do you leave possibility that you could be in error to the way things really are?
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 39 -->
<a name="x40"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x40" class="tiny">x41</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_41');">Job 38:4</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-27</p>
<div id="sect_41" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Image may contain: text
<br>
<br>Meme: "WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH." Job 38:4 Knowing-Jesus.com
</p>
</div><!-- section 41 -->
<a name="x42"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x42" class="tiny">x43</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_43');">whoever orchestrated/created the Pleiades knows More than you</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-27</p>
<div id="sect_43" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>
<br>Interesting that you mention the Pleiades.... Have you ever thought whoever orchestrated/created the Pleiades knows More than you? The unwavering position which is also my belief is in fact that the creator of the heavenly bodies is also the author of scripture. That’s my foundation I mention this in hopes of helping you understand what I mean by what I say.
<br>
<br>The topic here in the post above is to simply believe in Jesus in order to have everlasting life.
<br>
<br>SIMPLY BELIEVE
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/yaSkuMU6vT4">https://youtu.be/yaSkuMU6vT4</a>
<br>
<br>Quickly I would like to counter again that Jesus never taught that truth comes from within us, if Truth came from inside us that would imply to trust our own heart, and based on Jeremiah 17:9 -
<br>
<br>“The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?”
<br>
<br>Those who know God know to trust one’s inner feelings Intellect, emotion & will is not only wrong but is deadly dangerous.
<br>
<br>Tragically many go to their grave trusting in their own heart even while knowing that it is contrary to what the Bible/God clearly says.
<br>
<br>I watched my uncle die a couple years ago still hostile to the fact that he was not a good person in the eyes of God. denying the Bible. He perished. sigh
<br>
<br>as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
<br>ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
<br>Romans 3:10,12
<br>
<br>It is my hope/prayer that you’re not one that will continually deny Jesus/God/the Bible
<br>
<br>If there was ever a time & topic to receive correction Scripture says "...now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation"
<br>
<br>When I think of verses like this in Proverbs in 15:10b
<br>
<br>“the one who hates correction will die.”
<br>
<br>I’m reminded of the very serious death warned about in Scripture. It is the SECOND DEATH
<br><a href="https://www.gotquestions.org/second-death.html">https://www.gotquestions.org/second-death.html</a>
<br>
<br>The 2nd death is a living death Both body and soul forever.
<br>
<br>Suffering in a body with a fully informed conscience confined to Deep pit consuming darkness, Darkness that closes in far out from any Light Forever,
<br>
<br>I cannot think of anything worse. It's worse than anybody could fathom scripture even speaks about worms eating a body Analogous to death of a body and though worms continually eat the body the worms never die i.e.
<br>
<br>Illustration in the Old Testament:
<br>"And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." Isaiah 66:24
<br>
<br>Reality of hell in the New Testament Jesus speaking:
<br>"If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.
<br>Mark 9:45-46
<br>
<br>"It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
<br>Hebrews 10:31
<br>
<br>"But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”
<br>Luke 12:5
<br>
<br>The truth about God which harbors the most important truths in the world comes from outside of us and it’s contained in one chassis of 66 books we know as THE HOLY BIBLE
<br>
<br>It is only the enemy of our souls who would lead us or even cast doubt upon the clear spoken word of God.
<br>
<br>I'm remembering and event in history when God told Adam and Eve
<br>"You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
<br>
<br>and then the deceiver/Satan who is alive and well today influencing us in the world came to Eve and cast doubt on what God had already said clearly. The devil said to Eve Casting doubt on the word of God Satan Persuades eve to question God by asking
<br>
<br>"Has God really said..."
<br>
<br>And then The enemy of our souls went further and lied by saying "you will not surely die"
<br>
<br>That is the same deception going on today i.e.
<br>
<br>Step 1. cast doubt on the Bible/Gods word
<br>Step 2. Persuade you to believe a lie.
<br>
<br>Today it Isn't personally the devil coming to you. Rather this world is the devils world he is the god of this age/world
<br>(2 Corinthians 4:3-4 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.)
<br>
<br>The world is orchestrated this way. The devil has set up the world to deceive you.
<br>
<br>It's in our School systems From kindergarten -to elite universities, evolution dressed up as science etc.
<br>
<br>knowledge of the truth is in the Bible there are many truths but the one truth I’m most concerned about is the truth that saves YOUR soul from judgment.
<br>
<br>Anyone who comes to me God says I will not cast out , God is near , Scripture says, it is in Him that we move and breathe and have our being.
<br>
<br>"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
<br>
<br>but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name." John 20:30-31
<br>
<br>Signs That Lead to Salvation
<br><a href="http://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/43-114">http://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/43-114</a>
<br>
<br>Meme: Open Bible next and reflected in a mirror. "Can you bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" ~Job 38:31
</p>
</div><!-- section 43 -->
<a name="x44"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x44" class="tiny">x45</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_45');">you could be in error to the way things really are</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-27</p>
<div id="sect_45" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom, You asked the question:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"Do you leave possibility that you could be in error to the way things really are?"</p></blockquote>
<p>I lob that same question rhetorically right back at you. Do you? Are you that open-minded?
<br>
<br>My upbringing and most of my religious life until this century was in Christian Science, which distinguishes itself from other Christian denominations by bringing back the lost element of Christian healing as taught and exhibited by Jesus Christ. "These works, and more and greater works will you do." Ergo, I am one step ahead of you in understanding the most certain "possibility when it comes to the things of God/Jesus/The Bible/truth."
<br>
<br>I was taught to take "the inspired word of the Bible as my sufficient guide to eternal life." Not "every word" but just "the inspired word." And nowhere does this exclude research that takes a sincere seeker of Truth -- as I am -- from other sources of information.
<br>
<br>From 25,000 feet without getting into specific scripture passages, the Holy Bible has many issues. It isn't just that the Bible has many different authors who in most cases were not even first-hand observers of the events they recorded, or that it had countless editors, translators, and publishers who applied metrics of their own personal agendas to the text and removing text.
<br>
<br>They say, <i>"history is written by the victor."</i>
<br>
<br>The over-riding issue with the Bible is that it is an incomplete history of mankind on this planet. Its strengths are using allegory and metaphor for lessons on multiple intellectual levels, sometimes merely describing an event without fully understanding the possible machinations leading to such, that we with modern lenses of science might more readily grasp in detail.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"Can you bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" ~Job 38:31</p></blockquote>
<p>Written in the ancient book of Job in the Holy Bible, how infeasible the thought even then of preventing the Pleiadians from providing their wonderful, beautiful, lush, sweet influences on mankind.
<br>
<br>In 2020, damn if I'm not getting fat off of Pleiadian influence, as I suddenly know innately more of the truth of my existence, human history, and connect the dots. Dare I say, Jesus was heavily influenced by the Pleiadians as well. And you could be, too.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bringers-Dawn-Pleiadians-Barbara-Marciniak-ebook/dp/B005CW624E/ref=sr_1_4">https://www.amazon.com/Bringers-Dawn-Pleiadians-Barbara-Marciniak-ebook/dp/B005CW624E/ref=sr_1_4</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>"Do you leave possibility that you could be in error to the way things really are?"</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 45 -->
<a name="x46"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x46" class="tiny">x47</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_47');">what is the Pleiadian influence? Who TF are the Pleiadians?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-27</p>
<div id="sect_47" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom, I know you're thinking </p>
<blockquote><p>"what is the Pleiadian influence? Who TF are the Pleiadians?"</p></blockquote>
<p>[Begin bat-shit crazy]
<br>
<br>They are us in the distant future. They want to evolve to the next spiritual level, but are prevented from such until they correct a mistake in the past. They are not happy with their timeline, and recognized certain key points in time that helped determine which decision branches were taken. We happen to be living just after one of those key points in time, with the decision branches probably right now upon us.
<br>
<br>It requires putting our human distant past into perspective.
<br>
<br>We are many (alien) species combined, because our creator Gods were experts in DNA manipulation. Reptilians were inhabitants of this planet prior to our creation (and to this day, they went underground), and their DNA was part of our initial genetic foundation; Reptilians are our kin. We are exceptional beings with great powers.
<br>
<br>We and Earth have been fought over fo eons. After one particular war, the victors (as documented in Genesis) took our four-stranded 12 helix DNA and made the double-helix with lots of "junk DNA." They dumbed us down, and placated us with bread & circuses & religion.
<br>
<br>Seeded by Pleiadian influences, we can meditate / pray / resonate the love frequency that will help re-align the "junk DNA" into the four stranded twelve helix DNA of our creation. When we reach our full love potention, we can achieve even greater works that Jesus.
<br>
<br>What are vaccines' role?
<br>
<br>The myths and legends all have truth. What messages are mass media trying to condition us for? Aliens and super-heros.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 47 -->
<a name="x48"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x48" class="tiny">x49</a>
P.j. Winters : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_49');">many rooms in the Lord's house</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-27</p>
<div id="sect_49" style="display: block;">
<p>The Lords house has many rooms.
</p>
</div><!-- section 49 -->
<a name="x50"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x50" class="tiny">x51</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_51');">A (way to God/Love...)</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-27</p>
<div id="sect_51" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. P.J. Winters, Agreed.
<br>
<br>I am a religious fanatic; I am fanatical about Truth.
<br>
<br>When someone writes (paraphrased): <i>"THE ONLY way to God / Love is through Jesus Christ..."</i>
<br>
<br>I can't help but get tweaked, in that it is just so untrue. And it is really just two words that rankle: <i>"THE ONLY."</i> If they were simply replaced with <i>"A (way to God/Love...)"</i>, I'd have no issue.
<br>
<br>You know you're being duped when the gas lighter has you exclude other influences, and demands that you believe exactly as the Pope, Bischop, Pastor, Reverend, Bible Teacher interprets and pontificates about some passage.
<br>
<br>Jesus had Pleiadians influences, as did many of his predecessors that make up the composite persona of Jesus.
<br>
<br>"In the Lords house are many mansions. Were it otherwise, I would have told you so."
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 51 -->
<!-- ***** 20200329_MCB_FB_EricSandstrum_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_2 -->
<a name="p3"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_3');">Part 3: Aliens and Pleiadians</a></h2>
<div id="part_3" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200721_MCB_FB_AAT_01.htm -->
<a name="x52"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x52" class="tiny">x53</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_53');">My Achilles Heel: Pleiadian...</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/alien.policy/?post_id=948331168942650&comment_id=950657565376677&reply_comment_id=953232445119189¬if_id=1595328059241198¬if_t=group_comment_mention&ref=notif">2020-07-17</a></p>
<div id="sect_53" style="display: block;">
<p>In the conspiracy theory realm, it seems like everyone has an Achilles Heel, like a 9/11 Truther rationally arguing controlled demolition but then go full retard on "all videos were fake, nothing is real."
<br>
<br>My Achilles Heel ready to implode all of my worthy work on 9/11 (JFK, OKC, etc.) is... aliens, who I have never met or seen that I know of. It is a field fraught with (active) disinformation -- for centuries.
<br>
<br>Here's a video worth watching. If you are unfamiliar with Pleiadians or Elizabeth April, suspend your doubts and remain open. This video ties much together.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Mrgx1F4B4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Mrgx1F4B4</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 53 -->
<a name="x54"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x54" class="tiny">x55</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_55');">Pleiadian Message</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_55" style="display: block;">
<p>Interesting. A discussion with someone just disappeared.
<br>This was the follow-up link I had posted.
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vE8yFzh8LA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vE8yFzh8LA</a>
<br>//
<br>
<br>The Pleiadian Message A Wake Up Call For the Family of Light 2020
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 55 -->
<a name="x56"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x56" class="tiny">x57</a>
Josh Bempechat : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_57');">Censorship, lol</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_57" style="display: block;">
<p>Its called Censorship, lol.
</p>
</div><!-- section 57 -->
<a name="x58"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x58" class="tiny">x59</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_59');">you who did the censoring</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_59" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Bempechat, and you're the one who did the censoring. You deleted your top-level comment and all discussion underneath it.
<br>
<br>You make me hesitant to respond to any more top-level comments of yours.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 59 -->
<a name="x60"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x60" class="tiny">x61</a>
Josh Bempechat : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_61');">when i went to post it, everything was gone</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_61" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>No I didn't. That's a joke. I was writing a whole retort and when i went to post it, everything was gone, and you are the one who posted this and has control, so you censored my post, DUH!
</p>
</div><!-- section 61 -->
<a name="x62"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x62" class="tiny">x63</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_63');">One of the admins is the likely culprit</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_63" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Bempechat, indeed I do have some control over what goes on underneath my posting, I did not exercise such power; you say you did not exercise your power to delete a top-level comment.
<br>
<br>One of the admins to this Aliens FB group then is the likely culprit. It did take some time for my posting to be approved.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 63 -->
<a name="x64"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x64" class="tiny">x65</a>
Josh Bempechat : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_65');">Lets work for truth.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_65" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I appreciate that, Maxwell. I apologize for accusing you then. Lets work together, not against each other. Lets work for truth.
</p>
</div><!-- section 65 -->
<a name="x66"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x66" class="tiny">x67</a>
Josh Bempechat : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_67');">no Pleiadians but New Age con job by the elite</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_67" style="display: block;">
<p>There are no Pleiadians. Its all New Age con job by the elite. Its called MK-Ultra. Most people are not aware that MK-Ultra at the higher levels was all about aliens and creating a New Age alien religion. It was aided with the help of Loyywood, who, in the 1950's alone, made literally hundreds and hundreds of sci-fi films with UFOs and aliens and themes of everything from Nuclear holocaust on earth to adventures in space with all kinds of beings. They were creating a storyline. At the same time, the government was experimenting with brain implants and then moved to remote brain control interfaces. This is when they started the channeling material. Some of the first people to claim "contact" or channels from outer space were just Intelligence officers with well written scripts, but then they became successful in actually abducting people and hypnotizing them and seeding material in their heads, for when they return to their normal lives. Then there's the worst class of all, the opportunist. A person who knows about all this, and jumps on the bandwagon to promote her own selfish agenda, relying on the "goodhearted" people in humanity who are naive enough to be conned into believing in Pleiadians.
</p>
</div><!-- section 67 -->
<a name="x68"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x68" class="tiny">x69</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_69');">I've become a dupe useful idiot for the Pleiadians</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_69" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Bempechat, I am taking a leap of faith that this discussion won't be purged by either of us, discussing in good faith.
<br>
<br>According to you, there are no Pleiadians. According to themselves and they being also jokers, you might be right. Because technically, the Pleiadians are "us" in the future so don't yet exist on the linear time line. They have been channeling to us now (since 1980's) so that we can make a fork in the timeline (do something differently) to avoid the future that is "them".
<br>
<br>They are prevented from evolving to the next level by a decisions into our health and well-being now. We, as a spiritual creation, were also designed to evolve. The PTB want to keep us dumb and fearful. If I were to name factors that prevent our evolution, I'd say it was our "borg"-ification along with vaccines, chemtrails, pesticides, fluroide (sp), and drugs that chemically change our DNA and zap the genetically created human's true potential.
<br>
<br>Yeah, I guess I've become a dupe useful idiot for the Pleiadians, but in a measured fashion. I know it can be infiltrated, so I don't take all Pleiadian messaging as the truth. (To date, I have not run across any that I'd deem deliberate Pleaidian disinformation, but I'm sure some exists and will by AI cycled through my FB feeds soon.) In fact, all your name dropping of MK ULTRA etc. certainly happens, as well as the crimes against children.
<br>
<br>The karmic trap seems like a real bad deal, the more I learn of the "mechanics" of our duality -- spiritual and material.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 69 -->
<a name="x70"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x70" class="tiny">x71</a>
TJ Knitter : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_71');">too late to stop the creation of this new religion</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_71" style="display: block;">
<p>Josh Bempechat
<br>I think it's too late to stop the creation of this new religion. They have holy books, prophets, and block out anything that counters their belief system. Asking them to keep an open mind or remain skeptical gets you called a troll.
</p>
</div><!-- section 71 -->
<a name="x72"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x72" class="tiny">x73</a>
Josh Bempechat : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_73');">no evidence but in the minds of people</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_73" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>There is no evidence for any of this except in the minds of people with fantastic imaginations. I read Barbara Hand Clow and Barbara Marciniak when I was 18-20 years old back in 1990. I used to be a rainbow light warrior unicorn mermaid baby, like yourselves. I was brainwashed by this for a short period of time, and then I saw the truth, as most people do, who stumble upon space dung. Its all a bunch of lies to keep you from being effective politically.
</p>
</div><!-- section 73 -->
<a name="x74"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x74" class="tiny">x75</a>
TJ Knitter : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_75');">Tesla Jesus</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_75" style="display: block;">
<p>Josh Bempechat
<br>Post a picture of Tesla to this group. Post a picture of Jesus in a christian group. Compare notes.
</p>
</div><!-- section 75 -->
<a name="x76"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x76" class="tiny">x77</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_77');">the Pleiadian validity from a completely different direction</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_77" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Bempechat, You are absolutely correct that, in the minds of people, that's where the evidence is at! Congratulations on having read the works when they first came out. I am envious.
<br>
<br>But to some degree, I have advantages in my being a latter-day, lurker reader and avoiding some of the "fad" of the early adopters. More importantly, I have an upbringing in Christian Science, so I ~KNOW~ of the Pleiadian validity from a completely different direction.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"Its all a bunch of lies to keep you from being effective politically."</p></blockquote>
<p>Lies? You haven't proven.
<br>
<br>Certainly, though, there is truth in the prevention of us being effective politically, but this has more to do with external forces implemented by those who don't want us to be aware: so many distractions from television to sports to porno... Get us dumbed down and ready and accepting of our Matrix pods.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 77 -->
<a name="x78"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x78" class="tiny">x79</a>
TJ Knitter : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_79');">truth seekers on a wild goose chase</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_79" style="display: block;">
<p>Josh Bempechat
<br>Keeping a large group of truth seekers on a wild goose chase sounds like a pretty straight forward conspiracy. They won't look out at the world around them if they are stuck in a closet talking to themselves about aliens.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 79 -->
<a name="x80"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x80" class="tiny">x81</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_81');">mischaracterize</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_81" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. TJ Knitter
<br>(if I have your gender wrong, you have my apologies and I will amend.) I think you mischaracterize. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 81 -->
<a name="x82"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x82" class="tiny">x83</a>
TJ Knitter : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_83');">AAT is a religion.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_83" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I think I've been around enough to say it with confidence. AAT is a religion.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 83 -->
<a name="x84"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x84" class="tiny">x85</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_85');">not up to the part where it became a religion</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_85" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. TJ Knitter, I'm a newby reading old channeling from the Pleiadians, so I'm not yet up to the part where it became a religion or even to know what AAT is.
<br>
<br>Would you please be so kind as to tell me AAT's meaning?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 85 -->
<a name="x86"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x86" class="tiny">x87</a>
TJ Knitter : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_87');">ancient alien theory</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_87" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Certainly. AAT stands for ancient alien theory. I won't write an essay about it, but I will definitely answer any questions you may have, or offer any evidence I can find for you.
</p>
</div><!-- section 87 -->
<a name="x88"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x88" class="tiny">x89</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_89');">where AAT / Pleiadians morph into a religion?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_89" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. TJ Knitter
<br>
<br>Thank you for the AAT clarification. Alas, in my reading, I have yet to come across the part where AAT / Pleiadians morph into a religion. What factors make it such?
<br>
<br>If anything, my research is putting screws to standard religions for having misconstrued the (Christ/Buddha/Muhammad) messages in their paternal misogynistic practices, and other gross failings, suppression, and mispresentation.
<br>
<br>I find my research hasn't instilled a new religion in me, but instead has fulfilled / validated parts of my religious upbringing from a different direction that I otherwise would have been moving away from, because I couldn't reconcile it without this new information.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 89 -->
<a name="x90"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x90" class="tiny">x91</a>
TJ Knitter : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_91');">cultural medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-17</p>
<div id="sect_91" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Sorry, work has been nuts.
<br>
<br>The debate of what defines a religion is older than you or I, and will most likely continue long after we are gone.
<br>
<br>But I tend to lean towards this definition.
<br>
<br>George Lindbeck, a Lutheran and a postliberal theologian (but not a social constructionist), says that religion does not refer to belief in God or a transcendent Absolute, but rather to:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought ... it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments."</p></blockquote>
<p>So in this case. AAT has a belief system that it uses to judge what happens in the world around them. They have prophets like Hancock or Tesla. As well as a healthy distrust of anyone who offers dispute to their claims.
<br>
<br>I do realize I am generalizing. This is a young religion. It is far from organized. But it does show signs of what we consider modern religion.
<br>
<br>I can't comment on your personal experience but I think challenging your own beliefs on a regular basis keeps one from becoming "religious". But, again, loose definition.
</div><!-- section 91 -->
<!-- ***** 20200721_MCB_FB_AAT_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_3 -->
<a name="p4"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_4');">Part 4: Masons and Presidents</a></h2>
<div id="part_4" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200721_MCB_FB_Mason_02.htm -->
<a name="x92"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x92" class="tiny">x93</a>
Souri Choobak : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_93');">Freemason and first President</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1016203238838200&id=100013455993711">2020-07-20</a></p>
<div id="sect_93" style="display: block;">
<p>Picture: Bust of George Washington with "FREEMASON AND FIRST PRESIDENT" with Masonic square and compass engraved in the stone.
<br>
<br>Meme: When anyone tells you that you are wrong about FreeMasons controlling the world, ask them why freemason title comes before president title.
</p>
</div><!-- section 93 -->
<a name="x94"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x94" class="tiny">x95</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_95');">not encountered the nefarious actions / deeds / people</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-20</p>
<div id="sect_95" style="display: block;">
<p>I am a Mason. What Freemasonry once was or was once alleged to be, does not equate to all times, to all lodges, to all brothers, and certainly not to a shrinking and dying institution. Power and influence long ago left the institution, allowing it to shrink really to what it always was: a brotherhood of men helpful in a community.
<br>To my experience as an insider active in Blue Lodges who also went both Scottish Rite and York Rite (but have since dimitted from the latter two), I have not encountered the nefarious actions / deeds / people that have been for centuries alleged by the institution's enemies or those in power wanting to misdirect / scapegoat from their own misdeeds.
<br>TO ALL MEN, if you believe in a higher power and are a good person, I can assure you that you could go through the process of becoming a Master Mason and have no moral conflicts with any obligation you presently have to your family, your church, your country. You would not regret the effort, even if you were like me with a conspiracy theorist's bent going into it. However, you would be disappointed that you discovered Masonry to be exactly that what they themselves claim to be (making good men better), and were never a "Luciferian child abusing Satanic cult involved in all the great conspiracies against man" (as scapegoated by the true enemies of the planet.)
<br>TO ALL WOMEN, if you have a Masonic relation, you could join the Order Eastern Star (among a couple of others.) Same wording would apply.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 95 -->
<a name="x96"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x96" class="tiny">x97</a>
Dave Meyers : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_97');">well said brother</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-20</p>
<div id="sect_97" style="display: block;">
<p>As a member too, I could not agree more, well said brother.
</p>
</div><!-- section 97 -->
<!-- ***** 20200721_MCB_FB_Mason_02.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_4 -->
<a name="p5"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_5');">Part 5: Masonry Discussions with Lisa Love Schuble</a></h2>
<div id="part_5" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200511_MCB_FB_LoveSchnable_01.htm -->
<a name="x98"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x98" class="tiny">x99</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_99');">just a Gentile in the Masonic lodge</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/lisa.schuble/posts/3135380716482099?notif_id=1589248924939819">2020-05-11</a></p>
<div id="sect_99" style="display: block;">
<p>If you’re not a descendant from a Sabbatian Sect of Judaism and considered just a Gentile, you’ll never be allowed to go beyond a certain degree in the Masonic lodge. You’ll actually be one of the useful idiots, who help camouflage and argue the legitimacy of this infiltrated establishment in the mid 1700’s , of the true crimes happening from the upper echelons. If you haven’t stepped back and really researched this by now, you’re a part of the problem in our country.
</p>
</div><!-- section 99 -->
<a name="x100"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x100" class="tiny">x101</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_101');">pigs, the non-Jewish Masons</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_101" style="display: block;">
<p><i>"What happened in 1897, stayed in 1897."</i> I'm only partially joking. Maybe one could argue that those sentiments lasted a good 60 years through the establishment of Israel. But things change; generations died out; agendas that motivated one era grew stale in other eras and died out. Lodges of today ain't my father's lodge, or my grand-father's, etc. Lodges are about the brothers currently active and are a product of their eras.
<br><br>Rhetorically speaking, if we "pigs, the non-Jewish Masons," today outnumber the Jewish Masons and if a fault of modern lodges is an overly Christian bent, then maybe what was Theordor Herzel's 1897 opinion, doesn't really apply today.
<br><br>Furthermore, my state has a Grand Lodge presiding over its masonic lodges, but there is no "super Grand Lodge" over all the individual Grand Lodges in the USA, nor is there a "super-duper Grand Lodge" over the fictional "super Grand Lodges" to cover all Grand Lodges and their individual lodges all over the world. Lacking both the authority and the means of communication, it is hard for the alleged nefarious agendas to seep everywhere and be executed as ordered.
<br><br>I won't argue whether or not certain factions of Masons in various countries in different eras were worthy to be blamed for devious influences. (Funny how their religious affiliations aren't also blamed and reviled.) But the fact of the matter is, Masons became an easy scapegoat to pin the misdeeds of others. Power long ago left the institution, allow it to get back to its roots of an affiliation of good, trustworthy, men of the community.
<br><br>Action item for you: Recognize that you've been duped. The internet is awash with centuries old stories of Masonic institutional intrigue, yet none of it is from today or even from this century, and probably the whole second half of last century.
<br><br>Masonic Lodges were turning the other cheek and "were not feeding the trolls" to combat such propaganda and scapegoating lies, and were successful at it (until the automation of the internet) because it always comes down to how an individual mason conducts himself locally in all his affairs, being true to his word, square and fair, etc. that makes the strongest counter-arguments and attracts followers.
<br><br>Yep, you've been duped.
<br><br>In some ways, having duped useful idiots like you spread centuries' old propaganda and lies about the Masonic Institution can help the fraternity, because it draws the curious who want to find out for themselves whether the conspiracies are true and if Masons today wield such power. We tell them up front, our reputation has been grossly exaggerated, and they find out themselves well before, during, and after they join our ranks.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 101 -->
<a name="x102"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x102" class="tiny">x103</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_103');">one of them that bought into the lies</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_103" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>oh you’re one of them that bought into the lies that secret societies are nothing more than a brotherhood. So those who’ve been seen displaying secret hand shakes and casual gestures of distress in our court systems are no longer trying to gain the upper hand? Believe what ya want. I for one, don’t think the establishment started out bad, as most of my family members were in them. It was actually quite a fashionable thing to do back then and is how many grew their buisness’s and conducted them throughout the communities.
<br><br>The power of a brotherhood or sisterhood like that, leaves others in the community at a disadvantage and creating a accumulating superiority complex over periods of time, knowing human nature and how the masses tend to gather in segregated areas throughout our communities.
<br><br>So I call bullshit on your conspiracy theory. Besides, it still leaves a tons of room for corruption while hiding behind those who believe this history to be — what did you say?
<br><br>“grossly exaggerated “
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 103 -->
<a name="x104"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x104" class="tiny">x105</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_105');">bad start and only educated and the elite</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_105" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble
<br><br>,... yeah, but... You're talking about Catholicism. Or maybe Baptists, or Methodists or Mormons.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"The power of a brotherhood or sisterhood like that, leaves others in the community at a disadvantage and creating a accumulating superiority complex over periods of time..."</p></blockquote>
<p>I, for one, think the (modern) Masonic fraternity did start out bad. Only educated and the elite. English Masonry was and maybe still is particularly snobbish.
<br><br>But as it grew beyond its controlled borders and as time changed, so did the fraternity's make-up. I'm sorry, but I have yet to observe any of my lodge brothers go out and massacre Indians (as did fellow mason Capt. Chivington at Sand Creek, Colorado) or lynch African Americans. That is all so one or two centuries ago!
<br><br>Thus, I call bullshit on YOUR conspiracy theory. You know nothing except the propaganda (some of it centuries' old) of our detractors trying to scapegoat us. In the US, real power is with "the family," CFR, Bilderberg, etc. Not with the local masonic lodge that barely has the membership to afford maintenance on their aging facilities.
<br><br>Conspiracy theorists are supposed to be open-minded particularly to the truth. Alas, you prove that even conspiracy theorists are prone to cognitive dissonance; you won't consider anything counter to your argument, nor have you provided anything to support your argument.
<br><br>Were there any truth to your supposition about the malign intentions of Masonic bodies, (a) they would not have survived into last century, least of all into this century, (b) you would be able to throw a dart at a map and identify RECENT stories from that locale of Masonic misdeeds. We can simply that assignment and say YOUR LOCALE and anything defarious from Masonic lodges THIS CENTURY! Nada.
<br><br>Look, when a Methodist does something bad, the media don't spend its time lambasting the institution, but the individual. Depending on the crime, the church might excommunicate and otherwise distance themselves from the individual. And in the rare cases when the crimes are through out local church, the local church gets the scrutiny, not the entire institution.
<br><br>Masonry does background checks on prospective members. It has a vetting process. And if a brother goes bad after joining, the lodges have ways of ousting them from their ranks.
<br><br>You are duped, and too proud to admit it.
<br><br>Do your homework. Prove your case. Find all of the bad misdeeds of YOUR local Masons from this century.
<br><br>And if your 15-minutes, 30-minutes, 4-hours of googling comes up only with educational scholarships for high school seniors, scholarships to band camp, or pan-cake breakfasts to support some charity, you should already be considering how you're going to apologize.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 105 -->
<a name="x106"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x106" class="tiny">x107</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_107');">servicing and manipulating within our societies and governments</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_107" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>you’re not going to see any of that stuff happening. These people most likely won’t associate with the psychologically stable mindset within. They gravitate towards the corrupt hearted ones who’ve been culled out from the rest, to assist and advance in many ways than their trade.
<br><br>When like minded criminals control the systems to begin with, of course they’ll pass the sniff test.
<br><br>Your chapter may not be corrupt but there is corruption within, that’s been servicing and manipulating within our societies and governments.
</p>
</div><!-- section 107 -->
<a name="x108"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x108" class="tiny">x109</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_109');">any kind of sacred knowledge, all of mankind should understand</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_109" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>oh the gravitas given to such a swindler!!
<br><a href="https://www.opcmia.org/george-h-w-bush/">https://www.opcmia.org/george-h-w-bush/</a>
<br>George H.W. Bush
<br>OPCMIA.ORG
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Lisa Love Schuble</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>not only Freemasons but others too. One goes they all should go. No secrets whatsoever should be kept from the rest of humanity. If it’s any kind of sacred knowledge, all of mankind should understand these things in order to prevent from others to gain any advantage over anyone else. This should be a level playing field and people should be able to make decisions based on reality, not distorted facts.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-presidents-who-were-in-secret-societies-2017-4">https://www.businessinsider.com/us-presidents-who-were-in-secret-societies-2017-4</a>
<br>BUSINESSINSIDER.COM
<br>20 US presidents who belonged to shadowy secret societies
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Lisa Love Schuble</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Meme: Bust of George Washington in a park with Masonic Emblem on the plaque. Meme words: "When someone says Free-Masons don't run the country."
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Lisa Love Schuble</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Meme with image of Alber Pike. Meme words "The Third World War must be fomented between the Christians and the Islamic World. The War must be conducted in such a way that Islam and Christianity mutually destroy each other leaving the Political Zionists in control." Albert Pike 33 degree mason [ Scottish rite of freemasonry ]
<br>
<br><b>Lisa Love Schuble</b>
<br>Meme has flow chart with title "Origin of Secret Societies". Inverted triangle at the top with Ancient Mystery Religions, Kabbalism, Gnosticism, Knights Templars, Rosicruicians, Freemasonry / Illuminati, and New Age Movement at bottom. A box on Pantheism points to AMR box. AMR box points to a box on Witchcraft, sorcery, etc., which also points to the NAM box.
<br>
<br>No photo description available.
</p>
</div><!-- section 109 -->
<a name="x110"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x110" class="tiny">x111</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_111');">misdeeds of any Masonic Lodge in this century</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_111" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, You have a vivid imagination and are not very discerning in your validation of internet information. First, you can't even name any misdeeds of any Masonic Lodge in this century. Then, you claim that such would not be reported, because "Masons are everywhere and would suppress the revelation of the incident." Your proof of this? You have none.
<br><br>Albert Pike was so 1865. George Washington was so 1776. Do you see either one of them running the country today?
<br><br>If you weren't such an agenda-toting AGENT, if instead you were a sincere seeker of Truth, you would approach me differently just because I am an insider. And I had ulterior motives when I joined regarding conspiracies. But, I also already knew what to expect, or wasn't surprised at what I experienced and being in-line with expectations, if not better (because I was a DeMolay in my youth.)
<br><br>With regards to your little rant: "No secrets whatsoever should be kept from the rest of humanity."
<br><br>Sophomore writing class about over-generalizations being weak arguments, because all it takes is one exception to prove it wrong.
<br><br>Assume for a moment that your boyfriend has a small penis when erect but an active tongue that compensates well in your nether region. The two of you are keeping these secret from the rest of the world. And as it should be, because the rest of humanity doesn't need to know this, certainly not parents, siblings, off-spring. When tipsy with your girlfriends on girl's-night-out, maybe you divulge the secret of his tiny manhood, because you don't want them having a reason to snag him (pun intended) from underneath you. You make them swear not to tell anybody -- certainly not their boyfriends who know your guy -- because you don't want word or teasing getting around to your boyfriend, which could end his lingual sessions with you.
<br><br>Thus, your experience already proves the validity and necessity of secrets.
<br><br>You can learn a shit ton of Masonic secrets just by going to lodge web pages and searching the internet. Damn near all of them from a blue lodge can be found on the internet... everything we consider sacred and why. (And it isn't as if there aren't a few Masonic wives who know the work quite well, possibly from having assisted their husbands learn their parts.)
<br><br>But the secrets you won't learn about are the brother ones, where one brother specifically asks another brother to hold a secret (murder and treason excepted), with the caveat that the second brother is under no obligation to accept. Be that as it may, it should be absolutely no surprise that most secrets are of the nature, "don't tell my wife how the hole really got into the boat."
<br><br>You continued: "If it’s any kind of sacred knowledge, all of mankind should understand these things in order to prevent from others to gain any advantage over anyone else. This should be a level playing field and people should be able to make decisions based on reality, not distorted facts."
<br><br>Two things. First, Masonry and Geometry used to be synonymous terms, and geometry was the guarded trade secret of the masonic gild that was imparted only to the craft. But we both had geometry in school; the sacred knowledge is already out.
<br><br>Second, if a good man applies for membership and is found worthy, he gets to know our "sacred knowledge" like all other brothers have experienced it before him. Nothing hidden.
<br><br>You might cough at the phrases "applies for membership" and "is found worthy." We get our fair share of kooks looking into Masonry. They usually weed themselves out. I've only seen one or two who failed a ballot; I've seen many more not make it to a master mason. Is it unusual for a chorus directory to want to hear to you sing before letting you into the group? Do you think you could sing in a church choir if you weren't of the same faith (found worthy)? You could probably attend 90% of the HOA meetings, but unless you held property (found worthy) you can't vote on issues.
<br><br>In summary, you have had no facts to substantiate your views -- only internet innuendo -- and constantly dismiss first-hand accounts that puts the fraternity into perspective for what it really is. I bet you're guilty of telling your doctor what medicines you need based on ads that appear in your Google searches on health.
<br><br>If you are a real person with sincere intentions, you can apologize now.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 111 -->
<a name="x112"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x112" class="tiny">x113</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_113');">oozing smugness and groomed to be a gatekeeper</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_113" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>oh for Gods sake, you’re oozing smugness and evidently groomed to be a gatekeeper. You’re references to the late 1800’s only points to the most resent subversion, which lead to the most resent financial reset.
<br>Of course we’re going to just number our world wars, as if expecting more. ?? Still- No apologies buddy. Not from me and definitely not from the American public once more fit these pieces together. You’ll see. You’re just in denial because, you’ve put so much trust and time in your little butt-buddy groups. That’s ok though. We all have room to change and see things differently. ??
</p>
</div><!-- section 113 -->
<a name="x114"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x114" class="tiny">x115</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_115');">lots of organizations bowed down to kiss the decaying ass of dead-President Bush</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_115" style="display: block;">
<p>P.S. There is "operative masonry" and there is "speculative". AF&AM masonry is speculative.
<br><br>The OPCMIA is operative. "The Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association of the United States and Canada (OPCMIA) is a trade union of plasterers and cement."
<br><br>When free-masons get together for a meeting, we're only figuratively spreading the cement of brotherhood. When OPCMIA get together, they might really be actually spreading cement, or talking about how to spread cement, or other factoid business standards and laws.
<br><br>But to your point, lots of organizations bowed down to kiss the decaying ass of dead-President Bush. I don't recall seeing anything fawning of President GHW Bush in any masonic communication I've received. They like the ones who were Masons themselves, or in Bill Clinton's case, DeMolay.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 115 -->
<a name="x116"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x116" class="tiny">x117</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_117');">brotherhood or the upper echelons</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_117" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Lisa Love Schuble</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>worthy by whom? The brotherhood or the upper echelons who psychologically analyze and prescreen its membership to see if their personality traits are malleable enough to enter. Egos play a big role here.
<br>
<br><b>Lisa Love Schuble</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>my argument isn’t against individuals within the group. It’s those who are above everyone else. Too its not even about true Masons anymore. The building being done is focused on dominance in the numerous trades and industries, which eventually, culminates into corporate governance. End of story.
</p>
</div><!-- section 117 -->
<a name="x118"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x118" class="tiny">x119</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_119');">prop the gate open to let you see within</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_119" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, just because my internet persona is arrogant, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Whereas I may "ooze smugness", you reek of being half-bot in your inability to go into detail. Such an agenda you tote? The ultimate duped useful idiot weapon.
<br><br>Me? A gatekeeper for the fraternity? You make the claim, you prove it.
<br><br>Here I have been trying to enlighten you with secrets, to prop the gate open to let you see within, yet you're too obstinate to gaze at the open threshold and can only lamely deflect, "you're still standing at the gate, gatekeeper."
<br><br>Indeed, the lodges I'm a member of are my "little butt-buddy groups." I find the association quite valuable to my sanity.
<br><br>What are your "little butt-buddy groups"? Girls bowling league? Sweet Adelines? Contra-dancing? Quilting Bee? Mother's who pump iron? Bitches who drink beer or wine or alcohol in general? Bible Study? Mixed Martial Arts?
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 119 -->
<a name="x120"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x120" class="tiny">x121</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_121');">not looked further than your ego</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_121" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>awesome ?? your enlightenment only shows you haven’t looked further than your ego. But though, go ahead you can have the last word.
</p>
</div><!-- section 121 -->
<a name="x122"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x122" class="tiny">x123</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_123');">Masons have dominance in government?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_123" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, <i>"worthy by the brothers of the lodge in attendance when the ballot is cast at meeting for acceptance of the petition."</i> An investigation committee convenes before election night with the candidate (and wife/girlfriend). A standard background check is agreed to and performed by third party before the investigation committee has their interview. Most pedophiles or violent felons fade away well before they get to the point of agreeing to the background check -- I assume -- so I've never seen where this became a gating issue on a potential brother's worthiness at balloting time.
<br><br>You say that your <i>"argument is against... those who are above everyone else."</i>
<br><br>Here's an exposed Masonic secret. One of the principle officers of the lodge wears the emblem of the plumb, to remind us to be <i>"on the level"</i> with one another and in our conduct inside and outside of lodge. That's a major failure, proving you've been duped. [An old Masonic story is that it was President Harry Truman's gardener who was master of the lodge when he joined.]
<br><br>You are making a case that free-masons have infiltrated all sorts of trades and industries to have DOMINANCE over them. Prove it.
<br><br>Then you go on to say, they have dominance in government. Prove it.
<br><br>Make your research into this century and relevant to now.
<br><br>What was true in the 1950's and 1960's is not true today. In fact, trades and industries have declined in membership and importance. People are lazy and don't want to commit to anything other than their evening Netflix. HOA bylaws never change, because they can never get 60% super majority in attendance. Laziness is society-wide.
<br><br>I'd be willing to venture that for any large overlap in Masonic membership with trade membership (that you have yet to prove), what you really have is a person who knows what commitment means and values it, and applies himself in his work and his leisure. Veterans makes up a large part of active lodge participation for these very same reasons. They learned commitment and brotherhood, and value it enough.
<br><br>... Ooops, now three more comments from you while I was writing this.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 123 -->
<a name="x124"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x124" class="tiny">x125</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_125');">infiltrated and used</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_125" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>The facia is legit and was the original creeds behind it. I’m not arguing none of the original characteristics and purpose.
<br>It was infiltrated and used and has been for decades. If you haven’t seen it, well then good. Many haven’t and is why they still deny it. Believe what you want. It is what it is. It will eventually come to light and be in the consciousness here on out. It was good whole it lasted but, needs cleaning and revamping , with better and new leadership if it’s going to survive.
</p>
</div><!-- section 125 -->
<a name="x126"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x126" class="tiny">x127</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_127');">"upper echelons psychologically analyzing and prescreen its members"</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_127" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, you wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"The brotherhood or the upper echelons who psychologically analyze and prescreen its membership to see if their personality traits are malleable enough to enter. Egos play a big role here."</p></blockquote>
<p>The requirement for petitioning is that two masons have known you for at least 6 months and vouch for your character, and one has to be a member of the lodge you're petitioning. Means there have been at least six months of seeing the candidate at regular coffees or meals, where all manner of topics were probably discussed. The candidate is usually known to most of the brothers, not just those who signed the petition or were on the investigation committee. Two black cubes in the ballot box by those qualified to vote and in attendance at meeting can reject the petition.
<br>Thoroughly shitty candidates rarely have the patience of the process of petitioning, let alone passing through the three degrees (whereby further balloting is involved in between.)
<br>There is no upper echelon. If anything, there are those whose zeal for the institution have kept them as active members for many years and they've moved into positions like Secretary or Treasurer, know the by-laws and the Constitution of the Grand Lodge. The secretary tends to exercise his powers in RECRUITING candidates (not black-balling them) and in rabble-rousing old-timers to show up when electing officers if he wants to mess with the progressive line.
<br>Point is, your vivid imagination about the <i>"upper echelons psychologically analyzing and prescreen its members"</i> sound more like the workings of your church or my first very conservative employer in our capitalist society, and not the petitioning process of a lodge.
<br>While busy writing this answer, you wrote: "The facia is legit and was the original creeds behind it. I’m not arguing none of the original characteristics and purpose."
<br>I counter that the facia is fraudulent, and that the original creeds behind it are one or two centuries out of date. You're not arguing any of it, because you can't. You've been duped by the hypnoptic assertions, and have no mumpth to truly research it on your own, and what little internet research you've done, were on searches of "Masonry Illuminati" and not "Masonry" itself and explored what the Masons write about themselves.
<br>You wrote: "It was infiltrated and used and has been for decades."
<br>I'd be willing to agree with it being infiltrated and being used DECADES ago, but those infiltrators are dead. The influence the lodges once had is dead. Power and influence long ago left the lodges. It's back to basics ("butt-buddy group"). Maybe that was the goal of the infiltration, to turn us into a benign "butt-buddy group." Whatever. That is what we are today, and dying, too. I get value out of "butt-buddy" affiliations and have never observed in the organization any of the nefarious things attributed to it by any blog or website (who talks about present-day Illuninati influence in the same piece.)
<br>Of course, your response is that "I'm not in the upper echelon doing the bad shit; I'm just a duped useful idiot." My response to that is that I, nor any of my "butt-buddies", are even aware of the upper echelon allegedly of our own organization [other than Grand Lodge of our state], nor have we, or anybody from the fraternity we know, been involved in present day nefarious or conspiratorial activities that excites the imaginations of conspiracy theorists.
<br>What I know is that extrapolating from today's "butt-buddy group" nature into domination of trades and governance is a propaganda lie designed to scape-goat our worthy (but paltry) endeavors and dupe you into looking in the wrong place.
<br>Case in point: Israel, Mossad, and AIPAC are where power and control lies over US politics. Open your eyes. Outstrips even the alleged Russian influence that gave us Trump.
<br>You don't know what you're talking about. You won't research it. You won't listen to someone who does know and is an insider.
<br>Were you not the half-bot with an agenda, I'd be telling you to graciously accept defeat and move on, because you're mistaken on most Masonic fronts, and you've proven yourself incapable of defending your disinformation premise with anything researched and substantiated.
<br>Not a surprise.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 127 -->
<a name="x128"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x128" class="tiny">x129</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_129');">Grand lodge</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_129" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>and the Grand lodge houses whom?
</p>
</div><!-- section 129 -->
<a name="x130"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x130" class="tiny">x131</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_131');">Grand Lodge responsible for "the work" in the region</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_131" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, the officers of a region's Grand Lodge mirrors more or less the officers of individual lodges. It is typically more of a progressive line than the lodges themselves, meaning someone starts at the office with the least authority and moves up each year eventually to the Grand Master position, served for a year, then the next one moves in. The minimum requirements for the grand line is that you are a past worshipful master of a lodge and are well versed in the degree work (because likely you held at one point all of the offices in the lodge).
<br><br>The Grand Lodge is responsible for "the work", which are the degrees you've heard about but in reality are plays memorized by the officers (actors) and performed for the audience of one: the candidate. When I say they are "responsible for the work", I mean; they have district lecturers who visit the individual lodges to vet principle officers (on opening/closing, funeral service) and observe on occasion degree work. The lodges perform the degrees themselves (or with help from other lodges), but the delegates from the GL validate the quality and consistency of the work.
<br><br>The Grand Lodge does things on a region level, like maintaining their web site and resources for the individual lodges. If a lodge needs help with degree work or other things, they can make the request to the GL.
<br><br>Actually, the membership and voting body of a Grand Lodge are the three principle officers of all lodges in its jurisdiction (lots of people) plus the officers in the grand lodge. Once your term as Worshipful Master (or Grand Master) is over, you return back to the ranks of the lodge.
<br><br>Almost more democratic than US elections.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 131 -->
<a name="x132"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x132" class="tiny">x133</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_133');">rituals, not plays</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_133" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>they’re rituals, not plays. Sorcery mind manipulating rituals and blood oaths.
<br>I understand ones attraction to it because, some people desire emotionally to fit in somewhere. They need to identify as something. Can’t folks just be happy to be themselves, without having to live up to others standards?
</p>
</div><!-- section 133 -->
<a name="x134"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x134" class="tiny">x135</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_135');">confuse constructs from many sacred and ceremonial settings</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_135" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, I like the sound of <i>"rituals"</i> better, but they are in reality plays. You confuse constructs used in many sacred and ceremonial settings (e.g., alters, holy scriptures, candles) and assume all are the same. You conflate hollywood movies on witches etc. with masonry. For shame.
<br><br>I have not seen one drop of blood spilt -- nay, not even a nose-bleed -- during any lodges' work.
<br><br>I understand one's attraction to colorful propaganda on the internet, because some people desire to emotionally be correct in believing what they read. They need to be right, even if what they read was fiction with no basis in reality. Can't folks just be happy with the truth, without having to believe the gross errors propagated by an ancient institution's enemies, old and new?
<br><br>You have been wrong on almost everything about Masonry. Had you done any research on your own, you would know the officers of a lodge as well as of the Grand Lodge. You failed to substantiate any of your claims, and you refuse to entertain corrections. Hell, you refuse to entertain corrections even on the most mundane points. Doesn't bode well for your reputation, and would call into question everything else that you promote.
<br><br>Final point, in the US, the religious make-up of Masons has definite Christian leanings. [Later in York Rite to be Knight Templar, you have to be of the Christian faith.] Masonry in the US with its heavily Christian demographic would not have survived if its ceremonies or teachings were "sorcery mind manipulating rituals and blood oaths" or other witchcraft / pagan / devil-worshipping / Lucifier praising etc. Masonry survived because it doesn't replace religion; it just underscores the importance of spirituality in whatever manner the Mason normally would exercise such in the church of their choosing.
<br><br>Although Masonry survived in the US since the early days of the colonies, it has faced a constant onslaught of technology (broadcast radio, broadcast television, cable television, internet, Netflix) to placate and dull the masses into having no motivation to participate in any organization outside of the home, starting with church and going into civic groups (from PTA's to HOA's to city council.) Masonry is dying, but its death tail will be long with time remaining for the old fad to become new again.
<br><br>By design, you've wasted enough of my time with your disinformation and nonsense.
<br><br>You really do need to "man-up", admit your ignorance and malignant mistakes, and apologize for spreading your disinformation.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 135 -->
<a name="x136"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x136" class="tiny">x137</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_137');">blood oaths of secrecy</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_137" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>symbolically, rituals still holds a psychological element. For that, I won’t apologize. It’s sacrilegious to the ultimate creator of us all to hold such blood oaths of secrecy from the rest of humanity. It does nothing more than cause disdain from the so called outsiders that’s uncalled for. The good ol boy system will fall with the rest of the stolen Ancient Egyptian knowledge and mass mind control techniques. It served its purpose but, has evidently worn out its welcome. History will be corrected and everything will be put back in its proper place.
</p>
</div><!-- section 137 -->
<a name="x138"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x138" class="tiny">x139</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_139');">attribute to Masonry beliefs it doesn't have, actions it doesn't take, and influence & dominion it no longer has</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_139" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, One of the tells of a bot-agent is in repeating errors even when the errors are pointed out. <i>"Blood oaths of secrecy"</i> pertaining to Masonry has already been debunked, because I have not seen a single drop of blood shed in any ritual or ceremony. As already explained by the larger proportion of US Masons having a Christian background [and continued, active church-going, God-fearing participation], any thing "sacrilegious" -- were it involved and were it not you trying to tar Free-Masonry with pagan witchcraft in agent disinformation -- has been sanitized from the institution.
<br><br>I wouldn't go as far as to say that Masonry wore out its welcome. No, those practicing true mass mind control techniques (can you say -- Hollywood, movies, television, Netflix?) built their own new addictive paradigms that made the old diversions from our life of drudgery (like church dances, participation is civic groups) much too tame and onerous.
<br><br>Free-Masonry may be its own form of Good Ole Boy network, but the whims and mores of society reach into it and changes it era to era. I'm for #MeToo, equal rights, equal pay, and men doing dishes and diapers.
<br><br>Regarding what secret knowledge it may hide? None. What it teaches through its symbolism are patterns and keys that one can keep in mind when exploring God and God's creation. They themselves aren't the answer, but are useful in our efforts at obtaining the answers from our regular religious and spiritual sources, and beyond.
<br><br>I have to say that my spiritual views have shifted since become a Mason. It wasn't anything that Masonry taught by itself. It was association with other good men and discussions into our journeys towards spiritual enlightenment; that it was cool for me to continue my study & my path although it never came into discussion the actual theme of the merits of my personal spiritual endeavors. It was more of a revelation.
<br><br>From my individual study which is completely outside anything ever presented in lodge, ironically, I have come to understand and appreciate more things pagan, more about humankind's creation, more about our history, more about our DNA, more about re-incarnation, more about chakras, more about our blood, more about Ego and the Soul. The credit I give to Masonry is in helping me keep my mind open, and thoughts attuned to spirituality beyond this world.
<br><br>I believe in the Prime Creator (God) -- a god of Truth, of Love. I also believe now that in-between that God and us were Creator Gods, alien races that came together with superior DNA manipulation skills to create the grand experiment that is Earth and humans upon this earth. Our DNA is that of many other alien species, including one that was native to this planet before humans: the reptilians. Greek Myths, Lumaria, Atlantis, and folklore into dragons, giants, etc. are coming together as truths particularly from the narrow perspective of those observing and passing on the stories.
<br><br>I consider myself a child of the light.
<br><br>To the point of our discussion, you are in gross ignorance about Masonry. You attribute to Masonry beliefs it doesn't have and actions it doesn't take and influence & dominion it no longer has, if it really had it. My Uncle from Idaho used to say, "about the only choices a good man had in the old West was Mormonism or Masonry." If Masonry didn't exist, something would have been created similar to it to balance the community influences of other forces, like the church. Masonry was a good alternative and is non-denominational. So yes, in some places, in some eras, Masonry was a driving force of the community. But what makes Masonry successful on the local level, doesn't translated to state, federal, or global levels. Indeed, this is why influence & dominance has shifted to other groups: Bilderberg, CFR, AIPAC, the family...
<br><br>You have been told the truth, tho you believed it not. That does not make it untrue. That just makes your efforts at understanding incomplete.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 139 -->
<a name="x140"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x140" class="tiny">x141</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_141');">much darker elements which hover over that</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_141" style="display: block;">
<p>Lisa Love Schuble
<br>I believe that what you’ve been led to believe is true. So be it. It’s not the average Masonic person I’m addressing. There are much darker elements which hover over that are not upfront and understood prior to entry.
</p>
</div><!-- section 141 -->
<a name="x142"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x142" class="tiny">x143</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_143');">had I run across that, I would have changed my affiliations</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_143" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, I believe what you've been led to believe is true. Alas, what substantiates your beliefs isn't even a fraction of the first-hand experiences over decades that substantiate my beliefs that are completely orthogonal to yours.
<br><br>You say only from hearsay (and with much conflation with pagan / witch ceremonies taken directly from the age-old recycled propaganda aimed against our fraternity for literally centuries),
</p>
<blockquote><p>"much darker elements hover over that are not upfront and understood prior to entry."</p></blockquote>
<p>[Joke] When I wasn't hoodwinked [/Joke] I kept a sharp eye out for exactly such, and had I run across it, I would have changed my affiliations. Both the Scottish Rite and York Rite degrees have been conferred upon me, although I have since demitted from both organizations, because they were either inconvenient to regularly participate or (truthfully) too lame with 6 or less active members.
<br><br>And if the average Masonic person [by in large the vast, overwhelming majority] also isn't aware of it despite decades of conspiratorial warnings discovered both prior to and after affiliation with fraternity and easily looked up today on the internet and despite years of their own participation, then YOU have to entertain the very real possibility that these elements are not a part of Masonry, and more importantly, that YOU have been duped and are deliberately spreading disinformation. Please stop.
<br><br>Your continued denials without even a hint of waiver despite the many "Truths" and "secrets" revealed, does not bode well for your reputation. Either you're an agent / bot who is paid to promote an agenda so Truth doesn't matter, or your very strong and powerful cognitive dissonance isn't limited to this topic, but lots of topics [as in, you're probably a Trump supporter and a 9/11 Coincidence Theorist.]
<br><br>Grow up! Be more discerning!
<br><br>And if perchance over the centuries, our organization has attracted -- out of their initial ignorance, or out of wishful thinking that disinformation inspired -- a brother or two with hidden passions for the dark arts, they readily discover how they were duped and that Masonry doesn't provide an outlet for such. What they go on to do (in dark directions) outside the confines of lodge, has no more to do with Masonry or lodge work than it does with established church services & religions to which they might also belong.
<br><br>*Ding* *ding* *ding*
<br><br>This is how the vast overwhelming majority of average Masons remains completely ignorant over decades of participation, because they are never involved, never chance upon such when going to the Masonic Temple, and never run across anything in Masonry that even shoe-horns an opportunity for such.
<br><br>If what substantiates your misguided beliefs in Masonry is older than half a century, if you can't pin-point anything from this century substantiating your claim, (if it brings up the Illuminati,) if every Mason you run across -- whose first lessons in Masonry are to be good and true -- conveys a message about Masonry (even venturing into truthful descriptions of how lame it can be) opposite those "devil-worshiping, dark arts" propaganda aimed at undermining and scape-goating the institution, THEN you are encourage to be discerning about where truth really lies.
<br><br>Anything built upon lies is destined to be undermined and destroyed eventually by those same lies. Masonry would not be as old as it is if it was built on lies, if a huge component of it was "an upper unknown echelon with dark leanings" and duping the "lower pee-on's."
<br><br>But don't take what I say at face value. Validate it. Start searching on local Masonic lodges' and Grand Lodges' websites. Explore them in detail, and discover what Masons say about themselves. Start up a correspondence with secretaries of those lodges.
<br><br>Meanwhile, stop being such a duped useful idiot tool for the dark arts in your dissemination of known scape-goating propaganda.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 143 -->
<a name="x144"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x144" class="tiny">x145</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_145');">you’re becoming a nuisance troll</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_145" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>go on now. You’ve started your position and I’m ok with that. At this point though, you’re becoming a nuisance troll. If you need that leg up to perform and be your best among others, we’ll go for it. It only leads to psychological arrogance, assumed importance, the idea your more intelligent— oh man the list goes on. Take that 18 century mindset and bring it up to date. This Gangster racketeering is going down. ??
</p>
</div><!-- section 145 -->
<a name="x146"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x146" class="tiny">x147</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_147');">take that 18 century mindset and bring it up to date</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_147" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, the advice to <i>"take that 18 century mindset and bring it up to date"</i> has been a constant undertaking in the intervening years in the fraternity. Today's Masonic Lodge isn't the lodge of yore; case in point, we aren't nearly as misogynistic.
<br><br>You should take your own advice, and listen to and heed first-hand accounts about 21st century Free-Masonry. [It is in the long-tail of its death, but that doesn't mean it is without value.]
<br><br>The failing is triply yours: (1) you're the one stuck with an 18 century mindset (2) about an institution whose mores and customs you are COMPLETELY misinformed of and ignorant of and won't research, and (3) you are in denial about being so grossly wrong.
<br><br>Point the fingers back at your own "psychological arrogance, assumed importance, the idea your more intelligent— oh man the list goes on."
<br><br>Admit it. You are in error on this topic by a gross margin owing to your ignorance and inability to research, and are too stuck up to even entertain the possibility of your fallibility on this topic, exposing your fallibility EVERYWHERE. Your word isn't to be trusted.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 147 -->
<a name="x148"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x148" class="tiny">x149</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_149');">it doesn’t matter</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-11</p>
<div id="sect_149" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>it doesn’t matter. All will be exposed
</p>
</div><!-- section 149 -->
<a name="x150"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x150" class="tiny">x151</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_151');">summary loses the Masonic connection</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-19</p>
<div id="sect_151" style="display: block;">
<p>Along the path through history, the summary loses the Masonic connection, because it no longer exists. Power and influence long-ago left the institution for other playgrounds: CFR, Bilderberg, etc.
<br><a href="https://vimeo.com/43013696">https://vimeo.com/43013696</a>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 151 -->
<a name="x152"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x152" class="tiny">x153</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_153');">Not all masons are bad</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-19</p>
<div id="sect_153" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I know you’re having a difficult time assimilating all this. You’ll eventually see what all the hype is about. Not all masons are bad. So don’t think that’s what’s happening here.
</p>
</div><!-- section 153 -->
<a name="x154"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x154" class="tiny">x155</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_155');">I have no problem assimilating the information; you do</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-19</p>
<div id="sect_155" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, I have no problem assimilating the information; you do. It is given right there in black-and-white in the copied posting. Identify in the timeline the last time the Masonic organization is mentioned and proven to be involved in some brainstorming or an actual "nefarious deed."
<br>
<br>1828 – "Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who finances the Illuminati, expresses his utter contempt for national governments which attempt to regulate International Bankers such as him." Note that it doesn't say WHEN he financed the illuminati, which was indeed an unsanctioned off-shoot of German Masonic Lodges and were shutdown and expelled that century.
<br>
<br>1870 – In a letter to Italian revolutionary leader Giuseppe Mazzini, Albert Pike – Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry – announces the establishment of a secret society within a secret society: “We must create a super rite, which will remain unknown, to which we will call those Masons of high degree of whom we shall select. With regard to our brothers in Masonry, these men must be pledges to the strictest secrecy. Through this supreme rite, we will govern all Freemasonry which will become the one international center, the more powerful because its direction will be unknown.”
<br>
<br>Did that ever happen, this supreme rite through which all Freemasonry is governed which will become one international center? No. Just because Albert Pike wrote of a need to create something in a letter that was preserved, doesn't mean it actually happened in the form he outlined.
<br>
<br>THERE IS NO "SUPER GRAND LODGE" presiding over the individual Grand Lodges that preside over local Blue Lodges in their regions in the USA. There is no "SUPER DUPER INTERNATIONAL GRAND LODGE" presiding over the (non-existent) "super grand lodges" in countries all over. Didn't happen. And as far as that goes, neither Scottish Rite (that Albert Pike was writing about) nor York Rite have any shit-rolls-down-hill power over Grand Lodges.
<br>
<br>From this history you posted, where does it say CRF were Masons? Or Bilderberg? Etc. It doesn't. 1889 from Albert Pike is the last Masonic reference given, one hundred and thirty years ago.
<br>
<br>As a deep insider to the fraternity (mostly Blue Lodge), I state again that the rich took their desires and money and invested it elsewhere to get their governance and control. If you would read and understand both the history that you posted and my first-person experiences within the fraternity, you would gleam that power and influence long ago left the Masonic fraternity.
<br>
<br>Great that you're willing to admit "Not all masons are bad." You could even go out on a limb and say "the vast majority of masons are not bad." Bad ones don't last in the fraternity, (a) because it isn't the proper outlet for the expression of badness, and (b) masonic charges can be brought against a bad brother that can get him expelled whether his actions were against the fraternity, its membership, or the community in general.
<br>
<br>Where this leaves us is that you have been maligning the Masonic Institution with centuries old alleged misdeeds. When given the opportunity to find misdeeds from the last 50 years or this present century, you have come up short.
<br>
<br>You are wrong, and owe me (and us) a public apology for your misguided and false accusations. Please stop your disinformation spreading. (Masonry over the past century has had nothing to do with NWO.)
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 155 -->
<a name="x156"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x156" class="tiny">x157</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_157');">secrecy is repugnant</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-19</p>
<div id="sect_157" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>regardless "secrecy is repugnant" JFK
</p>
</div><!-- section 157 -->
<a name="x158"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x158" class="tiny">x159</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_159');">making the argument for full consumer transparency, where everything about you is available to anyone and any corporation</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-19</p>
<div id="sect_159" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, tell that to capitalism. They're the ones who keep human resources files secret. Health records, where do those fit in with your <i>"secrecy is repugnant"</i>?
<br><br>There is a place for secrecy even in the home, because I don't need to know all the times my wife is thinking <i>"fuck you, asshole."</i>
<br><br>You are essentially making the argument for full consumer transparency, where everything about you is available to anyone and any corporation wanting to capitalize on it.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 159 -->
<a name="x160"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x160" class="tiny">x161</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_161');">be apart of something bigger than themselves</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-19</p>
<div id="sect_161" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I do realize that many men feel the need to be apart of something bigger than themselves so they tend to gather in gangs. If it makes you more of a man then I say stay in your group if you think that defines who you are or will become. Otherwise step out on faith, walk this earth on your very own two feet among the rest and place all men on a level playing field.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 161 -->
<a name="x162"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x162" class="tiny">x163</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_163');">your defense doesn’t place any value on your intentions</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-19</p>
<div id="sect_163" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>you defending such a thing doesn’t place any value on your own intentions, but of other to boost you up.
</p>
</div><!-- section 163 -->
<a name="x164"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x164" class="tiny">x165</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_165');">women gather in gangs</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-19</p>
<div id="sect_165" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lisa Love Schuble, don't be acting all high and mighty that women don't also <i>"gather in gangs."</i> They might not label it such or have formal hierarchies, but they still gather and talk and wield power. [Respect, I give.]
<br><br>Your maligning of an institution that you have no first-hand experience in and aren't willing to research [e.g., go out and meet some real masons because you know where/when they meet, how to get to their websites, exchange emails, etc.] and aren't willing to objectively hear the other side from a deep insider: all this "doesn't place value on your own intentions, but of other: to boost you up."
<br><br>You've been duped by the centuries old propaganda of our enemies, and aren't willing to consider the facts that change things and that evolution happened making obsolete old and false impressions.
<br><br>I'm a rarity in Masonry with regards to my occasional public utterances for the Institution on social media, because I was first a religious fanatic -- fanatical about Truth. [Errors are my trigger.] My religious upbringing taught me that error had to be addressed by Truth, because that is the only way for error to lose its power of inflicting continued pain and suffering.
<br><br>Allow me to give away a Masonic secret (that you could find anyway if you searched the internet enough.) Near the conclusion of the centuries old Entered Apprentice degree given to all Masons, the new brother is charged among other things ~not~ to "suffer their zeal for the institution to lead them into argument with those who, through ignorance, may ridicule it."
<br><br>Ooops, I'm disobeying my EA charge in having this discussion with you. It's okay, because masonry isn't meant to conflict with any of the duties I owe to my God, my country, my family, or myself. I was religiously obligated to Truth, expressing truth, and dispelling error well before I became a Mason.
<br><br>This charge explains why, for centuries, Masons didn't get into public (or op ed) confrontations when the whack-oh's were libeling and slandering Masonry. [An individual Mason's upright and proper behavior and fair & square dealings in the community with all would distinguished them as good and worthy of association.]
<br><br>Consider that charge on new members a modified version of "turn the other cheek" and not quite to this century's version "do not feed the trolls".
<br><br>When communication by print and letter were slow and heated conversation in bars only heard by those present and soon forgotten, this is a valid and totally cool strategy, because addressing an error first gives the error power and substance as being possibly valid before Truth takes it back. If you don't feed the error, it dies.
<br><br>In the age of mass emailing, websites, and social media, the tactic of not feeding the trolls backfires, because viral sharing of propaganda simply re-enforce the error and make it a public myth, if nothing is brought forth with Truth that corrects the record.
<br><br>What would it taken to convince you, lady?
<br><br>Cognitive dissonance runs strong with you. What other areas are you also wrong about, yet are too proud to admit that you've been duped?
<br><br>++++ Boring personal account of evolving from a duped state with Truth
<br><br>I studied 9/11 from the get-go, but didn't become a vocal supporter of 9/11 Truth until a few years later, after observing "good faith efforts" to officially explain anomalies were not "good" and did not explain them properly.
<br><br>Be that as it may, I admit to having been duped along the way by a couple of 9/11 conspiracy theories on the extreme side and championing them quite well (as you can imagine.)
<br><br>But I wasn't married to them and kept my mind open to new information and analysis that might counter my beliefs, because Truth is my motivator, not what might have duped me. When the foundation of my belief is found to be wrong, I'm not too proud to change my beliefs accordingly.
<br><br>Unfortunately, 9/11 is a realm where everything has some disinformation, mostly because we can't even rely on the voracity and accuracy of data collection and reports supposedly giving us "the raw data." Also, 9/11 Truth Movement was infiltrated from the get-go to steer us away. Poisoning the well was common. Control the message and control the narrative are a military objective.
<br><br>"No planes at WTC" (aka, CGI animation) was one disinformation premise that had me thoroughly duped. September Clues was a very slick effort; our tax dollars at work. Physics and more research helped me understand the deceptions in the framing of the disinformation premise that completely undermines it.
<br><br>To be true to myself, I had to publicly apologize and recant my prior position in the forums in which I participated (and my blog). Embarrassing. But sincere; based on Truth.
<br><br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/05/i-concede-point-and-will-no-longer-be.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/05/i-concede-point-and-will-no-longer-be.html</a>
<br><br>[Rabbit-hole warning] Because it is such a redundant bore even for me, I most enthusiastically recommend ~not~ exploring my blog from A-Z. Spot check the bat-shit crazy if you're curious.
<br><br>(1) Legacy. (2) Sincere evolution in thought. (3) Rational persistence.
<br><br>The above attributes of my blogging effort set my internet persona into a different internet category apart from the agents, trolls, bots, paid-to-post, jokers.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 165 -->
<a name="x166"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x166" class="tiny">x167</a>
Lisa Love Schuble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_167');">pretending to be something they aren’t; I know this.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-19</p>
<div id="sect_167" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>believe me I don’t believe women are any different in that manner. People are always trying to impress others by pretending to be something they aren’t. I know this.
</p>
</div><!-- section 167 -->
<!-- ***** 20200511_MCB_FB_LoveSchnable_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_5 -->
<a name="p6"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_6');">Part 6: Masonry Discussions with Nicholos George, Shaune Silva, David Kramer, Craig Lacheney, Kristina Kris, Elizabeth Brown, Dwan Elbon, Jonny Toop, Jasper Desai</a></h2>
<div id="part_6" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** LucifarianMasonry.htm -->
<a name="x168"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x168" class="tiny">x169</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_169');">Masonic quotes and fake quotes out of context </a></b></p>
<p>2020-09-11</p>
<div id="sect_169" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="https://www.rockymountainmason.com/post/an-inquiry-into-the-accusations-of-luciferianism-which-confront-the-fraternity-of-freemasons">https://www.rockymountainmason.com/post/an-inquiry-into-the-accusations-of-luciferianism-which-confront-the-fraternity-of-freemasons</a>
<p>Quotes not necessarily from Pike, borrowed from others, and
</p>
<blockquote><p>“The masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine […] Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay also is God […] and the true and philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of light and God of good, is struggling against Adonay, the God of darkness and evil.”
<br>Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World on July 14, 1889 – Albert Pike.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>“Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it.”
<br>Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, p. 321, 19th Degree of Grand Pontiff.</p></blockquote>
<p>--- Fake letter from Tahil</p>
<blockquote><p>We must create a super rite, which will remain unknown, to which we will call those Masons of high degree (30th and above), whom we shall select. With regards to our brothers in Masonry, these men must be pledged to the strictest secrecy. Through this supreme rite, we will govern all Freemasonry which will become the one international center, the more powerful, because its direction will be unknown.
<br>Albert Pike, Letter to the Head of the Order of the Illuminati, Guiseppe Mazzini (January 22, 1870).</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>“Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it. […] The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason.”
<br>Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, p. 321, 19th Degree of Grand Pontiff.</blockquote>
</p>
</div><!-- section 169 -->
<!-- ***** LucifarianMasonry.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_mason_01.htm -->
<a name="x170"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x170" class="tiny">x171</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_171');">I was a 32nd degree Mason as well</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_171" style="display: block;">
<p>Technically, I was a 32nd degree Mason as well, until I dimitted from the Scottish Rite because my dues weren't doing me much. If you count the York Rite degrees that were also conferred on me, then maybe the ignorant would say I was at that point a "forty-something-th degree Mason", except that for similar reasons I dimitted from there as well. As far as the Blue Lodges (the first three degrees) go, I've been Worshipful Master on all three degrees and bucket-list performed all roles except two lectures.
<br><br>Also, let it be known that I've been open-minded (and open to consider conspiracies) my whole life and began my pursuit of Masonry in earnest after 9/11 in part because I wanted to validate or not the conspiracies. [Some were validated, most were not, which I suspected from having had parents and many relatives at various points in their lives being involved in local Masonic groups, and my own tenure in DeMolay.]
<br><br>From the depths of my insider status, I say "let it be a red-flag into the voracity of the information if 'free-masonry' is mentioned as a contributor to anything nefarious today."
<br><br>To the extent that the fraternity every had far-reaching influencing power on communities and local government, it left the institution a couple decades or more before the end of the last century. Lodges can barely host pot-luck suppers without assistance from better-halves. Taking over the world? Not gonna happen, which makes Masonry a convenient scape-goat to those organizations who really do have the power and influence -- CFR, Bilderberg, Davos, anything Gates related, the Family, etc.
<br><br>I don't know when they came about in the rituals or SOP, but at least three insertions have served to undermine free-masonry autonomy and subjugated them to the edicts of the government under which they reside. For example, murder & treason are exempted from Masonic secrets that one brother may be asked to keep for another brother [when expressed and opted-in as such.] The pledge of allegiance to the US flag at meetings is another example.
<br><br>Ignoring this subversion to government control, the fact that power and influence long ago left the institution is the reason why YOU and other dear readers could with clear conscience and no-conflicts-of-interest petition to join a lodge, become an active member, and have this affiliation bless you.
<br><br>In conclusion, if you see "free-masonry" added to a meme or conspiracy to supposedly give it gravitas into the bad, let that be a warning that some or all of the meme or conspiracy is disinformation. Be wary.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 171 -->
<a name="x172"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x172" class="tiny">x173</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_173');">Freemasonry was just another attempt to control the Jesuits' emerging opposition movements</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_173" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Freemasonry was just another attempt to control the Jesuits' emerging opposition movements, and double their sphere of influence. It may not have worked out well in modern days, but the host organization (Jesuits) that created freemasonry flourishes nonetheless.
<br>We could also say that the Protestant church doesn't have much influence anymore. At least not as much as it did when America was founded, but we know that the society of Jesus is still very strong. The Jesuits immediately invested in the growth of Protestantism as a methodical growth and power strategy. Thru their stated methodology the Jesuits gave their critics the illusion of choice within the same exact spiritual-brainwashing -Pauline indoctrination, while doubling their sphere of influence over the world. Protestantism is to Catholicism what Freemasonry is to masonry. They were created by the same subversive group and for the same subversive reasons.
<br>Most of this was discovered through the advent of Jesuit graduate Adam Wieshaupt. This Jesuit product/graduate was the first to exemplify the benefits of Communism 60 years before Karl Marx remarketed the idea to a more conditioned audience. Marx was also a product of the society of Jesus. They were also both Freemasons. Black Lives Matter is a product of the society of Jesus/CCP, and this can easily be found in the admitted Marxist origins of its female founder.
<br>The fact that we don't have more old people that see these patterns and tell the young people about it is a mystery in itself that needs to be investigated -in my mind. Surely all the men in our communities over 50 years old aren't completely unaware of these patterns, this playbook, that just keeps playing itself out over and over again. I would venture to say that biological weapons have kept us acting like children that don't pick up on these patterns
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 173 -->
<a name="x174"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x174" class="tiny">x175</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_175');">seen my share of public myths foisted on us while we ran on our little hamster-wheels of careers to pay the bills</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_175" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, I don't have the expertise to substantiate or dispute your historical connections. If that is your thing, Masonry has "Research Lodges" to facilitate such activities after you petitioned and joined a normal lodge.
<br><br>However, jumping from Wieshaupt, from more than two centuries ago [and whose efforts were "ex-communicated" from Masonry and denounced], to Marx and then to BLM? It looks like stretching and grasping at straws to me, if not a smear on BLM as well.
<br><br>Given that I'm older than 50 years old, I've seen my share of public myths foisted on us while we ran on our little hamster-wheels of careers to pay the bills that included lots of television/media programming to distract from what the newspapers are saying -- which today isn't much. People of my generation and older are the last audience for printed newspapers, but really only a fraction of that audience, because most can't be bothered once they've accumulated weeks of papers still in their bags unread until recycle day comes. They prefer having their emotions tweaked by flashy media and their opinions controlled into the acceptable range of controlled and dissident narrative.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 175 -->
<a name="x176"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x176" class="tiny">x177</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_177');">all excommunicated when it was politically advantageous</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_177" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>The Jesuits, the Freemasons, and the Knights of Malta were all excommunicated when it was politically advantageous for the geopolitical engineering designs pf the oldest hierarchical terrorist organization on the planet âœï¸ðŸ™ðŸª.
<br><a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=BLM%20founder,%20trained%20marxist&ia=web">https://duckduckgo.com/?q=BLM%20founder,%20trained%20marxist&ia=web</a>
<br>BLM founder, trained marxist at DuckDuckGo
<br>DUCKDUCKGO.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 177 -->
<a name="x178"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x178" class="tiny">x179</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_179');">The kkk-krazy part of 'merikkka is that the mass psychosis has the public thinking that the political pendulum should never swing left</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_179" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, at some point or other, you can say that a Jesuit influenced this or that, even if it is a priest giving an ice cream cone to a child. The Jesuits are more connected with the Catholic church, and the Catholic church went through centuries of antagonism against the Free Masons, because the lodges were outside of their control. It wasn't until this century when the Catholic church apologized and permitted its members to become Masons. [Masons have accepted Catholics into their fraternity but it was Catholic brother's decision to go against his church's edicts.] It seems to me that the Knights of St. John's is a wannabe Masonic lodge equivalent for Catholics (and probably others).
<br><br>In other words, you seem to be bringing together big concepts and things and equating them as one from centuries of separation, overlap, and integration.
<br><br>Today, the Free Masons (1) are not run by Jesuits and (2) have no influence on the world except themselves, their families, and their communities where they engage in civic activities. At their core, they make "good men better" which benefits by extension all that the brothers engage in outside of lodge.
<br><br>Stated another way, there is certainly a stoic and in cases misguided mindset of the men who were Masons in centuries past that underwent changes with each generation, just like the mindset of those attending various denomination Christian churches changed with the mores and customs of changing times. Masonic lodges are a product of their time, only with bragging rights about thin threads that link us to brothers of others time and traditions. Bragging rights is very different from a "continued belief or purpose or agenda" that spans generations not even of the same family, and certainly not a nefarious one. Masonic teachings aren't in conflict with religious orthodoxy, so if there were a nefarious Masonic agenda, it would have been exposed and rooted out by those still rooted with religious morals and in the ranks.
<br><br>FTR, it doesn't bother me in the least that the BLM founder might have been a trained Marxist. So, what?
<br><br>And why do you keep trying to shine a negative light on BLM? Aside from their right to protest and their efforts to be largely peaceful -- except for agent saboteurs, infiltrators and just wannabe low-intelligent pot-stirrers --, the complaints of BLM were justified, and more so with each and every government over-reaction and clamp-down.
<br><br>I'm an old white man who benefited from the "white" and "male" status over the years without noticing the white privilege in my business dealings (education, employment, banking, loans, mortgages), but it was there and blessed my activities, maybe not to the extent achieved by others [because I'm short and bald, too, so had minor discrimination there for top slots.]
<br><br>The kkk-krazy part of 'merikkka is that the mass psychosis has the public thinking that the political pendulum should never swing left or that democratic socialism isn't truly what this country needs in a massive way, and anything else (Democrat or Republican) is just voting against our best interests.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 179 -->
<a name="x180"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x180" class="tiny">x181</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_181');">you seem to have not read their oath of induction</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_181" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>When you say that the Jesuits only work within the Catholic half of the dichotomy of deceit, you seem to have not read their oath of induction.
<br><br>You are correct that the Masons and orthodoxy of the three most politically controlling religions are not in conflict. That's why our presidents swear in on a Masonic Bible.
<br><br>Modern Judaism, as recreated by the early Roman church after the end of the Messianic rebellion, Is merely a mutated clone of the original messianic Judaism, but with the testicles removed by the Roman victors/Vicar.
<br><br>This castration of rebellious messianic Judaism by Rome is why the Flavian Caesars snuck Yohanan Bin Zakkai out of a burning genocide in Judea, in a casket. The adversarial rewrite of Judaism by Yohanan was the resulting Roman psychological vaccine against Judaism's original rebellious teaching. Once perfected this psychological prophylactic spell of tax farming deception was despotically spread by Rome to the indigenous culture's Rome wanted to overthrow with its monetary and taxation systems of enslavement.
<br><br>"Hesus Krishna" was the satanic (adversarial) inversion of the original Messiah, "Judas the Nazarene", and the 3 year old church that Judas left to his brother "James The Just" for the next 30 years before Paul assassinated James by stoning in 62CE.
<br><br>The Mason's root story of Hiram Abiff Is deeply married to the roots of both the modern Jewish/Zionist and Hesus Krishna deceptions.
<br><br>The church of Christ got cocky after successful results from the Council of Nicaea's marriage of the Druidic carpenter god, "Hesus", with the Krishna "Christ" consciousness teachings brought to the Caesars by their traveling sage(s), like Apollonius of Tyana.
<br><br>In the 600's & 700s Rome created the prophet Muhammad and married him to the Catholic nun Khadijah to control the children of Ishmael. Special thanks to The now assassinated Jesuit whistleblower priest "Alberto Rivera" for bringing us this information and much more before succumbing to the 3rd attempt on his life.
<br><br>All of the religions that you speak of and the builders known as the Masons are slave masters that use these psychological prophylactic vaccines to control the populations that they tax farm. The society of Jesus is just the modern evolution of the oldest hierarchical terrorist organization on the planet.
<br><br>The mission statement of the Society of Jesus is infiltrating, and often even creating their own opposition control groups. So saying that they don't operate in Protestantism shows that you have some research to do. Freemasonry was merely a temporary project for the Jesuits, as is Frankism, Communism, the Knights of the Golden Circle, the KKK, BLM, CFR, CIA, KGB, MI6, Mossad and Zionism
<br><br>The oldest hierarchical terrorist organization on the planet is not ashamed to create these organizations as quickly as they can become useful in their geopolitical engineering designs, anymore than the Federal Reserve is afraid to print money or create revolutionary coups to keep itself in power. Let us make no mistake that the Federal Reserve and the oldest hierarchical terrorist organization on the planet are one in the same. The FED created the Russian and Chinese beta test of Communism (CCP) that is being played out in the theater that we see on television today.
<br><br>Most Americans can't understand this because they've been purposely miseducated by Jesuit universities that were set up/charitably donated to us by "the Congregationalists" to control the curriculum of the US population. The Congregationalists were laundering opium cartel money from gentleman like the "William Russell Trust Association" when they set up the 9 Jesuit universities that still today control the curriculum of our children's textbooks. This is why we still don't know today that US Congress determined the Holy Roman Empire conspired to start our civil war and assassinated President Lincoln afterward. US Congress was very clear that that was the case and that's why official diplomatic ties were cut off to the holy Roman empire for 117 years starting in 1867. Apparently that didn't make it into our textbooks for a reason that's just OK with people that also justify freemasonry.
<br><br><a href="https://reformation.org/jesuit-oath.html">https://reformation.org/jesuit-oath.html</a>
<br><br>Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction
<br><br>REFORMATION.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 181 -->
<a name="x182"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x182" class="tiny">x183</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_183');">old organizations in the present are not indefinitely defined by the efforts of early members</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_183" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, I commend you on your reasoned thought and research. The point being missed is that old organizations in the present are not indefinitely defined by the efforts of early members from generations and eras past. If that were the case, many old Christian churches (excluding Quakers) would be defined still today by their ancient positions on slavery and "manifest destiny" native American genocide that were issues of their time and affected all organizations of society, even Masonic lodges.
<br><br>My real purpose in engaging you is to call your attention to on-going disinformation and deceit that tries to scare the public about various groups based on -- it turns out -- fabricated details that were since recanted as a joke by the claimants yet purposely are recycled by the enemies of Free Masonry (for many years, the Catholic church) and by those needing a convenient trope and scapegoat to mask their own nefarious deeds.
<br><br>Any meme or web site that name-drops Free Masonry and tries to dig up writings from an 1865 book as examples of ongoing nefarious activities today (2022) is most probably ignorant if not purposeful disinformation.
<br><br>To my knowledge, Jeffry Epstein, Bill Gates, Dr. Fauci, et al are not Masons [if they were, the Masons would be bragging about them to stroke our own egos], and Clinton's teenage years involved with DeMolay [as was I] is the closest he ever came to becoming a Mason.
<br><br>Not to burst any bubbles, affiliation with Masonry won't get you access to any of the levels of power, let alone the top, but it won't hurt you either.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 183 -->
<a name="x184"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x184" class="tiny">x185</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_185');">willfully practices in secret is working in the dark</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_185" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Any secular society that willfully practices in secret is working in the dark, nefariously, against its fellow man. Men that practice righteousness practice in the light and have no secrets. The Masons are the builders of society. They treat us like a deer or chicken farm. Bill Gates is the product of psychological abuse by his father who is also a eugenicist. It did not matter if he was a mason or not. I will admit the game has changed. Being a mason isn't as important today as it was when Jim Morrison's father started the Vietnam war. Jim probably didn't even have to participate in masonry as long as he served his coadjuvant purpose for the Tavistock institute's operations in LA, Like the Laurel Canyon project.
<br><a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=The%20laurel%20canyon%20Project,%20Tavistock%20institute&ia=web">https://duckduckgo.com/?q=The%20laurel%20canyon%20Project,%20Tavistock%20institute&ia=web</a>
<br>The laurel canyon Project, Tavistock institute at DuckDuckGo
<br>DUCKDUCKGO.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 185 -->
<a name="x186"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x186" class="tiny">x187</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_187');">do something great with this meat-suit</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_187" style="display: block;">
<p>We can either keep drinking the Kool-Aid or we can do something great with this meat-suit while our curious and well-intentioned souls are still intertwined within it.
</p>
</div><!-- section 187 -->
<a name="x188"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x188" class="tiny">x189</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_189');">hard pressed to find any organization on the planet that didn't have secrets</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_189" style="display: block;">
<p>Masonry isn't practiced in the dark, isn't nefarious, and isn't against its fellow man. It would not have survived beyond its infancy were it otherwise (on the latter two items at least). Its temples are well marked with entrances visible to the public for all to note who enters and exits such, and its officers are designated both on their lodge websites and trestle boards.
<br><br>And I thought that my super powers were being naive and trusting! Your comment about "having no secrets" trumps me by several orders of magnitude in naivity: congratulations.
<br><br>The Masonic lodges don't have a lot secrets. Any more, if you know what you are looking for, you'll find their teachings exposed all over the internet, albeit many times buried in the disinformation of another agenda. Masons want to keep their ceremonies more to themselves, because misuse and misinterpretation by others would be more rampant than it is and would remove its specialness. To the degree that individual masons have or maintain secrets with one another, most are of the nature: "Listen to this funny story of me being an idiot, but don't tell my wife."
<br><br>I'd venture to say that Mormons (as one example) have more secrets than Masons; only Mormons can attend services in their temples. You would be hard pressed to find any organization on the planet that didn't have secrets, and when the discussion bends towards the government, the military, corporations or banking, the secrets are much worse.
<br><br>I made the comment that I now recant: "To my knowledge, Jeffry Epstein, Bill Gates, Dr. Fauci, et al are not Masons [if they were, the Masons would be bragging about them to stroke our own egos]." No, Masons would not be bragging about these men's affiliation, because (a) they don't need Masonry, (b) they would get no benefit out of Masonic affiliation, (c) the potential exists for them not being voted in or for them to drop by the wayside before making it to a Master Mason, and (d) admission into the order doesn't guarantee that misdeeds outside of lodge couldn't get them kicked out later. In my head, I was thinking that any (recent) president or high ranking government official or astronaut or football star would be cause for Masonic bragging. Epstein, Gates, and Fauci with their records were bad examples. Sorry.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 189 -->
<a name="x190"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x190" class="tiny">x191</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_191');">self-proclaimed secret societies</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_191" style="display: block;">
<p>Masonry and freemasonry are self-proclaimed secret societies, and do not share their proprietary information gained from each degree of graduation freely with the public.
<br><br>Just because most people know where the local masonic lodge is in their old town doesn't mean the inner workings and distribution of occulted knowledge is open to the public.
<br><br>Masonry transmuted into the many thousands of different secular misunderstandings that were/are encompassed under the Masonic umbrella of religions. You make a great point about Mormons and Mormonism, but you forget that its founder sprang forth from masonry. Just like the banking Templars, and Chase bank which renders the Mormon church a blank checkbook at the beginning of every fiscal year to handle all of its expenses.
<br><br>The Masons rule from the bank, the bench, and the institutions that are dependent on the Bible (Muslim, Christianity, and modern fake Judaism). These are the three components that build western society today. This is why the bank subsidizes the church and uses the church to launder its international drug cartel revenues.
<br><br>These illegal pharmaceutical/opium cartel revenues are put into educational institutions donated by the church so that these key institutions can be controlled by the oldest hierarchical terrorist organization on the planet. If you didn't know any of this then just study the origins of "Elihu Yale", the "William Russell Trust", and the Congregationalists who set up the nine universities that still control our educational system today.
<br><br>In Jim Morrison's time (The Doors) you could not even dream of being at the level that his father was at as a Navy Admiral who could start wars like the Vietnam war, unless you were a master mason. Jim's dad actually did start the Vietnam war BTW if you didn't know that. The necessity of becoming a master mason was also true for the highest clearance levels of military intelligence at that time at least.
<br><br>According to the author of "Behold a Pale Horse", who was military intel, once you get to a certain level of military clearance they are/were all Master Mason's. That author was William "Bill" Cooper. He was assassinated by undercover police on his own property for disclosing this and much much more information. He announced on his radio show what was going to happen with the twin tower attacks before they happened, and told us who it would be blamed on, and who was really guilty. Cooper was assassinated just a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks. He was saying "I told you so" on his radio show in provocation. A true badass. He would've agreed with me and not you in this debate, and I think you are well aware of that.
<br><br>But perhaps you're right. Maybe it's gone the way of church with today's lowering attendance of new suckers. Back in Jim's day society would've seen the percentage of kids that don't go to church today as a tragedy, but there are other forms of control now that are even more advanced in adequate for accomplishing the goals the church had always tried to accomplish since the beginning of the satanic Pauline doctrine. Technology has taken over where masonry and Freemasonry have become dinosaurs. Perhaps you're right.
</p>
</div><!-- section 191 -->
<a name="x192"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x192" class="tiny">x193</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_193');">free-masonry is an open and inviting fraternity for making good men better that happens to have some intellectual property</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_193" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, To know the truth about Free Masonry, you have three choices. 1. You could become a Mason yourself [and then dimit at any point in time when you encountered anything abnormal.] 2. You could go out, locate a real live Mason in your locale, drink a beverage together, and query them. The secretary of a local lodge is a good place to start, and their contact information readily available. 3. You could take the word of this old man, Master Mason, former Scottish Rite / York Rite mason, burned-out conspiracy researcher, sincere, and honest.
<br><br>In reality, 2 and 3 will be the same thing in terms of information learned, or will be at least a consistent story, which is very hard to do particularly across all of Masonry and all of the internet [when you visit official Grand Lodge and individual lodge pages] if any part of it were a lie. Masons revere Truth and being truthful, and this isn't limited to interactions with brothers alone.
<br><br>Free-masonry has its origins with the stone masons gild of old, where yes, they did hold the secrets of building masonic edifices closely to themselves [e.g., employment insurance.] To be sure, the study of Geometry was one of those things that ancient brothers kept to themselves.
<br><br>Free-masonry adds symbolic meaning to the tools and instruments of Masonry as convenient reminders on how to behave.
<br><br>No, free-masonry is not a "self-proclaimed secret society." Instead, free-masonry is an open and inviting fraternity for making good men better that happens to have some intellectual property that it would like to hold secret so as to not diminish its value. Think of it as IP as valuable to a brother's spirituality as the KFC secret recipe is to a hungry man's appetite.
<br><br>Emphasis added: ALL OF THE DEEP SPIRITUAL LESSONS ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND THE UNINITIATED... if they know what they are looking for. Because Masonry has had centuries of brothers leaking things. As stupid as this sounds, if you attend a public installation of officers or find the text for that public ceremony, you will have the summary and arch of free-masonry.
<br><br>There is a world of difference between reading such found Masonic text AND being a blind-folded candidate for a degree, having your possessions and clothing divested from you [with a shabby replacement and one poor fitting sandal], being led around to various stations, and listening to various (memorized & well-executed) lectures from multiple brothers: essentially a play for an audience of ONE, the candidate. That specialness of the experience MAKES the experience.
<br><br>Everything in the lectures, once you hear them, you'll say "well, I could have sussed that out for myself or that's a path I'm already on," but it makes a deeper impression on the mind to be there and experience it in person, and then to work yourself on memorizing your experience so that you can stand proficiency and advance to the next degree.
<br><br>Did you learn Geometry in school? How about mathematics? Music? Astronomy? Liberal arts and learning are revered by Masons, which is why masonic endeavors outside the lodges are in support of public education.
<br><br>The proprietary information that you claim is gained from each degree IS ALREADY FREELY WITH THE PUBLIC. The big secret of masonry is that there isn't a big secret.
<br><br>Ever hear the expressions: to be square with someone, to be on the level with someone, to be upright in your dealings, to give someone the third degree, etc.? The secrets of free masonry have leaked out all over, and you didn't even notice.
<br><br>You wrote: "The Masons rule from the bank, the bench, and the institutions that are dependent on the Bible (Muslim, Christianity, and modern fake Judaism)."
<br><br>That is a bullshit statement demonstrating your gross ignorance, because it lacks qualifiers. What geographic country or area of a country are you talking about? And more importantly what ERA? As I've cautioned you before, don't be conflating the societal creep of more or values into all institutions of a geographic area and in a historic period of time with what is or might be going on TODAY in all lodges across all countries. I learned in high school English never to make over-generalizations in an argumentative paper, because it only takes one exception to defeat that argument. You are over-generalizing and are deserving of this academic beat-down for being a damn lazy researcher and ignoring the truth WHEN IT IS CAP-LOCK EMPHASIZED IN YOUR FACE.
<br><br>I'm telling you to stop talking through your ass. Until you can man up to explore Masonry on your own by becoming one yourself, you really have nothing to talk about that isn't speculation and disinformation, and outright wrong.
<br><br>Let's be candid, how much time have you spent on any webpage from a Grand Lodge or local blue lodge? How much research have you put into reading what the masons say about themselves? How hard have you tried to get to the text of masonic ceremonies? Your lack of research shows.
<br><br>In "The Art of War", you are encouraged to "know your enemy". I'm not your enemy, just a discussion opponent. If you don't know your discussion opponent's argument/position because you've never read it, then you are in no position to debunk it. If Masons were really so nefarious, you'd be able to go line-by-line through things they publicly state / public ceremonies and prove them lies from the public record of court cases against lodges and individual masons alone.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 193 -->
<a name="x194"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x194" class="tiny">x195</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_195');">Morals and Dogma</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_195" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>Three of my upper management are Masons. One of them is a master mason. The master mason does not tell me much but he obviously has more knowledge than the other two purposefully compartmentalized associates that he has. Perhaps the most curious and interesting thing that he has ever disclosed to me is that everything that we think is up is down and everything that we think is down is up.
<br><br>How do you mesh all of that which you said with "Morals and Dogma" from Albert Pike? Do you think that the ideas disclosed in that Masonic Bible he wrote were to make all men better, or just the adept? Something you said that may have a hidden meaning was that your organization makes "good men better". That was not all inclusive, and it didn't tell us who determines a good man from another. Membership in Freemasonry is not open to the public. You have to be invited.
<br><br>You have merely exposed yourself as an agent provocateur or coadjuvant for the oldest hierarchical terrorist organization on the planet by making the statements that you did. The reason that you can't even address Albert Pike, and his Morals and Dogma revelations/influence on American masonry exposes your interests in conservation of its hierarchical influence on future generations of nescient children, and the willfully ignorant adults they must become to reach full-peacock 🦚
<br><br>Our generally bleak political environment today exists because of the masonic path forward outlined in morals and dogma, and you made it smell like flowers. This attempt to maintain their status quo is all the evidence that anyone that reads our back-and-forth needs to know who's on what team.
<br><br>Yours and my words will hang here for a very long time for many to read. I welcome their dissertation on our conversation. Your inability to maintain your maturity at the end of your last comment is very telling about your mission here. You danced around some very important points that others will not miss.
<br><br>It was enjoyable, and you didn't hurt my feelings, In case you were worried about that. I love it when somebody loses control because it pretty much exposes the rest of their charade. I'm sure that when you read morals and dogma that you will swallow your words. And if the organization actually was successful and making good men better, how did you spend any time there at all? Your last comment outlines your highest achievement, and the fruit others can expect from sewing and eating the fruits of the same tree.
</p>
</div><!-- section 195 -->
<a name="x196"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x196" class="tiny">x197</a>
Shaune Silva : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_197');">positions of servitude to the uber wealthy love to flash their masonic rings</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_197" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges folks all over in positions of servitude to the uber wealthy love to flash their masonic rings.... so if you like the world the way it is... slavery, genocide, deception, celebrating the devil ... then hey masonry has a place for you! "thank you" masons for re naming our sacred grounds & announcing who you really serve
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/VvPpREzsreE">https://youtu.be/VvPpREzsreE</a>
<br>So that's why they call it Devils Tower!
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 197 -->
<a name="x198"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x198" class="tiny">x199</a>
Shaune Silva : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_199');">doesn't seem to understand vetting</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_199" style="display: block;">
<p>Nicholas George maxwell doesn't seem to understand vetting. just like the police have some nice guys they pay low wages as public relations recruiters... they also have psychopath assassins to protect the uber wealthy that are paid extremely high ... they play all sides
</p>
</div><!-- section 199 -->
<a name="x200"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x200" class="tiny">x201</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_201');">caution you not to let Masonic publications or activities from 100+ (or even 50) years ago define the sensibilities and attitudes of members of the organization toda</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_201" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, In a big WTF moment, I must ask the question: why you are having Masonic conspiracy discussions with an old man on Facebook you don't know and on a topic you don't know when you have at your ready disposal THREE brothers at your place of employment in upper management who not only would be happy to answer all your questions (without revealing secrets) over a coffee in the break room or an off-site lunch AND HAVE THE ACTION PERFORM DOUBLE-DUTY advancing your career in an almost ass-kiss-up sort of a way?!!
<br>
<br>If "three are Masons" and only "one of them is a master mason", the implication is that the other two are Entered Apprentice or Fellow Craft masons on their path to becoming a master mason. Validate with them if this is the case.
<br>
<br>You are deliberately making me sound like a broken record when I caution you not to let Masonic publications or activities from 100+ (or even 50) years ago define the sensibilities and attitudes of members of the organization today.
<br>
<br>Exhibit A in that regard: Albert Pike wrote his "Morals and Dogma" in 1865 (plus or minus) and could be rightly considered a comparative religious analysis, entirely overblown and big wordy by this century's standards. And this work is SCOTTISH RITE as something curious and persistent seekers of wisdom can battle in reading. It is neither YORK RITE nor blue lodge [e.g., Master Mason] related, nor does it trickle over or down to the other orders. And because of that tome's nature, it doesn't really trickle into SCOTTISH RITE except [speculation] with a few die hard researchers within their ranks who might get together as a mini-book review club to slog through it and discuss a chapter's section at a time, while the others busied themselves with the other degree work and their personal lives. Whatever your interests are or aren't. I don't recall hearing or seeing an announcement of such a club or gathering, but do not put it passed the organization that a minority intellectual fan base might find such mental and intellectual pain stimulating.
<br>
<br>For the record, "Morals and Dogma" is not a Masonic Bible! That is a gross failing in your research to label it as such. You lose your research credibility in making that claim.
<br>
<br>A true Masonic Bible is just a normal King James Holy Bible, albeit often larger in format & print and with extra pages in the front and back for you Masonic information: like a page for who was present when you were raised to a Master Mason, pages for you to enter your family tree information, and a big fat square and compass on the front cover.
<br>
<br>When you approach your co-workers to ask them to lunch to discuss Masonry because you're interested in joining [even if you're not], have your list of questions ready.
<br>
<br>Ask the Master Mason if he is either Scottish Rite and / or York Rite? If the answer is no to SR, then don't expect much knowledge about Pike and his overblown work, but you can still ask your questions. In particular, ask how much trickle-down influence SR/YR/Albert Pike into his blue lodge? Ask if there's any devil worshipping in anything Masonic?
<br>
<br>But do your asking with a sincere and seeking heart.
<br>
<br>In former times -- as in last century and earlier --, you would be almost correct that "you had to be invited to become a Mason." Because without the edict, the opposite of this would have been common: a table in the mall to solicit men into joining like a military recruiter or time-share salesman, which would have led to many "not-quite-so-good" men joining its ranks and souring its endeavors. It isn't about quantity, but quality.
<br>
<br>Really what would happen -- using that MM in your upper management as a case -- is that his co-workers (such as you), neighbors, church, community, all with whom they had dealings would recognize a fairness about the demeanor of the MM which would inspire others into asking "what's special about you" or "how can I be more like you" (or other masonic fan-fiction). They'd answer "I'm a Mason", leading to a nice Q&A. Your expressed interest to them would be the trigger for them to (slobber at the prospect to) hand you a petition to invite you to join.
<br>
<br>Masons don't go pounding the pavement to get new members to swell their ranks. The ball is very much in your court to ASK about it and pursue it. In this sense "invited to become a Mason" is wrong.
<br>
<br>Where "invited to become a Mason" is true is that your petition results in a small investigation committee coming to interview you and a minor background check. Your petition and the committee's assessment is brought before the lodge to vote on. In my 20 years, I only know of one case of a petition being black balled. However, I know of at least two cases where after initiation to EA the new brothers were not worthy of being passed to the next level, but the effort and time limit to get to the next level acted as a natural weed-out before it came to a lodge vote.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "You have merely exposed yourself as an agent provocateur or coadjuvant..."
<br>
<br>No, no, no. Don't be projecting your weaknesses onto me, a classic disinformation technique.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "The reason that you can't even address Albert Pike, and his Morals and Dogma revelations/influence on American masonry..."
<br>
<br>No, no, no. You would be hard pressed to find a Scottish Rite Mason (not just a blue lodge Mason) in this day and age who has even read snippets, much less cover-to-cover "Morals and Dogma". If all you ever talk to are MM's in your upper management, they won't be able to address his influence on American masonry, because they aren't SR and there is no trickle-down. Pike and his dogma are ancient effing history that has little to do with, say, this summer's lodge picnic or the upcoming EA degree.
<br>
<br>I was active in 9/11 Truth. A valid complaint that 9/11 Truthers would level against the general public is that they suffered from cognitive dissonance. The very act of bringing their own government into question as to being involved with 9/11 is a concept so mentally painful to arm-chair (and real) US patriots, they couldn't entertain it no matter what logical facts are laid out to make the case.
<br>
<br>This being said, 9/11 Truthers also sometimes have their blind-spots and areas of cognitive dissonance, unwilling to believe that their movement was infiltrated or that they sucked the Kool-Aid so hard on certain theories and spent years championing them, that those truthers will never admit that the theory was a limited hang-out, a purposeful disinformation campaign that duped them personally royally on, but because of their "sunk-costs" and years of investment cannot admit that they were wrong, despite mountains of data, research, and facts presented in a different fashion.
<br>
<br>Mr. George, you too are suffering from cognitive dissonance, because you have been sucking the recycled Kool-Aid of Masonry's enemies from 100 years ago (literally) and aren't willing to consider what Masons today say and prove about themselves.
<br>
<br>In case I wasn't clear earlier, consider yourself INVITED to set up a lunch date with the Masons in your office to discuss Masonry. If you are sincere, if you aren't a total schmuck in your organization, and if you ask to join their lodge, I'd wager you'd have a petition in your hands (INVITE) within a couple weeks of your lunch date.
<br>
<br>The ball is in your court to talk with real masons in person.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 201 -->
<a name="x202"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x202" class="tiny">x203</a>
David Kramer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_203');">information page on every person is accessible on their computers by code</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_203" style="display: block;">
<p>The Free-Masonry information page on every person is accessible on their computers by code. They control you, your money and your business by infiltration. The steal from the poor and feed the rich as long as you are a Corporation owing to the US Corporation. The Masons produced a 5 volume set of books outing lining their success in placing MASONS in every major city, as mayors, and states as governors, hence presidents. Their ability to take high school graduates and offer them any job at any company is how they begin to initiate a Free-Mason. Most meetings are in their church basements. The FRB is nothing more than a front Corporation that manipulates all banks, parties and credit card processes as a Ghost conspiracy to control people. The concept of enslavement was formed around 1789 and is in full operation today. How it works: a bidder wins $5,000 at auction on line, waits for the delivery of the gold and then claims no 3-D secure. This means he did not approve of the purchase and the funds are taken out of the auction house without recourse as a non-corporation. Corporations are protected by themselves. Their fraudulent system is a ghost with no responsibility to the slave. There is no recourse as the judges, lawyers, law and lack of any natural person status remove the plaintiff from recovery even before they file. It is a fixed controlled rat maze and you created it! Now you are going to take a C. E. O. of the Unites States Corporation and make him a president denying the Articles of Confederation of America as your primer, George Washington-was the first Free-Mason, to deny the appointment of an American President. You are corruption and the evil we endure. But by the Grace of God, you will be left with nothing.
</p>
</div><!-- section 203 -->
<a name="x204"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x204" class="tiny">x205</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_205');">look further than the scape-goating of free-masonry</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_205" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Kramer, You make the claim:
<blockquote><p>"The Masons produced a 5 volume set of books outing lining their success in placing MASONS in every major city, as mayors, and states as governors, hence presidents."</p></blockquote>
<p>Please prove this. What is the title of this 5 volume set? Who are its authors? When was it published? Is it available on the internet to order or get a Kindle version?
<br>
<br>Failure to substantiate this claim will invalidate the rest of your comment. Ah, who am I kidding? The entirety of your comment is so confused, it invalidates itself. [George Washington was not the first Free-Mason. He was the first president of the United States and happened to be a Free-Mason, as were many other founding fathers.]
<br>
<br>Line-breaks in your writing are your reader's friends. When editing your comment with this improvement, you should also do a search-and-replace on any of the derivatives of "Masons", "Free-Masonry", etc. The replacement text should be "____" until we figure out what it really is and have a word or phrase for it.
<br>
<br>The point is -- if you've followed the discussion above into which you're chiming -- Masonry does not have, nor has it had for decades, the alleged power and influence over institutions and governments. All such claims are blatant disinformation spun up most likely by those with the actual power and influence over institutions and governments as a distraction from themselves.
<br>
<br>Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci are not Masons. You should read Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s book in order to get a glimpse of what true power and influence looks like in our modern times.
<br>
<br>Stop being duped by the disinformation and look further than the scape-goating of free-masonry.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808">https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 205 -->
<a name="x206"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x206" class="tiny">x207</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_207');">diminished the value of morals and dogma in the minds of any mason or non-Mason</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_207" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>You commented on my post that's why we were talking. Yes, yes, yes. None of the horse poop that came out of your mouth in your last comment to me diminished the value of morals and dogma in the minds of any mason or non-Mason. You are fooling only yourself. Why would somebody who practices righteousness want to be part of a group of men who practice in Secret? Why would I want to be part of an organization that supports false doctrines of religion that are parasitic to the sovereignty of all nations and individuals?
</p>
</div><!-- section 207 -->
<a name="x208"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x208" class="tiny">x209</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_209');">not a secret society, but a fraternity with some secrets in its ceremonies</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_209" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, In another comment, you tried to caste aspirations on "secrecy" as being somehow across-the-board always negative, and yet again above you write:
<blockquote><p>"Why would somebody who practices righteousness want to be part of a group of men who practice in Secret?"</p></blockquote>
<p>Such stilted reasoning reminds me of spins agents made into "internet anonymity" somehow being bad, forgetting the long-standing of pseudonyms and aliases even in the founding of the USA and leading to freedom of the press and expression as First Amendment rights.
<br>
<br>You seem to want to drag selective pieces of Masonic history (Albert Pike 1865) into the present as if it had meaning and significance today (2022), while leaving behind other aspects of Masonic history (secrecy) that really are in practice and have significance. Like the fact that the Catholic church, the Nazi's, and many other organizations & governments through history have persecuted membership into any organization (even the Boy Scouts) that was outside their sphere of control, making "keeping mum about things" a very prudent character trait.
<br>
<br>You received many assurances and instances that prove Masons are not a secret society, but a fraternity with some secrets in its ceremonies.
<br>
<br>As if you have never heard of a NDA (non-disclosure agreement) and the secrecy it imposes in modern times! As if you aren't aware of the secrecy that Disney (Star Wars and Marvel) impose on their actors when promoting their films!
<br>
<br>When you argue against secrecy, you argue against capitalism and for (open-source) socialism, because intellectual property and copyright are capitalism's bread and butter that it goes to great lengths to protect.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Why would I want to be part of an organization that supports false doctrines of religion that are parasitic to the sovereignty of all nations and individuals?"
<br>
<br>You make the claim that Masonry "supports false doctrines of religion"? Please substantiate this claim.
<br>
<br>In order for you to prove something "FALSE", you'll also need to document what is "CORRECT". Be careful that along the way, you don't expose "CORRECT doctrines of religion" being your agenda as a government agent.
<br>
<br>Your response will be invalid if it contains (1) no references to quotations (with URLs) from Grand Lodge or individual Masonic Lodge web pages and/or (2) no quotes from actual face-to-face interviews with the three Masons at your place of employment who will substantiate the Masonic "false doctrines of religion."
<br>
<br>If you don't muster up the cajones to have a coffee talk with the Masons you know at your place of employment to dispel myths and disinformation, then you are neither sincere nor serious about Truth.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 209 -->
<a name="x210"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x210" class="tiny">x211</a>
David Kramer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_211');">14 Presidents were appointed before any MASON took over</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_211" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges ...14 Presidents were appointed before any MASON took over...read your own history on line; volumes of the published Mason Directory in 1888 held only by 32nd degree matriarch Masons with the ability of members to read it anytime. Good luck in finding one-communist?
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 211 -->
<a name="x212"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x212" class="tiny">x213</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_213');">great example of an AI-bot programmed as a conspiracy theorist</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_213" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Kramer, your last comment makes no effort to substantiate you claim from a previous comment:
<blockquote><p>"The Masons produced a 5 volume set of books outing lining their success in placing MASONS in every major city, as mayors, and states as governors, hence presidents."</p></blockquote>
<p>Please prove this. What is the title of this 5 volume set? Who are its authors? When was it published? Is it available on the internet to order or get a Kindle version?
<br>
<br>Here's your last comment again:
<blockquote><p>"...14 Presidents were appointed before any MASON took over...read your own history on line; volumes of the published Mason Directory in 1888 held only by 32nd degree matriarch Masons with the ability of members to read it anytime. Good luck in finding one-communist?"</p></blockquote>
<p>The above comment is a great example of an AI-bot programmed as a conspiracy theorist and reaching randomly into its database of conspiracy sounding phrases to output... "gibberish"... so as to perform double-duty in attacking Masonry and conspiracy theorists (for being so excellently stupid.)
<br>
<br>You make the claim that after 14 presidents, ~then~ a Mason took over as president for the first time and thereafter only Masons were president. Who was that? And please substantiate the Masonic affiliation of all the other presidents?
<br>
<br>At rare moments, I can predict the future. This is one such moment. The future I predict is that you won't answer this, and if you do, it won't be satisfactory, because right out of the gate to my knowledge President Truman is the last president who was a Mason (although Clinton was a DeMolay in his youth.) [Masons like to brag about all the famous people who were Masons, so as a Mason, I'd know if there were other Masonic connections in high offices.]
<br>
<br>What is a "32nd degree matriarch Mason"? A "matriarch" is "a woman who is the head of a family or tribe." How could a woman become a Master Mason, much less a 32nd degree Scottish Rite Mason?
<br>
<br>Like I said, your comment reads like database gibberish from an AI-bot.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 213 -->
<a name="x214"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x214" class="tiny">x215</a>
David Kramer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_215');">AI-bot without insight</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_215" style="display: block;">
<p>AI-bot you are for sure; without insight. <a href="https://www.presidentsbeforewashington.org/portraits">https://www.presidentsbeforewashington.org/portraits</a>
<br>The Hall of Presidents Before Washington
<br>PRESIDENTSBEFOREWASHINGTON.ORG
<br>
<br><b>David Kramer</b>
<br>Whoopsie...I guess for you he would be Imperial Potentate.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 215 -->
<a name="x216"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x216" class="tiny">x217</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_217');">"AI-bot, you are for sure." Wow. You totally pawned me</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_217" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Kramer, In your taking offense at me suggesting that you are an AI-bot programmed as a conspiracy theorist, your response was: <i>"AI-bot you are for sure; without insight."</i>
<br>
<br>Such a witty and cutting response: <i>"AI-bot, you are for sure."</i> Wow. You totally pawned me. I'm impressed with its insight (not).
<br>
<br>Please stop projecting your weaknesses on to me. "Without insight"? Eh-oh-el!
<br>
<br>You already have two claims that you've been asked to substantiate, yet surprisingly your response is quite literally "without insight".
<br>
<br>Worse, you've chimed into a thread after over 20+ comments with absolutely nothing to add to the discussion on either side.
<br>
<br>It is time for you to return from your spamming subroutine and target something else "without insight."
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 217 -->
<a name="x218"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x218" class="tiny">x219</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_219');">D.A.R.E. to resist state-sponsored terrorism, with injection needles</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_219" style="display: block;">
<p>{Meme: D.A.R.E. to resist state-sponsored terrorism, with injection needles.
</p>
</div><!-- section 219 -->
<a name="x220"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x220" class="tiny">x221</a>
David Kramer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_221');">Empty heads</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-21</p>
<div id="sect_221" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Empty heads need no air....
</p>
</div><!-- section 221 -->
<a name="x222"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x222" class="tiny">x223</a>
Craig Lacheney : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_223');">Freemasonry was when royalty decided it was time to go undercover</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_223" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/craig.lacheney.3/posts/2398311373643235?notif_id=1652623136401456¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/craig.lacheney.3/posts/2398311373643235?notif_id=1652623136401456¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>Meme: Freemasonry was born when royalty decided in the 18th century ACE that it was time to go undercover and bcome less visible for common people. The newly created lodge system became their executional arm for social engineering under the guise of a classic, pyramid shaped, secret society.
</p>
</div><!-- section 223 -->
<a name="x224"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x224" class="tiny">x225</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_225');">condemn Masonry today for misdeeds from centuries ago, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_225" style="display: block;">
<p>This meme is a perfect example of disinformation spun up by the true enemies of democracy (and free masons) as a scapegoat to distract from what is really going on.
<br>
<br>You're getting this from the horse's mouth, what with me being a member for two decades (longer if you include DeMolay in my youth).
<br>
<br>Masons can barely hold a lodge picnic without the assistance of their better halves. Masonry has always been a product of the individual communities in which they were established, holding the values and mores of those societies and times. This is not to say that at certain times and in certain geographic locations individual and more radical Masons were not involved with questionable things (e.g., Boston tea party). However, as society changed, so has the mindset of those who joined the fraternity.
<br>
<br>Masonry is not, and has not been, a nefarious organization. Before you go spouting "illuminati", know that that radical offshoot (from a century or two ago) was denounced and cut-off from the fraternity practically at its onset.
<br>
<br>If you want to condemn Masonry today for misdeeds from centuries ago, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Where's your condemnation today of, say, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, etc., for all of those institutions also has had members who did heinous deeds? To be fair, your broad brush needs to smear those institutions today with the same (if not greater) vigor as you attack Masons.
<br>
<br>Let this be a red flag whenever you see a meme dropping Masonic hints: that the meme most likely is disinformation. Keep looking, because the Masons (a dying organization) are incapable of taking over the world and most certainly NEVER have such as a topic of discussion at meetings or coffee [except in gest].
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 225 -->
<a name="x226"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x226" class="tiny">x227</a>
Craig Lacheney : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_227');">Freemasonry serves as a rudimentary screening process for organized satanism</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_227" style="display: block;">
<p>May be an image of "Ž1 person and "Žtext that says '"Ž"Freemasonry serves as a rudimentary screening process for organized satanism for those that naively think that politics and ritual magic do not mix." Quote from Anton Lavey Founder of the Church of Satan ا Ù¦"Ž'"Ž"Ž
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 227 -->
<a name="x228"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x228" class="tiny">x229</a>
Kristina Kris : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_229');">born long before</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_229" style="display: block;">
<p>Freemasonry was born long before 18 century, more like 1400s
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 229 -->
<a name="x230"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x230" class="tiny">x231</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_231');">correct. However the more formalized institution...</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_231" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Kristina Kris, you are correct. However the more formalized institution of "speculative" free masonry (as opposed to "operative" free masonry from whom it borrows its tools in a symbolic manner) was organized in England in the early 1700's. //
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 231 -->
<a name="x232"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x232" class="tiny">x233</a>
Elizabeth Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_233');">hijacked to form a secret organization</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_233" style="display: block;">
<p>Kristina Kris Yeah, and masons existed thousands of years ago, so I Imagine they were hijacked to form a secret organization...
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 233 -->
<a name="x234"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x234" class="tiny">x235</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_235');">To the degree that any and all human institutions are subject to hijacking, yeah, maybe</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_235" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Elizabeth Brown, To the degree that any and all human institutions are subject to hijacking, yeah, maybe Masonry had its isolated moments in time with isolated lodges where maybe they were out of line. [The Sand Creek massacre of Indians was performed by Chivington, a Mason. But that was not a lodge event. And he was an American Methodist pastor! Where's the condemnation of that religion?]
<br>
<br>But to suppose that any institution so infiltrated and (as the conspiracy speculation goes) rotted at its core would have a hard time surviving beyond its first corrupt generation. Masonry survives because it is not and has never been that.
<br>
<br>Masonry historically took a Christian position of turning the other cheek to its enemies and not addressing the hysterical critics, because doing tends only to quasi validate the misinformation. Individual Masons proper deportment and fairness to all are what distinguish them. That strategy was valid for many centuries. However, in the internet age when lies can be virally spread across the globe in milliseconds by bots and agents, that strategy is now a bit lacking. Masonry is scapegoated to distract from those with the true power and who are doing deceitful things.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 235 -->
<a name="x236"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x236" class="tiny">x237</a>
Dwan Elbon : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_237');">goes back to 300</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_237" style="display: block;">
<p>Kristina Kris masonry goes back to 300
</p>
</div><!-- section 237 -->
<a name="x238"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x238" class="tiny">x239</a>
Elizabeth Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_239');">they are part of the evil plans to control the world</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_239" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I think you are wrong and that they are part of the evil plans to control the world, and need to do much more research on them.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 239 -->
<a name="x240"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x240" class="tiny">x241</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_241');">Free-Masonry has been and is being scapegoated</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_241" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Elizabeth Brown, From lofty position of being outside of Free-Masonry, not a member, and unfounded speculation, you seem to want to school me who has been inside of Free-Masonry, a long-standing member (including jaunts into both York Rite and Scottisch Rite, and founded fact from experience?!! How quaint?!! How much more research am I expected to do?
<br>
<br>Free-Masonry has been and is being scapegoated. It never was and never will be an institution that can control the world. I don't know a single multi-millionaire or billionaire who have joined its ranks and been on the level with the lodge brothers. They don't need lodge membership to manipulate the world: they have cash.
<br>Pay attention.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 241 -->
<a name="x242"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x242" class="tiny">x243</a>
Elizabeth Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_243');">All founding fathers of America were Free Masons</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_243" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges All founding fathers of America were Free Masons, Albert Pike discussed the 3 world wars way before they happened, Manly P Hall, read him, discusses them, as does his student Jordan Maxwell, like most people under the CEO and VPs in every organisation, they are clueless to what is happening at higher levels, you have been duped by fraternity my little friend... duped... fully and completely.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 243 -->
<a name="x244"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x244" class="tiny">x245</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_245');">factually incorrect</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_245" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Elizabeth Brown, You are factually incorrect when you write "all founding fathers of America were Free Masons". No, some of the founding fathers were Masons. Albert Pike, aside from living 150 years ago and being instrumental in Scottish Rite, had little influence over blue lodges (which aren't Scottish Rite), and today is just a character in the institutions history. His teachings aren't being lorded over Masons, even those with persistence and intellect to attempt to tackle his tome of religious comparison.
<br>
<br>I haven't researched Manly P Hall or Jordan Maxwell. Are they even alive today? When did they depart this earthly existence?
<br>
<br>In my decades in Masonry, I have not met a single Mason who was the CEO or VP of an organization [larger than, say, 50 people], so again this vast influence that you claim Free Masonry has over society doesn't exist today and hasn't for over half a century.
<br>
<br>I was conspiracy minded when I joined the fraternity (right after 9/11), and this has been my one major disappointment except for ancient history in isolated eras in certain geographic regions and with some of their membership at the time. Despite this, the value of the fraternity to me, to my brothers, and to our extended community has been proven beneficial, else I would have dimitted easily a decade ago.
<br>
<br>You, my little friend, are the one who is being duped, and not even with current or actual happenings from this century (or even the latter half of the last century), but by a proven (and admitted) hoax funded by the Catholic over a hundred years ago that keeps getting recycled by the ignorant (you) and by those actually possessing the influence and power and needing a convenient scapegoat to distract from their own nefarious doings.
<br>
<br>Now if you were to tell me (and prove) that, say, Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, the whole of both Bush Administrations, the majority of the Republican/Democrat parties from top-to-bottom at the national and state levels were Masons, why I'd be singing a different tune in harmony with you. But the fact is, I know not of a single present Representative or Senator in our nation's congress who is a Mason. Given that the fraternity is prone to brag about its famous members (e.g., John Wayne, a few astronauts, President Truman, several founding fathers), this alleged revelation about our vast and important numbers has not been communicated nor proven to me as an insider.
<br>
<br>In conclusion, you error in a gross and malignant manner.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 245 -->
<a name="x246"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x246" class="tiny">x247</a>
Elizabeth Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_247');">study Manly P Hall and Jordan Maxwell</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_247" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Maybe you should study Manly P Hall and Jordan Maxwell, and the many others who have concluded that the Masons are behind a lot of other secret societies like the infamous Skull and Bones and others, and perhaps they were infiltrated once again in 1776 with the Illuminati, but I think your experience, like many others, have blinded you to what the leaders of your organization are really doing to us all.... Maybe ask Craig Lacheney to provide with more but I do not have time to argue with another brainwashed minion...
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 247 -->
<a name="x248"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x248" class="tiny">x249</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_249');">replace "Mason" with "Methodist", "Catholic", "Baptist", etc.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_249" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Elizabeth Brown, You should take your own advice about studying Manly P Hall and Jordan Maxwell. Wikipedia can be your friend.
<br>
<br>Manly P. Hall was born in 1901 and in 1919 was drawn into the world of mysticism, esoteric philosophies, and their underlying principles. He didn't even become a Freemason until 1954, yet his interests and bent were established long before (and after) he became a Mason.
<br>
<br>As for Jordan Maxwell, how influential was he in Masonry if I, as a Mason for 20 years, am first learning about him today from Googling him after you name dropped him? (He doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry, and I am not finding much that is relevant.)
<br>
<br>Any good man from any background and circumstance can become a Mason. Masonic influences can be found in a lot of places (including the Mormon Church, the Constitution of the United States, "satanic" ceremonies that liberally copied lodge entrapments, college fraternity initiations), but that doesn't mean the Masons were behind these offshoots and controlling them. Skull and Bones is not Masonry.
<br>
<br>As far as the Illuminati goes, it was an offshoot that was quickly enough disavowed, excommunicated, etc. from the fraternity by its governing Grand Lodge and, to my knowledge, exists in name only as a scare word.
<br>
<br>Based on your logic, you could replace "Mason" with "Methodist", "Catholic", "Baptist", etc. and claim that they control the world, so weak are your alleged connections that seem to damn all members of the fraternity over all time and geographic location.
<br>
<br>Your problem is that you ~so~ want to believe nefarious bullshit, that you aren't willing to consider any evidence to the contrary, even the inside testimony of its members. The founding of America and its constitution that to this day benefits you and society ought to be reason enough to demonstrate Masonry's value and prove wrong its critics.
<br>
<br>Maybe you should study the Grand Lodge websites and the individual lodge websites to see what Masons are actually doing and what they write about themselves today. Until you do, you're just recyling bullshit and calling it a rose.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 249 -->
<a name="x250"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x250" class="tiny">x251</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_251');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-13</p>
<div id="sect_251" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Elizabeth Brown, I apologize for this most tardy response that we can squarely blame FB algorithms. Although you tagged me, I never received the notification under the FB alarm bell.
<br>
<br>There is a vast difference between:
<br>
<br>- saying "the Masonic institution originated and pull strings to this day for other secret societies" and
<br>
<br>- saying "various individuals who had at one point in their life's sought deeper meaning through lodge membership or bragging rights to wear masonic jewelry as official masons (MINO), but factually stopped participating in the fraternity and then later went on and became string-pulling involved with the other shit they couldn't do within the Masonic lodge framework; and what the hell, let's agree that sacred shapes and candlelight and fundamental numbers are sacred across religions and spiritual beliefs pre-dating even the ancient stone masons."
<br>
<br>So what appears to you as "some wannabe new world dominating cult stealing constructs from Free Masonry for its ceremony" is really stealing sacred constructs from ancients and for all.
<br>
<br>I thought that among my super powers were being too trusting until given reason not to be. But it appears that your gullibility super power exceeds mine, and sorry that you can't acknowledge the factual premise that Masonry is being scapegoated. You need to ask yourself who is spinning up this distraction both in general and in what hits your FB newsfeeds.
<br>
<br>I don't think I will ever convince you of Free Masonry's benevolence (but more research will get you there.) I will settle for simply planting the seed that whenever you see some conspiracy premise / meme trying to establish street-cred by inserting Masonic symbolism or names (possibly along with Illuminati, CFR, Bilderberg, etc.)... that should be the first red flag that it is disinformation making you duty-bound to rescue nuggets of truth from its maw before discarding it
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 251 -->
<a name="x252"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x252" class="tiny">x253</a>
Jonny Toop : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_253');">moon was a big hoax</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-26</p>
<div id="sect_253" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/chris.cox.1232760/posts/pfbid02XDG9pgsPMirZNwH1ReC4t2sCRamrBqn6ftKbfCaLNjJgxPcRnC3CxtX6Y1Ak9Skdl?comment_id=732137031221150¬if_id=1658813618582866¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/chris.cox.1232760/posts/pfbid02XDG9pgsPMirZNwH1ReC4t2sCRamrBqn6ftKbfCaLNjJgxPcRnC3CxtX6Y1Ak9Skdl?comment_id=732137031221150¬if_id=1658813618582866¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif</a>
<br>Yes, the moon was a big hoax. If we look behind it, it reveals enormous criminal contracting coming out of Houston Texas, home of George HW Bush. HW, following in the footsteps of his father Prescott, was a key general in a predatory war on America on behalf of a club of blood-lined Luciferian global criminal elites. The lies and rackets went on for decades, including the S&L Crisis, BCCI, and Iran Contra, later leading up to Oklahoma City and nine-one-one. The dark truth has become so obvious, that many psychological operations have had to be created to control the public. These operations are evidence that truth needs to be covered up. The "conspiracy theorist" pejorative was engineered in the 60s when the truth started leaking out about the JFK assassination. The public had to be conditioned not to question those in high places. The "war on drugs" and its "super-predators" covered up for the fact that blood-lined families were using blackmail, bribery, and infiltration of the US military and intelligence agencies to assist in running and monopolizing control over the global drug trade, including Vietnam and Iran-Contra through Mena Arkansas. The "war on terror" was a setup for massive profiteering for this group through companies that the blood-lined families own and control, like Halliburton, Raytheon, Dyncorp, and Chertoff Group. Q Anon was created to safely contain and ridiculously exaggerate "deep state" realities... bankers controlling government was replaced by adrenochrome drinking pedophiles holding thousands of kids in a million miles of underground tunnels. "There is no such thing as a virus" psyop was aggressively and covertly promoted in social media to switch reasonable questioning of criminal activity relating the va** rollout and C*vid origins into a fringe debate. And Flat Earth has been sponsored to usurp and discredit the obvious questions about the moon mission and who was behind this ripoff deception. Questioning the Moon Mission has nothing to do with Flat Earth.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 253 -->
<a name="x254"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x254" class="tiny">x255</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_255');">no fundamental disagreement</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-26</p>
<div id="sect_255" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Jonny Toop, That was a well-reasoned, well-written statement of which I have no fundamental disagreement. Kudos. I only take issue with one phrase: "freemasonic". Yes, I am a Master Mason, but that usage and association of the Masonry does not apply in this context.
<br>
<br>How so? None of the Bush's or anybody of note in any administration since, say, Nixon (or earlier) has been a Mason. The fraternity is proud and likes to brag about famous people who were Masons, where Truman was the last President who was a Mason (although Bill Clinton was a DeMolay in his youth, as was I) and Denver Bronco QB/Owner John Elway the last celebrity (because his father was a Mason, and Elway was in no ways an active member).
<br>
<br>Don't be conflating exploits of earlier eras of Masons with today, or worse, exploits of secret societies (e.g., Skull and Bones) with Masonic Lodges. I mean, before there was telephone, radio, television, smartphones, and Netflix, people entertained themselves by actually meeting regularly. If lodges didn't exist, they would have been created, because they served a useful purpose in the community and weren't tied to a religious denomination (e.g., Catholics, Mormons, etc.).
<br>
<br>I joined Masons with a chip on my shoulder and a conspiracy minded bent just after 9/11, and I did want to see for myself if the rumors were true, of which there were "lame" rumors and "nefarious" rumors. I was disappointed. The "nefarious" rumors (e.g., Lucifer-worshipping, child-blood-drinking pedophiles, puppet-masters of the world) are and have always been false, spun up originally as a humorous mocking piece that the Catholics then paid to continue, because in those days 100+ years ago, Catholics among others didn't like institutions outside of their control.
<br>
<br>As for the rumors of free-masonry being "lame" from friends and family, I'm disappointed that they're true. It is a dying institution that may yet cycle back into relevance and rejuvenation (like 1970's bell-bottom pants). They do what they say: "make good men better." They are an open, public society that does have secrets in the form of its initiation ceremonies. [Misuse and public mockery are reason enough to put some effort into protecting them, although if you now what you are looking for, you can find them or recognize them on the internet.] Masonic buildings are clearly marked, its membership clearly observed entering/exiting, website and trestleboard information with officers available.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 255 -->
<a name="x256"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x256" class="tiny">x257</a>
Jonny Toop : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_257');">In recent decades, the masonic component in the networking and power seems to have waned.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-26</p>
<div id="sect_257" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges If I had the time to write in more detail, I would probably use terms that are more specific and less offensive to freemasons in general. IMO freemasonry is a one example in a general template for human
organization that has much in common with various other sects. It promoting good values and charity among the lower levels of the organization, but at the same time its secretly enables those at the very top to do things
not in line with charity or good values. I did a lot of research into freemasonry. It evolved originally as a trade guild of intelligent craftsmen who had the opportunity to travel and discuss ideas in the days when few left
their own towns or villages. It took over esoteric knowledge that had secretly stayed with such scholarly classes as the Knights Templar until their dispersal. After 1534, the Jesuits were created as a sort of intelligence agency
under the influence of powerful blood-lined families with occult beliefs. The Jesuits are said to have steered Freemasonry, which evolved in the 1600s and early 1700s into a club of educated and elite people whose meetings and
potential cooperation threatened royalty. At this point, a group who we can call Sabbateans aggressively sought social advancement through breaking out of their earlier association with Judaism and its moral laws.
These people used sexual espionage to blackmail and bribe their way into high society and royalty. They had similar "illuminist" occultist beliefs with the Jesuits and their blood-lined controllers, aggressively
took influential positions in global freemasonry, and created the Bavarian illuminati in 1776. This group intermarried with and co-opted European royalty by the early 1800s. Skull and Bones, created at Yale in 1832,
was an illuminati organization -- a group that seeks more than just the internationalism and brotherhood long professed by freemasons, but also entitled domination by a set of elites. Freemasons were networked and
promoted in politics and business through connections with their more scheming and advanced occult brethren connected to the illuminati and the Jesuits.
In recent decades, the masonic component in the networking and power seems to have waned.
My grandfather, an old man when my father was born and who I never knew, was a freemason. He had an interesting life due to his connection to people who cooperated in secret as freemasons,
from what I can tell.
Long story short, IMO freemasonry has served a purpose and has promoted some good values, but at the highest level has been in the realm of elite scheming
that connects to the broader illuminati elitists, the Jesuits, and royalty. George HW Bush, while never a freemason, did operate in circles of those who were at the its highest, most corrupted level,
and donated over a million dollars to the freemasonic temple in Washington DC.
</p>
</div><!-- section 257 -->
<a name="x258"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x258" class="tiny">x259</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_259');">>G.H.W. Bush and his son were Skull and Bones, already two steps removed from any ceremony they might have stolen from Masonry.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-26</p>
<div id="sect_259" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jonny Toop, You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it correct. You aren't a Mason, aren't gathering your information from Masons (or even Masonic websites), aren't considering the words of an active modern day Mason, aren't talking about anything (bad) the Masons have done in, say, the last 50 years, are basically recycling unfounded defamation from a century ago, and have a logical fallacy that wants to pin on today's lodges the nefarious intentions from splitter groups (centuries ago) that stole trappings and ceremony from Masonry and perverted meaning from that which the Masons held.
<br>
<br>The "illuminist" story is just one example. Sure, it began as a splinter group from German Masons, and when their intentions were unraveled as un-Masonic, they were ex-communicated from the order. Not being a Masonic historical scholar, I neither know the dates nor care, but you stretch the boundaries when you equate actions from 1776 to today. Again because I don't know, I'll take your word that maybe ideas (if not living remnants) from that failed Illuminati lodge went into Yale's Skull and Bones in 1832. But if so, it is already two major steps removed from the mores and principles of the Masonic institution in whatever ceremony or pomp they borrowed, stole, and/or altered for their own ends. [And by the way, the Masonic ceremonies were borrowed, stolen, and/or altered from allegedly King Solomon's stone masons, so it isn't as if it were original.]
<br>
<br>If you can't talk about specific deeds that individual Masonic lodges committed (let alone individual brothers) from the last, say, 50 years to support your contention about the alleged nefarious nature of Free Masonry (and their efforts to "take over the world"), then ... to be quite blunt ... maybe you don't know what you are talking about and have been duped by centuries' old yellow journalism and defamation and should probably just STFU.
<br>
<br>Hell, I'll even let you go back only 20 years: please enlighten me on the concerted global efforts of Masonry. You can start by listing the men in positions of leadership and power in various governments and administrations who are supposedly Masons. [Be careful, because just like modern day Republicans are the worst and most hypocritical Christians on the planet today, somebody being caught with an alleged hand-gesture or at a Masonic cornerstone laying ceremony does not make them a Mason any more than Trump holding a Bible upside-down makes him a Christian.]
<br>
<br>Your entire beef against Masonry doesn't even rise to the level of hearsay, and certainly has no modern-day examples (from the last 50 years) of institutional wrong doing. Aside from me, who do you know who is a Mason and what do they say? ... That's right. Even the alleged research on Masons that you dug up wasn't current or relevant.
<br>
<br>G.H.W. Bush and his son were Skull and Bones. By your own words, already two steps removed from any ceremony they might have stolen from Masonry.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "(F)reemasonry has served a purpose and has promoted some good values, but at the highest level has been in the realm of elite scheming that connects to the broader illuminati elitists, the Jesuits, and royalty."
<br>
<br>Dude, ever see the old science fiction movie called "Logan's Run"? Spoiler: After Logan escapes, is returned, and is interrogated, his subconscious depicted on the various television screens repeats over and over "There is no sanctuary! There is no sanctuary!"
<br>
<br>I feel like Logan in saying over and over: "The big Masonic conspiracy is that there is no big Masonic conspiracy."
<br>
<br>Any Masonic conspiracy that you might drudge up today would be equivalent to what you'd dredge up at your fitness club: "Dude, promise you won't tell my significant other about this stupid/funny thing that I did, but it is so funny, I gotta tell ya..." And even then, brother Masons must be asked and can refuse the request to hold another brother's secret. The kicker is, even in accepting the masonic secret request, secrets about murder and treason are excepted and a brother is not bound to keep them. Between that and the pledge of allegance at meetings, governments don't have much worry about insurrection in modern day coming from Masonic lodges (aside from the fact that Masons don't talk about politics or religion, although sometimes the former might slip out from some half-deaf old timers at coffee.)
<br>
<br>As an aside, if Masons were a nefarious power trying to take over the world, there would be articles and reports -- even if on independent conspiracy blogs -- of the deeds (and misdeeds) of individual lodges (and their individual Masons) from the last few decades that provide the data points for the alleged nefarious trend lines. Hell, you'd have me as an inside confidential informant. Except, Masonry has been dying, is lame, isn't and has never been nefarious, which are death blows to that silly notion.
<br>
<br>The only connection today (and for probably a century) that Masonry has to the "elites", the Jesuits, royalty, and those power is as a convenient scapegoat and diversion for conspiracy research. Power and influence long ago left the institution, if it had it all all [which in some geographic areas and in some eras, it did have]. CFR, Bilderberg, Davos, Epstein's island, the Family, etc. are just some of the examples of where you need to look for true influencers and their nefarious agendas, and none are Masonic or Masons.
<br>
<br>Like <i>Logan's Run</i>:
<blockquote><p> "There is no Masonic conspiracy to control the world!"</p></blockquote>
<>To sum up: In the future, let any mention of "Masonic"-anything in a conspiracy meme or "nefarious" conspiracy agenda be a RED flag that the material is disinformation attempting to lazily scapegoat the Masons. [Be sure to rescue nuggets of truth before discarding the disinfo premise.]
<br>
<br>If you happen to be the author of such a work, you should remove Masonic references as being behind recent events, unless you have research proof about such coordinated nefarious lodge activities. Otherwise, such mention only discredits you.
<br>
<br>Dropping a seed for you. If you are a good person, then go through the process to become a Mason, telling the brothers about your dead relatives who were Masons. the effort won't hurt you or otherwise compromise you. It is okay to have a chip on your shoulder and an alternative agenda -- to find the Masonic misdeeds in history. Once you are a Master Mason, you could join a research lodge and go to town in your quest. In fact as a Mason, you could approach the secretary of probably just about any lodge and (with a smile and genuine interest) ask to see old meeting minutes.
<br>
<br>WARNING: Unless phrases like "degree practice", "meeting night", "lodge picnic", etc. are code words for "nefarious take-over-the-world agendas", you'll be disappointed. Your conscience will be streaming onto your various media display devices: "There is no Masonic conspiracy to control the world!" "There is no Masonic conspiracy to control the world!" "There is no Masonic conspiracy to control the world!"
<br>
<br>The big conspiracy is that there is no masonic conspiracy. If the dying fraternity was smart and not so lame and not so truthful, it ought to start a membership campaign that capitalizes on this public misbelief of nebulous Masonic involvement: "Become a Mason and dominate the globe!" Just like there are blue lives matter bootlickers and overly red-white-and-blue patriotic USA-ueber-alles unquestioning flag supporters, why I'm sure there'd be hundreds dozens of duped useful idiots willing to step up to the challenge and bring a new century of growing life to Masonic lodges.
<br>
<br>Except, lodges want good men. Not those types of men. And when those types of men see the bait-and-switch -- that Masonry has been truthful and isn't any about taking over the world -- they'll soon lose interest and find some other outlet for their stupidity.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 259 -->
<a name="x260"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x260" class="tiny">x261</a>
Jonny Toop : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_261');">"secret oriental knowledge" being used as an excuse for some people to create levels of control</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-26</p>
<div id="sect_261" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Thanks for taking time to express yourself in such detail. It's difficult to try to get at the people who are running the world because they hide behind many groups,
most of which have well-intentioned members who don't know what is going on at their very top levels, not to say that the top levels are all compromised or that one can provide absolute proof of this.
But I have to express skepticism that freemasonry really derives from people who were the architects of Solomon's Temple. Much more likely is that their rituals have origins with the Knights Templar,
who associated themselves with Solomon's Temple, and were disbanded in 1307. The Knights Templar contained architects, scholars, bankers, and other skilled elites of their time.
And IMO, it's important to get to the roots of how a group of people now hiding behind the WEF and the wealth of BlackRock and Vanguard managed to organize their club of power in secret.
The most defining time of this organization was the second half of the 18th century. This club that is doing the bad things is all about ELITISM, a view on their part that they have a license to do
whatever they want due to their inherent superiority. This thinking is the preserve of the highest levels of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, which were created as secretive weaponized levels for elites
on top of the pre-existing brotherly levels of freemasonry of the early 1700s. Prince Philip, Prince Charles and Prince Berhard of the Netherlands were all into Scottish Rite Freemasonry, and the
British Royals became leaders of British freemasonry in the early 1800s. The Queen's cousin is currently the head of Scottish Rite Freemasonry in England. It ties into secretive influence over
British police forces many of whose members are masons and are influenced through such channels. Jimmy Savile was close to the royals and by all appearances, he got away with things because
police forces received directions from unseen parties to back off on prosecution through this influence. Perhaps Philip and Charles were not representative of the ethical values of freemasons, but they have been active players in this club of elites (elitism being at the root of the problem). The people who created Scottish Rite Freemasonry, thought by many to be Jesuits, were highly suspect. It is all tied with the history of the Sabbateans, who went from being persecuted Jews in the 1600s to a kabbalist cult that was willing to shed all vestiges of their Jewish religion when convenient in order to take over the levers of power in non-Jewish society through infiltration, and thereby control power globally as elites. They merged with German elitist ideologues of the late 1700s and early 1800s, creating the illuminati, which itself inspired the Nazis and illuminati chapters of influence like Skull and Bones. Here we have the well-intentioned globalist brotherhood of freemasonry perverted and used as a stepping stone to take power globally with nefarious intent. When you read "secret oriental knowledge" being used as an excuse for some people to create levels of control over freemasonry in the late 1700s, read Jesuits, Sabbateans, and blood-lined families, all with ties to "the Orient" through illuminism and mystery religions, trying to take control of secret societies. Blood-lined families in Northern Italy had established strong ties with London and other northern European centers. Their influence was loosely connected to the City of London with its masonic lodges that are affiliated with its banks. And P2 Masonic Lodge certainly requires a lot of scrutiny. Yes, when the criminality hiding behind it was revealed, it was rejected officially by Italian freemasonry. Was freemasonry used a scapegoat by the people behind P2? When Roberto Calvi was hung from BlackFriar's Bridge in London when he was about to spill secrets about P2, was this a framing of freemasons by criminal blood-lined families for their crimes? That is a good question. But the P2 lodge was used, in the 1970s particularly, to hide serious criminal scheming of people who operated with the CIA, the Jesuits, Bilderberg, and Reinhardt Gehlen's secret NATO black-ops army. I could get into Albert Pike. Certainly he was Luciferian, and his networking with Italian and global freemasonry through Giuseppi Mazzini may be what opened a door for Italian blood-lined families connected to mafia control to secretively exert negative influence over America through infiltrated masonic social structures. "Build it and they will come". I think that having any separate society, be it a religious group or masonic lodge, enables the possibility of influence that can be nefarious. But I hope that all groups that may have had some level of infiltration can fight back against the parasite elites that are attacking us, and root out any of their negative influence.
</p>
</div><!-- section 261 -->
<a name="x262"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x262" class="tiny">x263</a>
Jasper Desai : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_263');">Spot on</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-26</p>
<div id="sect_263" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Brilliant. You explained it all. Spot on. It's so sad and frustrating that anyone would have to though. My experience is that it's a bit like talking to a brick wall; my understanding is that we're dealing with mildly schizophrenic leaning (as well as low IQ) wired brains when it comes to most of the morons that think: "adrenochrome drinking, human sacrificing Satanists are running the world." (without any evidence).
<br>
<br>I find it mindboggling that anyone with an IQ above room temperature is able to see that things like QAnonsense, and the "viruses aren't real" grift, are an obvious psyop (maybe they didn't figure it out for themselves though).
<br>
<br>Yet they fail to see the gigantic obvious Gorilla in the room: ridiculous, outlandish, never-ending ancient historical over conflation & over extrapolation. Delusional simpleton nonsense (with no evidence), like something straight out of the most outlandish Hollywood movie ever. How can they not see that "child sacrificing, adrenochrome drinking, freemasonic/Luciferian" gobbledygook is the biggest discrediting psyop of all! LOL... It's so fucking irrational lol...
<br>
<br>Oh, and by the way, thanks for using paragraphs; it's a dying thing on Facebook these days... lol..
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 263 -->
<a name="x264"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x264" class="tiny">x265</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_265');">I'll not quibble over the history except you've provided no data points from the last half century or more</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-26</p>
<div id="sect_265" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Jonny Toop, tow SHIFT+ENTER's in-a-row is your friend when composing directly into a FB comment to create paragraphs; or you can compose entirely offline in Notepad and paste it in, which is what I do so that I can save a local copy of my worthy words.
<br>
<br>I commend you for taking the effort to compose your researched response (that could only be improved by a half-dozen well-placed double SHIFT+ENTER's that are still within your power to post-edit into published comments for the benefit of latter-day lurker readers.)
<br>
<br>I'll not quibble over the history presented or the connection of dots. Except that you've provided no data points from the last half century or more that adhere to your alleged nefarious trend line. Worse, I -- as a truth seeking, insider, and willing confidential informant -- have not come across anything even close to the wild stories that enemies of Masonry have conjured up and recycled to scape goat Masons (and distract from themselves.)
<br>
<br>Something I didn't mention. Whereas a region (generally a state) has a Grand Lodge to govern the Masonic work of lodges in its jurisdiction, there is no "super-duper Grander Lodge" presiding over all of the individual Grand Lodges. Trickle down edicts from a Grand Lodge and/or its Grand Master to blue lodges doesn't happen often, but is of the nature (recently for Covid) "Zoom may be used for conducting business meetings, but degree work cannot be conducted via Zoom."
<br>
<br>I did mention that neither Scottish Rite nor York Rite have much trickle-down into Blue Lodges except to inspire individual brothers who are interested with "more light in Masonry" or "further education". I've done both, found them in cases in certain degrees a little bit derivative and lacking in steam, but deem them meaningful and worthy despite the cobwebs and dust.
<br>
<br>The point is, if Masonry were designed to "take over the world", there would be lots of infrastructure in place to coordinate the Grand Lodges and valleys of SR/YR to trickle-down marching orders and ideas to individual Masons in blue lodges. This doesn't exist. Further, a researcher would be able to dig up the lodge trestle boards (e.g., monthly newsletters) and meeting minutes from the lodge archives complete with all received Grand Lodge correspondence and substantiate that alleged nefariouis premise. Whereas the paper trail exists thanks to dutiful lodge secretaries, it lacks any nefarious meaning or intent, and does not substantiate that alleged nefarious premise and its factual mundaneness actually debunks such notions.
<br>
<br>I was "an adherent of Truth" well before I was a Mason, and I had a conspiracy bent. I was born on the eleventh day of the eleventh month; eleven days after I was born, JFK was assassinated. You could say that I was born a conspiracy theorists, was open-minded to the JFK theories, but it wasn't until nine-eleven was a klaxon call to be more vocal. I had my eyes open entering into Masonry and found in 20 years of membership NOTHING except that Free Masons are scape goated right and left with no substantiation.
<br>
<br>Mr. Jonny Toop, your two lengthy postings were not just missing double SHIFT+ENTER's, they were missing anything from the last 50 years to substantiate the premise that Masonry remains allegedly a nefarious institution. Not completely your fault because your sources also ran out of steam a long time ago.
<br>
<br>About time to recognize that you've been duped about Masonry, and that the only thing nefarious about it are the secret groups who regularly try to scape goat it -- with Albert Pike, no less, a comparative religion scholar whose seminal work from 1875 tries the patience of any modern-day reader worse than Moby Dick ever could. That dog don't hunt in describing Masonry today.
<br>
<br>Until you become a Mason yourself where you'd have half a chance of vetting (or debunking) this premise, you really ought to STFU, because your sources long ago last century ran out of steam and Masonry has continued to decline making it impotent for "taking over the world." To be good and true are the first things Masons are taught, not just with our brothers in Masonry but to the world in general. You've been given the truth; your cognitive dissonance won't let you entertain it.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 265 -->
<a name="x266"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x266" class="tiny">x267</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_267');">"adrenochrome drinking, human sacrificing Satanists are running the world."</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-26</p>
<div id="sect_267" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jasper Desai, thank you for your kind words. I admit to being a moron who thinks (or at least entertains the notion): <i>"adrenochrome drinking, human sacrificing Satanists are running the world."</i> It is just that I know they aren't Masons (as a group, and probably not individuals, either).
<br>
<br>As for evidence? I would have thought that Ghislaine Maxwell's client list for Epstein's Island would have been a start, had the courts seen fit to make that public.
<br>
<br>I didn't mind as much the government lying/denying things. That is to be expected. Easily countered with the truth.
<br>
<br>But I have been knocked on my ass about the purposeful disinfo premises whose origin and (viral) propagation could only be accomplished with money and organization (and governmental backing). Qanon is a great example, as is Flat-Earth, No-planes-at-WTC, deep underground nukes, beams-from-space [are possible but not to the extent attributed to them], etc. Hell, that Trump was foisted on us as President (to distract us with tweets and our own outrage) was a fatal blow to public truth.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 267 -->
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_mason_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_6 -->
<a name="p7"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_7');">Part 7: Pleiadian and Esoteric Brotherhood</a></h2>
<div id="part_7" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 2022_lightWorkers_144000.htm -->
<a name="x268"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x268" class="tiny">x269</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_269');">Esoteric Brotherhood is not involved in matrix of system on planet Earth.</a></b></p>
<p>2018-09-13</p>
<div id="sect_269" style="display: block;">
<p>
{mcb: Not my words. Came up in my Facebook feed.}
<br>
<br>A story has been told for the past few generations that a gathering is occurring here on Earth...
<br>There is a legend that talks of a gathering of 144,000 Light Beings who have to come at the required moments of Earth's shift in vibration in order to generate additional energy to ground the shift and smooth the way for the cosmic reset happening right now.
<br>Brotherhood was never public since time of Atlantis.
<br>They have caused flowering of Greek-Roman culture, they were active as Druid priests in Celtic culture, as Essenes they were collaborating in process of ascension of Jesus and Magdalene against the black nobility, they have founded Sufi initiation orders, they have founded Cathar and Albigensian movement, and have also revived Gnostic Christianity mysteries. In the 13th century they have founded Templar order which enabled formation of Freemasonry.
<br>Based on an impulse from the Brotherhood, hidden Cathar lodges have triggered Renaissance and shaped our western civilization as we know it now.
<br>The Esoteric Brotherhood has transmitted signal for the beginning of Enlightenment movement, and set the basis for scientific and technological revolution. They triggered the creation of Theosophical society through Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, and guided the progress of science, especially through Nikola Tesla.
<br>Esoteric Brotherhood is not involved in matrix of system on planet Earth.
<br>Brotherhood of Light is last pure remnant of mystery schools of Light from Atlantis.
<br>The Cabal tried to infiltrate it without success.
<br>As a part of the operation Dreamland.
<br>144 000 lightworkers are incarnating on this planet with the purpose of occult triangulation of light and darkness.
<br>The changes will be political, economic, global, personal, spiritual and religious. There is no part of the old order that will remain untouched. The 144,000 are here to help, to guide and to share knowledge. They have come from other worlds, other dimensions and from the formless energetic fabric of the intra-dimensions.
<br>Earth is rising. We can help, we can be prepared for victory of the light!
<br>We are the family of Light, we are now here!
<br>Our mission is to love this world into a paradise.
<br>Amor vincit omnia!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 269 -->
<!-- ***** 2022_lightWorkers_144000.htm -->
<!-- ***** vibration_reality.htm -->
<a name="x270"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x270" class="tiny">x271</a>
Jojan HendriksStand with KT : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_271');">7 things that affect your vibration frequency from the point of view of quantum physics</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-08</p>
<div id="sect_271" style="display: block;">
<p>Jojan HendriksStand with KT
<br>2020-01-08
<br>7 things that affect your vibration frequency from the point of view of quantum physics.
<br>
<br>
<br>7 things that affect your vibration frequency from the point of view of quantum physics.
<br>Vibration in quantum physics means everything is energy. We are vibrant beings on certain frequencies. Every vibration is equivalent to a feeling and in the world "Vibrational", there are only two species of vibrations, positive and negative. Any feeling makes you broadcast a vibration that can be positive or negative.
<br>1ST - * thoughts *
<br>Every thought emits a frequency to the universe and this frequency goes back to origin, so in the case, if you have negative thoughts, discouragement, sadness, anger, fear, all this comes back to you. This is why it is so important that you take care of the quality of your thoughts and learn how to cultivate more positive thoughts.
<br>2TH - * the companies *
<br>The people around you directly influence your vibration frequency. If you surround yourself with happy, positive and determined people, you will also enter this vibration. Now, if you surround yourself with people complaining, gossiping and pessimist, be careful! Indeed, they can reduce your frequency and therefore prevent you from using the law of attraction in your favor.
<br>3TH - * the music *
<br>Music is very powerful. If you only listen to music that talks about death, betrayal, sadness, abandonment, all this will interfere with what you are feeling. Pay attention to the lyrics of the music you listen to, it could reduce your vibration frequency. And Remember: you attract exactly what you feel in your life.
<br>4TH - * the things you look at *
<br>When you look at programs that deal with misfortunes, dead, betrayals, etc. Your brain accepts this as a reality and releases a whole chemistry into your body, which affects your vibration frequency. Look at things that do you feel good and helps you vibrate at a higher frequency.
<br>5TH - * the atmosphere *
<br>Whether it's at home or at work, if you spend a lot of time in a messy and dirty environment, it will also affect your vibration frequency. Improve what surrounds you, organize and clean your environment. Show the universe that you are fit to receive much more. Take care of what you already have!
<br>6TH - * THE WORD *
<br>If you claim or speak wrong about things and people, it affects your vibration frequency. To keep your frequency high, it is essential to eliminate the habit of complaining and bad talking about others. So avoid drama and bullying. Assume your responsibility for the choices of your life!
<br>7TH - * GRATITUDE *
<br>Gratitude positively affects your vibration frequency. This is a habit you should integrate now into your life. Start to thank for everything, for the good things and what you consider to be bad, thank you for all the experiences you've experienced. Gratitude opens the door for good things to happen positively in your life
</p>
</div><!-- section 271 -->
<!-- ***** vibration_reality.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_7 -->
<!-- End the page here -->
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
M. C. Brueckehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11749873350461333806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-18600103261444432612023-10-22T10:11:00.003-07:002023-11-04T23:22:52.846-07:00Covid-Vax ChatGPI in Action
<!-- Covid/Vax ChatGPI in Action -->
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 1000;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
// window.location.hash = id;
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function getURLParam(strParamName){
var strReturn = "";
var strHref = window.location.href;
if ( strHref.indexOf("?") > -1 ){
var strQueryString = strHref.substr(strHref.indexOf("?")).toLowerCase();
var aQueryString = strQueryString.split("&");
for ( var iParam = 0; iParam < aQueryString.length; iParam++ ){
if (aQueryString[iParam].indexOf(strParamName.toLowerCase() + "=") > -1 ){
var aParam = aQueryString[iParam].split("=");
strReturn = aParam[1];
// alert(strReturn);
break;
}
}
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
// alert(strReturn);
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
// alert(myTarget);
if (myTarget == "-false-") {
areaHideAll("part_");
areaHideAll("sect_");
} else {
areaHideAll("sect_");
areaShowAll("part_");
sectionShow(myTarget);
// location.hash = myTarget;
} }
</script>
<p>This article discusses COVID, vaccines, and mRNA technology.</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
<a name="p1"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_1');">Part 1: When Technologyies and Politics Collide</a></h2>
<div id="part_1" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200318_mcb_FB_CV_01.htm -->
<a name="x1"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x1" class="tiny">x2</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">CV, 5G Trump notes and contemplatations</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-18</p>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: block;">
<p>Did you know that the 60 GHz frequencies of 5G are known to affect O2 (oxygen molecule) by causing its electrons to spin? This may hamper hemoglobin from binding with O2 in the lungs... leading to shortness of breath, dry coughs, etc. Flu like symptoms.
<br>
<br>From what I've read about (very real) Corona viruses, I'm suspecting that what we are experiencing is a hoax. [China complained that US military started the CV outbreak.] 5G could be an enabler. Tallies from normal seasonal flu might be pulled into the media fear-inducing numbers.
<br>
<br>Lots of things are at play in this "crisis", which is more hype, control, and purposeful destruction of our economy. [I'm supposed to be skiing this week with my family in Breckenridge; I feel sorry for all of the employees who work in such resort towns for the economic hardship that will face them.]
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>The Kushner Kingpin and His Corona Conflicts
<br><a href="https://shero.substack.com/p/the-kushner-kingpin-and-his-corona">https://shero.substack.com/p/the-kushner-kingpin-and-his-corona</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>++++++ Contemplations
<br>
<br>
<br>Your lament points to a need for a "digital commons discussion space" publicly funded like libraries, where all can come and get on their soapboxes. We used to have that in the early days of the internet that were hosted and maintained on the equipment of publicly funded universities and you had to be a little Unix techie to get to the newsgroups.
<br>
<br>But then corporations like Facebook took over. This is a commercial discussion space whose rules are determined by a corporation. There should be no expectation of free-speech. [Nobody has free-speech in an at-will corporation.]
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>My speculation on the Trump Administration future tenure is that they will drive everything down really far. "You'll be tired of all the winning."
<br>
<br>Trump's many bankruptcies made him the PTB's ideal GOP candidate for what needed to happen to the US and the world under the rules capitalism and the markets. Two other Trump talents are plenty of scandals to be leveraged and being able to produce from his mouth a firehose of lies, because at heart Trump is a marketing man who sells the sizzle and not (anymore) the steak.
<br>
<br>How far down? Never in my life time have they been able to shut everything down. We're living a strange version of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", and decisions made not to produce, to sacrifice the lower-classes to falling even lower.
<br>
<br>They had this planned, the hype, and the fear. Look how quickly they want to bail out the stock markets and corporate america. Look at Kuschner's family connection to the Corona Virus.
<br>
<br><a href="https://shero.substack.com/p/the-kushner-kingpin-and-his-corona">https://shero.substack.com/p/the-kushner-kingpin-and-his-corona</a>
<br>
<br>And owing to the capabilities of 5G (overlaid with active-denial weapons), the Corona Virus hype might be the hoax to mask what 60 GHz at the right magnitude might induce. [Makes the electrons of the oxygen molecule spin, thereby possibly interfering with hemoglobin's ability to collect such from the lungs and deliver through the blood.] Dry coughs; shortness of breath; fever... Explains to me how flocks of birds could simply fall from the sky en masse in areas where 5G was tested.
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/03/13/four-reasons-civilization-wont-decline-it-will-collapse/">https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/03/13/four-reasons-civilization-wont-decline-it-will-collapse/</a>
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/17/we-know-script-naomi-klein-warns-coronavirus-capitalism-new-video-detailing-battle">https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/17/we-know-script-naomi-klein-warns-coronavirus-capitalism-new-video-detailing-battle</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>I'm not completely on board with all points or conclusions of this article, and maybe it falls into the category of disinformation to some extent. [Just about everything is a form of mis- / dis- information.]
<br>
<br>Our assignment must be to rescue nuggets of truth from within the disinformation vessel.
<br>
<br><a href="https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/blog/coronavirus-hoax-jan-2020">https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/blog/coronavirus-hoax-jan-2020</a>
<br>
<br>+++++++++ mcb
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-google/social-media-giants-warn-of-ai-moderation-errors-as-coronavirus-empties-offices-idUSKBN2133BM">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-google/social-media-giants-warn-of-ai-moderation-errors-as-coronavirus-empties-offices-idUSKBN2133BM</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name="x3"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x3" class="tiny">x4</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">when the PTB want to push a fear agenda, AI bots are so efficient</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-18</p>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: block;">
<blockquote><p>"Google said that to reduce the need for people to come into offices, YouTube and other business divisions are temporarily relying more on artificial intelligence and automated tools to find problematic content. Such software is not always as accurate as humans, which leads to errors."</p></blockquote>
<p>Sometimes software is more accurate than humans. And when the PTB want to push a fear agenda, it helps if the AI bots can instantly flag sharing content that might contradict or undermine the agenda's aim.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 4 -->
<!-- ***** 20200318_mcb_FB_CV_01.htm -->
<!-- ***** 20200402_mcb_FB_CV_02.htm -->
<a name="x5"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x6</a>
Braam Flotz : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">5G does not give you COVID-19</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalskywatch/?post_id=10163332280705302&comment_id=10163332407985302">2020-04-02</a></p>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: block;">
<p>5G does not give you COVID-19.
</p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x7" class="tiny">x8</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">5G does produce in some people flu-like symptoms</a></b></p>
<p>2020-04-02</p>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: block;">
<p>[Potential bat-shit crazy] No, 5G does not give you COVID-19. However, it does produce in some people flu-like symptoms. Shortness of breath, but dry coughs. Comes from 60 GHz affecting the spin of electrons in Oxygen molecules, possibly making it difficult for hemoglobin to bind, thus having no Oxygen to deliver around the body via blood.
<br>
<br>When you see birds dropping from the sky, this is maybe why.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x9" class="tiny">x10</a>
Julie Hand Burke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">Thank you!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-04-02</p>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I was just about to write this but, you saved me the trouble. Thank you!
</p>
</div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x11" class="tiny">x12</a>
Tina Stafford : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">yes</a></b></p>
<p>2020-04-02</p>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>yes
</p>
</div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x13" class="tiny">x14</a>
Ken Andrews : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">heard it on FB?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-04-02</p>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>lol proof or you heard it on FB?
</p>
</div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x15" class="tiny">x16</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">correct you are</a></b></p>
<p>2020-04-02</p>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ken Andrews, correct you are, which is why I'm still keeping my eye open for other studies and whatnot. Maybe I should have prefaced my comment with [bat-shit crazy]. I'll go edit it to that effect.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x17" class="tiny">x18</a>
Leon McCready : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">most people recovering from it</a></b></p>
<p>2020-04-02</p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>why are most people recovering from it then
</p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x20</a>
Kevin Knights : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">When they turn on 5g, masses will be getting those symptoms</a></b></p>
<p>2020-04-02</p>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>correct... When they turn on d 5g all around the world d masses will be getting those symptoms an u will run for d vaccine in which you will now have it
</p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x22</a>
Mark Kahl : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">microwave cold</a></b></p>
<p>2020-04-02</p>
<div id="sect_22" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>itbshojld burn your skin
<br>If they say it’s like a microwave
<br>Microwave cooks the outside first and the middle is always cold
<br>
<br>cold
</p>
</div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x24</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">a perfect storm in our human evolution</a></b></p>
<p>2020-04-02</p>
<div id="sect_24" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Mark Kahl,
<br><br>regarding your comment <blockquote><p>"... burn your skin. If they say it’s like a microwave .."</p></blockquote>
<p>Not quite. It depends on the magnitude of the 5G signal, its frequency, and where it is directed. 5G is tune-able and can be directional. Meaning, they can target line-of-sight individuals.
<br><br>Dear Mr. Kevin Knights and Mr. Leon McCready, so you aren't forgotten in the discussion.
<br><br>[Bat shit crazy] The vaccine for COVID-19 will be worse than suffering the actual illnes, because other elements will be injected into the human body, and unique digital identification of individuals is considered one aim. When radiated by triangulating 5G cells, the AI computers can target you easily for a drone strike (in the extreme cases.)
<br><br>In the not so extreme occasions, the vaccine-antenna can be 5G targeted with energy at specific frequency, it that affecting the delivery of messages. Pain can be a message.
<br><br>I suspect TPB are trying to initiate a push to the next level of human evolution through DNA tinkering manually (via vaccines) -- as opposed to human evolution through spiritual thinking. Either way, they succeed, because failure culls the herd, and success mutates us further. That mutation in an OCD and autism sense could get worse, or better; but "better" probably only for a few with the elite health insurance.
<br><br>We are at a perfect storm in our human evolution.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 24 -->
<a name="x25"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x25" class="tiny">x26</a>
Mark Kahl : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">we have a real problem -- knowing who's vaccinated</a></b></p>
<p>2020-04-02</p>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>it’s all bill gates /// sorry I wish it was this 5g it would be easier /// still in the realm of energy it will be heat /// that’s how energy works
<br>
<br>Image may contain: 1 person, possible text that says 'mark @plntbsdslife The ID2020 Alliance Announces New Partners in Digital Identity Initiative Bill and Linda gates / Rockefeller funded The ID2020 Alliance Announces New Partners in Digital Identity Initiative prnewswire.com'
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Image may contain: possible text that says 'The ID2020 Alliance Announces New Partners in Digital Identity Initiative At the World Economic Forum, Microsoft, Mercy Corps, Hyperledger and the UN International Computing Center join Accenture in a public-private partnership committed to improving lives through digital identity'
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Image may contain: possible text that says 'DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan. 22, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -The ID2020 Alliance, a public-privat partnership committed to improving lives through digital identity, announced today that Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT), Mercy Corps, Hyperledger and the UN International Computing Center have joined Accenture (NYSE: ACN) as partners in the Alliance. Microsoft will also donate $1M to the effort, joining Accenture and the Rockefeller Foundation as major donors to the initiative.'
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Image may contain: 1 person, possible text that says 'mark @plntbsdslife Quantum-d dot tattoos hold vaccination record Bill and Linda gates foundation mews.rice.edu/2019/12/1/a..'
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Image may contain: 1 person.
<br>
<br>The tags are incorporated in only some of the array of sugar-based microneedles on a patch. When the needles dissolve in about two minutes, they deliver the vaccine and leave the pattern of tags just under the skin, where they become something like a bar-code tattoo.
<br>
<br>Instead of ink, this highly specific medical record consists of copper-based quantum dots embedded in biocompatible, micron-scale capsules. Their near-infrared dye is invisible, but the pattern they set can be read and interpreted by a customized smartphone.
<br>
<br>The two-year project is aimed at the 1.5 million preventable deaths that result from a lack of vaccinations, primarily in developing nations.
<br>
<br>"The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came to us and said, 'Hey, we have a real problem -- knowing who's vaccinated,'" said Kevin McHugh, who was recruited to join Rice with funding from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.
<br>
<br>etc.
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Image may contain: 1 person, Bill Gates, eyeglasses and text
<br>Breitbart News Headline "Bill Gates Calls for Complete National Shutdown"
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Image may contain: 2 people, possible text that says 'mark @plntbsdslife Bill Gates backs $1bn plan to cover earth in video surveillance satellites Bill Gates backs $1bn plan to cover earth in video surveillance satellites telegraph.co.uk'
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Image may contain: 1 person, possible text that says 'mark @plntbsdslife CIA Arrested China Scientist For Creating Corona Virus youtu.be/ moegnB4rBEg via @YouTube YouTube #StayHome O CIA Arrested China Scientist For Creating Corona Virus CIA Arrested China Scientist For Creating Corona Virus. It is coming and going'
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Image may contain: 1 person, text
<br>
<br>(Jan 28, 2020) Federal Agents arrested Dr. Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, with lying to the Department of Defense about secret monthly paymens of $50k paid by China and receipt of millions more to help set up a chemical / biological "Research" laboratory in China.
<br>Also arrested were two Chinese "Students" working as research assistants, one of whom was actually a lieutenant in the Chinese Army, the other captured at Logan Airport as he tried to catch a flight to China - smuggling 21 vials of "Sensitive Biological Samples" according to the FBI.
<br>The research lab was at the Wuhan University of Technology. Wuhan China is ground zero to the "Coronavirus".
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Image may contain: text
<br>Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Image may contain: possible text that says '4 Patent Abstract An outbreak of a virulent respiratory virus, now as Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), identified in Hong Kong, China growing number of countries around the world in 2003. The invention relates nucleic acids and proteins from the SARS coronavirus. These nucleic acids and proteins can used in the preparation and manufacture of formulations, diagnostic reagents, kits, etc. invention also provides methods for treating SARS by administering small molecule antiviral compounds, as well as methods of identifying potent small molecules the treatment of SARS. USPTO'
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>No photo description available.
<br>Coronavirus EP#172319A1 European Patent Office.
<br>Inventor: Erica Bickerton, Sarah KEEP, Paul Britton
<br>Current Assignee: Pirbright Institute
<br>Application EP15750093.5A events
<br>2014-07-23
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br><a href="http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/about">http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/about</a>
<br>“About
<br>CENTERFORHEALTHSECURITY.ORG
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/6Af6b_wyiwI">https://youtu.be/6Af6b_wyiwI</a>
<br>The next outbreak? We’re not ready | Bill Gates
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Mark Kahl</b>
<br><a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10961823/coronavirus-hunt-patient-zero-spreading-covid-19-singapore/">https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10961823/coronavirus-hunt-patient-zero-spreading-covid-19-singapore/</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x28</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">5G is another piece to the cage that we're building for ourselves</a></b></p>
<p>2020-04-02</p>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Mark Kahl,
<br><br>Nice set of relevant links that makes both our cases.
<br><br>I'm not saying the Coronavirus isn't a real thing and isn't affecting people. However, it is being hyped in order to create fear and have people willingly vaccinate themselves.
<br><br>If a cellphone can read the identifier placed in the vaccine, then so can a 5G tower. Gone is our privacy.
<br><br>You wrote: "still in the realm of energy it will be heat /// that’s how energy works"
<br><br>This is a misunderstanding. Energy often takes the form of heat (active denial systems), but doesn't have to. The paradigm shift is "frequency / harmonics / resonance / dissonance."
<br><br>Send the right frequencies to get the metals from Chemtrails & vaccines floating in the blood to resonate. Make you happy? Make you sad? Make you anxious? Make your ears ring?
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"it’s all bill gates ///"</i>
<br><br>No, it is not all and completely Bill Gates. He's just an instrumental player.
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"sorry I wish it was this 5g it would be easier"</i>
<br><br>5G is another piece to the cage that we're building for ourselves, or is being foisted upon us.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br>Here's how 5G dovetails with CV.
<br>
<br>Corona Virus - Biggest Deception On The Whole World EndGame Plan - 5G Agenda (5G Vodafone Whistleblower)
<br><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/f9d420cb-acf5-4c81-b98c-b307f3ca0706?fbclid=IwAR0ZgxE4wLEj5EoBXwF7ryEhBg7xGrdlaLYpG7A8qf6sFMvl3zw8c1zgWHk">https://www.brighteon.com/f9d420cb-acf5-4c81-b98c-b307f3ca0706?fbclid=IwAR0ZgxE4wLEj5EoBXwF7ryEhBg7xGrdlaLYpG7A8qf6sFMvl3zw8c1zgWHk</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>COVID-19
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3IrA-8ButyUO6_OxYzNISTDxozkMC6-ulUHcaA_-6Y8vI7pcAGOghYeK0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3IrA-8ButyUO6_OxYzNISTDxozkMC6-ulUHcaA_-6Y8vI7pcAGOghYeK0</a>
<br>
<br>Incidental Misinformation
<br>Much of what you think you know about COVID-19 is wrong
<br>
<br>March 31st, 2020
<br><a href="https://www.truthinnumbers.net/incidental-misinformation">https://www.truthinnumbers.net/incidental-misinformation</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<!-- ***** 20200402_mcb_FB_CV_02.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_1 -->
<a name="p2"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_2');">Part 2: Trump and forced mRNA injections</a></h2>
<div id="part_2" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200514_MCB_FB_TrumpVaccine.htm -->
<a name="x29"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x30</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">promise that won't be kept</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-14</p>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: block;">
<p>It'll be another (election) promise that won't be kept. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 30 -->
<a name="x31"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x31" class="tiny">x32</a>
Beverly Lait : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">that one is just fine</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-14</p>
<div id="sect_32" style="display: block;">
<p>And that one is just fine.
</p>
</div><!-- section 32 -->
<a name="x33"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x33" class="tiny">x34</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">it will be best vaccine. Ever.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-14</p>
<div id="sect_34" style="display: block;">
<p>By all means, if Trump is going to start vaccinating people after the election whether or not he wins with the help of the army, I think the first round of vaccines should be administered to everyone who supported Trump. Tell them this is payback for their loyal support; they get to go first! What could go wrong?!! The way that Trump constantly wins, it will be best vaccine. Ever. So good for some, they will never need another one. Clean them right up better than injecting yourself with disinfectant and shining sunshine up your ass.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 34 -->
<a name="x35"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x35" class="tiny">x36</a>
Shawn Fogarty : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_36');">gonna force vaccines?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-14</p>
<div id="sect_36" style="display: block;">
<p>Sounds like it but I don’t believe he is gonna force vaccines. I’m hoping it’s just strategy
</p>
</div><!-- section 36 -->
<a name="x37"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x37" class="tiny">x38</a>
Braulio Gomez : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_38');">definitely going to be forced</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-14</p>
<div id="sect_38" style="display: block;">
<p>Shawn Fogarty
<br>it’s definitely going to be forced
</p>
</div><!-- section 38 -->
<a name="x39">mcb last</a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x39" class="tiny">x40</a>
Shawn Fogarty : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">why</a></b></p>
<p>2020-TBD</p>
<div id="sect_40" style="display: block;">
<p>Explain why you feel that way
</p>
</div><!-- section 40 -->
<a name="x41"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x41" class="tiny">x42</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">how the vaccinations are going to be forced</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-14</p>
<div id="sect_42" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Shawn Fogarty, allow me help out Mr. Braulio Gomez regarding how the vaccinations are going to be forced. For starters, Trump wants the army "to help." Has to be done by the end of the year.
<br><br>By all means, if Trump is going to start vaccinating people after the election whether or not he wins with the help of the army, I think the first round of vaccines should be administered to everyone who supported Trump. Tell them this is payback for their loyal support; they get to go first! What could go wrong?!! The way that Trump constantly wins, it will be best vaccine. Ever. So good for some, they will never need another one. Clean them right up better than injecting yourself with disinfectant and shining sunshine up your ass.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 42 -->
<a name="x43"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x43" class="tiny">x44</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_44');">sexiest feature of them all = "willingness"</a></b></p>
<p>2020-05-14</p>
<div id="sect_44" style="display: block;">
<p>The old saying was <i>"any port looks good in a storm."</i>
<br>
<br>Updated to this century might be:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"any consenting-adult port is better than all the beautiful, glamorous, hormone-inspiring, but unaccommodating ports who grace the pages of travel brochures."</p></blockquote>
<p>Whereas fetishes to certain anatomical features might superficially rank one sex partner better than another, the truly sexiest feature overriding them all is "willingness."
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 44 -->
<!-- ***** 20200514_MCB_FB_TrumpVaccine.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_2 -->
<a name="p3"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_3');">Part 3: Vote Out and Vote Out-of-the-Box</a></h2>
<div id="part_3" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200829_MCB_FB_thirdParties.htm -->
<a name="x45"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x45" class="tiny">x46</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">a vote for third-parties, is a vote AGAINST Trump and Biden!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_46" style="display: block;">
<p>Ironically the voting advice and wisdom given by Trump and Biden supporters to each other should be followed by both.
<br>
<br>Trump supporter: "Biden is in cognitive decline and was 40 years playing a role building the flawed systems that suddenly he now knows how to fix. Biden / Harris are under Israeli control; Tulsi schooled Harris well on Harris's hypocritical record; what's with the hair sniffing? Don't vote for Biden!"
<br>
<br>Biden supporters: "Trump is a racist, misogynist, liar with very deep Epstein connections and thus under Israeli control, who only excels at enriching himself, corruption, and breaking things. Trump is fascism brought to life! Don't vote for Trump!"
<br>
<br>Indeed! Let's take this rational and well-meaning advice from our fellow citizens by not voting for either Trump or Biden, because both will follow the same downward spiral of our democracy into tyranny, with only sugar in the PowerPoint Presentation being the difference.
<br>
<br>Let's make 2020 the year of the third-parties!
<br>
<br>If the predictions are true about the rigging of the voter suppression and the political games to destroy the USPS, that may take the election into a contested situation between Biden and Trump that other forces end up deciding... THEN it is time for you to make your otherwise MEANINGLESS vote into something MEANINGFUL by voting third-parties in order to get them over thresholds needed to be taken seriously from the onset in subsequent elections.
<br>
<br>Remember, a vote for third-parties, is a vote AGAINST Trump and Biden!
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 46 -->
<a name="x47"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x47" class="tiny">x48</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_48');">Roman Nazi Pigs Trigger</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_48" style="display: block;">
<p>Triggers me against those "Roman Nazi Pigs". Roman? They might say they are Christian, but the closest their karmic lives have ever gotten to Jesus was in nailing his hands to the cross. Nazi? Oh, just doing their jobs, following orders, and executing standard procedures that we learned from the militarization of the police and intensive training by Israeli Mossad in how to handle -- *cough* -- "undesireables." Pigs? Damn if that 70's black jiving complaints really sum it up well!
<br><br>"Roman Nazi Pigs", in this life and past lives. We need to stop that Karmic cycle.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 48 -->
<a name="x49"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x49" class="tiny">x50</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">thank you for signally your Trumpturd fawning</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_50" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bryan Eugene Blackburn,
<br><br>thank you for limiting your Qanon spamming to just this thread. Also thank you for signally not only your Trumpturd fawning but also your intelligence level not being all that high.
<br><br>Nah, jk! You "da man." I mean really, you are "the man." Paid-to-post much? You're practically an agent-bot with an agenda.
<br><br>Congratulations on outing yourself! Our hard-earned tax dollars at work and the effects of Obama's NDAA passing.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 50 -->
<!-- ***** 20200829_MCB_FB_thirdParties.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_3 -->
<a name="p4"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_4');">Part 4: Fact-Check COVID Stats and Vaccines</a></h2>
<div id="part_4" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200901_covid.htm -->
<a name="x51"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x51" class="tiny">x52</a>
: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_52');">Fact-Check Covid Stats</a></b></p>
<p>2020-09-01</p>
<div id="sect_52" style="display: block;">
<p>FEEL “FREE” TO FACT CHECK EACH OF THESE, PLEASE!
<br><br>-- "CDC admitted they screwed up COVID19 infection counts and intentionally misled the public and have apologized, clarifying that the amount of people truly infected is much lower than what was originally reported -- an error so egregious it made the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute say “how could the CDC make this mistake? This is a mess."
<br><br>-- The American Coronavirus Task Force also admitted to fudging the National COVID19 death count when Dr. Birx said the deaths are people who died “with” COVID19 not “from” COVID19, thus making the real death count much lower than what is currently being reported.
<br><br>-- Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted masks won’t help against the virus and mask manufacturers are now including warnings that their products do not deter COVID19.
<br><br>-- Fauci also said that continuing to close the country could cause irreparable damage.
<br><br>-- CDC backtracked their initial claim that led governors to shutdown their states & clarified that COVID19 does not spread easily on surfaces.
<br><br>-- Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo confirmed a recent health study showing that 70% of new infections actually originate at home, thus making stay at home orders one of the most dangerous mandates currently in place.
<br><br>-- Trump stopped funding the WHO and threatened to cut off money permanently until they can prove they are no longer corruptly influenced by communist China after they lied to our country about human to human transmission of COVID19 in January.
<br><br>-- The curve is flattened, the CDC, WHO, Dr. Fauci, our governors, and many more were completely wrong about the potential threat of this virus.
<br><br>-- If you are still living in fear, Don’t be. The media, global organizations, the government, and its agencies “mislead” the public.
<br><br>-- People called those of us who knew this all along conspiracy theorists, but it turns out we were just following the facts!
<br><br>-- Open up your businesses, churches, and homes. Don’t fall for the lies any longer. If you fell for the lies this time, wake up and join the army of truth seekers fighting on the front lines.
<br><br>-- Florida has just admitted to miscalculations on some that received positive COVID-19 results but never got tested and many others have been incorrectly identified as positive in the state’s system.
<br><br>-- WHO have just admitted that transmission of the virus from an asymptomatic carriers - the whole reason for the lockdown, is rare!! ie you could not spread it before showing any symptoms!!
<br><br>-- The CDC just confirmed a .4 to .26% death-rate for Covid 19. The death rate for the flu shot is .6. Twice as high as Covid!
<br><br>For that, we have:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Added nearly 6 trillion to national debt</li>
<li>Laid-off or furloughed 50 million workers</li>
<li>Placed 60 million on food stamps</li>
<li>Gone from 3.5%to 14.7% unemployment</li>
<li>Crippled the petroleum industry</li>
<li>Ruined the tourism industry</li>
<li>Bankrupted the service industry</li>
<li>Caused an impending meat and protein crisis</li>
<li>Threatened, fined, and arrested church leaders</li>
<li>Exacerbated mental health problems</li>
<li>Shut down schools and colleges</li>
<li>Given unbridled power to unelected officials</li>
<li>Increased suicides higher than COVID deaths</li>
<li>Delayed surgeries and treatments for profound illnesses</li>
<li>Infringed upon countless important civil liberties</li>
<li>Placed 300 million Americans on house arrest</li>
</ul>
<br><br>Bill Gates has placed himself in such a position of influence by heavily funding all corners to make this lie happen.
<br><br>We need to start treating it as the lie it is.
<br><br>Seriously our whole way of life is at stake, and they have plans to make it much worse now introducing it as "the grand reset", "the beginning of the 4th revolution" (ie a surveillance state of control, where everyone lives in what is essentially a strick open air prison where you are tracked, nothing is private, and everything is decided for you, and you have no rights whatsoever, and there can be no resistance.
<br><br>Welcome to their "new world order".
</p>
</div><!-- section 52 -->
<!-- ***** 20200901_covid.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_RFKfauci_02.htm -->
<a name="x53"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x53" class="tiny">x54</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">vaccines have never had quite the success in "saving lives" as they claim</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_54" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/posts/328462902718624?notif_id=1643842066612082¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/posts/328462902718624?notif_id=1643842066612082¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>Meme. "BREAKING NEWS: Legendary musicians Crosby, Stills, and Nash join Neil Young's boycott of Spotify against Joe Rogan Because "knowingly spreading disinformation" has "deadly consequences" and "antivaxer BS" KILLS people."
<br><br>This is an example of disinformation, because vaccines have never had quite the success in "saving lives" as they claim. In fact, most of their alleged gains really came from proper sanitation, clean drinking water, and nutrition.
<br><br>And when you learn from the research of RFK and his interviews with medical and scientific professionals, gee, many of the trials for those vaccines killed many people.
<br><br>This is the book for our times. Read it. Refute it, if you can, but this is the target that must be addressed chapter-by-chapter in order to debunk "anti-vax" sentiment that is well earned against big pharma.
<br><br><a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808">https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808</a>
<br><br>//
<br>The Real Anthony Fauci
<br>SIMONANDSCHUSTER.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 54 -->
<a name="x55"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x55" class="tiny">x56</a>
Sharon Ornberg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">something seriously wrong with RFK</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_56" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges There's something seriously wrong with RFK.
</p>
</div><!-- section 56 -->
<a name="x57"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x57" class="tiny">x58</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">please put your nose in RFK's book's crack before participating</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_58" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Sharon Ornberg, thank you for exhibiting all the traits of a troll, agent, or bot. I see that you made your assessment without having read RFK's book, which puts you at a HUGE disadvantage in any rational discussion, which your ad hominem doesn't hint that you'd be good at.
<br><br>Come up with specifics, or go away. Debunk his book chapter by chapter, but just debunking the introductions would go a long way to your aims. But, alas, I doubt you're capable of it.
<br><br>All you can do is throw tomatoes from the sidelines and aren't even listening to the words.
<br><br>Next time, please put your nose in RFK's book's crack before participating here.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 58 -->
<a name="x59"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x59" class="tiny">x60</a>
Sharon Ornberg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">wouldn't waste my time reading his book</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_60" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I wouldn't waste my time reading his book, just listening to him is bad enough. He clearly has issues. If you can't see it, that's your problem, not mine.
</p>
</div><!-- section 60 -->
<a name="x61"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x61" class="tiny">x62</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">When you "read" his book, you don't have to "hear" his voice</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_62" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Sharon Ornberg, just saying someone "has issues" without specifics is an example of ad hominem and does absolutely nothing to either substantiate your claim or convince me (or any lurker readers) to change our mind to your point of view.
<br><br>Get this. When you "read" his book, you don't have to "hear" his voice, which can be a bit hard on the ears [because Morgan Freeman he is not].
<br><br>And something else. The book isn't his "voice". No. The book is the voice of many dozens of medical and scientific professionals who are / were outstanding in their fields [until the Fauci machine laid them low with disinformation and lack of funding].
<br><br>Of course, you won't know any of that, arguing from your seemingly "strong position of willful and purposeful ignorance." Wow. Love your book reports from that lofty position of not reading it and bragging about how you won't read it, and can't be bothered even to find someone else's review / critique of RFK's book.
<br><br>Your participation is no longer requested or desired. Run away. Rational discussion is beyond your capabilities. Or, it is a policy of the agenda you promote as an internet agent.
<br><br>Prove you aren't a bot by quoting from RFK's book, because a major tell of a bot is a gross inability to follow links, address information from that destination, or even drag back a quote [to supposedly debunk.] I dare you to grab a quote from the website provided, drag it back, and optionally debunk it.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 62 -->
<a name="x63"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x63" class="tiny">x64</a>
Sharon Ornberg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');">just as delusional</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_64" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges just as delusional as he is, I see.
</p>
</div><!-- section 64 -->
<a name="x65"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x65" class="tiny">x66</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">nothing you have written in this discussion indicates original thought</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_66" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Sharon Ornberg, nothing you have written in this discussion indicates original thought. In fact, all of your short posts without specifics reeks of the database entries a bot will reach to and can be re-purposed in all sorts of discussions, so generic (and unauthentic) it is.
<br><br>Go away, bot. You have nothing worthwhile to contribute here.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 66 -->
<a name="x67"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x67" class="tiny">x68</a>
Sharon Ornberg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">pftt</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_68" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges pftt
</p>
</div><!-- section 68 -->
<a name="x69"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x70</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">proving my point</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Sharon Ornberg-bot, thank you for proving my point. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<a name="x71"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x72</a>
Sharon Ornberg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">think that</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_72" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you would think that.
</p>
</div><!-- section 72 -->
<a name="x73"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x74</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">five missed opportunities to participate with something meaningful</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Sharon Ornberg-bot, to paraphrase President Reagan, <i>"there you go again."</i> You've had five opportunities to participate with something meaningful that actually made a case and maybe would get someone to change their minds, and you screwed the pooch at each and every turn.
<br><br>I particularly like your book report attempts without ever sticking your nose in the crack of RFK's book. Stellar.
<br><br>Now bot, please go away. Your services are no longer required.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x76</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">artists in question do not even own their music catalogs</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_76" style="display: block;">
<p>I think the Spotify problems are a fake controversy. Many of the artists in question do not even own their music catalogs (and are used to publicists using their images and putting words in their mouth). So what we're really talking about here are the capitalists who own the music catalogs making business / political decisions about who distributes the music and their percentage.
<br><br>Get a two-for-one if the business move attacks in one swath multiple critics of the system. Yes, Joe Rogan is getting the brunt of it, but the reality is that this perpetuates on-going persecution of the medical and scientific professions who were his guests.
<br><br>Here's something RFK found.
<br><br>+++
<br><br>Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 107 / Friday, June 1. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
<br><br>"However, although the continued availability of the vaccine may not be in immediate jeopardy, any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives. Accordingly, because of the importance of the vaccine and of maintaining public confidence in the immunization program that depends on it, good cause exists to issue these amendments as a final rule effective immediately."
<br><br>+++
<br><br>In other words, this Joe Rogan attack isn't just par for Fauci's course of being a vindictive bastard against any and all critics, he essentially had that vindictiveness put into law in 1984.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 76 -->
<a name="x77"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x77" class="tiny">x78</a>
Peter Gill : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">aging rockers</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_78" style="display: block;">
<p>So what that now makes 12 aging rockers? Are there any young artists on this silly bandwagon?
</p>
</div><!-- section 78 -->
<a name="x79"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x79" class="tiny">x80</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">par for Fauci's course of being a vindictive bastard</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_80" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Peter Gill, aging rockers who mostly don't own their own catalogs anymore and have little say over who distributes it. Thus, [speculation] this fuss doesn't come from the aging rockers themselves -- who are used to having publicists re-use their image and whatnot --, but instead comes from the corporate owners of the music catalogs. Those owners of media might just be in bed with corporate media who are in bed with big advertisers like big pharma to promote that agenda.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, while reading RFK's book, he quoted something Fauci enabled in 1984.
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>+++
<br>
<br>Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 107 / Friday, June 1. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
<br>
<br>"However, although the continued availability of the vaccine may not be in immediate jeopardy, any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives. Accordingly, because of the importance of the vaccine and of maintaining public confidence in the immunization program that depends on it, good cause exists to issue these amendments as a final rule effective immediately."
<br>
<br>+++</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, this Joe Rogan attack isn't just par for Fauci's course of being a vindictive bastard against any and all critics, he essentially had that vindictiveness put into law in 1984.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 80 -->
<a name="x81"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x81" class="tiny">x82</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">Trying To CANCEL Joe Rogan</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-</p>
<div id="sect_82" style="display: block;">
<p>Saagar Enjeti: How Neil Young, Amazon, Hedge Funds Are Trying To CANCEL Joe Rogan
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-AEmqvyikM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-AEmqvyikM</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 82 -->
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_RFKfauci_02.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_4 -->
<a name="p5"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_5');">Part 5: Stratagem</a></h2>
<div id="part_5" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_RFKfauci_03.htm -->
<a name="x83"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x83" class="tiny">x84</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">they war-gamed this every other year since 2000</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-13</p>
<div id="sect_84" style="display: block;">
<p>The scary part is, they gamed this almost every year since 2000, and such "care" was planned in the psychological operation to illicit the response (e.g., depression leading to death) that they wanted.
<br><br>RFK, Jr. wrote about this in the latter chapters of his new book, which should be the cross we bear to let everyone know about the crimes against humanity by capitalists. How the downfall of democracy (world-wide) fell to the Fauci/Gates virus-fear-mongers and toxic vaccine promoters.
<br><br><a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808">https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808</a>
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 84 -->
<a name="x85"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x85" class="tiny">x86</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">the damning, crimes-against-humanity truth is out there</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-13</p>
<div id="sect_86" style="display: block;">
<p>Oh, the damning, crimes-against-humanity truth is out there, and RFK's book collects copies of the receipts.
<br><a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808">https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808</a>
<br>//
<br>The Real Anthony Fauci
<br>SIMONANDSCHUSTER.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 86 -->
<a name="x87"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x87" class="tiny">x88</a>
Nicholas DeVincenzo : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">A stratagem for prosecution</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-13</p>
<div id="sect_88" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges A stratagem for prosecution . . .
</p>
</div><!-- section 88 -->
<a name="x89"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x89" class="tiny">x90</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">an optimistic sliver of hope</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-13</p>
<div id="sect_90" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas DeVincenzo, that is certainly an optimistic sliver of hope. Alas, I'm becoming an old jaded fart. I see the wheels of justice too gummed up with pay-offs from ill-gotten profits of the system. Too much monetary incentive to perpetuate the bad.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 90 -->
<a name="x91"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x91" class="tiny">x92</a>
Nicholas DeVincenzo : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">pushback against the plannedemic is tremendous</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-13</p>
<div id="sect_92" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges One thing for certain the pushback against the plannedemic is tremendous, we are at a major crossroads on this, not that they don't have plan b and on and on in the works. The masses either wakes up or we head off to a digitally controlled dystopian future . . .
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 92 -->
<a name="x93"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x93" class="tiny">x94</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">astounded about countries all over the world implementing similar strategies in lock-step with one another</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-13</p>
<div id="sect_94" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas DeVincenzo, I was astounded about countries all over the world implementing similar strategies in lock-step with one another, until I see neatly collected for me in RFK's well-researched work all of the pandemic war gaming Gates (et al) have been doing annually since before the turn of the century. They'd invite high level representatives from various countries and agencies (and controlled press) to participate, and in this way hypnosis was spread top-down.
<br><br>RFK pointed out some common traits that all of the war games shared. None of the war games emphasized re-purposed medicines, nutrition, and healthy habits. All of them put forth censorship, propaganda, and silver-bullet vaccines. They worked hard at keeping certain revelations from public knowledge, like "bio-weapons research morphed into gain-of-function research, which exposed a loop-hole in the banning of bio-weapons development -- permission to research vaccines that might be needed to combat bio-weapons, which in turn means developing bio-weapons on which to test the vaccines."
<br><br>The powers-that-be have many plans. Transhumanism seems not far on the horizon, given our ready human addiction to net-connections via smart phones. Nano-bots and jabs might just take us there. And if it doesn't, then all of the conditioning was done in vane by Marvel, zombie, vampire, werewolf, ... thinking that a jab of something (toxic) will individually make a person a super being.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 94 -->
<a name="x95"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x95" class="tiny">x96</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">surprised that it was made available and not burned right off the presses</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-13</p>
<div id="sect_96" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Alex Funk, I've made it to the afterword in RFK's book, and am surprised that it was made available and not burned right off the presses. More power to the publisher and their wise words given in their introduction.
<br><br>I highly recommend this book, even though it will make rational, science-loving, health-loving citizens very angry.
<br><br>I've been posting links to the book for a while in various relevant discussions. To date, the only ones to chime in negatively were clearly agents and bots. They went directly to attacking the messenger.
<br><br>Agent-Bot: "RFK, Jr. is a horrible person."
<br><br>Me: "You make the claim, you defend it with specifics."
<br><br>Agent-Bot: *silence*
<br><br>This is before we get into the specifics of the book, because they ain't never going there. Why? Bots can't follow links (or drag bag quotes or specifics), and both agents and bots have areas that are "radioactive" to tread upon, because nothing exists in there counter-narrative to discredit the messages in the book.
<br><br>Worse, it has footnotes out the wazoo, and so many quotations from reputable medical and scientific experts, and the very words of the perpetrators, that the half-wit agents might be tempted to claim RFK's entire book is plagiarized. Except that by properly attributing quotes to their person and referencing to the source in the footnotes where those quoted words originally appear, this handy habit of good researchers nips that little plagiarism strawman in the bud. Amazing how that works! And truly, to debunk RFK, you'd have to go into each footnote and determine the (in)validity of that data source and of what RFK datamined.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 96 -->
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_RFKfauci_03.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_5 -->
<a name="p6"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_6');">Part 6: Vaccine Safety Doubt -- exist it cannot</a></h2>
<div id="part_6" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_RFKfauci_03_predictiveProgramming.htm -->
<a name="x97"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x97" class="tiny">x98</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-05</p>
<div id="sect_98" style="display: block;">
<p>If we give any credence to "predictive programming", what are we subconsciously telling ourselves when we watch, say, Marvel super heroes who got their powers by getting something injected/ingested into themselves? (Captain America, Hulk, Spider-man, The Black Panther, Nick Cage, Deadpool, The Witcher, Venom, "In from the Cold", ... <lots more, and I don't care, that's not what the discussion is about>)
<br><br>Then there are the werewolf and vampires series, although old, that have this trend where ~you~ can become a super human version of yourself (with some drawbacks) if you get yourself bitten or drink the blood, or whatever hocky rules.
<br><br>In many ways, this fantasy is ruining our critical thinking, because the advertisement for the mRNA technology even at version one-dot-oh is that it is "programming the body".
<br><br>The issue is, the vaccine technology has never been wonderful, and its many failures largely shielded from knowledge and buried in other headline news, and "we aren't in Africa or India, and can't give a hoot about their complaints against Gates, WHO, etc."
<br><br>And if your eyes are open, the mRNA tech at version one-dot-oh isn't going to be wonderful either. No super powers for you. RFK's book has the receipts.
<br><br>https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808
<br><br>Here's an interesting quote from the 1984 Federal Registry that RFK brought to our attention. Fauci put this regulation in, and it explains our predicament... even with Joe Rogan.
<br><br><blockquote><p>+++
<br><br>Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 107 / Friday, June 1. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
<br><br>"However, although the continued availability of the vaccine may not be in immediate jeopardy, any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives. Accordingly, because of the importance of the vaccine and of maintaining public confidence in the immunization program that depends on it, good cause exists to issue these amendments as a final rule effective immediately."
<br><br>+++</p></blockquote>
<br><br>I am an anti-vaxxer and can argue that case from four different perspectives:
<br><br>1) The science. The medical professionals quoted in RFK's book and coincidentally banned and de-platformed will be who I refer debate opponents to.
<br><br>2) The politics. Capitalism rears its ugly head.
<br><br>3) Spirituality / Faith . I was raised Christian Science and know it to be one (of many) viable alternatives to the germ-warfare beliefs.
<br><br>4) Aliens.
<br><br>I saved "aliens" for last, because I know people will want that expounded upon. Of the many who have vested interests and concerns for humans and Earth, the Pleiadians are us from our past, but also our future. Their concern is that a juncture point in human development has been reached where we have a choice in the direction we go.
<br><br>Over the last few decades (based on old books I've read recently), they are a bit cagey in spelling out what the decision was, so that is partly why I believed the dreaded decision was "the borging of humanity" as we all got ourselves not just tied up with technology on our attention, but even customer-demanding implants when that becomes a thing, because "predictive programming" and wanting to have our hands free.
<br><br>That might still be our bane, but now I'm thinking that the bigger choice was acceptance of mRNA technology and its implications on what the body does for itself versus what injections tell the body to do over time, as this new technology sweeps the old vaccine stuff under the rug.
<br><br>For all we know, neural health issues from vaccines might be done to make the body acceptive of technological implants (and nanobots).
<br><br>However, the actual data from vaccines has been a toxic one, so the real issue might be sterilization and earlier death to get the planet's population reduced from 6.8 billion to 0.5 billion, as per the Georgia Guidestones.
<br><br>So under the rubic of predictive programming that we'll become super heroes for getting a jab, we effectively cull ourselves and successive generations, and leave a very unhealthy lot in the "left-behind" who scream at us from the future: "make a different decision, go a different direction, make a different parallel universe based on that changed decision."
<br><br>BTW, the vaccine mandates could go either direction. Something might be unleashed from their gain-of-function research that culls the unvaccinated and leaves the vaccinated. Or it could cull the vaccinated and leave the unvaccinated. I'm not sure it will be a great outcome / world for whoever is left-behind.
<br><br>I think problems could be solved without capitalism steering us in false directions, with different leaders. The US government (of many) is so screwed up, the only real solution is to vote (for example) the US out of existence and establish what we want. The only hook in that plan is that the power vacuum created might lead us into an even worse situation -- from the frying pan into the fire in terms of dysfunctional leadership.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 98 -->
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_RFKfauci_03_predictiveProgramming.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202205_mcb_covidCull.htm -->
<a name="x99"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x99" class="tiny">x100</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">The humans presently occupying earth were the DNA dumbed-down models created illegally as slaves.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-</p>
<div id="sect_100" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, Your analogy began to lose me. Why does the prince turn toxic after the marriage? What does the marriage signify if we are the lowly princess? What does the adoption of the prince to the King who takes orders from elsewhere have to do with anything?
<br>
<br>On a different theme, the King taking orders from elsewhere is worthy of discussion and might even bring -- heaven forbid -- <i>"the galactic federation"</i> into the discussion.
<br>
<br>Here's my bat-shit crazy speculation into the matter. The humans presently occupying earth were the DNA dumbed-down models created illegally as slaves. When this crime was discovered, one option was to exterminate the project. The other was to give us an opportunity to grow to our potential (unlock our DNA) and ascent, because deep down we're spiritual entities occupying a temporal mortal body.
<br>
<br>In part because we are dumbed-down and easily motivated by money (and other things) to act against our own best interests, we've grown too many on the planet and have proved to be poor stewards of Earth's well-being.
<br>
<br>So one part of the galactic war is going for the Georgian Guidestone recommendation of 0.5 billion (down from 7.8 billion) human population. In many ways, that could be a worthy thing to achieve over the next half century. Although Covid is one of many human-created events to cull, the actual death numbers are "normal" from Covid. Because the vaccine and certainly a dependence on such -- together with climate change, extreme weather events, drought, famine, war -- can accelerate the Eugenics style de-population, they are on track.
<br>
<br>Getting culled -- my expected fate -- isn't the worst fate. No, if people haven't done their spiritual work this life time, they risk a karmic repetition of the cycle in the next life. But if the human numbers are being reduced, the opportunity to incarnate again and overcome karmic patterns is taken away. And the Zeitgeist of those left after the culling won't be providing a suitable environment for those incarnating again to be able to grow, thrive, and ascend. Instead of ascension, the re-incarnations spiral down negatively, emotionally. That is the dark agenda.
<br>
<br>The agenda of the light -- whether or not the worthiness of the human culling is discussed -- is that if humans ascend into their birthright spirituality, they won't be re-incarnating. And there won't be the problem of too many re-incarnating souls for the culled population and controlled birth rate (and bad environments). ... Because, like, man, we'll ascend beyond that to the next plane of existence.
<br>
<br>As a white male, I can't help but point to the need for a whole lot of culling needed to the white herd. In America, top of the list ought to be Trump supporters [and Clinton, Biden supporters in the list somewhere.] They have enough comorbidites to be bio-weapon covid targets with or without vaccines.
<br>
<br>My thoughts are not ripe on the matter. What I do know is that every time we humans do things for money (or to save money) that are against our own best interests, that is practically an "alien agenda". The nuclear arms race? Only really makes sense if there were some alien agendas at play / at war. Plastics for food packaging and everything else? The pollution of the planet only makes sense as an alien agenda; we cull ourselves while on our hamster treadmills.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 100 -->
<!-- ***** 202205_mcb_covidCull.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202205_mcb_covidTrump.htm -->
<a name="x101"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x101" class="tiny">x102</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">Covid-19 was designed to be highly infectious between humans</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-</p>
<div id="sect_102" style="display: block;">
<p>The truth is more nefarious. Covid-19 was designed to be highly infectious between humans and to exasperate comorbidities [such as those that Big Ag has been causing, like obesity]. It was designed to cull the herd, if left untreated. Another dark truth is that their corona-virus research in previous variants already determined what effective treatments would be re-purposing existing medicines. They deliberately suppressed this information, manufactured disinformation about it, and spread this about. [Recall the HCQ and IVM circuses that resulted and even got clown Trump yapping his jaws, but correctly it seems on this one point.] Those other treatments no longer had patent protection and would not make the CDC and Big Pharma nearly as much money as even a failed and sucky vaccine they cranked up and administered to the population without any animal trials or long-term studies.
<br>
<br>RFK, Jr. has the receipts.
<br>
<br>https://www.simonandschuster.com/.../Childr.../9781510766808
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 102 -->
<a name="x103"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x103" class="tiny">x104</a>
Julie Heye and Shame Us O Sugaroo : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">the clown Trump</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-</p>
<div id="sect_104" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Julie Heye</b>
<br>I appreciated your comment until you got to the clown Trump.
<br>
<br><b>Shame Us O Sugaroo</b>
<br>Julie Heye Yep, Mr. warp speed "get the booster, I did" Trumperdoodles waiting for saint donny to come save their asses is a new form of dumb gullible stupidity. The fact that these stooges are ALL staged up on us is the key.
</p>
</div><!-- section 104 -->
<a name="x105"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x105" class="tiny">x106</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">"disruption" is a kind of "distraction"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-</p>
<div id="sect_106" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Julie Heye, You seem offended by the phrase "clown Trump." I don't know why; it most certainly applies and is the very reason the PTB allowed criminal, confidential informant, sexual predator, pedophile Trump to be vetted through selection process. Trump was the loud, bellacouse distraction needed so that the public would be focused on his tweets and gaffes, and not on the undermining of America from within or the very notion of "truth".
<br>
<br>I finally come to understand Trump supporters. They knew the political establishment was corrupt and change hard. Trump pushed all the right buttons in their beliefs about how he was going to disrupt the system that wasn't serving them. The supporters didn't care about Trump's immorality, criminality, or dishonesty; they wanted a disruption so that change could break free.
<br>
<br>Alas, "disruption" is a kind of "distraction", and was "destruction" in many ways [details upon request]. The level of boldfaced lies that could be peddled and get the (social) media hamster wheels spinning about! That is exactly what clowns do. Own it.
<br>
<br>Certainly, Mr. Shame Us O Sugaroo, the name "Operation Warp Speed" alone proves the militarization of big Pharma, ready to send a literal army to give you a jab of what they just developed: version one-dot-oh with no animal trials, no small initial trials on humans, and no long-term studies.
<br>
<br>Just shows how Biden was a continuation of larger agendas.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 106 -->
<p>source FB <a href="https://www.facebook.com/landman808/posts/10165624947280538?comment_id=370308778216776&reply_comment_id=345525814136586¬if_id=1651780862933856¬if_t=feed_threaded_comment_reply&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/landman808/posts/10165624947280538?comment_id=370308778216776&reply_comment_id=345525814136586¬if_id=1651780862933856¬if_t=feed_threaded_comment_reply&ref=notif</a></p>
<a name="x107"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x107" class="tiny">x108</a>
Matt Landman : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">to incarnate in material physicalit</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-05</p>
<div id="sect_108" style="display: block;">
<p>to incarnate in material physicality a bit of density may be necessary.. but to what end and to what degree is up to us.
<br>
<br>MEME:
<br>think i get it now.... earth is the highest dimension of hell and the lowest dimension of heaven, acting as some sort of inter-dimensional way-station, where entities from all dimensions congregate to observe and manipulate humans as they either levl up or down in dimensions.
</p>
</div><!-- section 108 -->
<a name="x109"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x109" class="tiny">x110</a>
Karen Sterling : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">Earth is purgatory</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-05</p>
<div id="sect_110" style="display: block;">
<p>Earth is purgatory
</p>
</div><!-- section 110 -->
<a name="x111"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x111" class="tiny">x112</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">all of sudden lots of souls will be set free and will be without a human to be born into</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-05</p>
<div id="sect_112" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Karen Sterling, I respectfully disagree. Earth is a preparatory school in our path to ascension. It is what must be overcome to get to the next level, and without progress (e.g., in loving) death re-incarnates your soul but on an already downward spiral. Now in this lifetime we are expected to turn our karma around and spiral upwards. Why re-incarnate when you can ascend?
<br>
<br>Bat-shit crazy speculation: the Georgia Guidestone edicts to reduce human population from 7.8 billion to only 0.5 billion is in progress. Aided by vaccines and man-made bio-weapons aimed at our very DNA and wars, and of course climate change.
<br>
<br>THE GALATIC ISSUE is that all of sudden (over 10-20 years), lots of souls will be set free and will be without a human to be born into.
<br>
<br>If we can take the human footsteps to be right spiritually and demonstrate more love for one another, across the planet, and most importantly FOR THE PLANET, that might be the trigger that helps us individually ascend. YMMV. Our ascension is individual, and precludes even needing a human lifeform to inhabit, so not really an issue if the earth really does do better with a reduced human infestation.
<br>
<br>Yeah, and when we don't take those human footsteps in this earth preparatory school and given that population reduction and eugenics limits and controls of the human DNA gene pool, your soul might find itself adrift, and maybe susceptible to being re-incarnated into a lesser life form -- except that our poor stewardship of the environment is killing off those too. Clones, maybe? Still, it is a downward spiral of karma that we have the power to change.
<br>
<br>Souls adrift is the issue, not the culling itself. We all gonna die.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 112 -->
<a name="x113"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x113" class="tiny">x114</a>
Karen Sterling : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">disagree all you want 😃</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-05</p>
<div id="sect_114" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges haha Tl.dr
<br>But I'm not so sure purgatory is any different than a stop on the way up or down.
<br>I'm not Catholic
<br>It's just a word.
<br>So disagree all you want 😃
</p>
</div><!-- section 114 -->
<a name="x115"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x115" class="tiny">x116</a>
Karen Sterling : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">What a waste of time 😂</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-05</p>
<div id="sect_116" style="display: block;">
<p>What a waste of time 😂
</p>
</div><!-- section 116 -->
<a name="x117"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x117" class="tiny">x118</a>
Karen Sterling : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">You need to work on your karma 🤷ðŸ¼"♀ï¸ðŸ•‰ï¸â˜¯ï</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-05</p>
<div id="sect_118" style="display: block;">
<p>Just to prove a complete stranger wrong?
<br>You succeeded in proving you are petty and arrogant.
<br>You need to work on your karma 🤷ðŸ¼"♀ï¸ðŸ•‰ï¸â˜¯ï¸
</p>
</div><!-- section 118 -->
<a name="x119"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x119" class="tiny">x120</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">"waste of time" reading of the TL;DR</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-05</p>
<div id="sect_120" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Karen Sterling, So you brag that what I wrote was "too long; didn't read" in one comment, and then in two further comments about something you "didn't read" you write <i>"what a waste of time"</i> and then <i>"proving you are petty and arrogant."</i>
<br>
<br>You could have edited your first comment with your new views after reading what was "TL;DR", assuming that position changed based on your <i>"waste of time"</i> reading of the "TL;DR" and resulting judgment call. But hey, I could be wrong on that assumption.
<br>
<br>It isn't up to me to prove you, a complete stranger, wrong. If you want to be right about earth being purgatory, by all means, hold to that belief and its precipitating karma. I was just planting seeds that grow different fruit.
<br>
<br>Yes, I do indeed need to work on my karma. That was the point that went right over your head. We all need to work on our karma.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 120 -->
<!-- ***** 202205_mcb_covidTrump.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_6 -->
<a name="p7"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_7');">Part 7: Predictive Programming and Injected Superheroes</a></h2>
<div id="part_7" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202205_mcb_MarvelCovid.htm -->
<a name="x121"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x121" class="tiny">x122</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">"predictive programming" injected super heroes</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_122" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/3041534782774356?notif_id=1652754820667111¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/3041534782774356?notif_id=1652754820667111¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif</a>
<br>2022-02-04
<br>
<br><br>If we give any credence to "predictive programming", what are we subconsciously telling ourselves when we watch, say, Marvel super heroes who got their powers by getting something injected/ingested into themselves? (Captain America, Hulk, Spider-man, The Black Panther, Nick Cage, Deadpool, The Witcher, Venom, "In from the Cold", ... <lots more, and I don't care, that's not what the discussion is about>)
<br><br>Then there are the werewolf and vampires series, although old, that have this trend where ~you~ can become a super human version of yourself (with some drawbacks) if you get yourself bitten or drink the blood, or whatever hocky rules.
<br><br>In many ways, this fantasy is ruining our critical thinking, because the advertisement for the mRNA technology even at version one-dot-oh is that it is "programming the body".
<br><br>The issue is, the vaccine technology has never been wonderful, and its many failures largely shielded from knowledge and buried in other headline news, and "we aren't in Africa or India, and can't give a hoot about their complaints against Gates, WHO, etc."
<br><br>And if your eyes are open, the mRNA tech at version one-dot-oh isn't going to be wonderful either. No super powers for you. RFK's book has the receipts.
<br><br>https://www.simonandschuster.com/.../Childr.../9781510766808
<br><br>Here's an interesting quote from the 1984 Federal Registry that RFK brought to our attention. Fauci put this regulation in, and it explains our predicament... even with Joe Rogan.
<br><br>+++
<br><br>Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 107 / Friday, June 1. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
<br><br>"However, although the continued availability of the vaccine may not be in immediate jeopardy, any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives. Accordingly, because of the importance of the vaccine and of maintaining public confidence in the immunization program that depends on it, good cause exists to issue these amendments as a final rule effective immediately."
<br><br>+++
<br><br>I am an anti-vaxxer and can argue that case from four different perspectives:
<br><br>1) The science. The medical professionals quoted in RFK's book and coincidentally banned and de-platformed will be who I refer debate opponents to.
<br><br>2) The politics. Capitalism rears its ugly head.
<br><br>3) Spirituality / Faith . I was raised Christian Science and know it to be one (of many) viable alternatives to the germ-warfare beliefs.
<br><br>4) Aliens.
<br><br>I saved "aliens" for last, because I know people will want that expounded upon. Of the many who have vested interests and concerns for humans and Earth, the Pleiadians are us from our past, but also our future. Their concern is that a juncture point in human development has been reached where we have a choice in the direction we go.
<br><br>Over the last few decades (based on old books I've read recently), they are a bit cagey in spelling out what the decision was, so that is partly why I believed the dreaded decision was "the borging of humanity" as we all got ourselves not just tied up with technology on our attention, but even customer-demanding implants when that becomes a thing, because "predictive programming" and wanting to have our hands free.
<br><br>That might still be our bane, but now I'm thinking that the bigger choice was acceptance of mRNA technology and its implications on what the body does for itself versus what injections tell the body to do over time, as this new technology sweeps the old vaccine stuff under the rug.
<br><br>For all we know, neural health issues from vaccines might be done to make the body acceptive of technological implants (and nanobots).
<br><br>However, the actual data from vaccines has been a toxic one, so the real issue might be sterilization and earlier death to get the planet's population reduced from 6.8 billion to 0.5 billion, as per the Georgia Guidestones.
<br><br>So under the rubic of predictive programming that we'll become super heroes for getting a jab, we effectively cull ourselves and successive generations, and leave a very unhealthy lot in the "left-behind" who scream at us from the future: "make a different decision, go a different direction, make a different parallel universe based on that changed decision."
<br><br>BTW, the vaccine mandates could go either direction. Something might be unleashed from their gain-of-function research that culls the unvaccinated and leaves the vaccinated. Or it could cull the vaccinated and leave the unvaccinated. I'm not sure it will be a great outcome / world for whoever is left-behind.
<br><br>I think problems could be solved without capitalism steering us in false directions, with different leaders. The US government (of many) is so screwed up, the only real solution is to vote (for example) the US out of existence and establish what we want. The only hook in that plan is that the power vacuum created might lead us into an even worse situation -- from the frying pan into the fire in terms of dysfunctional leadership.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br>2022-05-16
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/3041534782774356?notif_id=1652754820667111¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/3041534782774356?notif_id=1652754820667111¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 122 -->
<a name="x123"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x123" class="tiny">x124</a>
Darris Mishler : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">Great book</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_124" style="display: block;">
<p>Great book.
<br>The first four chapters are for sleepers but they're great for sucking the sleepers into the hard truths that follow from chapter five on.
</p>
</div><!-- section 124 -->
<a name="x125"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x125" class="tiny">x126</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">saddened by the erosion of truth</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_126" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, I don't remember what happened in what chapters, so suspenseful was RFK's work. Okay, maybe "suspenseful" isn't the right word. It focused my understanding and anger, in part at myself, because had I been paying attention to publications all those years, I'd have already known the truths that he brought to light. The truths that condemn those behind the Helgian Covid action, reaction, resolution.
<br>
<br>RFK on the subject of medicine is like Dr. David Griffin on the subject of 9/11. They teach us well how to combat disinformation (aka "the official narrative"): point by fucking point, each error or fallacy not just exposed but why it is in error and what the truth is most likely to be [because sometimes, the active cover-up is so well funded and proficient, the public doesn't know the depth of the rabbit holes.]
<br>
<br>Or just as importantly, the public while plumping themselves with Big Ag and Big Food manufactured foods as they watch episode after episode over many seasons the shows from today and from yesterday [meaning last century] from a 24/7 content streamer whose monthly membership fee they work to pay, so that the public doesn't have the bandwidth or the interest to go down rabbit holes that are populated left-and-right with disinformation branches (controlled opposition). In other words, the public keeps themselves away from reading a researched work like RFK's, because their attention-deficit syndrome has their attention spanned shorted for our modern day bread and circus.
<br>
<br>I am very saddened by the erosion of truth, the growth of lies through the official narrative, and the button-pushing by deceitful powers. Abortion was settled law, but now American Christian theocracy wants to give granddaughters fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers in a very parallel way with the right to refuse vaccines.
<br>
<br>They've always said that public's political mores was a pendulum swinging from left to right and back again in an okay balance over time. With Trump and the present GOP and Biden and the feckless Democrats, that pendulum has swung as far right as it should. Public awareness of Democratic Socialism would swing it gracefully to the left. Alas, that's only in a sincere and truthful environment. The error and lies and the public narrative today, they are moving the pendulum to the right; they are moving the pendulum's fulcrum to the right. Meaning, the swinging pendulum of the public's political mores will never be able to go to the left nearly as far as it should.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 126 -->
<!-- ***** 202205_mcb_MarvelCovid.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_7 -->
<a name="p8"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_8');">Part 8: Curing Conspiratards: ChatGPT Training Ground for Pushin PTB Agenda in Shaping the Narrative</a></h2>
<div id="part_8" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 2022_mcb_AxEyeOm.htm -->
<a name="x127"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x127" class="tiny">x128</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">keep their lifespan short and their minds weak</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_128" style="display: block;">
<p>2022-10-11
<br>
<br>{mcb: meme posted by me 2022-01-18 about "We will keep their lifespan short and their minds weak while pretending to to the opposite..."}
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02yhnKT6hYb8dRdyqj7VCuhxqWPPq8xDWQvKydR6u6s3YB91yfDg7F9jgnxDfD2mBRl?comment_id=1195342954530754¬if_id=1665448589723852¬if_t=feed_comment&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02yhnKT6hYb8dRdyqj7VCuhxqWPPq8xDWQvKydR6u6s3YB91yfDg7F9jgnxDfD2mBRl?comment_id=1195342954530754¬if_id=1665448589723852¬if_t=feed_comment&ref=notif</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 128 -->
<a name="x129"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x129" class="tiny">x130</a>
Joel Sassone : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_130');">mentally ill bullshit here</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_130" style="display: block;">
<p>Joel Sassone
<br>What the fuck is this mentally ill bullshit here?
</p>
</div><!-- section 130 -->
<a name="x131"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x131" class="tiny">x132</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">precisely</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_132" style="display: block;">
<p>Joel Sassone precisely
</p>
</div><!-- section 132 -->
<a name="x133"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x133" class="tiny">x134</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">paranoid gullible nitwit psychotic dribble</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_134" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>get help
<br>
<br>{mcb: meme posted by me 2022-03-22 about Epstein's oligarchs child sex trafficking got overshadowed by a mega flu ritual.}
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02RHHxwMvEzZwbrd6fM3SbSJ6dUbYFobVUC9DHNbynr711Vdm7X6HqD6Nqpfa775xnl?comment_id=1372322599967434¬if_id=1665448476166655¬if_t=feed_comment&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02RHHxwMvEzZwbrd6fM3SbSJ6dUbYFobVUC9DHNbynr711Vdm7X6HqD6Nqpfa775xnl?comment_id=1372322599967434¬if_id=1665448476166655¬if_t=feed_comment&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<p><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>paranoid psychotic dribble
<br>
<br>
<br>{mcb: meme posted by me 2022-01-25 about "We tried to tell you but you wouldn't listen... awaken"
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02scVE5U8dK87Xrtb6URTSjpw8EyA8o8zxn7hBJpyxTW8UhQMgS1Kzbc7k25kWJMaFl?comment_id=5242551622538670¬if_id=1665448540017204¬if_t=feed_comment&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02scVE5U8dK87Xrtb6URTSjpw8EyA8o8zxn7hBJpyxTW8UhQMgS1Kzbc7k25kWJMaFl?comment_id=5242551622538670¬if_id=1665448540017204¬if_t=feed_comment&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>because you're a paranoid gullible nitwit
<br>
<br>{mcb: meme posted by me 2022-09-23 about MSM approved "experts" versus the silenced and censored.}
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02zV71KCv1ryrL3rB6DwWXhhFjQVkHfcoahA7DTkcHyDrEJTYBvE1QBYo4q16LCmmbl?comment_id=1563816860730627¬if_id=1665448379114977¬if_t=feed_comment&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02zV71KCv1ryrL3rB6DwWXhhFjQVkHfcoahA7DTkcHyDrEJTYBvE1QBYo4q16LCmmbl?comment_id=1563816860730627¬if_id=1665448379114977¬if_t=feed_comment&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>it's called scientific consensus you muppet
</p>
</div><!-- section 134 -->
<a name="x135"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x135" class="tiny">x136</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">next subroutines step through my home feed not just in a "getting to know me" manner</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_136" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, Should it be any surprise that once your bot-algorithms received the accepted friend request, those next subroutines would have you step through my home feed not just in a <i>"getting to know me"</i> manner?!! Some "friend" you turned out to be.
<br>
<br>When potentially flagging a re-posted meme on my FB wall for the potential errors in its ways, you seemed to have skipped over entirely the portion of your reply that would identify and then refute one-by-one any ill-conceived notions in the meme! Why, had you done that, as any true "friend" would have done, I would have been thankful and grateful for efforts to improve my understanding!
<br>
<br>But no. Ax Eye Om bot, you did not do that. You skipped right to the ad hominem that wasn't even aimed at the mysterious creator of the ideas of the meme, or at the meme's creator, but directly at me.
<br>
<br>Here, across four different postings of mine, Ax Eye Om bot seems to want to instigate a flame war. Here's his hypnotic suggestion in all their glory.
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>+++ quote Ax Eye Om bot
<br>- get help
<br>- paranoid psychotic dribble
<br>- because you're a paranoid gullible nitwit
<br>- it's called scientific consensus you muppet
<br>+++ end quote Ax Eye Om bot</p></blockquote>
<p>Ax Eye Om bot, if this is the depth of your wisdom and understanding, if this is how you treat new "friends", if this is your idea of debate, I WILL HAVE NO PART IN IT. If you continue to spam my postings, I'll report you while un-friending you.
<br>
<br>On the other hand, if your bot algorithms wants to attempt a reasoned discussion, you get to CHOOSE ONE location (where you spammed me and this reply appears) to further your case with substantiation on why specific content from the meme might be "paranoid psychotic dribble".
<br>
<br>However, because I'm not a bot who can spawn himself across many different postings and threads (to reply to what is presumed the same entity), I'll not engage you elsewhere. PICK ONE. Further, if you attempt a mutli-thread engagement while completely avoiding ideas and concepts from the achoring meme, I will flag that as a lack of sincerity in your engagement and will begin to ruthlessly remove your continued presence, as is my priviledge as owner of the posting on my FB wall.
<br>
<br>My prediction: I don't think your bot-algorithms can read, much less comprehend much below a FB "See more..." content break, including this sentence here. Despite being told not to, you will attempt a multi-thread rebuttal assault with nary but ad hominem in a "non-American" accent with bad punctuation, as if composed on a smartphone while sitting on a toilet. To wit, nearly all of your replies will be short enough never to need a "See more..." content break, and for sure the short content will not make any statement stemming from the seed meme. Most replies will be database one-liners from the "ad hominem" table, "non-American" accent, randomly selected.
<br>
<br>Okay, latter-day lurker readers! Let's observe which, if any, of my predictions of Ax Eye Om bot's behaviorial algorithm paths gets exercised!
<br>
<br>Return Sub;
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 136 -->
<a name="x137"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x137" class="tiny">x138</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');">you muppet</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_138" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb: "you muppet"}
<br>Ax Eye Om
<br>Maxwell Bridges WHY DO YOU EVADE MY ANSWER?
<br>
<br>{mcb: "get help"}
<br>Ax Eye Om
<br>Maxwell Bridges HOW DARE YOU!
</p>
</div><!-- section 138 -->
<a name="x139"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x139" class="tiny">x140</a>
Lesley Margaret Jones : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_140');">Greta?🤔</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_140" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Ax Eye Om is your name Greta?🤔
</p>
</div><!-- section 140 -->
<a name="x141"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x141" class="tiny">x142</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_142');">no need to get smart</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_142" style="display: block;">
<p>Lesley Margaret Jones there's no need to get smart
<br>
<br>{mcb: "paranoid pyschotic dribble"}
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 142 -->
<a name="x143"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x143" class="tiny">x144</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_144');">stop reading bitchute</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_144" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges stop reading bitchute!
</p>
</div><!-- section 144 -->
<a name="x145"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x145" class="tiny">x146</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_146');">Here I sit, all disappointed</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_146" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om bot-san, As a reply to the same comment but under three different discussion postings, your attempt to further each discussion in a rational and reasonable way amounted to:
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>+++ quote Ax Eye Om bot
<br>- WHY DO YOU EVADE MY ANSWER?
<br>- HOW DARE YOU!
<br>- stop reading bitchute!
<br>+++ end quote Ax Eye Om bot</p></blockquote>
<p>And to be fair to the first point about me allegedly "evading his answer", allow me to list them again in their entirety.
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>+++ quote Ax Eye Om bot
<br>- get help
<br>- paranoid psychotic dribble
<br>- because you're a paranoid gullible nitwit
<br>- it's called scientific consensus you muppet
<br>+++ end quote Ax Eye Om bot</p></blockquote>
<p>Here I sit, all disappointed, because what was hoped would be an interesting, in-depth, learned discussion has outed itself from the onset to be flame-baiting from Ax Eye Om bot.
<br>
<br>If that is all you have, please un-friend yourself now.
<br>
<br>If I error in my assessment, you have one thread to prove me wrong and that you can behave with thought-filled and intelligent conversation.
<br>
<br>Return Sub("meh");
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 146 -->
<a name="x147"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x147" class="tiny">x148</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_148');">the moon</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_148" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges did man land on the moon?
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 148 -->
<a name="x149"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x149" class="tiny">x150</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_150');">under a posting about pedophile oligarchs unleashing a mega flu</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_150" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, under a posting about pedophile oligarchs unleashing a mega flu, beneath a thread started by you opining a position that you do not defend, you throw out a subsequent fork to the discussion with the deviant attempt at a gotcha question: <i>"did man land on the moon?"</i>
<br>
<br>To which I respond in a promoted manner (not buried under that "paranoid psychotic dribble" thread): "Has man solved the issues of safely traversing the radiation belt surrounding our planet just outside low earth orbit?"
<br>
<br>Because the answer to my question is "no" (or if at all, only in recent years but not tested), logically it answers your question: "no, the 1960's technology was insufficient to land a man on the moon, much less return him safely alive, but it was sufficient to instigate a media hoax in the cold war with Russia, make Americans feel superior, etc." In other words, a successful, large scale, psychological operation.
<br>
<br>Man landing on the moon. Probably didn't happen, except for unmanned probes and satellite fly-by's.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 150 -->
<a name="x151"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x151" class="tiny">x152</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_152');">Conspiratard Deprogramming Keys</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_152" style="display: block;">
<p>Conspiratard Deprogramming Keys:
<br>- Where are the insider whistleblowers?
<br>- How do you know more than the experts?
<br>- You must feel special with your secret knowledge insiders are too scared to speak up about.
<br>- Get a grip you gullible twit
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 152 -->
<a name="x153"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x153" class="tiny">x154</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_154');">outing your agency agenda</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_154" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, Thank you for outing your agency agenda!
<br>
<br>When you ask for all of the whistleblowers, you neglect to mention the stiff consequences [and treason charges, harassment, retaliation, loss of livelihood, untimely deaths of them or loved ones, etc.] that actual whistleblowers endured. You neglect to mention the deliberate messaging by the President of the US fucking A: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
<br>
<br>Your question is malframed: "How do you know more than the experts?"
<br>
<br>It isn't a question of knowing more. The so-called "experts" rarely disagree in any substantial (let alone "public") fashion with those who fund them. It is a question of being candid with all they know and even expressing doubts. They aren't paid to speak out of the box. The difference between "approved and unapproved" reference sources may depend on profit motive over safety (whether national or personal).
<br>
<br>Furthermore, many "experts" have non-disclosure agreements. When it comes to national security, those NDA's come with charges of treason, punishable by death in cases. This is why no large group nuclear scientists spoke up about 9/11, or why not government scientist in a virus lab spoke up about COVID's funding and research origins (leading directly to "respected" Dr. Fauci himself).
<br>
<br>Yes, insiders truly are scared to speak up. They know which side their bread is buttered on and by whom. There have been cases of untimely deaths. This is the whole point of Epstein. You don't have to threaten people with death; if you learn their vices, you can entrap them: (a) either the threatened perform the agenda while gleefully continuing their vice, or (b) the vice gets exposed and nothing continues gleefully.
<br>
<br>"Get a grip you gullible twit" must be an entry in your bot database. You've used it against me, with the same punctuation.
<br>
<br>Except for one thing that amazes me in your punctuation. How did you get the bullets into your original posting?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 154 -->
<a name="x155"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x155" class="tiny">x156</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_156');">not for your crackpot conspiracy theories?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_156" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges why are there whblowers in the dangerous fields of the military and police but not for your crackpot conspiracy theories??? think carefully
</p>
</div><!-- section 156 -->
<a name="x157"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x157" class="tiny">x158</a>
Kylie Hirst : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_158');">No "whistle blowers" are being offed in Australia</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_158" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges bahahaha!! No "whistle blowers" are being offed in Australia, that's how we know that none of this conspiracy crap is real.
</p>
</div><!-- section 158 -->
<a name="x159"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x159" class="tiny">x160</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_160');">take your time</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_160" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges take your time
<br>
<br><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges ??
</p>
</div><!-- section 160 -->
<a name="x161"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x161" class="tiny">x162</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_162');">adequately explain what my theories are</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_162" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, please do not be making claims that you are unwilling or unable to defend. Here's the two new unsupported hypnotic suggestion: (1) that my conspiracy theories are "crackpot", and (2) that you even know or can adequately explain what my theories are, before applying your quick-draw label.
<br>
<br>Think carefully: when your financial livelihood depends on you toeing a line, when your own vices will be encouraged so they can be used as leverage against you, when your own health as well as that of your loved ones can be impacted, WHAT BENEFIT DO ANY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWERS GET?
<br>
<br>Not riches. Not useful fame. Not even freedom in most cases.
<br>
<br>Thanks for your attempt at a false argument.
<br>
<br>Think carefully. You invited me to join your crackpot group, "Curing Conspiratards." Are you sure that is what you want: to have your ass and all the asses of your like minded bots handed to you by a better, more articulate, more researched, more reasoned opponent who is on the side of Truth?!!
<br>
<br>I'll await your answer.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 162 -->
<a name="x163"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x163" class="tiny">x164</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_164');">answer my question</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_164" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges now perhaps you could answer my question: why are there whblowers in the dangerous fields of the military and police but not for your crackpot conspiracy theories??? think carefully
</p>
</div><!-- section 164 -->
<a name="x165"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x165" class="tiny">x166</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">the extent of your reasoned debate algorithms</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_166" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, I have championed many conspiracy theories over the years. Please identify the one or ones that are "crackpot" and why? I'm open to new information and analysis, and have been known to change my views [and publicly apologize] -- it was because I identified what was "crackpot".
<br>
<br>So do me the solid of identifying the errors in my way [e.g., defend your assertions]...
<br>
<br>Or stop dropping your hypnotic assertions and flame-bait.
<br>
<br>In fact, if this <- above and our history -> is the extent of your reasoned debate algorithms, why would accepting an FB invitation to your "Curing Conspiratards" FB group benefit me? Why did you invite me? What can I expect in my treatment?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 166 -->
<a name="x167"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x167" class="tiny">x168</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">remove the word "crackpot"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_168" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges remove the word "crackpot" and answer the question!!!
</p>
</div><!-- section 168 -->
<a name="x169"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x169" class="tiny">x170</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_170');">which theory got your panties in a wad</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_170" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om bot-son, Me no understand your overly broad question, because I do not know which theory got your panties in a wad. State the theory that I champion where supposedly there are no "whistleblowers in the dangerous fields of the military and police" in favor of the same.
<br><br>What theory did I get wrong, bot? The onus is on you.
<br><br>Once I know what you are even talking about of my stable of conspiracy theories, then I'll be able to answer your question in a logical fashion.
<br><br>Hint. You can go to my blog.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 170 -->
<a name="x171"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x171" class="tiny">x172</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_172');">don't need to "off" someone if you can contain them</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_172" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Kylie Hirst, You wrote: <i>"No "whistle blowers" are being offed in Australia, that's how we know that none of this conspiracy crap is real."</i>
<br><br>No whistle blowers that you know of, at any rate. And would you even know they were being offed if they just suddenly had a heart attack in the middle of a football match or other more mundane setting, and have vaccine conspiracies thrown at it as well.
<br><br>You don't need to "off" someone if you can contain them; contain their voice; contain their social outreach; contain the algorithms of their social feeds.
<br><br>Censorship was a common feature across the globe, thanks to the preparetory work of Bill Gates.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 172 -->
<a name="x173"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x173" class="tiny">x174</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_174');">conspiracy theory of your choice</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_174" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges pick a conspiracy theory of your choice! and quit stalling!
</p>
</div><!-- section 174 -->
<a name="x175"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x175" class="tiny">x176</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_176');">a deathbed confession</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_176" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges "You don't need to "off" someone if you can contain them; contain their voice; contain their social outreach; contain the algorithms of their social feeds."
-------- what prevents a deathbed confession uploaded to the web and picked up by several of millions blogs??
</p>
</div><!-- section 176 -->
<a name="x177"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x177" class="tiny">x178</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_178');">out yourself as a liar?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_178" style="display: block;">
<p>Damit, Mr. Ax Eye Om bot! Why did you so quickly out yourself as a liar? You said my theories are crackpot, refuse to say which theory of mine is crackpot, leaves it up to me to pick one of my theories as allegedly being crackpot ...
<br><br>The onus is on you. Do some research.
<br><br>What benefit would a death-bed conspirator achieve, for himself, for his family, for his government, for his nation? And what if death or severe ailment happened before the confession? Oh, my!
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 178 -->
<a name="x179"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x179" class="tiny">x180</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">GET A GRIP YOU GULLIBLE TWIT!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_180" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges IT ONLY TAKES ONE! THERE ARE WHBLOWERS EVERWHERE EXCEPT FOR A SINGLE ONE OF YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES!! ... GET A GRIP YOU GULLIBLE TWIT!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 180 -->
<a name="x181"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x181" class="tiny">x182</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_182');">dropping hypnotic suggestion alleging my theories are crackpot</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_182" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, I agree; it only takes one death-bed whistleblower to shore up one of my conspiracy theories. That isn't the issue. You've been dropping hypnotic suggestion alleging my theories are crackpot, without being able to articulate a single one of them. Why then, dear sir, would you expect me to cough up some piece of evidence (that my theories don't even need in order to be valid)? That reeks of busy work. No. You go to my blog and identify which theory is crackpot and report back here. Then, possibly, I'll have something valid to answer to from your astute analysis of their crackpot ways. The ball is, and has been, in your court, love. Do endeavor to be better in defending your position! //
</p>
</div><!-- section 182 -->
<a name="x183"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x183" class="tiny">x184</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_184');">rude posting your flame bait directly to my FB wall</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_184" style="display: block;">
<p>Also, Mr. Ax Eye Om, that was rude to be posting your flame bait directly to my FB wall! I deleted it, but HOW DARE YOU?!! Why don't you post that to your own wall? What did it have to do with me? You never made your case.
<br><br>So now, you're not just a liar, you're a rude liar who couldn't make an argument to get a D- on his writing test, can't follow links to blogs, can't research there (obviously), and goes to all manner of gyrations to avoid any details, but to generically flame-bait a time suck. On my own FB wall, no less.
<br><br>Because you're a bot, I doubt you'll even acknowledge the wall-posting action that now sits in the delete folder, won't acknowledge the defeat of the plan, or even the plan itself. Prove me wrong.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 184 -->
<a name="x185"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x185" class="tiny">x186</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_186');">all conspiracy theories are crackpot!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_186" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges all conspiracy theories are crackpot! name one that isn't!!!
<br>
<br><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges still waiting .....
</p>
</div><!-- section 186 -->
<a name="x187"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x187" class="tiny">x188</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_188');">onus was on you</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_188" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, Nice deflection. And who's the twit? Didn't you learn that over-generalizations -- <i>"all conspiracy theories are crackpot!"</i> -- shouldn't be used in rigorous discourse, because it only takes one exception to disprove it.
<br>
<br>I'll not rub your nose in your inability to defend "theory X, theory Y, and theory Z -- being subset of the "all" -- are crackpot", regardless of X, Y, and Z specifically, which do exist in ample number in reality, with Factinate and Factoid pages to validate them. Your bot algorithms aren't detailed enough to handle the many exceptions that quickly and decisively disprove your hypnotic assertions and exposes them as flame-bait, only that, and nothing more.
<br>
<br>No, the onus was on you to take a subset of the "all" where X, Y, and Z were specifically theories that I champion and that you believe are crackpot. Pony up, cowboy.
<br>
<br>P.S. (a) Time for sleep. (b) Your insincerity and lack of depth or even a single specific is flagging you as a bot-time-suck. For that reason, don't be holding your breath for instant responses from now on. Therefore, take the opportunity to write more in one comment, because I won't be responding to it today or promptly anyway.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 188 -->
<a name="x189"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x189" class="tiny">x190</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_190');">sophistry twaddle</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_190" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges all that sophistry twaddle to avoid answering both my questions ... your intellectual dishonesty is off the charts!
</p>
</div><!-- section 190 -->
<a name="x191"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x191" class="tiny">x192</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_192');">Name the conspiracy theory that I champion and that you think is crackpot</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_192" style="display: block;">
<p>Name the conspiracy theory that I champion and that you think is crackpot, so this conversation can be furthered. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 192 -->
<a name="x193"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x193" class="tiny">x194</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_194');">all of them</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_194" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges all of them!!! .. got it now?
</p>
</div><!-- section 194 -->
<a name="x195"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x195" class="tiny">x196</a>
Kylie Hirst : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_196');">not killed, but silenced</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_196" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges they don't have to be killed, but silenced, that's not happening, unfortunately.
<br>Although, if they were as evil and as powerful as you RWNJ claim, you'd all be rounded up and put in forced labour camps and/or killed. That's not happening, not even a little bit.
</p>
</div><!-- section 196 -->
<a name="x197"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x197" class="tiny">x198</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_198');">why you invited me to join your "Curing Conspiratards" FB group</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_198" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om bot, Allow me to front-load into this comment that you keep evading my questions about why you invited me to join your "Curing Conspiratards" FB group and what sort of reception I'd get there?
<br>
<br>And if I write a few more words at the beginning of this paragraph, FB will end up inserting a "See more..." collapsing break that your bot algorithms are incapable of clicking on, reading the expanded content, and furthering that below-the-fold discussion.
<br>
<br>Why is that the case?
<br>
<br>A consistency in your participation: (a) an inability to talk in specifics, (b) an inability to follow links, (c) an inability to defend with substantiation your own statements and positions, (d) an inability to string four or more sentences together in one comment, let alone multiple paragraphs, to make a reasoned and convincing argument...
<br>
<br>Your partication is shallow and insincere.
<br>
<br>Case in point, you have repeatedly stated "all conspiracies are crackpot", and that happens to be a long list of valid and invalid theories to wade through a prove each and every one is "crackpot." You've been brushing off my suggestion to limit the number of conspiracies to only those that I have championed -- a much smaller subset and admittedly more difficult to prove "crackpot", but hey!... I didn't make that bed; you did; so lie in it. ... But by golly, you can't be bothered to go to my FB wall and identify a single wrong theory owing to whatever error, because such are your chat-bot limitations.
<br>
<br>No, your entire interaction with me has been so short, "See more..." collapsing affordances are almost never applied and when they do, only a few words got clipped. Sure, length of reply is only as important as the reasoning behind the words. In your case, you make over-generalized "crackpot" statements and ad hominem your staple. And you project mightily your own weaknesses onto others. Here's a gem: "your intellectual dishonesty is off the charts!"
<br>
<br>If you were human, that would be right out of a disinformationalist handbook. But you're an artificial intelligent chat-bot, so most of your content seems to come from a small set of database entries that you string together with various references to your favorite expression: "gullible twit."
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 198 -->
<a name="x199"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x199" class="tiny">x200</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_200');">how would you know a voice was being silenced?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_200" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Kylie Hirst, You should be more specific about which conspiracy theory and its champions are being referenced, because that changes victims of assassination and being silenced.
<br>
<br>You wrote in a general sense: <i>"[Whistleblowers] don't have to be killed, but silenced, that's not happening, unfortunately."</i>
<br>
<br>First of all, you are grossly mistaken about whistleblowers not being silenced. It happened in a major, global, lock-stepping way when it came to COVID. Dr. Mercola's book and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s book both document this in great detail.
<br>
<br>FTR, Julian Assange is still in jail, Edward Snowden is still on the run, and Chelsea Manning is in jail. They're being punished much more severely than those who committed the war and others crimes that they exposed.
<br>
<br>Secondly, if you weren't tuned to listening for someone's voice, how would you know it was being silenced? As if you've never heard of FB Jail?
<br>
<br>Thirdly, paraphrased you wrote: "silencing? that's not happening, unfortunately." Why "unfortunately"? Are you saying we'd be more fortunate if more voices were silenced? Are you advocating for more censorship? [If you're American, such shitting on the first amendment of the constitution outs YOU as the "domestic terrorist."]
<br>
<br>You wrote: "you'd all be rounded up and put in forced labour camps and/or killed."
<br>
<br>That may be your wish.
<br>
<br>However, they discovered that if they release a flu-like virus, they could effectively put people in at home quarantine, which is like in-house arrest. We're all in debt and forced to work to pay our bills, most often at underpaid sucky jobs. And then we die. Like from complications of obsesity caused by sugar drinks, sugar candy, and other snacks designed to trigger compulsive craving habits.
<br>
<br>At any rate, you are factual wrong about "censorship not even happening by a little bit." The internet used to have its mainstay through the infrastructure of publicly funded colleges and universities, which allowed UseNetNews to foster free speech. But then corporations started taken over and muscling out those message boards by providing the hosting for new forums. And with that, free-speech only to the extend of what corporate policy allows.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 200 -->
<a name="x201"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x201" class="tiny">x202</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_202');">still waiting</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_202" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges still waiting ......
</p>
</div><!-- section 202 -->
<a name="x203"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x203" class="tiny">x204</a>
Kylie Hirst : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_204');">thanks for the entertainment this morning</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_204" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges lol, no, I'm just up getting ready for work, will respond when/if I have the time but thanks for the entertainment this morning.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 204 -->
<a name="x205"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x205" class="tiny">x206</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_206');">same agent with a bogus government agenda</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_206" style="display: block;">
<p>Ah, snap! Are the online personas of Ms. Kylie Hirst and Mr. Ax Eye Om managed by the same agent with a bogus government agenda? I mean, the thread is 3 hours quiet, and then in literally the same minute, Facebook informs me -- one after the other -- of a reactions from Ms. Hirst interspered with reactions and ultimately a database retread from Mr. Om bot.
<br>
<br>That's called a sockpuppet-identifying failure.
<br>
<br>Agents being thorough: "Now it is time to handle FB persona A, and append "hahaha" smiling faces to comments of targets. Then logout and login as persona B and respond with thumbs-up to my co-conspirator FB persona A's efforts before dropping a total and complete duece into the discussion: "still waiting...."
<br>
<br>As if I didn't already suspect it, when Ms. Hirst offered the same line of "speaking in generalities" as Mr. Om. Tag teaming effort, but controlled by the same idiot agent.
<br>
<br>Why aren't Ms. Hirst and Mr. Om engaging with each other other than back-slapping reactions and occassional "attaboy's"? Because they have nothing to say to each other; nothing to convince the other of; because they are the same.
<br>
<br>Fail.
<br>
<br>And gee, talk about "gullible twit", both personas are essentially advocating the government line: censorship and hypnotic suggestion.
<br>
<br>Yeah, sure: does the invitation to join your agent online personas in your "Curing Conspiratards" FB group still stand?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 206 -->
<a name="x207"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x207" class="tiny">x208</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_208');">still waiting</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_208" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges still waiting ......
</p>
</div><!-- section 208 -->
<a name="x209"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x209" class="tiny">x210</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_210');">already reacted with his thumb's up</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_210" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Hirst, Your posting isn't even a minute cold, and your alter-ego persona Mr. Om has already reacted with his thumb's up. ... And before I can complete this response not even three minutes from your comment, Mr. Om adds his deuce to the steaming pile: "still waiting".
<br>
<br>Such coordination and tag teaming, that only an algorithm could make more efficient. Oh, my!
<br>
<br>Mr. Om bot-san, I am "still waiting" to learn if the invitation to join your agent online personas in your "Curing Conspiratards" FB group still stands?
<br>
<br>But I guess, if those questions remain below the "See more..." fold, your bot-algorithms will never click on it an know. It was placed once above the fold, and you still didn't answer. Because your bot algorithms can't handle it.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 210 -->
<a name="x211"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x211" class="tiny">x212</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_212');">not for your (crackpot) conspiracy theories</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_212" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges still waiting ....
<br>
<br><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges why are there whblowers in the dangerous fields of the military and police but not for your (crackpot) conspiracy theories??? think carefully
</p>
</div><!-- section 212 -->
<a name="x213"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x213" class="tiny">x214</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_214');">sockpuppets from the same persona management software</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_214" style="display: block;">
<p>Nailed it! Kylie Hirst and Ax Eye Om are sockpuppets from the same persona management software.
<br>
<br>What about the invitation to join your "Curing Conspiratards" FB group. Does it still stand, particularly when it'll be easy to identify the bots and sockpuppets?
<br>
<br>Loved the comments from me that you deleted from this thread. Rest assured, my version will have them.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 214 -->
<a name="x215"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x215" class="tiny">x216</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_216');">deleted my comments connecting sock-puppets with bots</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_216" style="display: block;">
<p>You deleted my comments connecting sock-puppets with bots. So, I deleted the rest of my comments in this thread (except the top-level comment) to highlight the crazy, and not interrupt the crazy with my attempts at rational discourse.
<br>Pearls before swine, and all that.
<br>//
<br>
<br>2022-10-10
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3011059602525610/?comment_id=3017450508553186&reply_comment_id=3017522671879303¬if_id=1666057080865408¬if_t=group_comment&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3011059602525610/?comment_id=3017450508553186&reply_comment_id=3017522671879303¬if_id=1666057080865408¬if_t=group_comment&ref=notif</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 216 -->
<a name="x217"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x217" class="tiny">x218</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_218');">ATTENTION CONSPIRATARDS</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_218" style="display: block;">
<p>ATTENTION CONSPIRATARDS: DON'T MAKE CLAIMS YOU CANNOT SUPPORT!
</p>
</div><!-- section 218 -->
<a name="x219"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x219" class="tiny">x220</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_220');">Wonderful gem of a posting</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_220" style="display: block;">
<p>Wonderful gem of a posting by someone who claims <i>"all conspiracies are crackpot"</i> and then can't even defend his assertion, making them hypnotic suggestions.
<br>
<br>I try to narrow down the conspiracies to just the ones that I champion which, supposedly, are all crackpot. And the fool can't even utter a single one of my theories. How can it be crackpot without even knowing what it is? Only agents and bots do that sort of shit.
<br>
<br>Who are the other sock-puppets that will come to your aide, bot-san? Let's find out.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 220 -->
<a name="x221"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x221" class="tiny">x222</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_222');">fire away big fella</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_222" style="display: block;">
<p>fire away big fella
</p>
</div><!-- section 222 -->
<a name="x223"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x223" class="tiny">x224</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_224');">Don't let that relationship unravel like a sockpuppet gone missing in the wash</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_224" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, Refer to my comment bellow to Ms. Belle Armstrong, also a fellow admin here in this FB group as you are, too. Don't let that relationship unravel like a sockpuppet gone missing in the wash. //
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 224 -->
<a name="x225"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x225" class="tiny">x226</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_226');">fact check everything?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_226" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you expect us to fact check everything?
</p>
</div><!-- section 226 -->
<a name="x227"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x227" class="tiny">x228</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_228');">not just a requirement for "conspiratards"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_228" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, <i>"Don't make claims you can't support"</i> -- coming from the posting under which this discussion transpires -- is not just a requirement for "conspiratards", but also for those who wish to "cure conspiratards".
<br>
<br>And I have found a case where an admin of this very group -- in a most hypocritical fashion -- was dropping all sorts of hypnotic suggestion everywhere -- "all conspiracy theories are crackpot" -- without even identifying (a) a single conspiracy theory or (b) what elements made it crackpot. Further, he went on to tweak me by saying "all of (my) conspiracy theories are crackpot", again without (a) or (b).
<br>
<br>It isn't about me expecting you "conspiracy deniers" to fact check everything. It is about you deniers living up to the very rules of this forum, and certainly the boastful posting made by either (a) a sockpuppet or (b) persona management software or (c) agent-bot... with the gem posting under which we discuss this.
<br>
<br>What is even more ironic. That lovable "gullible twit" -- an admin here, too -- made the above posting on October 10, and then just a few days later began to crank a bot-carousel that spectacularly and repeatedly made claims that he would/could not support, as if this posting here foreshadowed his near-term algorithmic actions.
<br>
<br>Ms. Armstrong, if by "fact-checking" you me "supporting claims that you make", then yes; this is the expectation on you.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 228 -->
<a name="x229"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x229" class="tiny">x230</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_230');">Ok love</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_230" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Ok love.
</p>
</div><!-- section 230 -->
<a name="x231"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x231" class="tiny">x232</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_232');">within a four minute window</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_232" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, I love the coincidence that my comments to you and Ax-bot were 6 hours ago (from the time of your comment). Then, within a four minute window, first you emote-react to my comments and then make your eloquent speech -- "Ok love." But within 3 minutes of your last words, good old Ax-bot is suddenly active with a comment to me (on another thread). And it was also just a one-liner.
<br>
<br>Damn it! Have I stumbled upon another sockpuppet associate of Ax-bot in the same way Kylie Hirst was outed?!!
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 232 -->
<a name="x233"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x233" class="tiny">x234</a>
Kylie Hirst : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_234');">yikes, someone's paranoid!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_234" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges yikes, someone's paranoid! Would you like the name of a good psych?
</p>
</div><!-- section 234 -->
<a name="x235"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x235" class="tiny">x236</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_236');">how were you so quickly notified</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_236" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb: admin removed this}
<br>Dear Ms. Kylie Hirst, How were you so quickly notified of my last comment on a Mr. Ax Eye Om posting, under my top-level comment, but further under a response from Ms. Belle Armstrong.
<br>
<br>Either you're cyber-stalking me (within this FB group). Or.
<br>
<br>Your persona management software is handling the notifications that might be aimed at any of the (three known) sockpuppets. The agent gets to choose who the response is from, but messed up. I mean, the language screams "Mr. Axe Eye Om", although the persona used should have been "Ms. Belle Armstrong" but with a differing tone. But to come out of the blue as "Ms. Kylie Hirst" into this discussion?
<br>
<br>That is a bad agent fail and starts to impact the integrity of this holy group: CURING CONSPIRATARDS.
<br>
<br>And just before I finish this message, the agent has to give a go of his persona "Mr. Ax Eye Om". Guess what he wrote: "you gullible twit".
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 236 -->
<a name="x237"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x237" class="tiny">x238</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_238');">you gullible twit</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_238" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you gullible twit
</p>
</div><!-- section 238 -->
<a name="x239"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x239" class="tiny">x240</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_240');">Someone is touchy! Doesn't like having all of his sockpuppets equated</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_240" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb: admin deleted}
<br>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, oooo-oh! Someone is touchy! Doesn't like having all of his sockpuppets equated, because their usage together in the same discussion is a deceitful act. Mostly because none of the sockpuppets would be portrayed in a convincing manner, could admit fault, could have their "minds" changed (say, based on superior references and arguments).
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 240 -->
<a name="x241"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x241" class="tiny">x242</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_242');">GULLIBILITY + PARANOIA = CONSPIRACY THEORIES</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_242" style="display: block;">
<p>2022-10-11
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/permalink/3009780539320183">https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/permalink/3009780539320183</a>
<br>
<br>Ax Eye Om
<br>GULLIBILITY + PARANOIA = CONSPIRACY THEORIES
</p>
</div><!-- section 242 -->
<a name="x243"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x243" class="tiny">x244</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_244');">... = BOOT LICKER</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_244" style="display: block;">
<p>GULLIBILITY + PARANOIA = BOOT LICKER = BROWN NOSER = ASS KISSER = VESTED INTEREST IN THE STATUS QUO = SHEOPLE
<br>
<br>Many theories happen, because events are researched and major plot holes in the official narrative uncovered.
<br>
<br>The issue with theories has always been the insincere theorists, who purposely poison the well of understanding because they are paid and ordered to do so: "national security" is called out in cases. Hell, disinformation agents have been continually active on various fronts for events already 20 years ago (and longer). These get sold to the duped userful idiot, the gullible. But the gullible can be taught the truth and the error in the premise. The agents and bots? No such luck.
<br>
<br>So this message isn't for you, Mr. Ax-bot, but for the latter-day lurker readers. And for your army of sockpuppets to engage me.
<br>
<br>Over here, Ms. Kylie Hirst. Come defend Mr. Ax-bot's hand up your sockpuppet ass.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 244 -->
<a name="x245"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x245" class="tiny">x246</a>
Kylie Hirst : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_246');">sounds like a bot, it's you</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_246" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges if anyone sounds like a bot, it's you. Repeating the same old nonsense over and over. I'm too busy at work to care to reply any further. Perhaps you should consider getting a job too
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 246 -->
<a name="x247"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x247" class="tiny">x248</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_248');">an appearance on behalf of Mr. Ax-bot</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_248" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Kylie Hirst, Thank you for making an appearance on behalf of Mr. Ax-bot. I'm still confused as to which of you has their hand up the ass of the other's sockpuppet. Doesn't matter, because your persona management software has the ability to handle all sorts of fake participants.
<br>
<br>In another thread created by Ax-bot himself, he boast that participants should not make claims that they cannot support.
<br>
<br>Above, Ms. Hirst, you are claiming that I have "repeated the same old nonsense over and over" (as if a database entry). Great, then it should be simple for you to copy any sentence of my comment, paste it with double quotes into a google search bar in another tab of your browser, and locate all the locations where I acted the bot "repeating the same old nonsense over and over." I admit that I am lazy as fuck, and am not beyond copy-and-pasting my words myself.
<br>
<br>The gotcha here, sockpuppet-girl, is that this is the first time I've mocked Ax-bot with a parody of his "math" words -- the posting anchoring this discussion. So you're not going find anywhere else where my comment was repeated from.
<br>
<br>Thus, this exception will disprove handily your statement about my alleged bot-repeatism, making you an overgeneralizing liar...
<br>
<br>Which come to think of it, was also a trait exhibited by Ax-bot with his lame "all conspiracy theories are crackpot". Damn, I'm hit with the same surprise twice, now! I keep forgetting you two is one and the same.
<br>
<br>Very unsportsman like to unleash two (or more) of your personas in the same discussion. And your efforts are so generic, so lame, ... it reeks of bot.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 248 -->
<a name="x249"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x249" class="tiny">x250</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_250');">name a single conspiracy or stfu</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_250" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges name a single conspiracy ever proved right or stfu
</p>
</div><!-- section 250 -->
<a name="x251"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x251" class="tiny">x252</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_252');">Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by the FBI</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_252" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by the FBI.
<br>
<br>True conspiracy; FBI offered an apology. You lose.
<br>
<br>And with that single, off-hand proof, your "all" statement gets debunked.
<br>
<br>That's how it's done, son.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 252 -->
<a name="x253"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x253" class="tiny">x254</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_254');">source for your claim</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_254" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges source for your claim
</p>
</div><!-- section 254 -->
<a name="x255"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x255" class="tiny">x256</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_256');">onus is on you to prove conspiracy theory "crackpot"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_256" style="display: block;">
<p>Nope, Mr. Ax Eye Om. That's not how reasoned discussion goes. Your request was to name a single conspiracy that was proven right. That challenge was met. And your one liner certainly didn't debunk it or prove it invalid.
<br>
<br>Your request for sources wasn't part of the bargain. Normally, I would have complied. Except, you have a history of not being able to click on the "See more..." link to address what is below the fold, much less follow links to my source material and address their issues. (You probably didn't even read this entire paragraph.)
<br>
<br>Nope, the ball is in your court. The onus is on you.
<br>
<br>You made the claim "all conspiracy theories are crackpot." This is one theory named. The onus is on you to prove the MLK Jr. / FBI connection is crackpot.
<br>
<br>Here, let me give you a starting point, because you can't do the google either.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=martin+luther+king+jr+FBI">https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=martin+luther+king+jr+FBI</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 256 -->
<a name="x257"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x257" class="tiny">x258</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_258');">a conspiracy theory prior to</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_258" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges firstly your claim is false. .. secondly no one was discussing it as a conspiracy theory prior to .... so try again dufus
</p>
</div><!-- section 258 -->
<a name="x259"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x259" class="tiny">x260</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_260');">cheating</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_260" style="display: block;">
<p>Firstly, you can't label something false without proving it as such. That is cheating. (So is working in tandem with sockpuppets.)
<br>
<br>Secondly, you made the bed about "all conspiracy theories being crackpot," were more than just a little coy in naming a single one, evaded even naming a single theory from my much smaller portfolio of conspiracy theories, and kept egging me to name one. So, au contraire. You were indeed discussing the assassination of MLK, Jr. when you made your "all conspiracy theories" claim. It remains valid and in play.
<br>
<br>As requested, I named you a theory so that your work, your substantiation of your boastful claim, could be started [and there are many more valid theories that I'll bring up next.]
<br>
<br>The onus is on you. Put up or shut up.
<br>
<br>This is a test of your integrity, your sincerity, and intellect.
<br>
<br>You're failing.
<br>
<br>And this is before anyone mentions your silly sockpuppets in this forum by name. You seem to be a bit touchy on that subject and quick to delete comments to that effect under postings "Ax" controls.
<br>
<br>Rest assured, one of my conspiracy theory claims is that FB (among most social media) is infiltrated rather thoroughly with agents and bots to control the narrative. And I'll point to your dishonest usage of sockpuppets in this "Curing Conspiratards" group [clearly a boot-licker's wet dream] as proof. Foreshadowing here.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 260 -->
<a name="x261"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x261" class="tiny">x262</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_262');">claim of a false conspiracy is dismissed</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_262" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb admin removed}
<br>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om bot-san, in another thread, you quoted someone else so eloquently: <i>"what can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."</i>
<br>
<br>Yep, your claim of a conspiracy being false is dismissed.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 262 -->
<a name="x263"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x263" class="tiny">x264</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_264');">try again numpty</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_264" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Ax Eye Om</b><b></b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges nope, it is you claiming fbi killed king .. ... what can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence .... so try again numpty
<br>
<br><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges you gullible twit - READ- https://www.politifact.com/.../fact-checking-old.../
<br>PolitiFact - Fact-checking an old conspiracy about Martin Luther King Jr.'s death
<br>POLITIFACT.COM
<br>
<br><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges So many gullible morons around grrrr
</p>
</div><!-- section 264 -->
<a name="x265"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x265" class="tiny">x266</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_266');">Thank you for debunking yourself</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_266" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om bot-san, you quoted someone else so eloquently: <i>"what can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."</i>
<br>
<br>EXACTLY. Thank you for debunking yourself before this bot-carousel got too far around another revolution.
<br>
<br>You made the claim without evidence that <i>"all chonspiracy theories are crackpot"</i> and even posted this meme to the group for discussion. Yet when pressed on the matter, you provided no evidence. Hell, you couldn't even name a conspiracy theory, let alone you couldn't name a conspiracy theory that I champion.
<br>
<br>You're DISMISSED, sockpuppet.
<br>
<br>Your quote, right back at you: "so try again numpty".
<br>
<br>Actually. Not really. Engagement with you is futile. Your unspecific, very generic, shallow, and cliche. Can't click on "See more..." links, can't follow links, and you engage in sockpuppetry.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 266 -->
<a name="x267"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x267" class="tiny">x268</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_268');">persona management software manning sockpuppets in discussions</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_268" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3017361628562074/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3017361628562074/</a>
<br>
<br>What happens when you discover persona management software manning sockpuppets in discussions? I don't know. Keep your eyes open: for agents, bots, and sockpuppets of the same. //
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 268 -->
<a name="x269"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x269" class="tiny">x270</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_270');">what?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_270" style="display: block;">
<p>Belle Armstrong
<br>What?
</p>
</div><!-- section 270 -->
<a name="x271"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x271" class="tiny">x272</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_272');">coincidence A and B would be active in the exact same tiny window of time?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_272" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, seeing how you asked so nicely. Here's the short version.
<br>
<br>Elsewhere in Facebook, participant A engages me in ("mindless") conversation, and I suspect he's a bot. He "friends" me. Makes one-liner, disparaging ad hominem across 4 postings on my wall. Doesn't defend his assertions and is an all-around-bot. But then on a different posting belonging to A, both B and I participate, but B only to a lesser extent. A and B are probably in different countries than me, but appear to be on the same schedule.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, I come back to a discussion I had left last night, make my reply to the new dribble from A. Three hours go by.
<br>
<br>Wouldn't you know it, in a 3 minute span participant B adds reactions to new comments of mine, and then participant A does the same and comments. Bam, bam, bam. What a coincidence A and B would be active in the exact same tiny window of time?
<br>
<br>Clearly a failure from an agent using a persona management program to handle multiple sock-puppets. Explains why A and B never really engaged with one another except in "reactions" and stupid back-slapping comments.
<br>
<br>Oh, and the thing is, I'd been dinging participant A for his bot-ish ways. His bot algorithms even invited me to participate in this FB group!!! Get that, wow!
<br>
<br>https://www.facebook.com/seven.seer.7/posts/pfbid02FEswvR2xiNuXUShJX72xKUJvGfQDsdRUbHcWs6GoXSYTdF2pd4v5MsToE8x8q4dGl
<br>
<br>It was an agent fail, and then castes some shade to here.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 272 -->
<a name="x273"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x273" class="tiny">x274</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_274');">the hole-y glory of their bot efforts is so glaring.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_274" style="display: block;">
<p>Oh. From that discussion I linked where I have the top-level comment in the thread? Bot participant A, aside from being obnoxious, started removing certain comments from me under that thread (because he owns the posting), particularly those comments that make the connection between him and his little sock-puppet friend (also a member of these hallowed halls).
<br><br>Because I write off-line and save locally, when I get around to it, I republish under venues that I control. I have the conversation saved, even the deleted ones.
<br><br>So what the hell? I deleted all of my exchanges in that thread of mine under A's posting. I'd remove the top-level one from me, except then the hole-y glory of their bot efforts wouldn't be so glaring.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 274 -->
<a name="x275"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x275" class="tiny">x276</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_276');">you gullible twit</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_276" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you gullible twit
</p>
</div><!-- section 276 -->
<a name="x277"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x277" class="tiny">x278</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_278');">Very well spotted</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_278" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Very well spotted.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 278 -->
<a name="x279"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x279" class="tiny">x280</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_280');">spreading his love and charm "you gullible twit"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_280" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, it seems the agent-bot (participant A) has made his appearance here in these threads, spreading his love and charm with <i>"you gullible twit"</i>, his favorite database expression.
<br>
<br>Tell me, Ms. Armstrong. How well do the administrators of this FB group know one another? More to the point, do you think they are all real people? Or is it possible for an AI-bot to infiltrate your ranks?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 280 -->
<a name="x281"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x281" class="tiny">x282</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_282');">most aren't bots</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_282" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges We know each other pretty well most aren't bots.
</p>
</div><!-- section 282 -->
<a name="x283"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x283" class="tiny">x284</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_284');">you paranoid psychotic twit</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_284" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you paranoid psychotic twit
</p>
</div><!-- section 284 -->
<a name="x285"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x285" class="tiny">x286</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_286');">punking you right to your face</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_286" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb: admin deleted}
<br>Oh dear, Ms. Belle Armstrong! Your fellow admin, Mr. Ax Eye Om bot-san, is punking you right to your face. He called me (repeatedly because it is in his database) a "paranoid psychotic twit."
<br>
<br>That is a violation of the rules of conduct of this forum.
<br>
<br>Isn't it very chummy of your two that coincidentally in the 6th hour after my last comment, you'd choose the same 3 minute window to drop your innane one-liners?!!
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 286 -->
<a name="x287"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x287" class="tiny">x288</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_288');">reached deep into a reply tree to delete a comment that I made</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_288" style="display: block;">
<p>Amazing! Which one of you admin's deleted my last comment in these threads? And the question assumes that the admin staff doesn't have any sockpuppets in it.
<br>
<br>I mean, I can understand ~my~ comments getting deleted by me, or if I don't own the posting under which I reply, or don't own a parent comment in a discussion. [When owners of parent comments delete them, so disappears all replies.]
<br>
<br>But someone reached under my posting and deep into a reply tree to delete a comment that I made.
<br>
<br>Wow! What deceitful censorship!
<br>
<br>Looks like my speculation into persona management software is hitting a nerve, and connecting sockpuppets in these hallowed halls of curers of conspiratards! For that has been the discussion in those several comments that have been selectively disappeared.
<br>
<br>You invited me, and you were asked multiple times if your invitation still stood. Albeit, "below the fold" that your bot algorithms couldn't click into, let alone read, comprehend, and respond appropriately.
<br>
<br>Punked on your own home court! How sad you agents and bots are.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 288 -->
<a name="x289"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x289" class="tiny">x290</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_290');">discussion about agents, bots, and sockpuppets</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-17</p>
<div id="sect_290" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stephen Dimitriou, Allow me to invite you over to this discussion about agents, bots, and sockpuppets of the same, <i>"right here in River City"</i> [phrase from <i>"The Music Man"</i>].
<br>
<br>So if I front load this paragraph with lots of words to push out the character count, the effect will be that FB creates a "See more..." break somewhere early in this paragraph. That is bait that a bot won't click on, and after the break, I can say whatever I want.
<br>
<br>This forum has lots of agents, bots, and sockpuppets of the same. And they've infiltrated the admin ranks of this group... Bwahahaha, who am I kidding?!! The bad apples were the creators from the get go. The hold positions of admin power. They like to delete comments.
<br>
<br>I look at this FB group, and others, as sort of a required school project for students of disinformation and desirous of joining NSA's Q-group (to congnitively infiltrate online social media and promote established agendas).
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 290 -->
<!-- ***** 2022_mcb_AxEyeOm.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_AxEyeOm2.htm -->
<a name="x291"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x291" class="tiny">x292</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_292');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_292" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02CguDxjvk8h6TCLeFtXQbsyPE1rmBkLHX7HZvPLHBiUkrPysvU5mGrQ6yqZvdPHvbl?">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid02CguDxjvk8h6TCLeFtXQbsyPE1rmBkLHX7HZvPLHBiUkrPysvU5mGrQ6yqZvdPHvbl?</a>
<br>
<br>Yo! Ax Eye Om! [Posted to his FB wall and expecting it to immediately get torn down, so re-posting here.]
<br>
<br>Please let us know the name of the Persona Management Software you use to handle all of your sockpuppets, particularly in your appropriately tarded named group "Curing Conspiratards"?
<br>
<br>Here's something ironic. Your bot algorithms have been dropping the same (alleged) "lack of whistleblowers" canard for a spectrum of conspiracy that you can't even identify a single one but believe to be "crackpot" anyway.
<br>
<br>And then right in front of your eye on your own home court, I guess that I become something of a whistleblower by identifying a real world conspiracy to engage the use of sockpuppets and bots to further your alleged "curing of conspiratards" agenda.
<br>
<br>The thanks I get? Surgical removal of my comments mentioning sockpuppets (censorship) and then suspension (more censorship), quite possibly because such sockpuppetry in a dscussion is rather deceitful.
<br>
<br>(A) The sockpuppets are by design fragments of your personality or purposeful mirrors thereof and have distinct limits on range of expression, else they align too closely with, say, the owner's position or another of his sockpuppets.
<br>
<br>(B) Sockpuppets by design don't learn, don't evolve, and don't change their opinions, and will go to great lengths to avoid learning or understanding that which might undermine their agenda.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 292 -->
<a name="x293"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x293" class="tiny">x294</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_294');">psychotic dribble</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_294" style="display: block;">
<p>psychotic dribble
</p>
</div><!-- section 294 -->
<a name="x295"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x295" class="tiny">x296</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_296');">obsessed with you</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_296" style="display: block;">
<p>Ax Eye Om he's obsessed with you.
</p>
</div><!-- section 296 -->
<a name="x297"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x297" class="tiny">x298</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_298');">very wise of your persona</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_298" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, That was very wise of your persona to wait 20 minutes before engaging with your sockpuppet relation, Mr. Ax Eye Om. Now it isn't so obvious. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 298 -->
<a name="x299"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x299" class="tiny">x300</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_300');">not hearing any denials on your side</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_300" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, I'm not hearing any denials on your side that you aren't in someway a relation to other sockpuppet participants, nor from them either. Instead, I observed some heavy-handed admin actions, not just surgically deletion of individual comments, but of closing down comments temporarily to ~all~ postings... Without a care in the world that some innocent poster would mind.
<br><br>They didn't mind because the posting was ultimately yours but under a different sockpuppet name.
<br><br>For the record, this posting isn't in your conspiratards group, so isn't subject to your surgical censorship or hypocritcal admin actions.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 300 -->
<a name="x301"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x301" class="tiny">x302</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_302');">yawn</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_302" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges yawn
<br>
<br>++++++++++++
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 302 -->
<a name="x303"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x303" class="tiny">x304</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges and Ax Eye Om: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_304');">surgical censorship loses arguments</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-19</p>
<div id="sect_304" style="display: block;">
<p>Messenger
<br>Dear Ax Eye Om, nothing says "I lost; I have no arguments; you are right" more mightily than surgical censorship of comments and outright suspension from your group! Is that how Conspiratards are going to be cured?
<br>
<br>And nothing says: "I am weak and have no case" stronger than tag-teaming sockpuppets.
<br>
<br>Ax_Eye_Om, Kylie_Hirst, Belle_Armstrong... are just the tip of the iceberg of personas in this forum who -- from their coincidental and prompt behavior -- have outed themselves as being sockpuppets.
<br>
<br>Remember, you invited me to your group, maybe because you thought you could punk me on your home court. Nope. You got yourself PWNED pretty badly as well as the reputation of your whole group.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>they are not sock puppets you paranoid psychotic nutcase
<br>now you have 12 hrs to cool off and when you return try answering my question about the lack of a single insider whblower
<br>and GET A GRIP!
<br>
<br>Wed 12:18 PM
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br>Yes they are sockpuppets, and probably a few more, like Brian Ostermark. [If he wasn't one of your sockpuppets, then why did you INSULT a real person but shutting down comments to HIS posting? If he's real, he did nothing wrong, but you've turned him into a victim. Good job.
<br>
<br>Your hypnotic denials have no effect on me.
<br>
<br>If really they weren't sockpuppets, when I first brought it up -- Ax and Kylie --, each could have publicly stated they were no relation to one another [at completely different and random times of the day], and that would have been the end of the story.
<br>
<br>But no. Kylie has given no response at all to the accusation. Of course, one could argue that Ax was too handy with the axe to surgically remove those comments, so maybe a real person Kylie never saw it.
<br>
<br>Nope, censorship and temporay banishment are your only tools. Reason, substantiation, and articulation are not your strong suits.
<br>
<br>After all of this, you still haven't (a) identified a conspiracy theory that I champion and (b) proven it to be "crackpot". It was you who made a bit posting out of "DON'T MAKE ANY CLAIMS THAT YOU CAN'T DEFEND", or words to that effect. Hypocrite. Bot. Agent.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 304 -->
<a name="x305"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x305" class="tiny">x306</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_306');">moon landing ... go!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_306" style="display: block;">
<p>try the moon landing ... go!
</p>
</div><!-- section 306 -->
<a name="x307"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x307" class="tiny">x308</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_308');">Do you see me championing</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_308" style="display: block;">
<p>Do you see me championing (or denying) the moon landing on my blog ... go! //
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 308 -->
<a name="x309"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x309" class="tiny">x310</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_310');">keep asking you for one!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_310" style="display: block;">
<p>that's why i keep asking you for one!
</p>
</div><!-- section 310 -->
<a name="x311"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x311" class="tiny">x312</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_312');">subscribe to zero consp theories?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_312" style="display: block;">
<p>are you saying to subscribe to zero consp theories?
<br>why so defensive and evasive?
</p>
</div><!-- section 312 -->
<a name="x313"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x313" class="tiny">x314</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_314');">over and over like a bot</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_314" style="display: block;">
<p>Wed 12:40 PM
<br>That is right: you keep asking me for a conspiracy theory, over and over like a bot, ignorant of the fact that my portfolio of conspiracy theories is readily available on my blog. But a tell of a bot -- which you are -- is that you can't follow links, nor can you google to find the blog that I've mentioned several times.
<br>
<br>Sure, I've not had the opportunity to post the URL to my blog in the discussions we've been having in your agency-funded little FB group, because you repeatedly stated -- under no uncertain terms -- that <i>"all of my conspiracy theories were crackpot"</i>, which gives rise to the impression that you've been to my blog to KNOW what my theories are and why they are crackpot. Thus, no link was provided and it gave me unusual pleasure watching you stew in the stupidity of your own, over-generalized proclamations and lies. [Lie: you don't know what conspiracy theories specifically that I champion, but you said you did and cranked lots of spins on your carousel.]
<br>
<br>Geez, you could have gone to my facebook wall and eventually found me promoting something that was on my blog. But you're a bot. You don't do work. You don't think out of the box, out of the algorithm, out of the database entry. And if you ain't a bot, your an agent.
<br>
<br>In any even, your participation is insincere. I mean, what was the nonsense of you -- twice now -- attempting to post bullshit directly on my FB wall?!! Get this little factoid. I work off-line, save my work, and then post onlne. Therefore, with just a little effort, I could make a posting suitable for your wall that is our unedited discussion. Won't that be sweet? [Don't hold your breath, though, because you really aren't worth the effort.]
<br>
<br>Love your projecting your weaknesses onto me: "why so defensive and evasive?"
<br>
<br>You're the one who censored my comments rather than address them; you're the one who banned me based on those comments.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 314 -->
<a name="x315"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x315" class="tiny">x316</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_316');">you refuse to proffer a single one of your consp theories</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_316" style="display: block;">
<p>why do you refuse to proffer a single one of your consp theories?
<br>
<br>you talk a lot but say very little
<br>
<br>and i repeat: every single one of your consp theories are crackpot!
</p>
</div><!-- section 316 -->
<a name="x317"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x317" class="tiny">x318</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_318');">"... casting pearls before swine."</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_318" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax-bot, you ask: "why do you refuse to proffer a single one of your consp theories?"
<br>
<br>The answer comes from the Bible: <i>"... casting pearls before swine."</i>
<br>
<br>In our entire history, you have been insincere, shallow, generic, unspecific, unsubstantiated. I am the opposite.
<br>
<br>... Damn it, Ax. I was just about to give you keys to my kingdom, and then you go and make another dumb comment: <i>"and i repeat: every single one of your consp theories are crackpot!"</i>
<br>
<br>As mentioned many times in recent history, this statement suggests that you are familiar with my conspiracy theories already, else you would not have been able to judge them as crackpot. Yet despite you bragging about such familiarity with my views, you still fail to mention a single one.
<br>
<br>Thus, you "repeat" a lie, because your bot algorithms don't know no better.
<br>
<br>... Oh, what the hell? ...
<br>
<br>Enter the following without the double quotes into google: <i>"maxwell bridges FGNW"</i>. {2023-11-01 mcb: Google shadow banning no longer has my blog in the search result; only "The Vatic Project" entry.}
<br>
<br>You wanted a theory, well right there is my 9/11 hobby-horse. Let's see if your bot algorithms can even get you there and can get you to copy any given sentence written by me that you see there. Consider it a bot-test [that you'll fail.]
<br>
<br>Before I forget, let me return briefly to your sockpuppet denials. Without consulting with Brian Ostermark, you (as admin) temporily shut down comments to HIS posting, and they remain off. If he was real, he'd be upset; you're turning him into an innocent victim, and you already exhibited other techniques of deleting any of my unwanted sockpuppet comments. So, whereas I only suspected before of his intimate relationship with "your right hand", those admin actions prove it. I mean, Brian was on your side and arguing things better than you ever did. Why did you screw him and his posting over?
<br>
<br>You wrote: "you talk a lot but say very little".
<br>
<br>You talk little and say even less, so shallow and insincere you are. A little time-sucking bot-instigator of flame wars.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 318 -->
<a name="x319"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x319" class="tiny">x320</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_320');">single insider whblower?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_320" style="display: block;">
<p>9/11 - where is a single insider whblower? ...yawn...
<br>
<br>you must feel special with your secret knowledge insiders are too scared to speak up about.
</p>
</div><!-- section 320 -->
<a name="x321"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x321" class="tiny">x322</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_322');">suspend me from the group and censor my wisdom</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-19</p>
<div id="sect_322" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, Are you aware of the actions of a bot-ish administrator of this group? It seems his argument is so weak, he has to suspend me from the group and censor my wisdom. Is that how Conspiratards are going to be cured?
<br>
<br>For shame, for shame!
<br>
<br>Either condemn or defend the ongoing administrative actions aimed at me.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 322 -->
<a name="x323"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x323" class="tiny">x324</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_324');">I shall address the issue</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_324" style="display: block;">
<p>If you could tell me who it is, I shall address the issue.
</p>
</div><!-- section 324 -->
<a name="x325"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x325" class="tiny">x326</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_326');">identify the wayward admin of curing conspiratards</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_326" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, so you are asking me to identify to you the wayward admin of curing conspiratards? I thought that was clear from the exchange you and I had under my posting. But if you insist on me spelling it out: Ax Eye Om, who by the way, I consider a bot that is probably handled by the same persona management software that handles other identified sockpuppets.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 326 -->
<a name="x327"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x327" class="tiny">x328</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_328');">Ax isn't a bot</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_328" style="display: block;">
<p>Ax isn't a bot. He started the group love.
</p>
</div><!-- section 328 -->
<a name="x329"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x329" class="tiny">x330</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_330');">One of the other sockpuppets in his stable</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_330" style="display: block;">
<p>You probably mean, the owner of the persona management software in-use was the Ax-sockpuppet to establish the group and mask his identifies. One of the other sockpuppets in his stable could be the real person or reflect the ideas of a real person. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 330 -->
<a name="x331"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x331" class="tiny">x332</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_332');">the Ax-admin just suspended me for another 12 hours</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_332" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, It seems that the Ax-admin just suspended me for another 12 hours.
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>+++
<br>Group rules that were violated
<br>1 No promotions or spam
<br>Give more than you take in this group. Self-promotion, spam and irrelevant links aren't allowed. This includes posting thousands of memes in a 5 minute period.
<br>+++</p></blockquote>
<p>Fact: when he deletes comments, he destroys the evidence that might make his case for suspension or banishment.
<br>
<br>As he so boldly stated: <i>"Don't be making claims that you can't defend."</i>
<br>
<br>So, please have him identify & quote the suspending worthy offenses. [Hint: He doesn't like me calling out his sockpuppets that were easily identified from their coordinated actions.
<br>
<br>If he fails to justify his actions, then you, as admin Ms. Armstrong, should re-instate me.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 332 -->
<a name="x333"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x333" class="tiny">x334</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_334');">No love</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_334" style="display: block;">
<p>No love, I know Ax.
</p>
</div><!-- section 334 -->
<a name="x335"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x335" class="tiny">x336</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_336');">hypocritical and bot-ish even as Ax</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_336" style="display: block;">
<p>If you know Ax, then you know he is being deceitful. He's hypocritical and bot-ish even as Ax, and has a stable of personas to manipulate the narrative of threads where he particpates. Lots of "attaboys" and backslapping between personas when used in the same discussion thread, trying to "astro-turf" (as opposed to "grass-roots") concensus that his bot arguments are valid.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 336 -->
<a name="x337"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x337" class="tiny">x338</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_338');">who are the bots</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_338" style="display: block;">
<p>Ok so who are the bots ... name them.
</p>
</div><!-- section 338 -->
<a name="x339"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x339" class="tiny">x340</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_340');">twice I rode a bot carousel over <i>"no whistleblowers"</i> and then notice that he crank yet other spins</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_340" style="display: block;">
<p>Ax Eye Om. Very generic. Unspecific. At least twice I rode a bot carousel over <i>"no whistleblowers"</i> and then notice that he crank yet other spins -- with the exact same database entries -- with other participants, both before and after me. He can't follow links. I'm doubtful that he can even click on a "see more..." link of longer comments.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 340 -->
<a name="x341"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x341" class="tiny">x342</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_342');">another name in the group</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_342" style="display: block;">
<p>So you're saying he's got two Ax Eye Om accounts or does he have another name in the group?
</p>
</div><!-- section 342 -->
<a name="x343"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x343" class="tiny">x344</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_344');">schlick so limited, he comes across like a bot</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_344" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>No, I'm saying that he is so insincere and his schlick so limited, he comes across like a bot. And he has Kylie Hirst and others as sockpuppets.
<br>
<br>Were it otherwise, the accused sockpuppets could publicly state "I don't have so-and-so hand's up my ass; we are no relation." I'd apologize for the mistake, and it'd be over.
<br>
<br>Censoring sensible and factual comments is not a sign of innocence in this case.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 344 -->
<a name="x345"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x345" class="tiny">x346</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_346');">maybe this isn't the group for you</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_346" style="display: block;">
<p>Have you ever thought that maybe this isn't the group for you?
<br>
<br>Kylie Hirst isn't a bot.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 346 -->
<a name="x347"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x347" class="tiny">x348</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_348');">invited to your group by the Ax-bot himself</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_348" style="display: block;">
<p>I was invited to your group by the Ax-bot himself, and I asked him multiple times (admittedly mostly below the fold of a "see more..." content break, because he isn't capable of expanding) if the invitation still stood and what sort of reception would I get.
<br>
<br>No answer, but the sockpuppet and censorship treatment over the clearly identified sockpuppets does speak volumes.
</p>
</div><!-- section 348 -->
<a name="x349"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x349" class="tiny">x350</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_350');">condone such tom-foolerly.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_350" style="display: block;">
<p>Maybe this isn't the group for you that as an admin you condone such tom-foolerly.
</p>
</div><!-- section 350 -->
<a name="x351"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x351" class="tiny">x352</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_352');">control over what Ax does</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_352" style="display: block;">
<p>That photos from 2010.
<br>
<br>I don't have any control over what Ax does.
</p>
</div><!-- section 352 -->
<a name="x353"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x353" class="tiny">x354</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_354');">Lots of FB profiles with short tenures</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_354" style="display: block;">
<p>Could be anybody's photo. Lots of FB profiles with short tenures. The real kicker is the timing of certain responses with respect to Ax-bot. //
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 354 -->
<a name="x355"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x355" class="tiny">x356</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_356');">from 2010</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_356" style="display: block;">
<p>Kylie account is from 2010.
</p>
</div><!-- section 356 -->
<a name="x357"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x357" class="tiny">x358</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_358');">Kylie is the puppet master and the weirdly named Ax Eye Om is the sockpuppet</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_358" style="display: block;">
<p>So quite possibly, Kylie is the puppet master and the weirdly named Ax Eye Om is the sockpuppet.
<br>
<br>FTR, your dealing with an internet persona yourself, but I'm not a bot or an agent or a sockpuppet. I have two FB accounts. One for family and friends, and one for conspiracies and special interests that I know my family and friends don't give a shit about. I don't tag-team my accounts in a discussion like sockpuppets. They have completely different FB friends and news feeds.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 358 -->
<a name="x359"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x359" class="tiny">x360</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_360');">just being a tad obsessive</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_360" style="display: block;">
<p>Don't you think your just being a tad obsessive? It's just Facebook. If you don't like the group please leave. I've got better things to do with my time than listened to a strangers unhinged rants.
</p>
</div><!-- section 360 -->
<a name="x361"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x361" class="tiny">x362</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_362');">dishonest sockpuppet master as an admin who surgically deletes comments</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_362" style="display: block;">
<p>Don't you think that having proven dishonest sockpuppet master as an admin who surgically deletes comments that he doesn't like and imposes suspensions for no rules violations of the group is just <i>"being a tad obsessive?"</i>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 362 -->
<a name="x363"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x363" class="tiny">x364</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_364');">stop harassing me</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_364" style="display: block;">
<p>Kindly stop harassing me please.
</p>
</div><!-- section 364 -->
<a name="x365"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x365" class="tiny">x366</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_366');">take some admin responsibility for actions taken by others</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_366" style="display: block;">
<p>This isn't harassment. You're an admin on a group with a dubious name, so you take some responsibility for actions taken by others -- even fellow admins -- who have broken the rules and mis-used their authority. Your responsibility is to condone or condemn what he done, setting an appropriate tone for the group.
<br>
<br>He's called me names. And how is manning several sockpuppets in the same forum, sometimes active under the same threads, above board and honest? Sure, you can have your doubts about who is the sockpuppet of whom, but the surgical deletion of comments that mention a connection, together with no efforts on either side to deny it, is practically an admission of guilt and a cover-up.
</p>
</div><!-- section 366 -->
<a name="x367"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x367" class="tiny">x368</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_368');">manage (poorly) several different sockpuppets</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_368" style="display: block;">
<p>2022-10-20
<br>You're a one-trick pony performing to imaginary whistleblowers who aren't even needed. You must feel special that you can manage (poorly) several different sockpuppets, but all with the same stilted rhetoric and favorite word: "twit". //
</p>
</div><!-- section 368 -->
<a name="x369"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x369" class="tiny">x370</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_370');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_370" style="display: block;">
<p>Oh, and it seems that surgical deletion of postings that expose your sockpuppetry isn't sufficient. Please explain how my participation ran afoul?
<br>
<blockquote><p>+++
<br>Group rules that were violated
<br>1No promotions or spam
<br>Give more than you take in this group. Self-promotion, spam and irrelevant links aren't allowed. This includes posting thousands of memes in a 5 minute period.
<br>+++</p></blockquote>
<p>Fact: when you delete comments, you destroy the evidence that might make your case for suspension or banishment.
<br>
<br>As you so boldly stated: "Don't be making claims that you can't defend."
<br>
<br>So, quote me and identify the suspending worthy offenses.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 370 -->
<a name="x371"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x371" class="tiny">x372</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_372');">point about whblowers and stop dribbling</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_372" style="display: block;">
<p>you need to address the point about whblowers and stop dribbling
</p>
</div><!-- section 372 -->
<a name="x373"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x373" class="tiny">x374</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_374');">isn't a gating factor</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_374" style="display: block;">
<p>No, I do not need to address the point about whistleblowers. It isn't a gating factor. Conspiracies can still happen without any of the participants getting buyer's remorse and coming clean. Come clean to whom? And how? And what would it benefit them?
<br>
<br>Your <i>"lack of whistleblowers"</i> argument is a lame one, and not even true strictly speaking. There were plenty of whistleblowers on compartmentalized things, and they were treated so badly on purpose as a lesson for anyone else coming forward.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 374 -->
<a name="x375"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x375" class="tiny">x376</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_376');">deadman triggers and deathbed confessions</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_376" style="display: block;">
<p>yet they keep coming and always will .. especially in the age of the internet with deadman triggers and deathbed confessions ... it only takes one remember.
</p>
</div><!-- section 376 -->
<a name="x377"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x377" class="tiny">x378</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_378');">discussion needs to happen, in a fair and civil manner</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_378" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ax-tard, If you want me to answer you questions, why in the fuck did you ban me from your group? That's where the discussion needs to happen, in a fair and civil manner. That means "one sockpuppet" from you active under a posting. That means no surgical deletion of my comments. Although you checked a box for some rule I allegedly broke, you and I both know that I didn't write any hate speech at you, and no actual rules were broken. Your feelings were simply hurt because your Ax-bot is lame and I legitimately outed a dubious usage of your sockpuppets, because you did it in a stupid manner and it is hard to manage.
<br>
<br>You need me. Without me, you got no halfway decent conspiratard to attack. You group becomes blah, with lots of lame-ass sockpuppet backslapping and no real meaningful discussion.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 378 -->
<a name="x379"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x379" class="tiny">x380</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_380');">stay on point</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_380" style="display: block;">
<p>if you can stay on point you are welcome back
</p>
</div><!-- section 380 -->
<a name="x381"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x381" class="tiny">x382</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_382');">now, or no dice</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_382" style="display: block;">
<p>Make it happen now, or no dice.
</p>
</div><!-- section 382 -->
<a name="x383"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x383" class="tiny">x384</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_384');">false claim of sockpuppets again and finito</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_384" style="display: block;">
<p>done ... but mention your false claim of sockpuppets again and finito
</p>
</div><!-- section 384 -->
<a name="x385"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x385" class="tiny">x386</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_386');">surgically censor admitting sockpuppetry is true</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_386" style="display: block;">
<p>If you have to surgically censor it, then you're practically admitting that it is true and not a false claim by any stretch of the imagination.
</p>
</div><!-- section 386 -->
<a name="x387"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x387" class="tiny">x388</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_388');">zero evidence</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_388" style="display: block;">
<p>you have zero evidence it is true ... provide evidence or withdraw your claim
</p>
</div><!-- section 388 -->
<a name="x389"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x389" class="tiny">x390</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_390');">wasn't the crime, but the cover-up</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_390" style="display: block;">
<p><i>"It wasn't the crime, but the cover-up"</i> that did you in. You and your sockpuppets could have simply individually denied the assertion -- preferably not within 3 minutes of each other. THAT was a dead giveaway. Also coming to each other's rescue with not just lacking "see more..." effort but in cases using the same vocabulary, you twit.
</p>
</div><!-- section 390 -->
<a name="x391"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x391" class="tiny">x392</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_392');">jump to conclusions</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_392" style="display: block;">
<p>you see how quickly you jump to conclusions??
</p>
</div><!-- section 392 -->
<a name="x393"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x393" class="tiny">x394</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_394');">jumped to conclusions and surgically deleted comments</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_394" style="display: block;">
<p>Says the idiot how repeatedly jumped to conclusions and surgically deleted comments without even signally that that had been done, or why. Makes you guilty as sin.
</p>
</div><!-- section 394 -->
<a name="x395"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x395" class="tiny">x396</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_396');">where atre all those insider whblowers?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_396" style="display: block;">
<p>just stay on point ok .. now where atre all those insider whblowers?
</p>
</div><!-- section 396 -->
<a name="x397"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x397" class="tiny">x398</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_398');">boasted about all conspiracy theories being crackpot without naming a single one</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_398" style="display: block;">
<p>Asswipe. The point isn't whistleblowers. The point is you boasted about all conspiracy theories being crackpot without naming a single one or identifying what made it crackpot.
<br>
<br>Iran-Contra
<br>
<br>Prove that it is crackpot. The same for "CIA started the LA crack epidemic". And "the CIA is the biggest drug runner on the planet and one of many reasons Afghanistan was targeted and managed like it was."
<br>
<br>Go. The ball is in your court, and make your answers public.
</p>
</div><!-- section 398 -->
<a name="x399"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x399" class="tiny">x400</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_400');">cia ran drugs to catch the kingpins you numpty</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_400" style="display: block;">
<p>all conspiracy theories are crackpot and false .. prove me wrong
<br>
<br>cia ran drugs to catch the kingpins you numpty
</p>
</div><!-- section 400 -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_AxEyeOm2.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_AxEyeOm3.htm -->
<a name="x401"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x401" class="tiny">x402</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_402');">gave him a seven day suspension</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_402" style="display: block;">
<p>Mary Smart I just gave him a seven day suspension.
</p>
</div><!-- section 402 -->
<a name="x403"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x403" class="tiny">x404</a>
David Lloyd Hole Snr : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_404');">ban him, then he will know what a bot is</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_404" style="display: block;">
<p>I was going to say just ban him, then he will know what a bot is.
</p>
</div><!-- section 404 -->
<a name="x405"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x405" class="tiny">x406</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_406');">suspension is more fun</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_406" style="display: block;">
<p>David Lloyd Hole Snr I suspended him, it's more fun.
</p>
</div><!-- section 406 -->
<a name="x407"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x407" class="tiny">x408</a>
KC Scudder : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_408');">going to come back crying that you're the bot</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_408" style="display: block;">
<p>Belle Armstrong you know he's going to come back crying that you're the bot. Then he'll try demanding feet pics or something to prove you're real. It's weird how he can see the name of the group and just not get it.
</p>
</div><!-- section 408 -->
<a name="x409"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x409" class="tiny">x410</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_410');">I want to see him come crying back</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_410" style="display: block;">
<p>KC Scudder that's why I suspended him because I want to see him come crying back. Lol
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 410 -->
<a name="x411"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x411" class="tiny">x412</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_412');">the master behind the sockpuppets reveals herself!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_412" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, Great posting about me {now removed or unaccessible to me). The screen shots from your smart phone are a particularly nice touch. In the comments, you write: "I just gave him a seven day suspension" (which is funny, because Ax should have been the admin to do it and in the know. Then you go on to write: "that's why I suspended him because I want to see him come crying back. Lol"
<br>
<br>And indeed, I did come "cryng back." But not to you, because I didn't suspect you of doing it; I suspected Ax. Here's that crying exchange.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>[Maxwell Bridges] Dear Ax-tard, If you want me to answer you questions, why in the fuck did you ban me from your group? That's where the discussion needs to happen, in a fair and civil manner. That means "one sockpuppet" from you active under a posting. That means no surgical deletion of my comments. Although you checked a box for some rule I allegedly broke, you and I both know that I didn't write any hate speech at you, and no actual rules were broken. Your feelings were simply hurt because your Ax-bot is lame and I legitimately outed a dubious usage of your sockpuppets, because you did it in a stupid manner and it is hard to manage.
<br>
<br>You need me. Without me, you got no halfway decent conspiratard to attack. You group becomes blah, with lots of lame-ass sockpuppet backslapping and no real meaningful discussion. //
<br>
<br>[Ax Eye Om] if you can stay on point you are welcome back
<br>
<br>[Maxwell Bridges] Make it happen now, or no dice.
<br>
<br>[Ax Eye Om] done ... but mention your false claim of sockpuppets again and finito
<br>
<br>[Maxwell Bridges] If you have to surgically censor it, then you're practically admitting that it is true and not a false claim by any stretch of the imagination.
<br>
<br>[Ax Eye Om] you have zero evidence it is true ... provide evidence or withdraw your claim
<br>
<br>[Maxwell Bridges] "It wasn't the crime, but the cover-up" that did you in. You and your sockpuppets could have simply individually denied the assertion -- preferably not within 3 minutes of each other. THAT was a dead giveaway. Also coming to each other's rescue with not just lacking "see more..." effort but in cases using the same vocabulary, you twit.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Damn, girrrrrl!
<br>
<br>So, the master behind the sockpuppets reveals herself! Oh, aren't you the crafty one! Timing tripped up Kylie Hirst and Ax Eye Om, and it had also tripped you up too with Ax Eye Om, although I didn't make a big deal of it at the time. But this posting here that you've created is golden.
<br>
<br>So scenario 1 is that Ax are Belle are ~not~ sockpuppets of the same person. In which case, the story is that one admin (Belle) stepped from behind the scenes to defend another admin (Ax) by banning an invited participant, only to have those actions countermanded a few hours later by the Ax himself. Now they have bad blood between one another, because Ax just totally undermined the authority of Belle..
<br>
<br>In scenario 2, Ax and Belle are sockpuppets of the same person as speculated, which makes coordination of deleting comments, bogus banning, and then re-instatement not only much easier, but with no hurt feelings between the two.
<br>
<br>P.S. This comment not made to the curing conspiratards group, so speculation into sockpuppetry between players is not a violation of any promises -- made or implied -- to Ax.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 412 -->
<a name="x413"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x413" class="tiny">x414</a>
Belle Armstrong : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_414');">Ok honey.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_414" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Ok honey.
</p>
</div><!-- section 414 -->
<a name="x415"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x415" class="tiny">x416</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_416');">The sincerity of every "curer" in your group is seriously called into question</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_416" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, such a quick reply, you didn't even read it. The sincerity of every "curer" in your group is seriously called into question. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 416 -->
<a name="x417"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x417" class="tiny">x418</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_418');">Ms. Belle Armstrong, formerly an admin here, has JUST LEFT THE BUILDING!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_418" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3020237134941190/?comment_id=3020258118272425¬if_id=1666357901363800¬if_t=group_comment&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3020237134941190/?comment_id=3020258118272425¬if_id=1666357901363800¬if_t=group_comment&ref=notif</a>
<br>Oh no!!! It seems that Ms. Belle Armstrong, formerly an admin here, has JUST LEFT THE BUILDING! She had departed from this group without even saying "goodbye, fucktards!" And she FB unfriended me, too. I'm so sad. She had paid me homage on her FB wall by bragging about her recent admin activities here, that included suspending little 'ole me for 7 days until October 27.
<br>
<br>Amazing that Ax went behind her back are removed that suspension before the first day was even over. Look at this posting as evidence.
<br>
<br>Must've of caused some really bad blood between the two admins, so Ax gave her the axe in a real brutal fashion.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 418 -->
<a name="x419"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x419" class="tiny">x420</a>
Sam Baxter : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_420');">She's still Admin</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_420" style="display: block;">
<p>She's still Admin
</p>
</div><!-- section 420 -->
<a name="x421"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x421" class="tiny">x422</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_422');">Bruce Wayne is going to want to be doing that under a "batman"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_422" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Sam Baxter, if Ms. Belle Armstrong is still Admin as you say -- and I don't necessarily disagree --, then she would have to act under a sockpuppet alias, such as "Jenny", "Cat", "Jordan", or even -- dare I say it -- "Ax". El-oh-el.
<br>
<br>And that's been kinda the issue. While it is important to protect your personal information on line particularly if you are going to play in "fucktard" FB groups, Bruce Wayne is going to want to be doing that under a "batman" alias, no question.
<br>
<br>Check out my profile picture. If that ain't a cute "batman" to my "bruce" that you don't need to know about! I'm consistent in my usage, earnest in my efforts, take responsibility for my words to the point of re-purposing them to my website (since 2004). Which is why I endeavor to take the high road in my interactions so that the words will be worthy in and out of a "fucktard" context.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, my "bruce" isn't even FB friends with my "batman". The instance would be most rare indeed when "bruce" appears in a FB skirmish against "batman". Whether or not "bruce" and "batman" debated the same side of the issue, their tag teaming in the same discussion is deceitful, very integrity damaging if discovered, and most difficult to maintain believably. [Again, an issue present in this instance.]
<br>
<br>So, although I am a newbie in this forum of conspiratards versus curer-tards, my short contribution to the scoring added positive points to the conspiratards while subtracting points (and going negative) for the curer-tards.
<br>
<br>The sockpuppets were so wound up, they were surgically deleting my comments, took down my postings, suspended me for 12 hours, then tried to suspend me for over 7 days, and -- as this comment demonstrates -- didn't even finish out the day it was issued before getting overturned.
<br>
<br>[Why? Because I'm a kick-ass conspiratard, and they need me if they want this group to be any more than one sockpuppet me-too'ing another. Boring. Conflict is what peeks interest.]
<br>
<br>In other words, nothing says "you hit a nerve with your expressed truth" than the immediate censorship attempted. So that's adding to the conspiratards score.
<br>
<br>What subtracts from the curer-tards score mightily is: the sudden departure of an admin! Tho' we all know that she still hangs out here in spirit under her own "batman" alias while I rub her nose in it.
<br>
<br>See? Not only has my participation made this "batcave" a better place, it has served to improve "bruce" herself, and her puppet mastery of her "batmen" in her Persona Management Software.
<br>
<br>Remember. "Batman" can never reach the limits of what he can "be" or express truly of himself in a forum, if his "bruce" is there, too. One or both would be compartmentalized and stilted to avoid the appearance of being clones of one another. And such mental and expressed firewalls in the personas makes them insincere, less authentic, deceitful. "You don't don the mask to protect yourself, but to protect those you care about."
<br>
<br>Fare thee well, Belle-Bruce, sockpuppet master!
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 422 -->
<a name="x423"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x423" class="tiny">x424</a>
Sam Baxter : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_424');">Huh?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_424" style="display: block;">
<p>Huh?
</p>
</div><!-- section 424 -->
<a name="x425"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x425" class="tiny">x426</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_426');">toddle along cooker</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_426" style="display: block;">
<p>She's still here now toddle along cooker
</p>
</div><!-- section 426 -->
<a name="x427"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x427" class="tiny">x428</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_428');">the puppet master has some distance from her sockpuppets</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_428" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, I agree that Belle is still here acting even still as an admin, but now the puppet master has some distance from her sockpuppets. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 428 -->
<a name="x429"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x429" class="tiny">x430</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_430');">who's keeping you at bay mr sock puppet</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_430" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges so who's keeping you at bay mr sock puppet ?
</p>
</div><!-- section 430 -->
<a name="x431"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x431" class="tiny">x432</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_432');">do you expect everyone to believe you are actually Walter white</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_432" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges or do you expect everyone to believe you are actually Walter white ?
</p>
</div><!-- section 432 -->
<a name="x433"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x433" class="tiny">x434</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_434');">Batman talking to future-Robin</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_434" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, allow me to quote an Alaskan librarian.
<blockquote><p>+++
<br>Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s.
<br>
<br>I believe that from a speech standpoint a pseudonym provides accountability. A person writes under her pen name and if called on misuse of facts or making stuff up can't hide behind the "I didn't say that" that anonymous blog commenters can.
<br>
<br>So I don't think using a pen name is itself bad for public discourse. ... Outing people is a form of Ad hominem attack to me. You don't care about their facts or sources, you are arguing the writing shouldn't be trusted because of the person hiding behind the pseudonyms.
<br>
<br>In a few specialized cases, this could be legitimate. For example, it would be worthwhile to know that a blog purporting to be from an American Jihadi was in fact written by Dick Cheney to try and scare us. Or if a blog purporting to be that of a homeless man trying to get by on the streets of New York was actually being written by George Soros. But unless the outing is to show the writer isn't in a position to know what he's writing about, it's not useful or conducive to public debate.
<br>~ alaskanlibrarian
<br>+++</p></blockquote>
<p>From the Batman movie, Batman talking to future-Robin: "You don't don the mask to protect yourself, but to protect those you love."
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 434 -->
<a name="x435"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x435" class="tiny">x436</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_436');">worried if someone els is using a sock</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_436" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges so why are you worried if someone els is using a sock ?
</p>
</div><!-- section 436 -->
<a name="x437"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x437" class="tiny">x438</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_438');">sockpuppets are established with limitations</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_438" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, Deceitful tag-teaming practices not just in the same Group, not just under the same posting, but together in individual threads is the issue. Attempts to astro-turf a concensus and manipulate the discussion narrative.
<br>
<br>Worse, in the effort to make each sockpuppet "different", real, and consistent (e.g., in language, ideas, aspirations), sockpuppets are established with limitations. In other words, they can never evolve or change their minds, and most just end up being lacky "yes" men.
<br>
<br>The more important question is: "If you aren't already using an alias as you comment in fucktard groups, why not? Haven't you ever heard of 'safe-internet' practices?"
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 438 -->
<a name="x439"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x439" class="tiny">x440</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_440');">I am a lone conspiratard and heavily outnumbered</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_440" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, Or to answer your question -- "why are you worried if someone els is using a sock?" -- in a different manner. I am a lone conspiratard entering into a heavily biased FB group where from the onset, I'm outnumbered by the curer-tards, both real and sockpuppet. I need to reduce the number of fronts (e.g., postings, threads, online entities) where I expend my effort.
<br>
<br>Given that I am earnest and sincere (and a legacy to back that claim), I don't want to be debating insincere participants and sockpuppets who play games. But it happens, I know. So when several of the curer-tards are revealed to be the same retard, it can totally discredit them and their positions while eliminating further required engagement effort on my part. "FOUL!" I get the win, and they take heavy loses to their credibility and integrity... at their own hand.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 440 -->
<a name="x441"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x441" class="tiny">x442</a>
Chris Cross : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_442');">Riddance</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_442" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Chris Cross</b>
<br>Lol !!!
<br>
<br><b>Chris Cross</b>
<br>Riddance to her !!!
<br>
<br><b>Chris Cross</b>
<br>Good !!!
</p>
</div><!-- section 442 -->
<a name="x443"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x443" class="tiny">x444</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_444');">might get the "Ax" real soon</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-21</p>
<div id="sect_444" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Chris Cross, Thank you for your kind words. I recommend that you hurry and check out my reply to Mr. Sam Baxter quickly. I suspect that either that comment or this whole damn posting might get the "Ax" real soon, if you know what I mean. Good thing I write off-line before posting, so I have a copy. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 444 -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_AxEyeOm3.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_AxEyeOm4.htm -->
<a name="x445"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x445" class="tiny">x446</a>
Joanna Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_446');">WHAT CONSPIRACY WOKE YOU UP</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-22</p>
<div id="sect_446" style="display: block;">
<p>Image from "They Live": "WE WER ALL NAIVE AT ONE TIME. WHAT CONSPIRACY WOKE YOU UP."
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3021220514842852/?comment_id=3021463104818593¬if_id=1666492123757170¬if_t=group_comment_mention">https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3021220514842852/?comment_id=3021463104818593¬if_id=1666492123757170¬if_t=group_comment_mention</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 446 -->
<a name="x447"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x447" class="tiny">x448</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_448');">not a single conspiracy theory has ever been proven right</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_448" style="display: block;">
<p>not a single conspiracy theory has ever been proven right .. good luck trying to find one! lol. ... Maxwell Bridges try to find one! lol .. you damn gullible clowns!
<br>
<br>{mcb: 2022-10-27 The discussion below was deleted, leaving only the above comment in that thread.}
</p>
</div><!-- section 448 -->
<a name="x449"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x449" class="tiny">x450</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_450');">12 Conspiracy Theories That Actually Turned Out to Be True</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_450" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.rd.com/list/conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/">https://www.rd.com/list/conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/</a>
<br>12 Conspiracy Theories That Actually Turned Out to Be True
<br>RD.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 450 -->
<a name="x451"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x451" class="tiny">x452</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_452');">these conspiracy theories and why they are crackpot</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_452" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br>Ax Eye Om <a href="https://www.buzzworthy.com/15-conspiracies-that-turned-out-to-be-true/">https://www.buzzworthy.com/15-conspiracies-that-turned-out-to-be-true/</a>
<br>15 Conspiracies That Turned Out to Be True
<br>BUZZWORTHY.COM
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br>Ax Eye Om <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bldBqtgAX2o">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bldBqtgAX2o</a>
<br>Top 10 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MewtsLsxoDY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MewtsLsxoDY</a>
<br>Top 10 Government Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br>Ax Eye Om <a href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/12-crazy-conspiracy-theories-actually-turned-out-be-true">https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/12-crazy-conspiracy-theories-actually-turned-out-be-true</a>
<br>12 crazy conspiracy theories that actually turned out to be true
<br>READERSDIGEST.COM.AU
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br>Ax Eye Om <a href="https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/conspiracy-theories/">https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/conspiracy-theories/</a>
<br>Conspiracy Theories that Turned Out to be True
<br>CRIMINALJUSTICEDEGREEHUB.COM
<br>
<br>+++ Under each one above, later +++
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, your analysis is requested for the above conspiracy theories and why they are crackpot.
<br>
<br>Reply here in this thread to just those theories at the above URL.
<br>
<br>Take your time. And don't be cranking other distracting carousels until you've addressed these here: one-by-one.
<br>
<br>Thank you in advance for your debunking efforts so that I might see the light and be better informed through your research, wisdom, and analysis.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>+++
</p>
</div><!-- section 452 -->
<a name="x453"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x453" class="tiny">x454</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_454');">if there is overlap in the above conspiracy theories, then you only have 15 conspiracy theories to debunk</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_454" style="display: block;">
<p>Ax Eye Om You made the boastful claim that "ALL conspiracy theories were crackpot." Assuming no overlap in the above theories, there's probably 60 theories above that you need to prove as total crackpot, as in not true and not even an ounce of truth.
<br><br>However if there is overlap in the above conspiracy theories, then you only have 15 conspiracy theories to debunk.
<br><br>Hop to it! Chop, chop. You made that bed, now lie in it.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 454 -->
<a name="x455"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x455" class="tiny">x456</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_456');">talked about as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to revelation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_456" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges all you need to do is prove one of them was actually talked about as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to revelation AND show that it was an actual conspiracy with identified conspirators. ..... hop to it!
</p>
</div><!-- section 456 -->
<a name="x457"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x457" class="tiny">x458</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_458');">busy work that you will then promptly ignore</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_458" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om bot-san, Your request: <i>"all you need to do is prove one of them was actually talked about as a conspiracy theory"</i>. Rather sophomoric -- if not bot-ish -- in its logic and its intent on assigning busy work that you will then promptly ignore.
<br>
<br>Conspirators don't talk about themselves in those terms. No, they are strategic partners. And the theories are actually given in mission statements. As one example, the Project for a New American Century and their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (that if you look real hard on the internet, you can still find a PDF of. I have a copy.)
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/25398/Ferdigxmasteroppgave.pdf">https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/25398/Ferdigxmasteroppgave.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>At any rate, what would be the significance of this? "talked about as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to revelation"?
<br>
<br>Further, you don't have to identify the conspirators to know more than one person conspired together for an illegal or illicit purpose that happened, which pretty much meets the base definition for "conspiracy theory."
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 458 -->
<a name="x459"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x459" class="tiny">x460</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_460');">to prove that a CONSPIRACY THEORY actually became true!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_460" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges "At any rate, what would be the significance of this? "talked about as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to revelation"?" ------------- to prove that a CONSPIRACY THEORY actually became true! .. not one ever has. .. not a single one.
<br>
<br><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges this is not about which conspiracies were discovered but which CONSPIRACY THEORY came true! ... got it now?
</p>
</div><!-- section 460 -->
<a name="x461"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x461" class="tiny">x462</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_462');">trying to establish a criteria that has nothing to do with whether not conspiracies happened. </a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_462" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om bot-san, Your bot algorithms makes no sense. You're trying to establish a criteria that has nothing to do with whether not conspiracies happened.
<br>
<br>(Assume this fact) Conspirators got together as "strategic business partners" to execute items on their business plan. Later after the events happened, the conspiracy theorists speculated that those who benefited from the action and were instrumental in carrying out the action planned in advance to carry out those actions.
<br>
<br>According to your logic, because the conspirators were not themselves equating their business plans with "conspiracy" adjectives, it cannot be later viewed as a valid conspiracy theory.
<br>
<br>Regarding 9/11, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by that popular band called PNAC, the Project for a New American Century, runs counter to your hypnotic and illogical statements.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>{mcb: at 3:23 2022-10-23 "Your account is restricted right now. You're temporarily restricted from doing things like posting or commenting in groups, creating new groups until Wednesday at 3:23 PM" (2022-10-26). Seems to be applied to the tard group. However, }
<br>
<br>
<br>+++ direct message
<br>
<br>Sat 9:41 PM
<br>learning yet?
<br>
<br>Sun 3:43 PM
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 462 -->
<a name="x463"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x463" class="tiny">x464</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_464');">Nothing says "your truth hit a nerve" quite like the censorship you've exhibited in your tard group</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_464" style="display: block;">
<p>Yes. Nothing says "I'm losing the debate, I can't defend my own positions, I have no argument" better than censoring your opponent. And it appears to have been an automated bot programmed into the Fauci-censorship regime. I mean, one posting with meme's didn't even make it live, so quick were the algorithms. The second posting without the meme's, and/or the discussion that was happening triggered it.
<br>
<br>Or may be just as likely, you yourself Ax Eye Om were the bot-culprit.
<br>
<br>Nothing says "your truth hit a nerve" quite like the censorship you've exhibited in your tard group. //
<br>
<br>Sun 4:04 PM
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>So which one of you tard-admins posted as me in your tard-group with an anti COVID vaccine article, that then got flagged by your COVID-bot-algorithms and suspended my activities? Pretty clever. Nothing says agency quite like dirty tactics. //
<br>
<br>Sun 6:04 PM
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 464 -->
<a name="x465"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x465" class="tiny">x466</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_466');">you are now unblocked</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_466" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>i simply allowed your post
<br>
<br>Sun 6:44 PM
<br><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>50 Day FB Ban?
<br>30
<br>you are now unblocked
</p>
</div><!-- section 466 -->
<a name="x467"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x467" class="tiny">x468</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_468');">trigger for automatic admin-bots</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_468" style="display: block;">
<p>8:43 AM
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br>Thank you for the efforts, but the blocking admin was a FB algorithm, and a message about something I posting going against community standards, although that might be a reference to FB community. May you could check on something. Allegedly, I posted a link to an article with the title "Delta variant hysteria exposes the sobering truth: Covid vaccines don't work." [Only you and the group admins can see this post.]
<br>
<br>I DID NOT POST THAT. The destination URL is not something I've saved; the destination website is not something I visit with any frequency. I did find the link, though:
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-06-29-delta-variant-hysteria-exposes-truth-covid-vaccines-dont-work.html">https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-06-29-delta-variant-hysteria-exposes-truth-covid-vaccines-dont-work.html</a>
<br>
<br>The point is two-fold. 1) That URL / subject might well indeed be a trigger for automatic admin-bots to do their thing and reprimand the poster, in my cases exactly 3 days suspension from the time of posting, but only in the Conspiratards group. Means the group from the get-go was established with agendas (on Covid) with automatic mechanisms. 2) I DID NOT POST THAT URL. Given the technical prowess of the admins in their ability to surgically remove comments, given that at least two participants who engaged me in conversation (e.g., Belle, Wayne) had two FB personas registered, I speculate that someone spoofed me by posting the triggering URL just to put me in time out.
<br>
<br>The question is: who spoofed me?
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br>{mcb: Found out I was not a member. When I rejoined at Ax Eye Om's invitation, this appeared.
<br>
<br>Your group activity is restricted
<br>Your previous group activity didn't follow our Community Standards so you can't do things like create, invite, post and comment in groups.
<br>Oct 23, 2022
<br>Your post didn't follow our Community Standards
<br>Feb 10, 2022
<br>Your comment didn't follow our Community Standards on harassment and bullying
<br>Feb 10, 2022
<br>Your comment didn't follow our Community Standards on harassment and bullying
<br>Nov 3, 2021
<br>Your comment didn't follow our Community Standards on hate speech
<br>
<br>{mcb: in other words, the lying actions of others stacked up.}
<br>
<br>Up above, Mr. Chris Cox wrote: "(Fauci is) SO credible that he insisted on the use of the PCR test when the very inventor of it said it was not reliable."
<br>
<br>Mr. Wayne Boyd is a big fan of assigning busy work to others and then promptly ignoring it. Thank you Mr. Chris Cox for providing him the research hints. But yes indeed, the inventor of the PCR test has stated multiple times that the PCR test was not reliable (for what they were intending it). It can't separate live virus from dead.
<br>
<br>On a different topic, Mr. Wayne Boyd must have recently unfriended me. I mean, in order to climb over from the "Curing Conspiratards" group, see my wall, and post a comment it on it, he had to be a FB friend at the time (and was, as I recall). But now he is not.
<br>
<br>Far more interesting, that "Curing Conspiratards" group has rules set up from the get gone that are FB poster-child for censorship and control, enforced in cases by bots. In one instance, I was going to post some memes on the vaccine theme, and the bot intercepted and banned it without it ever going live.
<br>
<br>Later, I speculate that someone spoof me. [Belle and Wayne are two examples of participants who had more than one FB profile in the group; I went through an interesting series of exposing sockpuppets and bots; Ax Eye Om might be a bot.]
<br>
<br>In the group, the URL was somehow a trigger, and it lead to a 3 day suspension automatically ON THAT GROUP.
<br>
<br>This is on my wall but buried in comments. Let's see what happens with the censorship...
<br>
<br>It didn't like it. Not even sure this posting will go up without the link
<br>
<br>//
<a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-06-29-delta-variant-hysteria-exposes-truth-covid-vaccines-dont-work.html">https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-06-29-delta-variant-hysteria-exposes-truth-covid-vaccines-dont-work.html</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 468 -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_AxEyeOm4.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_8 -->
<a name="p9"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_9');">Part 9: Curer-tards and 9/11</a></h2>
<div id="part_9" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_Conspiratard911.htm -->
<a name="x469"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x469" class="tiny">x470</a>
Joanna Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_470');">What Conspiracy Woke You Up</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_470" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3021220514842852/?comment_id=3022121764752727&reply_comment_id=3024593857838851¬if_id=1666560241169234¬if_t=group_comment_mention">https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3021220514842852/?comment_id=3022121764752727&reply_comment_id=3024593857838851¬if_id=1666560241169234¬if_t=group_comment_mention</a>
<br>
<br>What Conspiracy Woke You Up
</p>
</div><!-- section 470 -->
<a name="x471"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x471" class="tiny">x472</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_472');">pulverization through the paths of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_472" style="display: block;">
<p>The observed pulverization through the paths of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration while ejecting content laterally of the two WTC towers, only to have the official reports from the NIST/FEMA crews: (a) focus only on the initiation of collapse from the jet impacts and fire from jet fuel & office furnishings, (b) ignore the imbalance in the energy equation in a lame "pancake" and then "pile driver" analysis that SCREAMS "energy had to have been added from other sources."
<br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 472 -->
<a name="x473"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x473" class="tiny">x474</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_474');">Debunking the 9/11 Myths: The World Trade Center</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_474" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Have you read this?
<br><a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/?fbclid=IwAR0D103N_NVC_k18ZfKos07qhPkoAkfbyNqtZFWzwC7bU-5GOwji9zx1_uQ">https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/?fbclid=IwAR0D103N_NVC_k18ZfKos07qhPkoAkfbyNqtZFWzwC7bU-5GOwji9zx1_uQ</a>
<br>Debunking the 9/11 Myths: The World Trade Center
<br>POPULARMECHANICS.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 474 -->
<a name="x475"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x475" class="tiny">x476</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_476');">the curer-tards had me suspended from this group for exactly 72 hours</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_476" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, Apologies for this tardy response. FB and the curer-tards had me suspended from this group for exactly 72 hours.
<br>
<br>Indeed I have studied the Popular Mechanics article and recommend it to every open-minded and rational thinking person, because it could be considered Exhibit A for media working with government to spread absolute disinformation and bullshit.
<br>
<br>Dr. David Griffin's book addressed that article's many issues in his 2007 book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to 'Popular Mechanics' and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory." His chapter four is titled "Debunking 9/11 Myths: A Failed Attempt by 'Popular Mechanics'".
<br>
<br>After the article came out in March 2005, it was thoroughly debunked by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Dr. Griffin wrote: "I myself called it a 'spectacularly bad article,' adding that 'Popular Mechanics owes its readers an apology for pulbishing such massively flawed article on such an important subject.' However, rar from apologizing, Popular Mechanics in 2006 published a somewhat revised and expanded version of this essay as a book, entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts'. And this book, apart from correcting few of the flaws in the article, is no better. Its errors are especially important because, besides the fact that this book is easily the most widely read ..." (paraphrased) and was treated by the BBC as a primary authority about 9/11.
<br>
<br>I don't want to be a spoiler, but the next 100 pages tears PM a new asshole, point by point, as any truly sincere debunker would do.
<br>
<br>Conclusion: Griffin's work was done in 2007. Here it is 2022 and you're still promoting PM's disinformation not knowing how bad it really was?!!
<br>
<br>For shame, for shame.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X?fbclid=IwAR1noWMjf-JLdMcbY59_paC4Il89JvVjl_Eh0UPEj0SlUkAzV4riwJ36eCs">https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X?fbclid=IwAR1noWMjf-JLdMcbY59_paC4Il89JvVjl_Eh0UPEj0SlUkAzV4riwJ36eCs</a>
<br>
<br>Here's the Amazon review:
<br>
<br>+++ quote
<br>
<br>By virtue of his previous four books on the subject, David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement, which rejects the official conspiracy theory about 9/11. Although this movement was long ignored by the US government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." It is not surprising, therefore, that the government and the corporately controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it. In the present book, David Ray Griffin shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of Debunking 9/11 Myths (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Griffin riddles recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine. He also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications"”which one might have expected to be supportive. Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly leveled against critics of the official theory"”that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith"”actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory. This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement's central claim"”that 9/11 was an inside job"”remains the only explanation that fits the facts.
<br>
<br>+++ end quote
<br>
<br>//
<br>Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and the Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
<br>AMAZON.COM
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 476 -->
<a name="x477"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x477" class="tiny">x478</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_478');">How can your book debunk the popular mechanic's article</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_478" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Christopher Edwards</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>How can your book debunk the popular mechanic's article, if the article was written in 2022 and you say the book was written in 2007? 🤔
<br>
<br>May be an image of text that says 'x www.popularmechanics.c.. POPULAR MECHANICS SUBSCRIBE HOME SIGN IN NEW TECH SCIENCE MI Gear-obsessed editors choose every product we review. We may earn commission you buy from a link. .U? Military 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Special Report -The World Trade Center Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11. POP MECH BY POPULAR MECHANICS EDITORS PUBLISHED: SEP 2022'
<br>
<br><b>Christopher Edwards</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dude. 🙄🤣🤣🤣
<br>May be an image of text
<br>
<br><b>Christopher Edwards</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>You'll be saying that the Nazis were socialists and the earth is flat next??! 🤣🤣🤣
</p>
</div><!-- section 478 -->
<a name="x479"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x479" class="tiny">x480</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_480');">My error in not knowing that there was a 2022 version of the article</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_480" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, My error in not knowing that there was a 2022 version of the article. Point 1: it is only available to Pop Mech members.
<br>
<br>Point 2: it is undoubtedly based on its original 2005 version, and its 2006 book, whose many errors were pointed out in Griffin's 2007 book.
<br>
<br>Seeing how I can't read the new version, how significantly does it deviate from its predecessors? Did they fix their errors?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 480 -->
<a name="x481"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x481" class="tiny">x482</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_482');">No it isn't</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_482" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>No it isn't, it's always been freely available and not behind a paywall.
<br>
<br>May be an image of text
</p>
</div><!-- section 482 -->
<a name="x483"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x483" class="tiny">x484</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_484');">stopped looking at new 9/11 data since reading this book in 2007?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_484" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Is it possible that you have stopped looking at new 9/11 data since reading this book in 2007? 🤔
</p>
</div><!-- section 484 -->
<a name="x485"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x485" class="tiny">x486</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_486');">a bit of unfounded speculation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_486" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, You wrote: <i>"You'll be saying that the Nazis were socialists and the earth is flat next??!"</i>
<br><br>No, I'll not be writing that. What is noteworthy is that you can and did write that about me in a bit of unfounded speculation. Please visit my blog and tell me whether those are things in my conspiracy portfolio. When you come up short, render your apology.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 486 -->
<a name="x487"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x487" class="tiny">x488</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_488');">What. A. Surprise. 🙄🤣😉</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_488" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>So you have a preconceived opinion on data that if 15 years fresher than your old data??!
<br>
<br>What. A. Surprise. 🙄🤣😉
<br>
<br>May be an image of text that says 'Safari 23:35 < 89% Comment were socialists and the earth is flat next??! 8m Like Reply Maxwell Bridges Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, My error in not knowing that there was a 2022 version of the article. Point only available to PoMechmomhers, Point 2: is undoubtedly based on its original 2005 version, and its 2006 book, whose many errors were pointed out in Griffin's 2007 book. Seeing how can't the new version, how significantly does it deviate from its predecessors? Did they fix their errors? I/ 2m Haha Reply Christopher Edwards Write a public reply... Rules Home Marketplace Feeds Notifications'
</p>
</div><!-- section 488 -->
<a name="x489"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x489" class="tiny">x490</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_490');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_490" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, not to pat myself on the back too hardily, but not only has my 9/11 study progressed, it has gone further towards the truth than: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Woodsian DEWers, and 9/11 Nukers combined!!!
<br><br>I'll let you do a google on me to find my research. Use my name followed by the initials "FGNW" in your search query.
<br><br>//
{2023-11-01 mcb: Google using my name followed by FGNW no longer brings up my blog, but one of my articles published to The Vatic Project.}</p>
</div><!-- section 490 -->
<a name="x491"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x491" class="tiny">x492</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_492');">Chemtrails? 😉</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_492" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>So which other conspiracy theories do you believe?
<br>Chemtrails? 😉
<br>May be an image of text
</p>
</div><!-- section 492 -->
<a name="x493"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x493" class="tiny">x494</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_494');">your own picture in your profile?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_494" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>If you research is so up to date, why not share several examples of 9/11 data from this decade? 🤔
<br>
<br><b>Christopher Edwards</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>If your blog had anything sensible to say, why don't you use your own picture in your profile? 🤔
<br>
<br><b>Christopher Edwards</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Also, do you think the character Heisenberg would agree with you on 9/11? 😉
</p>
</div><!-- section 494 -->
<a name="x495"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x495" class="tiny">x496</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_496');">"National Socialists" or "chemtrails": make a top-level comment and their own dedicated threads</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_496" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, Please stop being deceitful and a weasel. If you really want to talk about "National Socialists" or "chemtrails", make a top-level comment so they can have their own dedicated threads.
<br>
<br>Right now, you're trying to distract and "guilt by association" mud-sling a valid top-level posting about 9/11. Early versions of your PM article and book were thoroughly debunked; your new version isn't reachable to the general public. You brought it up. If you want to defend it, then quote from it and go to town. (The quotes are important otherwise nobody will know what you are talking about.)
<br>
<br>You'll get extra rasberries from me if the new article re-cycles debunked points from earlier instances of their disinformation, and if errors aren't corrected.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 496 -->
<a name="x497"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x497" class="tiny">x498</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_498');">do you have any 9/11 data from this decade or not?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_498" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>So do you have any 9/11 data from this decade or not? 😉
</p>
</div><!-- section 498 -->
<a name="x499"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x499" class="tiny">x500</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_500');">the PM's article from 2022 did not address my work from 2018</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_500" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, because you haven't shown that "this decade's" version of PM article has any improvements over its predecessors, whether or not I have a blog posting from the 2020's (as opposed to last decade at 2018) isn't really relevant.
<br>
<br>[*sobbing* And please get off my case that my years-long procrastination has so delayed my Opus as well as a new version of my website, since the old one just got imploded by my decades-long service provider. Crippling procrastination. Blame it on Facebook! *sniff* *wiping away tear*]
<br>
<br>With certainty, the PM's article from 2022 did not address my work from 2018, so even with a newer date, it is still wrong.
<br>
<br>Regarding my Heisenberg image, glad you noticed. Wouldn't want anyone to think that my Batman pseudonym (since 2004) was my tax-paying Bruce Wayne. Here's why.
</p>
<blockquote><p>+++ Quote
<br>
<br>Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s.
<br>
<br>I believe that from a speech standpoint a pseudonym provides accountability. A person writes under her pen name and if called on misuse of facts or making stuff up can't hide behind the "I didn't say that" that anonymous blog commenters can.
<br>
<br>So I don't think using a pen name is itself bad for public discourse. ... Outing people is a form of Ad hominem attack to me. You don't care about their facts or sources, you are arguing the writing shouldn't be trusted because of the person hiding behind the pseudonyms.
<br>
<br>In a few specialized cases, this could be legitimate. For example, it would be worthwhile to know that a blog purporting to be from an American Jihadi was in fact written by Dick Cheney to try and scare us. Or if a blog purporting to be that of a homeless man trying to get by on the streets of New York was actually being written by George Soros. But unless the outing is to show the writer isn't in a position to know what he's writing about, it's not useful or conducive to public debate.
<br>
<br>~ alaskanlibrarian</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 500 -->
<a name="x501"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x501" class="tiny">x502</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_502');">it is up to you to paste its information in here</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_502" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, You wrote: <i>"No it isn't, it's always been freely available and not behind a paywall."</i>
<br>
<br>Wrong. When I follow your link to the 2022 PM article on "Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Special Report - The World Trade Center , the article's content is purposely blurred and unreadable. it wants me to do digital only for $4 a month, or all access for $40 a year. The very definition of a paywall and not being freely available.
<br>
<br>So, if that new article has anything relevant, it is up to you to paste its information in here. (Or are you not a member?)
<br>
<br>Meanwhile. When you paste multiple comments in a row in a short period of time, that is considered spamming if the content could have been consolidated into one posting with some clever SHIFT+ENTER usages during composition (or simply writing off-line).
<br>
<br>Agents like to use that tactic, because it forces earlier and maybe even more meaningful comments into a "See more comments..." region to get them out of the way. An example in itself why FB does not want discussion. (If they did, they'd add more tools to make it easier to view all comments, respond to comments, link to comments, and to keep sequencing correct instead of algorithms mucking with order of comments (and hiding things.)
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 502 -->
<a name="x503"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x503" class="tiny">x504</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_504');">literally outgunned "9 to 1", because I'm using all my fingers at a keyboard (except 1 thumb) and you're using only one finger on your phone</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_504" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, Sorry for so many postings in a row. Would have edited a previous comment, but was afraid with them being almost 10 minutes ago and probably already read, you'd miss this point.
<br>
<br>The screen images from your phone means that in this debate you are literally outgunned "9 to 1", because I'm using all my fingers at a keyboard (except 1 thumb) and you're using only one finger on your phone. I can have multiple tabs open, research things, quote things. On the phone, not so much.
<br>
<br>Just saying.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 504 -->
<a name="x505"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x505" class="tiny">x506</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_506');">maybe others will have the same problem you're having? 😉</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_506" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>It's not behind a paywall but I've shared the link into the group and maybe others will have the same problem you're having? 😉
</p>
</div><!-- section 506 -->
<a name="x507"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x507" class="tiny">x508</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_508');">Did you actually scroll into the article and can you read it beyond the title and publication date?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_508" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, either you subscribed to PM and didn't know it, or maybe special rules apply when using a phone. Did you actually scroll into the article and can you read it beyond the title and publication date?
<br>
<br>Your screen capture may not have scrolled far enough.
<br>
<br>Also, I'll be signing off for the night. Other plans for the evening.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>{mcb: 2022-10-27 It appears that the discussion above has been deleted. Parallel to the 9/11 discussion used to be the... }
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3021220514842852/?comment_id=3021463104818593&reply_comment_id=3024786141152956¬if_id=1666557269384393¬if_t=group_comment_mention">https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3021220514842852/?comment_id=3021463104818593&reply_comment_id=3024786141152956¬if_id=1666557269384393¬if_t=group_comment_mention</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 508 -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_Conspiratard911.htm -->
<a name="x509"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x509" class="tiny">x510</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_510');">Does anyone have a problem with this Popular Mechanics link?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_510" style="display: block;">
<p>2022-10-26
<br>Christopher Edwards -> Curing Conspiratards
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3024611187837118/?comment_id=3024616861169884&reply_comment_id=3024617321169838¬if_id=1666827193169145¬if_t=group_comment_mention">https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3024611187837118/?comment_id=3024616861169884&reply_comment_id=3024617321169838¬if_id=1666827193169145¬if_t=group_comment_mention</a>
<br>
<br>Does anyone have a problem with this link?
<br>Maxwell Bridges seems to have a problem and says it opens to a paywall"¦
<br><a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/?">https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/?</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 510 -->
<a name="x511"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x511" class="tiny">x512</a>
Stella Marie Ivory : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_512');">Fine"¦</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_512" style="display: block;">
<p>Fine"¦
</p>
</div><!-- section 512 -->
<a name="x513"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x513" class="tiny">x514</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_514');">working fine for me</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_514" style="display: block;">
<p>It's working fine for me and no paywall
</p>
</div><!-- section 514 -->
<a name="x515"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x515" class="tiny">x516</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_516');">Maxwell Bridges is having some problems"¦ 😃ðŸ‘ðŸ¾</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_516" style="display: block;">
<p>Christopher Edwards
<br>Wayne Boyd
<br>Thanks, Maxwell Bridges is having some problems"¦ 😃ðŸ‘ðŸ¾
</p>
</div><!-- section 516 -->
<a name="x517"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x517" class="tiny">x518</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_518');">More baked than a scone</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_518" style="display: block;">
<p>Christopher Edwards he is a problem
<br>More baked than a scone
</p>
</div><!-- section 518 -->
<a name="x519"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x519" class="tiny">x520</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_520');">done for the night"¦ 🤣</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_520" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Boyd
<br>Probably just a Coincidence, but he's just said he's done for the night"¦ 🤣
</p>
</div><!-- section 520 -->
<a name="x521"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x521" class="tiny">x522</a>
Roger Beaumont : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_522');">No paywalll...</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_522" style="display: block;">
<p>No paywalll...
</p>
</div><!-- section 522 -->
<a name="x523"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x523" class="tiny">x524</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_524');">object to the gross violence that just occurred to your worthy postings and right under your very noses</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_524" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Joanna Smith and Mr. Christopher Edwards, you have been cheated! A curer-tard admin has removed entire discussions right from within the threads of YOUR postings. Worse, your very reasoned words (Mr. Christopher Edwards) and attempts to rationally defend a premise went missing, as did mine.
<br>
<br>Under Ms. Smith's posting, I lost [1} a thread with Mr. Ax Eye Om where he challenged himself to debunk many conspiracy theories that turned out to be true; and [2] the thread with Mr. Edwards about the Popular Mechanics article!!!
<br>
<br>From under Mr. Edwards posting on the PM article, I lost [3] late evening replies to Mr. Wayne Boyd and Mr. Edwards!!!
<br>
<br>If you are not objecting to the gross violence that just occurred to your worthy postings and right under your very noses, and among other coincidences, then you are complicit probably as deeply as I've been suspecting with other curer-tard personas.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>{mcb: comment above went through moderator queue.}
</p>
</div><!-- section 524 -->
<a name="x525"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x525" class="tiny">x526</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_526');">have a cry conspiratard</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_526" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges have a cry conspiratard
<br>
<br>{mcb: "The admin has temporarily turned off commenting.}
</p>
</div><!-- section 526 -->
<a name="x527"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x527" class="tiny">x528</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_528');">should be complaining more about the disappearance of comments</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_528" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, thank you again for making a posting out of the Popular Mechanics article. I repeat (what was deleted) that the PM link takes me to the article with everything below publication date blurred, and a permanent footer:
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>+++ quote
<br>This story is just for Pop Mech members. Join Pop Mech Pro for unlimited website access, plut get: Annual print subscription, Weekly members-only newsletter, Access to scientists, engineers, and other experts. And more! JOIN NOW (or sign in).
<br>+++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>FYI, All Access to PM is $40/Year, and Digital Only is $4/month
<br>
<br>Fair use for the purposes of education and discussion, copyrighted material can reproduced. Therefore, you should copy all the paragraphs from the PM article each into their own top-level comment under this posting, thereby allowing discussion and defense /debunking of the article, paragraph-by-paragraph!
<br>
<br>What a wonderful service we all would be doing for the world if we were to identify the nuggets of truth (and nuggets of shit) in that article, to get us all to the same understanding!!!
<br>
<br>[1, 5, 9, ...] Christopher Edwards
<br>[2, 6, 10, ...] Wayne Boyd
<br>[3, 7, 11, ...] Roger Beaumont
<br>[4, 8, 12, ...] Stella Marie Ivory
<br>
<br>Seeing how there are four of you Curer-tards who can get to the article no problem, that will make it easy to divide up the work, each of you copying and pasting a paragraph and then leap-frogging four paragraphs to get the next one. Real quick, you'll have the PM's article's fair-use context displayed here, so that this Conspiratard can go to work.
<br>
<br>Mr. Christopher Edwards, you should be complaining more about the disappearance of comments and even whole discussion threads.
<br>
<br>How can you expect the PM article to get a fair defense if this group has some over-arching admin-bot (e.g., major, colonel) who retro-actively resets discussions?!!
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>{mcb: comment above went through moderator queue.}
</p>
</div><!-- section 528 -->
<a name="x529"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x529" class="tiny">x530</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_530');">I can read it</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_530" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I can read it
<br>
<br>{mcb: "The admin has temporarily turned off commenting.}
<br>
<br>You've been suspended in this group
<br>You can still access its posts and chats, but there are restrictions on what you can do.
<br>
<br>If your ability to post, comment or participate in a group has been turned off, it may be because a group admin has temporarily turned off your ability to post, comment or participate in their group. They might have temporarily suspended you, temporarily limited how frequently you can post or comment or slowed down comments on a post.
<br>If you have additional profiles and any of your profiles are suspended:
<br>You can still participate in the group with any of your profiles that are not suspended or banned and are already in the group
<br>You can't see, join or participate in the group with any of your profiles that are not already in the group until the suspension ends
<br>
<br>https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3021220514842852/?comment_id=3025137174451186&reply_comment_id=3025187527779484¬if_id=1666887876364872¬if_t=group_comment_mention
</p>
</div><!-- section 530 -->
<a name="x531"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x531" class="tiny">x532</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_532');">I'M STILL WAITING DUDE</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-26</p>
<div id="sect_532" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I'M STILL WAITING DUDE
</p>
</div><!-- section 532 -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_Conspiratard911_03.htm -->
<a name="x533"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x533" class="tiny">x534</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_534');">popular mechanics article</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_534" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>This post is still up and everyone, but you, can read the popular mechanics article.
</p>
</div><!-- section 534 -->
<a name="x535"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x535" class="tiny">x536</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_536');">start copying paragraphs from the article and pasting into top-levels comments</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_536" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, that is great news! For the purposes of education and analysis, I suggest that everybody who can read the article start copying paragraphs from the article and pasting into top-levels comments under this posting! Meets the requirements of copyright fair-use, because each paragraph will be a thread for intellectual discussion and rational analysis.
<br><br>I look forward to reading it!
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 536 -->
<a name="x537"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x537" class="tiny">x538</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_538');">conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against the opposing interpretation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_538" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>"In accordance with our hypotheses, we found that conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against the opposing interpretation and less likely to argue in favor of their own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters. However, conspiracist comments were more likely to explicitly put forward an account than conventionalist comments were. In addition, conspiracists were more likely to express mistrust and made more positive and fewer negative references to other conspiracy theories. The data also indicate that conspiracists were largely unwilling to apply the "conspiracy theory" label to their own beliefs and objected when others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma. Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations."
<br>Maybe you should give this a read? 😉
<br><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full</a>
<br>"What about building 7?" A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories
<br>FRONTIERSIN.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 538 -->
<a name="x539"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x539" class="tiny">x540</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_540');">was expecting the introduction paragraph to the PM that anchors this posting!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_540" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, WTF was that? I was expecting the introduction paragraph to the PM that anchors this posting! Is that too much to ask? Or is that article weak, so you have to divert the discussion with some psychological study?
<br><br>You are making the claim that PM article is of some truth and significance. Defend it.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 540 -->
<a name="x541"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x541" class="tiny">x542</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_542');">other sources that debunk all the 9/11 conspiracy theories</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_542" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>You do know that there are other sources that debunk all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, don't you, champ? 🙄🤣😉
<br>Here's seven for you, as you don't seem to be able to use Google"¦ 😉
<br><a href="https://www.cfr.org/blog/seven-resources-debunking-911-conspiracy-theories">https://www.cfr.org/blog/seven-resources-debunking-911-conspiracy-theories</a>
<br>Seven Resources Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
<br>CFR.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 542 -->
<a name="x543"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x543" class="tiny">x544</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_544');">biggest 9/11 conspiracy theories debunked</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_544" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>In fact, here's another one for you to read, champ"¦ 😉
<br><a href="https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-biggest-911-conspiracy-theories-debunked">https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-biggest-911-conspiracy-theories-debunked</a>
<br>The biggest 9/11 conspiracy theories debunked
<br>HISTORY.CO.UK
</p>
</div><!-- section 544 -->
<a name="x545"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x545" class="tiny">x546</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_546');">what's your "smoking gun"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_546" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>By the way, what's your "smoking gun" that categorically proves that the official version is a lie? 🤔😉
</p>
</div><!-- section 546 -->
<a name="x547"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x547" class="tiny">x548</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_548');">supposed to be about the PM article</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_548" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, your pre-mature ejaculation belongs under a posting of their own right. The discussion here was supposed to be about the PM article that everyone except I can get to. So, please start fair-use copying in paragraphs from that "official conspiracy theory" (OCT) so that we can have a go at it.
<br><br>If you make posting out of those other articles, maybe I'll provide some conversation.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 548 -->
<a name="x549"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x549" class="tiny">x550</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_550');">disprove the official version of 9/11, champ</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_550" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Unlike you, I have provided other sources for you to read, as you can't read the popular mechanics article"¦ 🙄
<br>So again, what's your "smoking gun" that disproves the official version of 9/11, champ? 😉
</p>
</div><!-- section 550 -->
<a name="x551"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x551" class="tiny">x552</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_552');">fair-use copying of the content from that seminal piece of disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_552" style="display: block;">
<p>Unlike you, Christopher Edwards, when I make a statement or provide a source, I can defend them. You can't even copy into a thread of your posting the introductory paragraph of Popular Mechanics article that anchors this thread. Curious that none of the other participants here who claimed to be able to get the article without problem (or paying) can post a paragraph from that seminal piece of disinformation. Why is that?
<br><br>Why is it that you seem to be the only participant (other than me) who can write more than two paragraphs that might trigger a "see more..." content break? But even then, only a couple of your words get clipped.
<br><br>I even provided keys to a deviant "conspiratard" theory that even most of the 9/11 truth movement don't support. In fact, the agent infiltrators of the truth movement won't touch it to debunk it or vet it.
<br><br>I am earnest, sincere, and truthful. You are none of those things. Can't even play fair under your own posting. Did you complain to the "authorities" about the words of yours that "they" disappeared?
<br><br>As an OCD person who was presented first with the PM article -- because it doesn't just anchor this posting but the thoughts of all agents, infiltrators, sockpuppets, and government trolls --, that's what should be discussed first.
<br><br>Until you have promoted those other two "worthy" articles to posting in their own right, they aren't worthy and are just distractions.
<br><br>Chop, chop, with the filling (at top-level comments) of the threads under your glorious posting with fair-use copying of the content from that seminal piece of disinformation. Else all latter-day lurker-readers of this forum will be able to easily conclude that you -- and all of the "others" -- were lying and you can't really get to the article, a lie that will torpedo your integrity, reputation, and even your realness to separate you from, say, Belle's sockpuppets.
<br><br>Come on Pinochio! Time to turn yourself into a real boy! Pony up.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 552 -->
<a name="x553"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x553" class="tiny">x554</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_554');">Dude. 🙄🤣🤣🤣</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_554" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Christopher Edwards</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dude. 🙄🤣🤣🤣
<br>Again, what's the "smoking gun" that proves that 911 truthers, like yourself, are correct, champ? 😉
<br>May be an image of text
<br>
<br><b>Christopher Edwards</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>This is from last year and outside the paywall, champ"¦ 😉
<br><a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/">https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/</a>
<br>Debunking the 9/11 Myths: The Airplanes
<br>POPULARMECHANICS.COM
<br>
<br><b>Christopher Edwards</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Rationalwiki have done quite a thorough debunking of all 9/11 truthers questions, so maybe you should give this a read, champ? 😉
<br><a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11">https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11</a>
<br>9/11
<br>RATIONALWIKI.ORG
<br>
<br><b>Christopher Edwards</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>By the way, gave you ever heard the phrase "Sealioning", champ"¦
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sealioning&defid=10500196">https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sealioning&defid=10500196</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 554 -->
<a name="x555"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x555" class="tiny">x556</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_556');">not "sealioning" is requesting the intro paragraph from PM article anchoring this thread</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_556" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, Requesting the introductory paragraph to the Popular Mechanics article that anchors this posting is not "sealioning". Maybe IF you had pasted in the x-number of paragraphs in that introduction AND if it had not spawned rational discussion from me, THEN sealioning is one conclusion for my non-action. But that wouldn't have been the case -- which is what you FEAR.
<br>
<br>Won't Mr. Ax-bot be proud that I learned a new word to describe his very actions on the front: "all conspiracy theories are crackpot". At his sealion request to name just one true conspiracy theory, I provided a link to over three dozen conspiracy theories that are true. He not only didn't address a single one of them in sealion fashion, but he then removed the evidence that I had even commented in the exchange.
<br>
<br>FOR THE RECORD, your second link to Popular Mechanics is also behind the paywall. Seems like maybe you have a subscription. Given this new found powers of yours to literally read through PM's paywall, what is stopping you from fair-use copying its content under your posting for the purposes of education, analysis, and discussion?
<br>
<br>Don't think you have to do it alone, Mr. Edwards. Mr. WAyne Boyd (Mr. Wayne Boyd), Mr. Roger Beaumont, Ms. Stella Marie Ivory, and Mr. Garry Browne have all testified in their various one-liner contributions that they could get to the PM article AND read what it was saying. Maybe if you are down-under, PM has different promotions for their paywall. Whatever. Surely at least one of these Belle-tards could prove it is not a bot with a quoted passage for the purposes of furthering the discussion productively?!!
<br>
<br>For shame, for shame.
<br>
<br>Oh, BTW. Using a smart phone and one finger when a full keyboard for 10 fingers and many browser tabs are warranted? Puts you at an immediate disadvantage.
<br>
<br>+++ quote from "Seven Resources..." that you linked
<br>Even as the smoke was still rising from the ruins of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001, conspiracy theories sprang up blaming the attacks on anyone but al-Qaeda.
<br>+++
<br>
<br>That ^^^ right there is disinformation exposed. How was it, "even as the smoke was still rising from the ruins of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001", that al-Qaeda was the ONLY ONE the media and government blamed? Rather myopic in a very disinfo sense, don't you thing? Afghanistan was even saying, "show us the proof of Osama bin Laden's involvement, and we'll welcome you to come and get him; until then, stay out."
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3024611187837118/?comment_id=3026490227649214&reply_comment_id=3027850807513156¬if_id=1667091810615710¬if_t=group_comment_mention">https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3024611187837118/?comment_id=3026490227649214&reply_comment_id=3027850807513156¬if_id=1667091810615710¬if_t=group_comment_mention</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 556 -->
<a name="x557"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x557" class="tiny">x558</a>
Marcie Jo Lentz : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_558');">when you are ready🤣</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_558" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Point #1"¦feel free to take your time, I will post point two from the article when you are ready🤣
<br>
<br>CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center website (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
<br>
<br>FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)"”a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce"”released another report in spring 2005. NIST shared its initial findings with Popular Mechanics at the time, and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
<br>
<br>The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel"”and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."
<br>
<br>Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary 9/11 by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
<br>
<br>SANDIEGO.INDYMEDIA.ORG
<br>San Diego Independent Media Center | questioning authority and facilitating communication in solidarity with communities since 2001
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 558 -->
<a name="x559"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x559" class="tiny">x560</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_560');">Thank you so much for your assistance</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_560" style="display: block;">
<p>Goodness Gracious, my dear Ms. Marcie Jo Lentz! You are indeed a lifesafer! Don't know why those bots had such difficulty doing a simple copy-and-paste for content on the other side of a paywall for me. Oh, that's right.
<br>
<br>I do have a comment to make [which will make your copy-and-paste legal under fair-use laws], but this is not the right location.
<br>
<br>Would you please make that exact same posting at the top-level (right under the posting), so that there will be more room & levels for reply comments.
<br>
<br>Also, maybe identify (for clarity) where the quotation is coming from, some demarkation line =======, then the quote.
<br>
<br>Foreshadowing my reply: I have issues with burning jet fuel traveling down elevator shafts. Other plausible explanations exist. That one is rather lame. More detail later when there is room to discuss.
<br>
<br>Thank you so much for your assistance.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 560 -->
<a name="x561"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x561" class="tiny">x562</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_562');">four of you Curer-tards who can get to the article no problem</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_562" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, thank you again for making a posting out of the Popular Mechanics article. I repeat (what was deleted) that the PM link takes me to the article with everything below publication date blurred, and a permanent footer:
<br><blockquote><p>+++ quote
<br>This story is just for Pop Mech members. Join Pop Mech Pro for unlimited website access, plut get: Annual print subscription, Weekly members-only newsletter, Access to scientists, engineers, and other experts. And more! JOIN NOW (or sign in).
<br>+++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>FYI, All Access to PM is $40/Year, and Digital Only is $4/month
<br>Fair use for the purposes of education and discussion, copyrighted material can reproduced. Therefore, you should copy all the paragraphs from the PM article each into their own top-level comment under this posting, thereby allowing discussion and defense /debunking of the article, paragraph-by-paragraph!
<br>What a wonderful service we all would be doing for the world if we were to identify the nuggets of truth (and nuggets of shit) in that article, to get us all to the same understanding!!!
<br>[1, 5, 9, ...] Christopher Edwards
<br>[2, 6, 10, ...] Wayne Boyd
<br>[3, 7, 11, ...] Roger Beaumont
<br>[4, 8, 12, ...] Stella Marie Ivory
<br>Seeing how there are four of you Curer-tards who can get to the article no problem, that will make it easy to divide up the work, each of you copying and pasting a paragraph and then leap-frogging four paragraphs to get the next one. Real quick, you'll have the PM's article's fair-use context displayed here, so that this Conspiratard can go to work.
<br>Mr. Christopher Edwards, you should be complaining more about the disappearance of comments and even whole discussion threads.
<br>How can you expect the PM article to get a fair defense if this group has some over-arching admin-bot (e.g., major, colonel) who retro-actively resets discussions?!!
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 562 -->
<a name="x563"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x563" class="tiny">x564</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_564');">I can read it</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_564" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I can read it
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/?multi_permalinks=3024611187837118&comment_id=3027615474203356¬if_id=1667155583479939¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/?multi_permalinks=3024611187837118&comment_id=3027615474203356¬if_id=1667155583479939¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 564 -->
<a name="x565"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x565" class="tiny">x566</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_566');">You're holding out! You won't even paste me a taste of the PM's wisdom, and goodness, and science, and facts.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_566" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, if you can read it, you can copy it, you can paste it, you can productively further the conversation in this thread.
<br><br>But NOOoooooo! You're holding out! You won't even paste me a taste of the PM's wisdom, and goodness, and science, and facts, and don't look here behind this curtain!
<br><br>You can't paste it in here either because your bot-algorithms ain't that capable, or because your commanding officer won't let you. Either way, makes you less than genuine.
<br><br>But the PM article is supposed to be genuine! Please, drop me a taste, won't you! Don't torment me in ignorance of the true 9/11 truth and gospel that PM preaches! Don't leave me in hell! Save me, oh mighty curer-tard, and is the very creed of this group that bound your allegience!
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 566 -->
<a name="x567"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x567" class="tiny">x568</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_568');">Sealioning again"¦ 🙄🤣🤣🤣</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_568" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Boyd
<br>He's Sealioning again"¦ 🙄🤣🤣🤣
</p>
</div><!-- section 568 -->
<a name="x569"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x569" class="tiny">x570</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_570');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_570" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges it's there so you can read it to
</p>
</div><!-- section 570 -->
<a name="x571"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x571" class="tiny">x572</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_572');">hit with a paywall</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_572" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, Yes the article is there, but when I scroll below the copyright date to read it, I'm hit with a paywall; everything is blurred and footer encouraging me to pay $4 / month for a digital subscription.
<br><br>If you can READ it, then you can COPY it and PASTE it into comments so that this conspiratard can have a read.
<br><br>Do be a good chap and prove you ain't a bot.
<br><br>Otherwise, your integrity gets dinged.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 572 -->
<a name="x573"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x573" class="tiny">x574</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_574');">not behind a pay wall</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_574" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges it's not behind a pay wall so read away
</p>
</div><!-- section 574 -->
<a name="x575"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x575" class="tiny">x576</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_576');">Prove me wrong. COPY A PARAGRAPH FROM THE PM ARTICLE INTO THE COMMENTS.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_576" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, From my perspective and experience, the PM website is all behind a paywall. Prove me wrong. COPY A PARAGRAPH FROM THE PM ARTICLE INTO THE COMMENTS.
<br><br>Then we'll know several things: (1) You weren't lying, (2) you aren't a bot, (3) the info from the paragraph that you paste in, and (4) that possibly you have a subscription, which is why you get in.
<br><br>Easy assignment. Don't screw the pooch by evading the simple task.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 576 -->
<a name="x577"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x577" class="tiny">x578</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_578');">I can read it fine</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_578" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I can read it fine
</p>
</div><!-- section 578 -->
<a name="x579"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x579" class="tiny">x580</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_580');">Bot-fail... too lame to get me literally onto the same page</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_580" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, Bot-fail... Unless you make it so -- fair-use allowed and legal and all -- that I can read it too. Copy-and-paste!
<br>
<br>Otherwise, there is literally no discussion, because you are too lame to get me literally onto the same page, so that we're discussing the exact same paragraphs from the source text. Within your easy grasp... If you were real. If you were sincere.
<br>
<br>My super powers have always been that I'm naive and trusting, unless given reason not to be. I had faith that you could do this easy task, I had hopes that you would drop some red 9/11 meat to bring me into a rational discussion, only to have those wet-dreams crashed by your bot-behavior: "I'm too special to copy-and-paste content that will further the discussion."
<br>
<br>Sad, so sad.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 580 -->
<a name="x581"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x581" class="tiny">x582</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_582');">go read it cooker</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_582" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges go read it cooker
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, In a fashion similar to your Belle-tard Mr. Roger Beaumont, use your smart phone to go to the first section beyond the introduction, take a picture, and post here. Otherwise, you are doing nothing to further the discussion in a positive and productive manner.
<br>
<br>Here's what it looks like to me when I scroll into the article.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 582 -->
<a name="x583"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x583" class="tiny">x584</a>
Garry Browne : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_584');">Perhaps it is you that has the problem?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_584" style="display: block;">
<p>Garry Browne
<br>Maxwell Bridges I see and can read it with no issues. Perhaps it is you that has the problem?
</p>
</div><!-- section 584 -->
<a name="x585"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x585" class="tiny">x586</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_586');">If I can't get at the PM content and you can, please give me a taste!!!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_586" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Garry Browne, indeed I may have many problems. You are the solution to one of them. If I can't get at the PM content and you can, please give me a taste!!! Copy the introduction under the posting as a top-level comment, so I can be teased mercilessly for the content I normally can't get to! Oh, please torment with with pasted in words from that bible of OCT and disinfo tropes! Make its very copy-and-pasted words into these forum discussions have me writher in confusion and disbelief. Over power me with its brilliance, its science, its facts, its conclusions! Abuse me with the wisdom of its very existence! But please, don't withhold its words from gracing these Belle-tard discussions! I beg you! Please! Go fetch! //
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 586 -->
<a name="x587"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x587" class="tiny">x588</a>
Kaye Brownie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_588');">'do your own research!'</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_588" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges In the words of the helpless within your cohort 'do your own research!'
</p>
</div><!-- section 588 -->
<a name="x589"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x589" class="tiny">x590</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_590');">not out to prove several participants here liars; I'm out to analyze the content of the article </a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_590" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Kaye Brownie, In the paraphrased words of Mr. Ax Eye Om, an admin here: <i>"Don't be making claims that you can't or won't defend."</i> Claim number 1 is that the PM article is readable to the world-wide web and doesn't sit behind a paywall (if you don't already have a subscription or if geography determines whether content is free or for a price.) I'm not out to prove several participants here liars; I'm out to analyze the content of the article which would piece-meal, paragraph-by-paragraph get copied and pasted in a copyright fair-use fashion anyway, if ~I~ could read the content there. Seems like a dirty trick to say "it is readable" if it is not, and then if you are unwilling/unable to prove its readability by simply pasting it in here. (Only one Curer-Belle-tard has managed it so far. It becomes rather silly watching the bots trip over this small hurdle.)
<br>
<br>Claim number 2 is that the PM article is the God's Honest Truth, complete and without omissions, and has no issues whatsoever. That might be paraphrasing it a little, but that's what the OCT-tards ("official conspiracy theory" retards) want us to believe, even though they don't believe it themselves. It is just an agenda they must defend, even if poorly and with perjury.
<br>
<br>We seem to have a lot of unsportsmanlike conduct in this forum.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 590 -->
<a name="x591"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x591" class="tiny">x592</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_592');">justified in calling the whole herd of you "Belle-tards" >>LIARS<< and >>WEASELS<<</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_592" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, Mr. WAyne Boyd (Wayne Boyd), Mr. Roger Beaumont, Ms. Stella Marie Ivory, and Mr. Garry Browne!
<br>
<br>All of you testify that you can reach the Popular Mechanics 9/11 Article and READ it, and that it isn't blurred with a footer asking you to become a Pop Mech Member for $4 / day for digital only access.
<br>
<br>Until any one of you copies and pastes into this forum the PM article's introduction, I will be justified in calling the whole herd of you "Belle-tards" >>LIARS<< and >>WEASELS<<, which your non-action solidifies & substantiates for all latter-day lurker readers to see. It isn't defamation when it is true.
<br>
<br>Come on, give me a taste!
<br>
<br>Don't screw the pooch on such a simple "wanna-be-sealion" request! If I don't respond to your fair-use re-purposing of the PM's paragraphs, THEN and only then I become the sealion. My intention is to respond, and my legacy gives weight to that tendency.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 592 -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_Conspiratard911_03.htm -->
<!-- ***** -->
<a name="x593"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x593" class="tiny">x594</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_594');">such a divine comment -- fair-use copied from the source</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-</p>
<div id="sect_594" style="display: block;">
<p>My dearest, and sweetest, and most earnest Ms. Marcie Jo Lentz! You made such a divine comment -- fair-use copied from the source -- that I felt it needed to be promoted to a top-level comment in order to give it thread-space underneath to be discussed.
<br>
<br>Herewith I not only quote what you quoted, but apply first-level analysis about the quotes.
<br>
<br>Disclaimer: The following quotations are assumed to have come from the Popular Mechanics article. If they are not from the article, or if they are wrongly quoted before coming across my desktop, one of the Belle-tards who testifies to making it passed the Popular Mechanics paywall ("Duh, an agency subscription is a perk I forgot I had.") and being able to read the content: those are charged with vetting the words.
</p>
<blockquote><p>+++ begin quotation
<br>
<br>CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center website (sandiego dot indymedia dotorg). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
<br>
<br>FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)"”a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce"”released another report in spring 2005. NIST shared its initial findings with Popular Mechanics at the time, and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
<br>
<br>The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel"”and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."
<br>
<br>Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary 9/11 by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
<br>
<br>+++ end quotation</p></blockquote>
<p>// part 1/2
<br>
<br>part 2/2
<br>
<br>OCT means, "official conspiracy theory", and various agencies FEMA, NIST, and Popular Mechanics promote OCT in the narrative that they conjure up in their description.
<br>
<br>What a wonderful picture of unspent jet fuel (whether or not on fire) dropping down Pez-Dispenser-tyle the "throat" of an exposed elevator shaft that the impacts conveniently cut. Don't you love the contradictions?
<br>
<br>[1] "sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, [and created] a conduit for burning jet fuel"”and fiery destruction throughout the building." [PM spin.]
<br>
<br>[2] "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert.
<br>
<br>[3] "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off." Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert.
<br>
<br>I give the OCT authors kudos for their imagination and fairy tales.
<br>
<br>Yes, the WTC had express elevators that went all the way from the bottom to the top, but it also had express elevators to certain staging floors (e.g., 33rd, 66th) where local elevators serviced the individual floors in between staging floors.
<br>
<br>If we assume unspent, unignited jet fuel went down the conduit of an elevator shaft TO THE GROUND FLOOR [where injuries appeared and damage was observed], then damage and explosions could have happened and been observed in lots of areas along the thousands of feet of elevators shaft.
<br>
<br>The assumption is wrong, and a valient effort at coming up with a lame explanation for the explosion, burned injured victims, and lobby damage. Here is why the assumption doesn't hold.
<br>
<br>The jet fuel was largely consumed by the fireball immediately after impact and in the first ten minutes of burning fire, according to the NIST experts. Once the wall assemblies sliced and shattered the wings, the released jet fuel went into the building through the window slits until the burning exhaust of the engines entered the space and ignited the fire ball... and any jet fuel that might got to the elevator shafts, much less started to fall down them. The assumed unignited jet fuel in the elevator shaft would not have fallen far before ignition around it ignited it.
<br>
<br>The explosion that rocked the lobby of WTC-1/2 came from underneath, from the underground parking areas, and was timed for when the aircraft impact. Several witnesses (WTC maintenance employees) reported on the underground damage. The burn victim was coming from the lower levels.
<br>
<br>Here's where the real disinformation creeps in. When they interviewed victims and witnesses, the questions were framed around "a fire ball" coming from the ground floor elevator doors, and the heavy-handed narrative steering that falling jet fuel got atomized and ignited late, WHEN THERE WAS NO ACTUAL FIRE BALL.
<br>
<br>No, what burned the victims was a heat wave side-effect from a FGNW, tactical in yield, in the category of DEW, and many were deployed in tandem -- 4 per detonation level, 6-12 detontation levels. The basement one could have been a misfire. Or maybe its purpose was to knock out the fire system and its ability to service fire fighting needs.
<br>
<br>Yes, my 9/11 hobby-horse has entered into this discussion and taken a dump on the PM OCT narrative right out of the gate.
<br>
<br>Before the nuke naysayers have a conniption fit, FGNW in this case were late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear by being hybrid fission-fusion with a conventional kick-starter charge to ignite the fission stage -- not designed for destruction or radiation but -- designed to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage that then released its highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion (e.g., cone-shaped fanning out upwards from ignition point). Low radiation.
<br>
<br>FACT: The USGS survey of the dust has data tables with Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities, sample-to-sample, [that their plain text explanation never mentions] that are fingerprints of a fission stage.
<br>
<br>FACT: The tritium report was scope-limited from the onset to look at "building content" and to not look for "demolition sources", had shoddy measurement, shoddy analysis, but achieved its goal of deflecting away from the FACT that tritium in a building block for the fusion stage in nearly all FGNW, so having a lame excuse for why it was present was required.
<br>
<br>FACT: Although tactical in yield and although 80% of the nuclear yield is in form of the targeted release of highly energetic neutrons from the FGNW's fusion stage, 20% of the yield is in the form of a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP.
<br>
<br>'"The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser.' This is speculation by someone who wasn't even there; no flames were observed.
<br>
<br>"The doors cracked open on the lobby and a heat wave came out and people died," would have been a more accurate statement.
<br>
<br>"A similar observation was made in the French documentary 9/11 by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film."
<br>
<br>No, Naudet saw burn victims. My recollection, he didn't record or recall anyone actually on fire with flames. [The whole language of "flames" is PM taking license with the narrative.] But if we assume that is true, the FGNW heat wave would be sufficient, depending on distance from ignition and impediments, to ignite clothes and burn skin.
<br>
<br>Right out of the gate, the PM effort to defend the OCT is to spin the burn victims and lobby damage (e.g., stone wall slabs cracked and knocked off walls) as the flames, as fire, as the ignition of atomized jet fuel particles that floated down the elevator shaft and amassed in such quantities there to get sparked -- by some unknown source -- to cause a fire ball in the lobby.
<br>
<br>Thomas Pynchon: "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."
<br>
<br>This is certainly a PM technique.
<br>
<br>// part 2/2
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 594 -->
<a name="x595"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x595" class="tiny">x596</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_596');">FGNW based on low-yield thermonuclear pellets triggered by compact non-fission primaries have yields in the 1 to 100 tons range</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-</p>
<div id="sect_596" style="display: block;">
<p>Conventional explosives (and 1st and 2nd generation nuclear devices) couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium, such as air, water, earth, rock, etc. FGNW are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can produce direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response.
<br>
<br>FGNW based on low-yield thermonuclear pellets triggered by compact non-fission primaries have yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc.
<br>
<br>+++ quote
<br>A first significant difference between deuterium-tritium (DT) based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
<br>...
<br>The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
<br>"Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" by Dr. Andre Gsponer
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>+++ end quote
<br>
<br>{mcb: The above is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.}
<br>
<br>Depending on design goals, FGNW can have a variety of effects, particularly for high-energy neutrons and gamma-rays that are very penetrating. FGNW can:
<br>
<br>- Generate a fireball (in air or a material).
<br>- Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).
<br>- Heat the surface of a material.
<br>- Accelerate or compress a material.
<br>- Transfer momentum to a material.
<br>- Heat the volume of a material.
<br>- Energize a working material.
<br>- Forge and project missiles.
<br>- Form and send high-velocity jets.
<br>- Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it.
<br>
<br>Collateral effects of the above list of "mechanical" and "thermodynamical" effects are non-thermo-mechanical effects, such as an electromagetic pulse (EMP) and prompt or delayed radiations.
<br>
<br>Words like "pulverization" and "dustification" were used to describe the WTC towers' destruction. A more accurate word is "ablate". When the surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted, launching a shock-wave into the material.
<br>
<br>===========
<br>
<br>The above is copied from my blog entry on the subject:
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>I came to these discussions prepared. I doubt the Belle-tards will notice, though.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 596 -->
<a name="x597"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x597" class="tiny">x598</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_598');">ruthlessly deleting comments individually and WHOLE threads and mini-threads</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-</p>
<div id="sect_598" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, do you not care that a vengeful admin attacks the comments to this posting by ruthlessly deleting them individually and WHOLE threads and mini-threads?!!!
<br>
<br>If you were sincere, this should worry you. Maybe what you were writing wasn't worthy. Maybe it is all your fault. [Or maybe it was my comments.]
<br>
<br>The Belle-tards' puppet-master may have the IT skills to delete comments and post for several personas, but they are all so shallow and infrequent. What is the deal that five participants claimed that the Popular Mechanics article was ~not~ behind a paywall and that they could ~read~ it, but at each and every encounter (except possibly one), ~none~ were able to copy from that PM article and fair-use paste paragraphs into comments here. Some repeated the nonsense one-liners about not having issues despite my evidence to the contrary, yet they couldn't be bothered to drag back any choice quotations.
<br>
<br>I already know that one of the Belle-tards is a bot-admin -- not necessarily listed -- at a higher FB level that can stall comments at the gate if the meme or content is (1) truthful about Fauci and the vaccinations, or (2) nuclear revelatory about 9/11.
<br>You want interesting discussions?!! So you can ignore and then delete them.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 598 -->
<a name="x599"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x599" class="tiny">x600</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_600');">attend to the purpose of this group</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-</p>
<div id="sect_600" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges now please attend to the purpose of this group ... i will delete your comment above as we start afresh
</p>
</div><!-- section 600 -->
<a name="x601"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x601" class="tiny">x602</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_602');">restore my faith in you by restoring the comments and threads</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-</p>
<div id="sect_602" style="display: block;">
<p>Ax Eye Om I understand deleting above, but given your power-struggle behind-the-scenes, restore my faith in you by restoring the comments and threads that the crazy infiltrator admin (Belle) hacked all over the discussion under this article. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 602 -->
<a name="x603"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x603" class="tiny">x604</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_604');">ok</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-</p>
<div id="sect_604" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges ok
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 604 -->
<a name="x605"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x605" class="tiny">x606</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_606');">only one post available</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-</p>
<div id="sect_606" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges only one post available and now added
</p>
</div><!-- section 606 -->
<a name="x607"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x607" class="tiny">x608</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_608');">other comments deleted from under this posting, whole threads</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-</p>
<div id="sect_608" style="display: block;">
<p>Ax Eye Om There were other comments deleted from under this posting, whole threads. ...
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 608 -->
<a name="x609"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x609" class="tiny">x610</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_610');">can't see them</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-</p>
<div id="sect_610" style="display: block;">
<p>i can't see them .. but your main post is back up
</p>
</div><!-- section 610 -->
<a name="x611"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x611" class="tiny">x612</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_612');">I am the Conspiratard "afflicted with Conspiratardism" that the Curer-tards are to crack deprogram and cure me of my affliction</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-</p>
<div id="sect_612" style="display: block;">
<p>Attending to the purpose of this group, I am the Conspiratard "afflicted with Conspiratardism" that the Curer-tards are to crack deprogram and cure me of my affliction. The Popular Mechanics article that anchors this thread should be copied into top-level comments by those participates who testify that they can not only reach the PM page but read all its content as well [that can be copied.] The Curer-tard cure dictates that the deprogramming from PM article be pasted here in a 100% legal, fair-use manner section-by-section.
<br><br>The next phase of the Curer-tard cure happens in the discussion under those lawful repurposing of the PM content in these very sacred FB halls!
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 612 -->
<a name="x613"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x613" class="tiny">x614</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_614');">left- and back-handed invitation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-</p>
<div id="sect_614" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Peter Gill, Here is my left- and back-handed invitation to participate with me in this thread. Don't get mad at me. For shits-and-giggles are we here, humble servants of Truth with a capital T.
<br>When I go to the PM article, the content is blurred and they want me to become a member. Could you double-check that for yourself? If you can ~read~ the content, it means you can copy the content... And we'll have "a gay old time" fair-use discussing what you paste into top-level comments here! If Dr. David Griffin -- patron saint of 9/11 Truth -- taught us nothing else, he taught us that when you objectively go through section-by-section OCT, you can debunk it.
<br>WARNING: Do your work offline first; I use Notepad++. Save locally. Collect URL's from notifications and occasionally add to that saved work. It'll help you get to it; it'll help you prove it once existed. Because chances are great in these Curer-tard parts that it will have a lifespan measured in days.
<br>In the same files, save what the other participants did or said that you are responding to.
<br>You see legacy can be a weapon used against others who, through censorship, try to cull their true legacy.
<br>Eventually, I re-publish this crap [but procrastination has me 2 years to catch up on]. However, even without that extra step, having the files locally that document the exchanges and where they transpired... can be worth its weight in crytocurrency! when played on subsequent unproductive disinfo carousel spins.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 614 -->
<!-- ***** -->
</div> <!-- part_9 -->
<a name="p10"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_10');">Part 10: Curer-tards and mRNA</a></h2>
<div id="part_10" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_ConspiratardFauci.htm -->
<a name="x615"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x615" class="tiny">x616</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_616');">"predictive programming" and Curing Conspiratards</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_616" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges->Curing Conspiratards
<br>
<br>If we give any credence to "predictive programming", what are we subconsciously telling ourselves when we watch, say, Marvel super heroes who got their powers by getting something injected/ingested into themselves? (Captain America, Hulk, Spider-man, The Black Panther, Nick Cage, Deadpool, The Witcher, Venom, "In from the Cold", ... <lots more, and I don't care, that's not what the discussion is about>)
<br>
<br>Then there are the werewolf and vampires series, although old, that have this trend where ~you~ can become a super human version of yourself (with some drawbacks) if you get yourself bitten or drink the blood, or whatever hocky rules.
<br>
<br>In many ways, this fantasy is ruining our critical thinking, because the advertisement for the mRNA technology even at version one-dot-oh is that it is "programming the body".
<br>
<br>The issue is, the vaccine technology has never been wonderful, and its many failures largely shielded from knowledge and buried in other headline news, and "we aren't in Africa or India, and can't give a hoot about their complaints against Gates, WHO, etc."
<br>
<br>And if your eyes are open, the mRNA tech at version one-dot-oh isn't going to be wonderful either. No super powers for you. RFK's book has the receipts.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808?fbclid=IwAR3hOAW3dCONczpcK5_Xj4kjWx0dQ3zAyC4OZs7E9XF3IevKYC2WSE2ydAU">https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808?fbclid=IwAR3hOAW3dCONczpcK5_Xj4kjWx0dQ3zAyC4OZs7E9XF3IevKYC2WSE2ydAU</a>
<br>
<br>Here's an interesting quote from the 1984 Federal Registry that RFK brought to our attention. Fauci put this regulation in, and it explains our predicament... even with Joe Rogan.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 107 / Friday, June 1. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
<br>
<br>"However, although the continued availability of the vaccine may not be in immediate jeopardy, any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives. Accordingly, because of the importance of the vaccine and of maintaining public confidence in the immunization program that depends on it, good cause exists to issue these amendments as a final rule effective immediately."
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>I am an anti-vaxxer and can argue that case from four different perspectives:
<br>
<br>1) The science. The medical professionals quoted in RFK's book and coincidentally banned and de-platformed will be who I refer debate opponents to.
<br>
<br>2) The politics. Capitalism rears its ugly head.
<br>
<br>3) Spirituality / Faith . I was raised Christian Science and know it to be one (of many) viable alternatives to the germ-warfare beliefs.
<br>
<br>4) [Available upon request...]
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 616 -->
<a name="x617"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x617" class="tiny">x618</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_618');">opinion on whether anyone should take the covid vaccines</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_618" style="display: block;">
<p>By the way, do you agree with Dr. John Su, head of the VAERS team on the COVID-19 response and member of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office, opinion on whether anyone should take the covid vaccines or not?
</p>
</div><!-- section 618 -->
<a name="x619"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x619" class="tiny">x620</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_620');">substantiate that claim with the actual quotation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_620" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, You are making a claim that <i>"Dr. John Su, head of the VAERS team on the COVID-19 response and member of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office"</i> has an opinion about taking the vaccine.
<br>
<br>Please substantiate that claim with the actual quotation from <i>"Dr. John Su, head of the VAERS team on the COVID-19 response and member of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office"</i>.
<br>
<br>... As per the edicts of and a posting of an admin here.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 620 -->
<a name="x621"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x621" class="tiny">x622</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_622');">employ epistemic responsibility and popper's falsification principle, more threat from the disease than from the vaccination</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_622" style="display: block;">
<p>There have been anti vaxxers since Edward Jenner invented the smallpox vaccine, but if you employ epistemic responsibility and popper's falsification principle, you'll realise that there is much more threat from the disease than from the vaccination. 😃ðŸ‘ðŸ¾
</p>
</div><!-- section 622 -->
<a name="x623"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x623" class="tiny">x624</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_624');">conflating old school vaccines with the mRNA gene manipulation therapy at version one-dot-oh</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_624" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, Good one conflating old school vaccines with the mRNA gene manipulation therapy at version one-dot-oh, and trying to have have that new technology rest on the laurels of the old.
<br>
<br>I'll not entertain further discussion on impressions and beliefs from old school vaccines, even though there is documented proof that they are not all equal in their effectiveness. For every smallpox-like vaccine that you post, a counter point can be made with all the vaccines that weren't, like nearly 100% of the medication for AIDS.
<br>
<br>This discussion is about RFK's book and its contents.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 624 -->
<a name="x625"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x625" class="tiny">x626</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_626');">Maybe you should follow his recommendation?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_626" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>""No vaccine in recent history has undergone the degree of examination and monitoring that the COVID-19 vaccines have," Dr. John Su, head of the VAERS team on the COVID-19 response and member of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office, said. "The more serious adverse events are really rare and I would encourage people to talk with their care providers to learn more about these vaccines, and of course the CDC's website as well. They're safe. Go get them.""
<br>Maybe you should follow his recommendation? 😉
<br><a href="https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/milwaukee/news/2022/01/06/doctor-pushes-back-against-misuse-of-vaers-data-by-anti-vax-groups">https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/milwaukee/news/2022/01/06/doctor-pushes-back-against-misuse-of-vaers-data-by-anti-vax-groups</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 626 -->
<a name="x627"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x627" class="tiny">x628</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_628');">YOU FAILED THE BOT TEST!!! Meaning, you aren't a bot!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_628" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, Right out of the gate, I must extend my heartfelt gratitude and thanks that YOU FAILED THE BOT TEST!!! Meaning, you aren't a bot! You're able to understand the meaning of my words and meet the challenge with substantiating material! Kudos! And thank you very much!
<br>
<br><i>"No vaccine in recent history has undergone the degree of examination and monitoring that the COVID-19 vaccines have"</i> says Dr. John Su, after the vaccine was unleashed on the public on a global scale without any animal trials and very short human trials.
<br>
<br>The database in question to monitor the safety of this vaccine has its own limitations.
<br>
<br>Tell me, how longer after a vaccination and someone dies does it not make it into the database?
<br>
<br>"No vaccine in recent history has undergone the degree of examination and monitoring..." can be read a couple of different ways and be true. Similarly with 9/11, NIST with a straight-face and no lying-ticks that the first 18 floors of WTC-7's collapse at 5:20 pm on 2001-09-11 happened at a rate that was slower than gravity by mathematically averaging the rates of the three stages of collapse that went into those 18 floors, despite the fact that stage 2 -- 8 stories and over 100 feet -- is documented as being equivalent to gravitational acceleration.
<br>
<br>You can get numbers to lie, and statistics to mislead.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 628 -->
<a name="x629"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x629" class="tiny">x630</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_630');">an agent posted that article on my behalf</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_630" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb: at 3:23 2022-10-23 "Your account is restricted right now. You're temporarily restricted from doing things like posting or commenting in groups, creating new groups until Wednesday at 3:23 PM" (2022-10-26). Seems to be applied to the tard group. However, }
<br>
<br>
<br>Only the author of the post and people who manage Curing Conspiratards can see this post.
<br>
<br>We encourage free expression, but don't allow false information about COVID-19 that could contribute to physical harm.
<br>
<br>If your content goes against our Community Standards again, your account may be restricted or disabled.
<br>
<br>You can disagree with the decision if you think we got it wrong.
<br>
<br>+++ Supposedly from MCB
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges -> Curing Conspiratards
<br>
<br>"Delta variant hysteria exposes the sobering truth: Covid vaccines don't work
<br>
<br>New research finds that "fully vaccinated" individuals are suffering an eith times higher mortality rate than the non-vaccinated. And a stunning report out of the UK finds that 62 percent of those dying from covid are people who have been vaccinated.
<br>
<br>The covid vaccine, it turns out, doesn't really work.
<br>
<br>Only those with natural immunity have real, long-term protection against covid mutations. Those who unwisely took vaccine shots must now subject themselves to endless "booster shots" that will obviously become increasingly toxic as the globalists ramp up their anti-huma depopulation schemes.
<br>
<br>Today's featured podcast reveals why natural immunity is the anser, and why cofic tyrants will never voluntarily release their grip on humanity. They'll use endless "variant" scare stories to keep demanding masks, lockdowns, and vaccines...forever
<br>
<br>+++ Supposedly from MCB above
<br>
<br>
<br>Your post goes against our Community Standards on misinformation that could cause physical harm
<br>No one else can see your post.
<br>We encourage free expression, but don't allow false information about COVID-19 that could contribute to physical harm.
<br>If your content goes against our Community Standards again, your account may be restricted or disabled.
<br>You can disagree with the decision if you think we got it wrong.
<br>
<br>Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 3:51 PM
<br>You disagreed with the decision
<br>Thanks for your feedback. We use it to make improvements on future decisions.
<br>
<br>
<br>2022-10-26 at 1:11 PM
<br>Your post is back on Facebook
<br>We're sorry we got this wrong. We reviewed your post again and it does follow our Community Standards.
<br>
<br>We appreciate you taking the time to request a review. Your feedback helps us do better.
<br>
<br>
<br>Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 3:21 PM
<br>About your post
<br>Only you and the group admins can see this post.
<br>
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br>{mcb: I did not post that article that got flagged. Given the level of admin ability and admin-bot ability, wouldn't surprise me if an agent posted that article on my behalf, precisely so that a COVID-bot-algoritm would flag, not just the posting, but me and get me suspended. An underhanded trick.}
<br>
<br>++++
</p>
</div><!-- section 630 -->
<a name="x631"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x631" class="tiny">x632</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_632');">an overwhelming need to bot-instigate with the same database entry</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_632" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, how is it that you got a hankering to visit my FB wall, scroll to a posting, bore into its comments, and feel an overwhelming need to bot-instigate with the same database entry -- still waiting for that single conspiracy theory -- bot-schtick?!!
<br>
<br>How's this for three real-world conspiracies proved correct?
<br>
<br>1) "Wayne Boyd" is another of your sockpuppets, which is how you got notified to come here. This is proven by the facts.
<br>
<br>(a) "Wayne Boyd" has at least two FB profiles, and both were members of the "tard" group that you are an admin for.
<br>
<br>(b) "Belle Armstrong" (an admin), "Kylie Dirst", and "Ax Eye Om" were legitimately connected together as having sockpuppet connects, stemming from a six hour span when their participation -- in sequence and in response to me -- occurred in the same three minute window. The speculation was quietly verified by the number of comments from me that were disappeared almost as soon as they were made if they mentioned the sockpuppetry. And let's not forget how "Belle" unfriended me, removed that profile from the "tard" group, and was suddenly no longer an "admin". (She still has another profile in the group, like Wayne.)
<br>
<br>2) The "tard" group is a government operation that is part "wannabe narrative control" and part "agent-bot training ground." This is proven by the facts.
<br>
<br>(a) Every comment to the group runs through an AI-bot programmed with a black list of unacceptable references. Comment found in violation don't even get out of the gate, are immediately flagged, and the offense can go on the participants "permanent record" on FB. For example, anything questioning vaccines.
<br>
<br>(b) The half-human, half-borg agent admin and particpants of the group are not above surgically deleting comments, quietly and after the fact.
<br>
<br>(c) The "curer-tard" portion of the participants are shallow, can't expand "see more..." links, can't follow links, can't drag back quotes or details from those links, can't discuss things, rarely write enough characters to merit "see more..." compression by FB and when they do, only a couple words were clipped, are very repetitive, don't tire of cracking spins on their carousels (e.g., "all conspiracies are crackpot") every where they participate.
<br>
<br>3) The "curer-tards" and their forum are proof of a larger, coordinated, government (and corporate) effort to manipulate information that the masses receive and control the narrative on many different fronts, but the one that matters today are fear mongering for mRNA gene manipulation.
<br>
<br>4) Ax Eye Om is a bot. This is proven by the following exchange in the "tard" group whose owning posting got yanked down.
<br>
<br>+++++++++++++ Begin Exchange
<br>
<br>Ax Eye Om posted this comment:
<br>
<br>not a single conspiracy theory has ever been proven right .. good luck trying to find one! lol. ... Maxwell Bridges try to find one! lol .. you damn gullible clowns!
</p>
</div><!-- section 632 -->
<a name="x633"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x633" class="tiny">x634</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_634');">Conspiracy Theories That Actually Turned Out to Be True</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_634" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges posted this comment:
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.rd.com/list/conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/">https://www.rd.com/list/conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/</a>
<br>12 Conspiracy Theories That Actually Turned Out to Be True
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges posted this comment:
<br>Ax Eye Om <a href="https://www.buzzworthy.com/15-conspiracies-that-turned-out-to-be-true/">https://www.buzzworthy.com/15-conspiracies-that-turned-out-to-be-true/</a>
<br>15 Conspiracies That Turned Out to Be True
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges posted this comment:
<br>Ax Eye Om <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bldBqtgAX2o">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bldBqtgAX2o</a>
<br>Top 10 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges posted this comment:
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MewtsLsxoDY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MewtsLsxoDY</a>
<br>Top 10 Government Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges posted this comment:
<br>Ax Eye Om <a href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/12-crazy-conspiracy-theories-actually-turned-out-be-true">https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/12-crazy-conspiracy-theories-actually-turned-out-be-true</a>
<br>12 crazy conspiracy theories that actually turned out to be true
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges posted this comment:
<br>Ax Eye Om <a href="https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/conspiracy-theories/">https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/conspiracy-theories/</a>
<br>Conspiracy Theories that Turned Out to be True
<br>
<br>+++ Under each comment from Maxwell Bridges above, later Maxwell Bridges posted this comment:
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, your analysis is requested for the above conspiracy theories and why they are crackpot.
<br>
<br>Reply here in this thread to just those theories at the above URL.
<br>
<br>Take your time. And don't be cranking other distracting carousels until you've addressed these here: one-by-one.
<br>
<br>Thank you in advance for your debunking efforts so that I might see the light and be better informed through your research, wisdom, and analysis.
<br>
<br>//
<br>+++++++++++++ End Exchange
<br>
<br>So there we have it. Four new, real-world, and home-court conspiracies followed by 12+15+10+10+10+12 (assuming no overlap) other conspiracies that the Ax-bot didn't attempt to address.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 634 -->
<a name="x635"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x635" class="tiny">x636</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_636');">the 12+15+10+10+10+12 conspiracies</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_636" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, That isn't even a hurdle that the 12+15+10+10+10+12 (assuming no overlap) conspiracies need to overcome; not a gating factor; not even a factor, really.
<br>
<br>But if it were a gating factor, I'm already a step ahead of you with my last comment.
<br>
<br>Specifically, I have a documented history of running into agents, bots, and sockpuppets assigned to control the narrative. That is the conspiracy theory: FB is infiltrated by agents, bots, and sockpuppets. I figured "Curing Conspiratards" was populated by by the same before I entered the group. And it did not disappoint.
<br>
<br>As that comment (that you didn't read because it had a "see more..." content break) summarizes, rather quickly sockpuppets were identified, leading to admin surgical deletion of select comments alluding to that fact. "It wasn't the crime, but the cover-up."
<br>
<br>But no. I don't really need to go there.
<br>
<br>You were the one who established the goal posts as being conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. Now you're not only moving the goal posts, your planting them in stupid territory.
<br>
<br>I mean, all conspiracies are discussed among the conspirators before others (e.g., the general public, law enforcement) discover them to be crimes, only they didn't call them "conspiracy theories" but instead "business partner strategies." So this notion of yours that a criminal event has to be identified and discussed by the public as a conspiracy theory prior to -- what? court case? publication in a newspaper? deathbed confession? -- is just a glaring weakness in your bot-logic.
<br>
<br>In other words, fail.
<br>
<br>This is the second time (in my previous comment in this thread) that 12+15+10+10+10+12 (assuming no overlap) conspiracies that turned out to be true were presented to you. The first time, each grouping of conspiracies had their own top-level comment, each of which you could have replied to and debunked. Instead, you flushed the owing posting, and hence all its discussion potential, instead of defending your claim.
<br>
<br>Ergo, you've demonstrated your lack of sincerity and earnestness. You demand busy work that you then promptly ignore, or better yet when you have the admin power, you simply delete it.
<br>
<br>After the second presentation of 12+15+10+10+10+12 (assuming no overlap) conspiracies that turned out to be true, your only true consistency as a bot is to NOT address a single one of them.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 636 -->
<a name="x637"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x637" class="tiny">x638</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_638');">conspiracies were discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_638" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges show me where any of those conspiracies were discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery ... take your time
</p>
</div><!-- section 638 -->
<a name="x639"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x639" class="tiny">x640</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_640');">Not a gating factor. Not an argument that debunks any conspiracy theory.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_640" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om, It gave me great pleasure to delete your brain-dead bot-replication of previous bot-database entries: <i>"show me where any of those conspiracies were discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery".</i>
<br>
<br>Not a gating factor. Not an argument that debunks any conspiracy theory, and certainly not any of the 12+15+10+10+10+12 (assuming no overlap) conspiracies that turned out to be true, of which you have not addressed a single one.
<br>
<br>"take your time" and don't post anything off-topic until you address one-by-one the crackpotness in the 12+15+10+10+10+12 (assuming no overlap) conspiracies.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 640 -->
<a name="x641"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x641" class="tiny">x642</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_642');">discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_642" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges show me where any of those conspiracies were discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery ... take your time
</p>
</div><!-- section 642 -->
<a name="x643"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x643" class="tiny">x644</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_644');">checkmate bozo</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_644" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges checkmate bozo
</p>
</div><!-- section 644 -->
<a name="x645"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x645" class="tiny">x646</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_646');">address as crackpot the 12+15+10+10+10+12 (assuming no overlap) conspiracies</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_646" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. Ax Eye Om bot-san response to the third attempt to have him address as crackpot the 12+15+10+10+10+12 (assuming no overlap) conspiracies that turned out to be true, repeats his bot-database entry on the top, effectively calling for busy work: "show me where any of those conspiracies were discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery."
<br>
<br>Mr. Ax Eye Om bot-san cannot even articulate why such a notion might have significance. It doesn't.
<br>
<br>"checkmate bozo", and into the bit-bucket go your last two comments.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 646 -->
<a name="x647"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x647" class="tiny">x648</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_648');">cannot show a single one that was discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_648" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges show me where any of those conspiracies were discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery ... take your time
<br>
<br><b>Ax Eye Om</b>
<br>conspiracy theorists have never been right ever ... you cannot show a single one that was discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery .. checkmate
</p>
</div><!-- section 648 -->
<a name="x649"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x649" class="tiny">x650</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_650');">Next step, unfriending</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_650" style="display: block;">
<p>Two more bot-troll comments -- because they were stuck in an illogical rut and near exact repetition of instigation -- from Mr. Ax Eye Om were removed. "checkmate."
<br>
<br>Next step, unfriending.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 650 -->
<a name="x651"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x651" class="tiny">x652</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_652');">still waiting bozo</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_652" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges i'm still waiting bozo ....
</p>
</div><!-- section 652 -->
<a name="x653"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x653" class="tiny">x654</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_654');">removed the last two comments himself</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_654" style="display: block;">
<p>Correction. Mr. Ax Eye Om removed the last two comments himself, but I was going to. I was even looking for the delete button on the residual images of the comments, but they were already gone when I refreshed my browser. I beat him to deleting the third comment that really added to the discussion.
<br>
<br>Here were the two deleted entries to this discussion.
</p>
<blockquote><p>+++ Quote
<br>
<br>Ax Eye Om
<br>show me where any of those conspiracies were discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery ... take your time
<br>
<br>Ax Eye Om
<br>conspiracy theorists have never been right ever ... you cannot show a single one that was discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery .. checkmate
<br>
<br>Ax Eye Om
<br>Maxwell Bridges i'm still waiting bozo ....
<br>
<br>+++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>Gone, baby, gone.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 654 -->
<a name="x655"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x655" class="tiny">x656</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_656');">you are hopeless</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_656" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you are hopeless
</p>
</div><!-- section 656 -->
<a name="x657"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x657" class="tiny">x658</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_658');">take your time ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_658" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges show me where any of those conspiracies were discussed as a conspiracy theory PRIOR to discovery ... take your time ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
<br>
<br>{mcb: above Ax Eye Om comments removed and then he was unfriended.}
</p>
</div><!-- section 658 -->
<a name="x659"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x659" class="tiny">x660</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_660');">busy work from a busy-bot (pun intended) to distract, annoy, and most of all, suck-time.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_660" style="display: block;">
<p>The agency bot Ax Eye Om had this false notion that all conspiracy theories needed to be talked about by the public as such before they were discovered. And if this lame, artifical criteria was not met? Did it invalidate the theory or the conspiracy?
<br>
<br>I don't know. No explanation was given, but was entered into this posting were several near identical, repetitous bot-database-entry drops that were deleted.
<br>
<br>Just busy work from a busy-bot (pun intended) to distract, annoy, and most of all, suck-time.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 660 -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_ConspiratardFauci.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_10 -->
<a name="p11"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_11');">Part 11: Curer-tards on Whistleblower</a></h2>
<div id="part_11" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_ConspiratardMoon.htm -->
<a name="x661"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x661" class="tiny">x662</a>
Brian Ostermark : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_662');">challenge any twits who don't understand basic physics</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_662" style="display: block;">
<p>Brian Ostermark shared a post.
<br>2022-10-14
<br>
<br>Cool!
<br>Just thought I'd put this here to challenge any twits who don't understand basic physics.
<br>Usually moon landing deniers and flat Earthers.
<br>
<br>ESA - European Space Agency
<br>
<br>"Every orbit the International Space Station makes a summersault in space. Take a look at how we can use a gyroscope to visualise that! 😉" ESA astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti demonstrates.
</p>
</div><!-- section 662 -->
<a name="x663"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x663" class="tiny">x664</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_664');">puts a dent in the flat earthers</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_664" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Brian Ostermark, your video does nothing to support or refute the moon landing. Yes, it puts a dent in the flat earthers, but at their core, they were always agents and bots whose purpose was to poison the well of moon landing revelations.
<br>
<br>At any rate, Mr. Ax Eye Om has expressed in a recent posting that participants should not be making claims that they cannot defend.
<br>
<br>Your options are (1) edit your posting and remove the nonsense "moon landing denier" language, because you know this video has nothing to do with that on either side, or (2) defend your claim.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 664 -->
<a name="x665"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x665" class="tiny">x666</a>
Brian Ostermark : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_666');">groups have a lousy understanding of basic physics</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_666" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges there! I've made the second paragraph more removed so it's clearer that there is no actual claim in this post. Just an opinion on how the two groups mentioned have a lousy understanding of basic physics.
</p>
</div><!-- section 666 -->
<a name="x667"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x667" class="tiny">x668</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_668');">physics of the radiation belt around the planet and surviving it, that's the first red flag</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_668" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Brian Ostermark, It is physics that debunks 9/11 as being anything other than an inside job (with Israeli boots to the ground).
<br><br>Physics is what debunks the moon landing as nothing more than a psychological operation. Yes, we put humans into low earth orbit, so let any one who denies that be given a red card for being such an agent / bot and poisoning the well.
<br><br>The physics of the radiation belt around the planet and surviving it, that's the first red flag. Second is the President Nixon telephone chat (with minimal delays). Third is "we lost the technology" and "we recorded over the tapes." Yeah, right. <sarcasm>
<br><br>All flat-earthers are agents / bots trying to poison the well.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 668 -->
<a name="x669"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x669" class="tiny">x670</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_670');">not a single insider whistleblower</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_670" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges but not a single insider whistleblower .. how come?
</p>
</div><!-- section 670 -->
<a name="x671"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x671" class="tiny">x672</a>
Brian Ostermark : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_672');">you lot don't understand basic physics</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_672" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges the astronauts were exposed to the radiation belts as little as possible and suffered no long term affects. Just like going out in sunlight but not long enough to get burnt or cancer.
<br>
<br>You haven't actually studied this very much have you?
<br>Back to my opinion that you lot don't understand basic physics.
</p>
</div><!-- section 672 -->
<a name="x673"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x673" class="tiny">x674</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_674');">got dunning kruger real bad</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_674" style="display: block;">
<p>Ax Eye Om
<br>Admin
<br>Brian Ostermark he's got dunning kruger real bad
</p>
</div><!-- section 674 -->
<a name="x675"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x675" class="tiny">x676</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_676');">Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_676" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Ax Eye Om, How much would you accept to have someone sexually violate your anus: $10, $100, $1k, $10k, $100k? I could keep going, but the point is, you do have a price where you would agree to be paid money in exchange for sexually degrading yourself for 15 minutes. Everyone has a price.
<br>
<br>But those who can't be bought or controlled by their vices, they don't remain alive to blow too many whistles.
<br>
<br>The absence of whistleblowers isn't really an argument. You also seem to conveniently forget "non disclosure agreements" that, in certain subject areas relating to, say, national security, the charges for disclosing secrets are treason and can have penalties of death.
<br>[Pay attention, because Trump's improper handling of top secret documents and the whole circus he is creating is precisely to prevent him from getting those treason charges applied to him, which is what would happen to any body else caught like he was. Al Capone was brought down by tax evasion laws; Trump gets brought down by national secrets.]
<br>
<br><i>"It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"</i> ~Upton Sinclair
<br>
<br>That is a quote referring race relations, but really it applies to just about anything "conspiracy related." It certainly applies to everyone in the military and nuclear science.
<br>
<br>P.S. Your reply is very bot-ish and repetitious.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 676 -->
<a name="x677"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x677" class="tiny">x678</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_678');">you expect hundreds to keep a secret that big</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_678" style="display: block;">
<p>Ax Eye Om
<br>Admin
<br>Maxwell Bridges there are whblowers in the military and police and you expect hundreds to keep a secret that big!? that is psychotic. .. get a grip!
</p>
</div><!-- section 678 -->
<a name="x679"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x679" class="tiny">x680</a>
Brian Ostermark : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_680');">clearly shows the delays in coms</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_680" style="display: block;">
<p>Brian Ostermark
<br>Author
<br>Maxwell Bridges and here's a link which clearly shows the delays in coms.
<br>https://youtu.be/1Ai_HCBDQIQ
<br>President Nixon speaking with astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>President Nixon speaking with astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon
<br>President Nixon speaking with astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon
</p>
</div><!-- section 680 -->
<a name="x681"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x681" class="tiny">x682</a>
Brian Ostermark : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_682');">lost the technology</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_682" style="display: block;">
<p>Brian Ostermark
<br>Maxwell Bridges I don't know what you mean by lost the technology but yes they erased the originals after storing the footage elsewhere as per procedure. This was admitted and regretted by NASA around 2006 I think.
<br>
<br>So, why would you admit to something like that if you were trying to cover something up? All the copied footage shows real space as it really behaves so what do you think would be on any other footage, lost or not?
<br>
<br>The same thing? You're not making a sensible case.
<br>
<br>And I've just debunked your first two points with facts and your last with reason.
<br>
<br>Moonlanding deniers are flat Earthers in all but name.
<br>
<br>Ridiculous, irrational and misinformed both.
<br>
<br>Michael Placentino
<br>Brian Ostermark Checkmate.
</p>
</div><!-- section 682 -->
<a name="x683"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x683" class="tiny">x684</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_684');">a bit far-fetched that that technology was somehow lost; far more likely that it was never invented</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_684" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Brian Ostermark, Astronauts from this century have been interviewed about space flight and space missions including those to the moon and other planets. Among the obstacles they complain about are those Van Allen radiation belts and that "unfortunately" the 1960's technology was lost, they have to re-invent it, which is why we haven't gone back to the moon or beyond, except with unmanned probes, yada, yada.
<br>
<br>I, too, find it a bit far-fetched that that technology was somehow lost; far more likely that it was never invented. And erasing the originals -- how that could ever be per procedure -- reeks of being another lie to cover-up the psyop that was perpetrated on the world. Really gave America a leg-up in the cold war though, and the space war that the USA was "losing".
<br>
<br>Admit to a mistake that just happens to be part of the coverup. Frame it properly.
<br>
<br>Sometimes when you study a data point too closely, you lose sight of the trendline that intersects it, kind of like the closer you get to the foothills of the rocky mountains, you actually see fewer of the really big mountains that are right behind them.
<br>
<br>The trendline is that government(s) have a history of lying, omission, suppression, censorship, and propaganda.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Moonlanding deniers are flat Earthers in all but name only."
<br>
<br>TAKE THAT BACK. IT IS BLATANTLY FALSE.
<br>
<br>How so? Moonlanding deniers were making their case years before FE came about. So how and why did FE come about so recently?
<br>
<br>As a NSA Q-group disinformation campaign to discredit by association 9/11 Truthers and Moonlanding deniers, who do have Venn diagram overlaps. I personally saw that disinformation get seeded into 9/11 discussions by relatively "young" FB profiles (as in, "not long in existence as a profile") who joined various 9/11 facebook groups. Classic case of poisoning the well.
<br>
<br>And poisoning the well the ministry of public narrative was required to do, because they couldn't have these same astute, woke, researchers start validly questioning the latest psyops on the population. Divide and conquer they wanted, beforehand.
<br>
<br>Actually, is was more of Helgian Dialectic Move.
<br>
<br>Thesis: 9/11 truthers rightfully questioned the shody reports of agency "scientists," so will question and expose science issues in any bio-weapon attack/response.
<br>
<br>Anti-Thesis: Create artificial groups of science-deniers (e.g., Flat-Earthers) who are so obnoxious, they poison the validity of any group or conspiracy theory that they are associated with. Cause much division and confusion.
<br>
<br>Resolution: The general public doesn't have the patience to separate the truth from the fiction, so when the time comes, the public turns like tired children into the arms of their "vetted scientists and experts" to promote their narrative. They accept the censorship, not just of the bad-seed FE-er's but of any conspiracy theory.
<br>
<br>FE champions displayed many of the same characteristics of those who championed 9/11 (a) no planes at the WTC and (b) Woodsian DEW. Namely, they were agents and bots with a paid [/programmed] agenda [/algorithm], never tiring of cranking the same merry-go-round in different threads (sometimes in parallel) and sometimes against the same FB persona [as in, "I didn't learn anything on the first carousel pass, so here I go and repeat."] ... Thank God, I could provide easily "goto" links (even inside of FB) to prove they were being deceitful and going in circles!
<br>
<br>As an off-topic side note, this is how Ox Axe Om was spotted as a bot. Can't click on a "See more..." comment break, can't follow links, can't argue specifics, can't defend / substantiate their position, yet they for sure can spout expectations of debate that they then proceed to ~not~ abide by [one of "The 48 Laws of Power" by author Mr. Greene in about 2000. Because many of the laws are ancient, Trump and the GOP have been experts therein without even knowing it.]
<br>
<br>Whoever controls the Ox Axe Om bot (an admin here) has several other sockpuppets here. Easily detected by the timing of the start and end of their participation with respect to one another.
<br>
<br>So damn if that doesn't ding the reputation of pretty much the entire admin membership of "Curing Conspiratards", and this is before we contemplate the stupid meaning and blatant government agenda of the group's name!
<br>
<br>For sure, one could expect that in this forum that the "Curers" of the "Conspiratards" are not in a position where they can be rational and open-minded -- despite their denials --, because they aren't going to ever be convinced (and publicly admit it) of any other point of view regardless of what is presented as substantiation. They aren't paid to change their minds but instead to promote an agenda that by default assumes there is such a thing as "conspiratard". Reeks of NSA Q-group branding.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 684 -->
<a name="x685"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x685" class="tiny">x686</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_686');">no one went to the moon</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_686" style="display: block;">
<p>Stephen Dimitriou
<br>Maxwell Bridges This page should be renamed Pacific Gaslighting & No Electric, Maxwell. You know that no one went to the moon. NASA is in obvious damage control and there is footage available which proves this. The primitive people in this cave revere the TV as "science" and are in full denial of any claims until they hear it from the TV.
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges {admin deleted}
<br>Dear Mr. Stephen Dimitriou, I have not been here long enough to come up with your great observations. I can see how they fit. Thank you.
<br>
<br>Have you noticed the bots and sockpuppets here? Whenever I make a connection between sockpuppets, an admin deletes that comment. In part because I suspect that at least one of the admin's is a sockpuppet himself (and did make an appearance in this thread).
<br>
<br>At least when I get banned from this FB group -- despite what ever lame-ass reason they give --, I'll know it was because their bots and sockpuppets were so obvious.
<br>
<br>https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3017361628562074/
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 686 -->
<a name="x687"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x687" class="tiny">x688</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_688');">not a single insider whblower?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_688" style="display: block;">
<p>Stephen Dimitriou then why not a single insider whblower?
</p>
</div><!-- section 688 -->
<a name="x689"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x689" class="tiny">x690</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_690');">not a single insider whblower?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_690" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges then why not a single insider whblower?
</p>
</div><!-- section 690 -->
<a name="x691"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x691" class="tiny">x692</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_692');">after the "See more..." break that bots can't click on</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_692" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges {admin deleted}
<br>Dear Mr. Stephen Dimitriou, allow me to repeat my question. Have you noticed the bots and sockpuppets here?
<br>
<br>[Hint: See directly ^^^ above this comment, and within the very same minute of my comment, so efficient are the algorithms yet hardly enough time for a human to read it. It'll go right over his head, anyway. I can say that because technically it is after the "See more..." break that bots can't click on.]
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 692 -->
<a name="x693"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x693" class="tiny">x694</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_694');">the two admin deleted comments from me</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_694" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Stephen Dimitriou, Did you notice the two admin deleted comments from me, one before the "Ax" and one after the "Ax" and within literally a couple minutes apart.
<br>
<br>So if I front load this paragraph with lots of words to push out the character count, the effect will be that FB creates a "See more..." break somewhere early in this paragraph. That is bait that a bot won't click on, and after the break, I can say whatever I want.
<br>
<br>This forum has lots of agents, bots, and sockpuppets of the same. And they've infiltrated the admin ranks of this group... Bwahahaha, who am I kidding?!! The bad apples were the creators from the get go. The hold positions of admin power. They like to delete comments.
<br>
<br>I look at this FB group, and others, as sort of a required school project for students of disinformation and desirous of joining NSA's Q-group (to congnitively infiltrate online social media and promote established agendas).
<br>
<br>Here's a link to my discussion on bots and agents in this very forum:
<br>
<br>https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3017361628562074/
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 694 -->
<a name="x695"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x695" class="tiny">x696</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_696');">you are mentally very ill</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_696" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you are mentally very ill
</p>
</div><!-- section 696 -->
<a name="x697"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x697" class="tiny">x698</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_698');">Let's assume true for a moment the statment about me being "mentally very ill."</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_698" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Ax Eye Om bot-san, How quaint?!! Let's assume true for a moment the statment about me being "mentally very ill." Then why are you so bot-energetically engaging me, if that is the case? Makes your mental illness worse than mine that you'd even engage me.
<br>
<br>Nope, by engaging me, you actually valid my position. Thus, only a "STFU" on your part would be a stronger argument than what you have provided (on all fronts where we've ever discussed anything. Kudos for that record, Ax-bot!)
<br>
<br>Therefore, the assumption about my mental health isn't just false, it is defamation. Need I mention that it is also against the rules of this forum, or are you bot-admin's above such rules?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 698 -->
<a name="x699"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x699" class="tiny">x700</a>
Stephen Dimitriou : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_700');">I noticed alright</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_700" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Yes I noticed alright, Maxwell.
</p>
</div><!-- section 700 -->
<a name="x701"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x701" class="tiny">x702</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_702');">please bear with this introductorary blather followed by them outing themselves as sockpuppets</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_702" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Stephen Dimitriou, please bear with this introductorary blather that I'll extend into at least a paragraph and a half, because my goal before talking about anything important is to get FB to insert one of its "See more..." content breaks. I've already given the reason why in other comments, and I'll do it again in this comment, just as soon as I have enough characters entered to get that FB compressing automation.
<br>
<br>... Ah! Here is relief! Here I am below the fold of the "See more..." break.
<br>
<br>Now I can talk freely without excessive bot admin actions.
<br>
<br>Gotta love the irony in the following. A bot-ish agent continually pressures me to name one conspiracy that is valid, because according to him, all of them are crackpot. So here's a valid conspiracy theory for him to put into his pipe and smoke. This forum has lots of agents, bots, and sockpuppets of the same.
<br>
<br>Ax_Eye_Om, Kylie_Hirst, Belle_Armstrong... are just the tip of the iceberg of personas in this forum who -- from their coincidental and prompt behavior -- have outed themselves as being sockpuppets.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 702 -->
<a name="x703"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x703" class="tiny">x704</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_704');">Either condemn or defend the ongoing administrative actions aimed at me.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_704" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, Are you aware of the actions of a bot-ish administrator of this group? It seems his argument is so weak, he has to suspend me from the group and censor my wisdom. Is that how Conspiratards are going to be cured?
<br>
<br>For shame, for shame!
<br>
<br>Either condemn or defend the ongoing administrative actions aimed at me.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 704 -->
<a name="x705"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x705" class="tiny">x706</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_706');">surgical censorship of comments says "I lost"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_706" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges {direct message}
<br>Dear Ax Eye Om, nothing says "I lost; I have no arguments; you are right" more mightily than surgical censorship of comments and outright suspension from your group! Is that how Conspiratards are going to be cured?
<br>
<br>And nothing says: "I am weak and have no case" stronger than tag-teaming sockpuppets.
<br>
<br>Ax_Eye_Om, Kylie_Hirst, Belle_Armstrong... are just the tip of the iceberg of personas in this forum who -- from their coincidental and prompt behavior -- have outed themselves as being sockpuppets.
<br>
<br>Remember, you invited me to your group, maybe because you thought you could punk me on your home court. Nope. You got yourself PWNED pretty badly as well as the reputation of your whole group.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 706 -->
<a name="x707"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x707" class="tiny">x708</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_708');">not sock puppets you paranoid psychotic nutcase</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_708" style="display: block;">
<p>{direct message}
<br>they are not sock puppets you paranoid psychotic nutcase
<br>
<br>now you have 12 hrs to cool off and when you return try answering my question about the lack of a single insider whblower
<br>
<br>and GET A GRIP!
</p>
</div><!-- section 708 -->
<a name="x709"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x709" class="tiny">x710</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_710');">Your hypnotic denials have no effect on me</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_710" style="display: block;">
<p>{direct message}
<br>Yes they are sockpuppets, and probably a few more, like Brian Ostermark. If he wasn't one of your sockpuppets, then why did you INSULT a real person but shutting down comments to HIS posting? If he's real, he did nothing wrong, but you've turned him into a victim. Good job.
<br>
<br>Your hypnotic denials have no effect on me.
<br>
<br>If really they weren't sockpuppets, when I first brought it up -- Ax and Kylie --, each could have publicly stated they were no relation to one another [at completely different and random times of the day], and that would have been the end of the story.
<br>
<br>But no. Kylie has given no response at all to the accusation. Of course, one could argue that Ax was too handy with the axe to surgically remove those comments, so maybe a real person Kylie never saw it.
<br>
<br>Nope, censorship and temporay banishment are your only tools. Reason, substantiation, and articulation are not your strong suits.
<br>
<br>After all of this, you still haven't (a) identified a conspiracy theory that I champion and (b) proven it to be "crackpot". It was you who made a bit posting out of "DON'T MAKE ANY CLAIMS THAT YOU CAN'T DEFEND", or words to that effect. Hypocrite. Bot. Agent.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 710 -->
<a name="x711"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x711" class="tiny">x712</a>
Ax Eye Om and Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_712');">try the moon landing ... go!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_712" style="display: block;">
<p>Ax Eye Om {direct message}
<br>try the moon landing ... go!
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges {direct message}
<br>Do you see me championing (or denying) the moon landing on my blog ... go! //
<br>
<br>Ax Eye Om {direct message}
<br>that's why i keep asking you for one!
<br>
<br>are you saying to subscribe to zero consp theories?
<br>
<br>why so defensive and evasive?
</p>
</div><!-- section 712 -->
<a name="x713"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x713" class="tiny">x714</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_714');">my portfolio of conspiracy theories is readily available on my blog</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_714" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges {direct message}
<br>That is right: you keep asking me for a conspiracy theory, over and over like a bot, ignorant of the fact that my portfolio of conspiracy theories is readily available on my blog. But a tell of a bot -- which you are -- is that you can't follow links, nor can you google to find the blog that I've mentioned several times.
<br>
<br>Sure, I've not had the opportunity to post the URL to my blog in the discussions we've been having in your agency-funded little FB group, because you repeatedly stated -- under no uncertain terms -- that "all of ~my~ conspiracy theories were crackpot", which gives rise to the impression that you've been to my blog to KNOW what my theories are and why they are crackpot. Thus, no link was provided and it gave me unusual pleasure watching you stew in the stupidity of your own, over-generalized proclamations and lies. [Lie: you don't know what conspiracy theories specifically that I champion, but you said you did and cranked lots of spins on your carousel.]
<br>
<br>Geez, you could have gone to my facebook wall and eventually found me promoting something that was on my blog. But you're a bot. You don't do work. You don't think out of the box, out of the algorithm, out of the database entry. And if you ain't a bot, you're an agent.
<br>
<br>In any event, your participation is insincere. I mean, what was the nonsense of you -- twice now -- attempting to post bullshit directly on my FB wall?!! Get this little factoid. I work off-line, save my work, and then post onlne. Therefore, with just a little effort, I could make a posting suitable for your wall that is our unedited discussion. Won't that be sweet? [Don't hold your breath, though, because you really aren't worth the effort.]
<br>
<br>Love your projecting your weaknesses onto me: "why so defensive and evasive?"
<br>
<br>You're the one who censored my comments rather than address them; you're the one who banned me based on those comments.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 714 -->
<a name="x715"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x715" class="tiny">x716</a>
Ax Eye Om : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_716');">refuse to proffer a single one of your consp theories</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_716" style="display: block;">
<p>Ax Eye Om {direct message}
<br>why do you refuse to proffer a single one of your consp theories?
<br>
<br>you talk a lot but say very little
<br>
<br>and i repeat: every single one of your consp theories are crackpot!
</p>
</div><!-- section 716 -->
<a name="x717"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x717" class="tiny">x718</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_718');">"... casting pearls before swine."</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_718" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges {direct message}
<br>Dear Mr. Ax-bot, you ask: "why do you refuse to proffer a single one of your consp theories?"
<br>
<br>The answer comes from the Bible: "... casting pearls before swine."
<br>
<br>In our entire history, you have been insincere, shallow, generic, unspecific, unsubstantiated. I am the opposite.
<br>
<br>... Damn it, Ax. I was just about to give you keys to my kingdom, and then you go and make another dumb comment: "and i repeat: every single one of your consp theories are crackpot!"
<br>
<br>As mentioned many times in recent history, this statement suggests that you are familiar with my conspiracy theories already, else you would not have been able to judge them as crackpot. Yet despite you bragging about such familiarity with my views, you still fail to mention a single one.
<br>
<br>Thus, you "repeat" a lie, because your bot algorithms don't know no better.
<br>
<br>... Oh, what the hell? ...
<br>
<br>Enter the following without the double quotes into google: "maxwell bridges FGNW".
<br>
<br>{2023-11-01 mcb: No longer works "maxwell bridges FGNW" and getting to my blog with Google. Results have my article, but only the one I posted on "The Vatic Project" and not my blog. Example of "Shadow Banning." }
<br>
<br>You wanted a theory, well right there is my 9/11 hobby-horse. Let's see if your bot algorithms can even get you there and can get you to copy any given sentence written by me that you see there. Consider it a bot-test [that you'll fail.]
<br>
<br>Before I forget, let me return briefly to your sockpuppet denials. Without consulting with Brian Ostermark, you (as admin) temporily shut down comments to HIS posting, and they remain off. If he was real, he'd be upset; you're turning him into an innocent victim, and you already exhibited other techniques of deleting any of my unwanted sockpuppet comments. So, whereas I only suspected before of his intimate relationship with "your right hand", those admin actions prove it. I mean, Brian was on your side and arguing things better than you ever did. Why did you screw him and his posting over?
<br>
<br>You wrote: "you talk a lot but say very little".
<br>
<br>You talk little and say even less, so shallow and insincere you are. A little time-sucking bot-instigator of flame wars.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 718 -->
<a name="x719"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x719" class="tiny">x720</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_720');">Ax-admin just suspended me for another 12 hours.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_720" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Belle Armstrong, It seems that the Ax-admin just suspended me for another 12 hours.
</p>
<blockquote><p>>+++
<br>Group rules that were violated
<br>1 No promotions or spam
<br>Give more than you take in this group. Self-promotion, spam and irrelevant links aren't allowed. This includes posting thousands of memes in a 5 minute period.
<br>+++</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>Fact: when he deletes comments, he destroys the evidence that might make his case for suspension or banishment.
<br>
<br>As he so boldly stated: "Don't be making claims that you can't defend."
<br>
<br>So, please have him identify & quote the suspending worthy offenses. [Hint: He doesn't like me calling out his sockpuppets that were easily identified from their coordinated actions.
<br>
<br>If he fails to justify his actions, then you, as admin Ms. Armstrong, should re-instate me.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 720 -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_ConspiratardMoon.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_11 -->
<a name="p12"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_12');">Part 12: Predictive Programming Again</a></h2>
<div id="part_12" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_ConspiratardRemovedPosts.htm -->
<a name="x721"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x721" class="tiny">x722</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_722');">predictive programming superheroes who inject</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_722" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges->Curing Conspiratards
<br>If we give any credence to "predictive programming", what are we subconsciously telling ourselves when we watch, say, Marvel super heroes who got their powers by getting something injected/ingested into themselves? (Captain America, Hulk, Spider-man, The Black Panther, Nick Cage, Deadpool, The Witcher, Venom, "In from the Cold", ... <lots more, and I don't care, that's not what the discussion is about>)
<br>
<br>Then there are the werewolf and vampires series, although old, that have this trend where ~you~ can become a super human version of yourself (with some drawbacks) if you get yourself bitten or drink the blood, or whatever hocky rules.
<br>
<br>In many ways, this fantasy is ruining our critical thinking, because the advertisement for the mRNA technology even at version one-dot-oh is that it is "programming the body".
<br>
<br>The issue is, the vaccine technology has never been wonderful, and its many failures largely shielded from knowledge and buried in other headline news, and "we aren't in Africa or India, and can't give a hoot about their complaints against Gates, WHO, etc."
<br>
<br>And if your eyes are open, the mRNA tech at version one-dot-oh isn't going to be wonderful either. No super powers for you. RFK's book has the receipts.
<br>
<br>https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808?fbclid=IwAR3hOAW3dCONczpcK5_Xj4kjWx0dQ3zAyC4OZs7E9XF3IevKYC2WSE2ydAU
<br>
<br>Here's an interesting quote from the 1984 Federal Registry that RFK brought to our attention. Fauci put this regulation in, and it explains our predicament... even with Joe Rogan.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 107 / Friday, June 1. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
<br>
<br>"However, although the continued availability of the vaccine may not be in immediate jeopardy, any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives. Accordingly, because of the importance of the vaccine and of maintaining public confidence in the immunization program that depends on it, good cause exists to issue these amendments as a final rule effective immediately."
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>I am an anti-vaxxer and can argue that case from four different perspectives:
<br>
<br>1) The science. The medical professionals quoted in RFK's book and coincidentally banned and de-platformed will be who I refer debate opponents to.
<br>
<br>2) The politics. Capitalism rears its ugly head.
<br>
<br>3) Spirituality / Faith . I was raised Christian Science and know it to be one (of many) viable alternatives to the germ-warfare beliefs.
<br>
<br>4) [Available upon request...]
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>{It also included several images -- maybe 126 ? -- with "vaccine" in the name from my collection. It was removed during the posting process.}
<br>
<br>{You'll be able to see these details and edit this post until November 6, 2022}
<br>
<br>Your post was automatically declined.
<br>
<br>{mcb: While still the page of
<br>https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/my_removed_content
<br>
<br>my last posting at the following appended to it:
<br>False information. The same information was checked in another post by independent fact-checkers.
<br>Related Articles: 11 articles with labels "Fact-check" from Lead Stories (2), Science Feedback (2), Reuters Fact Check UK, Check Your fact, PolitiFact, Reuters Fact Check, Austrialina Associated Press (2), Associated Press.
</p>
</div><!-- section 722 -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_ConspiratardRemovedPosts.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_12 -->
<a name="p13"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_13');">Part 13: Afflicted with Conspiratardism</a></h2>
<div id="part_13" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202211_mcb_Conspiratard911_05.htm -->
<a name="x723"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x723" class="tiny">x724</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_724');">"afflicted with Conspiratardism"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_724" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3024611187837118/?comment_id=3029418814023022&reply_comment_id=3029623160669254¬if_id=1667359713506659¬if_t=group_comment_mention">https://www.facebook.com/groups/2627191070912467/posts/3024611187837118/?comment_id=3029418814023022&reply_comment_id=3029623160669254¬if_id=1667359713506659¬if_t=group_comment_mention</a>
<br><br>Attending to the purpose of this group, I am the Conspiratard "afflicted with Conspiratardism" that the Curer-tards are to crack deprogram and cure me of my affliction. The Popular Mechanics article that anchors this thread should be copied into top-level comments by those participates who testify that they can not only reach the PM page but read all its content as well [that can be copied.] The Curer-tard cure dictates that the deprogramming from PM article be pasted here in a 100% legal, fair-use manner section-by-section.
<br><br>The next phase of the Curer-tard cure happens in the discussion under those lawful repurposing of the PM content in these very sacred FB halls!
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 724 -->
<a name="x725"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x725" class="tiny">x726</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_726');">back-handed invitation to participate</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_726" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Peter Gill, Here is my left- and back-handed invitation to participate with me in this thread. Don't get mad at me. For shits-and-giggles are we here, humble servants of Truth with a capital T.
<br><br>When I go to the PM article, the content is blurred and they want me to become a member. Could you double-check that for yourself? If you can ~read~ the content, it means you can copy the content... And we'll have "a gay old time" fair-use discussing what you paste into top-level comments here! If Dr. David Griffin -- patron saint of 9/11 Truth -- taught us nothing else, he taught us that when you objectively go through section-by-section OCT, you can debunk it.
<br><br>WARNING: Do your work offline first; I use Notepad++. Save locally. Collect URL's from notifications and occasionally add to that saved work. It'll help you get to it; it'll help you prove it once existed. Because chances are great in these Curer-tard parts that it will have a lifespan measured in days.
<br><br>In the same files, save what the other participants did or said that you are responding to.
<br><br>You see legacy can be a weapon used against others who, through censorship, try to cull their true legacy.
<br><br>Eventually, I re-publish this crap [but procrastination has me 2 years to catch up on]. However, even without that extra step, having the files locally that document the exchanges and where they transpired... can be worth its weight in crytocurrency! when played on subsequent unproductive disinfo carousel spins.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 726 -->
<a name="x727"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x727" class="tiny">x728</a>
Stella Marie Ivory : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_728');">Belle is no Bot and you are not understandable</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_728" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Here"¦ is this a help, it was a lie or made to deceive and Belle is no Bot and you are not understandable"¦ is that enough to debate about
<br>May be an image of text that says 'Twenty years later, 9/11 conspiracy theories linger on. In the years following the report of this publication, truthers would launch of variety of attacks on Popular Mechanics, accusing the magazine of being a tool of the federal government and drawing tinfoil-hat diagrams to tie Popular Mechanics to the Bush Administration and the supposed big conspiracy. If all this nonsense accomplished anything, it was to presage our current era of "alternative facts" and attacking the messenger whenever the message clashes with one's predetermined beliefs.'
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Scroll to the next paragraphs, make picture, put in your comment.
<br>Repeat.
<br>Repeat.
<br>Repeat.
<br>Repeat.
<br>P.S. When you say I am not understandable, why I'm just adhering to the About statement of this group, to the right of this comment section (when you have FB expanded to the entire big screen.)
<br>Belle is no bot, but she is also not directly a participant. She does delete comments. She does participate with aliases that themselves might only be a week old in this forum, dear Ms. Stella Marie Ivory.
<br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 728 -->
<a name="x729"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x729" class="tiny">x730</a>
Stella Marie Ivory : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_730');">admin and a personal friend so not a bot</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_730" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Belle participates only with topics she is knowledgeable about, she is also admin and a personal friend so not a bot.
<br>And you're not understandable because you make everything too complicated
<br>It's easy 9/11 happened as we saw it on TV because a madman got lucky"¦ simple really, it doesn't matter why when how.
<br>Same with the assassination of JF K it happened unfortunately or maybe fortunately?
<br>We will never know.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 730 -->
<a name="x731"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x731" class="tiny">x732</a>
David Griffin : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_732');">not a qualified doctor</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_732" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Please note I am not a qualified doctor!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 732 -->
<a name="x733"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x733" class="tiny">x734</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_734');">forgive me for the FB auto-tagging</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_734" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Dr. David Griffin (PhD in theology?), Please forgive me for the FB auto-tagging that happened when I dropped your name in reference to your "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" book... in a short thread that some vengeful agent-admin already saw fit to disappear. That is the legacy of an agency backed endeavor; they don't leave one that -- after culling of the "bad" comments -- doesn't whittle down to shallow statements and weak backslapping between the agent-personas.
<br>
<br>Owing to the expected short (days) longevity of anything contributed to this tard forum, I do not recommend this tard forum as a place to hang out or waste your brain cells on...
<br>
<br>Unless, like me, you: write worthy words & save offline; paste those reasons words into comments; offline keep a collection of the worthy words [and the unworthy words of the discussion opponent] for the one-day re-purposing in a forum under your control. [Procrastination has gotten the best of me, putting me already a couple years behind in re-publishing my exchanges, so the legacy is hardly a threat today to any agency agenda.]
<br>
<br>Why am I here? Collecting data. With this data, we prove that this FB group -- as one example -- is the poster child for the agency infiltration of social media and its direct censorship rather than offering any "cures for conspiratardism". The engagement of bots and sockpuppets has been particularly noteworthy. The consistency in the shallowness and genericness of their comments, combined with timing of activity, often flags their participation. An example: I make comments on different threads; radio silence in the group for hours; suddenly within a three minute window, two or more different personas engage my comments with LOL or sad emoticons and then lame two-liner generic comments that probably also contained ad hominem.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, I've set the expectations.
<br>
<br>By the way, can you read the Popular Mechanics article? It is behind a paywall for me that I am not willing to pay. If they want to defend it, they need to fair-use copy-and-paste it into the comments. Remarkable how that has turned into an insurmountable agent-bot challenge.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 734 -->
<a name="x735"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x735" class="tiny">x736</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_736');">best not to try to split your personality in the same discussion</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_736" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Stella Marie Ivory, Please defend your statement:
<blockquote><p>"It's easy 9/11 happened as we saw it on TV because a madman got lucky"¦ simple really, it doesn't matter why when how."</p></blockquote>
<p>Here I thought that ~I~ was the lone conspiratard participating in this group! But when you write retarded things like the above, followed by boot-licking ignorance "it doesn't matter why when how."
<br>
<br>Here's analogy. "Man found dead of stab wounds in kitchen and woman holding bloody knife standing next to him." According to you, it doesn't matter "why when how." Both of these backstories are equivalent. [A] Woman was beaten and brutalized by man continually for months; she had fresh bloodied and bruised face; the knife was a kitchen knife. [B] Woman spent weeks in the garage forging, polishing, and sharpening the perfect blade, and the man's stabbed body appeared as if a giant sewing machine had stabbed him from one end to the other and all around.
<br>
<br>In a just a fair society, woman A could claim self-defense, be exonerated, and let free to live her life; and woman B probably not. But according to you, "why when how" don't matter except that with the same outcome -- a man killed by stabbing. So when woman A and woman B move next door to you on either side and start eyeing your man, the "why when how" of the publicized cases might actually matter to you.
<br>
<br>You continued in your hypnotic expression: "Same with the assassination of JF K it happened unfortunately or maybe fortunately? We will never know."
<br>
<br>Nothing like hypnotizing yourself into doing nothing from the onset: "Don't question any authority. Big brother has already told you what you need to believe: JFK magic bullets, 9/11-Allah-defying-physics, the vaccine works just not for the things we said [prevents infection and spreading]."
<br>
<br>Nothing contradicts the sentiment that the "why when how don't matter" than (a) your participation as a curer-tard in a forum dedicated to deprogramming conspiratardism, and (b) the censorship of comments, threads, and postings that were on topic and did not violate any rules of the group. Nothing quite says as strongly "MY POSITION LOST THE DEBATE!!!" than censorship.
<br>
<br>When you write about Belle the admin, personal friend, not-a-bot, who only participates on topics she is knowledgeable about, I am inspired to exercise my super powers of being naive and trusting and simply TAKE YOU AT YOUR WORD. I choose to ignore the red-flag that when a participant, such as yourself, has only existed as a member in a conspiratardism group for a week, they might not know so personally the admin or the group's nature, and if they did from way before, they waited a long time before joining and contributing to the discussion that happened to coincide with ~my~ fresh endeavors.
<br>
<br>It doesn't bother me when participation is expressed in words by the persona-du-jour, although it is best not to try to split your personality in the same discussion.
<br>
<br>An issue for the whole group is when participation is silent and amounts to disappearing comments, threads, and postings.
<br>
<br>By the way and to bring us back on topic. Time for you to paste in images of the next paragraphs of the Popular Mechanics article. Don't leave me hanging in such suspense!
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 736 -->
<a name="x737"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x737" class="tiny">x738</a>
David Griffin : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_738');">not affiliated with any conspiracy theory publications</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_738" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Thanks on that but just a brief, sorry FB for you would of sufficed. I can read the above article without any major issue. I am not affiliated with any conspiracy theory publications.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 738 -->
<a name="x739"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x739" class="tiny">x740</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_740');">apologize for dragging you into this and for the mistaken identity</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_740" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Griffin, So you are not "David Ray Griffin", author of "The New Pearl Harbor"? At one point, that Griffin was FB friends with me and how FB tends to auto-tag. Guess that got changed with its algorithms.
<br>
<br>I apologize for dragging you into this and for the mistaken identity.
<br>
<br>But as long as you are here and ~can~ get to the article and read it, could you do me a favor by fair-use copying-pasting the second section of that PM article to a top-level comment, for the purposes of analysis?
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 740 -->
<a name="x741"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x741" class="tiny">x742</a>
David Griffin : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_742');">URL it doesn't like in the depths of it</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_742" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Sorry it's not liking that, picked up a URL it doesn't like in the depths of it. Ha FB for you!
</p>
</div><!-- section 742 -->
<a name="x743"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x743" class="tiny">x744</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_744');">the PM link anchoring this posting is now bad?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_744" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Griffin, Who is it, and what URL doesn't it like? Are you saying the PM link way above anchoring this posting is now bad (or now throws up its blurring of content behind the paywall)? Or are you saying that Mr. Christopher Edwards 12 foot ladder over paywalls doesn't work with the PM URL?
<br>
<br>Curious minds want to know.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 744 -->
<a name="x745"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x745" class="tiny">x746</a>
Christopher Edward : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_746');">12 foot ladder</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_746" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Are you sure that 12 foot ladder didn't work, champ? 🤔
<br>May be an image of text that says '02-UK 17:10 AA 80% 12ft.io POPULAR MECHANICS SUBSCRIBE SIGN IN HOME NEW TECH SCIENCE Gear-obsessed editors choose every product we review. We may earn commission you buy from a link. Why Trust Us? Military 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Special Report -The World Trade Center Popular Mechanics.ovemines_the Mechanics evidence and CO sults the experts refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11. POP 12ft.io BYPOPUL Is the paywall gone? Yes No'
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 746 -->
<a name="x747"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x747" class="tiny">x748</a>
David Griffin : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_748');">more busy closing down the warning window</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_748" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges No, tried copying it out and when pasted into FB. 1, Had to cut the length, 2 It picked up an odd URL(s) it didn't like and then won't let me edit it or others out. Not sure which ones, more busy closing down the warning window.
<br>Anyway software to install and food to eat.
</p>
</div><!-- section 748 -->
<a name="x749"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x749" class="tiny">x750</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_750');">what of my comments remains in this thread by the end of the day</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_750" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Griffin and Mr. Christopher Edwards, the 12 foot ladder I was able to get to work and save locally a copy of the page in question. Thank you for your assistance.
<br>
<br>In the near future, I'll be fair-use coping in passages from the PM article followed by my analysis underneath.
<br>
<br>First test is to see what of my comments remains in this thread by the end of the day. Doesn't make much sense (except for my personal archives and endeavors) to be making reasoned, rational, research comments if vengeful curer-tards retro-actively go in that night or next day to purge my efforts.
<br>
<br>I'm still gonna do the offline effort. Will sit well in my portfolio when I get around to updating it.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 750 -->
<a name="x751"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x751" class="tiny">x752</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_752');">sit back and let us heal you</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_752" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges well admitting to your problem is the biggest step now sit back and let us heal you
</p>
</div><!-- section 752 -->
<a name="x753"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x753" class="tiny">x754</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_754');">look forward to your healing session</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_754" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, I look forward to your healing session. Because you have already stated multiple times that you can get to the Popular Mechanics article and can read it (e.g., not blurred with a bottom-banner for $4/month digital access), please further the curing of my conspiratardism in a most effective and easy way: Copy the next section of the article into a top-level comment (legal fair-use).
<br>
<br>Be lazy and let its words do your talking and curing the easy way. Stand on their shoulders by pasting the next section here and don't think too much.
<br>
<br>Just make sure PM's curing words are given re-publication here to bless us all.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 754 -->
<a name="x755"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x755" class="tiny">x756</a>
Christopher Edward : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_756');">Have you tried using this, champ?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_756" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Have you tried using this, champ? 😉
<br>Prepend 12ft.io/ to the URL of any paywalled page, and we'll try our best to remove the paywall and get you access to the article.
<br>https://12ft.io
</p>
</div><!-- section 756 -->
<a name="x757"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x757" class="tiny">x758</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_758');">break laws by removing paywalls</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_758" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, You seem to be encouraging ~me~ to break laws by removing paywalls. First and foremost, THE POSTING ABOVE IS YOURS; YOU MUST DEFEND IT. So if this 12 foot paywall ladder exists for me, it exists for you, too, and should be used by you to fair-use re-publish section-by-section the PM piece. To date, your persona has done next to zilch in this regard, yet you expect the discussion to progress?!! How kwazy iz zat?!!
<br>
<br>Secondly, why are you bringing up a paywall-ladder when YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED TO BEING ABLE TO GET TO THE PM PAGE AND READ IT. And you made the above posting to ask others if they could as well, and five participants stepped forward to agree with you, and to victim-shame me that I couldn't get there and read it. Coincidence that all five of you held out?!!! No, shit; that is actually a conspiracy "right here in River City that starts with C and rhymes with P, and that stands for Pool." ["Music Man" reference; sorry, couldn't help myself.]
<br>
<br>Thirdly, the onus is on you. If PM is your bible that you must go slapping down URL's in various discussions (which you know you did), then why am I here BEGGING and PLEADING for someone to give me THE NEXT SET OF PARAGRAPHS from the bible, so that I can be cured of my conspiratardism!!!
<br>
<br>Makes you a meanie for denying me the medicine in truth that I need most. You dangle it front of me like cheese for a mouse on a treadmill! Just always out of reach! WHY DO YOU TORMENT ME SO?!!! Are you a psychopath who gets his jollies out of teasing others with only "the hint of information and truth" but never the substance! Oh, you cruel, cruel beast!
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br><a href="https://genius.com/Meredith-willson-ya-got-trouble-lyrics">https://genius.com/Meredith-willson-ya-got-trouble-lyrics</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 758 -->
<a name="x759"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x759" class="tiny">x760</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_760');">12 ft. ladder does work to get over the 10 ft. paywall of PM</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_760" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, If you further the discussion by posting the next section of the article AND if I reply to it with my analysis, (a) it falls directly in line with world-wide fair-use on copyrighted material and (b) accusations of me being a "sealion" get invalidated. With the paragraphs that Ms. Marcie Jo Lentz had already posted (but that I had to re-post, twice), my analysis thereof already proves my intent, and sealion ain't it. //
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, Your 12 ft. ladder does work to get over the 10 ft. paywall of PM.
<br>
<br>I suppose I should stop bugging other participants into copying and pasting what they can read into this discussion.
<br>
<br>I'll start doing it myself.
<br>
<br>If I get censored along the way, if threads get removed, then by default the curer-tards LOSE and the conspiratards beliefs -- however cwazy dey iz -- WIN and are considered truthful and valid from that point on.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 760 -->
<a name="x761"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x761" class="tiny">x762</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_762');">so can youn</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_762" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges so can youn
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 762 -->
<a name="x763"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x763" class="tiny">x764</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_764');">a strawman argument is?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_764" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Do you know what a strawman argument is? 😉
<br>May be an image of text
<br>{mcb: image of my comment with circled passage "If I get censored along the way, if threads get removed, then by default the curer-tards LOSE and the conspiratards beliefs -- however cwazy dey iz -- WIN and are considered truthful and valid from that point on."}
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 764 -->
<a name="x765"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x765" class="tiny">x766</a>
Stella Marie Ivory : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_766');">he's after a debate</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_766" style="display: block;">
<p>Christopher Edwards
<br>Forget it, sorry to say he's after a debate, but not one where you do it back and forward but one where he's right about something he's wrong about.
</p>
</div><!-- section 766 -->
<a name="x767"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x767" class="tiny">x768</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_768');">just about any form of censorship is a forefeit</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_768" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, I ~do~ know what a strawman argument is [which my in-progress analysis of the PM article will prove at a later date in the near future], but fail to see how my amended statement is such:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"If I get censored along the way, if threads get removed, then by default the curer-tards LOSE and the conspiratards beliefs (being defended in the discussion) -- however cwazy dey iz -- WIN and are considered truthful and valid from that point on."</p></blockquote>
<p>Okay, maybe some clarification is in order, but in a nutshell, just about any form of censorship [except culling of, say, bot spamming of memes, proven repetition, and flame war instigations] is a forefeit. Period. Given that I have already experienced it and pointed out the "words gone missing", you have already have had warnings on how your comments and actions will be construed in convincing -- not each other but -- the latter-day lurker readers. Bonus points of censorship: agenda of the censorship agent exposed, integrity of the entire group dinged, and my (new and on-going) conspiracy theory validated.
<br>
<br>With my censorship, not only will you lose the wisdom and value of the culled comments, but also of my participation here. So sad. Because otherwise RIGHT NOW, BITCHES, I AM THE SHOW AND THE BEST THE TARDS HAVE EVER HAD!!! ... El-oh-el, right? But without me, without my conspiratardism, what does this group have?... Boring. No challenge. The analogy of playing yourself in a game of chess comes to mind, and not nearly as much fun as A REALLY GOOD OPPONENT!
<br>
<br>So don't fuck it up.
<br>
<br>One other thing. I don't know if you're a Batman or a spoofed up Robin, Joker, or Riddler. I ask only that personas engage me who can be near 100% Batman (Bruce Wayne parts exempted), and that spoofed up Robin's, Joker's, and Riddler's who can only be a limited fraction of "their" Batman, remain out of the discussions.
<br>
<br>I need not remind you that "spoofs" played on one or both sides of a discussion is deceitful, and if discovered even at late dates can retro-actively undermine if not destroy the position and goal of that the "spoofs" were called in to defend.
<br>
<br>I have had many comments censored that correctly laid suspicion on certain persona as not being genuine, hence the direct and immediate censorship imposed on me. In other words: DIRECT HIT, ON THE MONEY, G-SPOT FOUND. Ergo. If you spoof and I utter my most likely proven right suspicion, I'll get censored which turns into an automatic forfeiture of the debate IN MY FAVOR. Yes, I can game the discussion! But. I DO NOT WANT AN EASY WIN OR A WIN ON A TECHNICALITY. I want to be legitimately cured of my conspiratardism.
<br>
<br>This posting that you own has become a rather weak skeleton of its former self. And that didn't bother you. Shame on you, Boy Wonder! I want your Batman, not his spoof... when I get my analysis of the article fully prepared in the near future.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 768 -->
<a name="x769"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x769" class="tiny">x770</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_770');">the appearance of a 100% Batwoman in your persona</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_770" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Stella Marie Ivory, I am most grateful for the appearance of a 100% Batwoman in your persona. Why are you "sorry to say (Max Bridges is) after a debate"? That's what FB discussions are for, and by such means Curer-tard cures are administered to the duped useful idiot conspiratards.
<br>
<br>Why is debate a bad thing? But really, it is not so. No, no, no. Another more powerful admin of this group told me to "attend to the purposes of this group".
<br>
<br>"I am the Conspiratard 'afflicted with Conspiratardism' that the Curer-tards are to crack deprogram and cure me of my affliction."
<br>
<br>And he even GAVE ME THE STAGE. [I haven't taken it yet, will in the near future, but you don't want to piss off this prima-donna before your cure can be conjured up!]
<br>
<br>This is not the right Bat Channel for me to receive the Curer-tard cures on my PM conspiratardism. You'll know when the proper Bat Channel is opened for your Batwoman wisdom to cure me, an admitted "industrial strength conspiracy theorist." [Voice of George Takei] Oooh, MYYyyyy!
<br>
<br>Telling Mr. Christopher Edwards to "Forget it, ... he's after a debate, but not one where you do it back and forward but one where he's right about something he's wrong about."
<br>
<br>I am not married to my conspiracies. I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on some fronts. I can and have admitted I was wrong in the past. Hey, I was once a very skillful champion of NPT@WTC [the No Plane Theory at the WTC]. But I kept an open-mind, recognized the analysis and evidence that exposed the disinformation in NPT@WTC, I publicly recanted and apologized.
<br>
<br>NOT A BIG DEAL IF I'M PROVEN WRONG! I'll say, "I'm sorry; my bad; I was mistaken; upon further reflection of this new analysis or evidence, I change my mind and publicly apologize for having ever led others astray."
<br>
<br>This is the power of a real Batman persona, that I am, going even to the core of my Bruce Wayne.
<br>
<br>Something tells me that I should not expect the same reaction from any Curer-tard here if it turns out -- through better research, analysis, argumentation -- they were the duped ones and the OCT-tards that the joke is on.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 770 -->
<a name="x771"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x771" class="tiny">x772</a>
Stella Marie Ivory : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_772');">you may be so boring</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_772" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Sir"¦ have you ever thought that you may be so boring that you are actually taking up too much space in these threads?
<br>Maybe you make everything far too complicated, respectfully you may need to find a bunch of Oxford educated kids to have fun with, because this is not exactly that group.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 772 -->
<a name="x773"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x773" class="tiny">x774</a>
Stella Marie Ivory : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_774');">dealing with industrial strength idiots for quite some time - Delete or ban</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_774" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Thank you"¦ I got the batwoman part, and industrial strength part.
<br>I have been dealing with industrial strength idiots for quite some time, thanks
<br>And I do know the solution well
<br>Delete or ban
<br>But thank you for the advice
<br>May I suggest you ask admin for some power as you are obviously in need of some acknowledgment 👌
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 774 -->
<a name="x775"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x775" class="tiny">x776</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_776');">your favorite prima-donna "lob"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_776" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear most honorable and reverand admin Ax Eye Om!!! Before your favorite prima-donna "lob" could complete the scenery for the backset of the stage you promised him for his theatrical performance that his growing fan base of lurking personas are eager to see AND CURE, this other entitled Karen prima-donna, Ms. Stella Marie Ivory, who isn't an admin, BULLIES ME and THREATENS the star of the next big show to "delete or ban" him!!! As if a week-old newbie in these parts would have such power.
<br>
<br>Is that promised censorship some new form of rational discussion and curing of the conspiratards? What will the latter-day lurker readers think when the rotting skeleton of a curing forum reveals clues of the missing vibrant discussion? And what about the internet-denizens who elsewhere in the Ethernet stumble upon an unedited, uncensored, unbanned version with back-links to the FB source, that expose the cheat, the deceit, and the full exchange? Oooh, MYyyy!
<br>
<br>^^^ THAT ^^^ attitude in the comment, right there from Ms. Stella, who isn't an admin, is what poisons whatever cure this group conjures up that is supposed to enlighten the world.
<br>
<br>Whether or not Ms Stella has the ear of Ms. Belle Armstrong (Ms. Belle Armstrong Natalie), Ms. Jenny Talia, or Ms. Cat Hulu -- esteemed admins here ...
<br>
<br>I AM MR. AX EYE OM'S LOB, bitches!
<br>
<br>Means that if Ms. Stella comes whining and crying to a lady-admin to censor comments, threads, or postings, Ax-admin and lady-admin might find themselves in conflict!!! [I loved it when Ms. Bella got briefly demoted in favor of Mr. Joran just over a week ago. Who'd she do to get promoted back? Who's your boss, bitches?! Mr. Ax Eye Om, the creator of this group, that's who!]
<br>
<br>Worse still from a much larger picture and agenda, read what I wrote to boy-wonder Mr. Christopher Edwards just a few comments ago:
<br>
<br>"If I get censored along the way, if threads get removed, then by default the curer-tards LOSE and the conspiratards beliefs (being defended in the discussion) -- however cwazy dey iz -- WIN and are considered truthful and valid from that point on."
<br>
<br>That win monetarily for me is zero. But the financial loss to this curing establishment -- the growth of its membership -- in the face of discrediting actions (e.g., censorship) by a whining Kaffeeklatsch?!!... *sniff* *wiping-tear-from-eye* So much time and effort to build to your 343 members, only to get thrown into the bit-bucket and that bucket buried... Oh, such a sad fork in the time line that you have the power to avoid.
<br>
<br>Ms. Stella Marie Ivory tries to insult me with: "I have been dealing with industrial strength idiots for quite some time."
<br>
<br>Right there with the BULLYING ad hominem "idiot" is the hole in Ms. Stella's assumption. As if such skill and practice "with idiots" will serve Ms. Stella well in a discussion with "an industrial strength conspiracy theorist" who might not be an idiot, else Ms. Stella wouldn't be encouraging him to go hang with "a bunch of Oxford educated kids". Is it because Ms. Stella knows that maybe "educated" -- forget "Oxford educated" -- isn't an adjective that Ms. Stella think applies to herself and all of the other 343 members of this group... Oh, how sad and tragic! *sob* *sniffle*
<br>
<br>Because Ms. Stella isn't an admin, and her panties are already in a wad, she is allowed to block me. Self-censorship is censorship that I approve of.
<br>
<br>Alas, better for me the devil that I know than the one I don't. Please, Ms. Stella, don't block me, and get your strap-on ready, honey!
<br>
<br>This is me bending over and exposing my plumber's crack... while I go back to building the set for the STAGE that the most worshipful Ax-admin HAS GIVEN TO ME! .... Bwahahahaha!
<br>
<br>Patience.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 776 -->
<a name="x777"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x777" class="tiny">x778</a>
Stella Marie Ivory : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_778');">Is this guy saying I'm threatening him?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_778" style="display: block;">
<p>Ax Eye Om"¦.
<br>Are you kidding me?
<br>Is this guy saying I'm threatening him?
<br>Please see my comments to see that's not true, I don't even comprehend what he's saying let alone threaten"¦
<br>I'm not sure what he wants but Belle is a personal friend as are you, although you may know me under a few other names.
<br>I'm not actually here to play with him, and certainly don't want to.
<br>I know he's annoying to Belle so defend her that is it.
<br>Anyway there too much happening in the cooker world atm to bother with this rot"¦thanks for listening.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 778 -->
<a name="x779"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x779" class="tiny">x780</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_780');">"you may know me under a few other names"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_780" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Stella Marie Ivory, Your friend Bella won't be happy that you admit: "you may know me under a few other names." It's called "sockpuppeting". Were those other names used in the same discussion? ... Nevermind.
<br>
<br>Not only did you threaten me, Ms. Stella, you had your hench-admin-woman act on it, as I was once again (at least the 4th time) booted from the Group and had to re-join.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <blockquote><p>"I don't even comprehend what he's saying."</p></blockquote>
<p>Then you are out of your depth, and I encourage you to be keep your promise: <i>"I'm not actually here to play with him, and certainly don't want to."</i>
<br>
<br>Go away. Better yet, block me.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"I know he's annoying to Belle so defend her that is it."</i>
<br>
<br>Ms. Belle was not being attacked any where in this thread. Ms. Belle does not need you to "defend her." However, that Ms. Bella has a friend in Ms. Stella and "under a few other names" does hit at the heart of an ongoing issue that I've had with this forum, and with Ms. Bella suspected "under a few other names" engaging me from multiple directions.
<br>
<br>What is being attacked -- and is losing more by default than anything else -- are the OCT conspiratardism that has modern day hooks into the bot and FB algorithm powered "anti-cooker", anti-science, anti-reason agency agendas.
<br>
<br>I've learned that those two subjects trigger in this forum surgical censorship of comments, booting from the Group, etc. Actually, any half-way serious "cooker" discussion has led to lying in a FB report (e.g., allegedly against group rules) that enacted suspension periods.
<br>
<br>Ms. Stella, you have no obligation to chime into anything I write. You have no obligation to monitor me, even if I do annoy Ms. Bella. The group has 343 members and 3 other admin's who can measure out any cures to conspiratardism that I might utter. That is what this group is for, right?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 780 -->
<a name="x781"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x781" class="tiny">x782</a>
Chris Bren : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_782');">paywall regional</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_782" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges no paywall for me. Maybe it's regional.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 782 -->
<a name="x783"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x783" class="tiny">x784</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_784');">Popular Mechanics has conspired to let some regions of the world read content for free</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_784" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Chris Brent, I agree with your conspiratard theory. Popular Mechanics has conspired to let some regions of the world read the content for free, while others regions cannot. For reasons of ability to pay mostly, I'd wager. This persona is in Colorado (USA to the west of its center; the weaponized spy drones already know my GPS coordinates), while others are from down under, from England, and from the Ethernet.
<br>Turns out, someone gave me a 12 foot ladder to climb over that 10 foot paywall and copy the content for fair-use analysis and discussion. [TEASER: Under a new posting and not this skeleton relic.]
<br>
<br>I appreciate your efforts and confirmation.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 784 -->
<a name="x785"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x785" class="tiny">x786</a>
Christopher Edwards : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_786');">Still Sealioning</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_786" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Still Sealioning, champ? 😉
<br>"Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.
<br>
<br><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 786 -->
<a name="x787"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x787" class="tiny">x788</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_788');">If a big fat deuce gets pushed out from me any where near your quotations</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_788" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Christopher Edwards, posting repeatedly things that aren't related to the discussion and can't be proven from actions in the discussion, isn't just a "red-herring". It is also a bot-fail.
<br>
<br>I mean, for sealioning to apply, YOU would first have to do the busy work of copying and pasting into this forum QUOTATIONS from the article. At that point, my choices are (1) ignore or (2) reply with my analysis.
<br>
<br>If a big fat deuce gets pushed out from me any where near your quotations, your prematurely ejaculating sealion gets his tusks deposited figuratively up your deuce hole.
<br>
<br>So you'd thought you'd avoid the embarrassment by failing the bot test and not posting any quotation from the source. *shaking head* How anyone could think that "nothing" and bragging about the "nothing" could rationally cure anybody, is beyond me... but not your algorithms, evidently.
<br>
<br>Only thanks to your 12 foot ladder over a 10 foot paywall do you get off the hook for NOT DEFENDING YOUR PREMISE with quotations from the very same premise that you posted above and bragged didn't have a paywall, could be read, and hence its passages copy and fair-use pasted in here for discussion.
<br>
<br>Screwed the pooch on that one.
<br>
<br>No concern now. I did YOUR LEGWORK. I have the article already divided into 6 sections for my expert analysis on a NEW STAGE, and not this rotting skeleton that you think has importance.
<br>
<br>You are encouraged to ignore that posting and its comments when it arrives. You are less than genuine. If this were Star Trek, you'd be wearing a red shirt. The discussion will need your Ambassador Spock.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 788 -->
<a name="x789"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x789" class="tiny">x790</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_790');">being relevant and fair-use compliant</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_790" style="display: block;">
<p>Resurrected from my archives: Here is the information copy-and-pasted by dear, sweet Ms. Marcie Jo Lentz that in two places was deleted, despite it being relevant and fair-use compliant.
<br>
<br>Disclaimer: The following quotations are assumed to have come from the Popular Mechanics article. If they are in fact not from the article, or if they are wrongly quoted before coming across my desktop, one of the Curer-tards who testifies to making it passed the Popular Mechanics paywall and being able to read the content: those are charged with vetting the words.
<br>
<blockquote><p>+++ begin quotation
<br>
<br>CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center website (sandiego dot indymedia dotorg). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
<br>
<br>FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)"”a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce"”released another report in spring 2005. NIST shared its initial findings with Popular Mechanics at the time, and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
<br>
<br>The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel"”and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."
<br>
<br>Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary 9/11 by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
<br>
<br>+++ end quotation</p></blockquote>
<p>// part 1/2
<br>
<br>part 2/2
<br>
<br>OCT means, "official conspiracy theory", and various agencies FEMA, NIST, and Popular Mechanics promote OCT in the narrative that they conjure up in their description.
<br>
<br>What a wonderful picture of unspent jet fuel (whether or not on fire) dropping down Pez-Dispenser-tyle the "throat" of an exposed elevator shaft that the impacts conveniently cut. Don't you love the contradictions?
<br>
<br>[1] "sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, [and created] a conduit for burning jet fuel"”and fiery destruction throughout the building." [PM spin.]
<br>
<br>[2] "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert.
<br>
<br>[3] "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off." Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert.
<br>
<br>I give the OCT authors kudos for their imagination and fairy tales.
<br>
<br>Yes, the WTC had express elevators that went all the way from the bottom to the top, but it also had express elevators to certain staging floors (e.g., 33rd, 66th) where local elevators serviced the individual floors in between staging floors.
<br>
<br>If we assume unspent, unignited jet fuel went down the conduit of an elevator shaft TO THE GROUND FLOOR [where injuries appeared and damage was observed], then damage and explosions could have happened and been observed in lots of areas along the thousands of feet of elevators shaft.
<br>
<br>The assumption is wrong, and a valient effort at coming up with a lame explanation for the explosion, burned injured victims, and lobby damage. Here is why the assumption doesn't hold.
<br>
<br>The jet fuel was largely consumed by the fireball immediately after impact and in the first ten minutes of burning fire, according to the NIST experts. Once the wall assemblies sliced and shattered the wings, the released jet fuel went into the building through the window slits until the burning exhaust of the engines entered the space and ignited the fire ball... and any jet fuel that might got to the elevator shafts, much less started to fall down them. The assumed unignited jet fuel in the elevator shaft would not have fallen far before ignition around it ignited it.
<br>
<br>The explosion that rocked the lobby of WTC-1/2 came from underneath, from the underground parking areas, and was timed for when the aircraft impact. Several witnesses (WTC maintenance employees) reported on the underground damage. The burn victim was coming from the lower levels.
<br>
<br>Here's where the real disinformation creeps in. When they interviewed victims and witnesses, the questions were framed around "a fire ball" coming from the ground floor elevator doors, and the heavy-handed narrative steering that falling jet fuel got atomized and ignited late, WHEN THERE WAS NO ACTUAL FIRE BALL.
<br>
<br>No, what burned the victims was a heat wave side-effect from a FGNW, tactical in yield, in the category of DEW, and many were deployed in tandem -- 4 per detonation level, 6-12 detontation levels. The basement one could have been a misfire. Or maybe its purpose was to knock out the fire system and its ability to service fire fighting needs.
<br>
<br>Yes, my 9/11 hobby-horse has entered into this discussion and taken a dump on the PM OCT narrative right out of the gate.
<br>
<br>Before the nuke naysayers have a conniption fit, FGNW in this case were late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear by being hybrid fission-fusion with a conventional kick-starter charge to ignite the fission stage -- not designed for destruction or radiation but -- designed to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage that then released its highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion (e.g., cone-shaped fanning out upwards from ignition point). Low radiation.
<br>
<br>FACT: The USGS survey of the dust has data tables with Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities, sample-to-sample, [that their plain text explanation never mentions] that are fingerprints of a fission stage.
<br>
<br>FACT: The tritium report was scope-limited from the onset to look at "building content" and to not look for "demolition sources", had shoddy measurement, shoddy analysis, but achieved its goal of deflecting away from the FACT that tritium in a building block for the fusion stage in nearly all FGNW, so having a lame excuse for why it was present was required.
<br>
<br>FACT: Although tactical in yield and although 80% of the nuclear yield is in form of the targeted release of highly energetic neutrons from the FGNW's fusion stage, 20% of the yield is in the form of a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP.
<br>
<br>'"The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser.' This is speculation by someone who wasn't even there; no flames were observed.
<br>
<br>"The doors cracked open on the lobby and a heat wave came out and people died," would have been a more accurate statement.
<br>
<br>"A similar observation was made in the French documentary 9/11 by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film."
<br>
<br>No, Naudet saw burn victims. My recollection, he didn't record or recall anyone actually on fire with flames. [The whole language of "flames" is PM taking license with the narrative.] But if we assume that is true, the FGNW heat wave would be sufficient, depending on distance from ignition and impediments, to ignite clothes and burn skin.
<br>
<br>Right out of the gate, the PM effort to defend the OCT is to spin the burn victims and lobby damage (e.g., stone wall slabs cracked and knocked off walls) as the flames, as fire, as the ignition of atomized jet fuel particles that floated down the elevator shaft and amassed in such quantities there to get sparked -- by some unknown source -- to cause a fire ball in the lobby.
<br>
<br>Thomas Pynchon: "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."
<br>
<br>This is certainly a PM technique.
<br>
<br>// part 2/2
</p>
</div><!-- section 790 -->
<a name="x791"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x791" class="tiny">x792</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_792');">FGNW defined</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_792" style="display: block;">
<p>Conventional explosives (and 1st and 2nd generation nuclear devices) couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium, such as air, water, earth, rock, etc. FGNW are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can produce direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response.
<br>
<br>FGNW based on low-yield thermonuclear pellets triggered by compact non-fission primaries have yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc.
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>+++ quote
<br>A first significant difference between deuterium-tritium (DT) based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
<br>...
<br>The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
<br>"Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" by Dr. Andre Gsponer
<br>
<br>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>+++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>{mcb: The above is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.}
<br>
<br>Depending on design goals, FGNW can have a variety of effects, particularly for high-energy neutrons and gamma-rays that are very penetrating. FGNW can:
<br>
<br>- Generate a fireball (in air or a material).
<br>- Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).
<br>- Heat the surface of a material.
<br>- Accelerate or compress a material.
<br>- Transfer momentum to a material.
<br>- Heat the volume of a material.
<br>- Energize a working material.
<br>- Forge and project missiles.
<br>- Form and send high-velocity jets.
<br>- Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it.
<br>
<br>Collateral effects of the above list of "mechanical" and "thermodynamical" effects are non-thermo-mechanical effects, such as an electromagetic pulse (EMP) and prompt or delayed radiations.
<br>
<br>Words like "pulverization" and "dustification" were used to describe the WTC towers' destruction. A more accurate word is "ablate". When the surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted, launching a shock-wave into the material.
<br>
<br>===========
<br>
<br>The above is copied from my blog entry on the subject:
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>I came to these discussions prepared. I doubt the Belle-tards will notice, though.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 792 -->
<!-- ***** 202211_mcb_Conspiratard911_05.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_13 -->
<a name="p14"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_14');">Part 14: Political Impressions Rubbing Wrong</a></h2>
<div id="part_14" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202209_mcb_socialism_01.htm -->
<a name="x793"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x793" class="tiny">x794</a>
meme : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_794');">shirt right off of someone else's back</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_794" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/richard.owens.378199/posts/pfbid03416o8Kc7765dC7T7x8NDTKz6Rz1GzJtJFzKwRUUMh5SxHAzdz8Y15Vfu4q7a6rAel?notif_id=1663951906711072¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/richard.owens.378199/posts/pfbid03416o8Kc7765dC7T7x8NDTKz6Rz1GzJtJFzKwRUUMh5SxHAzdz8Y15Vfu4q7a6rAel?notif_id=1663951906711072¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br>{meme: Socialists are so kind. I see them willing to donate the shirt right off of someone else's back.}
</p>
</div><!-- section 794 -->
<a name="x795"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x795" class="tiny">x796</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_796');">if the rich get taxed more, ARE THEY EVEN GOING TO NOTICE?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_796" style="display: block;">
<p>Who is the "someone else" who supposedly gives the donation of a shirt (to someone in need)? (a) The poor, (b) the ever shrinking middle class, or (c) the rich.
<br><br>The rich -- who planted the fallacious seeds for this meme -- will do all in their power to see to it that B, the middle class, makes the forced donation despite the facts that the rich "got theirs" off of the backs of others and can most easily afford it without even noticing it.
<br><br>Democratic socialism is the only rational direction for our politics that can improve individually our lives.
<br><br>It means that we the people enact laws and policies that benefit, we the people. Like, let's pay for one less air craft carrier or for one less foolhardy war of aggression abroad, and instead pay medicare for all, education for all, and living wages (as the minimum wage).
<br><br>Not so difficult. The money is there; we already paid for it with our taxes.
<br><br>And if the rich get taxed more, ARE THEY EVEN GOING TO NOTICE? Will it have any significant negative effect on them, other than not as many homes or private jets or showy automobiles (they will still have more than others)?
<br><br>Don't get duped into the age-old lie about socialism. In theory, it isn't nearly as bad as capitalism (which gave us slavery, child labor, poor working conditions, and as little as they can get away with).
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 796 -->
<a name="x797"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x797" class="tiny">x798</a>
Richard Owens : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_798');">refuse to be some of the ones who actually help the poor</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_798" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I find it very interesting how the very elite Democrats who insist that we help the poor, turn around and refuse to be some of the ones who actually help the poor.
</p>
</div><!-- section 798 -->
<a name="x799"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x799" class="tiny">x800</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_800');">not far off</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_800" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Richard Owens, your observation of the elite Democrats is not far off, and I am in agreement. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 800 -->
<a name="x801"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x801" class="tiny">x802</a>
Connie Boden Robinson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_802');">theory it sounds great</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_802" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges - The problem with Socialism is that, in theory it sounds great. In practice, however, it is an unmitigated disaster. Socialism does not work. Ever. Because it ignores human nature. It is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. It raises no boats, and serves to sink the majority for the minority.
<br>The "someone else" is the government, who is inefficient and ineffective in actually "helping" the poor, primarily because it is administered by politicians who don't give a damn about the poor or anyone else.
<br>Not everyone who is rich became such off the backs of anyone else. The fallacy here is the idea that, in order to become rich someone else has to become poor. Don't get duped into the age-old lie about socialism; it helps no one but the Elite Establishment.
</p>
</div><!-- section 802 -->
<a name="x803"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x803" class="tiny">x804</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_804');">replace "socialism" with "capitalism"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_804" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Connie Boden Robinson, replace "socialism" with "capitalism" in what you wrote. Therein lies the truth. Because if capitalism were all so grand, why don't we have medicare for all, free education, less wars, less pollution...
<br>The only thing in nature that resembles Capitalism is a virus, spreading until it kills its host (e.g., forests, fresh water, fresh air, living things).
<br>The elite know this which is why they engineer down cycles.
<br>Your complaints about socialism aren't about the theory but the practice. However, the cases that you would tend to pull up about the evils of socialism will unravel as the one-two combo of (1) corruption and (2) quite literally the agencies of the USA working feverishly behind the scenes (and sometimes with armies and bombs on the scenes) to undermine it. The true successful cases of socialism, your propaganda won't let you learn about.
<br>Well, capitalism in theory and in practice is worse, much worse.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 804 -->
<a name="x805"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x805" class="tiny">x806</a>
Connie Boden Robinson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_806');">haven't had true free-market capitalism for decades</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_806" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges - You don't understand capitalism. At all. And, we haven't had true free-market capitalism for decades. What we have right now is a mix of crony-capitalism and Fascist authoritarianism.
<br>My complaints about socialism are based on history. Socialism has never "worked," nor would it ever. So, I have never seen true successful cases of socialism because they do not exist.
<br>We don't have those things you mention for many of the same reasons socialism is always a failure: human nature. However, not everyone has the goal of "free" everything; I certainly don't. Because people don't value that for which they do not work. And most people don't deserve free anything.
</p>
</div><!-- section 806 -->
<a name="x807"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x807" class="tiny">x808</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_808');">socialism failures are really examples of American Imperialism</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_808" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lynda Bryant Work, the examples you provide of socialism failures are really examples of American Imperialism, capitalists with vested interests in undermining socialism at every turn. You can't claim something is a failure by pointing to examples where the agents and actors (and even armies) were lined up against it.
<br><br>So how has socialism failed so many European countries? Why did you list them as examples?
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 808 -->
<a name="x809"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x809" class="tiny">x810</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_810');">haven't had true socialism in many countries</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_810" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Connie Boden Robinson, so if you admit that we haven't had a true free-market capitalism for decades, and if by the same token we haven't had true socialism in many countries (owing to American imperialism and corruption), then the discussion is tilted into grand theories but practices that were undermined so they'd failed. The discussion delves into dreams and fairy tales, and can't really be about capitalism versus socialism until the corrupting influences are addressed.
<br><br>"Socialism" has been used as red-meat and button-pushing swear words, by design of the propagandists. But it isn't evil, and the left-leaning direction of socialism -- even when enacted only partially -- is the solution to oligarchy fascists who pay to promote their capitalism brand, (despite too many hypocritical examples where "welfare" was provided for the wealthy in terms of tax breaks, loan forgiveness, etc. and it was "rugged individualism" [peanuts] for everybody else.)
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 810 -->
<a name="x811"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x811" class="tiny">x812</a>
Connie Boden Robinson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_812');">Socialism is evil</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_812" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges - Nope, I don't agree with that at all. Socialism is evil. Socialism kills. Socialism goes against everything this country is for and about. Socialism is a lie.
</p>
</div><!-- section 812 -->
<a name="x813"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x813" class="tiny">x814</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_814');">"capitalism" replace "socialism" in a copy-paste-edit rebuttal</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_814" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Connie Boden Robinson, thank you for demonstrating your inquisitive intellect, your open-mind, and your earnest search for truth. [Not.]
<br><br>In rational discussion, when one participant makes a claim, the onus is on them to defend it, otherwise it is just hypnotic suggestion.
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"Socialism is evil. Socialism kills... Socialism is a lie."</i>
<br><br>Defend your proposition. And by the way, watch out that the word "capitalism" can't replace "socialism" in a copy-paste-edit rebuttal if you're too general and all hand-wavey hypnotic, okay? Don't want your own arguments used against you.
<br><br>In your defense of your premise, maybe you should start by looking up and including the definition of socialism as given by many online dictionaries. (Stay away from Fox News websites._
<br><br>You also wrote: "Socialism goes against everything this country is for and about."
<br><br>Damn those socialist post offices, socialist public libraries, socialist first responders! Damn those socialist who shed blood, sweat, and tears to get 40 hour work weeks, sick pay, abolished child labor, and got better (e.g., less toxic) work environments!
<br><br>Ironic that there are misguided right-wing fools who want to do away with the separation of church and state and want to somehow proclaim that the USA is somehow a "Christian Nation."
<br><br>Of course, they were referring to gun-toting, xenophobic, racist Republican Christians and not to the person and ideals of Jesus, a socialist at heart.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 814 -->
<a name="x815"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x815" class="tiny">x816</a>
Connie Boden Robinson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_816');">think libraries and first responders have anything to do with the founding of this country</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_816" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges - I don't have to defend anything, history does that for me. The fact that you think libraries and first responders have anything to do with the founding of this country, or that "separation of church and state" is actually a thing displays your abject ignorance of history and the Constitution. Oh, and Jesus was not a socialist, and would soundly condemn socialism. In fact, he did.
</p>
</div><!-- section 816 -->
<a name="x817"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x817" class="tiny">x818</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_818');">Bible chapter and verse</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_818" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Connie Boden Robinson, You make a claim; you defend the claim. You wrote: <i>"Oh, and Jesus was not a socialist, and would soundly condemn socialism. In fact, he did."</i>
<br><br>Bible chapter and verse, please, of where Jesus condemned socialism by name.
<br><br>Maybe you'll find a passage where Jesus violently threw out the money-changers from the temple... Oh wait, those guys he threw out were capitalists.
<br><br>Or perhaps you'll locate the passage about the loafs and fish. Except, that seems to be encouraging socialism.
<br><br>Study the meme about history and then try to tell me: "I don't have to defend anything, history does that for me." Yeah, right.
<br><br>Even when the discussion is narrowed to socialism in various Latin and South American countries, it was the corrupting influence of external capitalists (e.g., USA) on those foreign governments that greased the way to "that brand of socialism's downfall". If you don't recognize that history, you expose a major blind-spot in your education that to this day continues to dupe you.
<br><br>//
<br><br>May be an image of 1 person and text that says 'Hannah Drake @HannahDrake628 Someone said, "Imagine your history being so horrible you want to ban people from learning it." Marinate on that.'
</p>
</div><!-- section 818 -->
<a name="x819"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x819" class="tiny">x820</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_820');">free market mythology</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_820" style="display: block;">
<p>Check out what makes good capitalists!
<br>//
<br>May be an image of text that says '@ImReadinHere "The free market mythology argues that the most ruthless, selfish, opportunistic, greedy, calculating plunderers applying the most heartless measures in cold blooded pursuit of corporate interests.. will produce the best results for all of us"- Michael Parenti Dubula @killerguerilla 22h Capitalism incentivizes cruelty and selfishness and then capitalists tell us that socialism can't work because humans are "naturally" cruel and selfish. The "human nature" argument is such obvious bullshit if you think about it for two seconds. Show this thread 9:00 AM Sep 17, 2022 Twitter for Android'
</p>
</div><!-- section 820 -->
<a name="x821"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x821" class="tiny">x822</a>
Connie Boden Robinson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_822');">socialism goes against all Jesus' teachings</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_822" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges - FACT: Your opinion isn't.
<br>Here's another fact for you: It is not necessary for me to quote chapter and verse in the Bible to prove Jesus was not a socialist, because socialism goes against all Jesus' teachings. Rather, it is you who needs to try to prove Jesus was a socialist, which you can never do. Because he wasn't. The teachings of Jesus do not instruct people to help others through 'government'. It is the responsibility of the individual, which socialism takes out of the equation.
<br>The bottom line is, your opinion, and that's all it is, does not equate to fact.
</p>
</div><!-- section 822 -->
<a name="x823"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x823" class="tiny">x824</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_824');">make claims that you go out of your way to NOT defend</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_824" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Connie Boden Robinson, You are not discussing in good faith. You make claims that you go out of your way to NOT defend, despite the onus being on you to make your case. You're such a good Republican Christian, you can't even offer one biblical chapter and verse to substantiate your claims. And this in the light of the fact that web-based bibles even let you search them for all occurrences of words, like "socialism". Nor could you recite a Sunday School lesson with stories of Jesus being against socialism.
<br><br>You are insincere.
<br><br>Among your failings at understanding is that we, the people, are in charge of our government, or should be. Given the ruthlessness of capitalism in the exploitation of individuals at the middle and lower classes and us being without much extra means to assist the downtrodden, the government via a voted-in socialist agenda would attack the spoils of capitalism by rightful taxation on the rich [whose standard of living will hardly experience a glitch] and re-distribute the proceeds to benefit a larger swath of us, "we, the people", rather than oligarchs, the military industrial complex, etc.
<br><br>Medicare of all, free education, a living minimum wage, ranked-choice-voting, publicly funded elections. These are things "we, the people" want, need, deserve, and can have, were it not for the duping. Although they are a socialist's agenda, they are also yours... If you were rational and sincere.
<br><br>BOT-TEST: Get me a biblical chapter and verse, whether or not substantiating your claim, but prepare for ridicule if it does not.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 824 -->
<a name="x825"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x825" class="tiny">x826</a>
Connie Boden Robinson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_826');">ZERO facts or backup to your ignorant claims that socialism is "good."</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_826" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges - No, those are things you the Socialist want. Do not presume to speak for the people. And, BTW Skippy, I'm not a Republican. So much for your bullshit ASSumptions.
<br>The onus is not on me, it is on you. And you have provided exactly ZERO facts or backup to your ignorant claims that socialism is "good." I am far more rational and good than you are, because I live in the world of reality, instead of your utopian fantasy that could only exist on earth if every person truly believed in and followed Jesus Christ.
<br>Take your BOT-TEST and shove it where the sun don't shine, Honey. I owe you nothing, especially in light of the fact that you have provided zip to support your nonsense.
</p>
</div><!-- section 826 -->
<a name="x827"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x827" class="tiny">x828</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_828');">insincere participation is no longer required</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_828" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Connie Boden Robinson, Ah, shucks. You failed the bot test. Yes, you do not owe me anything. But you do owe the latter-day lurker readers of the thread something, as well as yourself. You made boastful claims that you can't defend or substantiate beyond hypnotic suggestion.
<br><br>For shame bringing up Jesus's name yet being monumentally unable to provide a single chapter/verse quotation from the same. Geez, you could have just as easily googled your favorite biblical saying, like this one from Jesus.
<blockquote><p>"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." Luke 16:10</p></blockquote>
<p>Ooops. That quote reflects poorly on you, in all the small things that you have been <i>"unjust in the least"</i> by not defending your <i>"hypnotic suggestion."</i>
<br><br>Because you are a Republican Christian, meaning: "hypocrite." And a bot.
<br><br>In any event, you are insincere in your participation exhibited by not defending your premise with nothing but propaganda and slogans, no thought or depth or proof of perception. Shallow. Bot.
<br><br>Run along, dear bot. Your agenda-toting and insincere participation in this forum is no longer required.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 828 -->
<a name="x829"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x829" class="tiny">x830</a>
Connie Boden Robinson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_830');">insincere jackals</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_830" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges - Not unable, Skippy. Just unwilling to respond to your demands for substantiation when you have provided none. You call me a bit when, in reality, you are the insincere jackals. My participation in this forum is certainly not dependent on your approval, and your opinion of me matters less than you can imagine.
</p>
</div><!-- section 830 -->
<a name="x831"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x831" class="tiny">x832</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_832');">in no ways substantiates or supports your hypnotic suggestion about the evils of a so-called political leaning</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_832" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Connie Boden Robinson, Your deflection is noted and that it in no ways substantiates or supports your hypnotic suggestion about the evils of a so-called political leaning.
<br><br>Certainly you are unwilling, but mostly unable to defend yourself, your premise, your contention. What audacity you exhibit when you invoke Jesus's name but can't even do a Google on his words -- any words, much less those that would make your bot arguments -- that could indicate you've even opened the good book!!!
<br><br>Go away, little bot. Maketh thou no more comments aimed in my general direction, for they reeketh of farts and not reasoned, rational thought.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 832 -->
<!-- ***** 202209_mcb_socialism_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_14 -->
<a name="p15"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_15');">Part 15: RFK, Jr. and The Real Dr. Fauci</a></h2>
<div id="part_15" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_WayneBoydFauci.htm -->
<a name="x833"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x833" class="tiny">x834</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_834');">The Real Anthony Fauci: The movie</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_834" style="display: block;">
<p>2022-10-20
<br>
<br>{mcb: Share a link (to register) for the "The Real Anthony Fauci: The movie. Everyone deserves to know the truth.}
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0SGrY79oF7C7xxGq6FdyNksRsvSNsTsTWx56JumT75YLD5SaoB8VLZZv3v55kNBCTl?notif_id=1666391159508790¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0SGrY79oF7C7xxGq6FdyNksRsvSNsTsTWx56JumT75YLD5SaoB8VLZZv3v55kNBCTl?notif_id=1666391159508790¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 834 -->
<a name="x835"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x835" class="tiny">x836</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_836');">saved thousands possibly millions of lives</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_836" style="display: block;">
<p>Brilliant man that's saved thousands possibly millions of lives
<br>That's the truth
</p>
</div><!-- section 836 -->
<a name="x837"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x837" class="tiny">x838</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_838');">*wink* You'll really enjoy the movie.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_838" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, that is a very dubious claim. Leads me to believe that you haven't read the book that the movie is based on. Well, I won't spoil the surprise. *wink* You'll really enjoy the movie. But probably not as much as I enjoyed the book.
<br><br>Here's a hint, the history of Dr. Fauci going back to AIDS tells a different story about the "millions of lives saved", which is a dubious claim anyway. From COVID alone and assuming no pre-existing comorbidites (like obesity, heart issues, old age), the death rate of COVID was astronomically small in healthy people (and youth), a really bad flu gone wrong.
<br><br>And all of the marketing for the brand-new technology vaccine at version one-dot-oh (that Fauci has financial stakes in) talked about (1) immunization against catching COVID and (2) reduction of transmission, two goals that the covid vaccine DID NOT ACHIEVE. Even boosted, Covid still spread and people still got it.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 838 -->
<a name="x839"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x839" class="tiny">x840</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_840');">Reagan allowed men to just die</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_840" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges he was appointed because of his work with aids which was a refreshing change after Reagan allowed men to just die
<br>He's been great as head of the cdc and it was trump that ignored him so try looking in that direction
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 840 -->
<a name="x841"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x841" class="tiny">x842</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_842');">giving voice to the doctors and scientists who were censored sources</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_842" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, You might not think Fauci and the CDC so wonderful after you start plowing through RFK Jr.'s book, or maybe watching this video.
<br><br>It isn't quite correct for me to be plugging RFK, because really all his book is doing is giving voice to the doctors and scientists who are / were front-lines, know what they are talking about, substantiate their views, but were none-the-less censored and suppressed by the Fauci guggernaut.
<br><br>Because the collection exists in RFK's book that you can read yourself, I don't need to be arguing specifics here.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 842 -->
<a name="x843"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x843" class="tiny">x844</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_844');">cooked antivaxer lol</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_844" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges RFK ? That cooked antivaxer lol 😂
</p>
</div><!-- section 844 -->
<a name="x845"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x845" class="tiny">x846</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_846');">just convinces me further</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_846" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges that just convinces me further
<br>Always do the opposite of what RFK says lol 😂
<br>May be an image of 1 person (Obama pointing finger at camera) and text that says 'YOU JUST WON... THE TIN FOIL HAT AWARD!!!'
</p>
</div><!-- section 846 -->
<a name="x847"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x847" class="tiny">x848</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_848');">As if your reply had any meaning or significance</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_848" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, Oh wow! As if your reply had any meaning or significance. The very definition of ad hominem against RFK. And it outs you as not having really read my previous reply. It isn't RFK whom you should be attacking (to achieve your boot-licking); it is the collection of scientists who contributed to his book. They wrote so much of it and gave so much feedback, it is hard to tell what comes from whom (except where quotations and their references are provided.)
<br><br>At any rate, before you can really talk knowledgably on the subject of vaccines and the true political state of the "science", you've got several hundred pages to read.
<br><br>Chop, chop.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 848 -->
<a name="x849"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x849" class="tiny">x850</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_850');">listen to some tin foil hat wearing cooker</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_850" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges no I'll rather follow medical science than listen to some tin foil hat wearing cooker
<br>Get some science up you bro
<br>May be an image of "Ž1 person in a tin foil had with tin foil star and "Žtext that says '"ŽCONSPIRACY THEORIES BECAUSE SANE, LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS JUST AREN'T AS MUCH FUN AS IGNORANT, FEAR- MONGERING LUNACY"Ž'"Ž"Ž
</p>
</div><!-- section 850 -->
<a name="x851"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x851" class="tiny">x852</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_852');">Kindly return to the curer-tard forum</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_852" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, clearly your reading comprehension sucks. Let me repeat, RFK's book collects the work of scientists and doctors, many highly regarded. So therefore, you should have no problem reading the book.
<br><br>That your only rebuttal is to mischaracterize it and then call it <i>"some tin foil hat wearing cooker"</i> does not reflect well on your ability to debate.
<br><br>You've identified yourself as closed-minded, ignorant, and a boot-licker. Kindly return to the curer-tard forum. Debate me there, if you want. Post something and tag me. Maybe I'll respond.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 852 -->
<a name="x853"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x853" class="tiny">x854</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_854');">collects the work of faux scientists</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_854" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges no it collects the work of faux scientists and antivax cookers like your self
<br>Disinformation is deadly
<br>May be an image of text that says 'TINFOIL FEDORA: BECAUSE CRAZY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TACKY'
</p>
</div><!-- section 854 -->
<a name="x855"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x855" class="tiny">x856</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_856');">Defend your claim. Or go away.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_856" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, You made the claim that RFK's books <i>"collects the work of faux scientists and antivax cookers."</i> Defend your claim. Or go away.
<br><br>I am already being generous, because you said "faux scientists and antivax cookers like (myself)". Well, let me burst your bubble that not a single sentence of RFK's book comes from me. I just saved you a whole lot of embarrassment by not poking a hole into that faulty logic of yours and a deliberate false statement.
<br><br>No, don't worry about quotes from me in the book, because there aren't any.
<br><br>You need to go about proving "faux scientists" were quoted in the book. He has endnotes to each chapter that are extensive.
<br><br>Hop to it! Chop, chop.
<br><br>P.S. Take the whole weekend to do your research. I have RFK on Kindle. Not as easy to skip around, but you'll make do.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 856 -->
<a name="x857"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x857" class="tiny">x858</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_858');">bet they are all dodgey af</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_858" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges has it been peer reviewed ?
<br>Name the scientists and doctors he references
<br>I bet they are all dodgey af
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 858 -->
<a name="x859"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x859" class="tiny">x860</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_860');">you're trying to give a book report without having even smelt the book's crack</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_860" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, Don't be assigning me busy work. The line drawn in the sand that you must cross is review of the book. The credentials of its quoted and referenced scientists is rather extensive.
<br><br>Your problem is that you're trying to give a book report without having even smelt the book's crack, or seen its letters displayed on your kindle. And it shows.
<br><br>Why don't you do some googling (not of yourself)? Maybe you'll get lucky and find the book report (negative or positive) of someone who actually read it. With some more effort, you'll be able to name all of his referenced scientists and doctors. (Or watch the movie mentioned above when it comes out.)
<br><br>To answer your question, yes, all of the references to science were peer reviewed well before they even made it into RFK's book.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 860 -->
<a name="x861"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x861" class="tiny">x862</a>
Wayne Boyd : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_862');">tell me what medical journals they were published in</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_862" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges isn't that where you cookers get all your medical advise from
<br>Only you don't use google it's duck duck go isn't it ?
<br>If they were peer reviewed can you tell me what medical journals they were published in and who were the medical experts that verified his work?
<br>This would of been truly ground breaking and we all remember what happened to mr Wakefield when he tried to fabricate evidence don't we ??
</p>
</div><!-- section 862 -->
<a name="x863"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x863" class="tiny">x864</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_864');">Don't be assigning me busy work you'll promptly ignore</a></b></p>
<p>2022-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_864" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Boyd, Please explain your definition of "cooker." Else, we have a fundamental misunderstanding. When I cook, I get advice from recipes. I do not take my medical advice from food recipes either.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"If they were peer reviewed can you tell me what medical journals they were published in and who were the medical experts that verified his work?"</i>
<br>
<br>1. What part of <i>"Don't be assigning me busy work"</i> do you not understand. There are so many doctors and medical professionals who directly contributed content to RFK's book, you haven't identified a single one, let alone one that might be fraudulent.
<br>
<br>2. The line drawn in the sand is review of the book. If you're too lazy, find on the internet someone else's (detailed) review of the book, and if you agree with the review, pasted its arguments here.
<br>
<br>3. It turns out, if you had the book and saw a quotation from a doctor, many times that quotation came DIRECTLY OUT OF A MEDICAL JOURNAL PEER-REVIEWED BY MEDICAL EXPERTS. Worse, the end notes of the chapter where the quotation appeared specified exactly the Journal, its publication date, and even the page number if applicable.
<br>
<br>4. Often the medical experts who verified his/her work many times had their own professional affiliation on one of the many research teams that Dr. Fauci funds, as often did the scientist who authored the work. Just the fact that "they made the team" (and YOU never will) testifies to their credentials.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 864 -->
<!-- ***** 202210_mcb_WayneBoydFauci.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_15 -->
<!-- End the page here -->
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
M. C. Brueckehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11749873350461333806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-23836458599360587542023-10-11T10:11:00.002-07:002023-11-05T09:29:18.690-08:00FGNW Discussions Vol. 2
<!-- FGNW Discussions Vol. 2-->
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 1000;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
// window.location.hash = id;
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function getURLParam(strParamName){
var strReturn = "";
var strHref = window.location.href;
if ( strHref.indexOf("?") > -1 ){
var strQueryString = strHref.substr(strHref.indexOf("?")).toLowerCase();
var aQueryString = strQueryString.split("&");
for ( var iParam = 0; iParam < aQueryString.length; iParam++ ){
if (aQueryString[iParam].indexOf(strParamName.toLowerCase() + "=") > -1 ){
var aParam = aQueryString[iParam].split("=");
strReturn = aParam[1];
// alert(strReturn);
break;
}
}
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
// alert(strReturn);
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
// alert(myTarget);
if (myTarget == "-false-") {
areaHideAll("part_");
areaHideAll("sect_");
} else {
areaHideAll("sect_");
areaShowAll("part_");
sectionShow(myTarget);
// location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<p>This article <u><b>defends</b></u> the premise that <i><b>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW)</b></i> were deployed as <b>the primary mechanisms</b> of destruction in the annihilation of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001. Discussions happened on Facebook between 2020-02 and 2020-08.</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
<a name="p1"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_1');">Part 1: FGNW Discussions with Dan Cope</a></h2>
<div id="part_1" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200207_MCB_FB_DanCope_01 -->
<a name="x1"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x1" class="tiny">x2</a>
Dan Cope : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">nukes don't turn concrete and steel into dust in mid air</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/?multi_permalinks=685622918641957&comment_id=690730661464516">2020-02-07</a></p>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: block;">
<p>nukes don't turn concrete and steel into dust in mid air.Was there a dosimeter reading from that day?
</p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name="x3"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x3" class="tiny">x4</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">beg to differ on your assessment about what nukes can and cannot do</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Dan Cope, I beg to differ on your assessment about what nukes can and cannot do. Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons are a different breed. The high energy neutrons deposit energy deep within the molecular structure of the content they pass through.
<br>
<br>Here is the article that most of the re-purposed FB discussions on FGNW were meant to be based on.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 4 -->
<a name="x5"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x6</a>
Dan Cope : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">were dosimeter readings taken?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: block;">
<p>So,I assume that there were dosimeter readings taken?
</p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x7" class="tiny">x8</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">You validate them or debunk them</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Dan Cope, You bring up "dosimeter readings?" You validate them or debunk them, whatever you find. I'll not do your busy work. I know that delayed, haphazard, insufficient sample sizes were some of the hallmarks of all reports having to do with radiation.
<br>
<br>But if you'll look into Section 9. "Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras" and be willing to follow links and watch videos from there (as all sincere and objective seekers of truth would demonstrate), you sir will be awed by the recorded real-time evidence of radiation in NIST's very own videos, suppressed for I don't know how many years.
<br>
<br>It is right there before our eyes, but many generations technology has trained us to ignore snow and glitches in quality. The question are: when do such start to happen? and what areas of the picture frame are affected (as opposed to others)?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x9" class="tiny">x10</a>
Dan Cope : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">should have been substantiable.readings</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Dan Cope</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges When did I ask you to do my "busy work"for me?I would think that if nukes were used(and I'm not saying they weren't)there should have been substantiable.readings made.I haven't heard of anything yet.
<br>
<br><b>Dan Cope</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges So nukes can "toast"cars a hundred yards away from ground zero?
</p>
</div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x11" class="tiny">x12</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">reports don't exist that show a complete picture</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Dan Cope, you can make the same argument about all steps taken after 9/11 to measure or investigate what happened. So sure were they that "airplane impacts + office fires + gravity = sufficient explanation", real fire investigators were denied access for months; Freshkills scrap yard and shipments to China; look at the videos of Mayor Rudy bragging about how many dump trucks they filled overnight after 9/11.
<br>
<br>Here is a sword that cuts both directions. Many opponents of nuclear devices would make the dubious claim
<i>"you don't have evidence of such-and-such radiation at this-and-that levels, therefore it wasn't nukes of type A."</i>
Aside from the limits imposed by the framing, the problem is that the reports don't exist that show a complete picture. They demonstrate juking in other reports (examples available upon request), yet expect shoddy reports on (e.g., tritium) to be accepted unquestioned and unchallenged.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Before completing this, you post the question: So nukes can "toast"cars a hundred yards away from ground zero?
<br>
<br>The answer is in Section 6. "EMP and Vehicle Damage."
<br>
<br>I'll caution you, though, that if you refer to damaged vehicles near the bridge, my learned opinion is that the vehicles (like the Police Car) were damaged at a closer distance to the complex and later towed to the bridge area as a staging place. [This is one area where Dr. Wood inserted purposeful disinformation.]
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x13" class="tiny">x14</a>
Dan Cope : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">Hundreds were affected as far away as the parking lot</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: block;">
<p>They moved one car?Hundreds were affected as far away as the parking lot.If nukes were used,why is there all that paper flying around?Wouldn't the intense heat that destroyed the structure also burn the paper?
</p>
</div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x15" class="tiny">x16</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">EMP wouldn't affect paper anyway</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Dan Cope, Your response does not give me positive indications that you read the section or understand what is being dealt with here. Out of range for the EMP was the bridge where the police car and other vehicles were towed to. In range were the cars on West Broadway and the parking lot.
<br>
<br>The images with yellow cones that comes up with the posting? That is NOT my premise, but simply the first image at the web page (in a discussion about FGNW with Mr. Wayne Coste.) If you expand-all subsection and then that discussion, you can scroll to see the Paintbrush images from me.
<br>
<br>"Cone" is the concept. Not everything was directly in the line of fire of the FGNW output. FGNW are in the category of DEW, so entirely plausible that the location (and molecular structure) of some paper didn't get zapped by the neutrons, and heat wave localized to ignition areas; EMP wouldn't affect paper anyway.
<br>
<br>When talking heat from these FGNW, yet it was intense in the ignition area. But 80% of the energy (of an already sub-kiloton nuclear yield) was in the form of highly energetic neutrons.
<br>
<br>Example: concrete and drywall have trapped water molecules. Highly energetic neutrons passing by shuck off some of their energy deep in the water molecules' structure in the form of heat, instantly turning into steam whose expanding volumetric pressure creates micro-fractures and breaks up the content from its insides.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x17" class="tiny">x18</a>
Dan Cope : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">not very convincing</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges not very convincing,sorry.
</p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x20</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">"guess you just had to read it"</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Dan Cope, sometimes when people don't laugh at a funny, the teller says: <i>"Guess you just had to be there (to understand the humor)."</i>
<br>
<br>In like fashion, <i>"guess you just had to read it"</i> for my blog article to be convincing.
<br>
<br>How do I know you didn't read ~ANY~ of it? Because you maybe woulda coulda shoulda dragged something back, like a "quotation" and your analysis of what was wrong about it.
<br>
<br>In this simple fashion, your hypnotic suggestion is dispelled, *snap of the fingers*.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x22</a>
Dan Cope : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">hypnosis didn't work</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_22" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges darn!The hypnosis didn't workOh well,back to the drawing board.
</p>
</div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x24</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">my evolution in thought in coming to Truth on 9/11 nuclear devices</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_24" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Dan Cope, I extend to you a great gift in my OCD, "vanity blog" efforts that document my evolution in thought in coming to Truth on 9/11 nuclear devices. I will let you be the judge of whether or not the details of my premise are valid, so your work is not done. [Disclaimer: some of my earlier beliefs I no longer hold due to discovery of new analysis or evidence, but I have the legacy to prove my thinking was once there.]
<br>
<br>MY GIFT is that I allow you to stand on my shoulders to take the public understanding on the 9/11 Nuclear DEW subject to the next level WITHOUT having been a real-time participant over many years in the many dizzying carousel spins. Interesting is that most of the spins came from deflection and avoidance of tackling the 9/11 nuclear subject head on in a rational and objective manner, that also had elements of inabilities to acknowledge blatant weaknesses in the foundation of their "consensus 9/11.Truth" beliefs.
<br>
<br>I am not asking you to debate me (but I welcome it and come super-well prepared.) No.
<br>
<br>My hypnotic suggestion to you is a follows:
<br>
<br>+++ hypnotic suggestion, say the following out loud
<br>
<br>"I, Dan Cope, owe it to myself and my 9/11 understanding to study in some detail what this Mo-Fo Maxwell Bridges wrote and validate it or not in my personal judgment. After all, this a$$hole was once an ardent -- even if sometimes "backhanded" -- prolific champion of Woodsian DEW (as I appear to be now). How in the eff could his understanding evolve further, allegedly standing on Dr. Judy Wood's shoulders?!!"
<br>
<br>"I, Dan Cope, claim for myself my sincerity in seeking Truth, which is how I open-mindedly studied and came to believe Dr. Wood was on the right track about 9/11, pointing out more anomalous pieces of evidence than other "consensus 9/11 Truth" mechanisms. And certainly when it is made known to me that Dr. Wood dropped a lot of dangling innuendo, purposely connected no dots, and drew no conclusions, then I, Dan Cope, have the honesty to acknowledge these weaknesses and that out of necessity and requirement, Woodsian DEW needs to advance to the next level."
<br>
<br>"And this Mo-Fo Maxwell Bridges boasts of doing that?!! WTF!!!"
<br>
<br>"WELL, I, Dan Cope, will personally see about that, and later school him properly where he is in error."
<br>
<br>+++ end hypnotic suggestion
<br>
<br>Go to the blog article that is in my first comment of this thread.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 24 -->
<a name="x25"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x25" class="tiny">x26</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">hypnotic suggestion</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-07</p>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Dan Cope, Allow me to paste in a copied passage that is a hypnotic suggestion.
<br>
<br>+++ hypnotic suggestion, say the following out loud
</p>
<blockquote><p>"I, Dan Cope, owe it to myself and my 9/11 understanding to study in some detail what this Mo-Fo Maxwell Bridges wrote and validate it or not in my personal judgment. After all, this a$$hole was once an ardent -- even if sometimes "backhanded" -- prolific champion of Woodsian DEW (as I appear to be now). How in the eff could his understanding evolve further, allegedly standing on Dr. Judy Wood's shoulders?!!"
<br>
<br>"I, Dan Cope, claim for myself my sincerity in seeking Truth, which is how I open-mindedly studied and came to believe Dr. Wood was on the right track about 9/11, pointing out more anomalous pieces of evidence than other "consensus 9/11 Truth" mechanisms. And certainly when it is made known to me that Dr. Wood dropped a lot of dangling innuendo, purposely connected no dots, and drew no conclusions, then I, Dan Cope, have the honesty to acknowledge these weaknesses and that out of necessity and requirement, Woodsian DEW needs to advance to the next level."
<br>
<br>"And this Mo-Fo Maxwell Bridges boasts of doing that?!! WTF!!!"
<br>
<br>"WELL, I, Dan Cope, will personally see about that, and later school him properly where he is in error."</p></blockquote>
<p>+++ end hypnotic suggestion
<br>
<br>This is two versions behind the "2020 FGNW Opus" that I am procrastinating on, but has concepts and passages that will be re-purposed.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<!-- ***** 20200207_MCB_FB_DanCope_01 -->
</div> <!-- part_1 -->
<a name="p2"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_2');">Part 2: FGNW Discussions with Michael Rose</a></h2>
<div id="part_2" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200129_MCB_FB_fgnwPost_02 -->
<a name="x27"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x28</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">wasn't what they wrote in their feeble attempts at debunking</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/911CONSENSUS/2570291606402860/?comment_id=2572176036214417&reply_comment_id=2572528772845810">2020-01-29</a></p>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: block;">
<p>We've all heard at some time: <i>"It wasn't what you said, but how you said it."</i> With regards to my hobby-horse of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), it wasn't what they wrote in their feeble attempts at debunking, but how they avoided doing the simple steps rational, objective, open-minded, sincere world citizens would take, like reading what substantiates FGNW.
<br>
<br>This collection of (mostly Facebook) discussions into my FGNW hobby-horse over the last 2 years demonstrates agents and bots, IMHO.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br>
<br>For heaven's sake, don't read it front to back; hop around and scan. However, the one discussion worthy of deeper study is with Mr. Wayne Coste.
<br>
<br>The premise of "no 9/11 nukes" as presented by Mr. Coste gets taken apart section-by-section in good old Dr. David Griffin fashion. It wasn't what Mr. Coste wrote in defense of his premise, because he didn't. It was how he weaseled out of defending his work; how he tried to divert into a couple of worthy areas (concrete spalling, MCNP neutron absorption); and how he completely avoiding speculating into how NT could explain (just 4 pieces of) anomalous evidence depicted in the NIST FOIA videos at the scrap yards for WTC.
<br>
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br>FGNW Discussions
<br>The following discussions happened over a two year period primarily on Facebook, but also in other discussion forums and by e-mail...
</p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<a name="x29"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x30</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">who needs another 2-year discussion</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-29</p>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: block;">
<p>Thanks.Max.... but who needs another 2-year discussion?
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 30 -->
<a name="x31"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x31" class="tiny">x32</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">prevent discussions from disappearing</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-29</p>
<div id="sect_32" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael Rose, exactly. You have stumbled upon a very powerful debate technique that can avoid unproductive and distracting carousel spins, and identify game playing.
<br>
<br>You see, if I run into the same players in different threads who start cranking through material already covered, I've got my goto links ready to go. If it isn't the same persona but if the direction is going to the same places, I can copy and paste my previous efforts. Working smarter, not harder, but not quite like a bot.
<br>
<br>The links can help bring someone up to speed on a subject. I can identify a chapter and comment number. (FB tends to munge the URL removing the arguments that could take you to a specific comment.)
<br>
<br>But the point also is, such a collection identifies trends with the participants. I usually include a link back to the source discussion. But because this is inside of FB and requires a login and possibly membership in a group, this can't always be used as the "gotcha-goto-URL" to prove so-and-so once wrote such-and-such. My re-purposing for the sake of fair use discussion and commentary gives a copy more public and permanent URL.
<br>
<br>A weakness of various discussion opponents is in not having a legacy. Or having their legacy buried in the databases of others, like FB, which makes it hard to logically get to our own efforts and comments. Sometimes, they deem lack-of-legacy a strength, like nothing to incriminate them later. Also gave them the wiggle room to lie "we discussed that thoroughly" when they didn't.
<br>
<br>So, this re-purposing effort turns their strength into my strength, allows me to prevent discussions from disappearing, ...
<br>
<br>More benefits are that you get to scan through 2-years of discussion really fast and find what was relevant without real-time passing you by.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 32 -->
<a name="x33"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x33" class="tiny">x34</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">lamentable and total avoidance of logic</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-29</p>
<div id="sect_34" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Michael Rose</b>
<br>You previous lamentable and total avoidance of logic in your no-plane debate disproves any ppossible residual validity in what you just yped, sir.
<br>
<br><b>Michael Rose</b>
<br>I'm actually quite iterested in what military weaponry was used in demolishing all 3 Twin Towers, but I will choose a source that avoids political nonscience thanks.
<br>Don't take it so personally.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 34 -->
<a name="x35"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x35" class="tiny">x36</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_36');">brutal moderating-into-the-bit-bucket any further NPT comments</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-29</p>
<div id="sect_36" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael Rose, Oh, my! Aren't you special!!!? Loved your <i>"total avoidance of logic"</i> and <i>"political nonscience"</i> charges against me, and your attempt to re-crank a NPT carousel that distracts from this FGNW discussion in your typo-challenged, two-in-a-row, spamming comments.
<br>
<br>To call your comments <i>"charges"</i> gives them too much validity and weight. They are "hypnotic assertions without substantiation," a poor tactic that eventually paints its user as "a liar."
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html</a>
<br>
<br>Alas, NPT Round 7 clearly shows that you avoided discussing the physical evidence of real aircraft captured in pictures before either tower came down. Because this was a common occurence with NPT agents and bots, I created a special section outside of chapters and at the very bottom called "Physical evidence of WTC planes" to facilitate locating it.
<br>
<br>The record also shows you avoided most of my bullet-by-bullet takedowns of what substantiates your NPT beliefs. My favorite was you calculating a very slow speed from one video and failing to notice that it was manipulated to be "slow-motion," a common practice with sports broadcasts for at least half a century.
<br>
<br>LAYING DOWN THE LAW UNDER THIS POSTING
<br>
<br>This thread is about FGNW.
<br>
<br>If you would like to further your NPT nonsense with me, this thread is not an option.
<br>
<br>Your valid options for NPT discussion are:
<br>
<br>(1) Make comments to my blog. It is on moderation, so expect delays between when you post a comment and when it goes live. WARNING: Comment length is limited and much shorter than FB.
<br>
<br>(2) Make a comment to your FB thread and tag me. Right now, I have notifications on your NPT posting turned off. [If I don't reply there, message me.]
<br>
<br>(3) Accept defeat (on NPT) and go away, because further discussion with me will either convince you of the NPT deceit that duped you, or legitimately expose valid negative character traits about you that objective latter-day lurker readers will have no choice but to conclude have agency and / or bot origins.
<br>
<br>Because I don't want NPT discussions here in this FGNW thread, I will be very brutal in moderating-into-the-bit-bucket any further NPT comments. Because this hasn't attracted many comments [just yours and mine], I leave the nuclear option [deleting posting / making new posting] on the table as a means of getting you to adhere to my requests to keep these discussions FGNW relevant and not NPT.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 36 -->
<!-- ***** 20200129_MCB_FB_fgnwPost_02 -->
</div> <!-- part_2 -->
<a name="p3"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_3');">Part 3: FGNW Discussions with Bob Byron, Eric Sandstrom</a></h2>
<div id="part_3" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200224_MCB_FB_verified_01 -->
<a name="x37"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x37" class="tiny">x38</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_38');">what other 9/11 subjects are they found unfaithful</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/700411720496410/?comment_id=700798700457712">2020-02-24</a></p>
<div id="sect_38" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom, I'll try not to divert from your worthy efforts too much. However, when Chandler / Coste are found unfaithful in these 9/11 subjects, one must ask what other 9/11 subjects they aren't just wrong about, but deceitfully so? Their premises for WTC destruction are lacking.
<br>
<br>I have had direct correspondence with Chandler (earliest 2011) and Coste (2019) on different 9/11 themes. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss, "Oh the places they would ~not~ go..." and completely counter to the open-mindedness to evidence-in-need-of-explanation that should be the hallmark of a Truther.
<br>
<br>Case in point, Chandler, Jones, et al were quick to label Dr. Wood and her work, but without specifics.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Because this is well below the "See more..." link, let it be known that FGNW are in the category of DEW, making Dr. Wood closer to the truth than NT. [Details upon request.]
<br>
<br>Disclaimer: I am ~not~ promoting the work of Dr. Wood and determined for myself where and why it is disinformation. [Details upon request.]
<br>
<br>But this is brought up, because back when I was leaning heavily into Woodsian DEW, I secured Chandler's permission to purchase and send him a copy of Dr. Wood's book in the hopes of "the good, the bad, and the ugly" review. I wanted it debunked legitimately and needed help. [I ended up debunking Woodsian DEW on my own.]
<br>
<br>Mr. Chandler could not even be bothered to read it and give specifics. He did make an astute observation related to the over 500 full-color graphic images and large page-size of Dr. Wood's handsome, heavy, 500-page book: "Someone paid a lot of money in its production."
<br>
<br>Why no specifics?
<br>
<br>Because her book has tons of evidence -- the nuggets of truth that all sincere truth-seekers must rescue from the maws of disinformation -- that Chandler/Coste can't explain with their limited hang-out nano-thermite (NT).
<br>
<br>As for Coste, I took apart the premises (by AE9/11 Truth and Coste) about "nuclear blasts not causing the destruction of the towers." I did it section-by-section for both (although one is still being worked and not published.) I WAS IN AGREEMENT with the premises but still debunked the shit out of it. How so? The framing of "nuclear blasts" is old school nuclear, when quite differently FGNW emit 80% of their energy (already sub-kiloton) as highly energetic neutrons and the remaining 20% of the energy is divided between heat-wave, blast wave, and EMP. That 80% highly energetic neutrons would produce different destructive outcomes -- content blowing itself to pieces -- that could be described as "dustification" and muted in sound compared to equivalent energy yields of massive amounts of traditional chemical-based explosives (including NT) that must transfer destructive energy to neighboring targets using the medium of air and rapidly changing air pressure.
<br>
<br>Thus, technically nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC. The crafty deceit on display is how they try to discredit all nuclear involvement with this faulty framing.
<br>
<br>Wayne Coste neither defended his work nor acknowledged glaring weaknesses. He made a several valient efforts into spinning with science, that my wielding of science also unspun. [Details upon request.]
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Ooops. Got carried away. All below the "See more..." fold.
<br>
<br>The point is, you've found deceit in these individuals in a couple areas, and I have found it in a third.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 38 -->
<a name="x39"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x39" class="tiny">x40</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">only part not lacking</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_40" style="display: block;">
<p>"Their premises for WTC destruction are lacking."
<br>
<br>that is the only part that is not lacking....
<br>
<br>...maybe someone had a talk with him.....
</p>
</div><!-- section 40 -->
<a name="x41"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x41" class="tiny">x42</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_42" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron, for clarity, you wrote effectively that the only part of Chandler / Coste premises that isn't lacking (for evidence, scientific proof, etc.) relates to the WTC destruction.
<br>
<br>Again I beg to differ. Whether or not NT was involved isn't an argument that I make, and it is no skin off the nose of my premises if NT were involved in some measure.
<br>
<br>The point that any sincere seeker of Truth will have to acknowledge is that NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction. This is borne out because NT according to even Dr. Steven Jones does not have the brisance for pulverization and would have to be mixed with something else. The issues with that are manifold:
<br>
<br>- Chemical based weapons do much of their destruction by using the medium of air and, hence, would have been deafening loud. Deafness is not one of the ailments of survivors, and this is one area where Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST was telling the truth with a straight face.
<br>
<br>- NT already had trouble accounting for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, but increasing the brisance only exasperates the problem of the implied quantities that high school chemistry calculates at obscenely massive and UNSPENT from the original overkill pulverizing task.
<br>
<br>- Dr. Jones et al did a shitty job of researching nuclear weapons, framed them at high yield, accepted unquestioned and unchallenged shoddy reports from others (with different purposes) as the definitive word (e.g., tritium, radiological elements), mischaracterized levels, didn't mention neutron devices, and didn't mention the bastard hellspawn of neutron devices, namely Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices.
<br>
<br>I'm linking an earlier (2016) version of my FGNW premise, because it slaughters the NT sacred cow (with science, research, and evidence).
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>I have a 2018 version, and am still procrastination my 2020 FGNW opus on the theme... distracted by Facebook discussions, which if you menu around my blog, will see I have re-purposed. And one of them in particular was with Wayne Coste.
<br>
<br>I'll be happy to be proven wrong on FGNW. But everywhere I shop this around to -- be they government agents or be they hard-core 9/11 Truthers --, this FGNW hobby-horse prevails, and its hardest opponents (e.g., Coste) found guilty of disinfo distracting techniques.
<br>
<br>For the record, AE9/11Truth has tried to debunk nuclear means, but you don't have to get beyond their abstract to spot the deceit: they frame it as "nuclear blasts" (so 1st thru 3rd generational nuclear weapons), while fourth generation nuclear weapons are designed to deliver energy differently, directly, and right into the molecular structure of all that the highly energetic neutrons pass through.
<br>
<br>//
<br>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
</p>
</div><!-- section 42 -->
<a name="x43"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x43" class="tiny">x44</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_44');">since when do those asking questions need to prove a damn thing?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_44" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges "isn't lacking (for evidence, scientific proof, etc.) relates to the WTC destruction."
<br>
<br>first off, since when do those asking questions, pointing out the absurd, need to prove a damn thing?????
<br>
<br>none of us has to PROVIDE EVIDENCE of fire and gravity NOT doing this....
<br>
<br>they MUST support and prove the fires present DID do what they claim...
<br>
<br>Chandler is not saying FIRE/GRAVITY did this X3.....the NIST LEADERS and Bazant are.
<br>
<br>.
<br>"For the record, AE9/11Truth has tried to debunk nuclear means,"
<br>
<br>therein lies your problem.
<br>
<br>you proceed with your spiel, never once informing who is listening, the LIES OF THE OFFICIAL STORY!!!
<br>
<br>who is going to believe you unless there is a reason to believe you.
<br>
<br>and no one questioning the OS has to PROVE anything...
<br>
<br>they must prove fire and GRAVITY is what displays ALL THE VISUAL and physical attributes of an 'explosion'!
<br>
<br>I also noticed YOU refuse to discuss this simplistic basic showing them the LIARS they are...which also gives more credibility to an alternative.
<br>
<br>here YOU are attacking EVERYONE, but the official story....?
<br>
<br>deception duly noted!!!!!!
</p>
</div><!-- section 44 -->
<a name="x45"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x45" class="tiny">x46</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">eager to assign me busy work</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_46" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron, you and I are players on the same team for 9/11 Truth (on different squads), and seem to be talking passed each other.
<br>
<br>Dude, my FGNW premise attacks the 9/11 official story in its very existence. Period.
<br>
<br>You seem eager to assign me busy work to go after the official story and its players. I'd be happy provide you with a list of URLs into my blog that documents my work on the matter is already done, those battles fought and won. [I don't feel like distracting this discussion on such re-tread topics.]
<br>
<br>And even if I didn't have such personal legacy to stand on, I could always re-purpose valid nuggets of truth from AE9/11Truth and various 9/11 Truth leaders including Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, Mr. Chandler, etc. In fact, had you read my work(s), you'd discover where I had already done that, stood on their shoulders, and brought 9/11 understanding to a new level.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile when considering that 9/11 covered over at the onset $2.3 trillion in missing Pentagon spending, then we can assume plenty of money was available to throw at the problem and its after-effects, even if it means having to pay to co-opt, bribe, influence, or black-mail just about anyone. They could pretty much "salary" through many channels anybody of 9/11 Truth notoriety.
<br>
<br>And according to my wild-ass speculation on such topics, they were told what they could talk about (e.g., free-fall, NT, beams-from-space, deep underground nukes) in a stilted fashion and what they couldn't; they could not connect any dots in answering all pieces of anomalous 9/11 evidence that point directly at state-of-the-art fourth generation nuclear devices. This is equivalent to informing "the enemy" what is in US arsenals, and we know US history is littered with lesser mortals who have been tried on charges of treason for exposing "means and methods."
<br>
<br>The root of your annoyance with me is that I'm a few lessons, a few levels, a few layers, a few laps ahead of you in discovering Truth in 9/11 with nuclear components, and unfortunately (figurative) nuclear fall-out casualties are many group-trusted figures and organizations of significance in the 9/11 Truth communities. They went "thus far but no further," blatantly, abruptly, as if on command, and steering public understanding. They provided stilted works that bend around huge gaps that their education and understanding should have caught.
<br>
<br>Twain wrote: "It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince him he's been fooled."
<br>
<br>Don't take it personally. The pain of cognitive dissonance was designed into the clever 9/11 disinformation (like NT). When a person becomes aware of NT possibilities on 9/11, the conspiracy minded latch onto this and stop; it becomes literally a headache when further analysis shows where the NT premise -- thoroughly entrenched in their minds -- is a limited hang-out, stop-gap to prevent discovering deeper truths (FGNW).
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 46 -->
<a name="x47"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x47" class="tiny">x48</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_48');">push away newbies on the fence</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_48" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges "You seem eager to assign me busy work to go after the official story and its players."
<br>no, just creating useless confusion to push away newbies on the fence..
<br>.
<br>"The root of your annoyance with me is that I'm a few lessons, a few levels, a few layers, a few laps ahead of you"
<br>wow!....ain't we the conceded one.
<br>...nope...no 'lapping' here????
<br>so it's more like I am ahead of you because I looked at ALL the 'nuke' evidence years ago, and realize with the THOUSANDS of different combinations of what it ?COULD BE?....fire and GRAVITY is not one of them.....
<br>...and THAT IS the official story.
<br>the DICTUM of all Law, SCIENCE and proper debate is those whom assert MUST PROVE.
<br>FIRST comes the official story.
<br>so they PROVE fire and gravity....
<br>period!
<br>
<br>but look at you???.....'confusing' yourself and anyone listening to you.
<br>
<br>I don't have to support 'bombs'
<br>YOU do not have to support 'nukes'
<br>
<br>NUT, those pushing the official story blaming what we see on the FIRES PRESENT and GRAVITY...must support and prove 'fires-present' and GRAVITY!
<br>your material is great!!!.....FOR A COURT ROOM!!!
<br>but it will NOT get us there....
<br>the ones uttering the FIRST WORDS of this agenda will get us there....the amazing NIST LEADERS ignoring their own investigation to go elsewhere.
<br>ALL the actions observed on 9-11 denote CONTROL!
<br>gravity has NO ability to attain the deliberate actions of a 'controlled collapse'.
<br>my showing deliberate and DIRECT evidence of the NIST LEADERS ignoring their own scientific document, attacking lies to it, then completely ignoring it to peruse an agenda with Bazant at Northeastern University.
<br>YOU ignore the FACT they lie to push your own agenda.
<br>
<br>.
<br>Don't take it personally.....but I am here with the same intent I had in 2005 WAITING with the structural community for the NIST evidence.....that has never once been provided..
<br>
<br>and is still NOT there.
<br>
<br>why.....
<br>
<br>because they have a presidential E.O to keep it hidden.
<br>
<br>...but no.....YOU have other tidbits on your plate you would rather focus on rather than the deliberate lies pushed to the WORLD.
<br>
<br>...so getting back to your material.....unless the other party you are explaining your theory to, KNOWS the NIST LEADERS lie, claiming NEW PHYSICS times three.... (like I do), your claims are nothing more than, 'someones-agenda'...
<br>
<br>no one has any reason to believe you unless you give them one.
<br>
<br>Max, don't take it personally, but you sound EXACTLY like Sam Beeson...the long winded derbunker who discusses everything, BUT the facts of 9-11.
<br>Image may contain: dog and outdoor
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges "Dude, my FGNW premise attacks the 9/11 official story in its very existence. Period."
<br>
<br>no, DEMANDING they support and PROVE what they claim attacks them to the core of their existence!!!....period....
<br>
<br>as is the dictum of ALL Law, SCIENCE and proper DEBATE!
<br>
<br>FIRST comes the pushed official claims....
<br>
<br>the claim made where I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE BOMBS....but they MUST support and PROVE the fires-present and GRAVITY is what mimics the deliberate visual and physical attributes of an EXPLOSION!!!
<br>
<br>this holds true on 9-11 also.....this dictum did NOT change due to 9-11.
<br>
<br>He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
<br><a href="http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm">http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm</a>
<br>
<br>so what we have here is a person wanting to EXTEND 9-11 truth.....
<br>
<br>while I wish to END it by dragging the FIRST LIARS in front of all and demand they supporter their WORDS....
<br>
<br>the amazing NIST LEADERS ignoring their own to go with Bazant...
<br>
<br>the ones claiming...."nothing to see here...this is just fire and GRAVITY'...
<br>
<br>...but for SOME reason, you want nothing to do with this....?why?
<br>Image may contain: cloud, sky, skyscraper and outdoor
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 48 -->
<a name="x49"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x49" class="tiny">x50</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">allow OCT to set the debate stage, the focus, the paradigm</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_50" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron, Meh. I have been there and done that, and saved & re-purposed my work. Ergo, I'm still laps ahead of you even when I tire of continued merry-go-rounds on the same themes.
<br>
<br>The problem with (continued) discussions that take on the official conspiracy theory (OCT), is that you allow OCT to set the debate stage, the focus, the paradigm. Thomas Pynchon "If you can get them to ask the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."
<br>
<br>To your point, I did find debunking of OCT valuable enough to ride too many times their carousels. But given that they were never sincere in the first place (contrary to general expectations when two have discussions), they would never acknowledge errors in their premise, much less be convinced of anything else. I persisted in my efforts not for their sake, but for that of latter-day lurker-readers.
<br>
<br>In the face of such fruitless efforts, I realized that if OCT continued to set the stage, true 9/11 mechanisms of destruction would never get center-stage time in the limelight.
<br>
<br>Although I may not have made it clear, FGNW debunks OCT (& NT, Woodsian DEW, deep-underground nukes) quite handily, because it addresses a much wider swath of evidence and exposes huge weaknesses in the pillars that supposedly support such premises.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "you sound EXACTLY like Sam Beeson...the long winded derbunker who discusses everything, BUT the facts of 9-11."
<br>
<br>Name sounds familiar, and turns out I had some run-in's with him too on Facebook, now re-purposed in Part 4: "Debunker vs Truther", "Fair and Civil Debate".
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html</a>
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, you seem intent on taking discussions with a fellow 9/11 Truther BACKWARD to address OCT fallacies. How about you prove your 9/11 Truther credentials contains an open-mind to objectively consider my FGNW premise (given in a link earlier) and take discussions FORWARD?
<br>
<br>An inability to take 9/11 discussions to the next level with someone equally (if not far better) informed than you would not reflect well on you.
<br>
<br>Change my mind, or let my research change your mind.
<br>
<br>//
<br>Trend line to shut down 9/11 nuclear considerations
<br>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
</p>
</div><!-- section 50 -->
<a name="x51"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x51" class="tiny">x52</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_52');">He who asserts must prove</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_52" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Maxwell... there is nothing to change and this is all about what is here FIRST and pushed to the WORLD as a lie...
<br>
<br>
<br>and for some reason you distance yourself from proper procedure when it comes to what WE ARE ALL ABOUT!
<br>
<br>9-11 TRUTH.....
<br>
<br>it STARTS with the ones asserting
<br>FIRST!
<br>
<br>
<br>the NIST LEADERS, ignoring their own investigation to go elsewhere claiming "new physics"...they refuse to support.
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>""Fair and Civil Debate"."
<br>
<br>
<br>??Max....they booted me from there for being the only one WANTING to debate the actual official story....go figure!
<br>
<br>
<br>I don't have to prove anything.....neither do you......they, the ones asserting fire and gravity did what is observed exclusively on 9-11, MUST PROVE fire and gravity on 9-11 did it.
<br>
<br>they kept DEMANDING I prove bombs....I'm not there or ANYWHERE pushing bombs....I ask why and how GRAVITY has the ability to display all the visual and physical attributes OF A BOMB, only on that one single day in history..
<br>
<br>
<br>He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
<br><a href="http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm">http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>but it seems as if you have a problem with proper Dictum, for YOU are playing THEIR game....and trying to bring that 'lying-game' here?.....sorry....not happening.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Max....GRAVITY did not enable this act.
<br>
<br>it does not matter what we ?THINK? it is, one thing for sure is this is NOT GRAVITY displaying all the visual and physical attributes of an 'explosion'.
<br>
<br>and they push and claim it is WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE to show it is....
<br>
<br>all science says it's NOT!
<br>
<br>they demand it is and outright refuse to support themselves with permission TO do so.
<br>
<br>
<br>....and ?YOU do not have a problem with that, so you let that little tidbit of info just slide on by?????
<br>
<br>
<br>I'm not against anything you provide.....I am against you refusing to prep the your readers with the "WHY" you think what you do...
<br>
<br>i.e. the LIES of the NIST LEADERS!
<br>
<br>I'm only trying to help you GAIN by first showing their LIES making way for what you provide.
<br>Image may contain: cloud, sky, skyscraper and outdoor
</p>
</div><!-- section 52 -->
<a name="x53"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x53" class="tiny">x54</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">teaching basic math, while my course is advanced calculus</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_54" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron, There you go again, completely misjudging your audience and all intent on keeping 9/11 understanding at sophomoric levels. The analogy is that you are teaching basic math, while my course is advanced calculus with physics.
<br>
<br>You are more than welcome to start your own top-level comment for a new thread -- or even a brand-new posting -- where you can aim your rhetoric at an audience of newbies and 9/11 fence-sitters (and stilted agents).
<br>
<br>Alas, I have the distinction of starting this thread aimed at an audience of experienced Truthers where the understanding of basic math -- everything you distract this thread with -- is a given and doesn't need to waste the audience's brain cells in repeating.
<br>
<br>I'll not have YOU purposely rabbiting on and on in MY thread with basic and agreed upon assertions that slow if not retard teachings into advanced 9/11. You're like the slow kid who is holding back the learning of the gifted and talented.
<br>
<br>I mentioned before that we are on different squads of the same team with the same purposes. This thread should have been my squad on the field doing what it is special at. Instead, your "special-ed" squad comes in disruptively to throw wrenches into the works.
<br>
<br>FOUL ON THE PLAY!!! Too many players on the field.
<br>
<br>If you can't get your squad to address anything in my top-level comment that anchors this thread, then you should remove your squad to your own practice fields (threads or postings) and stop polluting and distracting from the advanced 9/11 enlightenment that my teachings provide.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 54 -->
<a name="x55"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x55" class="tiny">x56</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">they still think fire and gravity did this</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_56" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges " The analogy is that you are teaching basic math"
<br>
<br>because THAT is the intelligence level of 98% of the audience....
<br>
<br>they need they basics before they can advance further.
<br>
<br>and the 'basic' direct knowledge of the Amazing Gov,. scientist LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH, is that little 'edge' that will give ANYONE the incentive to dig further....and they will not like what they find.
<br>
<br>blindly hitting a person with your agenda, with NO reason to even listen to you, does what for you?
<br>
<br>....it makes you look like a kook because they still think fire and gravity did this...
<br>
<br>and see you as a liar.
<br>
<br>show them the LIES of the OS first, and it leaves the door open for 'alternatives'...
<br>
<br>
<br>.
<br>"I'll not have YOU purposely rabbiting on and on in MY thread"
<br>
<br>actually, this is Eric's thread.
<br>
<br>
<br>???????...so many years ahead of me...[shakes head].
<br>
<br>
<br>so.....why are you even arguing with me?
<br>
<br>...and besides, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE of nukes, you just have evidence of 'something' NOT being from fire and GRAVITY!!!!
<br>
<br>
<br>but you would rather f*ck with people and claim superiority, rather than use your knowledge to gain momentum for the group as a whole.
<br>
<br>
<br>which, in my book, puts you on equal terms as any debunker...
<br>
<br>they purposely distract from basic FACTS and science in lieu of their agenda.....just like you are doing with me.
<br>
<br>...just saying what I see....
</p>
</div><!-- section 56 -->
<a name="x57"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x57" class="tiny">x58</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">a skewed view of the audience in this group</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_58" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr Bob Byron, my thread on calculus does not hinder any thread about basic math that you want to teach. Go for it.
<br>
<br>The complaint from me is your interruption of my calculus class. Kind of rude and certainly distracting.
<br>
<br>Just as remarkable is that you have not expressed whether or not my 9/11 calculus has given you a new depth of understanding.
<br>
<br>Point of clarification. It is Eric Sandstrom posting, but my top level comment that created a thread belonging to me. (How so? If I delete my top level comment, there go all of your comments in the thread.)
<br>
<br>You've pretty much pissed this tread away with your rudimentary bent. Fine.
<br>
<br>But if an opportunity in the future inspires me to make a top level comment relating to the theme of the posting about my FGNW hobbyhorse in a legitimate fashion, please don't be guilty of the repeated offense of trying to water down my calculus class with middle school 9/11 concepts and concerns.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, you have a skewed view of the audience in this group. Totally unlikely that the uninitiated in 9/11 truth would ever get exposed to this groups. Only truther activists (and lurkers) and agents would ever join.
<br>
<br>Now don't let that discourage you with your dumbed down hobbyhorse. You can't let this group be the end station for your laudable words. Save offline so that it can be repurposed later and save you a ton of time on dizzy carousels.
<br>
<br>And thus concludes today's "teach the 9/11 activists" episode about courtesy in threads.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 58 -->
<a name="x59"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x59" class="tiny">x60</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">just gonna stop right there</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_60" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I got to the part where you said WTC destruction are lacking. I’m just gonna stop right there I won’t entertain that.
<br>The towers came down by preplanted explosives and that has been revealed accurately.
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc">https://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc</a>
<br>North Tower Exploding by David Chandler
<br>youtube.com
</p>
</div><!-- section 60 -->
<a name="x61"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x61" class="tiny">x62</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">the DICTUM of responsibility to SUPPORT ones WORDS</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_62" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Bob Byron Maxwell Bridges " my thread on calculus does not hinder any thread about basic math"
<br>
<br>lmao, imaging pretending to being SO SMART, you willfully negate the point of the matter in question....[shakes head]....
<br>
<br>this is NOT about 'calculus 'vs basic math?????....
<br>
<br>this is about the DICTUM of responsibility to SUPPORT ones WORDS pushed within an official scientific context!!!
<br>
<br>and you willfully IGNORE proper procedure these 'scientists' must provide, which is the EVIDENCE to support their LIES....
<br>
<br>...why????
<br>
<br>why do YOU pretend your work is SO MUCH MORE important than those demanding the ones pushing the claims....support and prove them.
<br>
<br>why do YOU PRETEND, them supporting themselves is SO unimportant?
<br>
<br>?? maybe because you're here to distract from the official LIES and don't want to make notice of their amazing NEW PHYSICS they claim to others???
<br>
<br>and more to the point, BASIC science proves this a 'controlled' event'...not 'calculus'...
<br>
<br>ALL empirical evidence says what we see X3 on 9-11 are destroyed in a manner that is completely visually consistent with controlled demolition. Explosives are also the only known and proven mechanism for achieving such destruction. There is no objective evidence to suggest WTC7 could have been failed in such a manner without the use of explosive charges.
<br>
<br>It looks like a controlled demolition because it is a controlled demolition, end of debate.
<br>
<br>this is not all about YOU and how GREAT YOU ARE!!!!!
<br>
<br>this is about the LIES the NIST LEADERS push to the WORLD!
<br>
<br>.....stick that up your 'calculus'...
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges Furthermore, you have a skewed view of the audience in this group."
<br>
<br>we all see who is trying to 'skew' ones belief.
<br>
<br>we also see WHO the 'creative-writer' is!!!!
<br>
<br>which is also not needed in this group.
<br>
<br>9/11 Verified Truth = The Dictum of all Law, Science and proper Debate: Those whom assert must prove.
<br>
<br>In order to establish an assertion, the individual/team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.
<br>Facts must be accurate.
<br>Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
<br>
<br><a href="http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm">http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm</a>
<br>homepage.ntu.edu.tw
<br>Rules of debate
<br>Rules of debate
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 62 -->
<a name="x63"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x63" class="tiny">x64</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');">rabbit along with your middle school 9/11 topics</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_64" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron, you have so watered down this thread, you may have it. It is yours.
<br>
<br>You may rabbit along with your middle school 9/11 topics.
<br>
<br>The next thread I start is for FGNW. Please don't make comments there unless you're willing to stay on topic, which is advanced 9/11 concepts and deep state controlling of the message.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 64 -->
<a name="x65"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x65" class="tiny">x66</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">I accept your apology</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_66" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges " you have so watered down this thread, you may have it. It is yours."
<br>
<br>and I accept your apology...the only way you can make one....
<br>
<br>.
<br>"The next thread I start is for FGNW. Please don't make comments there unless you're willing to stay on topic"
<br>
<br>I was...and did.
<br>here is my first response...
<br>"that is the only part that is not lacking....
<br>...maybe someone had a talk with him....."
<br>
<br>max.....you are the one who had the intellectual meltdown.
<br>
<br>then you proceeded to be a 'dick'.
<br>
<br>when have I EVER interfered in any thread you provide......never.
<br>
<br>so this is less about 'intellect' and more about , (for some reason) belittling the PROPER DICTUM of those asserting official Gov. statements for the event of 9-11.
<br>
<br>it does NOT MATER what did it......
<br>
<br>they, ( those FEW pushing this OS BULLSH*T ), must support the FANTASY THEY PUSH!
<br>
<br>..you distract from it.
<br>
<br>now there is only ONE entity in these groups who willfully tries to undermined the effort to direct RESPONSIBILITY to where it belongs...with the NIST LEADERS and BAZANT .
<br>
<br>yeah, you know who I refer to..... and they do very sneaky things to dissuade anyone from discussing the actual OS and pointing out actual facts.
<br>
<br>but enough about them.....
<br>
<br>The moral of this story for the event of 9-11 times three is, the ones asserting first, that those 'fires-present', are the sole AND ONLY reason why gravity displays all the visual and physical attributes of an 'explosion' DIRECTLY at onset of collapse..
<br>
<br>yes, IT IS VERY SIMPLE.......and you you are showing us YOU want to hinder this...'simplicity, EVERYONE understands.
<br>
<br>.....perhaps you can tell us why?
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 66 -->
<a name="x67"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x67" class="tiny">x68</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">I'm booted also from the fair and civil debate group</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_68" style="display: block;">
<p>Bob Byron Curious what people run the fair and civil debate group? Im booted also
</p>
</div><!-- section 68 -->
<a name="x69"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x70</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">duhbunkers all of them</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: block;">
<p>Eric Sandstrom duhbunkers.......all of them.
<br>
<br>none of them were willing to debate the official story....
<br>
<br>they tried to use the 'Dictum-post' I always provide, against me...
<br>
<br>He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
<br>
<br>so I told them I assert NOT ONE of you can support the fires present is the reason gravity pretends to be an 'explosion' X3 only seen occurring on 9-11.
<br>
<br>that particular wording seemed to strike a chord with them, so I use it all the time.
</p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<a name="x71"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x72</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">Chandler purposely did not go far enough</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_72" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom, You misunderstood my comment about <i>"Chandler / Coste] Their premises for WTC destruction are lacking,"</i> and the efforts of Mr. Bob Byron to initiate 9/11 middle school topics did not help matters any.
<br>
<br>Damn if my other top-level comment didn't already set the stage, but the meat was below the "see more..." fold and you admitted to stopping your reading there. Not a good sign for you.
<br>
<br>Chandler's video that you posted (and I'll post again) is great.
<br>
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc">https://youtu.be/nUDoGuLpirc</a>
<br>
<br>"Their premises" refers to NT. It is a limited hang-out. It could not have been the primary cause of destruction. It could not have caused what we observed in the video, and does not explain anomalous evidence rescued from the debris pile.
<br>
<br>I've already posted a link to an article on my blog that takes apart NT. [I'll post it again upon request.]
<br>
<br>Chandler purposely did not go far enough. FGNW check all the boxes on what was observed and found later.
<br>
<br>Coste has his own issues in trying to debunk all forms of nuclear involvement by framing the discussion as "nuclear blast", which couldn't be further from the truth in the effects FGNW can bring to the picture.
<br>
<br>//
<br>North Tower Exploding by David Chandler
<br>youtube.com
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 72 -->
<a name="x73"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x74</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">Skim through and jump around</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-24</p>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: block;">
<p>This will make it easy on you. Skim through and jump around in this article, and view Chandler's video in another window as well.
<br>
<br>You'll eventually connect the two.
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>I'm reminded that the image that comes up for the article is really from a video that is first to appear in that work. The video is one of Mr. Chandler's as well.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x76</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">an inherent pride in the conspiracy/truth movement</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-29</p>
<div id="sect_76" style="display: block;">
<p>A great friend of mine for over two decades who believes across-the-board the original account of 9/11 and I went back-and-forth today, I would love to hear your thoughts or similar experiences concerning my friend’s final text which is as follows:
<br>
<br>“This approach leads me to the following perceptions: there is an inherent pride(similar Gnosticism) in the “conspiracy/truth” movement that works like this:
<br>1. Unless you embrace what we believe you are in the dark, I will enlighten you.
<br>2. If you reject my help, it’s because you are afraid to accept that I know more than you do and you can’t handle it.
<br>3. This could be because your brain isn’t working correctly.
<br>4. Or it could be because you don’t love people or truth.
<br>
<br>“No offense though”
<br>
<br>Followed by years of:
<br>“Why?”
<br>“Why not?”
</p>
</div><!-- section 76 -->
<a name="x77"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x77" class="tiny">x78</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">to admit to any of the 9/11 arguments is to admit that you've spent years being blatantly duped</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-29</p>
<div id="sect_78" style="display: block;">
<p>Nah. I liken it to "cognitive dissonance," which I think explains it better.
<br>
<br>When you're in the OCT camp, to admit to any of the 9/11 arguments is to admit that you've spent years being blatantly duped, that you voted completely wrong, that your government lied to you, that your beliefs about the righteousness of the USA and its actions is wrong, that you condoned the most heinous acts imaginable because you were duped into fear. It is a gross weakness.
<br>
<br>Interesting, "cognitive dissonance" applies within the 9/11 Truth Movement (and many other aspects of life.) Once we have won a hard-fought understanding over some phenomenon, we hold to that understanding sometimes even when new analysis might knock down its pillars of support.
<br>
<br>Champions of NT as the primary mechanisms of WTC destruction exhibit this. Whether or not NT played a role, the fact that it can be proven (and admitted even by Dr. Steven Jones) to not have been the primary mechanism means that those 9/11 Truthers championing NT were duped into accepting a lesser Truth, an incomplete thesis, a limited hang-out.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 78 -->
<a name="x79"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x79" class="tiny">x80</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">giving a DIFFERENT story line</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-29</p>
<div id="sect_80" style="display: block;">
<p>Bob Byron "to admit that you've spent years being blatantly duped"
<br>
<br>there you go again giving a DIFFERENT story line.
<br>
<br>no one is 'duped'....
<br>
<br>the STRUCTURAL COMMUNITY TOLD THEM TO PROVE IT!
<br>
<br>...and those pushing the LIES, refuse to support their BRAND NEW SCIENCE they push for 9-11.
<br>
<br>no one is 'duped'....
<br>
<br>the sole authors of the OFFICIAL CLAIMS are willfully REFUSING to provide EVIDENCE, per their agenda.
<br>
<br>for both towers...
<br>
<br>and WTC7.
<br>
<br>with a presidential pardon allowing them to LIE.
<br>
<br>in the form of Executive Order 13470 of July 30, 2008
<br>
<br>"(d) Protect intelligence and intelligence sources, methods, and activities from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with guidance from the Director"
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-08-04/pdf/E8-17940.pdf">http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-08-04/pdf/E8-17940.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>making the Directors of all gov. agency's the right to withhold ANYTHINJG they want if it has the slightest to do with 9-11.
<br>
<br>even the NATURAL progression of fire and gravity.
<br>
<br>so, the NIST Director said....NO!....we can't show you ANY evidence.
<br>
<br>Simple fact: if any of that building's potential energy went to destroying itself, it would have lost kinetic energy which requires that the building slow in its fall....Since it did fall at free-fall, it wasn't causing itself to collapse.
<br>
<br>Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf">http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 80 -->
<a name="x81"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x81" class="tiny">x82</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">There is nothing OCT about FGNW</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-29</p>
<div id="sect_82" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron, guess we just proven that you are a bot.
<br>
<br>Just because I have the facts that shoot the legs out from underneath NT, it does not mean that I promote the OCT in any way, shape, or form.
<br>
<br>Here is my premise.
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>There is nothing OCT about FGNW.
<br>
<br>//
<br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
</p>
</div><!-- section 82 -->
<a name="x83"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x83" class="tiny">x84</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">involved since 2005</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-29</p>
<div id="sect_84" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges guess we just proved that you are a bot."
<br>
<br>really max?.......see ya!!!
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>..."When you're in the OCT camp, to admit to any of the 9/11 arguments is to admit that you've spent years being blatantly duped"
<br>
<br>Maxwell....I have been involved with this since 2005 when the NIST LEADERS report came out.
<br>
<br>then the structural community DEMANDED the evidence/proof.
<br>
<br>the NIST LEADERS refuse to provide....TO THIS DAY.
<br>
<br>now....how bout you explain HOW I am ..'duped"?
<br>
<br>...or ANYONE demanding these AMAZING Gov. scientists SUPPORT their 'first-time' AGENDA of amazing 'science'....that is of yet to be supported by ANYONE...
<br>
<br>NO ASCE paper in support of the pushed OFFICIAL AGENDA.....
<br>
<br>but no, lets not discuss that......lets just push 'nukes' and NOT give any reason why we are....
<br>
<br>why are you forever DISTRACTING away from the OFFICIAL LIES?
<br>
<br>..and then pretend they are of no value.......
<br>
<br>if that is true, then COURT has no value.
<br>
<br>gee, then those who assert, can say ANYTHING they want WITHOUT the need to prove or support their 'assertions'.????
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 84 -->
<a name="x85"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x85" class="tiny">x86</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">not promoting the OCT in any way, shape, or form</a></b></p>
<p>2020-02-29</p>
<div id="sect_86" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron, Just because I have the facts that shoot the legs out from underneath NT, it does not mean that I promote the OCT in any way, shape, or form.
<br>
<br>Here is my premise.
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>There is nothing OCT about FGNW.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br>Oops. Here's the blog posting that slaughters the NT sacred cow.
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>Read it and discover my sources of information. I was not the first to put "Beyond Misinformation" in my title.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 86 -->
<a name="x87"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x87" class="tiny">x88</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">kicked out, without any warning or even harsh words</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_88" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb: New Posting 2020-03-02 deleted.}
<br>
<br>I can't seem to get to the group "9/11 Verified Truth". I suspect maybe they kicked me out, but if so, that would have been without any warning, or even harsh words, for that matter.
<br>
<br>Last I recall, I had a thread relating Chandler / Coste (topic of the posting) to my FGNW hobby-horse. I likened my efforts to a 9/11 calculus course, which was constantly interrupted by Mr. Bob Byron, who insisted on teaching a 9/11 middle school math class that attempted to roll the nuclear discussion all the way back to Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT).
<br>
<br>Once that thread was completely pissed away but noticing a buried comment from Mr. Eric Sandstrom with a video from David Chandler, I created a top-level comment (new thread) that re-posted that (or another David Chandler) video worthy of discussion. For completeness, I replied with a link to my FGNW work that references and discusses the video.
<br>
<br>*BINGO* Now suddenly, I don't see in my notification queue any reactions / replies from that group that could get me there. Not listed as a short-cut...
<br>
<br>Looks like I might have hit a nerve.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>======================= New Posting <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/706069319930650/?comment_id=706082819929300&reply_comment_id=707639976440251">2020-03-02</a>
<br>
<br>Before he kicked me out of this group, Mr. Bob Bryon laid out his credentials: "I have been involved with this since 2005 when the NIST LEADERS report came out."
<br>
<br>For such a long tenure in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I would be interested in links to Mr. Byron's earlier efforts. Surely he has had experiences where his worthy words were deleted, purged, and suppressed when in forums owned by others, thereby giving him the idea that he should be responsible for the preservation and publication of his own efforts in forums that he better controls.
<br>
<br>Alas, such legacy is unfortunately missing, and we must take Mr. Bryon's boasting at face value.
<br>
<br>Mr. Byron then demands: "how bout you explain HOW I am ..'duped'?"
<br>
<br>Gladly. And as coincidence would have it, exactly 8 years ago today, I wrote about issues that I had with Dr. Steven Jones' work.
</p>
<blockquote><p>+++ begin quote (2012-03-02)
<br>
<br>The scientific critique of Dr. Jones' science has been provided several times. I'll repeat it most briefly both for new readers and scientific-wannabe's-but-aren't like yourself [referring to Mr. Whitten aka Mr. Rogue].
<br>
<br>Dr. Jones wrote a paper based on blindly-accepted measurements of radiation at ground zero from govt sources and performs with it scientific slight of hand: (unvetted) radiation measurements did not match the radiation signature of three known nuclear weapon types, therefore he leaps to his conclusions that no nuclear weapons were used. Does he speculate about other nuclear sources and unknown nuclear weapons that could account for the (unvetted) radiation measurements? Nope. He lamented frequently about issues with other govt reports (e.g., timeliness, voracity), yet has no issue swallowing the one on radiation measurement?!
<br>
<br>So that a vacuum isn't left in taking nukes off the table, Dr. Jones gets credit for discovering nano-thermite in the dust which can indeed burn very hot and without air, drawing its oxygen to burn from the chemical reaction.
<br>
<br>The problem here is that neither Dr. Jones, nor Mr. Ryan, nor Mr. Cole, nor you [Mr. Whitten] bothered with "boojie woojie high school chemistry" to run numbers on nano-thermite's (or other incendiaries') burn-rate to estimate quantities required to account for the duration of hot-spots... because this suggests massive, totally unrealistic quantities. And when the science-challenge yeomen of 9/11 Truth run with it to explain features in the destruction that "boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves it cannot, he doesn't correct the record.
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/03/scientific-critique-of-dr-jones-science.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/03/scientific-critique-of-dr-jones-science.html</a>
<br>
<br>+++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>So, Mr. Byron, you were blinded by Dr. Jones' PhD and accepted unquestioned and unchallenged Dr. Jones' "nuke rebudiation" amd nano-thermite. There again, despite NT's glaring holes and its inability to account for anomalous evidence in NIST videos, you've been duped by Dr. Jones' NT.
<br>
<br>Eleven hours ago, Mr. Byron took offense that I mentioned <i>"guess we just proved that you are a bot"</i> in reference to his repeated comments that try to debunk early OCT efforts. He replied: <i>"really max?.......see ya!!!"</i>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 88 -->
<!-- ***** 20200224_MCB_FB_verified_01 -->
<!-- ***** 20200302_MCB_FB_verified_02.htm -->
<a name="x89"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x89" class="tiny">x90</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">fire and GRAVITY!</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/706069319930650/?comment_id=707065059831076&reply_comment_id=708320906372158">2020-03-02</a></p>
<div id="sect_90" style="display: block;">
<p>tbd</p>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Bob Byron max....wtf is YOUR problem?????
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Bob Byron Maxwell Bridges Gladly. And as coincidence would have it, exactly 8 years ago today, I wrote about issues that I had with Dr. Steven Jones' work."
<br>
<br>ROIFLMAO!!!
<br>
<br>WHO the 'F' is discussing Jones, NOT me....so why do YOU bring him in??????
<br>
<br>oh, as some object to use against me, [shakes head]???????
<br>
<br>maxie.....THAT has NOTHING to do with demanding the FIRST ASSERTIONS be proven!!
<br>
<br>which is what I discuss....
<br>
<br>fire and GRAVITY!
<br>
<br>you know, the DICTUM of all Law, SCIENCE and proper DEBATE...
<br>
<br>those whom assert MUST PROVE.
<br>
<br>why don't you tell me why the AMAZING NIST LEADERS refuse to support their own bullsh*t?
<br>
<br>and why don;t you tell me why you atack me using BULLSH*T I don;t even discuss?
<br>
<br>...since you seem to NOT mention them in all that bullsh*t you wrote above.....but that is all I discuss..
<br>
<br>I following dictum.....you are being a 'dick'.
<br>
<br>now, seems you have an issue with me...and are basically using NOTHING I provide against me...to show me in the light you suggest.
<br>
<br>... you sound like now, a pathetic lying DUHbunktard.
<br>
<br>same method of operation...
<br>
<br>attacking my PERSON and not show one one thing I provide as incorrect.
<br>
<br>.
<br>
<br>":So, Mr. Byron, you were blinded by Dr. Jones' "
<br>
<br>?????WHERE do I MENTION JONES?????????????
<br>
<br>no where.....YOU DO!!!!
<br>
<br>and you do so to purposely attack me.
<br>
<br>using something I DO NOT DISCUSS!
<br>
<br>???????..I NEVER MENTION JONES!!!....I do not have to.
<br>
<br>??so maxie....is that the ONLY way you can formulate an attack against me?....to LIE and insinuate something that has no truth to it...
<br>
<br>Stanley.....I have no problem with this person of 'slight' character in being here....
<br>
<br>but if he is going to OUTRIGHT lie and use those LIES and bogus information to personally attack me, then I am going to remove him from this group.
<br>
<br>you can add him back....
<br>
<br>and as soon as he mouths off I will remove him till somehow this cycle ends.
<br>
<br>I'm not taking crap from anyone.
<br>
<br>it also does major damage to this groups credibility......
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Bob Byron Maxwell Bridges "":So, Mr. Byron, you were blinded by Dr. Jones' ""
<br>
<br>no maxie the 'story-teller', I'm following the DICTUM required when those who assert within the context of SCIENCE!!!!
<br>
<br>rulesonline.com
<br>
<br>you are welcome to provide 'different' rules for procedure....but this is what all Law, Science and proper Debate use.
<br>
<br>He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
<br>
<br><a href="http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm">http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm</a>
<br>
<br>so why are YOU against demanding..'truth'?
<br>
<br>now, the NIST LEADERS are the ones claiming that the fires present on 9-11, are what makes gravity pretend to be an EXPLOSIVE FORCE ....
<br>
<br>by ?somehow? deliberately mimicking all the visual and physical attributes of an EXPLOSION!
<br>
<br>gee maxie, ....how do you think fire and GRAVITY did this, as the OFFICIAL STORY claims?????
<br>
<br>do you think for and gravity did this, X3?
<br>
<br>yes or no question...
<br>
<br>well the Gov. scientists say 'YES".....guess the next thing is to get them to PROVE it..
<br>
<br>that was how it was done BEFORE 9-11...but for SOME REASON, you are against doing so FOR 9-11.
<br>
<br>so why would one (YOU), parade around pretending there is NO point to someone demanding..."PROVE IT"!!!
<br>
<br>as the structural community has been doing since 2005.
<br>
<br>Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
<br>
<br>maxie, do YOU think this is an act from the fires present and GRAVITY?
<br>
<br>yes or no question...
<br>
<br>if yes, then you support the official story!
<br>
<br>if "no", then the next step is to CHALLENGE THE OFFICIAL STORY and demand they prove it.
<br>
<br>not to IGNORE their LIES, PRETENDING they are true, to move onto your 'select' agenda.
<br>
<br>so why do you think there is NOT ONE single ASCE paper in support of the NIST LEADERS and Bazants collapse theory?
<br>
<br>all these years and NOT ONE PEER in support of the pushed agenda?
<br>
<br>now why would someone in a group called "9-11 VERIFIED TRUTH' want to purposely trample on these bits of FACT I provide?????
<br>
<br>and then pretend they are so much better than the average person....????????
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 90 -->
<a name="x91"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x91" class="tiny">x92</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">agreement about the 9/11 failures of NIST and various other agencies</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_92" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron, Touche on the game playing! I bow at the feet of your expertise. Such a <i>"Michael Jackson gymnast of 9/11 concepts,"</i> appearing to go forwards when really moving backwards.
<br>
<br>You and I are in agreement about the 9/11 failures of NIST and various other agencies in giving the public the complete 9/11 picture. But you act as if we aren't.
<br>
<br>Nature abhors a vacuum. So after you have given your 9/11 middle school lesson about official lies on airplane impacts, jet fuel and office furnishing fires, and pulverization and ejection of content at near gravitational acceleration through paths of greatest resistance, what do you explain it with?
<br>
<br>I came into 9/11 Truth from a physics angle, and certainly most 9/11 Truthers agree that "energy had to be added" in order to achieve those anomalous outcomes. To be sure, pulverization and ejection of content are massive energy sinks.
<br>
<br>You wrote in one of your three comments in a row: "WHO the 'F' is discussing Jones, NOT me....so why do YOU bring him in??????"
<br>
<br>My assumption about your 9/11 views was that you, like most in AE9/11Truth and the 9/11 Truth Movement, champion nano-thermite. If so, the name "Dr. Steven Jones" is very relevant and fundamental to your views. And if so, you leave yourself open to a whole litany of abuse for your spinning around discussions that expose Jonesian lies and that of AE9/11Truth.
<br>
<br>Based on your comment, quite possibly my assumption of your NT views is wrong. In which case I apologize, but poke at the "nature abhorring a vacuum" hole in your debate: with what do you explain the anomalies in the destruction? It is okay for your initial scientific guesses to be wrong, because our discussion will prove what is wrong, whittle away dross, and get at the truth.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "gee maxie, ....how do you think fire and GRAVITY did this, as the OFFICIAL STORY claims????? maxie.....THAT has NOTHING to do with demanding the FIRST ASSERTIONS be proven!! which is what I discuss.... fire and GRAVITY! you know, the DICTUM of all Law, SCIENCE and proper DEBATE... those whom assert MUST PROVE."
<br>
<br>My response to this confusion from you is your first comment re-loaded and fired back: "[Mr. Byron]....wtf is YOUR problem?????" Talk about speaking right passed each other!
<br>
<br>From my perspective, it is as if your bot algorithms can't handle depth and detail. They certainly aren't capable of reading outside material, digesting various points, and synthesizing a changed view influenced by this information. Their default is to assume opponent is "a coincidence theorist" and OCTer, and starts cranking a spin on the old carousel called "Fire and Gravity."
<br>
<br>Rule 2. "Each team has two or three constructive speeches, and two to three rebuttal speeches. The affirmative gives the first constructive speech, and the rebuttals alternate: negative, affirmative, negative, affirmative. The affirmative has both the first and last speeches of the debate."
<br>
<br>http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
<br>
<br>The links to two of my FGNW articles can be considered my constructive speeches affirmative for FGNW. [Sad that they have been linked into our conversations more than once already, and it can be proven you haven't read them yet.]
<br>
<br>According to your own rules, you were supposed to provide a rebuttal. Reading and understanding your debate opponent's position is fundamental to the debate process. Bot-fail.
<br>
<br>Funny how your algorithms thrash mostly because your database hasn't accumulated any "negative FGNW", so you whip out the capital letters with such logical gems as: "maxie, do YOU think this is an act from the fires present and GRAVITY? yes or no question... if yes, then you support the official story! if "no", then the next step is to CHALLENGE THE OFFICIAL STORY and demand they prove it."
<br>
<br>["Agree with thy advisary quickly whilst though art in the way with him."~Jesus]
<br>
<br>You are correct that from YOUR position behind me on the 9/11 Truth spectrum, YOUR next steps are to "CHALLENGE THE OFFICIAL STORY and demand they prove it." Have fun with that.
<br>
<br>Don't go assigning me YOUR busy work. Been there (challenging the official story). Done that. My blog and website go back 16 years, re-purposed efforts from many different debate forums. I got legacy. [You? Not so much.]
<br>
<br>As I had pompously and arrogantly brought to your attention early in our exchanges, I am a few steps, "a few lessons, a few levels, a few layers, a few laps ahead of you in discovering Truth in 9/11 with nuclear components..."
<br>
<br>Yeah, I'm not quite reading off of you vibes of sincerity (or coherence.)
<br>
<br>Because if you were, say, sincere in your seeking 9/11 truth, you would have demonstrated objectivity and an open-mind by exploring my 9/11 FGNW premises. Doesn't mean they have to initially convince you, but you'd find nuggets of truth and maybe nuggets of contention that would have fed the next round of discussion (not just here, but back when we first crossed FB paths.) At the very least, you'd recognize that the very existence and promotion of my FGNW premise "challenges the official story." That you don't recognize this is just another gap in your AI algorithms.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 92 -->
<a name="x93"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x93" class="tiny">x94</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">NIST LEADERS are liars</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_94" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Bob Byron Maxwell "But you act as if we aren't."
<br>not at all.....but you sure seem to
<br>."?debate"?
<br>...for one, we are not debating anything.
<br>you basically attacked my person.....not anything i provided.....that is what set me off!
<br>EVERYTHING I provide is sourced......every single item I discuss is sourced to taught science, the scientific FINDINGS of the NIST investigation, and the LIES of the NIST LEADERS, ignoring their own investigation to go elsewhere in order to support the BUSH agenda to invade other countries BASED on this.fire/GRAVITY event....(that did not take place!)
<br>....can ya see where i'm going with this?.
<br>I still have no clue what your problem is....
<br>what I see here in this group is ..
<br>I provide the facts showing the NIST LEADERS the liars they are.....
<br>and after EASILY showing the NIST LEADERS the liars they are.....you provide the alternate that could do what is seen by all occurring ONLY on that day...because the facts show it was NOT fire and gravity.
<br>....can ya see where I'm going with this???????
<br>.
<br>"I came into 9/11 Truth from a physics angle, and certainly most 9/11 Truthers agree that "energy had to be added" "
<br>abso-fukin-lutely!....and with the THOUSANDS of different combinations as to what it 'could be', fire and gravity is NOT one of them, and that is the OS.
<br>.
<br>"According to your own rules, you were supposed to provide a rebuttal. "
<br>to what?
<br>one, they are not "my" rules"...they are parliamentary rules FOR ALL!
<br>so again.....I'm not debating you...?????
<br>and as I said prior, I DID look into the Nuke idea LONG ago with that European guy who FIRST brought it to the truth movement.....way before you were around...
<br>but again, it does not matter what we THINK the alternative is, THEY MUST PROVE AND SUPPORT fire and gravity..
<br>end of discussion.
<br>and if they are forced, you KNOW they can't.
<br>and when it's PROVE they can't and the WORLD sees they can't.....what is THAT going to do to that sitting Admin. that USED THE LIES as a means to invade other Countries?
<br>I know some die-hard Americans who will be VERY PISSED!
<br>but again, for SOME reason you seem to be against and do not want that necessary event to take place...
<br>?why?
<br>oh.....and your reply could NOT be more 'off-topic'....
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Bob Byron Maxwell Bridges At the very least, you'd recognize that the very existence and promotion of my FGNW premise "challenges the official story."
<br>no, demanding the AUTHORS of the official story to support and prove the official story, CHALLENGES THE OFFICIAL STORY!
<br>it's called PEER REVIEW!
<br>and they are support to validate, verify someones scientific 'hypothesis'...
<br>...there are NONE in support of the OS....NOT ONE DAMN THING from ASCE?......and that causes you no concern?..so you ignore to push your 'agenda'..
<br>and Max.....you provide an alternative that YOU did not think of yourself.
<br>you are riding the coat tails of someone else who did all the research before you....and if I could remember his name, I would tell you.
<br>but I am sure you know who he is....
<br>.
<br>Because if you were, say, sincere in your seeking 9/11 truth, you would have demonstrated objectivity and an open-mind by exploring my 9/11 FGNW premises.
<br>already did that and the scale weighs in favor of what I do now.
<br>for no one cares about what you provide UNTIL they have a reason to listen to what you provide...
<br>and the reason would be in thinking this is a normal reaction to 'resistance' from 'gravity alone'.....and 'easily' showing them wrong'.
</p>
</div><!-- section 94 -->
<a name="x95"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x95" class="tiny">x96</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">if those authors were sincere...</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_96" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron, you wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"demanding the AUTHORS of the official story to support and prove the official story, CHALLENGES THE OFFICIAL STORY!"</p></blockquote>
<p>Maybe if those authors were sincere -- which is an unspoken requirement of your debate rules --, it wouldn't already be 18 years after the fact with neither viable OCT explanation nor defense.
<br>
<br>All of your sophomoric antics play right into the hands of disinformation, because you let the OCT authors frame the discussion. Worse, you're asking the equivalent of "the police should investigate themselves", or "Trump's appointed judges should rule on his misdeeds." Like I said, this is going backwards and not forwards. "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon.
<br>
<br>Here is a munged together quote from you: "and as I said prior, I DID look into the Nuke idea LONG ago with that European guy who FIRST brought it to the truth movement.....way before you were around... and Max.....you provide an alternative that YOU did not think of yourself. you are riding the coat tails of someone else who did all the research before you....and if I could remember his name, I would tell you."
<br>
<br>The nuke idea that you looked into "LONG ago" is not my FGNW premise. FAIL! Damn, Mr. Byron, yet another indication that you still haven't read my FGNW premise.
<br>
<br>I collected nuggets of truth from many sources. Whereas I claim neither ownership of the nuggets nor bragging rights for being the first to promote them, I am -- as far as I know -- the first to pull them together into a cohesive and comprehensive premise [that you still haven't read.]
<br>
<br>If you are going to claim that I am "riding the coat tails of someone else who did all the research" before me, then the onus is on you to defend the assertion. As you wrote: "those whom assert MUST PROVE." Otherwise, your plagarism claim is a lie that will get stuck to your forehead like a Dole banana sticker.
<br>
<br>I had written: "Because if you were, say, sincere in your seeking 9/11 truth, you would have demonstrated objectivity and an open-mind by exploring my 9/11 FGNW premises."
<br>
<br>You replied: "already did that and the scale weighs in favor of what I do now."
<br>
<br>Won't be giving me any pleasure to plaster over your face with those fruit stickers as rewards for your lies.
<br>
<br>Where did the following quote 1 come from? [The embedded quote 2 already has attribution.]
<br>
<br>+++ Begin quote 1
<br>
<br>The official fabel about the World Trade Center (WTC) towers' destruction on 9/11 claims (1) that the building stories above the impact levels became massive pile drivers that acted solely under the forces of gravity to pulverize the underlying structures to the ground and (2) that no extra energy was added from unknown sources.
<br>
<br>However, many videos of the destruction of the WTC towers expose anomalies in the form of (1) destruction at free-fall speeds, (2) content pulverization, and (3) content ejection that defy physics, unless energy was added from other sources.
<br>
<br>Assuming the damage and fires from the impacting planes could have initiated the collapses of the towers (for which they were designed), the structure underneath the falling upper stories would have and should have resisted & slowed the destruction wave, if the collapse wasn't arrest completely well above ground level.
<br>
<br>The pulverization of content and the ejection of content are energy sinks that take away from the kinetic energy of a "pile driver" and logically would have further slowed the destruction from free-fall speeds. Moreover, as observed in many videos and discussed by physics teacher David Chandler, the "pile driver" of upper stories accordianed in on themselves and weren't a cohesive mass anymore by the time the wave of destruction progressed below the levels where the airplanes impacted.
<br>
<br>From "BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7":
<br>
<br>+++ Begin quote 2
<br>A number of papers ... have measured the fall of WTC 1’s upper section and have observed that it never slowed down in the four seconds before it disappeared from view. Rather, its acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall, and there was never an observable deceleration, which would be required if the upper section had impacted and crushed the lower structure. A lack of deceleration would indicate with absolute certainty that the lower structure was destroyed by another force before the upper section reached it. ... One of the most noticeable features of the two buildings’ destruction was the near-total pulverization of... approximately 8.8 million square feet of 5.5-inch-thick lightweight concrete flooring. ... [T]he buildings’ steel structures were almost entirely dismembered... [V]irtually all of their steel skeletons were broken up into small pieces, with the core structures separated into individual members and the exterior columns broken up into three-story, prefabricated sections. ... As the concrete was being pulverized and the structures were being dismembered, a large percentage of the buildings’ materials was ejected upwards and laterally in an arclike manner far beyond the perimeters of the buildings... as far as 400 to 500 feet from each tower’s base.
<br>+++ End quote 2
<br>
<br>Thus, the official government & media version of 9/11 events pertaining to the WTC cannot be true.
<br>
<br>+++ End quote 1
<br>
<br>Mr. Byron, where did quote 1 come from (URL, section number & title)? Who wrote it?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 96 -->
<a name="x97"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x97" class="tiny">x98</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">riding the coat tails of Khalezov and Dr. Ward</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_98" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell "If you are going to claim that I am "riding the coat tails of someone else who did all the research" before me, then the onus is on you to defend the assertion."
<br>
<br>Dimitri A. Khalezov....Ed Ward, MD....among others....
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.serendipity.li/wot/ed_ward/use_of_abombs.htm">http://www.serendipity.li/wot/ed_ward/use_of_abombs.htm</a>
<br>
<br>now please knock off this 'pissing-contest' you insist on playing here...I have no time for it.
<br>you do what you do, and I will continue to do what I do.
</p>
</div><!-- section 98 -->
<a name="x99"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x99" class="tiny">x100</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">Coat tails of Dr. Andre Gsponer?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_100" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron, Your reply does not prove your assertion that I am <i>"riding the coat tails of someone else who did all the research"</i> before me. All it proves is that YOU have reading comprehension problems, YOU have NO ability to do research, and YOU can't count.
<br>
<br>With regards to the latter, you wrote <i>"someone else ... did all the research"</i> and then you list two names (Dimitri Khalezov and Ed Ward). Two "someone's" is not equal to one someone, which is your premise. FAIL right out of the gate.
<br>
<br>Because I'm a fair and generous fellow, I'll allow you to list more than one "someone's", but your half-assed efforts [your trend line] don't explain specifics of the research that I allegedly stole. Quotes side-by-side from their work and mine is requisite and missing from you proof.
<br>
<br>The dubious smear tactic you're trying to deploy is that Khalezov's and Ward's premises are 100% mine. Their premises are not; they both champion singular-per-tower deep under-ground nukes. Thus, you FAILED to comprehend that which you FAILED to read, which isn't just my work but theirs.
<br>
<br>[For the record, the only potential remaining nuggets from Khalezov that might have value, are that NYC made an additional requirement for building permits on skycrapers that the plans also include end-of-life demolition plans, and that allegedly the builders of WTC proposed nuclear devices. With regards to Dr. Ward, I went into his source material (government reports on dust and tritium) and validated Ward's value-add math that proves Dr. Jones mischaracterizing the measured quantities.]
<br>
<br>Funny that you didn't name-drop Dr. Andre Gsponer. Major FAIL. So your FAILURES in research & debate are stacking up on each other and on your reputation.
<br>
<br>For the sake of discussion and again because I am so magnanimous, fair, generous, pompous, and arrogant, let's continue with your assertion that others did research that now has worked its way into my premise. SO THE FUCK WHAT?!!
<br>
<br>When I incorporated aspects of the work of others, (a) I quoted them, (b) I gave attribution to the quote or concept, and (c) I have links [that were valid at the time my work was being written.]
<br>
<br>Seems to me, this is what scholarly work does. It builds on the research of others. [More FAIL points in your skew that tries to frame this as a bad thing.]
<br>
<br>Again because you didn't read my works, you don't know that I also used the work of USGS, RJ Lee Group, Paul Lioy et al, NIST, AE9/11Truth, David Chandler, Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, Heinz Pommer, the Anonomous Physicist, Jeff Prager, Dr. Ward, Dr. Gsponer, etc. The list is long. Were you to look really closely, you'd even find a link to my raw research compiled from my local institution of higher education during several months of unemployment 2014-2015.
<br>
<br>I liberally rescued nuggets of truth from all over as the foundation for my premise -- with proper quotations, correct attributions, and links.
<br>
<br>Can your lame efforts boast this? Not so much.
<br>
<br>In fact, a bigger problem of your 9/11 truth promotional efforts is that you accept at face value -- unquestioned and unchallenged -- the works and conclusions of others [even if you are too damn lazy to provide quotations and proper attribution.]
<br>
<br>In conclusion, your inability to prove your assertion in your distracting carousel spins dings your objectivity, your reputation, and your sincerity in the 9/11 Truth realm. Kudos.
<br>
<br>P.S. And you also FAILED the simple challenge of explaining where a certain quote came from and who wrote it. A typical bot-ism.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 100 -->
<!-- ***** 20200302_MCB_FB_verified_02.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_3 -->
<a name="p4"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_4');">Part 4: FGNW Discussions with Peter Mitch, Josh Froze, Seven Goboom, Victor Clemente, Corey Aldridge, Wayne Coste</a></h2>
<div id="part_4" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200721_MCB_FB_froze_01.htm -->
<a name="x101"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x101" class="tiny">x102</a>
Peter Mitch : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">a civil engineer?</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/721817331952584/?post_id=723983821735935&comment_id=724060118394972&reply_comment_id=726018268199157¬if_id=1595382773836846¬if_t=group_comment_mention&ref=notif">2020-07-18</a></p>
<div id="sect_102" style="display: block;">
<p>Is anyone here qualified as a civil engineer?
</p>
</div><!-- section 102 -->
<a name="x103"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x103" class="tiny">x104</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">qualified professional civil and structural engineers will tell you the buildings were blown up with explosives in controlled demolitions</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_104" style="display: block;">
<p>So the answer is yes. Yes there are many qualified professional civil and structural engineers that will tell you the buildings were most definitely, scientifically and obviously blown up with explosives in controlled demolitions.
</p>
</div><!-- section 104 -->
<a name="x105"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x105" class="tiny">x106</a>
Seven Goboom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">staying strong for 9/11 justice</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_106" style="display: block;">
<p>Thank you for staying strong for 9/11 justice. God bless you and yours.
</p>
</div><!-- section 106 -->
<a name="x107"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x107" class="tiny">x108</a>
Victor Clemente : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">Sad truth</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_108" style="display: block;">
<p>Sad truth
</p>
</div><!-- section 108 -->
<a name="x109"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x109" class="tiny">x110</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">"explosives" trips you up, because it malframes the observable evidence</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_110" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze, The word <i>"explosives"</i> trips you up, because it malframes the observable evidence. Controlled demolition? Yes. Explosives? Not the primary mechanism of destruction.
<br>
<br>Fourth generation nuclear weapons were.
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 110 -->
<a name="x111"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x111" class="tiny">x112</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');"><i>"God damn it, Maxwell! We've had this discussion before!"</i></a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_112" style="display: block;">
<p>At this point, allow me demostrate my ESP abilities by writing what you're thinking, Mr. Josh Froze, <i>"God damn it, Maxwell! We've had this discussion before!"</i>
<br>
<br>Indeed we have, and you didn't fair very well. Too much cognitive dissonance.
<br>
<br>Part 8: FB Froze & Porter FGNW
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/attempts-at-rational-911-discussion.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/attempts-at-rational-911-discussion.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>Attempts at Rational 9/11 Discussion
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 112 -->
<a name="x113"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x113" class="tiny">x114</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">debunked 4th generation nukes many many times before</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_114" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges, yes we have debunked 4th generation nukes many many times before.
</p>
</div><!-- section 114 -->
<a name="x115"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x115" class="tiny">x116</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">Cough up the links</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_116" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze, you make the lame claim that <i>"we have debunked 4th generation nukes many times before,"</i> YOU PROVE IT.
<br>
<br>Cough up the links. And make sure it addresses eventually in some form or another all of the sections in my 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case.
<br>
<br>By the way, who is "we"? Certainly not you.
<br>
<br>*snap of the fingers*
<br>
<br>You are now awoke from your hypnotic suggestion.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 116 -->
<a name="x117"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x117" class="tiny">x118</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">prove they even exist!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_118" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>you prove they even exist!
</p>
</div><!-- section 118 -->
<a name="x119"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x119" class="tiny">x120</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">Would a peer-reviewed article in a reputable science publication suffice?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_120" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze, Sure thing. Would a peer-reviewed article in a reputable science publication suffice? Great! Here you go.
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>Dr. Andre Gsponer was writing about FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11. The above article was published in 2005.
<br>
<br>That date is important, because its publication was before Dr. Steven Jones's lame "reputiation" (2007) and Dr. Wood's book (2010). Proves that these PhD's of 9/11 did a shitty job of researching nukes.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, let the record show that your efforts to PROVE that you (with the help of others to form a "we") "debunked 4th generation nukes many many times before" has fallen way short of success. Of those many times, certainly a single URL would persist that could handily substantiate your claim and you could easily paste it into this discussion and negate any hint that you are a poser and liar.
<br>
<br>You are all hat and no cattle.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 120 -->
<a name="x121"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x121" class="tiny">x122</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">discussing the elaboration and characteristics of a forthcoming generation of war-fighting nuclear weapons</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_122" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>
<br>read your own papers!
</p>
<br><blockquote><p>"Sixty years after the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, this paper is discussing the elaboration and characteristics of a forthcoming generation of war-fighting nuclear weapons which has been under serious consideration for more than fifty years, and which may become a reality within a decade or two.</p></blockquote>
<p>Where do they say they exist?
<br>
<br>Image may contain: text
</p>
</div><!-- section 122 -->
<a name="x123"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x123" class="tiny">x124</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">you've been a weasel for quite some time</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_124" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze, you are being quite the weasel. You wrote: <i>"we have debunked 4th generation nukes many times before."</i> Yet you have failed to provide even one link to your previous efforts.
<br>
<br>I only need to point to this FB thread to demonstrate that you've been a weasel for quite some time.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/1667176720210176">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/1667176720210176</a>
<br>
<br>Congratulations!
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, I wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>++++
<br>
<br>Many decades ago, various world governments led by the USA took the position to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available, because publishing such could "enable those with bad intentions." Although most nuclear research does not get a public viewing, some of it does, particularly if it is only offering an overview, speculation, and omissions of operational details that would help "arm the enemy terrorist with weapons of mass destruction."
<br>
<br>The public work of Dr. Andre Gsponer met those nuclear publication requirements. Noteworthy is also (A) nothing has been published over many decades to contradict, discredit, or debunk Dr. Gsponer's "speculation" into where nuclear research was headed; (B) Dr. Gsponer continually improved his work over many editions [even prior to 2001], indicating assistance from those in the nuclear field.
<br>
<br>Those who have professions involving nuclear science (or weapons) in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties [involving charges of treason], or they are left out of all of the interesting research. Besides treason charges, many other penalties involving employment or health & well-being of the individual or family members can be leveraged to keep silent the well educated in science.
<br>
<br>//
</p></blockquote>
</div><!-- section 124 -->
<a name="x125"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x125" class="tiny">x126</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">have fun with your theoretical nukes!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_126" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>have fun with your theoretical nukes! You can’t even show they exist little alone provide evidence they were used on 9/11! Where’s your head?
</p>
</div><!-- section 126 -->
<a name="x127"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x127" class="tiny">x128</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">you made a bold claim that you have not lifted a finger to prove.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_128" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze, the record of this thread clearly shows you making a bold claim that you have not lifted a finger to prove. It was a simple task at that: give us the URLs where you and your posse debunked legitimately the use of FGNW on 9/11.
<br>
<br>No link? No go.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, I have a peer-reviewed article in a reputable science journal and 15 years of publications before its publication that tell a different FGNW story than the hypnotic suggestion that you offer.
<br>
<br>If you are genuine and sincere, you'd have the ability to change your mind and at least move onto the fence about the topic. Nope. You act the agent. A lame-ass one at that.
<br>
<br>You can run along, now. You have nothing valuable to contribute and only implode your character and reputation with every comment.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 128 -->
<a name="x129"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x129" class="tiny">x130</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_130');">I have debunked “mini nukes” 1000 times and don’t save links</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_130" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>you’ve given me nothing to debunk. You’ve given me a theoretical 4th generation nuke in which nowhere I can find exists! So if you don’t have a 4th generation example we can learn from where the hell do you find evidence of them on 9/11?
<br>
<br>I have debunked “mini nukes” 1000 times (sorry I don’t save links to every time a mini nuker pops his head up) I have kept some notes on my old account, first of all there was no measure of radiation, second there is nothing “mini” about the explosion of a “mini nuke”, now in the case of a 4th generation nuke it claims it could explode in the 1 tnt equivalent which is a lot smaller than any mini nuke so that’s a start, and it claims it would give “less” radiation, how much radiation? Is there a 4th generation nuke we can measure the radiation? Well where are you getting you test info from a 4th generation nuke which as far as anyone can find, doesn’t exist?
<br>
<br>So why don’t you tell me in your own words what makes you yourself think 4th generation nukes were used?
<br>
<br>I have not entertained 9/11 “debates” for over 2 years now! As you know I was admin of the largest 9/11 Truth Movement group on Facebook for years and I ate sh*t and breathed 9/11 all day every day for 10 years! I don’t have the patience anymore for debunking the same thing every day, day in, day out, day after day, over and over and over and over and over, the same dam thing every single day of my life anymore! I got better things to do after 10 years of it every day!!
</p>
</div><!-- section 130 -->
<a name="x131"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x131" class="tiny">x132</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">can’t be a decent admin</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_132" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I can’t be a decent admin anymore because I simply don’t have the patience for it anymore. I respect those who still can do it. I however have too short of fuse, I guess that’s what being obsessed with something everyday for 10 years does to a person...
</p>
</div><!-- section 132 -->
<a name="x133"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x133" class="tiny">x134</a>
Corey Aldridge : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">Ground Zero</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_134" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/tibor_arany56/ground-zero-the-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-centre">https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/tibor_arany56/ground-zero-the-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-centre</a>
<br>Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre
<br>SLIDESHARE.NET
</p>
</div><!-- section 134 -->
<a name="x135"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x135" class="tiny">x136</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">look up the smallest nuclear explosion possible</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_136" style="display: block;">
<p>Corey Aldridge
<br>go look up the smallest nuclear explosion possible and then show me on 9/11 anywhere near an explosion like that!!! And learn what radiation is and how it’s measured and ask yourself how a nuclear bomb goes off and leaves no higher levels of radiation measured on Geiger counter.
<br>Then please stop with the nuclear nonsense!
</p>
</div><!-- section 136 -->
<a name="x137"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x137" class="tiny">x138</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');">the wisdom of saving your work</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_138" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>
<br>so in other words, you admit to being a liar and a fraud.
<br>
<br>Lie #1: <i>"you’ve given me nothing to debunk."</i>
<br>
<br>*Cough.* Dr. Andre Gsponer. Tell me which of the late 3rd generation nuclear devices or early 4th generation devices described in his PEER-REVIEWED paper in a REPUTABLE science publication could be applied to the observed WTC destruction.
<br>
<br>Lie #2: <i>"I have debunked “mini nukes” 1000 times"</i>
<br>
<br>Not just a liar, but an idiot. After you allegedly debunked mini-nukes the second time, you would have observed the wisdom of saving your work off-line as well as occasionally the links where you posted your glorious endeavors. Such would have made very light work of the other 998 times: post a goto link or copy-and-paste your stellar passages.
<br>
<br>This thread has links posted to FB discussions from 2016 and to where I re-published them in a more consolidated fashion. You were just as much a weasel then as you are now. I'd be willing to wager that you STILL have not read my article, nor that of Dr. Andre Gsponer.
<br>
<br>BTW, FGNW is not the same thing as mini-nukes. So, trying to get those alleged 1000 mini-nuke debunkings to apply to FGNW automatically makes your claims here suspect as that of agent troll.
<br>
<br>Kind of like AE9/11Truth trying with FAQ #13 / FAQ #15 to debunk <i>"a nuclear blast"</i> on 9/11. Guess what? I agree that 9/11 did not use <i>"a nuclear blast"</i> as the primary destructive element. When you frame the nukes wrong or their outcome wrong, your conclusions are also wrong and hint to infiltration. [Highly energetic neutrons released in a targeted fashion upwards from many devices and representing 80% of the nuclear yield from already tactical yield devices would cause different effects than the "blast wave".
<br>
<br>Here's a great quote from you:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"So why don’t you tell me in your own words what makes you yourself think 4th generation nukes were used?"</p></blockquote>
<p>Owing to you having lost patience after "only" 10 years of 9/11 debates (my website is 50% older than that), you becoming deserving of being called "a fucking idiot." How so?
<br>
<br>My fucking blog posting, which you have yet to read, already tells you IN MY OWN WORDS what make me think FGNW did the 9/11 trick.
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>I did my homework and have turned it in for review. You? All you have is your lame claim that you supposedly did your homework 1000 times and have absolutely squat to show for it.
<br>
<br>//
<br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 138 -->
<a name="x139"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x139" class="tiny">x140</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_140');">me read through 100 pages of crap?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_140" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>So you don’t want to just say what makes you think 4th gen nukes were used?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>You want me to read through 100 pages of crap? Just tell me what stands out to you that you think 4th gen nukes were used? It shouldn’t be that hard.
</p>
</div><!-- section 140 -->
<a name="x141"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x141" class="tiny">x142</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_142');">you forfeit the right to call it "crap" if your responses here prove that you never read it</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_142" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>
<br>only if you used big fonts would the 19 sections amount to 100 printed pages. Demonstrates yet again your monumental unfamiliarity with the work in question.
<br>
<br>But yes -- however many printed pages it actually is -- I expect you to read it all.
<br>
<br>But the very fact that the sections expand/collapse makes it much easier for you to skip around.
<br>
<br>By the way, you forfeit the right to call it "crap" if your responses here prove that you never read it.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, owing to your reading laziness, you try to shift the onus on me to "Just tell me what stands out to you that you think 4th gen nukes were used?"
<br>
<br>Allow me to call your attention to Section 2. "What is special about FGNW?" Pity that your own reading didn't get you that far.
<br>
<br>Thus it is proven, that you were assigning me busy work that you had no intention of reading. You are not sincere and are not debating in good faith.
<br>
<br>... In other words, you haven't changed since our 2016 encounters. What a douche!
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 142 -->
<a name="x143"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x143" class="tiny">x144</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_144');">Even 1 ton TNT is far above and beyond anything we see at the Towers</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_144" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>part 2 did not answer my question. First of all assuming there is a fantasy land of yours where these 4th gen nukes exist (only in your world) what I’m asking is what phenomenon on 9/11 makes you think it was a nuke that can’t be explained by a chemical explosion and/or nanothermate propellant?
<br>We both know the Towers didn’t fall from gravity, that part I’m sure we can agree on, and you seem to not give any credence to Judy Wood’s direct energy weapon nonsense, so what exactly is it that you don’t understand about the collapse to have to figure it has to be some sort of nuclear weapon?
</p>
<p><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>What characteristic of this hypothetical 4th gen nuke is there you are observing to justify it?
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>Can you show me and point and say see here, this must have been done by a nuke?
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>This 4th gen nuke I’m assuming leaves no radiation trace as well? Because I do know and have saved a record of a guy that was reading a radiation device before during and after the collapse and trust me if there was radiation it would show up on that, I know because I used to work with radiation with a very similar device.
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Even 1 ton TNT is far above and beyond anything we see at the Towers. The explosions at the Towers are equivalent to high convention chemical explosions in the 1-2 R.E range! (1-2 kg of TNT!)
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>So your nuke doesn’t leave any radiation and the explosion is in the 1-2 R.E range the exact same as conventional chemical explosives but it has to be a “4th generation nuke” WHY?
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>I can say they used nanothermate because I can point and say look here see, this is the nanothermate they actually found and tested and analyzed, and here is the melted steel beams and the white smoke and the molten iron spheres in the dust etc etc etc
<br>What are you pointing at that says look here see this is evidence of a theoretical 4th gen nuke?
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>what alleged 4th gen Nuclear explosion are you comparing to? Because l can’t find any 4th gen nukes to draw analysts from because last time I checked they don’t exist!
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>You want me to save this link so I can have proof of debunking you once? If I saved every link I debunked somebody’s nuclear theories on 9/11 I’d run out of cloud space!! Lol
</p>
</div><!-- section 144 -->
<a name="x145"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x145" class="tiny">x146</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_146');">the whiff of busy work, but I'll bite anyway</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_146" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze, here is part 1 of 3 to answer your many spamming inquiries, which have the whiff of busy work that you will most likely promptly ignore. I don't write this for you, but for the latter-day lurker readers here and elsewhere.
<br>
<br>Mr. Froze wrote: <i>"What characteristic of this hypothetical 4th gen nuke is there you are observing to justify it?"</i>
<br>
<br>Allow me to call your attention to these sections.
<br>
<br>4. Evidence of High Heat
<br>5. Horse-Shoes, Arches, "Steel Doobies", and "the Meteor"
<br>6. EMP and Vehicle Damage
<br>7. Continually Regenerated Fine Particles
<br>8. Radiation => Nukes
<br>9. Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras
<br>10. First Responder Ailments
<br>11. Audio Evidence
<br>12. Video Evidence
<br>13. Debris Pile Evidence
<br>
<br>
<br>Mr. Froze wrote: <i>"Can you show me and point and say see here, this must have been done by a nuke?"</i>
<br>
<br>I'll not let you malframe it as simply <i>"a nuke."</i> Use the initials of its proper name: FGNW.
<br>
<br>5. Horse-Shoes, Arches, "Steel Doobies", and "the Meteor"
<br>
<br>Note that nobody in the NT camp -- no one from AE9/11 Truth -- make even the feeblest attempt to speculate how NT was placed / configured to achieve these wonders.
<br>
<br>// Part 1/3
<br>
<br>Part 2/3
<br>
<br>Mr. Froze wrote: <i>"This 4th gen nuke I’m assuming leaves no radiation trace as well? Because I do know and have saved a record of a guy that was reading a radiation device before during and after the collapse and trust me if there was radiation it would show up on that, I know because I used to work with radiation with a very similar device."</i>
<br>
<br>Radiation measurements were not prompt and were even delayed by a couple of days. After seeing the hatchet job NIST did on WTC-1/2 and WTC-7 analysis and the 9/11 Commission report, accepting the radiation reports unquestioned and unchallenged (as Dr. Steven Jones and AE9/11 Truth have done) is a great disinformation coup pulled over on the 9/11 Truth Movement.
<br>
<br>Here's a kicker on radiation that you'll love. Recorded evidence of radiation leaching off the debris piles in the NIST videos.
<br>
<br>9. Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras
<br>
<br>Mr. Froze wrote: <i>"Even 1 ton TNT is far above and beyond anything we see at the Towers. The explosions at the Towers are equivalent to high convention chemical explosions in the 1-2 R.E range! (1-2 kg of TNT!)"</i>
<br>
<br>Maybe this is the appropriate size of the individual FGNW devices, whereby we can assume 3 or 4 detonation levels and 4 or so devices per level, mounted around the inner core and sparing what later became known as the spire.
<br>
<br>Mr. Froze wrote: <i>"So your nuke doesn’t leave any radiation and the explosion is in the 1-2 R.E range the exact same as conventional chemical explosives but it has to be a “4th generation nuke” WHY?"</i>
<br>
<br>As discussed, the FGNW did leave radiation traces. Whether or not we assume your 1-2 R.E range is accurate, remember that 80% of the yield is released as highly energetic neutrons. You have been weaseling out of doing the thought experiment into what effects this would have and do they more closely match the pulverized remains?
<br>
<br>// Part 2/3
<br>
<br>Part 3/3
<br>
<br>Mr. Froze wrote: <i>"I can say they used nanothermate because I can point and say look here see, this is the nanothermate they actually found and tested and analyzed, and here is the melted steel beams and the white smoke and the molten iron spheres in the dust etc etc etc What are you pointing at that says look here see this is evidence of a theoretical 4th gen nuke?"</i>
<br>
<br>Actually, you <b>cannot</b> say <i>"this is the nanothermate they actually found and tested and analyzed."</i> Dr. Jones had several tells in his disinformation work, but only his dust samples had nanothermite. Nobody else measured it. [This is the second time I've mentioned this to you and you've ignored it.] What they found in the dust was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, the argument I'm making does not necessarily exclude NT as being involved. NT gets excluded as being the primary mechanism of destruction.
<br>
<br>Mr. Froze wrote: <i>"what alleged 4th gen Nuclear explosion are you comparing to? Because l can’t find any 4th gen nukes to draw analysts from because last time I checked they don’t exist!"</i>
<br>
<br>Very poorly played. Dr. Andre Gsponer's work proves they exist, because otherwise he probably would not have been published and gone through correcting revisions. Who do you have that discredits his peer-reviewed work? Nobody. Not even and especially Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Neils Harrit, etc.
<br>
<br>Mr. Froze wrote: <i>"You want me to save this link so I can have proof of debunking you once? If I saved every link I debunked somebody’s nuclear theories on 9/11 I’d run out of cloud space!! Lol"</i>
<br>
<br>I have legacy. You don't. Your boast of all your debunkery is just another set of lies. And your efforts were not worthy of preservation. How can I be so bold? Because writing for posterity and saving your work would have given you regularly and repeatedly a boost each time said-work was re-purpose on the -- by your count -- the 1000 of instances of you putting down "nukes." Not even the tiniest bit of a writer's ego; no blog to collect your worthy efforts; no legacy except in the databases of Facebook.
<br>
<br>You wasted 10 years of your life on 9/11 topics and have squat to show for it. Can't cough up a link; can't cough up witty passages of debunkery.
<br>
<br>Agents and trolls benefit from not having a legacy, that way they don't get tripped up down the road with earlier discussions coming to light later, proving lies and insincerity.
<br>
<br>// Part 3/3
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/721817331952584/?post_id=723983821735935&comment_id=724060118394972&reply_comment_id=726622278138756">2020-07-22</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 146 -->
<a name="x147"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x147" class="tiny">x148</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_148');">may become a reality in a decade or two</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_148" style="display: block;">
<p>Yeah you have a legacy alright, we can add your name to the long list of disinformation trolls! Great legacy there!
<br>
<br>So even your precious author on 4th gen nukes says 4th gen nukes <i>“may become a reality in a decade or two”</i> meaning they don’t even exist yet and all his writings are hypothetical, there is not one single 4th generation nuke out there that you can compare to yet you know all there is to know about 4th gen nukes! Give me a break!!
<br>
<br>4. Evidence of heat! Of course there is evidence of heat, pools of molten steel, longest burning structural fire in history, “the meteor” horse-shoe beam, all more evidence of nanothermate!
<br>
<br>So basically you have evidence of explosions? Vehicle damage? Debris pile evidence? Such as steel beams being hurled laterally 600 feet at 70 mph? Explosive force! Again, you need to understand and learn what the tnt equivalents of explosives are, I’ll leave a wiki link for you:
<br>
<br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent</a>
<br>
<br>You see all chemical explosives are in 1-2 R.E. range and nukes are in the thousands!!!!
<br>
<br>Radiation delayed for a couple days?? Haha that’s funny, you obviously have no idea how radiation works, radiation travels at the speed of light, there is no “delays”!!! Jesus Christ! And you are a legacy?? Lol
<br>
<br>Do you know what radiation biological damage is? Have you ever seen picture of anyone with radiation burns? If there was radiation from a nuke we would have thousands of people with there body parts melting off!! It’s not pretty! And very painful!!
<br>
<br>Here:
<br>
<br>Richard Borri was right there before, during and after the collapse of the North Tower and didn't measure ANY radiation above that of background radiation, so even if there was radiation fallout with a half life of "minutes" it would have shown up on Borri's portable liquid scintillation counter:
<br>
<br>[Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department’s office of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way to work when the first tower was hit.
<br>
<br>--------
<br>
<br>Borri checked the World Trade Center site for signs of radiation before and after the collapse of the buildings. Radiation could have originated in industrial radiology sources, such as the installing beams of the huge office buildings, which may have contained some radioactive elements from x-rays taken, and from depleted uranium used in ballasts in aircraft wing tips (such counterweights in airplane wing tips give the most weight for least volume, says Borri). It might also be left from any medical or dental offices.
<br>
<br>The far more serious threat, of course, was the chance that one of the hijackers might have carried a suitcase of radioactive materials or a dirty bomb, a conventional bomb spiked with radioactive material. Such a bomb has been compared to TNT, strapped to a container of plutonium or plutonium-contaminated waste. This kind of a device would not produce a nuclear explosion, but it could spread deadly radioactive matter across a swath of city.
<br>
<br>According to Borri, the fear with a dirty bomb is that hundreds, maybe thousands, could die from radiation poisoning and cancer, and the area could be poisoned for years. (Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, says Borri.)
<br>
<br>That was fortunately not the case, Borri found, using a portable liquid scintillation counter, which measures radioactivity like a Geiger counter. The high-tech portable gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger, counter with a much more refined ability to detect any kind of radioactivity.
<br>
<br>-----
<br>
<br>Although Borri didn’t turn up any problematic radioactive readings by the end of the day, his work would be supplemented by the federal Department of Energy, whose technicians remained on site and continued to sample. [Only during the last days of the Ground Zero cleanup would radioactive testers find any evidence of radioactive emissions, from a pharmacy laboratory located within one of the buildings.]
<br>
<br>National Environmental Health Association:
<br><a href="https://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-Tests.html">https://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-Tests.html</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 148 -->
<a name="x149"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x149" class="tiny">x150</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_150');">Copy and paste from my notes</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_150" style="display: block;">
<p>Copy and paste from my notes:
<br>
<br>Oh Maxwell Bridges
<br>
<br>you have no idea how much notes I have on 9/11!!
<br>
<br>"Radiation-only cancers" claim:
<br>
<br>Gordan makes this claim in another Veterans Today article, claiming to know his hard science!
<br>
<br>So I wanted to find out what these alleged sicknesses or cancers are that:
<br>
<br><i>"could only be caused by high level exposure to radiation."</i>
<br>
<br>Which is simply not true.
<br>
<br>Most of the cancers are lung cancers, which we can assume is from breathing in the dust...
<br>
<br><i>"About a month ago, I learned, from the New York Times, that one firefighter had died of radiation cancer, multiple myeloma."</i> -Gordan Duff
<br>
<br>First of all, the New York Times does not claim multiple myeloma is a radiation cancer and second, multiple myeloma is not a cancer that "could only be caused by radiation." -Gordan Duff
<br>
<br>What causes Multiple Myeloma:
<br>
<br>[Although the exact cause isn't known, doctors do know that multiple myeloma begins with one abnormal plasma cell in your bone marrow — the soft, blood-producing tissue that fills in the center of most of your bones. This abnormal cell then starts to multiply.
<br>
<br>Investigating cause:
<br>
<br>...Though they haven't yet discovered the cause of these changes, they have found that almost all people with multiple myeloma have genetic abnormalities in their plasma cells that probably contributed to the cancer.
<br>
<br>The genetic abnormalities associated with multiple myeloma include:
<br>
<br>-A defect related to chromosome 14 in which a piece of one chromosome moves to a different chromosome (translocation)
<br>
<br>-Extra copies of certain chromosomes (hyperdiploidy)
<br>
<br>-An abnormality in which part or all of chromosome 13 is missing]
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/multiple-myeloma/basics/causes/con-20026607">http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/multiple-myeloma/basics/causes/con-20026607</a>
<br>
<br>Leukemia is the other cancer that Gordan Duff leads to believe can only be caused by radiation:
<br>
<br>"So often I hear, “How could a nuclear weapon be exploded in New York City. Wouldn’t people die of leukemia and radiation exposure?”
<br>
<br>Wouldn’t they, though." -Veterans Today
<br>
<br>Leukemia:
<br>
<br>[Leukemia, like other cancers, results from mutations in the DNA.
<br>
<br>These mutations may occur spontaneously or as a result of exposure to radiation or carcinogenic substances.
<br>
<br>Common examples of non-radioactive carcinogens are inhaled asbestos, certain dioxins, and tobacco smoke.] -Wiki
<br>
<br>"Asbestos" could also have surely caused the cancers and lung sicknesses combined with all the other mix of harmful dust...
<br>
<br>I'm familiar with what radiation is and the different types, I used to work as an x-Ray radiographer on the pipeline, (gamma ray to be specific) and what biological damage it can do...
<br>
<br>I don't see anybody "radiated" or anything on 9/11... Do you have any more examples of victims of "radiation cancer" on 9/11?
<br>
<br>Here is a little educational course on the biological effects of radiation, since it is apparent that Gordan Duff does not have a clue about what radiation is, or it's damaging biological effects!
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/biological/biological.htm">http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/biological/biological.htm</a>
<br>
<br>-------
<br>
<br>Furthermore:
<br>
<br>Any use of nuclear devices would have produced vast amounts radioactive fallout detectable even at great distances from Lower Manhattan. No such contamination has been found. Nonetheless, advocates of the nuclear weapons theory claim that scientific reports examining the chemical composition of World Trade Center remains and dust support their theory. Two such claims concern the detection of tritium and uranium.
<br>
<br><a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/nuclear.html">http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/nuclear.html</a>
<br>
<br>The passage indicates that the radioactivity of the WTC samples was only slightly above background levels, which is not surprising, given that small quantities of radionuclides are used in applications likely present in the Towers.
<br>
<br>-------
<br>
<br>If Gordan Duff wants to speak out about radiation, he should write about the war crimes and crimes against humanity of depleted uranium bombs dropped in Iraq that has caused (and still causing) all the birth defects there!
<br>
<br>Multiple myeloma - Symptoms and causes
<br>
<br>MAYOCLINIC.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 150 -->
<a name="x151"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x151" class="tiny">x152</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_152');">Long list of links for Molten Steel</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_152" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>
<br>***Molten Steel***
<br>"Fires burned and molten metal flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath my feet." -Sarah Atlas
<br><blockquote>https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586166747239&id=1646648597&st=14</blockquote>https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586166747239&id=1646648597&st=14
<br>"You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel! MOLTEN STEEL, running down the channel rails!
<br>Like you're in a foundry! Like LAVA!"
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586229228801&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586229228801&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>"Underground, it was still so hot that MOLTEN METAL dripped down the sides of the wall..."
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586229588810&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586229588810&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>"streams of MOLTEN METAL... flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole."
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586230308828&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586230308828&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>"In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586230868842&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586230868842&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>"Feeling the heat, seeing the MOLTEN STEEL, the layers upon layers of ash, like LAVA, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens" (like a volcano!!!)
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586231468857&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586231468857&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>"He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow-molten metal dripping from a beam"
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586247989270&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586247989270&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>"One firman told us that there was still MOLTEN STEEL at the heart of the towers' remains."
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586248989295&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586248989295&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>"Your boots would melt in certain areas, that's how hot it was! the steel was coming out red in certain areas, for the first couple weeks at least!"
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2608409983306&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2608409983306&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>"Steel toed boots is one of the biggest things... Out on the rubble it's still I believe 1100 degrees. The guys boots would just melt within a few hours, and they are burning their feet."
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4148602847165&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4148602847165&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>Here's an equipment operator saying:
<br>"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug out!"
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586249749314&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2586249749314&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>Here's a pic of molten steel being dug out:
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/joshua.froze/media_set?set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3#!/photo.php?fbid=2586113585910&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3&theater">https://www.facebook.com/joshua.froze/media_set?set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3#!/photo.php?fbid=2586113585910&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3&theater</a>
<br>"It's unbelievable, and this is 6 weeks later, and as we get closer to the center of this it get's hotter and hotter! It's probably 1500 degrees!"
<br>"We've had some small windows into what we saw was the floor zone point and it looked like an oven, ya know, it was just roaring inside, it was a bright bright reddish orange color"
<br>"See that stuff he's pulling out? We're going to hold off on the water. See that stuff he's pulling out? It's RED HOT! If we hit it there will be too much steam he won't be able to see what he's doing!" -Chief
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4148647408279&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4148647408279&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>"One of the more unusual artifacts to emerge from the rubble is this rock like object that has become to be known as the 'meteorite' "
<br>"This is fused element of steel, MOLTEN STEEL, and concrete, and all of these things, all fused by the heat into one single element."
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200573900863777&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200573900863777&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>8 Ton, 6 inch I beam bent like a horse shoe with hardly any cracks, "it takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this."
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200573879703248&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200573879703248&id=1646648597&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&source=43</a>
<br>"And there was like a little river of steel flowing."
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201618686342761&id=1646648597&st=14">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201618686342761&id=1646648597&st=14</a>
<br>"Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 degrees F, to more than 2,800 degrees F"
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201618686582767&id=1646648597&st=14">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201618686582767&id=1646648597&st=14</a>
<br>"Vitcher's crew picked up 40 to 60 foot-long pieces of steel impaled in the pile, where the bottom 20 feet would be glowing red hot"
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201618687422788&id=1646648597&st=14">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201618687422788&id=1646648597&st=14</a>
<br>Guns encased in concrete:
<br>"Fire temperatures was so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path."
<br>Side note:
<br>[The concrete does not have point melting. When the temperature is high (more than 1000°C) the concrete one crumbles like the sugar. Their components have different behavior. Stone and sand melts to 2600°C, the steel melt to 2500°. The same happens to the components of the cement.]
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202220243621317&id=1646648597&st=14">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202220243621317&id=1646648597&st=14</a>
<br>"Underground fires... smoulder for months. Fed by molten steel, and buried carpeting, office furniture..." -PBS Documentary
<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdIuz7CBUSI">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdIuz7CBUSI</a>
<br>-------
<br>"When we first got there it was actually like working inside of a volcano - it was extremely hot. We were digging by hand. There was this orange-yellowish smoke coming out. Our skin was turning maroon. We were hoping to find someone alive but it was just bodies. I knew my brother Gary had a skin graft on his heel. I removed firefighters' socks and boots trying to find him. It was horrible from day one to the very end - it was a nightmare." -Former FDNY Firefighter Ralph Geidel
<br><a href="http://www.sohoblues.com/9-11-Still-Killing.html">http://www.sohoblues.com/9-11-Still-Killing.html</a>
<br>Sept 16, 2001 thermal images reveal 1400°F temperatures at the surface of the WTC 1,2 & 7 debris piles - yet there were no fires at the surface after the collapses. These surface temperatures indicate much higher temperatures below the surface.
<br><a href="https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202256938738672&id=1646648597&st=14">https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202256938738672&id=1646648597&st=14</a>
<br>The microspheres must have been formed at extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center’s destruction – temperatures exceeding the melting point of iron (~2,700° F). The spheres must have been molten when they were created in order to take their spherical shape.]
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=4164021392619&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3&theater">https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=4164021392619&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3&theater</a>
<br>Molten metal pours out of the South Tower several minutes before the collapse.
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/joshua.froze/photos#!/photo.php?fbid=2586796842991&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3&theater">https://www.facebook.com/joshua.froze/photos#!/photo.php?fbid=2586796842991&set=a.2585229083798.126754.1646648597&type=3&theater</a>
<br>9/11 longest burning structural fire in history!
<br>4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:
<br>Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 ....
<br>The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:
<br>"firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
<br>And yet the fired continued to burn for months, it wasn't until December 19, 2001 when the NYC fire marshall declared the fires extinguished.
</p>
</div><!-- section 152 -->
<a name="x153"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x153" class="tiny">x154</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_154');">Ya know man this is it, this stuff blows up!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_154" style="display: block;">
<p>***Nanothermate found in WTC’s***
<br>The red/grey chips, found in the dust of the Twin Towers were examined by Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, first through a Scanning Electron Microscope to determine the elements. A combination of aluminum and iron oxide were found which are the components of thermite.
<br>[Thermite (or thermate) is a mixture of finely powdered aluminum and iron oxide that produces a very high temperature on combustion, used in welding and for incendiary bombs etc.]
<br>At higher magnification with the electron microscope, (after breaking some chips to get a clean view/fresh surface from the dust on it) in all 4 samples they found carbon, silicon, oxygen, iron, and aluminum.
<br>Jones was surprised to see carbon and silicon but upon reviewing the literature of experimenters working with super thermite trying to "beef it up" making it more explosive, tailoring it to different weapons applications, they would have silicon in there and an organic material (which means the carbon) to give it the properties they wanted.
<br>They add the carbon because that gives you a gas production which gives the explosive force for instance.
<br>So then they ran one of these chips through a very sensitive instrument called a Differential Scanning Calorimeter, and what it does is heat the temperature slowly, and the material will react if it's going to.
<br>And if it reacts and produces heat then you'll get a spike in your calorimeter. (Shown on a screen: see attached pics)
<br>[A calorimeter is an object used for calorimetry, or the process of measuring the heat of chemical reactions or physical changes as well as heat capacity.
<br>If it reacts quickly, it will be a narrow spike. If it burns, say over a long period of time, you'll see a big broad spike.]
<br>It also measures total amount of energy released and just a lot of information.
<br>What they found, sure enough, is the chips went off right around 430 centigrade, but more importantly is the "peak" was very high, which means a lot of energy released, and "narrow" which in Dr. Ferrer's terms, it blew up!
<br>He said <i>"Ya know man this is it, this stuff blows up!"</i>
<br>It behaves just like nano thermite, it has the ingredients of nano thermite, and in a thermite reaction it should produce molten iron. So they looked and sure enough there were these iron spheres (tons of droplets of molten iron) that were left as a product!
<br>Many other independent researchers have also found the same nano thermite in their research as well. Nano thermite burns so hot that it can cut through steel beams like a knife through butter. This can explain the pools of molten steel found in the rubble and the "cut" core columns of the Twin Towers!
<br>It's like the "finger print" the criminals left behind! And further supports the already overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that the Twin Towers (and Building 7) we're all brought down by Controlled Demolition!
<br>"The three buildings were demolished.
<br>This has been crystal clear.
<br>Our research is just the last nail in the coffin!" -Niels Harrit
</p>
</div><!-- section 154 -->
<a name="x155"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x155" class="tiny">x156</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_156');">if you believe that NT is the only way to generate tiny iron spheres in the dust, you are an agent or an idiot </a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_156" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>
<br>all of your Tetrus block links about **molten steel** links and whatnot can be applied to the FGNW stack and fit with fewer gaps than the NT stack. In fact, when we consider the number of devices and the probability that expelled highly energetic neutrons from some devices might cause other devices to fail and fizzle (e.g., not meet their full yield in the manner desired), then nuclear fizzling remnants under the pile more easily explains the evidence.
<br>
<br>Read Section 7. Continually Regenerated Fine Particles (from the "9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case".)
<br>
<br>Gee, I've repeatedly asked you to explain (or find the explanation) how NT would account for arches / sags, horseshoes, and whatnot [images highlighted in Dr. Wood's book.] YOU BEEN AVOIDING THIS ASSIGNMENT and is critical for your "NT theory" to be valid.
<br>
<br>For that matter, your Tetrus block links to health effects also apply to the FGNW stack with fewer gaps. Read Section 10. First Responder Ailments (from the "9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case".)
<br>
<br>As for the NT in the dust samples of ONLY Dr. Jones, let that be a clue. Did the RJ Lee Group, Paul Lioy et al, or the United States Geological Survey reports find NT? No. All they found were significant percentages of tiny iron spheres that the energy of FGNW easily explains.
<br>
<br>Or stated another way, you are an agent or an idiot if you believe that NT is the only way to generate tiny iron spheres in the dust.
<br>
<br>I've posted this before, and you ignored it. But this earlier article of mine slaughters the NT sacred cow.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>How does NT explain tritium, and the completely bogus disinformation song-and-dance on tritium that Dr. Steven Jones was required, as the 9/11 nuclear disinfo agent, to accept unquestioned and unchallenged?
<br>
<br>In your frenzy to copy-and-paste you didn't realize that you were making the case for fourth generation nuclear devices. Thank you.
<br>
<br>//
<br>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 156 -->
<a name="x157"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x157" class="tiny">x158</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_158');">Mr. Wayne Coste got totally PWNed by me</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_158" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>not too long ago, I had FGNW discussions with Mr. Wayne Coste, and he got totally PWNed by me on this subject but he really did it to himself.
<br>
<br>Chapter 11: FGNW Discussions with Wayne Coste
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>FGNW Discussions
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 158 -->
<a name="x159"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x159" class="tiny">x160</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_160');">got bored arguing with a rock</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_160" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Sorry Maxwell -- I got bored arguing with a rock.
</p>
</div><!-- section 160 -->
<a name="x161"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x161" class="tiny">x162</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_162');">your NT premise got shot out from underneath you</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_162" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
<br>
<br>no, you were scared shitless because your NT premise (much like your Pentagon plane premise) got shot out from underneath you, because you relied on SHITTY work, such as AE9/11Truth FAQ #13/FAQ #15, which is a clever piece of blatant disinformation.
<br>
<br>How so? It frames the discussion around "nuclear blast" as a straw-man, and then lamely tries to knock that down as implying this "nuclear blast" would be true for all nuclear devices. It does zero research or even acknowledgement of FGNW, frames the nukes as single devices (under ground) per tower and too large, etc.
<br>
<br>Here's a great copy and paste snippet from our discussion. Notable is that you weaseled out of this simple assignment, REQUIRED to validate whether NT should even still be in the discussion.
<br>
<br>Mr. Josh Froze, you should make note of this and jump ahead with the assignment, that without a doubt will be coming at you very soon (if you don't demonstrate your weasel colors.)
<br>
<br>+++ NIST VIDEO CHALLENGE FOR NT +++
<br>
<br>2019-12-09
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, the patron saint of 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: <i>"None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."</i>
<br>
<br>Your assignment is to watch these NIST videos. Because you champion NT, you are to contemplate what the placement of NT would be to achieve these anomalies.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 162 -->
<a name="x163"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x163" class="tiny">x164</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_164');">you never had a 4th gen nuke</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_164" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>how can you explain what a 4th gen nuke would do , would do this to the tower or do that to the tower, when you never had a 4th gen nuke to learn from experiment, there’s never been a 4th gen nuke!! All you’re doing is speculating, in other words you’re just making up shit!
</p>
</div><!-- section 164 -->
<a name="x165"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x165" class="tiny">x166</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">what configuration of NT would account for this?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_166" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>
<br>And how are your debunking efforts going for Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, peer-reviewed and published (m.a.n.y. t.i.m.e.s) in reputable science journals? Surely if what you say is anything more that hypnotic assertion by someone who is losing badly this debate on multiple fronts, then you ought to be able to find rather quickly the debunking by scientists and military weapons experts, who like Dr. Gsponer have no 9/11 axe to grind and have had since the 1990's to tackle this! Have you looked at Dr. Gsponer's CV, seen how many times he's been published in three languages (two more than you speak)?!!
<br>
<br>Get to work, Mr. Froze.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE</a>
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, on the disinfo NT front that you promote, the above video is just chock full of examples that neither you nor any of your PhD NT disinfo agents have ventured to explain <i>"what configuration of NT would account for this?"</i> Cutting a beam is one thing, and maybe the standing steel girder with the angle cut (and the heroic fireman posed in front of it in that classic 9/11 picture used by NT supporters) is an example of NT playing a role, and I'll not dispute it.
<br>
<br>But what starts this video is a hollow box column of a wall assembly that seemingly got end-to-end so hot during the destruction, that the corner welds of the box column its entire length came apart and caused waves in the thick metal sides. Where was NT placed?
<br>
<br>That is just one example of m.a.n.y that NT needs to explain. One of my favorites is not just a steel doobie (aka three columns of a wall assembly rolled up like a joint by the spandrels that connected them together), but a doobie done smoked already to a stub and a curiously "wilted" end! Keep your eye out for it.
<br>
<br>//
<br>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 166 -->
<a name="x167"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x167" class="tiny">x168</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">most definitely a sulfidation of the steel</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_168" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>
<br>you will agree it takes 1000’s of degrees to bend steel like that, as we know the rubbish pile was “red hot” “bottom 20 feet would be glowing red hot” “See that stuff he's pulling out? It's RED HOT!“ all the "The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug out!" all the “molten steel” etc etc this “red hot” can explain the twisted and bent steel beams.
<br>
<br>When you use thermate on steel it leaves a trace of sulfate. The sulfur reacts to the iron in the steel. And when FEMA slipped up and gave 3 pieces of steel for an institute of technology to study they published a paper showing the sulfidation of steel, you know the famous thin steel with holes like Swiss cheese? Well that’s evidence of nanothermate reaction!
<br>
<br>So you can look at pics all you want where these 3 pieces where actually tested and studied and there was most definitely a sulfidation of the steel! And combined with the tremendous heat that nanothermate creates more than explains where the “red hot heat” came from!
<br>
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/IMTCds1kuyM">https://youtu.be/IMTCds1kuyM</a>
<br>
<br>Certainly this is a better scientific explanation of the evidence shown, rather than claiming it was from a “4th generation nuke” one of which your author admits isn’t even a reality for another decade or two! You’re hopeless!!
<br>
<br>Niels Harrit - 9/11 Anniversary Conference - Zurich, Switzerland, Sept. 11, 2019
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 168 -->
<a name="x169"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x169" class="tiny">x170</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_170');">the quantity of UNSPENT NT required to maintain hot-spots for months?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_170" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>
<br>Your first paragraph could go either way, NT or FGNW. In reality, only FGNW and possibly some fizzled devices explains it. Why?
<br>
<br>Once NT has completed its chemical reaction, it cools. What was the duration of the hot-spots? Did Dr. Harrit calculate the quantity of UNSPENT NT required to maintain them for months? No, he did not, and let that be a disinformation tell.
<br>
<br>Section 6. Maintaining the Under-Rubble Fires (from "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW")
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, you continue to evade the important questions. That NIST video is 2 hours long. Clearly you haven't watched it (or the 2 hours of Part 1) to see all of the wonder anomalous evidence it contains that NT -- to date and including all of your glorious NT PhD's -- cannot explain and doesn't attempt to explain. Let that be another one of those NT disinformation tells.
<br>
<br>I've done what you wanted, written things in my own words, provided evidence to support my contention, offered up peer-reviewed experts... AND you didn't look at it or comment. Like I suspected: the ole disinformation tactic of assigning busy work.
<br>
<br>On the other hand, I gave you assignments right from the evidence FGNW is using to have a SWAG done with NT to have it explain it. Zilch is what you come up with, except distraction.
<br>
<br>Here's another video with examples of camera scintillation as a result of radiation (recorded) leaching off of the pile. (How is it that super-duper NT leaches radiation?)
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4HOCf7WK3g&feature=youtu.be&t=291">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4HOCf7WK3g&feature=youtu.be&t=291</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p></div><!-- section 170 -->
<a name="x171"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x171" class="tiny">x172</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_172');">"well I have no idea how this came to be so it must be a nuke!"</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_172" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>your inability to explain a phenomenon does not provide proof it must be a nuke! You can’t look at steel beams and go <i>“well I have no idea how this came to be so it must be a nuke!”</i> Your failure to understand the result of steel beams being subjected to incendiaries and explosives and structural damage is just that, your ignorance and lack of knowledge.
<br>How long was the thermate reacting? The fact is there was indeed plentiful evidence of nanothermate and so put that in your equation and figure it out! The fact is, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were pre-rigged and brought down in controlled demolitions and it sure as hell wasn’t Osama Bin Laden!
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>
<br>Sorry your theoretical 4th generation nukes didn’t work out for ya!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 172 -->
<a name="x173"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x173" class="tiny">x174</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_174');">"Well, I have no idea how this came to be so it must be NT (because some PhD's said so."</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_174" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>
<br>Your inability to explain a phenonmenon -- like the evidence in two 2-hour NIST videos -- clearly does not provide proof it must be NT! <i>"Well, I have no idea how this came to be so it must be NT (because some PhD's said so."</i> Your failure to understand the result of steel beams being subjected to targeted highly energetic neutrons is just that, your ignorance and lack of knowledge.
<br>
<br>Here is a quote from me from one of my works.
<br>
</p><blockquote><p>>+++ begin
<br>
<br>NT is an incendiary, not an explosive. Therefore Dr. Steven Jones, who allegedly found energetic particles of NT in his dust samples, suggested that NT was mixed with something having more brisance, such as RDX.
<br>
<br>Unfortunately on paper, RDX or similar explosives exasperate getting NT to explain the second anomaly of under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months. NT has a burn rate of ~1,100 feet per second (f/s). RDX has a burn-rate of ~31,000 f/s. Hot-spots were several and burned for many weeks.
<br>
<br>Simplify by considering only one hot-spot that burned 4 weeks = 28 days = 1,411,200 seconds. As but one configuration and so it doesn't burn-up all at once, consider this explosive/incendiary material packed into an imaginary garden hose whose diameter we can ignore for the moment. To sustain such a hot-spot, the fuse-like hose packed with pure NT implies a length of 226,000 miles, while RDX implies 7,510,000 miles. Thus, a mixture of NT with RDX (or equivalent) would still result in something many hundreds of thousand miles long.
<br>
<br>Red flags should be going up at this point, because those triple zeros to the left of the decimal point are significant. If we assume "salting" of the material in the pile and grossly simplified it down to "n" thousand miles and a hose diameter of a mere 1/8", the volume of material required (for one hot-spot) is still massive! The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources is stopped at RDX/NT. Worst of all, this represents material that was unspent and left-over from its original task of pulverizing the towers. In other words, add this to the gross estimates already provided by Dr. Harrit.
<br>
<br>+++ end</p></blockquote>
<p>Yep, now I get to frag your ass with multiple proven incidents of you not reading and of you clearly not watching the two 2-hour NIST videos to come with an NT explanation.
<br>
<br>You are not sincere. You are playing games. Disinfo agent.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 174 -->
<a name="x175">mcb last</a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x175" class="tiny">x176</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_176');">No one ever claimed only nanothermate</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_176" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>
<br>No one ever claimed only nanothermate was used! The sulfidation of the steel tested does however support the evidence of nt used! This along with whatever explosives they used (being in the 1-2 R.E. range) DOES explain the pulverisation and dismemberment and the destruction of the Twin Towers!
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>
<br>Not 1000 R.E. range as your 4th generation nuke claims to be by your author at minimum!
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>
<br>You haven’t had enough debunking yet of your fantasy 4th gen nukes?
<br>Oh “camera scintillating as a result of radiation”! Hahaha At least you’re good for a laugh!!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 176 -->
<a name="x177"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x177" class="tiny">x178</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_178');">the very inaction of purposely never exploring what else was used</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_178" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"No one ever claimed only nanothermate was used!"</i> This must be where you enter full-on retard mode.
<br>
<br>I'll give you that that is a true statement, but what is also true is that all of you NT-Kool-Aid drinkers "implied" over-and-over that <i>"only nanothermite was used!"</i> How so?
<br>
<br>By the very inaction of purposely never exploring what else was used, and actively in that inaction discounting FGNW as potentially that extra something-something that truly does have the fewest gaps!
<br>
<br>Further evidence of your full-on retard mode is that I copied-and-pasted a discussion about by why NT mixed with any more brisant explosive could not go the distance of a single hot-spot (there were many) burning for a month (some burned longer)... without obscenely massive overkill amounts that are both a logistics hurdle and incredible.
<br>
<br>Your three-in-a-row spamming comment to push mine into the nether regions of "read more comments" is just another disinformation flag that you are less than sincere.
<br>
<br>Your full-on retard mode is so strong, it won't even let you watch NIST videos and comment on how the recorded evidence might have been achieved using either NT or FGNW. How lame is that?
<br>
<br>You are less than sincere.
<br>
<br>Nevertheless, I thank you for this exchange which make another chapter (one day when I get around to it) on the theme "9/11 disinformation is alive and well and exhibited quite plainly by those lamely arguing against the possibility of 9/11 FGNW from that 'strong-hold' position of not reading what substantiates the case."
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 178 -->
<a name="x179"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x179" class="tiny">x180</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">will continue to debunk your 4th generation nuke BS all over the curb!!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_180" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>
<br>Are you going to cry now because you lost in the debate? Lol
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>
<br>You don’t think I have seen the rubble from 9/11 before? I’ve watched more hours of NIST FOIA videos than most people watch sports!! Don’t just assume shit with me, you have no idea the amount of time and energy I’ve put into 9/11 and will continue to debunk your 4th generation nuke BS all over the curb!!
<br>
<br><b>Josh Froze</b>
<br>
<br>Show me a 4th generation nuke! Oh wait, you can’t because there isn’t one invented yet! Go re-read your authors paper! Lol
</p>
</div><!-- section 180 -->
<a name="x181"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x181" class="tiny">x182</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_182');">brag about the number of hours devoted to studying videos of the destruction, yet in all that time never wondered exactly how the NT was positioned to generate some anomalous artifacts</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_182" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>
<br>Allow me to point out some of the tells in no particular order that you are a disinformation agent.
<br>
<br>Spamming, shoot-from-the-hip comments that easily with SHIFT-ENTER (or composing elsewhere and then pasting here) could / should have been combined into one.
<br>
<br>Having no external legacy. You can create a blog for free, where you can publish your worthy efforts.
<br>
<br>BTW Mr. Josh Froze, I forgot to give you kudos for an earlier effort on your part where you really did provide URLs. I encourage you to keep with your worthy text at least one URL on where you posted it.
<br>
<br>The problems with ~your~ URLs were that most were directly into FB groups. You can't use those to substantiate your efforts to anyone (a) without access to Facebook OR (b) without membership in those groups. Further, we all know how censorship on Facebook at many levels (or just petty delete-comment actions by the owner of a top-level comment) can deep-six worthy efforts to everybody... except the FBI at our trials for deviant thought. [Solution: if you re-purpose your efforts to your blog, it is public and under your control.]
<br>
<br>Your demeanor proves again and again that you did not review (a) the articles linked or (b) the videos linked, yet still you soldier on trying to debunk them. And the duck-and-weave weaseling happens repeatedly, and unusual amounts of shaming must be deployed before on the surface it appears you've dabbled at least your toe into the content. It is as if you are ordered to not go there, not respond to content you find there, not to engage specifics, not to be genuine, sincere, and truthful in what it represents.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>So you brag about the number of hours you have already devoted to studying videos of the destruction, yet in all that time have never wondered exactly how the NT was positioned to generate some anomalous artifacts! And when you were purposely called out to do just such a thought-experiments afresh, what do you do? Nothing meaningful.
<br>
<br>Everything but. You spam the forum.
<br>
<br>You try to pawn your weaknesses onto me, like the fact that you are losing this discussion from TWO different directions.
<br>
<br>(1) You can't defend NT where it counts, in the specific NIST videos linked.
<br>
<br>(2) You can't discredit FGNW.
<br>
<br>Worse, you know that the shoddy work of your 9/11 Truth heroes (e.g., poor nuclear research, accepting disinformation unchallenged, not finding root causes if NT didn't do it all, parking understanding in a dead-end alley...) implicates them and further makes a mess of things (giving you "cognitive dissonance" headaches, eh?)
<br>
<br>You want me to show you a FGNW. How about you show me a NT-based explosive that will burn for months?
<br>
<br>Who's the cry-baby loser?
<br>
<br>You've been duped by NT and your cognitive dissonance on the matter won't let you admit it.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 182 -->
<a name="x183"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x183" class="tiny">x184</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_184');">Show me proof of a 4th generation nuke exists</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_184" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>what part of 4th generation nukes don’t exist don’t you understand? Show me proof of a 4th generation nuke exists and a paper by a guy who says they might be a reality in 10-20 years doesn’t count!
<br>
<br>Second, show the nuke with the TNT equivalent of the 1-2 R.E. range of explosives that we see on 9/11 and leaves no radiation!
<br>
<br>There is plenty proof NT was used, and you’d have to be blind not to see the explosive ejections and hurling steel beams!
<br>
<br>I’m a disinformation agent??? Geez I wish they would buy me a lap top to do all this disinfo work on! What did I say that was disinfo? Nothing.
<br>
<br>You want to explain how exactly it was placed? Who knows that? Only the people that did it! What we do know is they had access through the elevator shafts and they just happened to have a major elevator upgrade prior to 9/11 by Ace Elevator and whoever planted them would most likely have to run security, such as Kroll Inc:
<br>
<br>[After the 1993 WTC bombing, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey gave control of security at the WTC to Kroll Inc. in a $2.5 million upgrade contract. The owners of Kroll at the time were Jules Kroll and his son Jeremy. The managing director of Kroll at the time was Jerome M. Hauer, who ran Mayor Rudy Guiliani's office of emergency management (OEM) from 1996 to 2000. He is the key individual that pushed for this office to be placed in Silverstein's WTC Building 7.]
<br>
<br>And how Larry Silverstein didn’t make it to work that day etc
<br>
<br>These are the questions and answers you should be looking for, not promoting hypothetical nukes disinformation but showing people how it was an inside job!!
</p>
</div><!-- section 184 -->
<a name="x185"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x185" class="tiny">x186</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_186');">What part of Dr. Andre Gsponer's work do nuclear scientists and weapons experts have issues with?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_186" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>
<br>What part of Dr. Andre Gsponer's lengthy career in nuclear realms with oodles of publications in three different languages, a late 1990's book on FGNW, and a handy 2005 paper are you trying to discredit, and what nuclear scientists and weapons experts can you reference who have issues with his work?
<br>
<br>Whereas Dr. Gsponer was aiming for the future and pure fusion FGNW devices, that doesn't mean that the late-third generation nuclear devices couldn't / didn't do the trick. In fact, the USGS dust analysis proves fission, while the tritium song-and-dance proves fusion, while the dustification proves a massive energy sink and overkill, while a fission-triggered-fusion device configured to target its release of neutrons is indeed late-third generation nuclear weapon. (The recorded squibs? They weren't, otherwise they would have been more of them in a symmetric fashion. What they were was the conventional explosive ignition to the fission trigger, as described in many places.)
<br>
<br>You play games: "Second, show the nuke with the TNT equivalent of the 1-2 R.E. range of explosives that we see on 9/11 and leaves no radiation!"
<br>
<br>You can't prove there was "no radiation." In fact, I have proven there ~was~ radiation, with the newest piece of evidence being NIST recordings of the radiation leaching off of the pile! (Clever how you ignore the very reports that did measure radiation in shoddy fashions and were accepted at face value unquestioned and unchallenged.)
<br>
<br>You play games with "the nuke" when I keep saying that each detonation level probably had multiple FGNW devices.
<br>
<br>Truthfully, I don't know what "1-2 R.E. range of explosives" means. Is that big or small? What I do know is that when 80% of the yield is in targeted highly energetic neutrons, the effects will be different (and quiet compared to chemical based explosives.)
<br>
<br>You wrote: "There is plenty proof NT was used, and you’d have to be blind not to see the explosive ejections and hurling steel beams!"
<br>
<br>Maybe I'll bite on the notion of "plenty of proof NT was used," you are the disinfo agent constantly weaseling out of the fact that even your own NT experts (a) admit that NT didn't act alone and (b) refuse to explore / research what did! Hello?!! Anybody home! Could you be any more disengenous?!!
<br>
<br>The remaining 20% of the FGNW yield already at subkiloton levels went into the expected blast wave, heat wave, and EMP -- and we have evidence of all these, too. Sufficient not only to hurling steel beams, but also to softening spandrals on wall assemblies into turning them into steel doobies (that nobody can explain how NT might accomplish. Clever how you ignore this and other blatant pieces of evidence of nuclear involvement.)
<br>
<br>You wrote: "You want to explain how exactly it was placed? Who knows that? Only the people that did it! What we do know is they had access through the elevator shafts and they just happened to have a major elevator upgrade prior to 9/11 by Ace Elevator and whoever planted them would most likely have to run security, such as Kroll Inc:"
<br>
<br>You are such an idiot weasel. I've referenced repeatedly a particular piece of evidence called a steel doobie: the three hollow box columns wrapped up together by their spandrels. There were at least three instances of this. Where was the "hot burning NT" placed in relation to this wall assembly that could soften the three wide spandrels to allow this rolling of a joint? A SIMPLE FUCKING QUESTION! You, and the disinformation that you support, skirt the issue. They don't address it, because they can't.
<br>
<br>Let's go with your elevator proposal. Works great for FGNW! FGNW mounted around the inner core can still explain steel doobies. But NT in the elevator shafts can't!
<br>
<br>Worse, both towers had remnants of that inner core still standing while the rest of the building seemed to fall away (although "the spire" of WTC-2 is most pronounced). Targeted FGNW explains this; NT can't.
<br>
<br>If I were to use NT on the wall assemblies, I would place it on the connecting bolts to other wall assemblies, built-in failure points. No need for NT anywhere else on the walls, and intact wall assemblies are easier to dispose of.
<br>
<br>It is not "hypothetical nukes," idiot.
<br>
<br>And if that is your earnest belief, then you need to take it up with both Cornell University and Dr. Andre Gsponer. And because debunking this is so near and dear to your heart, make sure you recruit Dr. Steven Jones and others to help you make the debunking case. (And if they don't help you or give you clearly bad help, let that be a sign.)
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br>ARXIV.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 186 -->
<a name="x187"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x187" class="tiny">x188</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_188');">your nuke theory all to fk’n rat sh*t</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_188" style="display: block;">
<p>For the last time:
<br>1) 1 ton tnt range is way too massive for anything we see on 9/11.
<br>2) No gamma radiation or “nuclear radiation” measured on a Geiger counter before, during or after the collapse.
<br>There goes your nuke theory all to fk’n rat sh*t! So go get a brain!!!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 188 -->
<a name="x189"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x189" class="tiny">x190</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_190');">no concept of nuclear yield and its forms taken</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_190" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>
<br>for the last time:
<br>
<br>1) You are the one promoting the notion of 1 ton TNT and have no concept of what nuclear yield means and the forms it takes. Thus, your strawman gets torched by highly energetic neutrons before you can even prop it up.
<br>
<br>2) What are the weaknesses of the reports that left the false notion of <i>"no nuclear radiation"</i>? They themselves don't say <i>"no nuclear radiation."</i> Instead, they used shoddy sampling techniques and who knows what other data omission or juking they employed. Can you say "tritium"? That alone squashes your misconceptions. [The trend line in all other reports and government agency actions by NIST, the EPA, the 9/11 Commission is that no report can be trusted at face value. The data points from the radiation reports fit into the same trend line and has been proven as such in my work.
<br>
<br>There goes your <i>"'no nuke' theory all to fk’n rat sh*t!"</i>
<br>
<br>I'd tell you to <i>"get a brain!!!"</i> as well, but that is not your problem. Lack of both honesty and integrity are your problem.
<br>
<br>If you had either, you'd be able to say, "this asshole does make good points that those who promote NT do not address all of the evidence, accepted shoddy reports at face value unquestioned and unchallenged as allegedly the final word on anomalous radiation, did monumentally shitty research into nuclear devices."
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 190 -->
<a name="x191"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x191" class="tiny">x192</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_192');">real-time interference as I typed</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_192" style="display: block;">
<p>BTW, it was rather amazing how I was messed with in FB as I was typing that last entry. Kept removing the latter part of the sentence I was writing, moving the cursor to other points in my comment. Happened over and over.
<br>
<br>I don't blame you, Mr. Josh Froze, but let that be another sign.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/721817331952584/?post_id=723983821735935&comment_id=724060118394972&reply_comment_id=727314518069532¬if_id=1595547391038648¬if_t=group_comment_mention&ref=notif">2020-07-23</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 192 -->
<a name="x193"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x193" class="tiny">x194</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_194');">like a total retard</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_194" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>you sound like a total retard when you talk about nukes and radiation, you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about and who do you think you are bullsh*ting with this bs? Certainly not me!
</div><!-- section 194 -->
<a name="x195"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x195" class="tiny">x196</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_196');">The "retard" outflanked you</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_196" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>
<br>Thank you for the complements! So witty! And so based in fact, because you read my premise and its substantiating references, and through good old-fashioned gumshoe detective work in the library of your institution of higher education were able to research nukes and radiation to prove me both wrong and retarded. Bravo!
<br>
<br>To me, you sound like a total disinformation agent.
<br>
<br>Those pesky bastards have their orders, and rule #1 is not to confront a deviant premise on its turf or terms. Meaning, if an agent were to read a section of my premise and have issues with it, they aren't allowed to drag it back to discuss it even to debunk it, because the effort gives too much validity to the premise and to things they didn't drag back.
<br>
<br>Another disinfo tell were the numbers of busywork assignments given to me that you then promptly ignored.
<br>
<br>Didn't do your integrity any good in your defense of NT that you were <i>"incapable of / prevented from"</i> reviewing NIST videos and rationally speculating how NT could accomplish it.
<br>
<br>But as <i>"retarded"</i> as I am, I still managed to outflank you. Here's a manuever that still makes me chuckle. In March of 2016, you attempted the same carousel spin. I took the exchange seriously, saved my work (and what I was responding to), and re-purposed it on my blog. That effort from four years ago wasn't wasted, because here you are in 2020 trying to pull the same lame-ass shit [your unchanging agenda].
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/attempts-at-rational-911-discussion.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/attempts-at-rational-911-discussion.html</a>
<br>
<br>You ran away then, unfriended me, pushed me out of the group. Control of the information is a military objective.
<br>
<br>If you weren't a disinformation agent and were instead a true, honest champion of the Truth, then you would have been open-minded to the many different areas where NT and its promotion did not measure up. Further, you would have been open to the many pieces of evidence that FGNW can explain and that nobody from the NT camp even attempts to explain.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, rest assured that this exchange so far is saved off-line and will be ready for re-purposing whenever the hell I get around to it. It will become a second major data point that validates the disinfo trend line that represents you. Bravo, old chap! Bonus points that your shitty efforts in defending NT didn't!
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 196 -->
<a name="x197"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x197" class="tiny">x198</a>
Josh Froze : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_198');">the whole idea of a nuclear explosion</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_198" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>the whole idea of a nuclear explosion no matter how you do it is to split the atoms, consequently making them unstable, consequently making them radioactive, consequently shooting out radioactive gamma rays in all directions at the speed of light, consequently being measured instantly on Geiger counter!
<br>Even if your 4th gen nukes were a reality, there would be instant radiation detection.
</p>
</div><!-- section 198 -->
<a name="x199"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x199" class="tiny">x200</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_200');">closed-mind, willful ignorance, inability to study = fail the integrity challenge</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-18</p>
<div id="sect_200" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Josh Froze,
<br>You demonstrate yet another instance of (a) not having read Dr. Gsponer or my work, (b) being the proud uneducated retard on nuclear themes you don't even try to understand, and (c) arguing through your ass.
<br>
<br>Splitting atoms only applies to fission, not fusion. My FGNW devices are expected to have a conventional explosive charge (the squibs in the videos) to kick-start the fission stage whose sole purpose is to generate the heat for fusion. Neither the explosive kick-starter nor the very small fission stage are designed for destruction, just like fission in a nuclear reactor isn't for destruction. Its standard alpha, gamma radiation was controlled and was not an overriding feature of that phase, and lo and behold, its radiation ~was~ measured but at reduced levels that their reports via omission and juking reduced further.
<br>
<br>The fusion stage was where all of the destructive energy came from, and was 80% in the form of targeted highly energetic neutrons based on the principles of neutron bombs. Your Geiger counter won't measure neutron radiation. Why hasn't the public been hearing about these dastardly neutron bombs since the 1980's? Because it is fundamental to all of the variants of FGNW that Dr. Gsponer discusses. Tritium, in turn, is fusion's building block and a tell-tail sign. Not only was in fact tritium measured, it had a whole circus relating to the samples, misrepresenting the levels, attributing them to aircraft exit signs, and then getting sold by Dr. Jones to the science challenged yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement (to which you belong.)
<br>
<br>Owing to the design factors above ~and~ to strict control of the WTC where personal cameras and Geiger counters were not permitted, your assumption about "instant radiation detection" is flawed, and is a completely different facet compared to "honestly and faithfully measuring for radiation ~and~ reporting on it," whereby the trendline of all other reports gives us no confidence as being 100% valid. You should review the sections on camera scintillation again, because the digital camera technology in particular can and did pick up radiation, which is why the PTB had a hard clampdown on the area against personal cameras and were weapons-drawn anal about tracking all debris leaving the site.
<br>
<br>I've dinged you many, many times about you being a disinformation agent. I'm not solidly in this camp, but your closed-mind, willful ignorance, inability to study is an integrity challenge that only disinfo agents regularly and repeatedly fail. To prove me wrong on you being integrity-challenged and hence a disinfo agent, all you have to do is honestly and faithfully attempt the meager assignments I've given you. You still might disagree, but at least you'll do it from a position of informed knowledge instead of through your ass.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 200 -->
<!-- ***** 20200721_MCB_FB_froze_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_4 -->
<a name="p5"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_5');">Part 5: FGNW Discussiosn with Bruce MacLeod, Jerome Grogan, Olof Won Howler, Rob Meek, Wayne Coste</a></h2>
<div id="part_5" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200731_MCB_FB_MacLeod_01.htm -->
<a name="x201"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x201" class="tiny">x202</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_202');">got thermite?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_202" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/966310460049320/?post_id=3677022302311442&comment_id=3677093052304367&reply_comment_id=3683107785036227">2020-07-31</a>
<br><b>Bruce MacLeod</b>
<br>
<br>Meme: "got thermite?" "NIST did not test for the residue of these computs in the steel." - NIST
<br>Picture of NIST engineer, John Gross, looking at steel beams with thin patches and holes.
<br>
<br>Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
<br>
<br>Thermite. It does a controlled-demolition-disguised-as-a-building-collapse good. <a href="https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions">https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 202 -->
<a name="x203"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x203" class="tiny">x204</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_204');">NIST knew NT wasn't involved</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_204" style="display: block;">
<p>The reason NIST did not test for the residuals of nano-thermite is that they knew it wasn't involved (as the primary mechanism of destruction) and really truly wasn't everywhere. Only Dr. Steven Jones' samples allegedly had NT; none from the USGS, Paul Lioy et al, or the RJ Lee Group.
<br><br>But what all these samplers did have was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres. (The deceit is in ~assuming~ this was the result of the NT chemical reaction, while conveniently overlooking its inability to go the distance in accounting for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots and many pieces of physical evidence, like the arcs, sags, and steel-doobies.)
<br><br>But what the USGS survey of the dust does have is Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities.
<br><br>But what the delayed NIST videos of the destruction do have is recorded evidence on "modern" digital cameras of radiation leaching off of the piles. (Camera scintillation.)
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br><br>I did my homework and made my findings available.
<br><br>//
<br><br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br><br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 204 -->
<a name="x205"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x205" class="tiny">x206</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_206');">Test the Samples (for NT's little helper)</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_206" style="display: block;">
<p>Here's something special for you, Mr. <b>Bruce MacLeod</b>
<br><br>owing to your "haha" emoticon FB rating. It is an earlier version of the same FGNW premise but with several sections that slaughter that sacred 9/11 cow known as NT.
<br><br>I call your attention to section 4. Test the Samples.
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br><br>Here's a quote from Scott Creighton 2010-05-26.</p>
<blockquote><p>Steven Jones is a physicist who has done work for the Idaho National Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy (Division of Advanced Energy Projects), and U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute. Not to mention the fact that Steven Jones was a professor at BYU.
<br><br>In several email attempts to get Jones to agree to run tests for residues of high explosives (PETN, RDX, TNT) in the dust in his possession, this highly decorated and experienced educator attempted to tell me there was no way to test for such residues and then he tried to tell me he didn't know how to test for the residues and would not have access to the equipment to do so.
<br><br>For Steven Jones to make the claim that NIST is "getting away with" not testing for explosive residue in the Ground Zero dust is one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever heard. Jones and Harrit and Roberts all make the claim in their "peer-reviewed paper" that they did NOT test for these finger prints of high explosives and that someone else should.
<br><br>...
<br><br>We can all understand why NIST doesn't run the tests; because they are a branch of the Department of Commerce and they essentially worked for the people who carried out 911. But Jones. Harrit, and Roberts are SUPPOSED to be a different story. They are SUPPOSED to be an unofficial investigation into the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
<br><br>Why would Jones, Harrit, Roberts, et al deliberately chose to not run these tests? And who exactly is "getting away" with not running them? NIST is condemned for it, Jones is given a pass.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Convince me that NT could do the job, or let me convince you that NT could not and that the more logical cause were FGNW.
<br><br>//
<br><br>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br><br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 206 -->
<a name="x207"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x207" class="tiny">x208</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_208');">we have already won</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_208" style="display: block;">
<p>Meme has Richard Gage and Neils Harrit. "Dr. Nils Harrit in terms of exposing what happened on 9/11, we have already won."
<br><br>Image may contain: 2 people, people standing, text that says 'komst Arrivals Departures DR. NIELS HARRIT: IN TERMS OF EXPOSING WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11, WE HAVE ALREADY WON WTC7EVALUATION.or 911FREEFALL.com AE911TRUTH.org'
</p>
</div><!-- section 208 -->
<a name="x209"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x209" class="tiny">x210</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_210');">Molten metal pours out</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_210" style="display: block;">
<p>Nils Harrit: Molten metal pours out of the South Tower several minutes before the collapse. This indicates the whole structure was being weakened in advance. Then the regular explosives comes into play."
<br><br>Image may contain: 1 person, meme, text that says 'Scientists Finds Nano Explosive Material in WTC Dust. April 6, 2009. Molten metal pours out of the South Tower several minutes before the collapse. This indicates the whole structure was being weakened in advance. Then the regular explosives NEWS come into play. B4:21 10:32'
</p>
</div><!-- section 210 -->
<a name="x211"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x211" class="tiny">x212</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_212');">two memes do not equal my two researched efforts</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_212" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
<br><br>your two memes do not equal my two researched efforts. I've read your two wimpy memes; you have not read my two weighty blog postings. For shame! Talk about arguing from a position of abject ignorance! Way to go!
<br><br>P.S. Molten metal pouring out of the South Tower may or may not indicate NT, but even ~if~ it did, NT is not the primary mechanism of destruction. FGNW can also explain the same phenomenon, if you'll open your mind and let it.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 212 -->
<a name="x213"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x213" class="tiny">x214</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_214');">Nuclear Demolition Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_214" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.911tap.org/10-publications/news-releases/823-nuclear-demolition-at-the-world-trade-center-on-9-11-an-empirical-review">https://www.911tap.org/10-publications/news-releases/823-nuclear-demolition-at-the-world-trade-center-on-9-11-an-empirical-review</a>
<br><br>Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An Empirical Review; Where Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations
<br><br>911TAP.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 214 -->
<a name="x215"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x215" class="tiny">x216</a>
Jerome Grogan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_216');">is any truth in the official narrative?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_216" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>U.s. govt should have tested for everything. anything less is totally unacceptable.
<br><br>85 videos of Pentagon strike and they release essentially nothing. Think there is any truth in the official narrative?
</p>
</div><!-- section 216 -->
<a name="x217"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x217" class="tiny">x218</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_218');">the US government should have tested for everything</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_218" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jerome Grogan,
<br><br>You are correct, the US government should have tested for everything.
<br><br>The ironic part is, the US government's lame sampling and testing was sufficient to expose nuclear fingerprints. The USGS's data tables show Uranium and its decay elements (fission) in correlated quantities; the tritium measuring shoddiness proves fusion. Fission-triggered fusion -- a variant of the neutron bomb -- is the basis for all late-third / early-fourth generation nuclear devices.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 218 -->
<a name="x219"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x219" class="tiny">x220</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_220');">managed to debunk it section-by-section</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_220" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
<br><br>I am a step ahead of you. I have had discussions with the author of that piece (Mr. Wayne Coste) and managed to debunk it section-by-section.
<br><br>I'll give you the synopsis: WTC destruction by nuclear blast did not happen. Their premise, and I agree.
<br><br>And with that narrow scope, they attempt to deceitfully rule out ~all~ nuclear devices. Blast implies air pressure, a rapid movement of air. This is framing nukes old school, where the heat wave and blast wave were desirable destructive yields. (A nuclear blast as described by this would also be deafening loud.)
<br><br>FGNW release 80% of their tactical nuclear yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons, which can deliver massive amounts of energy / heat directly into atomic structure of materials in an instance, resulting in vastly different destructive outcomes... than "a nuclear blast wave."
<br><br>Only 20% of the tactical yield would have been heat wave, blast wave, and EMP, but there is evidence of each.
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br><br>//
<br><br>FGNW Discussions
<br><br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 220 -->
<a name="x221"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x221" class="tiny">x222</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_222');">conventional charge needed to kick-start the fission trigger</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_222" style="display: block;">
<p>So in my bat-shit crazy realm, the "squib" isn't a squib seen blasting out of various levels ahead of the destruction "dustification" (truly an accurate coinage by Dr. Wood), but instead it is the detonation of the conventional charge needed to kick-start the fission trigger, neither of which are designed for destruction.
<br><br>The fission-trigger generates the requisite heat for fusion, which directions its expelled highly energetic neutrons upwards in more or less a cone shape.
<br><br>The "sucking in" of the wall assemblies is not an optical illusion, nor is the hollow columns and spandrals of the wall assembly appearing more pliant and bending.
<br><br>I figure probably four per detonation level located around the central core. The top 20 or so floors accordioning in on themselves (before destruction wave goes below the plane impacted levels) is a good indication of the FGNW's cone's height / range.
<br><br>Both towers had remnant structures from the core area still standing after the external wall assemblies and floors fell away, but it is most evident in "the spire" of WTC-2. Given a multi-stage ignition process and desiring a stable mounting for targeting upwards, aiming away from the core on which it (and lower devices) was mounted would be paramount to preventing fracticide between FGNW. (The duration of under-rubble hot-spots is an indication of nuclear fizzle, as in a nuclear device not meeting it expected yields in a desired fashion, so we can surmise some fracticide between FGNW devices happening. Probably saved those firemen in the stairway, no less.)
<br><br><a href="https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif">https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif</a>
<br><br><img alt="" src="https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif" />
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 222 -->
<a name="x223"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x223" class="tiny">x224</a>
Jerome Grogan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_224');">likely some classified u.s.a./Israeli high tech involved</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_224" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>But why would nanothermite be on the scene?
<br><br>Don't know what happened but would bet cash that u.s. govt has told not a single truth regarding the matter. The official narrative is not only a complete fabrication but probably the exact opposite of what actually happened.
<br><br>My guess is no Muslims involved.
<br><br>But likely some classified u.s.a./Israeli high tech involved in this catastrophe.
<br><br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 224 -->
<a name="x225"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x225" class="tiny">x226</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_226');">deceit is in not looking for other causes</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_226" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jerome Grogan,
<br><br>I do not argue "mutual exclusivity" in the destructive mechanisms, which is a disinformation technique. Whether or not NT was involved is no skin off the nose of my FGNW premise.
<br><br>Interesting, those NT experts also weren't arguing for the exclusivity of NT. Their deceit is in not looking for other causes, for limiting discussion to NT's cul-de-sac, and for duping the science-challenged yeomen of 9/11 Truth into arguing for NT as if it were exclusive.
<br><br>As such, they can completely ignore all the evidence of things nuclear.
<br><br>I agree with your other statements.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 226 -->
<a name="x227"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x227" class="tiny">x228</a>
Jerome Grogan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_228');">Quite a free press we have</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_228" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>It is my thought that whatever happened to WTC 1, 2, + 7 was an absolutely extraordinary event. I don't see how anyone can watch the videos and believe anything from NIST. Bad as NIST is, they have admitted free fall of all three buildings. So really admitting demolition.
<br><br>Yet almost zero reports on the news of this free fall fact, and no mention of the U of Alaska study. Quite a free press we have.
</p>
</div><!-- section 228 -->
<a name="x229"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x229" class="tiny">x230</a>
Olof Won Howler : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_230');">Time will show that you do have the Point here</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_230" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>University of Alaska concluded in their study of Building 7 that it was controlled explosion. If I has it right, there should be more to come about it. Time will show that you do have the Point here after all...
</p>
</div><!-- section 230 -->
<a name="x231"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x231" class="tiny">x232</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_232');">{2023} Unavailable Video</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_232" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YhJcl0PO3U">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YhJcl0PO3U</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 232 -->
<a name="x233"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x233" class="tiny">x234</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_234');">9/11 Whistleblowers: Barry Jennings</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_234" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YhJcl0PO3U">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YhJcl0PO3U</a>
<br>9/11 Whistleblowers: Barry Jennings
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>
<br><b>Bruce MacLeod</b>
<br><a href="https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/365-faq-5">https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/365-faq-5</a>
<br>FAQ #6: What was the molten metal seen pouring out of the South Tower minutes before its collapse?
<br>AE911TRUTH.ORG
<br>
<br><b>Bruce MacLeod</b>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6kJ4EpmMw0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6kJ4EpmMw0</a>
<br>Prof. Dr. Niels Harrit about nanothermite on 9/11
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 234 -->
<a name="x235"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x235" class="tiny">x236</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_236');">debunk the shit out of NT on your own</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_236" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
<br><br>I know you are trying hard to prop up the usage of NT as the primary mechanisms of destruction, and please don't take it out on me personally when ~YOU~ debunk the shit out of NT on your own, giving you all manner of cognitive dissonance headaches.
<br><br>How are ~YOU~ going to debunk NT?
<br><br>You are simply going to watch videos, each 2 hours long, but you'll be able to skip around and hone in on certain pieces of evidence; you don't have to watch them all start to finish (but you probably will at some point.)
<br><br>As you are watching, you are simply going to postulate "where was NT positioned in the towers to create this anomalous piece? How far away? How much was used?"
<br><br>When the hollow box columns of a wall assembly are popped apart at their welded seams over their entire length, where was the NT? How did NT create the steel doobies, the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly wrapped tightly by their spandrals?
<br><br>Let me give you three hints.
<br><br>1) NT doesn't explain them very well. (FGNW does.)
<br><br>2) You won't find an explanation by Dr. Niels Harrit or Dr. Steven Jones on how NT created various artifacts in the videos.
<br><br>3) Dr. Jones and AE9/11 Truth both claim that NT wasn't the sole mechanism, and later Dr. Jones even said "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." Yet, did they go researching those other mechanisms? No.
<br><br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI</a>
<br><br>//
<br><br>
<br><br>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
<br><br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 236 -->
<a name="x237"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x237" class="tiny">x238</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_238');">The Smoking Gun: Molten Steel</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_238" style="display: block;">
<p>Image may contain: text that says '86% 9/11 molten steel 7:34 PM youtube. researcngate.net The Smoking Gun: Molten Stee.. facebook. com 9/11: Stabilized WTC2 Molten Metal... youtube.c Molten Debunking Truthers: "Molten St... askepticalhuman.co Nano thermite Urgent: Scientists pinterest.com Discover Updates Search ?? Collections More'
<br><br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 238 -->
<a name="x239"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x239" class="tiny">x240</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_240');">Thank you for this evidence of FGNW involvement</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_240" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
<br><br>Thank you for this evidence of FGNW involvement!
<br><br>9/11 wasn't perfect, and some of the multiple FGNW might have been fracticided and thus didn't reach their expected nuclear yield, resulting in nuclear fizzle.
<br><br>What was the date of extraction of that red hot piece of metal?
<br><br>Kindly calculate the amount of NT required to generate the heat for this molten piece?
<br><br>You see, once NT has consumed all of its agents, the reaction stops, and what's around it cools. Presumably according to your beliefs, the NT keeping this metal glowing was unspent from its original destructive purposes.
<br><br>To help you out, here's where I do a similar assignment for you.
<br><br>+++ quote from one of my articles
<br><br>NT is an incendiary, not an explosive. Therefore Dr. Steven Jones, who allegedly found energetic particles of NT in his dust samples, suggested that NT was mixed with something having more brisance, such as RDX.
<br><br>Unfortunately on paper, RDX or similar explosives exasperate getting NT to explain the second anomaly of under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months. NT has a burn rate of ~1,100 feet per second (f/s). RDX has a burn-rate of ~31,000 f/s. Hot-spots were several and burned for many weeks. Simplify by considering only one hot-spot that burned 4 weeks = 28 days = 1,411,200 seconds. As but one configuration and so it doesn't burn-up all at once, consider this explosive/incendiary material packed into an imaginary garden hose whose diameter we can ignore for the moment. To sustain such a hot-spot, the fuse-like hose packed with pure NT implies a length of 226,000 miles, while RDX implies 7,510,000 miles. Thus, a mixture of NT with RDX (or equivalent) would still result in something many hundreds of thousand miles long.
<br><br>Red flags should be going up at this point, because those triple zeros to the left of the decimal point are significant. If we assume "salting" of the material in the pile and grossly simplified it down to "n" thousand miles and a hose diameter of a mere 1/8", the volume of material required (for one hot-spot) is still massive! The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources is stopped at RDX/NT. Worst of all, this represents material that was unspent and left-over from its original task of pulverizing the towers. In other words, add this to the gross estimates already provided by Dr. Harrit.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 240 -->
<a name="x241"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x241" class="tiny">x242</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_242');">present your case with supporting evidence to Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_242" style="display: block;">
<p><br><br><b>Bruce MacLeod</b>
<br><br><a href="https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/exhibits-index-grand-jury-petition/">https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/exhibits-index-grand-jury-petition/</a>
<br><br>EXHIBITS INDEX — Grand Jury Petition | Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
<br><br>LAWYERSCOMMITTEEFOR9-11INQUIRY.ORG
<br><br>
<br><br><b>Bruce MacLeod</b>
<br><br>In conclusion if you think you have positive evidence of your claims of nuclear bombs then you should present your case with supporting evidence to <a href="https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org">https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org</a> as they are preparing to bring multiple cases against various US govt. bodies. Otherwise what you have presented so far is merely your opinion of 9/11events while all the evidence to be presented relys on eyewitness accounts and exhaustive research by experts in ttheir own fields. If you think your efforts are competent enough to go to trial and bring down the cabal by citing people like Judy Woods then I can only wish you the best of luck. Meanwhile I'm sticking with simple truths and facts that the peer reveiwed researched evidence delivers..
<br><br>Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry | Integrity, Accountability & Transparency
<br><br>LAWYERSCOMMITTEEFOR9-11INQUIRY.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 242 -->
<a name="x243"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x243" class="tiny">x244</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_244');">thank you for the suggestion!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_244" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
<br><br>You make a good point, and thank you for the suggestion!
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 244 -->
<a name="x245"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x245" class="tiny">x246</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_246');">inquiry has been submitted</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_246" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
<br><br>A message to the 9/11 inquiry has been submitted. Thanks you.
<br><br>//
<br><br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 246 -->
<a name="x247"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x247" class="tiny">x248</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_248');">FGNW can address them, but NT hasn't because NT can't.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_248" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
<br><br>In reading over the other statements in your comment, let me assure you that my analysis is more than my opinion. The same eyewitness accounts and exhaustive research by experts is re-purposed in my FGNW premise in one manner or another. (It is a shame when I prove the "exhaustive research" sometimes to be much less than that and even downright purposely deceitful.)
<br><br>I was in Dr. Wood's camp before, and it took a second pass on her book before I detected the deceit: she drops lots of dangling innuendo; connects no dots; draws no conclusions; and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices. BUT, she does do a great job of collecting anomalous pieces of evidence THAT ANY 9/11-THEORY-DU-JOUR must address in order to be complete... And wouldn't you know it? FGNW can address them, but NT hasn't because NT can't.
<br><br>How will ~YOU~ prove that last bold statement?
<br><br>Those NIST videos in the other thread that you were asked to view and contemplate how NT was positioned to account for it?
<br><br>You do that work open-mindedly and honestly, and you'll easily be won over into the FGNW camp.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 248 -->
<a name="x249"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x249" class="tiny">x250</a>
Rob Meek : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_250');">John Gross of NIST lied about molten materials</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_250" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://youtu.be/X5clsD-sJag">https://youtu.be/X5clsD-sJag</a>
<br><br>John Gross of N.I.S.T. lied about molten materials on 9/11
<br><br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 250 -->
<a name="x251"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x251" class="tiny">x252</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_252');">a hypothesis that fits the observations</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_252" style="display: block;">
<p>If you want a coherent analysis of the mechanism of destruction, here is a paper with a hypothesis that fits the observations. The key weakness that was used to destroy the Towers was the floor-truss-to-channel (core) bolted connections that were not designed to withstand significant propelled outward forces.
<br><br><a href="">http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 252 -->
<a name="x253"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x253" class="tiny">x254</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_254');">Thanks for your input Wayne Coste, very much appreciated</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_254" style="display: block;">
<p>Thanks for your input here Wayne
<br><br>There is a lot information to take in and I look forward to studying it as best I can, very much appreciated.
</p>
</div><!-- section 254 -->
<a name="x255"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x255" class="tiny">x256</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_256');">surfing the big wave</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_256" style="display: block;">
<p>Bruce MacLeod
<br><br>I'm in the process of revising a "sibling paper" that can be seen here. It provides a unique analysis of some perimeter columns I call "surfing the big wave."
<br><br>NOTE: While I have called this final, I'm still enhancing it due to comments … See More
</p>
</div><!-- section 256 -->
<a name="x257"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x257" class="tiny">x258</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_258');">Postulated Hypothesis: nuclear explosions on selected above-ground floors</a></b></p>
<p>2020-07-31</p>
<div id="sect_258" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
<br><br>I determined rather quickly from scanning that your effort is disinformation. How so?
<br><br>You frame nuclear means in only one way (old school) and thus incompletely & improperly.
<br><br>Because I do also don't agree with it, let's ignore: <i>"Postulated Hypothesis: Nuclear explosions underneath the core of the Twin Towers."</i>
<br><br>Instead, let's focus on: <i>"Postulated Hypothesis: nuclear explosions on selected above-ground floors."</i>
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"The audio record does not contain the required sounds of immense pressure waves needed to transmit nuclear-blast forces. Nuclear blast damage cannot be created by “silent” nuclear blasts. A review of radiation in dust samples showed that Alpha, Beta,and Gamma levels were effectively at background levels."</i>
<br><br>There you go again, framing the nuclear destruction has "a nuclear blast". Your disinformation effort completely ignores the fact that late-third / early-fourth generation nuclear devices are based off of neutron bombs and release 80% of their nuclear yields as highly energetic neutrons.
<br><br>The destruction was not "silent", and the conventional start charge to kick off the fission-trigger for the fusion payload was indeed audible and visible (e.g., squibs). However, if only 20% of the nuclear yield was in a conventional heat wave, blast wave, and EMP, of course the destruction is going to muted, and certainly more quiet that NT and any chemical explosive it was mixed with to achieve the observed brisance. Good job of debunking your own (NT) premise with the "audio signature" argument.
<br><br>The tritium report is guilty of re-defining background levels, along with poor sampling and a stilted scope. Given that so many other 9/11 reports also had built-in flaws, the voracity of the radiation reports needs to be questioned.
<br><br>Even more damaging to your reputation, Dr. Andre Gsponer has been brought to your attention many times before. The fact that you did not incorporate his definition of FGNW into your discussion cinches your lack of ethics.
<br><br>Just after the conventional starter charge for fission (that generates the heat for fusion), notice how the hollow box columns of the wall assembly become pliable and bend. [If NT were responsible, explain how it was positioned to account for this?]
<br><br><a href="https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif">https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif</a>
<br><br><img alt="" src="https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif" />
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 258 -->
<!-- ***** 20200731_MCB_FB_MacLeod_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_5 -->
<a name="p6"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_6');">Part 6: FGNW Discussions with Dave Mudry, Stuart Crosbie, John Locke, Sam Haschets, Wayne Coste</a></h2>
<div id="part_6" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200805_MCB_FB_Crosbie.htm -->
<a name="x259"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x259" class="tiny">x260</a>
Dave Mudry : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_260');">not possible to plant demolition devices in building 7 without getting caught</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_260" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/721817331952584/?post_id=734851660649151&comment_id=735336667267317&reply_comment_id=736881727112811">2020-08-05</a></p>
<p>NIST said it was not possible to plant demolition devices in building 7 without getting caught. But in 1978 NYC there was a building (Citicorp) that had to be fixed to prevent a collapse, and without getting caught because it was already occupied. The secret of the fix was kept for over 17 years
<br><br>...Let that sink in.
</p>
</div><!-- section 260 -->
<a name="x261"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x261" class="tiny">x262</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_262');">dig into their arsenals</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_262" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Dave Mudry,
<br><br>I must disagree with your WTC-7 skulduggery. NIST was correct that <i>"it was not possible to plant (conventional chemical-based) demolition devices in building 7 without getting caught"</i>, because such would have been a logistics hurdle and require implementation on all levels.
<br><br>However, if the US or Mossad digs into their arsenals, they'll come across fourth generation nuclear devices. Several of these in the right places where they did have access changes the paradigm. They could be placed in specially designed vending machines and wheeled into the building in broad daylight.
<br><br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br><br>//
<br><br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br><br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 262 -->
<a name="x263"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x263" class="tiny">x264</a>
David Dobs : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_264');">Thank you for your FGNW blog</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_264" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. Bridges. Thank you for your FGNW blog. I had never heard any of this before and it resolves so many loose ends that have bothered me, such as the extreme degree of pulverization observed.
</p>
</div><!-- section 264 -->
<a name="x265"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x265" class="tiny">x266</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_266');">FGNW tie in more loose ends than lame-ass NT</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_266" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Dobs,
<br><br>Indeed FGNW do tie in many more loose ends than lame-ass NT. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 266 -->
<a name="x267"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x267" class="tiny">x268</a>
David Dobs : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_268');">I spent hours reading your blog. Amazing scholarship!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_268" style="display: block;">
<p>Absolutely! Just mentioned the best example. I spent hours reading your blog. Amazing scholarship!
</p>
</div><!-- section 268 -->
<a name="x269"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x269" class="tiny">x270</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_270');">Thank you for your kind words about my article</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_270" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr David Dobs,
<br><br>Thank you for your kind words about my article. I have a new 2020 FGNW Opus that I'm procrastinating finishing. It'll re-purpose things from this and other efforts while adding a few things, like a fresh debunking of AE9/11Truth FAQ #13/#15 that proclaim -- and I agree -- that "a nuclear blast did not destroy the WTC structures." I agree because FGNW release 80% of their nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons which generates different effects and audio signatures than "a nuclear blast."
<br><br>FWIW, you might find this predecessor of interest (although it has redundancy). It slaughters the NT sacred cow.
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br><br>Most of my blog is a repetitive bore that I heartedly do ~not~ recommend reading from A-Z, or even a posting A-Z. However, it has been a most useful tool in taking ownership of my words, and debunking carousel-spinning opponents.
<br><br>Legacy and an ability to change my views when presented with new information, sets my efforts apart. If someone could convince me otherwise on FGNW, I'd be singing a different tune within the fold of mainstream 9/11 truth. But as my blog documents, Facebook as a lot of bots and agents with agendas that prevents them from truly rational discussion. They get tripped up early by not being able to -- as if an order from higher ups -- read my blog posting and drag back specific things that are in error.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 270 -->
<a name="x271"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x271" class="tiny">x272</a>
Stuart Crosbie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_272');">there where no nukes used on 911; firemen are living proof</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_272" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/966310460049320/?post_id=3694423383904667&comment_id=3695626693784336&reply_comment_id=3696160547064284">2020-08-06</a>
<br><br>Our group rules are there for a reason, there where no nukes used on 911, here is the proof, these firemen are living proof,that there where no nukes at the towers, if there was , these brave firemen would not be alive, time to get rid of the eejits that don’t do there own research, and can’t think for themselves, these are the people that make the truth movement look like a bunch of clueless morons!!!
</p>
</div><!-- section 272 -->
<a name="x273"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x273" class="tiny">x274</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_274');">nukes are framed wrong, on purpose.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_274" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"there was no nukes used on 911, now hear is your solid factual proof, these firemen are living proof there was no nukes, if there was , these brave firemen would not be alive"</i>
<br><br>I call bullshit on that. Nuclear devices were used, and the issue with most of those who champion nukes and / or debunk nukes is that they frame them wrong, on purpose.
<br><br>Late-third / early-fourth generation nuclear devices used a conventional charge to kick-start a fission trigger that generates enough heat to start fusion, whereby 80% of the nuclear yield is target highly energetic neutrons.
<br><br>Multiple FGNW per tower. I speculate 4 per detonation level, and probably 4-6 different levels. FGNW were aimed upwards in a cone-shaped output, so as to not fracticide neighboring or lower devices.
<br><br>However, nuclear fizzle did happen (devices not meeting their expected yield), as is evident by the duration of under-rubble hot-spots and many other pieces of evidence that NT cannot come close to explaining.
<br><br>The firemen were saved because the FGNW right below them or near them failed.
<br><br>Here is a peer-reviewed paper in a respectable science publication talking about FGNW. Dr. Gsponer had been writing about nukes (in three different languages) in the 10 years prior to 9/11. This paper from 2005 is a major omission from Dr. Jones (2007) and Dr. Wood (2010).
<br><br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br><br>//
<br><br>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br><br>ARXIV.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 274 -->
<a name="x275"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x275" class="tiny">x276</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_276');">Dr. Gsponer, to my knowledge, hasn't written a single word about 9/11</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_276" style="display: block;">
<p>Dr. Gsponer, to my knowledge, hasn't written a single word about 9/11.
<br><br>Here is my analysis, wrapping in lots of evidence data-mined from many other premises.
<br><br>Proof of nukes leaks out all over, if you are looking for it.
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br><br>//
<br><br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br><br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 276 -->
<a name="x277"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x277" class="tiny">x278</a>
John Locke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_278');">nukes leave fallout</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_278" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>nukes leave fallout.
<br><br>Just have some good old fashioned C-4 if you wanna blow up world trade.
<br><br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 278 -->
<a name="x279"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x279" class="tiny">x280</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_280');">the type of nuclear device and their implementation determines fallout</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_280" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. John Locke,
<br><br>That is a major fail of a response with clear indications that you did not even read what I posted.
<br><br>To your points, nukes -- even FGNW -- have fallout. But the type of nuclear device and their implementation determines what you'll get. This fallout evidence leaks out all over if you are looking for it, despite the efforts at under-sampling, report-juking, and faulty conclusions. One of my favorite pieces of evidence is the NIST recording of radiation leaching off of the debris piles. Thus, the first error in your beliefs is that "there was no radiation / fallout." Quite the contrary, there was.
<br><br>Secondly, bomb sniffing dogs would have detected the C-4 in the many weeks it would have taken to position them. The dogs only had a few days holiday before 9/11; not enough time for wiring.
<br><br>Thirdly, if you did use C-4, you could at least configure them to ~not~ look like a controlled demolition.
<br><br>Fourthly, overkill pulverization is the first clue that FGNW were used. Why? Because the implementors would not have planned for "overkill pulverization". Further, the hot-spots burned for many weeks after the fact, which represents a massive amount of materials UNSPENT from the original pulverizing task. The logistics of this obscenely massive overkill amount would have doomed the operation to detection early on.
<br><br>FGNW don't have these problems. Kindly RTFM.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 280 -->
<a name="x281"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x281" class="tiny">x282</a>
Sam Haschets : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_282');">dogs never had a holiday</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_282" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>" The dogs only had a few days holiday before 9/11; not enough time for wiring."
<br><br>The dogs never had a holiday - there were three assigned full time - one died on 9/11 - and is memorialized on the NY PAPD page
<br><br>But at any rate, do continue
<br><br>
<br><br><b>Sam Haschets</b>
<br><br>and the dog's partner was one of those rescued from Stairwell B
</p>
</div><!-- section 282 -->
<a name="x283"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x283" class="tiny">x284</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_284');">review your previous discussions with me and try not to repeat what was already discussed</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_284" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Sam Haschets,
<br><br>The vacation schedules of the bomb sniffing dogs is not my hobby-horse, otherwise I would have better dates. Having been around the 9/11 block many times, I have encountered many times the never-debunked assertion that the dog's holidays were the several days (and weekend) leading up to 9/11 (but not necessarily on 9/11, when they were heroically back at work.)
<br><br>The implication is that the amount of time in the final phases of installation when explosive devices were brought into the building and hooked into whatever wiring and fixtures "construction workers" were making ready was short. Too short for conventional chemical based explosives including NT to be positioned to give overkill pulverizations.
<br><br>But if we're only talking four FGNW devices per detonation level and 4-6 detonation levels, times two towers, plus WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7, then it becomes a more do-able project.
<br><br>+++
<br><br>Let me cut you off at the pass, Mr. Haschets. Kindly review your previous discussions with me and try not to repeat what was already discussed.
<br><br>Part 4: "Debunker vs Truther", "Fair and Civil Debate"
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html</a>
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 284 -->
<a name="x285"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x285" class="tiny">x286</a>
John Locke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_286');">Fuck You Dear Mr Maxwell Bridges</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_286" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>Fuck you
</p>
</div><!-- section 286 -->
<a name="x287"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x287" class="tiny">x288</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_288');">I look forward to the sexual interactions that you encourage me to explore. Thank you for the wishes</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_288" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. John Locke,
<br><br>Your highly emotional, if pithy, response to me pointing out that you haven't read the reference material given at the top of this thread or in my blog posting, well... It doesn't reflect well on you. Your rebuttal would have been stronger if you just would have STFU and RTFM instead of proving your insincerity.
<br><br>I look forward to the sexual interactions that you encourage me to explore. Thank you for the wishes.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 288 -->
<a name="x289"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x289" class="tiny">x290</a>
John Locke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_290');">STFU</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_290" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>STFU
</p>
</div><!-- section 290 -->
<a name="x291"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x291" class="tiny">x292</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_292');">should have taken your own "STFU" advice</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_292" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. John Locke,
<br><br>You should have taken your own "STFU" advice before you made your comment, and maybe to curtail you even making a comment of such pithy wit. What a douche!
<br><br>I mean, your last two responses to my reasoned & rational comments were clearly of higher intellectual and scholarly quality! It dawns on me that this isn't the first Facebook group dedicated to 9/11 that were in reality disinfo fronts manned by agents and bots. A tell of this group's insincerity is the scope-limits imposed on discussion from the get-go: no nukes and no DEW. I forgot to mention, FGNW are technically in both camps, being nuclear devices and directed energy weapons.
<br><br>You are encouraged to ignore all further comments from me, or even to block me. That'll prevent me from being your trigger into woo-woo angry, meaningless comments.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 292 -->
<a name="x293"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x293" class="tiny">x294</a>
John Locke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_294');">Go plant light poles</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_294" style="display: block;">
<p>Go plant light poles
</p>
</div><!-- section 294 -->
<a name="x295"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x295" class="tiny">x296</a>
Sam Haschets : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_296');">"do you record all your conversations?" "Duh, affirmative."</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_296" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>do you record all your conversations ??
</p>
</div><!-- section 296 -->
<a name="x297"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x297" class="tiny">x298</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_298');">I take ownership of my words</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_298" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Sam Haschets,
<br><br>I am glad you ask that astute question about whether I save off-list copies of all my FB conversations? No, I don't save ~all~ of them, because some are meaningful only in the moment and throwaway in the grand scheme of things.
<br><br>To your point, I do save ~most~ conversations of a meaningful nature, like if it is on one of my hobby-horses. Typically, I'm writing & saving off-line anyway, so it isn't a hardship. I endeavor to write words from the onset that are worthy of preservation and publication in other venues (e.g., my blog). Why?
<br><br>Because I do take ownership of my words and stand behind them.
<br><br>Because I know how easily postings and discussions can be disappeared on FB by admins, posters, commenters.
<br><br>In the process of writing my response to someone's comment, I first copy their comment so that I can quote them accurately in the response I'm authoring (and save URL and dates). In this manner, I end up acquiring both sides of the discussion to give proper context when re-purposed later.
<br><br>Wouldn't you know it? This dutiful habit to build my legacy sometimes builds a brief legacy for others!
<br><br>That's where the rub is, eh? Agents don't like legacy. They don't like it shown (in places they don't control) how many times they spun a disinfo carousel. Agents don't like trends of hypocrisy and deceit that get exposed across many discussions. Agents generally don't write words worthy of preservation, let alone re-purposing... You get the picture.
<br><br>But kind of puts me into a different category, eh?
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 298 -->
<a name="x299"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x299" class="tiny">x300</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_300');">survivors of Stairwell B</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_300" style="display: block;">
<p>Here is an article about the survivors of Stairwell B, and what it means for the mechanism of destruction of the Twin Towers.
<br><br><a href="https://www.911tap.org/10-publications/news-releases/745-the-most-compelling-9-11-story">https://www.911tap.org/10-publications/news-releases/745-the-most-compelling-9-11-story</a>
<br><br>The Most Compelling 9/11 Story; The Miracle of Ladder 6
<br><br>911TAP.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 300 -->
<a name="x301"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x301" class="tiny">x302</a>
Sam Haschets : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_302');">a NY Port Authority police officer</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_302" style="display: block;">
<p>I am facebook friends with one of the survivors - a NY Port Authority police officer - truly the last men out of the towers
</p>
</div><!-- section 302 -->
<a name="x303"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x303" class="tiny">x304</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_304');">the multiple FGNW did not all reach their expected full nuclear yield</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_304" style="display: block;">
<p>It just means that, of the multiple FGNW used on the tower -- 4 devices per detonation level, 4-6 detonation levels -- not all of them reached their expected full nuclear yield.
<br><br>Refer to this peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal.
<br><br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br><br>//
<br><br>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br><br>ARXIV.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 304 -->
<a name="x305"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x305" class="tiny">x306</a>
Stuart Crosbie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_306');">nothing in your article shows or proves FGNW was used on the tower</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_306" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>there’s nothing in your article that shows or proves FGNW was used on the tower? No proof whatsoever. Pure imagination bullshit !
</p>
</div><!-- section 306 -->
<a name="x307"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x307" class="tiny">x308</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_308');">your alternative has so many anomalous pieces of evidence that it cannot explain, but FGNW can</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_308" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
<br><br>If that is the entirety of your scholarly rebuttal, then I reply in kind that your alternative (which I assume is nanothermite) has so many anomalous pieces of evidence (like in the NIST videos of the scrapyards) that it cannot explain, but FGNW can.
<br><br>But please, go ahead and try. How do your alternative methods (NT) explain various pieces of evidence in the videos? More specifically, where was the NT placed in relation to the pieces observed to affect bending and splitting of hollow box columns along their welded seams?
<br><br>And while you're looking for the research and analysis of others to explain these artifacts, let it be a sign when you come up short and have to wing it with your own smarts and acumen.
<br><br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI</a>
<br><br>//YOUTUBE.COM
<br><br>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
</p>
</div><!-- section 308 -->
<a name="x309"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x309" class="tiny">x310</a>
Stuart Crosbie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_310');">don’t take me for a dafty</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_310" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear mr Maxwell Bridges have a read at the group rules for our group, don’t take me for a dafty,
<br><br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 310 -->
<a name="x311"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x311" class="tiny">x312</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_312');">you made the nukes or DEW post to which I replied with a proper description of the 9/11 nuclear devices</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_312" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
<br><br>I'm good at adhering to rules of the group, even ones poorly written: <i>"we also do not allow posts by or about Dr Judy Wood , we also do not do nukes nor Direct Energy Weapons."</i>
<br>
<br>For the record, I did not make any "POSTS" in your group having to do with nukes or DEW. No, you made the POST, and I merely submitted comments to it that brought up a proper description of the 9/11 nuclear devices (FGNW). Technically, I am within your group's own rules.
<br>
<br>Speaking of your post, you boldly plant the deceitful and wrong hypnotic suggestion: <i>"there where no nukes used on 911."</i> Thus, you as an admin made discussion of nuclear devices acceptable in this thread. [You can't prove that premise of no nuclear involvement. I've already done the homework in debunking just about any source you'd like to bring up to bolster your "no nukes" case, putting me a few steps ahead of you.]
<br>
<br>Furthermore, when I included in my comment the link to Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, your reply should have giving me my warning THEN, if those were truly the group's rules <i>"nothing 9/11 nuclear."</i> But no. Your lame-ass response as an admin validated the FGNW topic for discussion in this thread and made it FAIR GAME.
<br>
<br>The peer-reviewed article from Dr. Gsponer proves the development and existence of FGNW, and by itself should have you -- if you are indeed a sincere seeker of truth and not some agent with an agenda -- re-consider your "no nukes" premises, because they are based on a limited understanding and false assumptions about the range of nuclear devices' output.
<br>
<br>FGNW are not your grandpa's nukes. Because grandpa's nukes are your nuclear conditioning as well as that of disinfo agents who promote 9/11 deep-underground nukes and Woodsian DEWers, it makes sense that your forum would scope limit their discussion. Let's fix your conditioning and assumptions.
<br>
<br>What is interesting is that you don't go "pulling rank" about illegal nuclear topics until you are legitimately challenged to have your 9/11 theory-du-jour (which I assume is NT) explain the anomalous evidence from the NIST scrapyard videos. So even as I was trying to change the topic of this thread to NT (assuming this is your hobby-horse), YOU CAME UP SHORT!
<br>
<br>No, Mr. Crosbie, I <i>"don't take you for a dafty."</i> But latter-day lurker readers might.
<br>
<br>As I once wrote to Mr. Wayne Coste when I thoroughly debunked his <i>"no nuclear blasts"</i> derivative workes from AE9/11 Truth's FAQ #13 / #15 <i>"no nuclear blasts"</i> efforts -- that I agree with only because the nuclear framing of <i>"nuclear blasts"</i> is so deceitful --, <i>"this is varsity 1st string, A-game time."</i> You need to up your game.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 312 -->
<a name="x313"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x313" class="tiny">x314</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_314');">Sorry I just gave up arguing with a rock</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_314" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>Maxwell: Sorry I just gave up arguing with a rock.
<br><br>From what I've observed by interacting with you, it seems you don't have any comprehension of either Newtonian physics of Quantum physics.
</p>
</div><!-- section 314 -->
<a name="x315"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x315" class="tiny">x316</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_316');">dared me to critique your work then were a no-show in defending it</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_316" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
<br><br>No, you just gave up. You dared me to critique your work. This, I did, section-by-section, neatly in individual top-level comments to make it easy for you to reply to specific topics. You couldn't be bothered to give a single rebuttal to any of the sections' various criticism. Not a single one.
<br><br>Nor did you have any rebuttal for the phrase that pays, debunks your premises, and exposes you as a disinfo agent, paid-to-post. The phrase? "Nuclear blasts." Frame 9/11 nukes as "nuclear blasts," and sure, I'll readily agree that "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC buildings." Instead, "highly energetic neutrons emitted from FGNW destroyed the buildings."
<br><br>In a Schadefreude sense, I love it when you continue to fail your integrity tests. But I also hate it, because you aren't being genuine or sincere.
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 316 -->
<a name="x317"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x317" class="tiny">x318</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_318');">flunked every test I gave you</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_318" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>Sorry Maxwell, you flunked every test I gave you, except fantastical fantasy thinking.
<br><br>It’s an honor to have someone of your stature criticize me.
</p>
</div><!-- section 318 -->
<a name="x319"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x319" class="tiny">x320</a>
John Locke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_320');">paid by the letter or what</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_320" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>are you paid by the letter or what
<br><br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 320 -->
<a name="x321"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x321" class="tiny">x322</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_322');">not reading opponent's words puts one in a bad spot for any wannabe debunking efforts</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_322" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr John Locke,
<br><br>Your criticism is just another proof that you don't read your opponent's words, which puts you in a bad spot for any wannabe debunking efforts and dings your integrity.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 322 -->
<a name="x323"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x323" class="tiny">x324</a>
John Locke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_324');">not a debunker</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_324" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>I’m not a debunker and you’re not legit.
<br><br>Fuck off.
<br><br>Block me.
</p>
</div><!-- section 324 -->
<a name="x325"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x325" class="tiny">x326</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_326');">to your point, you haven't debunked anything</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_326" style="display: block;">
<p>>Dear Mr. John Locke,
<br><br>If you are not a debunker (of nuclear premises), then why in the fuck are you even corresponding with me? But to your point, you haven't debunked anything; you've only unloaded curse words. Oooo, so witty and charming!
<br><br>I'm "not legit"? Ooo, Sherlock, could it have been the picture of Heisenberg / Walter White / Bryon Cranston as my profile picture that gave you your first clue?
<br><br>But baby, I've got legacy with my blog, and you don't. I did my research and you didn't. Hell, you can't even be trusted to read what your opponent writes, and weasels out of it at every turn (like a bot.) Failing your integrity test with flying colors.
<br><br>You write like a bot: "Fuck off."
<br><br>Why? What did I do?
<br><br>You write like a bot: "Block me."
<br><br>No, I said it first; YOU block ME!
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 326 -->
<a name="x327"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x327" class="tiny">x328</a>
John Locke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_328');">you’re a no-planer and kosher too</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_328" style="display: block;">
<p><b>John Locke</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>you must be paid by the word.
<br>You should just delete.
<br>It’s pretty fucked up that you want to spin bullshit about 9/11.
<br>I’ll bet you’re a no-planer and kosher too.
<br>
<br><b>John Locke</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Blow me
</p>
</div><!-- section 328 -->
<a name="x329"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x329" class="tiny">x330</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_330');">envious of my word count</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_330" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. John Locke,
<br><br>You sound so envious of my word count. The ladies all know that word-count isn't the only big thing I've got.
<br><br>You forfeit the right to proclaim something as "spinning bullshit about 9/11" if you don't bring to the table a single flawed element that makes up its premise.
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"I’ll bet you’re a no-planer and kosher too."</i>
<br><br>Ten years ago, you would have won that bet about me being a no-planer, having been duped something fierce by September Clues. Eventually I found the evidence and analysis that debunked what had me duped, I publicly apologized, and now, more often than I want, I can be found debunking NPT@WTC.
<br><br>The state of my pecker is of no concern to you; I'm not racist in my choice of pickles. My wall documents me being against Israel. You either didn't go to my wall to learn this, a classic bot move. Or you are dumber than rocks and not worthy of drinking my bong water.
<br><br>P.S. Since you requested the servicing of your nether parts, how about you whipping out a picture of your non-Kosher pecker and posting it here so we can all see if it is worthy of such preferential treatment. Sorry that your sex life is so deplorable, you must seek sexual thrills from other men.
<br><br>P.P.S. You write in the NEXT comment, <i>"So are we gonna hump or what"</i>. I've edited this comment to show I saw it, but to let you have the last words in this thread, a triumphant response and capping tour-de-force!
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 330 -->
<a name="x331"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x331" class="tiny">x332</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_332');">SPOILER: You'll soon recognize that any alleged placement of NT would have been ludicrous from effectiveness, logistics, and implementation viewpoints</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_332" style="display: block;">
<p>Here's something from the posting video. The firemen claim that they could heard each floor coming down and hitting the next. Yes, they heard something, but it wasn't each floor hitting the next. Why?
<br><br>To make the math easy, let's assume the collapse time was 11 seconds (when it was actually less). 110 floors collapsing means 10 "floor crashes" per second, that the ear would not be able to distinguish and count. This is not what they heard.
<br><br>However, if the demolition levels were, say, every 5 floors, they'd hear two "detonations" a second; or if every 10 floors, one detonation a second.
<br><br>By the way, they didn't just hear something, they felt the detonation vibrations at a countable cadence.
<br><br>In not just this videos of the posting but others, the firemen mention "boom-boom-boom" at a cadence you could count, and videos close-up of the event underscore this.
<br><br>For the NT dead-enders, please explain how the NT was positioned to get, say, a destruction cadence of two detonations a second?
<br><br>For the NT dead-enders, here is a NIST video from the scrapyards. Please speculate into the position or proximity of the super-duper nanothermite used to achieve the anomalous evidence captured in the video.
<br><br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI</a>
<br><br>I don't have to debunk NT for you, because you will do it yourselves.
<br><br>WARNING: Any sincere attempt at speculation into how NT created such wonders of destruction in the NIST scrapyard videos may give cognitive dissonance headaches, particularly to NT dead-enders. ... But you got to follow the Truth rabbit where ever it leads.
<br><br>SPOILER: You'll soon recognize that any alleged placement of NT (as the primary mechanism of destruction) would have been ludicrous from effectiveness, logistics, and implementation viewpoints and counter productive to the destruction goals. If NT (and chemical-based explosives) were the primary mechanism of destruction, they most certainly would ~not~ have been wired in with overkill pulverization amounts but would have been configured only with sufficient amounts to visually maintain the ruse that "office furniture fires and gravity" destroyed (but not "pulverized") the structures ~not~ at near free-fall accelerations. RED FLAG!!!
<br><br>SPOILER: What mechanisms of destruction have energy in excess, are in the category of DEW, can deliver instantly energy deep in the molecular structure of their target, have a fingerprint of fission, have a fingerprint of fusion, and have an audio signature but not a deafening one?
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 332 -->
<!-- ***** 20200805_MCB_FB_Crosbie.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_6 -->
<a name="p7"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_7');">Part 7: FGNW Discussions with Winston Smith, Lawrence Fine</a></h2>
<div id="part_7" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200805_MCB_FB_Fine.htm -->
<a name="x333"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x333" class="tiny">x334</a>
Winston Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_334');">the patterns of damage especially the lowest level B6</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_334" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/911CONSENSUS/2992241680874515/?comment_id=2995501487215201&reply_comment_id=3009616859136997">2020-08-05</a>
<br><br>Examine the patterns of damage. Especially the lowest level B6.
<br><br>
<br><br><a href="https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif">https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif</a>
<br><br><img alt="" src="https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif" />
<br><br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 334 -->
<a name="x335"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x335" class="tiny">x336</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_336');">WTC-4 had a geological formation under it</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_336" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine,
<br><br>This is an interesting GIF. You should watch it while also considering what was under WTC-4 still intact.
<br><br>Again, I say WTC-4 had a geological formation under it.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 336 -->
<a name="x337"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x337" class="tiny">x338</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_338');">very little damage above the surface of the bedrock</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_338" style="display: block;">
<p><br><b>Lawrence Fine</b>
<br>Oh, I have and that little red spot beneath #4 - - - as far as "intact" - - - pretty much except for that little red spot. You do understand that there was very little damage above the surface of the bedrock do you not Maxwell?
<br>This image is of the TWO "subsidence" areas beneath building #4 near the beginning of excavation.
<br>Those"formations" while "geological" were created by extreme heat on 9/11, not "ice age erosion".
<br>Image may contain: outdoor and water
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Lawrence Fine</b>
<br>and this is what was left when the excavation was done:
<br>No photo description available.
<br>
<br>
<br>Lawrence Fine
<br>A revealing view on the TWO +diameters+ - 40' spheroid cavities beneath building #4.
<br>Again Maxwell Bridges, I really appreciate the advise an information you shared which helped me to locate nd define these two cavities.
<br>Image may contain: outdoor
</p>
</div><!-- section 338 -->
<a name="x339"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x339" class="tiny">x340</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_340');">geology surveys knew of the anomaly but not its depth or extent</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_340" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr Lawrence Fine
<br><br>valcanos and the like have high heat, and you discount that geology surveys knew of the anomaly but not its depth or extent. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 340 -->
<a name="x341"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x341" class="tiny">x342</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_342');">two 40' "SPHEROID" cavities</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_342" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Lawrence Fine</b>
<br>Please rephrase and clarify your point.
<br>These surveys are very well "defined" as to location and topography.
<br>There are two 40' "SPHEROID" cavities, the eastern location, ground zero, 20' below and slightly eastward of building #4s east wall, the western cavity, nearly centered - center/front of building #4.
<br>These cavities did not exist when the WTC was built in the 70s.
<br>Damage Report - the above is a recent find - - - this image is my go to:
<br>Image may contain: text that says 'Hudson River Cove Haul areas rated for load capacities 4WFC WORLD FINANCIAL CENTER 2WFC Winter Garden 3WFC WestStreet Street Deep 3WTC WTC 2WTC 6WTC WORLD TRADE CENTER 7WTC 4WTC Mara 5WTC CONDITION BASEMENT LEVELS Good Bad Gone Unsure Bathtub MAPPED OUT South section of World Trade Center basement is in the worst condition.'
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Lawrence Fine</b>
<br>Next, this image (with the exception of the east bathtub)
<br>Image may contain: text that says 'Damage patterns onbasement levels are nearly dentical to basement level and5 empty PATH train trainsits on tracks level Three seven recrushed W.T.C. W.T.C PATH TRAIN ROUTE KEY t? DAMAGE COL APSED OR HEAVY DAMAGE NTACT OR MOSTLY INTACT NOT INSPECTED ORUNDETERMINED'
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 342 -->
<a name="x343"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x343" class="tiny">x344</a>
Winston Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_344');">no reason to create underground cavities</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_344" style="display: block;">
<p>What is the 9/11 connection? I can see no reason to create underground cavities, (that somehow filled themselves with boulders, sand and rocks !!), that did no damage to the concrete slabs above, or adjacent to the towers. And no damage to the slurry wall. And never compromised the structural integrity of multi-story buildings that surrounded them. Help me out here. I'm baffled.
</p>
</div><!-- section 344 -->
<a name="x345"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x345" class="tiny">x346</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_346');">disinfo agents would constantly point to this really deep geological formation under WTC-4 and regularly implied this was under both towers</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_346" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Winston Smith,
<br><br>You echo my discussions with Mr. Lawrence Fine. In addition, in the 1980's (I believe) with the technology of the time (pinging and listening for echos), they did geological surveys. They knew there was a great underground anomaly, just not its extent.
<br><br>So here's the deal. Out of necessity to keep the public thoroughly distracted and flustered, the PTB inserted some form of disinformation into just about everything regarding 9/11. There isn't an "official" report (or from AE9/11Truth) that doesn't have one or two glaring flaws. The most obvious example is that that the Pentagon and Shanksville did not have sufficient debris to suggest a real airplane crashed; to distract from this, they came up with the ludicrous "no planes theory" (NPT) at the WTC, based on misrepresenting video footage from multiple perspectives, faulty analysis of the radar data, holograms, ignoring physical evidence of planes (or stating they were planted), misrepresenting the high velocity physics of both the towers and the aircraft, and other things.
<br><br>9/11 did use nuclear devices, and the evidence of such leaks out ~all~ over, in each and every report, action / non-action, etc. They were late-third / early-fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) which use a conventional charge to kick-start a small fission trigger that generates the heat required for fusion which then released 80% of the already-subkiloton nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion.
<br><br>Be that as it may, the government ~never~ wants to reveal its means-and-methods and admitting nuclear involvement would reduce the list of suspects dramatically and cause the PTB to lose the propaganda effort. So they cycled through gravity pancakes and other nonsense until they got Dr. Steven Jones (a) to piss on nuclear involvement in a shitty way and (b) to discover super-duper nano-thermite.
<br><br>As part of Dr. Jones' disinfo effort, he did not frame the yield correctly, neither in size nor in output. Meanwhile, several different disinfo actors promoted deep-underground nukes and the towers being a nuclear chimney, and completely false framing.
<br><br>TO YOUR QUESTION, to bolster the disinfo premise of deep-underground nukes, the disinfo agents would constantly point to this really deep geological formation under WTC-4 and regularly implied this was under both towers. [As you already note, this was on the other side of the intact slurry walls of the bathtub from the towers.]
<br><br>To be fair, Mr. Fine is not in this camp per se, but he keeps championing that -- in addition to the nukes that decimated the towers and other WTC buildings -- WTC-4 had a nuke detonated under it for reasons that haven't been well speculated.
<br><br>It wouldn't bother me if WTC-4 did have a nuke ignited below it, but I don't agree for many reasons, in no particular order:
<br><br>- WTC-4 had gold vaults underneath it; some of the gold was recovered in the trailer of an abandoned semi in the old subway tunnels used as WTC-4 access. Money was a motivator; WTC-6 had its vaults emptied before the destruction, according to FEMA. 9/11 was a money heist, money laundering, and kick-start to war profiteering: follow the money.
<br><br>- A large detonation under WTC-4 would have been notice at street level with, say, a large popped up mound and / or later sink hole that would have knocked other remnant structures on that portion of the WTC to the ground. The main edifice of WTC-4 was leveled, but not its north wing, not WTC-5, not WTC-6.
<br><br>- The aforementioned geological surveys that hinted at a large anomalous formation from the 1980's.
<br><br>- A new (to me) piece of evidence (GIF) that marks the damage to lower basement levels of WTC, showing even the damage inside the bathtub tapering off by B5 and B6. More importantly, it shows WTC-4 damage at ground level and B1, but then shows the deeper areas (like the vault and below the vault) as not being damaged.
<br><br>- Too many times, the geological formation -- whether created by nukes or by God eons ago -- has been deceitfully and purposely associated with deep underground nukes allegedly deployed on the towers. Its disinfo purpose is to undermine any rational discussion of the actual FGNW used on the towers.
<br><br>To sum up, Mr. Fine has a bee-in-his-bonnet about the geological formation under WTC-4 and it only being possible with nukes (but not the same nukes doing the other WTC destruction).
<br><br>I disagree, and feel it is a misinformation distraction. [Misinformation and not disinformation, because Mr. Fine sincerely believes it.]
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br><br>//
<br><br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br><br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 346 -->
<a name="x347"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x347" class="tiny">x348</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_348');">full disagreement regarding the mechanics and dating of the "formations" beneath Building #4</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_348" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>- Again, we're in full disagreement regarding the mechanics and dating of the "formations" beneath Building #4 and the "subsidence craters" beneath towers 1 and 2.
<br><br>Also, I've NEVER touted nucs as the devices used to destroy the bedrock but use examples of underground nuclear tests for comparison as at this time I'm unaware of any "conventional" capable of producing the heat required.
<br><br>
<br><br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 348 -->
<a name="x349"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x349" class="tiny">x350</a>
Winston Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_350');">perhaps brainstorm about it privately</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_350" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>We can take this statement elsewhere, perhaps brainstorm about it privately. "The most obvious example is that that the Pentagon and Shanksville did not have sufficient debris to suggest a real airplane crashed;" I respectfully disagree. Parts were recovered but the images have been largely withheld, which fuels theories. Lots of people saw a plane at both locations.
</p>
</div><!-- section 350 -->
<a name="x351"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x351" class="tiny">x352</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_352');">a cruise missile did the Pentagon damage, probably launched from the construction trailer </a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_352" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Winston Smith,
<br><br>Where ever you want to discuss this, but I'd prefer on your wall or a decent 9/11 group we're both members of, and not as instant messages.
<br><br>I think that the Pentagon and Shanksville both had insufficient debris (chairs, luggage, bodies) to be actual commercial aircraft.
<br><br>Although these aren't my hobby-horses, I have studied them extensively. Here's the ironic part. The high velocity physics of the aircraft impacts to the towers that disinfo agents have been purposely malframing and misunderstanding to support NPT@WTC, is the same physics that debunks a real aircraft at the Pentagon.
<br><br>The energy equation has a velocity squared term that really high velocities makes exponentially larger, sufficient to shatter materials (like sheet metal of wings), which seems to make them disappear in grainy VCR videos of network broadcasts. With such energy, the wings and tail as whole pieces would not be "bouncing" off of the towers, which also were not solid. (50% of the surface area was window slits; once penetration of wall assemblies, the amount of structure and content would have been comparatively weak to hinder further fuselage and engine penetration.) The point is, properly defined and described physics of high velocity impacts debunks NPT at the WTC.
<br><br>Ironically, NPT at the WTC was spun up precisely to distract from the real instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
<br><br>At any rate, the alleged aircraft of the Pentagon was flying at a high velocity too when its wings on both sides each clipped two or more light poles. The aircraft should have been crippled and spread in pieces all over the lawn. Whether or not a real aircraft flew, they would have to stage the poles. And then presto, CIT determines that eye-witnesses observed a plane flying a different path that went over the Pentagon. Ooops.
<br><br>My speculation at the Pentagon is that a cruise missile did the damage, and was probably launched from the construction trailer that got torched near the spools of wire and was parked catty-wompus to the wall, but coincidentally aligned with staged flight path.
<br><br>Be that as it may, ~if~ a real plane was used and really did impact the Pentagon, any one of the 86 or so FBI-confiscated videos ~could~ have quickly and effortlessly dispelled the notion of "no plane impact at Pentagon" instead of what they did provide: 7 inconclusive frames from a couple of parking lot cameras. None of the 86 videos were released to the public, because none were in line with the public myth that they were foisting on us (if they also weren't self-incriminating.)
<br><br>The Pentagon and the towers have another anomaly in their alleged aircraft. None of the discovered parts were serial-numbered matched to the alleged commercial aircraft. The aircraft had their transponders off and had periods where they were off radar, appropriate for the old "plane switcharoo".
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 352 -->
<!-- ***** 20200805_MCB_FB_Fine.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_7 -->
<a name="p8"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_8');">Part 8: FGNW Discussions with Sam Haschets, Imre Tihanyi, Bob Byron, John Jorgensen, Bruce MacLeod</a></h2>
<div id="part_8" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200807_MCB_FB_Crosbie_02.htm -->
<a name="x353"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x353" class="tiny">x354</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_354');">The rules of this group</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_354" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/966310460049320/?post_id=3699752526705086">2020-08-07</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>The rules of this "It's a Fact" group state:
<br>
<blockquote><p>3. No DEW Direct Energy Weapons
<br>There is zero evidence, a Judy Wood fantasy , our group will stick to factual evidence.
<br>
<br>5. No nukes at the towers.
<br>Zero evidence, let’s stick to what we know, rather than fantasy and hear say .</p></blockquote>
<p>MY ASSUMPTION: Based on those rules, the founders and admins believe that nanothermite (NT) possibly mixed with other chemical explosives to achieve the observed brisance was the primary mechanism of destruction.
<br>
<br>You are respectfully challenged to prove that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction:
<br>
<br>(1) by watching the NIST videos of the scrapyards and anomalous pieces of evidence, and
<br>(2) by logically and rationally speculating where and how that super-duper nanothermite was positioned with respect to the anomalous pieces to create them.
<br>(3) by researching what AE9/11 Truth and others published to specifically explain these anomalous pieces of evidence. [Unless the scent of the information makes you hopeful of finding someone else's analysis that you may include in your own #2 analsysis, to avoid frustration, limit your searching attempts to 1/2 hour.]
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI</a>
<br>
<br>WARNING: Any sincere attempt at speculation into how NT created such wonders of destruction in the NIST scrapyard videos may give cognitive dissonance headaches, particularly to NT yeomen of 9/11 Truth.
<br>
<br>You promote NT (and chemical explosives) as the primary mechanisms of destruction? You prove it!
<br>
<br>That's all I ask.
<br>
<br>And remember as part of rules #3 and #5 with my assumptions in parentheses, "our group will stick to factual evidence (of NT)" and "let’s stick to what we know (of NT), rather than fantasy and hearsay." For the sake of discussion, let's ignore how closed-minded this sounds.
<br>
<br>SPOILER: You'll soon recognize that any alleged placement of NT (as the primary mechanism of destruction) would have been ludicrous from effectiveness, logistics, implementation, and bloody-obvious viewpoints and counter productive to the destruction goals of something believable. If NT (and chemical-based explosives) were the primary mechanism of destruction, they most certainly would ~not~ have been wired in with overkill pulverization amounts but would have been configured only with sufficient amounts to visually maintain the ruse that "office furniture fires and gravity" destroyed (but not "pulverized") the structures ~not~ at near free-fall accelerations.
<br>
<br>I don't have to debunk NT for you, because you will do it yourselves in trying to defend NT.
<br>
<br>SPOILER: "Fantasy and hearsay"? NT is thy name.
<br>
<br>Once this exercise is finished, the topic for another posting is whether the rules #3 and #5 need to be amended.
<br>
<br>P.S. High school sophomore English class taught students to not use over-generalizations, because all it takes is one excepton to prove it wrong or undermine it. The language of rules #3 and #5 are over-generalizations: "There is zero evidence (of DEW)" and "Zero evidence (of nukes)". Evidence of such does exist, so these hypnotic suggestions are factually wrong, but I will wait until there is a rules change or rules exception granted to defend my statement.
<br>
<br>"This is varsity 1st string, A-game time." You need to up your game.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 354 -->
<a name="x355"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x355" class="tiny">x356</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_356');">Let's see some scholarly speculation in your defense of NT</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_356" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear misters Stuart Crosbie, Sam Haschets, John Locke, Michael Pegausch, Imre Tihanyi, Greg Greg McGill, and others:
<br><br>Let's see some scholarly speculation in your defense of NT, by simply explaining how NT accounts (placement, position) for these pieces of evidence in the video.
<br><br>You are respectfully challenged to prove that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction:
<br><br>(1) by watching the NIST videos of the scrapyards and anomalous pieces of evidence, and
<br><br>(2) by logically and rationally speculating where and how that super-duper nanothermite was positioned with respect to the anomalous pieces to create them.
<br>+++
<br>Meanwhile, because I'm a fair and generous debate opponent, I'm providing a link to a previous version of my hobby-horse premise. You don't need to dwell on the premise, but if you're curious this article has sections that not only slaughter the NT sacred cow, but marinate and barbeque it. If you are curious, they are sections:
<br>2. Slaughtering the Nano-Thermite Sacred Cow
<br>3. Running the numbers on NT
<br>4. Test the Samples
<br>5. Sleight of Hand
<br>6. Maintaining the Under-Rubble Fires
<br>7. Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies."
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>//
<br>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 356 -->
<a name="x357"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x357" class="tiny">x358</a>
Sam Haschets : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_358');">It was not nano thermite</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_358" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I agree with you on one point
<br>It was not nano thermite
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 358 -->
<a name="x359"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x359" class="tiny">x360</a>
Imre Tihanyi : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_360');">Those 3 Giant Structures, were PULLED DOWN! End of story!!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_360" style="display: block;">
<p>You two found each other? What a surprise? Stop the 'DISINGENUOUS' B.S.!! Those 3 Giant Structures, were PULLED DOWN! End of story!!
</p>
</div><!-- section 360 -->
<a name="x361"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x361" class="tiny">x362</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_362');">the "how" really does matter.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_362" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Imre Tihanyi,
<br><br>Agreed that the WTC complex was brought down by planned military controlled demolition. But the "how" does matter.
<br><br>Let me give you an analog.
<br><br>A man is found bled out and dead in the kitchen with a knife nearby in the bloody hands of his significant other. Version A, the significant other was battered by the man over a long period, reached for the Cutco cerated meat carving knifes from the kitchen counter, and lashed out in self-defense. Version B, the significant other had a personal hobby called "Knife Smithing", deployed a metal torch to cut the shape of the blade, used metal grinders to knock of the edges, spent countless hours with a wet stone honing the blade edge, not to mention the effort spent on the wood and gem inlays to the handle to give it perfect balance. When the significant other lashed out at the victim in the kitchen with this hand crafted weapon, the effect was like that of a sewing machine stabbing up and down the victim's body leaving countless wounds.
<br><br>As you can see, although only one victim died between version A and version B, the "how" really does matter.
<br><br>In the case of 9/11, the "how" matters as well, because many suspects can believable come across conventional explosives, but only two suspects (USA and Israel) can come up with fancy-schmancy late-third / early-fourth generation nuclear devices.
<br><br>Further, only FGNW really explains the deceitful song-and-dance and dog-and-pony shows, and how nearly everyone in Congress and the corporate media suddenly became unquestioning, lock-stepping, Constitution-shredding, PATRIOTS. Whether or not they had foreknowledge of 9/11, they were complicit in the ongoing cover-up and being "satisfied" with lame and MIA explanations. Why?
<br><br>Because any version B whiff of any form of 9/11 nuclear devices going viral in the USA public conscience even to this day could have major figuratively nuclear fallout in this country's leadership, institutions, and even boundaries and divisions -- a thorough house cleaning and a retro-active stabbing of the NWO.
<br><br>As such, infiltrators and instigator from the government to this day occupy (and even establish) forums like this to keep awareness away from the deficiencies of version A (nanothermite) and the more highly probable version B (FGNW).
<br><br>Don't be a party pooper. Let's let the agents and bots hang themselves with their analysis of NT accounting for the evidence in the videos. Then the sincere seekers of 9/11 Truth can more easily move on to more valid answers and their more likely instigators (Christian Zionist and normal Zionists).
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 362 -->
<a name="x363"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x363" class="tiny">x364</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_364');">call your mechanism of destruction "devices X."</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_364" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Sam Haschets,
<br><br>You wrote that you agreed it wasn't NT. Great. Let's call your mechanism of destruction "devices X."
<br><br>The exercise in play at the moment is for participants to view the NIST videos of the scrap yard and speculate how "devices X" would be positioned with respect to the evidence to create the evidence.
<br><br>[If your "devices X" ends up being "jet fuel, office furnishings, and gravity as per the OCT, well... I don't want to ruin the fun and I also don't want to inflict needless damage to your integrity and reputation, which will be the ultimate outcome even sticking just to the evidence. So, forewarned is forearmed.]
<br><br>Looking forward to your scholarly analysis!
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 364 -->
<a name="x365"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x365" class="tiny">x366</a>
Imre Tihanyi : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_366');">SAM H. is a HASBARA plant!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_366" style="display: block;">
<p>SAM H. is a HASBARA plant! Ignore him! We must force 'OUR CONGRESS' (I start to question that), to get on the ball' and start an investigation into, 'who done', the 'Pulling Down' of the WTC Towers #1,#2,#7! That will be an almost impossible effort on the part of the American Citizens, who are REAL PATRIOTS, since , like our late Congressman from Ohio, Jim TRAFICANT stated many times; "Our Congress is a 'BROTHEL', they are not serving the American people, but Special Interests"! Like they worry about, 'Phone Calls to the Ukraine', but don't give a sh--t about almost 3 thousand innocent Collateral Victims, art the WTC, Crime of the AGES done against the American people on our own SOIL!! What 'CHUTZPAH' from the DEMONIC Undertakers?? BUT, why not, they gotten away before, with murdering American Citizens for a, 'FALSE FLAG' cause: www.holocaustonthehighseas.com !! That one failed! '9/11/2001' on the other hand was a GREAT SUCCESS for the DEMONIC CREATURES, dragging US into the unending WARS in the MIDDLE EAST!!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 366 -->
<a name="x367"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x367" class="tiny">x368</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_368');">"Hasbara" is "Public diplomacy in Israel"</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_368" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Imre Tihanyi,
<br>In my ignorance, I had to look up "Hasbara": "Public diplomacy in Israel, also known as Hasbara, refers to public-relations efforts to disseminate positive information abroad about the State of Israel and its actions."
<br>
<br>Previous data points collected on Mr. Sam Haschets do align with that trend line in my mind. However, he's being given the opportunity to be different, open-minded, scholarly. Either the data point falls outside that trend line, or lies smack in the middle of it. Either way, I'm letting him have a chance.
<br>
<br>Based on the last conversation (in another thread) that I had with Mr. Haschets where he asked about my online habits -- writing / saving off-line, responding to specifics in another's comment, republishing in a forum I control --, I think any Hasbara agents would be worried, because I give them legacy they might not like for other disingenous trends exposed in the exchanges. If the shit goes bad because he playes it wrong, and he shoots his online Hasbara profile in the foot and other choice places.
<br>
<br>This being said, your Holocaust on the high seas comment is way off-topic. You are welcome to make your own posting for it, but I would prefer that it not muddy the waters from the experiment currently in progress: describe how a given mechanism of destruction accounts for the recorded scrap yard evidence. You are welcome to use another top-level comment to attempt the exercise.
<br>
<br>But let's stay focused here, or we won't get good results.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 368 -->
<a name="x369"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x369" class="tiny">x370</a>
Imre Tihanyi : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_370');">from the same 'Clique' Tribe</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_370" style="display: block;">
<p>Just my opinion! The 'Perpetrators' of '9/11/2001' come from the same 'Clique' Tribe, as the ones who done the attack on the "USS LIBERTY!" One 'False Flag' they, attempted Failed, the other became a 'Roaring Success'! Because of that, 'success', WE have turned the Middle East, into, 'HELL on EARTH!" That is, "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY", on the 'nth' scale!
</p>
</div><!-- section 370 -->
<a name="x371"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x371" class="tiny">x372</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_372');">do you actually know how 9-11 truth came to be?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_372" style="display: block;">
<p>"MY ASSUMPTION: Based on those rules, the founders and admins believe that nanothermite (NT) possibly mixed with other chemical explosives to achieve the observed brisance was the primary mechanism of destruction.'
<br>"You are respectfully challenged to prove that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction:'
<br>WHOA there........
<br>based on the rules of DEBATE, and the legitimacy of science.....the NIST LEADERS claim NEW PHYSICS is what allowed the FIRES PRESENT to somehow cause structural resistance to make gravity display all the visual and physical attributes of an EXPLOSIVE FORCE for the FIRST TIME in structural/fire prevention history...three times all on ONE single day...never once before or since.
<br>do you actually know how 9-11 truth came to be?
<br>it started with the STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS demanding the amazing NIST LEADERS support their AMAZING new physics.
<br>..and they refuse to do this, to this day...
<br>that is why 9-11 TRUTH started.
<br>9-11 groups are run on the FACT of debate.
<br>so, DID fire and GRAVITY do this...or not.
<br>ALL TAUGHT science says, nope!
<br>now, you know me well enough to know I stick to proper Dictum...not bring in my OWN baggage to screw up the works, like you guys seem to continually want to do.
<br>the OS is FIRE and GRAVITY!
<br>their own NIST report shows the NIST LEADERS the liars they are....(the reason they ignore their own investigation).
<br>yet you guys with YOUR AGENDAS, refuse to acknowledge that FACT and the ACTUAL REAL reason we are all here.
<br>to support the structural community.
<br>He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
<br><a href="http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm">http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm</a>
<br>HOMEPAGE.NTU.EDU.TW
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 372 -->
<a name="x373"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x373" class="tiny">x374</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_374');">the rules for the forum exclude "NookieDoo"</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_374" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Bryon,
<br><br>I agree with your sentiments, but not necessarily the diversion under this posting (make your own), because I'm trying to hold NT supporters accountable.
<br><br>I am not the one who established the rules for the forum that excludes "NookieDoo" (the pet name for my hobby-horse).
<br><br>BUT, I am the one who made the posting with its narrow theme for this thread, while working within those rules of the forum.
<br><br>I'm challenging those who promote nanothermite as the end-all/cure-all of primary mechanisms of destruction to simply defend their claim.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 374 -->
<a name="x375"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x375" class="tiny">x376</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_376');">holding NT supporters accountable is irrelevant</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_376" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>" I'm trying to hold NT supporters accountable.'
<br>???why?...it is irrelevant.
<br>why would you attack those 'individuals' and their 'alternative' yet leave the LIES of the NIST LEADERS untouched giving all the reason for the alternatives....even you.
<br>do you actually think a lighter-built, top-mass' can plow through, unabated the lower, stronger built 4/5th and NOT lose ANY mass due to KNOWN physics, only to meet it's demise AT LOBBY ELEVATION, (TIMES TWO)...where ?somehow, lobby elevation has the power to force a "crush-up' sequence????
<br>at 5 tenths of a second slower than free falls 'acceleration'..(WTC2)
<br>seriously dude...do YOU actually think NEW PHYSICS occurred to allow a FIRST TIME 'crush-?UP? sequence....ONLY ON 9-11??????
<br>and if so, how does this ?smart-gravity' know to stop BOTH COLLAPSES AT lobby elevation rather than continue down the six more levels to the bedrock?
<br>here YOU are wanting to hold those ?accountable? for questioning the OS with their 'ALTERNATIVE' and pushing some other argent is causing this...
<br>we get that 'suggestion' of the 'agent' from the FEMA C report where they discovered an abundance of Sulfur that is not suppose to be there in that form, and was determined to create conditions to lower the melting point of the steel columns.
<br>it's not pulled out of a 'truthers' as*....it is an actual scientific finding from 9-11.
<br>I suggest not challenging me....because I can make your life miserable here...but that is not my intention....you have some good material, you just need to USE IT THE RIGHT WAY!
<br>i.e. showing the NIST leaders the liars they are to segue into.....your evidence.
<br>you believe what you do because of 'these' lies from the NIST LEADERS.
<br>.
<br>"I'm challenging those who promote nanothermite as the end-all/cure-all of primary mechanisms of destruction to simply defend their claim."
<br>my question to you is..."why"?
<br>why don't you challenge debunkers to prove FIRE and GRAVITY, since that is what THEY are here PUSHING!!!
<br>the Gov. SCIENTISTS are pushing the lie....and you leave them untouched.
<br>debunkers are pushing the lie, you leave them untouched.
<br>...not one of them can support the official story.
<br>not one of them can provide peer review from ANYONE in support of the NIST LEADERS new physics claims.
<br>I think you know this.....yet you refuse to use it to even support YOU.
<br>lets recap today's event...
<br>a 'nuke' truther insisting on arguing with a 'thermite' truther with endless 'circular' discussions.
<br>pretty effen PATHETIC!
<br>derbunkerism takes on many forms......just saying....
<br>No photo description available.
<br>
<br>Meme: <img alt="" src="https://scontent.fapa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/117333909_3757984810897468_1415016269552515151_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=3VGHO54AkRAAX-a7AOV&_nc_ht=scontent.fapa1-1.fna&oh=9410636953fbcda3516888254e5a0e5c&oe=5F5509F2" />
</p>
</div><!-- section 376 -->
<a name="x377"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x377" class="tiny">x378</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_378');">Pretty effen PATHETIC!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_378" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
<br><br>"Pretty effen PATHETIC!" the distracting carousel spins you crank up. Please stop doing them IN MY EFFEN THREADS that have a purposeful narrow scope!!!
<br><br>Stay on task and let the purposes of this endeavor come to fruition.
<br><br>I'll not waste my time repeating what the assignment is, because it is given in my top-level posting.
<br><br>Please re-read the assignment, and if you wish to participate under its rules, you are welcome to.
<br><br>If you insist on trying to distract with attacks on the official conspiracy theory, I will start purging your unrelated comments from this thread.
<br><br>I wrote: "I'm challenging those who promote nanothermite as the end-all/cure-all of primary mechanisms of destruction to simply defend their claim."
<br><br>You responded: "my question to you is...'why'?"
<br><br>If we can't get the (NT) "stop-gap" lies exposed, we'll never get to Truth and to the measures that are needed to FIX the ills. Cognitive dissonance doesn't just apply to those unquestioningly supportive of the OCT, but also to various members of 9/11 Truth, who have been purposely duped by lesser, incomplete, truths.
<br><br>Humor me and play to the rules of this posting, or don't play along but just move along instead. YOU ARE NOT HELPING with your carousel spins.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 378 -->
<a name="x379"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x379" class="tiny">x380</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_380');">either FIRE causing gravity to do something VERY SPECIAL....or it wasn't.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_380" style="display: block;">
<p><br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>"You are respectfully challenged to prove that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction:...and others:"
<br>??
<br>others, here.....
<br>it was either FIRE causing gravity to do something VERY SPECIAL....or it wasn't.
<br>that is what 9-11 TRUTH is all about.
<br>you do not get to create your OWN agenda for 9-11.
<br>the OFFICIAL STORY is what is up for DEBATE.....
<br>not petty arguing over 'alternatives'.....
<br>?you want people to believe you?, then GIVE THEM A REASON TO..i.e. showing the OS the lie it is will suggest that reason.
<br>DERbunkerism does take on many forms...
<br>and it seems the bottom line for them ALL is to DISTRACT away from the LYING official story...just saying...
<br>Image may contain: text that says 'a) e) M000 00 Crus Jown Phase II. Crush-Up hase http://www.nistrevie OWTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSEA AZANT.pdf Progressive collapse takes when light and weak top c of any structure destroys the heavier anu Her bottom by gravity. It only happens in NY/USA though'
</p>
</div><!-- section 380 -->
<a name="x381"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x381" class="tiny">x382</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_382');">account for the anomalous pieces of evidence in the NIST videos from the scrapyard</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_382" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
<br><br>This is a continuation of my comment given below your other top-level posting.
<br><br>No, I strongly disagree: the purpose of this thread is ~not~ to discuss or be distracted by the official conspiracy theory of office furniture fires and gravity being the primary mechanisms of destruction. No, no, no!!! I've been on the carousel too many times.
<br><br>The purpose of this thread is to account for the anomalous pieces of evidence in the NIST videos from the scrapyard.
<br><br>Now, if an OCTer wants to enter this discussion and explain how gravity causes those scrapyard samples, fine! They'll have a worse-off problem than the NTers in their explanation.
<br><br>Meanwhile, though, I won't have you setting up strawmen arguments that spin the merry-go-around in unproductive circles.
<br><br>I encourage your participation though. How about picking out a piece or two of evidence from the videos and ponder out loud how NT (and/or office fire with gravity) could have created it, or that you are at a loss, so the 9/11 Truth movement must consider other sources.
<br><br>At that point, we'll request a rules change for this forum so that other sources of destruction can be fairly discussed.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 382 -->
<a name="x383"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x383" class="tiny">x384</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_384');">CIRCULAR discussions that go NO WHERE!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_384" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>"At that point, we'll request a rules change for this forum so that other sources of destruction can be fairly discussed..'
<br>respectfully speaking...
<br>therein LIES the problem....these CIRCULAR discussions that go NO WHERE!
<br>the STRUCTURAL COMMUNITY is not interested in 'discussions'....we have had them for the last 20 YEARS!
<br>discussing goes NO WHERE!
<br>but showing the NIST LEADERS deliberately LYING and IGNORING their own INVESTIGATION to go elsewhere to something from someone else, they REFUSE to support and MIGHT be part of the COVER-UP...
<br>...and is a LEGITIMATE reason to get the COURT SYSTEM involved.
<br>..IF THE PEOPLE KNOW!
<br>the people do not know.
<br>the 'people' do not know the NIST LEADERS leave their own public investigation to go elsewhere to use BS they refuse to support.
<br>yet it is written in BLACK AND WHITE FOR ALL TO SEE!
<br>..everything showing them the liars they are IS DOCUMENTED.
<br>...if one cares to look.
<br>but it seems some are against actually NAMING those who can start this HUGE BALL a rolling and end 9-11 truth....because once it starts, there is NO stopping it.
<br>and where are we.....FURTHER away than ever before.....
<br>THAT is why the scope is limited here...
<br>.
<br>"How about picking out a piece or two of evidence from the videos and ponder out loud how NT (and/or office fire with gravity) could have created it, or that you are at a loss,
<br>for ENDLESS CIRCULAR DISCUSSIONS that lead to NO WHERE?????....
<br>dude, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW HOW THE HELL GRAVITY DOES THAT!!!!!!!
<br>the OS is FIRE and GRAVITY!
<br>impacts were determined to me minimal and localized, per NIST report...not part of the actual collapse sequence.
<br>.
<br>"so the 9/11 Truth movement must consider other sources."
<br>YOUR definition.
<br>take a good look at what YOU wrote...."9/11 Truth movement"
<br>NINE ELEVEN TRUTH!!!
<br>i.e. the TRUTH from the NIST LEADERS.
<br>NO one has to support and PROVE an 'alternative'
<br>the NIST LEADERS though MUST PROVE fire is the reason gravity pretends to be an EXPLOSIVE FORCE....X3 only observed on 9-11.
<br>Explosions,N.F.P.A.18.1 - General:
<br>“…Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”
<br>sorry, but there will be no rules change here to accommodate individuals endless distraction AWAY from what will get us a NEW INVESTIGATION...or at the very least, showing the NIST LEADERS who run away, the liars they are....leading the way for future law suits.
<br>*off topic*
<br>The Senate did 'change-the-rules' for Democrat Markie from Massachusetts during his election run a couple months ago when he did NOT have enough signatures to even be a candidate, (yet the OTHER candidates running against him did have all their signature), the DEMOCRATS in Washington CHANGED THE RULES, just for him.
<br>our RINO Baker loves his Democratic constituents!!!!!
<br>Image may contain: sky, ocean, cloud, outdoor and water
</p>
</div><!-- section 384 -->
<a name="x385"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x385" class="tiny">x386</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_386');">airing them here in a distracting manner</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_386" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
<br><br>I don't discount the points you make, but I do take issue with you airing them here in a distracting manner from my posting's purposes. You are free to make your own postings and complain mightily there, and I might even lend you a hand. But not here.
<br><br>Your inability to take on the actual task of assignment makes you guilty of the crime you decry: "CIRCULAR discussions that go NO WHERE!"
<br><br>Stay on task with the assignment, and it will go somewhere.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 386 -->
<a name="x387"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x387" class="tiny">x388</a>
John Jorgensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_388');">Geological Survey findings of tritium must have been falsified</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_388" style="display: block;">
<p>So the Geological Survey findings of tritium must have been falsified , ok .
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 388 -->
<a name="x389"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x389" class="tiny">x390</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_390');">The Achilles Heel of all who poo-poo nuclear weapons is the scope-limited tritium report not being the authoritative word on exactly what tritium was present</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_390" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. John Jorgensen,
<br><br>It wasn't the USGS who measured for tritium. Instead, the USGS sampled the dust and their tables document Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities. (Evidence of fission.)
<br><br>No, it was a non-government group at the behest of the government who accepted a scope-limited premise of associating tritium with building content and did their distracting jobs admirably. Alas, their shoddy sampling for tritium -- delayed, spread in time, and from limited sampling points --, and juking in the report (e.g., redefining background levels) were just A-okay both for their limited scope and their conclusions about negligible health effects.
<br><br>The Achilles Heel of all who want to poo-poo nuclear weapons (like Dr. Jones, AE9/11Truth) is that the scope-limited tritium report cannot be used as the authoritative word on exactly what tritium was present, nor can it be used to exclude nuclear devices (conveniently out-of-scope for them to consider). They accepted this report unquestioned and unchallenged.
<br><br>Tritium is used in fusion and is the fundamental building block of all late-third/early-fourth generation nuclear devices.
<br><br>The dog-and-pony shows on tritium and to associate them with exclusively aircraft exit signs, weapons' scopes, and time pieces (and not to mention weapons at all), is a major clue about how they are duping us.
<br><br>+++ For reference purposes
<br><br>FGNW:
<br><br>A conventional chemical charge is used to ignite a fission-trigger. Neither that charge or the trigger are destructive to the structure; very much limited and focused. The fission-trigger generates the heat for fusion. In one of many FGNW designs, the fusion stage released 80% of its nuclear yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons aimed upwards.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 390 -->
<a name="x391"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x391" class="tiny">x392</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_392');">Reward for Refuting WTC7</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_392" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="http://westviewnews.org/2020/01/09/engineers-pledge-45000-reward-for-refuting-wtc7-university-of-alaska-study/web-admin/?fbclid=IwAR3nrEn7Vvq5CIL3uXrXWlYF_kQN7JR8sB2I0nWAwRlgMHa0u4URjL0ffSA">http://westviewnews.org/2020/01/09/engineers-pledge-45000-reward-for-refuting-wtc7-university-of-alaska-study/web-admin/?fbclid=IwAR3nrEn7Vvq5CIL3uXrXWlYF_kQN7JR8sB2I0nWAwRlgMHa0u4URjL0ffSA</a>
<br>Engineers Pledge $45,000 Reward for Refuting WTC7 University of Alaska Study | WESTVIEW NEWS
<br>WESTVIEWNEWS.ORG
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 392 -->
<a name="x393"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x393" class="tiny">x394</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_394');">I don't have to debunk NT; you will</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_394" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
<br><br>Show me where that link talks about the specific pieces of evidence depicted in the NIST videos of the scrapyard? I missed it.
<br><br>Don't evade the assignment.
<br><br>I don't have to debunk NT; you will, eventually, once you attempt this task.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 394 -->
<a name="x395"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x395" class="tiny">x396</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_396');">viewing 2 hours of video footage of a scrapyard proves absolutely nothing</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_396" style="display: block;">
<p>The prospect of viewing 2 hours of video footage of a scrapyard proves absolutely nothing without taking samples of the metal in question. Since the criminal act of destroying that evidence was hurriedly carried out by the guilty parties then I conclude this amounts to nothing more than a waste of time and contributes to helping said guilty parties in running down the clock to no avail.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 396 -->
<a name="x397"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x397" class="tiny">x398</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_398');">it's actually four hours of video</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_398" style="display: block;">
<p>Dude, don't be a weasel. And it's actually four hours of video.
<br><br>Further, you don't have to watch the whole thing (but probably will, because it is fascinating.) No. Pick out some interesting exhibit and just concentrate on it. One example.
<br><br>Just don't make it something lame. Preferable, maybe its a wall assembly or a box column of a wall assembly that has interesting damage over its entire length.
<br><br>If you're stuck, I'll provide some time stamps.
<br><br>Yes, although the criminal act of destroying the evidence was indeed hurriedly carried out by duped useful minions of the guilty parties, it doesn't mean that nothing anomalous was left that can't get your old noggin' a percolating and seeing the truth of NT.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 398 -->
<a name="x399"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x399" class="tiny">x400</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_400');">Tic Tok Tik Tok</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_400" style="display: block;">
<p>Tic Tok Tik Tok........
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 400 -->
<a name="x401"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x401" class="tiny">x402</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_402');">Not "Tic Tok" but "chop chop."</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_402" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
<br><br>Whatever that means.
<br><br>Again, the point of this exercise is to take the primary mechanism of destruction (assumed to be NT) and see if it can logically really account for the evidence. Where was the NT positioned and what was its location relative to the piece your scholarly efforts focus on?
<br><br>Not "Tic Tok" but "chop chop."
<br><br>P.S. I didn't tell the others, but failure in this assignment or to attempt the assignment will be considered a major sign of weakness in whatever mechanism you choose to the point of default losing and thereby forfeiting the right to champion said mechanism in other venues,... because, hey, you failed to have your mechanism explain it, so it is wrong. (See Dr. Griffin.)
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 402 -->
<a name="x403"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x403" class="tiny">x404</a>
Bruce MacLeod : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_404');">not interested in your theories</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_404" style="display: block;">
<p>It means I'm really not interested in your theories. I've told you what to do if you have solid incontrovertible evidence of what you claim. But please stop bringing my name into anything to do with them.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 404 -->
<a name="x405"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x405" class="tiny">x406</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_406');">we're discussing are "your theories"</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_406" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bruce MacLeod,
<br><br>You wrote so childishly: "It means I'm really not interested in your theories."
<br><br>Idiot! My theories aren't being discussed under this posting. My theories are technically against the rules of the forum.
<br><br>What we're discussing are "your theories".
<br><br>You support NT as the primary cause of destruction, correct? You defend it.
<br><br>You are welcome to re-use the works of others in your defense, but the catch there is: if you can find such works.
<br><br>And when your search for learned-PhD analysis of the NIST scrapyard videos comes up way short of even a single PDF, let that be equivalent to a 2x4 being smacked up against your head for being such a duped useful idiot.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 406 -->
<!-- ***** 20200807_MCB_FB_Crosbie_02.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_8 -->
<a name="p9"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_9');">Part 9: NT Discussions with Bob Byron, Imre Tihanyi, Sam Haschets, John Locke, Gerry Edmondson </a></h2>
<div id="part_9" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200807_MCB_FB_Crosbie_03.htm -->
<a name="x407"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x407" class="tiny">x408</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_408');">DEFEND NANOTHERMITE AS THE PRIMARY MECHANISM OF DESTRUCTION</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-09</p>
<div id="sect_408" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br>
<br>DEFEND NANOTHERMITE AS THE PRIMARY MECHANISM OF DESTRUCTION (whether or not mixed with other chemical explosives.)
<br>
<br>If you promote NT, you defend it!
<br>
<br>(1) Watch the NIST videos of the scrapyards and anomalous pieces of evidence.
<br>(2) Logically and rationally speculate where and how that super-duper nanothermite was positioned with respect to the anomalous pieces to create them.
<br>(3) [optional] Research what AE9/11 Truth and others published to specifically explain these anomalous pieces of evidence. [Unless the scent of the information makes you hopeful of finding someone else's analysis that you may include in your own #2 analysis, to avoid frustration, limit your searching attempts to 1/2 hour.]
<br>
<br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI
<br>
<br>At 43:33, not only is there a "steel doobie" (the three hollow box columns of a wall aseembly wrapped up by its spandrals), but the doobie is smoked to a near nub!
<br>
<br>At 45:00, not only is the rip-out of note, but also the "camera failures". [Hint: this is how leeching radiation can affect modern camera technology.]
<br>
<br>In the discussion, maybe I'll point out other time stamps for your EXPERT analysis.
<br>
<br>WARNING: Any sincere attempt at speculation into how NT created such wonders of destruction in the NIST scrapyard videos may give cognitive dissonance headaches, particularly to NT yeomen of 9/11 Truth.
<br>
<br>SPOILER: You'll soon recognize that any alleged placement of NT (as the primary mechanism of destruction) would have been ludicrous from effectiveness, logistics, implementation, and bloody-obvious viewpoints and counter productive to the destruction goals of something believable. If NT (and chemical-based explosives) were the primary mechanism of destruction, they most certainly would ~not~ have been wired in with overkill pulverization amounts but would have been configured only with sufficient amounts to visually maintain the ruse that "office furniture fires and gravity" destroyed (but not "pulverized") the structures ~not~ at near free-fall accelerations.
<br>
<br>I don't have to debunk NT for you, because you will do it yourselves in trying to defend NT.
<br>
<br>"This is varsity 1st string, A-game time." You need to up your game.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>43:33
<br>45:00 camera failures is not an accident
<br>1:23:55
<br>
<br>=== thread 1
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br>Nobody was doing the assignment in the last post, because maybe the introduction made it unclear as to what was desired.
<br>So comments were turned off on that last posting, so that it would not distract from this new, fresh attempt.
<br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 408 -->
<a name="x409"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x409" class="tiny">x410</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_410');">all you can do is attack</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_410" style="display: block;">
<p>"Nobody was doing the assignment in the last post,'
<br>providing ANY kind of EVIDENCE to support you would be GREAT!!!!!
<br>but it seems all you can do is attack.
<br>.
<br>"So comments were turned off on that last posting, so that it would not distract from this new, fresh attempt".
<br>???attempt at ?what?
<br>there is ONLY one entity needed to profess the truth....the NIST LEADERS who LIE and misrepresent their own investigation.
<br>sorry if you do not like TRUTH inserted into your threads, but here it is....
<br>..and no, I call it like I see it.
<br>and I do see you as another debunker using disinfo to cause confusion within 9-11 TRUTH.
<br>9-11 TRUTH was started by the STRUCTURAL COMMUNITY due to the NIST LEADERS refusing to support their amazing 'HYPOTHESIZED' agenda of NEW PHYSICS!
<br>here you are trying to change the rules.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 410 -->
<a name="x411"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x411" class="tiny">x412</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_412');">Karma to pay for their misdirections, but that is not the purpose of this assignment</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_412" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
<br><br>The NIST leaders will have their own cosmic Karma to pay for their misdirections, but that is not the purpose of this assignment. Stop trying to derail the discussion.
<br><br>This assignment is aimed at Truthers, which I assume you are.
<br><br>This assignment is aimed at those who unquestioningly support nanothermite as the primary mechanism of destruction, which I assume you do.
<br><br>This assignment is not about my theories (yet) and won't be until you and the others recognize for yourselves how NT comes up short.
<br><br>The assignment is for you watch the videos and explain how NT accounts for the evidence in the scrapyards. Period. It isn't about NIST, it isn't about my hobby-horse.
<br><br>You don't have to watch all four hours of both videos. In fact, you can fast forward to the time-stamps given and focus on those pieces of evidence.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br><br>Here's the second video.
<br><br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE</a>
<br><br>Look at time stamp 22:22.
<br>46:00 also has some great shots.
<br>1:22:30 shows saved pieces.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 412 -->
<a name="x413"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x413" class="tiny">x414</a>
Imre Tihanyi : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_414');">an intentional pre-installed Controlled Demolition</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_414" style="display: block;">
<p>Why isn't there a REAL Investigation, by OUR? Government, with all the indications pointing toward, an intentional pre-installed Controlled Demolition, of the WTC. Towers #1,#2,#7 on '9/11/2001'? The unspeakable attack, that produced some 3 thousand innocent Collateral Victims, isn't 'WORTH' an in depth, detailed, investigation by OUR? Congress, like what they have produced, conducted on the' "Phone calls to the Ukraine/Impeachment HOAX'?? What does that tell US, the American People about this 'False Flag' attack COVER UP? I TEL YOU!! IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB!! Our Enslaved, PROSTITUTED Government, LEADERS are doing the same with the '9'11' crime against the American people as what they have done with the, failed, 'FALSE FLAG" attack on our ship, the, "USS LIBERTY" <a href="www.holocaustonthehighseas.com">www.holocaustonthehighseas.com</a> ! The PERPETRATORS are, in both, TERROR ATTACKS, Members the Same, CLIQUE/TRIBE!! Let's FIND out the TRUTH??!! CONGRESS GO at IT!!! Are there any, or JUST ONE, "PATRIOT", still serving the American People in OUR? Government?? That IS the QUESTION Here!!
<br>Holocaust on the High Seas | An Eyewitness Account of Israel's 1967 Attack on the USS Liberty
<br>HOLOCAUSTONTHEHIGHSEAS.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 414 -->
<a name="x415"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x415" class="tiny">x416</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_416');">harsh my mellow</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_416" style="display: block;">
<p>Dude, Imre Tihanyi,
<br><br>Whyya gotta go and harsh my mellow with this that you added to my other posting, and neither doing the assignment but distracting from it.
<br><br>I can't gonna change the rules of this group if the owners themselves see no need to until they themselves see and understand why NT comes up short.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 416 -->
<a name="x417"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x417" class="tiny">x418</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_418');">scientifically DETERMINED no scientific reason for collapse</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_418" style="display: block;">
<p>"Why isn't there a REAL Investigation, by OUR? Government, with all the indications pointing toward, an intentional pre-installed Controlled Demolition, of the WTC. Towers #1,#2,#7 on '9/11/2001'?"
<br>Imre
<br>... there was.
<br>and they scientifically DETERMINED no scientific reason for collapse.
<br>NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)
<br>and their scientific findings concluded NO scientific reason why these three buildings did what we see them do.
<br>NCSTR 1-3, "Structural Response" details the very little damage impacts caused into each..the 14.5%.
<br>the fact no fireproofing came off the remaining columns, only those columns INVOLVED with impacts, not the remaining 240 needing simultaneous failure on each towers impact floor.
<br>.
<br>NIST 1-6A Appendix C Passive Fire Protection p.274..."within the debris fields created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 &2...thermal insulation was damaged and dislodged"
<br>.
<br>the fact the FIRES PRESENT were not hot enough to cause ANY remaining columns to fail.
<br>"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235
<br>along with...
<br>no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3
<br>recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2
<br>"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2
<br>NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7, it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"
<br>"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
<br>..and this is the very reason the NIST LEADERS leave their own Congressional investigation to go to Bazant and his BS they still REFUSE TO SUPPORT!
<br>so we don;t need another investigation, we point out the FACT THE NIST LEADERS LIED and go elsewhere to something the GOV. scientists REFUSE TO SUPPORT.
<br>same with the WTC7 report....they lie, push NEW pseudo-science they, to this day, refuse to support.
<br>everything I just provided is ALREADY PUBLISHED using their own words.
<br>their demise is already there in BLACK & WHITE if one chooses to look and use it against them.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 418 -->
<a name="x419"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x419" class="tiny">x420</a>
Imre Tihanyi : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_420');">3 thousand innocent 'Collateral Victims'</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_420" style="display: block;">
<p>Because of ALL THESE Questions and the almost 3 thousand innocent 'Collateral Victims' OUR CONGRESS (?) MUST , embark on a SERIOUS in depth, detailed, INVESTIGATON ! ASAP! Why haven't they done that already, in public, with Experts, Witnesses, that is the, QUESTION and raises the SHADOW, of an 'INSIDE JOB' on OUR Governments' part/side! Are We Enslaved by Zionist Special Interests? Or are WE, the, Citizens of the, "Land of the Free", calling the 'SHOTS', in our own Country?? That IS the Question! Like what was done, with our SAILORS: <a href="www.holocaustonthehighseas.com">www.holocaustonthehighseas.com</a> Go, See That, Crime, a failed, "False Flag" attack, against US!! "9/11/2001" was a successful, 'False Flag ' attack, by the SAME Perpetrators!!
</p>
</div><!-- section 420 -->
<a name="x421"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x421" class="tiny">x422</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_422');">whenever the video camera starts to glitch bad, you're probably observing the effects of radiation</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_422" style="display: block;">
<p>When you're watching those NIST videos, keep in mind that whenever the video camera starts to glitch bad, you're probably observing the effects of radiation leaching off of the materials nearby. The glitching is worse with video camera it seems.
<br><br>An app exists for modern smart phones to turn it into a Geiger counter, and they use similar digital camera technology from those of 2001.
<br><br>High quality digital cameras (as opposed to video cameras) as used by NIST also recorded radiation in a different form of glitches at pixel levels, (almost like a very light snow of yonder year's television broadcasts.)
<br><br>Keep your eyes open for camera failures as well.
<br><br>And given that those NIST engineers were specifically there to record evidence and speculate into how they were created, where are those detailed reports?
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 422 -->
<a name="x423"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x423" class="tiny">x424</a>
Sam Haschets : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_424');">not sure if the dogs are radioactive</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_424" style="display: block;">
<p>I am so glad you told me about digital cameras, videos, and glitches
<br>I filmed my dogs in the backyard and it was full of glitches -- not sure if the dogs are radioactive or if something is buried in my yard!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 424 -->
<a name="x425"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x425" class="tiny">x426</a>
Imre Tihanyi : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_426');">Get our Congress, to apply themselves</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_426" style="display: block;">
<p>YES! Get our Congress, to apply themselves with the same zeal, enthusiasm, attention to details, experts, witnesses, brought in, just like what they have shown in the, 'Phone Calls to the Ukraine/Impeachment HOAX!" Don't WE, the American citizens deserve something like that?? Close to 3 Thousand innocent Collateral Victims became the 'Sacrificial Lambs', in that Demonic Undertaking, of the '9/1/2001', Crime, PULLED upon the American people! INVESTIGATE!! INVESTIGATE! Or is it TRUE, what Congressman from Ohio, the late, Jim TRAFICANT stated, about OUR(?) Congress?? That; "Our Congress is a BROTHEL, full of Prostituted Representatives and Senators!" Who DO NOT SERVE the Interest of the American People, their ELECTORATE, but that of Foreign, Alien, Demonic Entities!! Like what happened to OUR SAILORS, in 1967?? <a href="www.holocaustonthehighseas.com">www.holocaustonthehighseas.com</a> ?? I start to believe, that that is the SAD TRUTH!!
<br>Holocaust on the High Seas | An Eyewitness Account of Israel's 1967 Attack on the USS Liberty
<br>HOLOCAUSTONTHEHIGHSEAS.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 426 -->
<a name="x427"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x427" class="tiny">x428</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_428');">live feeds are a bitch!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_428" style="display: block;">
<p>"keep in mind that whenever the video camera starts to glitch bad, you're probably observing the effects of radiation leaching off of the materials nearby. The glitching is worse with video camera it seems.'
<br>..oh yeah....I was wondering what did that.....NOT!?????
<br>yeah, live feeds are a bitch!
</p>
</div><!-- section 428 -->
<a name="x429"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x429" class="tiny">x430</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_430');">an 'ACCELLERANT is present that intentionally LOWERED THE MELTING POINT OF THE STEEL</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_430" style="display: block;">
<p>"DEFEND NANOTHERMITE AS THE PRIMARY MECHANISM OF DESTRUCTION "
<br>I'm calling this out for what it is thread is....a distraction.
<br>you have NO evidence to support you, so you attack the other 'alternatives' that do.
<br>I can DEFEND that an 'ACCELLERANT is present that intentionally LOWERED THE MELTING POINT OF THE STEEL....which has already been SUGGESTED as the method causing collapse.
<br>..by FEMA.....before the NIST investigation was enacted by Congress.
<br>yet there you are ignoring facts to twist them into something else.
<br>how does ATTACKING an ALTERNATIVE there is EVIDENCE FOR, SUPPORT you or the FIRES PRESENT in causing what is observed exclusively on 9-11????
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 430 -->
<a name="x431"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x431" class="tiny">x432</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_432');">get the recorded NIST evidence to fit the NT premise</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_432" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear M. Bob Byron,
<br>If the subject of these discussions (as stated in the posting) is nanothermite, and if most of the membership of this group (including you and to whom you defer) support nanothermite, then how can it be a distraction to have participants explain how NT creatd the evidence in the video?!! Just another logic failure to your bot-ness participation.
<br>
<br>The patron saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Ray Griffin, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: <i>"None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."</i>
<br>
<br>The lame arguments and weasel manuevers by the active membership of this group are ignoring relevant evidence.
<br>
<br>You wrote the hypnotic suggestion: <i>"you have NO evidence to support you, so you attack the other 'alternatives' that do."</i>
<br>
<br>I've posting the links to my blog articles (in our other discussions) that ouline pretty thoroughly the evidence to support my theory. Typical bot-move, you just have never been to those articles to read them to grasp the evidence, which by the way, any 9/11 theory-du-jour must explain.
<br>
<br>And let the record show, that the NIST videos can be considered evidence of my premise, but my premise is off-topic and against the rules of this group.
<br>
<br>But that's Okay, because the exercise is to get the recorded NIST evidence to fit the NT premise.
<br>
<br>That's not my job; it is yours.
<br>
<br>You claim I'm attacking NT. I'm not, but were you to tackle the assignment in an earnest manner, you would be attacking NT eventually, or you prove yourself a bot or agent.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 432 -->
<a name="x433"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x433" class="tiny">x434</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_434');">SULFUR added at some point for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of lowering the melting point of the steel LOAD BEARING columns</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_434" style="display: block;">
<p>"I can't gonna change the rules of this group if the owners themselves see no need to until they themselves see and understand why NT comes up short.'
<br>please POINT THIS OUT!
<br>because I keep supplying what YOU SAY IS NOT THERE!
<br>SULFUR added at some point for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of lowering the melting point of the steel LOAD BEARING columns.
<br>'This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.'
<br>"liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel."
<br>first on top of the pile is LAST STRUCTURE out of the building...
<br>melted columns readily visible within the debris field, NOT buried.
<br>located in the tower where there is NO FIRE PRESENT!
<br>"steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field"
<br>"severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration"
<br>...so why are YOU here saying there is NO EVIDENCE when there is an ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE!
<br>it is material like this what makes me suspect you are here for some other reason...and NOT actual 'truth'.
</p>
</div><!-- section 434 -->
<a name="x435"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x435" class="tiny">x436</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_436');">We're discussing your hobby-horse of nanothermite. You are asked to defend it.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_436" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear M. Bob Byron,
<br><br>Very funny when you conclude:
<br><br><i>"it is material like this what makes me suspect you are here for some other reason...and NOT actual 'truth'."</i>
<br><br>Material like what? Like the NIST videos from the scrapyards!
<br><br>It is incoherent responses like your last one that has me suspect you are not even a real person, but a bot.
<br><br>Tells of a bot are poor reading comprehension, an inability to follow links, an inability to gather material from the destination link, an inability to comment rationally about what was found at the destination link, and a great ability to keep cycling through "lesser" arguments regarding "NIST not doing a thorough or scientific job."
<br><br>THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME or me needing to prove anything. We're not discussing my hobby-horse.
<br><br>We're discussing your hobby-horse of nanothermite (I assume) as the primary means of destruction.
<br><br>You are asked to defend it.
<br><br>What better way to defend the usage of NT than to rationally explain how NT was positioned in the towers that allowed it to create the pieces of evidence at the time stamps in the NIST videos (and throughout the videos.)
<br><br>You are only going to overcome your NT cognitive dissonance after you've discovered for YOURSELF why NT comes up short, by trying to envision NT's placement with the anomalous evidence generated from the event.
<br><br>Sure you can seek help by looking for some other (truther / government) organization's analysis of this video recorded evidence, and more power to you if you find it. [Hint: Might take a freedom of information request.]
<br><br>At any rated, early on I hinted that NT comes up short, and you respond "please POINT THIS OUT!"
<br><br>Dude, I have several blog postings that address this issue, and their links have been provided many times in my comments under other postings and threads that we were both participating in.
<br><br>https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br><br>It says a lot about you and your agenda that after all this time and all our exchanges, YOU STILL HAVE NOT READ THEM. If you had read them, you would have found where I've already slaughtered and barbequed the NT sacred cow. You might have taken issue with various passages and dragged quotes back on things you thought were error. But, no.
<br><br>So where we are at, is that you are not participating in good faith and I suspect you probably aren't even human.
<br><br>Change my mind about you; do the assignment.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 436 -->
<a name="x437"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x437" class="tiny">x438</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_438');">declined to come to this posting to describe how NT was positioned</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_438" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. Wayne Coste, a member of this group who has webpages and PDFs of a scientific bent that speculate about NT, has declined to come to this posting to describe how NT was positioned to give us the evidence in the NIST scrapyard videos.
<br><br>Let the record show:
<br><br>1. In December, these videos were first brought to his attention in a different group / posting; he ignored them.
<br><br>2. They were brought up to his attention again in this group but different posting. Again he ignored them.
<br><br>3. When called out to come to this posting and defend NT, he declined, yet again.
<br><br>Wayne Coste wrote:
<br><br>===
<br><br>No thank you.
<br><br>And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
<br><br>I think that is how you'll spin it.
<br><br>===
<br><br>I don't need to spin anything.
<br><br>Mr. Coste's actions speak loud and clear that he is not participating in good faith in any of these discussions. He posts his work as if an authority piece, yet doesn't even try to defend HIS OWN WORK against criticism.
<br><br>Congratulations on demonstrating a new way to flunk an integrity test.
<br><br>He was told more than once, "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste."
<br><br>Alas, now Mr. Coste has the validated character assessment of "weasel."
<br><br>Better "weasel" than "proven disinformation agent", right Mr. Coste?
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 438 -->
<a name="x439"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x439" class="tiny">x440</a>
John Locke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_440');">you should delete</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_440" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>you should delete
</p>
</div><!-- section 440 -->
<a name="x441"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x441" class="tiny">x442</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_442');">enlighten me on why my last comment should be deleted</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_442" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. John Locke,
<br><br>My deleting the comment here in no way negates the truth of. It'll eventually get re-posted on my blog, because I do stand behind my words, unlike Mr. Coste.
<br><br>Please, though, enlighten me on why you think my last comment should be deleted. What were its errors? What mistakes did it made?
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 442 -->
<a name="x443"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x443" class="tiny">x444</a>
Gerry Edmondson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_444');">not a platform for you to call Coste names like weasel or a disinformation agent</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_444" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>we are hear to discuss 911, not to discuss group members, this group is not a platform for you to call Coste names like weasel or a disinformation agent, stick to the 911 subject, not the members, read the group rules, thanks.
</p>
</div><!-- section 444 -->
<a name="x445"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x445" class="tiny">x446</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_446');">when the assessment is substantiated, it is no longer defamation but a validated character assessment.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-07</p>
<div id="sect_446" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gerry Edmondson,
<br>You make a good point that "we are here to discuss 9/11, not to discuss group members."
<br>
<br>Agreeable to your request, I have removed my top-level comment, and with it the responses including yours that were underneath it relating to the weasel and disinfo actions of another participant.
<br>
<br>However, the purpose of my blog is to preserve my words, whether I'm discussing 9/11 topics or disinfo suspicions against other participants. So my "offensive words" weren't written in vain and will see the light of day eventually.
<br>
<br>For point of reference, willy-nilly "name calling" is defamation. But when the assessment is substantiated, it is no longer defamation but a validated character assessment. In my case, I've limited my assessment to my interactions with the participant over time and other Facebook groups. However, the participant's efforts on other 9/11 themes substantiates the trend line with many other data points. I have been merely giving him a fair chance and a clean slate to prove otherwise without muddying the waters about his dubious participation elsewhere.
<br>
<br>Pay attention to the trend line, so that you don't get burned as well.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, have you noticed how many participants have volunteered a rational explanation for the configuration of NT that resulted in the evidence of the videos?
<br>
<br>NOBODY HAS ATTEMPTED THE ASSIGNMENT.
<br>
<br>Your group is being found wanting.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 446 -->
<!-- ***** 20200807_MCB_FB_Crosbie_03.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_9 -->
<a name="p10"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_10');">Part 10: FGNW Discussions with Jon Howland, Wayne Coste, Bob Byron, Stuart Crosbie</a></h2>
<div id="part_10" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200808_MCB_FB_Coste.htm -->
<a name="x447"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x447" class="tiny">x448</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_448');">World's Smallest Nuke</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_448" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/966310460049320/?multi_permalinks=3694423383904667">2020-08-08</a>
<br>
<br>it is amazing theg amount of energy that can be packed into a tiney nuke that weighs less than 80 lbs - i set the video for the last 20 seconds
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/mWZbrwb1mLQ?t=123">https://youtu.be/mWZbrwb1mLQ?t=123</a>
<br>The World's Smallest Nuke
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 448 -->
<a name="x449"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x449" class="tiny">x450</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_450');">Maxwell Smart will say that FGNW are silent</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_450" style="display: block;">
<p>Did you see any blinding flashes of loud (really, really loud) bangs in the video of the Twin Tower collapses.
<br>I didn't.
<br>Maxwell Smart will say that FGNW are silent and don't need any loud ignition sources.
<br>Also, because it is fourth generation, it doesn't need to follow Newtonian physics and can create forces in only one direction, the direction of the expanding cone.
<br>I prefer Agent 99.
</p>
</div><!-- section 450 -->
<a name="x451"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x451" class="tiny">x452</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_452');">we have weapons that are not public</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_452" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>we have weapons , that are not public . . .extreme heat tookplace to melt the cement into a powder . . just saying how much energy can be put out by a 50-0 lbs weapon ..made in the 60's . .
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 452 -->
<a name="x453"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x453" class="tiny">x454</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_454');">cores of both towers were standing</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_454" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Yes, E=MC^2 releases a lot of energy very, very, very quickly. These make LOTS of noise and are point sources of noise (Would have been BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG for 12 seconds).
<br>Sorry John, there is no evidence of such singular point-source energy releases during the destruction.
<br>Also remember the cores of both towers were standing after the demolition of the outer perimeter columns and the office area of the Twin Towers.
<br>Something more like "Propelled Demolition" occurred.
<br>See the paper:
<br><a href="http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf">http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 454 -->
<a name="x455"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x455" class="tiny">x456</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_456');">4 inch slabs cement slabs from 107 floors, all gone</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_456" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>i am talkng about the cement slabs anout 107 floors had 4 inch slabs , all gone. . turned into dust . . we saw the pile of girders left over . . .under every slab had to be an explosive coating , ,none of the thin metal sheeting - under th… See More
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 456 -->
<a name="x457"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x457" class="tiny">x458</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_458');">Aluminum Oxide is a byproduct of the thermite reaction</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_458" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br>Jon Howland
<br>Jon: There is a lot of energetic material, but E=MC^2 was not the source of the energy.
<br>Note that Al2O3 (Aluminum Oxide) is a byproduct of the thermite reaction (seen as a white smoke from that reaction) and is also a component in concrete (I think 4% ish).
<br>If you look at the debris, there are a lot of concrete chunks (and some large sections of concrete are seen a very limited distance from the Towers.)
<br>Rescue workers were moving bucket loads of material ... not vaporized dust.
<br>
<br><b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br>Jon Howland
<br>Please review:
<br>"Section 2.2: Zone 2 Destruction Mechanism"
<br><a href="http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf">http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf</a>
<br>This hypothesis fits the observations.
<br>You've been very critical of people who spout baseless nonsense about what happened at the Pentagon, but advocating for nuclear demolition at the WTC is just as baseless.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 458 -->
<a name="x459"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x459" class="tiny">x460</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_460');">all the streets of manhattan were covered with an inch of concrete dust</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_460" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>Look at the above picture . .const worker sitting on the steel , sure some concrete can survive. . but all the streets of manhattan were covered with an inch of concrete dust . . .it happened . . and i have worked with concrete , only thiing that loosens is up is heat . . .each flloor has to be linned with thermite material . .. . and that entire chunk of building . .that was supposed to be crushing the rest of the building....broke up in midair ! . . and the remaining core collums . . just melted ...so it seemed...probably coated with something . .. . .crazy ! .. ..
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 460 -->
<a name="x461"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x461" class="tiny">x462</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_462');">core columns didn't melt</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_462" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Please read and critique the paper.
<br>The core columns didn't melt, they remained intact and then fell.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 462 -->
<a name="x463"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x463" class="tiny">x464</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_464');">could have been other high energy weapons</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_464" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>i am not saying it was a nuke .. .saying it could have been other high energy weapons placed throught the building . . .we really dont know .. . no way can anyone claim full knowledge . . .
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 464 -->
<a name="x465"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x465" class="tiny">x466</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_466');">Read the paper</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_466" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Read the paper:
<br><a href="http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf">http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 466 -->
<a name="x467"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x467" class="tiny">x468</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_468');">coatings possibly being applied between floors</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_468" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>they paper you refered me to , is takling abut coatings possibly being applied between floors .. . just as i am saying . . .. also...Susan Lindauer talked about all these white vans , coming every night for about a week . .in august early sept . . . .bringing in the final materials . .
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 468 -->
<a name="x469"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x469" class="tiny">x470</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_470');">North Tower Core columns</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_470" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Sorry John.
<br>You don't even know who the author is of that paper. Take a look.
<br>BTW, here is a photo of the North Tower Core columns before they collapsed.
<br>Melted?
<br>No.
<br>Image may contain: sky, cloud and outdoor
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 470 -->
<a name="x471"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x471" class="tiny">x472</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_472');">a high energy event</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_472" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>what happend to the core collums, just fall down?..they are bare steel . . .just saying this was a high energy event . . . no office furinture left , 1100 people gone....incredible. . .
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 472 -->
<a name="x473"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x473" class="tiny">x474</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_474');">Large detonations would have produced distinct "BANG, BANG, BANGs" for 12 seconds.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_474" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>John: Regarding your acute observation about the core columns: "they are bare steel."
<br>Yes. And still standing.
<br>This argues for non-detonation related forces emanating from the center of the building.
<br>Large detonations would have produced distinct "BANG, BANG, BANGs" for 12 seconds.
<br>Numerous small detonations would not have ejected perimeter columns 600 feet and would have resulted in a vertical in-the-footprint destruction.
<br>We saw something very different from detonations.
<br>More like one or two Saturn V rockets being launched within each tower (I didn't take the time to make that calculation ... to many complicating factors ... to estimate an equivalent to a Saturn V rocket launch energy.)
<br>Read the paper:
<br><a href="http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf">http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 474 -->
<a name="x475"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x475" class="tiny">x476</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_476');">what kinda energy would be required to turn the cement into dust</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_476" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>will do . . . still interested in what kinda energy would be required to turn the cement into dust . .thinking panted on substance under each floor. . yet to see any of the metal sheeting , that was under every cement slab .. .we are talking mass quanity . . . . .again . . .. .this event was amazing. . .never before in history had 100+ story building been taken down
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 476 -->
<a name="x477"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x477" class="tiny">x478</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_478');">Section 4 Energy Balance</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_478" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Please review "Section 4 Energy Balance" of the paper:
<br><a href="http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf">http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 478 -->
<a name="x479"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x479" class="tiny">x480</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_480');">the concrete becoming powder</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_480" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>i got it . .. . ..the question i have been asking , over and over.. . is about the concrete becoming powder . . .no one has clearly explained that. . . . .i doubt anyone ever will
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 480 -->
<a name="x481"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x481" class="tiny">x482</a>
John Locke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_482');">some form of controlled demolition</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_482" style="display: block;">
<p>It would certainly appear to my observation that if some form of controlled demolition occurred at WTC, it wasn’t conventional.
<br>Typical CD is LOUD.
<br>That didn’t happen, and while there were “explosion” sounds they can be explained by more common means just occurring in the structure fire scenario.
<br>It’s worth noting imo that in the case of the Twins, they appear to collapse at the points of plane impact.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 482 -->
<a name="x483"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x483" class="tiny">x484</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_484');">my hypothesis fits virtually all the key observations</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_484" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Please see the discussion around Figures 12 through 15 and "Section 3.8 Pulverization of Concrete"
<br>I'm not saying I have ALL the answers, but the hypothesis I've put forth fits virtually all the key observations.
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 484 -->
<a name="x485"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x485" class="tiny">x486</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_486');">the best hypothesis for the mechanism of destruction</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_486" style="display: block;">
<p>John Locke
<br>As I've said to Jon Howland
<br>a number of times in the last hour, please review this paper if you want to see the best hypothesis for the mechanism of destruction:
<br><a href="http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf">http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 486 -->
<a name="x487"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x487" class="tiny">x488</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_488');">107 floors of cement slabs turned into powder</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_488" style="display: block;">
<p>John Locke
<br>not what i am talking about . .. i am talking about the 107 floors of cement slabs . .turned into powder . . .no one has ever given a clear answer .. .and NONE of you have worked with removing cement . . i have spent many many hours removing from vechs .. steam / heat breaks it down . .in the form of steam . .. cold water never works .. .so heat is the key to breaking down cement into powder . .extreme heat
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 488 -->
<a name="x489"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x489" class="tiny">x490</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_490');">happened on a massive scale</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_490" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>got it...gezze....again...concrete....into powder . . .it happened.....on a massive scale. . . not gonna happen on a regular building collapse...its not a natural occurance
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 490 -->
<a name="x491"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x491" class="tiny">x492</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_492');">provide another theory that fits the evidence better</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_492" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Please review the paper and provide either supplementary supporting explanations or another theory that fits the evidence better.
<br>I've just put together the best explanation possible. If you know of another one that fits the observations, lets discuss it.
<br>But it needs to fit the observations. Not just some of them, all of them (within margins of error).
</p>
</div><!-- section 492 -->
<a name="x493"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x493" class="tiny">x494</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_494');">go splatter cement on a few hundred cars</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_494" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>will do...i promise . . ..meanwhile.....go splatter cement on a few hundred cars. . . .then tell me what breaks dpwn the cement
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 494 -->
<a name="x495"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x495" class="tiny">x496</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_496');">you say "nuke" and walk away.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_496" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>" it is amazing theg amount of energy that can be packed into a tiney nuke that weighs less than 80 lbs '
<br>doesn't matter WHAT IT WAS....they, the amazing GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS who claim NEW PHYSICS did it need to PROVE new physics did it.
<br>but here YOU are once again, overlooking that FACT to push distributional bullsh*t to keep the circular discussion of nonsense ongoing.
<br>It amazes me why those pushing alternatives, REFUSE to follow proper dictum when it comes to DEBATE.
<br>a picture is worth 1000 WORDS!.....ain't it!
<br>you say "nuke"....and walk away..
<br>I say, PROVE IT'S FIRE making ?GRAVITY? pretend to be an explosive force...and provide the EVIDENCE supporting your words.
<br>..specially since the Official Story IS fire causing what YOU CLAIM is a nuke.
<br>guess it does not matter to you this EXHIBITION has NEVER been observed FROM fire or gravity...before or since.
<br>guess it does not matter to you all science states it's IMPOSSIBLE for fire/gravity to cause what is observed.
<br>(the very reason the OS HAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE)
<br>and you REFUSE to point that out...cause YOU gut nukes on your mind.
<br>don;t you think showing the OS a lie will maker your story of nukes MORE BELIEVABLE???....guess that thought NEVER crosses your agenda-filled mind.
<br>yet we see this physical IMPOSSIBILITY THREE TIMES all in the SAME DAY...
<br>so rather than point out the IMPOSSIBILITY of it, and the fact the OS has NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support their official story quest,
<br>you being in more unsupported BAGGAGE.
<br>you bring in nonsense just to DISTRACT from the fact the OS is naked and afraid to stand trial.
<br>it IS people like you that are why the TRUTH movement is where it is.
<br>Image may contain: cloud, sky, skyscraper and outdoor
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 496 -->
<a name="x497"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x497" class="tiny">x498</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_498');">no evidence for nuclear events at the WTC</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_498" style="display: block;">
<p>Bob Byron
<br>Bob: You are right, there is no evidence for nuclear events at the WTC:
<br><a href="https://www.911tap.org/10-publications/news-releases/823-nuclear-demolition-at-the-world-trade-center-on-9-11-an-empirical-review">https://www.911tap.org/10-publications/news-releases/823-nuclear-demolition-at-the-world-trade-center-on-9-11-an-empirical-review</a>
<br>Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An Empirical Review; Where Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations
<br>911TAP.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 498 -->
<a name="x499"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x499" class="tiny">x500</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_500');">what could create that kinda heat</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_500" style="display: block;">
<p>Bob Byron
<br>not claiming its a nuke . . . .never did.....just saying ..what could create that kinda heat . . to turn the cement into powder . ...that picture is amazing
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 500 -->
<a name="x501"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x501" class="tiny">x502</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_502');">who knows what they have now 50 years later</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_502" style="display: block;">
<p>Bob Byron
<br>what is your idead . ..my point was...in 1960's they had 50 lbs bombs that could create massive energy . . .who knows what they have now...50 years later . .. .
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 502 -->
<a name="x503"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x503" class="tiny">x504</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_504');">FIRE DID IT!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_504" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>and is IRRELEVANT to the OS supporting..FIRE DID IT!
<br>anyone focusing ALL their energy solely on 'alternatives' WITHOUT mentioning the reason FOR the alternatives, is just another name for...debunker.
<br>your category falls under the heading "NOT FIRE"!!!
<br>but rather than convince others through showing the LIES OF THE OS....you simply IGNORE the official story AS IF IT"S TRUE...
<br>to inject your 'alternative' ....
<br>it does NOT matter WHAT it was that actually did it at this point.....
<br>we know for a FACT, it was not the 'fires present' and GRAVITY!
<br>and no one is going to give two sh*ts about nukes if one does not know the OS IS A LIE right off the bat.
<br>..but if you do that....then you'll make sense, huh.
<br>..can't have that...can we....
<br>YOU LIKE THE CONFUSION and endless CIRCULAR discussions going no where....don't you...
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 504 -->
<a name="x505"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x505" class="tiny">x506</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_506');">NIST LEADERS must prove their assertion this is just FIRE and GRAVITY</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_506" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>".what could create that kinda heat'
<br>a regular office fire when one ADDS an 'agent't to LOWER THE MELTING POINT of the steel.
<br>as the first investigation by FEMA determined.
<br>it does not matter what ANYONE thinks it is.....the NIST LEADERS must prove their assertion this is just FIRE and GRAVITY...
<br>'Sulfur' has NO business being there in that form.
<br>Image may contain: 1 person, text that says 'severe Appendix surface sulfur formed during high corrosion attack melting, liquid eutectic mixture corrosion attack readily visible iron steel. near- oxidation and members with unusual patterns observed the WTC debris field" found Here warranted further mixture containing primarily sulfur formed corrosion attack for steel.' the FEMA, whom abundence sulfur being found ofSamples and sulfur has subsequent explanation corrosion unknown. any scientific reason form. phenomenon possible unusual structure. that originate Gross on how learly bearing this and position during corrosive building, degradation phenomenon weakening structure collapse building" NCSTAR1-'
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 506 -->
<a name="x507"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x507" class="tiny">x508</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_508');">all the steel i have seen is burned bare</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_508" style="display: block;">
<p>Bob Byron
<br>Insteresting . .all the steel i have seen is burned bare. .temps had to be in the thousands to literally melt the cement slabs into powder . . thats always been my point
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 508 -->
<a name="x509"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x509" class="tiny">x510</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_510');">Concrete does not melt</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_510" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>" .temps had to be in the thousands to literally melt the cement slabs into powder"
<br>we know that is not from the 'fires present'.
<br>NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes". “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”
<br>and besides...
<br>Does concrete melt?
<br>Concrete does not melt, at least not in the way you may be thinking. Concrete is composed largely of gravel an sand, with Portland cement that holds the sand and gravel together into a solid mass. The sand and gravel will melt, but you will not be doing it in your kitchen oven! A temperature of several thousand degrees is needed, and the result will be much the same as the lava that comes out of volcanos. After all, gravel and sand are just rock, as is molten lava. The Portland cement in concrete, is a mixture of various hydrates and silicates of calcium, aluminum and other elements. It too is a "rocky" material that will not melt at any practical temperature, either
<br>Concrete is a very complicated mixture of different metal oxides, hydroxides, and silicates (many of which form extensive, interpenetrating networks), mixed with a filler material such as gravel or rock. It does not maintain its chemical identity when heated. If concrete is heated to a high enough temperature, the hydroxides decompose to form oxides and water; the water is quickly lost as the vapor. The remaining metal oxides are quite refractory; they remain solid at very high temperatures. The rock components of concrete will decompose or melt at differing temperatures depending on their mineral composition.
<br>So the short answer to your question is that concrete will decompose rather then melt when heated, and the clinker that remains after it cools back down will unmistakably not be concrete.
<br><a href="http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mats05/mats05054.htm">http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mats05/mats05054.htm</a>
<br>NEWTON.DEP.ANL.GOV
<br>Learning Center | Argonne National Laboratory
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 510 -->
<a name="x511"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x511" class="tiny">x512</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_512');">time for real work!</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_512" style="display: block;">
<p>time for real work!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 512 -->
<a name="x513"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x513" class="tiny">x514</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_514');">low pressure steam removes cement splatter from cars</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_514" style="display: block;">
<p>Bob Byron
<br>only thing that removes cement splatter from cars , is low pressure steam , the heat starts breaking it up . . cold washing does nothing . . 2500+ degrees tp melt it into the powder we saw in the streets of ny ?
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 514 -->
<a name="x515"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x515" class="tiny">x516</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_516');">foul on this play by Mr. Wayne Coste</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_516" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
<br><br>I call foul on this play by Mr. Wayne Coste, who argues that there were no nuclear devices at the towers, which is tantamount to discussing 9/11 nukes and is AGAINST the rules of this group.
<br><br>In a spamming move, Mr Coste posted his no-nukes PDF in this thread six times, despite the fact that his true argument in those PDF's is "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC". In case you didn't know, "nuclear blasts" is a designed-for nuclear yield. Thus, with sleight of hand, deceitful Mr. Costes tries to discredit ~all~ types of nuclear devices who might have different designed-for nuclear yields, like highly energetic neutrons emitted in a DEWish fashion (aka tactical neutron bombs.)
<br><br>Worse, Mr. Coste seems to be a big champion on nanothermite as the primary mechanism of destruction, yet refuses to rationally defend exactly how and where this super-duper NT was with respect to the evidence generated.
<br><br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE</a>
<br><br>Look at time stamp 22:22.
<br><br>46:00 also has some great shots.
<br><br>1:22:30 shows saved pieces.
<br><br>//
<br>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 516 -->
<a name="x517"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x517" class="tiny">x518</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_518');">Coste's disinfo gambit of constantly framing all nuclear weapons as being equivalent</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_518" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
<br><br>Late-3rd / early-4th generation nuclear devices. On 9/11, at least four per detonation level, and detonation levels maybe every 5-10 floors based on the audio evidence.
<br><br>Mr. Wayne Coste has a disinfo gambit of constantly framing all nuclear weapons as being equivalent, loud, nuclear blasts, lots of radiation, yada, yada, yada.
<br><br>Imagine a small conventional charge used to kick-start the fission-trigger. Neither the charge nor the trigger are designed for destruction, but the charge was observed in various places with a back-kick out some windows. Evidence of fission is in the USGS dust samples. The fission-trigger generates the heat for fusion. Tritium is the building block of all fusion devices, and... *check*, we have a dubiously scope-limited dog-and-pony show about that. The fusion stage releases 80% of its nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons in a cone shaped area aimed upwards and away from the inner core where they were mounted (hence "the spires").
<br><br>Highly energetic neutrons deposit energy deep and through out materials. Instant arches and sags. Instant steel doobies from wall assemblies. Instant turning of trapped water molecules into steam whose expanding volume pressure "dustifies" the material (e.g., concrete, drywall, porcelain, humans).
<br><br>Peer-reviewed in a reputable scientific journal, published 2 years before Dr. Jones' lame "nuke repudiation" and 5 years before Dr. Wood's dangling-innuendo WDTTG. Dr. Gsponer was writing about FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11, and has peer-reviewed scientific works published in three times as many languages as Mr. Coste speaks. [Disclaimer: To my knowledge, Dr. Gsponer has not written a single word about 9/11.}
<br><br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br><br>//
<br><br>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br>ARXIV.ORG
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 518 -->
<a name="x519"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x519" class="tiny">x520</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_520');">video addresses the radiation issues</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_520" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>this video addresses the radiation issues . .at 8:12
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/M5VNnmAoIYI?t=492">https://youtu.be/M5VNnmAoIYI?t=492</a>
<br>4th Generation Nuclear Weapons
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 520 -->
<a name="x521"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x521" class="tiny">x522</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_522');">envisioned that FGNW would be entirely fusion based</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_522" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
<br><br>It is envisioned that FGNW would be entirely fusion based.
<br><br>Alas, the 9/11 devices were not; they were fission triggered (making them late-3rd / early-4th generation.)
<br><br>Traces of fission leak out of the tables of the USGS report on the dust. However, because the fission trigger wasn't designed for destruction and the destruction created by the fusion stage is different, it spread a lesser amount of badness than traditional 1st-3rd generation devices.
<br><br>When the state-of-the-art cameras of NIST and other agencies start exhibited glitches while filming the debris pile, consider it recorded real-time evidence of radiation being present.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 522 -->
<a name="x523"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x523" class="tiny">x524</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_524');">radiation does come down to the trigger for the atomic reaction</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_524" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>yes , such a complex subject , radiation does come down to the trigger for the atomic reaction . . .i agree with your points about the spread of energy rapidly , ..enough to dustify the concrete . . .
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 524 -->
<a name="x525"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x525" class="tiny">x526</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_526');">Video did a good job of summarizing things</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_526" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
<br><br>I'll get in trouble for posting this, but this was my speculation into the matter...
<br><br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br><br>Video did a good job of summarizing things, but fear it goes so fast, most people's eyes and ears would glaze over.
<br><br>//
<br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 526 -->
<a name="x527"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x527" class="tiny">x528</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_528');">subject has not been fully explored</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_528" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>i dont think the subject has been fully explored , in the 911 truth movement , . .nukes in the basement , never seemed right though . . .hopefully we find justice one day
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 528 -->
<a name="x529"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x529" class="tiny">x530</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_530');">Nuclear methods not explored or discussed on purpose</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_530" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
<br><br>Nuclear methods not explored or discussed on purpose; control the message. It is like the evidence of nuclear involvement are tiny, "blackhole" data points. You can't see them discussed in the reports, but the tables, limited scope, shoddy methods, and overall song-and-dance distractions tells you that such were involved.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 530 -->
<a name="x531"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x531" class="tiny">x532</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_532');">the block used to crush the rest of the building was disintegrating before it hit the ground</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_532" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>good talk , i like the fact that Stuart Crosbie
<br>, wants to stick with confirmed evidence , . makes for a more stable page . . my whole point was just the energy needed to dustify the concrete , and the top portion of the WTC building was falling apart mid air . . .
the same block they said was being used to crush the rest of the building . .was disintegrating before it hit the ground
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 532 -->
<a name="x533"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x533" class="tiny">x534</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_534');">code-speak for only considering the efforts of Dr. Jones and his staff in promoting nanothermite</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_534" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
<br><br>I agree on the latter observations on your comment.
<br><br>With regards to "sticking with confirmed evidence", that is just code-speak for only considering the efforts of Dr. Jones and his staff in promoting nanothermite, even though they don't address all the evidence, admit that NT would have to have been mixed with something more brisance to achieve pulverization, and doesn't come close to addressing the duration of hot-spots.
<br><br>Those who tote the "confirmed evidence" line do not like to hear that NT was ~not~ present in the dust everywhere. No! The energetic flakes were only in Dr. Jones' dust samples: not RJ Lee Group, not USGS, not Paul Lioy et al.
<br><br>What was in the dust everywhere where tiny iron spheres. The deceit of the NT pushers is to assume only NT could create these, despite the fact that when they run the math backwards from percentage of iron spheres found in the dust to NT quantities needed for reaction, it is massive and a logistics hurdle. The quantities unspent from that needed to maintain the hot-spots? Obscenely massive and completely unbelievable.
<br><br>Back to the rules, most 9/11 truther nukers frame the device and effects incorrectly, singular, deep underground, sometimes point to the geological formation under WTC-4 (as being significant for WTC-1&2), and other deceit. Purposeful disinformation.
<br><br>Most Woodsian DEWers are disinformation, because they won't admit that Dr. Wood dropped a lot of dangling innuendo, connected no dots, drew no conclusions, did shitty nuclear research, should never have let DEW be framed into "beams from space", and can't power her DEW with anything real world at the scale required / observed.
<br><br>It was another disinformation sign that the Woodsian DEWers never married 9/11 nukers to produce the devil's spawn known as FGNW, quite the glaring misdirection.
<br><br>All who try to debunk 9/11 nuclear devices, frame the devices 1st-3rd generation like a straw man.
<br><br>I've had the opportunity to take Mr. Wayne Coste and AE9/11 Truth to task, because their deceit is "nuclear BLASTS did not destroy the WTC." With such a limited scope, I have to agree, "nuclear BLASTS" didn't do the damage. But they use this to try to sweep all forms of nuclear devices off the table for consideration. The highly energetic neutron output of FGNW creates vastly different effects than "nuclear BLASTS", and wouldn't necessarily be loud, either, except maybe the conventional charges needed to start the fission-trigger.
<br><br>I liked your video so much, I've posted to my wall.
<br><br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br><br>//
<br>FGNW Discussions
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 534 -->
<a name="x535"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x535" class="tiny">x536</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_536');">nanothermite was a huge part of the picture</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_536" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I do see his findings in the dust legit , i am sure nanothermite was a huge part of the picture. .. 2 world records were set that day . .never had any 100+ story buildings been taken down . . .the record was what 40 stories ?. .. .anyways.....have a good day
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 536 -->
<a name="x537"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x537" class="tiny">x538</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_538');">NT wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_538" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
<br><br>I could agree that NT was involved; absolutely no skin off my nose or my premise's. Mutual exclusivity arguing is disinfo.
<br><br>The issue is that NT wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction, yet NT is the cul-de-sac promoted to prevent researching what was the primary mechanism. "Thus far, and no further! Nothing to see here (beyond the NT)! Move along, folks!"
<br><br>On the nuclear theme, everywhere you look in official or AE9/11Truth efforts, they get the bum's rush and lame dismissals.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 538 -->
<a name="x539"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x539" class="tiny">x540</a>
Stuart Crosbie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_540');">the fire engines had their engines melted</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_540" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear mr Maxwell Bridges
<br>you have certainly done a lot of research, I’m going to read through al that tomorrow, read some of it,
<br>I have a question for you, the fire engines that had there engines melted from there exhausts to engine blocks, what do you think caused them to melt ? They were outside the building where there was no explosive detonations ? I will tell you what I believe, when the north and south tower collapsed there was ignited thermite and thermite that did not ignite, when the nano thermite hit the hot exhaust and engines they ignited, and melted the engine blocks, what do you think happened?
</p>
</div><!-- section 540 -->
<a name="x541"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x541" class="tiny">x542</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_542');">not possible without releasing large quanity of radiation</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_542" style="display: block;">
<p>Stuart Crosbie
<br>soo many weird things , guessing the mini-mini nukes comes down to ignition of splitting the atoms , from my limited understanding , not possible without releasing large quanity of radiation . . .Max seems like he is trying to address that issue the best he can. . . .my whole question is how was the extreme heat created to turn the cement into powder 3000 to 5000 degrees?....who knows . .. and i have yet to see any trusses or the metal under the cement slabs survive . .not to mention all the office furniture gone, and 1100 people...gone...evaporated to nothing . . . . . and fires that burned for months after. . .. .and 110 story buildings brought down to 4-5 story rubble . . . . . amazing
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 542 -->
<a name="x543"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x543" class="tiny">x544</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_544');">Dr. Wood's false assumptions about where the engine actually sat in that truck</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_544" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
<br><br>I appreciate your openness to getting at truth. You ask about the fire engines melted, from exhaust to engine blocks. I do not recall seeing this; do you have some images to reference?
<br><br>Meanwhile, I do recall seeing a fire engine that ~SEEMED~ to have his front end melted and the engine out of it; Dr. Wood made a big deal out of it. Alas, she made false assumptions about where the engine actually sat in that truck (further back, under the cab, not close to grill) to come to wrong conclusions.
<br><br>Although the late-3rd/early-4th generation weapons I'm describing release 80% of their nuclear yield as neutrons, there's still that 20% of heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The latter is important, because line-of-sight it did slip out through window slits. Metal hit by such would develop Eddy currents. The closer the EMP, the larger the Eddy currents, sufficient to ignite things attached to the metal (e.g., paint, plastic handles). Once on fire, the rest of the vehicle can suffer. But this explains a whole lot of vehicle damage along West Broadway (before WTC-7 was downed) and the parking lot. More evidence data-mined from Dr. Wood's work.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 544 -->
<a name="x545"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x545" class="tiny">x546</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_546');">my bat-shit crazy speculation on the matter</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_546" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
<br><br>You wrote that "my whole question is how was the extreme heat created to turn the cement into powder 3000 to 5000 degrees?"
<br><br>First of all, as mentioned in previous question, the FGNW did have 20% of their yield in the traditional heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. On the detonation levels, the heat wave would be sufficient to really soften the wall assemblies and the blast wave to bend them into "steel doobies" before hitting the ground. (One was nicely augered into the ground near a neighboring building, I forget the address.)
<br><br>At any rate, concrete has residual water molecules and aggregates of different materials, as well as rebar. Highly energetic neutrons going through concrete would instantly excite the water molecules into super hot steam, whose expanding volume pressure would cause micro-fractures all over, making it no longer stable as a whole.
<br><br>Moreover, those neutrons hitting the rebar would ablate the metal -- the leading edge would vaporize so fast, it causes a shock wave within the material to blow the rest part. Same would be true for other things in the cement. These ablations within the concrete would break apart concrete, assisted by the aforementioned micro-fractures.
<br><br>The less-than-20% yield as heat wave was certainly an effect in the loci of the detonation levels, but the targeted neutrons and their energy were more significant (e.g., designed for yield), and that energy deposited deep within molecular structures would take the form of heat and result in anomalous effects.
<br><br>Dr. Wood let her words get misconstrued (purposely) regarding her claims about all the steel being vaporized, and Dr. Jenkins' ambush interview takes the skew a step further. (He calculates how much steel was in the towers, calculates the energy required to vaporize it all, and concludes with numbers equivalent to the sun.) Both played their disinfo roles, but both were wrong, because the wall assemblies and inner core beams were fairly well accounted for.
<br><br>What wasn't accounted for were the steel pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors (turned into the tiny irons spheres represented at significant percentages in the dust), and the dustification of the concrete, because they were right in the firing line of multiple levels of FGNW.
<br><br>At any rate, that's my bat-shit crazy speculation on the matter.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 546 -->
<a name="x547"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x547" class="tiny">x548</a>
Stuart Crosbie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_548');">nano thermite can disintegrate concrete if enough of it is used</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_548" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>the concrete floors had 8mm and 10mm reinforcement rebar through the concrete , nano thermite can disintegrate concrete if enough of it is used, as far as loud bangs, there may have been very loud bangs, but those loud explosions would have been enclosed inside the inner core, as it was ripped apart from top to bottom, remove the inner core and let gravity do the rest, there was massive heavy beams clocked at over 70mph hurtling sideways, if you ever been inside the wtc it’s gigantic, each floor is massive, people go on about how there was no loud explosive charges going off, but if the charges were going off inside the enclosed core, you would not have heard them, the noise of thousands of tons of steel and concrete being pulverised would have masked the explosions,
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 548 -->
<a name="x549"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x549" class="tiny">x550</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_550');">spray on thermite paint under each floor</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_550" style="display: block;">
<p>Stuart Crosbie
<br>i agree , spray on thermite paint under each floor . .the 5 vans Susan Lindauer spoke of came in at 1 am every night, then would leave 5am . . this happened night after night a a few weeks before 911 - thermite coating would be stable because of the high ignition point , ..maybe they were setting in ignighters under each floor , remote control triggers . .
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 550 -->
<a name="x551"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x551" class="tiny">x552</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_552');">my reaction to <i>"spray-on NT</i>" is <i>"why?"</i></a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_552" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie and Mr. Jon Howland,
<br><br>Rather than letting your NT thoughts be buried under this posting in this thread, please go to my "Defend Nanothermite" posting and speculate there about spray-on NT and the floors.
<br><br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/966310460049320/?post_id=3705068086173530">https://www.facebook.com/groups/966310460049320/?post_id=3705068086173530</a>
<br><br>If you want a preview of my reaction to "spray-on NT", it is "why?" Why so much effort? Remember, the observed pulverization was either a design goal of the operation, or it was a side-effect of the methods chosen.
<br><br>If a larger PTB goal was to get the public to believe that the WTC was destroyed by aircrafts and fires fueled by office furniture and jet fuel, the destruction features would not have been symmetrical, overkill pulverization, through the path of greatest resistance and near free-fall accelerations, because these are such a giveaway that it was controlled demolition.
<br><br>No! The PTB would have FAKED it much better if they had the opportunity to "spray on NT," which itself presents huge logistics hurdles.
<br><br>On the other hand, pulverization would be a side-effect of FGNW that have energy to spare!
<br><br>If the PDB knew the installation time was going to be rather short, four nukes per detonation level every, say, 20 floors (as observed by the upper floors of both towers "accordioned in" on themselves.) That is a much more actionable total number of mounting brackets and wiring (or wireless)! Save the final FGNW plug-ins for much sooner to the D-date, like the several days the bomb snipping dogs took holiday prior to 9/11.
<br><br>For similar reasons and outcomes, I think FGNW were in WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7 destructions as well.
<br><br>Point is, FGNW in all of the buildings would be easier to undertake. And when a failure occurs in WTC-7, a small team can install replacements quickly.
<br><br>When you consider secondary features in the aftermath, like the tyrannical lock-down of the WTC site, not letting fire investigators do their jobs, GPS tracking of the trucks with debris, the quick disposal at the scrap yards, restricting cameras / Geiger counters in rescue workers, the tritium dog-and-pony show, etc.
<br><br>Well... Cover-up for "spray-on NT" doesn't seem like quite the reason as much as cover-up for low-radiation nuclear events (plural) does.
<br><br>P.S. Remember that the floors were several inches of concrete poured onto a metal pan with supporting trusses. How to you "spray-on NT" onto the concrete if the floor as carpeting? If you try to get at a floor's concrete from the ceiling of the next lower floor, you have the metal pans and trusses blocking access to the "spray-on NT."
<br><br>P.P.S. When you're watching those NIST videos, keep in mind that whenever the video camera starts to glitch bad, you're probably observing the effects of radiation leaching off of the materials near by. The glitching is worse with video camera it seems. An app exists for modern smart phones to turn it into a Geiger counter, and phones use similar digital camera technology from those of 2001. Digital cameras (as opposed to video cameras) also recorded radiation in its glitches at pixel levels, (almost like a very light snow of yonder year's television broadcasts.)
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 552 -->
<a name="x553"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x553" class="tiny">x554</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_554');">observed a slower than free-fall destruction</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_554" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Stuart Crosbie
<br>Your hypotheses make no sense when compared to the observations.
<br>In summary, the energetic (propellant or 'explosive' forces would operate vertically and you would have a faster than free-fall demolition. But, we observed a slower than free-fall destruction.
<br>Additionally, the outwardly directed forces would be incidental and small -- instead of propelling perimeter columns outwards at high speeds.
<br>You can find my addressing this topic on page 6 of my "Propelled Demolition Paper."
<br><a href="http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf">http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/WTC_Propelled_Demolition_Paper.pdf</a>
<br>=-=-=-=-=-=-
<br>• Postulated hypothesis: Nano-thermite based energetic material was applied to the underside of the floor slabs and detonated – which destroyed the floor slabs and trusses.
<br>o Observed contrary evidence: Synchronized detonations of such a material applied along the underside of the horizontal floor surface around the Tower would be loud and create primary forces in the vertical direction resulting in most of the material falling within the perimeter columns. Large horizontal forces ejecting multi-ton perimeter columns outward cannot be accounted for if the primary vertical forces were somehow transitioned into secondary horizontal forces. Destruction in the ordinal directions would be as strong as in the cardinal directions. Additionally, with such an energetic geometry, the forces would primarily be in the vertical directions. These forces would propel, downward, onto the next lower floor below such that these forces would destroy not only that floor but also the preparations underneath it for that floor’s demolition. Disrupting the preparations on the lower floors would interrupt the progression – unless the demolition proceeded vertically downward at a synchronized “explosive” speed.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 554 -->
<a name="x555"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x555" class="tiny">x556</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_556');">3000 degrees to cement powder </a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_556" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>get me 3000 degrees . .. i will get you cement powder
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsirqzAltX0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsirqzAltX0</a>
<br>Melting Concrete At 1000 Degrees !!
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 556 -->
<a name="x557"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x557" class="tiny">x558</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_558');">mechanism that fits the observations?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_558" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Stuart Crosbie
<br>OK. Do you have a mechanism that fits the observations?
<br>I didn't see it.
<br>All I thought about were contra-indications to what I saw you and Stuart talking about.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 558 -->
<a name="x559"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x559" class="tiny">x560</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_560');">new posting about nanothermite</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_560" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
<br><br>Would you be so kind as to copy-and-paste your last few comments into this new posting about nanothermite that I started? This thread is already over 50 comments and covers several topics. Let's focus on just your hobby-horse, NT.
<br><br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/966310460049320/?post_id=3705068086173530">https://www.facebook.com/groups/966310460049320/?post_id=3705068086173530</a>
<br><br>Looking forward to our next engagement, Mr. Coste. And most fortunate for you, the NIST videos that I am posting? The evidence that I am pointing out? Damn if they aren't identical what I threw at you in a different group / posting! Means, you've had time to think about it and come up with a plausible NT explanation.
<br><br>However, the data point of you being a weasel on this very material once already exists. Can't do it again so quickly without me making big hay out of your weasel move. I'd rather not.
<br><br>As for your PDF that you posted here seven times? El-oh-el! "Nuclear blasts" torpedos it before it gets out of the gate! You knew it was coming as early as December, yet you published your flawed work anyway!
<br><br>But hey, just like we're giving NT a romp under its own posting, how about you creating a posting in this group so I can tear your premise apart, section-by-section.
<br><br>*giddy*
<br><br>Both of these endeavors are going to be part of the "2020 FGNW Opus" still in its procrastination phase, and is probably why spirits are having me procrastinate it in the first place, to allow time for these debates to come to fruition.
<br><br>Let's see if you even have an A-game! Don't be a weasel!
<br><br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 560 -->
<a name="x561"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x561" class="tiny">x562</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_562');">I'm not responding</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_562" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>No thank you.
<br>And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
<br>I think that is how you'll spin it.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 562 -->
<a name="x563"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x563" class="tiny">x564</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_564');">Can't dismiss an argument without proof</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_564" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>' I call foul on this play by Mr. Wayne Coste, who argues that there were no nuclear devices at the towers,"
<br>Image may contain: 1 person, meme, text that says 'PLAYER ATTEMPTED TO APPEAL TO THE STONE CAN'T DISMISS AN/ARGUMENT WITHOUT PROOF. TOUCHDOWN STANDS! makeameme.org'
</p>
</div><!-- section 564 -->
<a name="x565"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x565" class="tiny">x566</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_566');">propelled demolition using nano-thermite as the propellant</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_566" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Stuart Crosbie
<br>Whatever hypothesis you come up with,it needs to fit the observations.
<br>Here you see the intact remains of the SOUTH Tower's still-standing core with a lot of structural detail visible. It is only visible in this video for about 3-4 seconds.
<br>The presence of this structure -- at this point in the demolition -- and with the office / areas and outer perimeter columns propelled away from the still standing core -- argues against any point sources of detonation.
<br>The propelled demolition using nano-thermite as the propellant (the propellant could create a thermal stream of up to 4,500 degree F to assist in the thermal dissociation of the concrete, but Q=(m)(c)(DeltaT) limits this mechanism) is the best hypothesis.
<br>BTW: Ever see this part of the video before?
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/ePcQzPN0Lls?t=35">https://youtu.be/ePcQzPN0Lls?t=35</a>
<br>Videographer: Dean Riviere/Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) LLP
<br>WTC2 Collapse: SE View by Dean Riviere (Enhanced/Doubled FPS)
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 566 -->
<a name="x567"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x567" class="tiny">x568</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_568');">every piece of steel is licked clean</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_568" style="display: block;">
<p>Wayne Coste
<br>The propelled demolition using nano-thermite as the propellant (the propellant could create a thermal stream of up to 4,500 degree F to assist in the thermal dissociation of the concrete,
but Q=(m)(c)(DeltaT) limits this mechanism) is the best hypothesis. . . . . .. getting there . .. . again...we look at the pile of rubble -
the construction guy is sittting on. . every piece of steel is licked clean . .. never seen that video . ..thats amazing
</p>
</div><!-- section 568 -->
<a name="x569"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x569" class="tiny">x570</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_570');">my preferred pass-time</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_570" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Stuart Crosbie
<br>If you want to see hundreds of pictures of the columns where they fell and during the clean-up, you can see a treasure trove of them here:
<br><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/albums/72157708997281912/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/albums/72157708997281912/</a>
<br>Going through this type of material is my preferred pass-time -- much more satisfying compared to arguing on Facebook.
</p>
</div><!-- section 570 -->
<a name="x571"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x571" class="tiny">x572</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_572');">Unseen 9/11 pictures</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_572" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Stuart Crosbie
<br>An article about these photos.
<br><a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-photos-world-trade-center-attacks-pictures-ground-zero-new-york-a8977271.html">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-photos-world-trade-center-attacks-pictures-ground-zero-new-york-a8977271.html</a>
<br>Unseen 9/11 pictures show ground zero devastation after attacks
<br>INDEPENDENT.CO.UK
</p>
</div><!-- section 572 -->
<a name="x573"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x573" class="tiny">x574</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_574');">EVERYTHING being propelled away from the core column</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_574" style="display: block;">
<p>Jon Howland
<br>Stuart Crosbie
<br>Jon: Regarding your comment, "we look at the pile of rubble - the construction guy is sitting on. . every piece of steel is licked clean ."
<br>If you observed the same mechanism of destruction of the Twin Towers that I did, you would have seen all the office material, concrete floors, floor trusses (e.g., EVERYTHING!) being propelled away from the core columns in all directions.
<br>The only thing to settle on these were the post-demolition dust ... and the dust would have been washed away in the rain-storms that followed 9/11.
<br>This is what the steel looked like when it was installed.
<br>From what I know, the floor slabs did not come in contact with the columns.
<br>What should the steel have looked like in the picture with the Construction Worker you referenced?
<br>- Signs of detonations damaging and separating the connections?
<br>- Swiss-cheese holes from Maxwell Bridges
<br>' FGNW nuclear ablatement from neutron cones?
<br>- Wallpaper
<br>- Killroy-was-here graffiti
<br>- Dust (I mentioned the post-9/11 rain storm above)
<br>Image may contain: outdoor
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 574 -->
<a name="x575"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x575" class="tiny">x576</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_576');">Coste is not participating in good faith in any of these discussions</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_576" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
<br><br>Dr. David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br><br>1. You declined my invitation to go to dedicated FB posting in this group and DEFEND YOUR PREMISE of nanothermite by describing how NT would create the evidence collected in the NIST videos.
<br><br>2. The same challenge was given in this very thread, that you ignored.
<br><br>3. The original challenge for the NIST vides was given in another FB group (9/11 Verified Truth) from December.
<br><br>4. You challenged me to find the errors in your "Nuclear Demolitions...: Empirical Review." I did as you asked, section-by-section, a top-level comment for each section so the discussion reply comments could be neatly grouped. Not a single comment in defense of your own work.
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
<br><br>I think that is how you'll spin it."</i>
<br><br>Sir, I don't need to spin anything. Your actions speak loud and clear that you are not participating in good faith in any of these discussions. You post your work as if an authority piece, yet you don't even try to defend YOUR OWN WORK against criticism.
<br><br>Congratulations on demonstrating a new way to flunk an integrity test.
<br><br>You were told more than once, "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste." And consistent with your other inactions, you blew it off.
<br><br>Why? Why does the world now have the validated character assessment for you of "weasel"?
<br><br>Better "weasel" than "proven disinformation agent", right Mr. Coste?
<br><br>The fatal flaw in your "Nuclear Demolitions...: Empirical Review," your new work, and AE9/11Truth FAQ #13/#15 is framing the nuclear yield as primarily "nuclear blasts."
<br><br>I've always said that figuratively nuclear 9/11 can still have fallout today.
<br><br>Government agents and infiltrators into (online) groups -- "as observed right here, Volks!" -- don't stand by their words, have no integrity, and will have karma met out justice on their reputations and being.
<br><br>//
<br>=== mcb 7 times posted PDF</p>
</div><!-- section 576 -->
<!-- ***** 20200808_MCB_FB_Coste.htm -->
<!-- ***** 20200811_MCB_FB_Cost_01.htm -->
<a name="x577"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x577" class="tiny">x578</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_578');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-11</p>
<div id="sect_578" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>No thank you.
<br>And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
<br>I think that is how you'll spin it.
</p>
</div><!-- section 578 -->
<a name="x579"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x579" class="tiny">x580</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_580');">fatal flaw is framing the nuclear yield as primarily <i>"nuclear blasts."</i></a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-11</p>
<div id="sect_580" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Dr. David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br>
<br>1. You declined my invitation to go to dedicated FB posting in this group and DEFEND YOUR PREMISE of nanothermite by describing how NT would create the evidence collected in the NIST videos.
<br>
<br>2. The same challenge was given in this very thread, that you ignored.
<br>
<br>3. The original challenge for the NIST vides was given in another FB group (9/11 Verified Truth) from December.
<br>
<br>4. You challenged me to find the errors in your "Nuclear Demolitions...: Empirical Review." I did as you asked, section-by-section, a top-level comment for each section so the discussion reply comments could be neatly grouped. Not a single comment in defense of your own work.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
<br>I think that is how you'll spin it."</i>
<br>
<br>Sir, I don't need to spin anything. Your actions speak loud and clear that you are not participating in good faith in any of these discussions. You post your work as if an authority piece, yet you don't even try to defend YOUR OWN WORK against criticism.
<br>
<br>Congratulations on demonstrating a new way to flunk an integrity test.
<br>
<br>You were told more than once, <i>"This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste."</i> And consistent with your other inactions, you blew it off.
<br>
<br>Why? Why does the world now have the validated character assessment for you of "weasel"?
<br>
<br>Better "weasel" than "proven disinformation agent", right Mr. Coste?
<br>
<br>The fatal flaw in your "Nuclear Demolitions...: Empirical Review," your new work, and AE9/11Truth FAQ #13/#15 is framing the nuclear yield as primarily "nuclear blasts."
<br>
<br>I've always said that figuratively nuclear 9/11 can still have fallout today.
<br>
<br>Government agents and infiltrators into (online) groups -- "as observed right here, Volks!" -- don't stand by their words, have no integrity, and will have karma met out justice on their reputations and being.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 580 -->
<a name="x581"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x581" class="tiny">x582</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_582');">Mr. Coste is not participating in good faith</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-11</p>
<div id="sect_582" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. Wayne Coste, a member of this group who has webpages and PDFs of a scientific bent that speculate about NT, has declined to come to this posting to describe how NT was positioned to give us the evidence in the NIST scrapyard videos.
<br>
<br>Let the record show:
<br>
<br>1. In December, these videos were first brought to his attention in a different group / posting; he ignored them.
<br>
<br>2. They were brought up to his attention again in this group but different posting. Again he ignored them.
<br>
<br>3. When called out to come to this posting and defend NT, he declined, yet again.
<br>
<br>Wayne Coste wrote:
</p><blockquote><p>===
<br>No thank you.
<br>And you can go ahead and say you won the debate against me because I'm not responding.
<br>I think that is how you'll spin it.
<br>===</p></blockquote>
<p>I don't need to spin anything.
<br>
<br>Mr. Coste's actions speak loud and clear that he is not participating in good faith in any of these discussions. He posts his work as if an authority piece, yet doesn't even try to defend HIS OWN WORK against criticism.
<br>
<br>Congratulations on demonstrating a new way to flunk an integrity test.
<br>
<br>He was told more than once, "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste."
<br>
<br>Alas, now Mr. Coste has the validated character assessment of "weasel."
<br>
<br>Better "weasel" than "proven disinformation agent", right Mr. Coste?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 582 -->
<!-- ***** 20200811_MCB_FB_Cost_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_10 -->
<a name="p11"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_11');">Part 11: FGNW Discussions with Bob Byron</a></h2>
<div id="part_11" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200812_MCB_FB_Byron.htm -->
<a name="x583"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x583" class="tiny">x584</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_584');">had to have the last ~poorly~ written comments in nearly ~all~ of the threads</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-12</p>
<div id="sect_584" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
<br>
<br>You just had to have the last ~poorly~ written comments in nearly ~all~ of the threads under the posting with a simple narrow focus (explain of NT created the evidence at various timestamps in the NIST videos) without a single one of those last six [or any other comment here] hitting that narrow focus, now did ya?
<br>
<br>Spam much? Derail from the subject much? Play the disinfo agent much?
<br>
<br>Maybe I'm being a bit harsh with you, because many of your poorly written points I might otherwise agree with. But I think not. Why?
<br>
<br>1. You gave the same spamming treatment to my first attempt at a rational discussion on this narrow focus, forcing me to create a second posting without your chaff.
<br>
<br>2. You can created your own postings with your manifold concerns. You didn't have to ~thoroughly~ spam my efforts TWICE!!!
<br>
<br>Given that you repeat yourself and your memes, nothing will be lost when I purge your distracting spam from here with a nice "fuck you very much for your participation."
<br>
<br>Before removing last night's sleepless effort, I saved your words off-line and will go through them one-by-one to make sure I didn't miss anything.
<br>
<br>I had admonished you: "Stop trying to derail the discussion."
<br>
<br>You replied: "this IS THE DISCUSSION!!!???"
<br>
<br>No, it is not.
<br>
<br>I had explained (and you quoted me): "The assignment is for you watch the videos and explain how NT accounts for the evidence in the scrapyards."
<br>
<br>You replied: "why the scrap yards????....why not the ACTUAL COLLAPSE IN PROGRESS???????"
<br>
<br>Because NOBODY has rationally explained the evidence from the scrap yards, yet I can't count the number of times I've seen and/or been a part of discussions about the actual collapse in progress.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "lookie at you wanting to go where there is NOTHING TO OFFER!!!!????? ..distract much.....[shakes head]."
<br>
<br>Time stamps 22:22, 46:00, and 1:22:30 in the second video shows just the opposite of "nothing to offer," so the "distract much" gets put on your forehead like a Dole banana fruit sticker.
<br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
<br>
<br>I wrote about the high quality NIST cameras (video and digital) having glitches when they recorded certain pieces of evidence or certain areas.
<br>
<br>You replied: "..oh yeah....I was wondering what did that.....NOT!????? yeah, live feeds are a bitch!"
<br>
<br>Because you have not watched the videos, your statements are most ignorant. These weren't "live feeds" where transmission/reception can add their own quirks and snow. No, we're talking high quality cameras functioning well, then suddenly for certain shots in certain areas, all of a sudden glitch-city.
<br>
<br>You falsely stated: "your ENTIRE premise here is YOU pushing there is NO accerllerants or 'thermite'.... and I PROVED TO YOU THERE WAS!!!"
<br>
<br>No.
<br>
<br>(a) My premise is that the alleged accelerant (NT) was not the primary mechanism of destruction. My premise is technically against the rules of this group to discuss. However, I'll be able to request a rules change when the NT yeomen are no-show or completely fumble the assignment, as you are doing. Bravo!
<br>
<br>(b) It doesn't affect my premise in the least that you proved sulfur was present and maybe can connect it with NT. My premise doesn't claim any mutual exclusivity in mechanisms involved. [Sulfur is usually an undesirable impurity in steel. In amounts exceeding 0.05% it tends to cause brittleness and reduce weldability.]
<br>
<br>(c) The weasel and bot that you are, you still have not proven that the evidence depicted in the videos had sulfur present in critical areas, like the unwelded seam of a hollow box column over its entire 30' length and waveyness of a box face.
<br>
<br>Because sulfur still might be present in steel as an impurity, would steel super-heated by bombarding highly energetic neutrons ablate / thin the metal and leave the sulfur impurity behind?
<br>
<br>In another comment, you wrote poorly and inaccurately: "9-11 TRUTH was stared by the STRUCTURAL COMMUNITY! .. not you"
<br>
<br>No, it wasn't. Maybe you're thinking AE9/11Truth? If so, that group was created by architects and engineers with no restriction on the type of engineer, because they all have to be well versed in physics. [I was one of them, so nya-nya-nya, factually wrong again.]
<br>
<br>In an earlier comment, you wrote: "it is material like this what makes me suspect you are here for some other reason...and NOT actual 'truth'."
<br>
<br>I replied: "Material like what? Like the NIST videos from the scrapyards!"
<br>
<br>You replied: "no, it's the 'spin' you attach to them."
<br>
<br>Exactly what sort of "spin" have I attached to the videos? You can't say, because I haven't written anything in this thread with "my spin." You pulled that out of your bot-ass and provide another data point to my claim "you are not participating in good faith."
<br>
<br>No, I created this posting so that you and other NT supporters could be the first to apply their NT "spin" to the evidence and maybe convince me of the errors in my ways.
<br>
<br>You went on to write about criminal acts by NIST leaders and the Bush administration -- *yawn*. Make your own posting and I'll give you a thumbs-up "like". Doesn't belong here.
<br>
<br>You wrote poorly: "THOSE WHOM ASSERT MUST PROVE!"
<br>
<br>Exactly. You assert that NT was the primary mechanisms of destruction; you prove it by getting NT to address the video evidence. This, you have not done... in a glaringly distracting and "spinning" sort of a way.
<br>
<br>I wrote: "NOBODY HAS ATTEMPTED THE ASSIGNMENT."
<br>
<br>You wrote poorly: "...I did...I provided the EVIDENCE that you wave off."
<br>
<br>No, you did not. You didn't reference (with a time stamp) a single steel girder or wall assembly depicted in the videos. How you continually expose yourself the liar and weasel.
<br>
<br>I called you bot, because like an algorithm you go through and leave the final comments in all the threads under this posting. Like a bot, you keep repeating the same memes. Like a bot, you are fundamentally prevented from going to another source (video, web page), assimilating the information, and providing relevant analysis.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, I will be purging much of your chaff.
<br>
<br>Don't like how I administer my posting? First, go fuck yourself. Second, go and create your own postings and go to town and have a party.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 584 -->
<!-- ***** 20200812_MCB_FB_Byron.htm -->
<!-- ***** 20200812_MCB_FB_Byron_00.htm -->
<a name="x585"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x585" class="tiny">x586</a>
Bob Bryon : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_586');">they scientifically DETERMINED no scientific reason for collapse</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-12</p>
<div id="sect_586" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>"The NIST leaders will have their own cosmic Karma to pay for their misdirections"
<br>lookie at YOU, waving off the LAST PEOPLE signing off on the NIST REPORTS...
<br>the ONLY ones who can support themselves and provide the supporting evidence, and you pathetically wave them off.....
<br>.
<br>" Stop trying to derail the discussion."
<br>this IS THE DISCUSSION!!!????
<br>the addition of an ELEMENT that has NO BUSINESS BEING THERE IN THAT FORM!!!
<br>that is EXACTLY what YOU asked for.
<br>so, are YOU smarter than a FEMA scientist????
<br>...if so, then why you still on Facebook?
<br>.
<br>"The assignment is for you watch the videos and explain how NT accounts for the evidence in the scrapyards. "
<br>why the scrap yards????....why not the ACTUAL COLLAPSE IN PROGRESS???????
<br>lookie at you wanting to go where there is NOTHING TO OFFER!!!!?????
<br>..distract much.....[shakes head].
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>"Why isn't there a REAL Investigation, by OUR? Government, with all the indications pointing toward, an intentional pre-installed Controlled Demolition, of the WTC. Towers #1,#2,#7 on '9/11/2001'?"
<br>Imre
<br>... there was.
<br>and they scientifically DETERMINED no scientific reason for collapse.
<br>NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)
<br>and their scientific findings concluded NO scientific reason why these three buildings did what we see them do.
<br>NCSTR 1-3, "Structural Response" details the very little damage impacts caused into each..the 14.5%.
<br>the fact no fireproofing came off the remaining columns, only those columns INVOLVED with impacts, not the remaining 240 needing simultaneous failure on each towers impact floor.
<br>.
<br>NIST 1-6A Appendix C Passive Fire Protection p.274..."within the debris fields created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 &2...thermal insulation was damaged and dislodged"
<br>.
<br>the fact the FIRES PRESENT were not hot enough to cause ANY remaining columns to fail.
<br>"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235
<br>along with...
<br>no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3
<br>recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2
<br>"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2
<br>NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7, it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"
<br>"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
<br>..and this is the very reason the NIST LEADERS leave their own Congressional investigation to go to Bazant and his BS they still REFUSE TO SUPPORT!
<br>so we don;t need another investigation, we point out the FACT THE NIST LEADERS LIED and go elsewhere to something the GOV. scientists REFUSE TO SUPPORT.
<br>same with the WTC7 report....they lie, push NEW pseudo-science they, to this day, refuse to support.
<br>everything I just provided is ALREADY PUBLISHED using their own words.
<br>their demise is already there in BLACK & WHITE if one chooses to look and use it against them.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Imre Tihanyi
<br>so, seems you are another one who IGNORE the proper procedure and anything else that doesn't fit into your NARROW view.
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>"keep in mind that whenever the video camera starts to glitch bad, you're probably observing the effects of radiation leaching off of the materials nearby. The glitching is worse with video camera it seems.'
<br>..oh yeah....I was wondering what did that.....NOT!?????
<br>yeah, live feeds are a bitch!
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>"If the subject of these discussions '
<br>???????????..YOU SAID in YOUR OP....DEFEND the 'accellerant'.
<br>your ENTIRE premise here is YOU pushing there is NO accerllerants or 'thermite'....
<br>and I PROVED TO YOU THERE WAS!!!
<br>an element discovered that is is NOT suppose to be there in that form
<br>.....and there you go DISTRACTING from that FACT, by tossing out I'm a BOT!???????
<br>further proving you are just another debunker spreading LIES and ignoring proper procedure that actually gets us to the BOTTOM of certain items.......
<br>..and here is your ?'conclusion' of the FACTS I PROVIDE...
<br>...You claim I'm attacking NT. I'm not, but were you to tackle the assignment in an earnest manner, you would be attacking NT eventually, or you prove yourself a bot or agent."
<br>I PROVIDED excerpts from, and the link to THE 'FEMA C' report to show what I PROVIDE is FACT!
<br>...YOU, on the other hand.........create your OWN links you point to....AS IF that supports a damn thing.
<br>.
<br>and then you use your 'creative-writing skills..., "where you wrote the hypnotic suggestion: "you have NO evidence to support you, so you attack the other 'alternatives' that do."
<br>oooo....so my words are... ..?'HYPNOTIC'???.....
<br>like I am trying to control your brain?????....
<br>sure pal.....it's actually called COMMON SENSE and the Dictum of all Law, SCIENCE and proper Debate.
<br>AS THE THREAD ASKS.....
<br>I PROVIDED the supporting evidence of an element ADDED to the collapse,'somehow'!....that was SCIENTIFICALLY determined to LOWER THE MENTION POINT OT HE LOAD BEARING STEEL columns supporting the buildings entire load.
<br>this fact is undebatable!
<br>you ignore everything that does not fit your narrow 'point-of-view'.
<br>what is ,debatable', is WHERE the element comes from.....how did it get there?
<br>...where did all that SULFUR come from that is NOT suppose to be there in that form?????
<br>FEMA SCIENTISTS mention the sulfur lowering the melting point could be the catalyst causing collapse.
<br>So you can either discuss these FACTS with me, or I can delete the thread due to your REFUSAL TO DISCUSS THE INTENT OF THIS THREAD, because it's not going the way you want it to go.!
<br>oh yeah, and also the UNSUPPORTED claim calling me a 'BOT' to wave off what I provide.
<br>to which I I think YOU are the PROGRAMMED bot....for the evidenced I provide, that you ignore, kind a points in that direction...just saying...
<br>Image may contain: 1 person, text that says 'severe Appendix surface sulfur formed during high corrosion attack melting, liquid eutectic mixture corrosion attack readily visible iron steel. near- oxidation and members with unusual patterns observed the WTC debris field" found Here warranted further mixture containing primarily sulfur formed corrosion attack for steel.' the FEMA, whom abundence sulfur being found ofSamples and sulfur has subsequent explanation corrosion unknown. any scientific reason form. phenomenon possible unusual structure. that originate Gross on how learly bearing this and position during corrosive building, degradation phenomenon weakening structure collapse building" NCSTAR1-'
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>"The lame arguments and weasel manuevers by the active membership of this group are ignoring relevant evidence.'
<br>seems that is what YOU are doing.
<br>9-11 TRUTH was stared by the STRUCTURAL COMMUNITY!
<br>..not you.
<br>why.....because of the NIST LEADERS, who ignore their own investigation and go ELSEWHERE to push LIES they still refuse to support.
<br>an chemical agent WAS DISCOVERED that SCIENTISTS determined lowered the melting point of the STEEL COLUMNS!
<br>an element NOT characteristic to the building of steel framed buildings.
<br>an agent that has no business being there in that form.
<br>SCIENTIFIC PROOF of what your OP asks for.....and you don't like it.....?why?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>" Like the NIST videos from the scrapyards!'
<br>no, it's the 'spin' you attach to them.
<br>.
<br>"So where we are at, is that you are not participating in good faith and I suspect you probably aren't even human."
<br>why is it that when confronted with basic human characteristics, you point and go.."BOT"!!!!!
<br>this is NOT about you OR me, this is about 'truth'.
<br>and the BOTTOM LINE of the NIST investigation is the actual investigation SCIENTIFICALLY DETERMINED .."NO SCIENTIFIC REASON FOR COLLAPSE!
<br>I am discussing a CRIMINAL ACT perpetrated by the NIST LEADERS as they ignore their own to push BS nonsense to FURTHER THE EFFORTS of the BUSH Administrations venture into DESTROYING THE MIDDLE EAST!
<br>.
<br>'and a great ability to keep cycling through "lesser" arguments regarding "NIST not doing a thorough or scientific job'
<br>so, here YOU are saying the MASS MURDER of 3000 in an instant and the COVERING UP of what really occurred to ALLOW the UNITED STATES TO INVADE ANOTHER NATION, based on LIES
<br>I'm one of the very few following proper Dictum.
<br>THOSE WHOM ASSERT MUST PROVE!
<br>so why are YOU against propping up the NIST LEADERS to prod them for the AMAZING NEW PHYSICS they claim occurred?????
<br>.
<br>"Change my mind about you; do the assignment.'
<br>uhm....no, I'll just delete the entire bullsh*t thread..
<br>.
<br>"We're discussing your hobby-horse of nanothermite (I assume) as the primary means of destruction.
<br>You are asked to defend it."
<br>I did....DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE of an element NOT suppose to be there in that form!!!
<br>when thrown from a horse, it is good to just get right back on.??
<br>even your 'hobby-horse'....just saying...
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>"NOBODY HAS ATTEMPTED THE ASSIGNMENT.
<br>Your group is being found wanting.'
<br>Maxwell
<br>...I did...I provided the EVIDENCE that you wave off.
<br>and then calling me a 'BOT' because you can't show me incorrect, really does NOTHING for you....
<br>sorry if I FOLLOW COURT ROOM etiquette.
<br>.
<br>"However, the purpose of my blog is to preserve my words, whether I'm discussing 9/11 topics or disinfo suspicions against other participants"
<br>[shakes head]...no, we can pretty much establish you are NOT that.
<br>case in point.....
<br>you IGNORING scientific findings that happen to be OUTSIDE your narrow view you set up for the thread, really does nothing for you.
<br>DO THE ASSIGNMENT??
<br>show me wrong.....
<br>
<br><b>Bob Byron</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>'Like a bot, or a lesser persona of a multi-persona effort to control the discussion.'
<br>so, I guess EVERYONE challenging you to support YOU, is a "bot"...
<br>.
<br>", Thank you for providing another example of a lame contribution.'
<br>wow....you gave him the same response as you gave me after I PROVIDED THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE you ask for...
<br>.
<br>"This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam "
<br>"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event.
<br>NO CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCE of the sulfur has been identified.
<br>The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings.
<br>It is also possible that the phenomenon STARTED PRIOR TO COLLAPSE AND ACCELERATED THE WEAKENING of the steel structure."
</p>
</div><!-- section 586 -->
<!-- ***** 20200812_MCB_FB_Byron_00.htm -->
<!-- ***** 20200813_MCB_FB_Byron_02.htm -->
<a name="x587"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x587" class="tiny">x588</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_588');">there was NO evidenced from the scrap yard...</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-13</p>
<div id="sect_588" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>"You just had to have the last ~poorly~ written comments in nearly ~all~ of the threads"
<br>responding to my tag...just like you.
<br>however, the one thing I do not do is constantly attack you person as you seem to have need to do with me.
<br>....does that help you in what you push?
<br>....can't see how.
<br>"Spam much?"
<br>nope...never....how bout you???
<br>.
<br>"Derail from the subject much?"
<br>the subject is 9-11 TRUTH!
<br>that is what I provide...not MY truth, not YOUR truth.....just TRUTH!
<br>.
<br>Play the disinfo agent much?'
<br>nope, NEVER, but I assist in showing others the fibbers they are.
<br>now, since you SUGGESTED, perhaps you can SHOW what you deem as 'disinfo'....
<br>since it is obvious that suggestion must come from somewhere.
<br>what material did I provide that you consider ..'disinformation'.
<br>.
<br>'Given that you repeat yourself and your memes"
<br>yeah, that is the problem with TAUGHT SCIENCE and the actual scientific FINDINGS gathered during a Congressional scientific investigation.....they do not change day to day as 'derbunkerism' does.
<br>.
<br>"I had explained (and you quoted me): "The assignment is for you watch the videos and explain how NT accounts for the evidence in the scrapyards.""
<br>first off.....HOW can anyone do what YOU ASK!!!
<br>there is nothing ANYONE can produce from the SCRAP YARD....AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
<br>the reason you are so steadfast on this pathetic DESIGNED thread.
<br>.
<br>"Because NOBODY has rationally explained the evidence from the scrap yards, "
<br>???????WHAT EVIDENCE????
<br>there was NO evidenced from the scrap yard...
<br>the EVIDENCE is from TAUGHT SCIENCE and the findings gathered during a SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.
<br>NO ONE WAS scientifically TESTING for any evidence of anything other than the FIRES PRESENT and gravity.!!!!!
<br>"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm
<br>so how, in 2008, did the AMAZING NIST LEADERS go before ALL to state, 'stemming from a SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION'...that NO explosives OR ACCELERANTS were found?
<br>but there is PLENTY OF EVIDENCE from THAT DAY which for SOME REASON.....you call a "foul" on to use...
<br>because YOU SET THE RULES!
<br>plenty of evidence consist of ....
<br>i.e. the actual collapse for one.
<br>the rushing away of the material.
<br>TAUGHT SCIENCE stating what we see is 100% impossible.
<br>.
<br>' The weasel and bot that you are, you still have not proven that the evidence depicted in the videos had sulfur present in critical areas'
<br>nor DO I HAVE TO!!!
<br>it the FACT OF THEM IGNORING the sulfur that PRODUCED THE MELTING becomes the PROBLEM!!!
<br>all I have to do is POINT IT OUT!
<br>and then PROVIDE the evidence....which I DO.
<br>and we have the scientific FACT IT IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE THERE!
<br>so sunshine..... there is your answer for THIS THREAD!!!
<br>you asked....
<br>I PROVIDED WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!
<br>an ABUNDANCE of SULFUR discovered, (that is not suppose to be there in THAT form), that scientists BELIEVE could cause the premature failure of the load bearing columns.
<br>so I just produced the evidence you don;t seem to want....
<br>why don't you tell me FOR SURE that John Gross, NIST LEADER, is not at the SCRAP YARD pointing out this melted steel FOR THE CAMERA??????
</p>
</div><!-- section 588 -->
<a name="x589"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x589" class="tiny">x590</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_590');">Be a hero and not the weasel</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-13</p>
<div id="sect_590" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
<br>
<br>You have some misconceptions about how Facebook postings, top-level comments, and reply-comments work in terms of defining what the main subject of the discussion and important relevant threads is.
<br>
<br>"9/11 Truth" is the motto for the FB group we are members of, but my posting states very clearly in a purposely very narrow way what the subject of discussion is: (a) the NIST videos of the scrap yards and (b) rationally speculating how nanothermite created those specific pieces of evidence collected there.
<br>
<br>Thus, any "9/11 Truth" comment you want to make, if it doesn't talk about a time stamp from the video [e.g., Time stamps 22:22, 46:00, and 1:22:30] and where NT was located in relation to what is depicted, YOU WOULD BE OFF TOPIC and guilty of "derailing the subject", distracting, and borderline spamming, because you weren't tagged in all the threads you jumped in on.
<br>
<br>I wrote: "Play the disinfo agent much?"
<br>
<br>You replied: "nope, NEVER, but I assist in showing others the fibbers they are. [...] what material did I provide that you consider ..'disinformation'."
<br>
<br>You are too modest! It is the material that you don't provide, the actions you don't undertake, and the assignment you won't touch that flags you pretty heavily a disinfo agent, as if it were an order you must obey to not ever look into the videos, much less with nanothermite in mind.
<br>
<br>Prove me wrong. Watch the video at the time stamps and speculate where NT was in relation to the evidence.
<br>
<br>You complained: "first off.....HOW can anyone do what YOU ASK!!!"
<br>
<br>Duh, the URL to the YouTube video has been provided SEVERAL times. Is YouTube a banned website at your place of employment, which is why you can't go watch the videos even at the given time stamps? If this is your technical challenge, make it known so that we don't go thinking you are an idiot.
<br>
<br>Your complaint continued: "there is nothing ANYONE can produce from the SCRAP YARD....AND YOU KNOW IT!!!"
<br>
<br>The physical evidence in hand has nothing to do with watching a YouTube video of that same evidence and making some speculations, "... AND YOU KNOW IT!!!"
<br>
<br>For example, one of the videos [I don't recall which video or the time stamp] depicts the inner-side of a wall assembly and the middle hollow box column has a gash almost its entire length including through the metal of two spandral areas. It was as if that inner face of the box-column were a slab of slighly above room-temperature chocalate that a very hot knife easily was able to slash a terrible gash along almost its entire 30' length.
<br>
<br>It ought to be relatively easy to look at that gash into the column's face and say [as just an example]: "... Uh... The nanothermite that was sprayed on to the floor... err... ceiling to... uh... pulverize the concrete was sufficient in quantities of... x inches think over three levels to... err... make a region of heat that... um... went lateral to the walls and... turned the steel face of that three story middle box column into warm chocolate, just ripe for the gashing. Nevermind that the column faces had no flame marks and only certain places could flames be seen... And if we calculate the distance from the NT on the concrete floors to the wall assemblies inner sides and the amount of time it would have to be heated to soften to the point of permitting the gashing... well,... err... GOD DAMN IT!!! YOU MO-FO!!! You EFFING set me up to discredit my own damn theory. En effing Tee doesn't easily explain this evidence without making me look like a completely stupid asshole and disinfo agent! Eff Ewe!!! I am a real person who can change my mind. NT wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction. Something else was. Let's be true to 9/11 Truth, change the group rules, and allow truth to take us where it needs to go."
<br>
<br>Whatever mechanism you champion -- nanothermite or something more exotic --, it needs to be able to rationally explain how these anomalies were created.
<br>
<br>As for the rest of your comment? Exposes you to be a verbose weasel. You are essentially arguing that <i>"NIST was scope limited, didn't do its job, didn't publish its findings, and let the scraps be destroyed, therefore this whole line of research is dead. Nothing to see here, folks! Let's move backwards to complaining about reports rather than doing some gumshoe work ourselves!"</i>
<br>
<br>Because NIST didn't do it or do it correctly and now it is too late, your appeal-to-authority is that there is NOTHING that you can do.
<br>
<br>With this simple-ass assignment from the posting that determines what this discussion is about, there ~IS~ something you can do that would greatly help the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world in general!
<br>
<br>For each piece of evidence depicted in the video at a given time stamp, you will make an earnest effort -- even if it sounds stupid and completely implausible -- to describe how NT mixed with any amount of other chemical explosives acting as the PRIMARY mechanism of destruction would have been positioned. If it is stupid and logistically implausible, THAT HAS VALUE TOO that you are to acknowledge, because it opens the rabbit hole entrance into discovering what the true PRIMARY mechanisms of destruction were.
<br>
<br>In other words, if you are a sincere and objective human being, your earnest efforts at the assignment should actually debunk NT as the PRIMARY mechanisms of destruction. And this is where you become a hero to the 9/11 Truth community, for exposing the limited-hang-out that NT has always been and the nuclear 9/11 cover-up (still active today)!!! Yeah!!! Woo-hoo, and good for you!!!
<br>
<br>My game plan exposed!
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"why don't you tell me FOR SURE that John Gross, NIST LEADER, is not at the SCRAP YARD pointing out this melted steel FOR THE CAMERA??????"</i>
<br>
<br>I think it is great that you have a picture of John Gross, NIST Leader, pointing out melted steel for the camera (whether or not at the scrap yard). Doesn't mean he is pointing out (and covering-up) the use of NT; maybe he is pointing out (and covering-up) the use of another device.
<br>
<br>I think your bot-algorithms have me confused with someone else, like a "controlled demolition denier" or a "coincidence theorist," just because the purpose of this thread will ultimately be -- with earnest participation -- the debunking of NT as the primary mechanism of destruction.
<br>
<br>You're worried that I am going to fill the void with "jet fuel and office furnishing fires and gravity" being the primary mechanism of destruction.
<br>
<br>No. Set those worries aside. My premise (FGNW) fills the void with something that two rules of this FB group tries to exclude and prevent. [Could that be a dastardly sign regarding the intentions of this group?!! Stay tuned...]
<br>
<br>[Baby-steps. First we get participants to see that NT has a tough time explaining all of the evidence. Then out of necessity for the void created, we change the Group rules. Then we repeat the exercise of watching the videos, but while thinking FGNW instead of NT. Then we recognize how we -- even the woke Truthers -- were duped. Then we...]
<br>
<br>At any rate, if you stick to the scope of the assignment, you could become a hero to the 9/11 Truth community for validating (or not) NT as the primary mechanism of destruction.
<br>
<br>Be a hero, and not the weasel you'd been so far. Geesh. Attempt the assignment.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 590 -->
<!-- ***** 20200813_MCB_FB_Byron_02.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_11 -->
<a name="p12"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_12');">Part 12: FGNW Discussions with Lawrence Fine</a></h2>
<div id="part_12" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200821_MCB_FB_FineUSGS.htm -->
<a name="x591"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x591" class="tiny">x592</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_592');">WTC-4 geological formations were known about since the 1960's</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-21</p>
<div id="sect_592" style="display: block;">
<p>Below are various references and select quotes from them.
<br>
<br>The bottom-line is that these geological formations were known about since the 1960's (Bob Fluhr, a geological engineer) from bore hole samples and from the 1990's (Merguerian, Charles, 1994 & 1996).
<br>
<br>=====
<br>
<br>Bedrock Control of a Boulder-Filled Valley Under the World Trade Center Site
<br><a href="https://www.geo.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts-08/moss.pdf">https://www.geo.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts-08/moss.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>Cheryl J. Moss, Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, 14 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10122 (cmoss@mrce.com), and, Charles Merguerian, Geology Department, 114 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549 (geocmm@hofstra.edu; charlesm@dukelabs.com
<br>
<br>
<br>During construction of the slurry wall, however, an unexpected feature was discovered. In the southeast corner of the site the wall cut through a ledge of schistose bedrock and entered a curved, roughly E-W-trending valley filled with well-rounded glacial boulders and cobbles (Figure 1). The slurry wall had to be excavated deeper in two places to get through the boulders and socket back into solid bedrock. The trend of the valley is unusual because other known glacial valleys across Manhattan trend NW-SE including a nearby valley we reported on earlier (Moss and Merguerian 2006).
<br>
<br>On a 20 foot contour map scale, Baskerville (1994) noted several NW-SE trending valleys that cut through the bedrock across New York City (Figure 2). They are typically filled with glacial sediments, predominantly outwash sand and varved silt and clay.
<br>
<br>According to Sanders and Merguerian (1998), during the Pleistocene, as many as 5 glacial advances passed over NYC, originating from either the NW or the NNE (Table 2).
<br>
<br>Baskerville, C. A., 1994, Bedrock and engineering geology maps of New York County and parts of Kings and Queens counties, New York and parts of Bergen and Hudson counties, New Jersey: U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2306 (2 sheets; colored maps on scale of 1/24,000).
<br>
<br><a href="https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/i2306">https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/i2306</a>
<br>
<br>Merguerian, Charles, 1994, Stratigraphy, structural geology, and ductile- and brittle faults of the New York City area, p. 49-56 in Hanson, G. N., chm., Geology of Long Island and metropolitan New York, 23 April 1994, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY, Long Island Geologists Program with Abstracts, 165 p.
<br>
<br>Merguerian, Charles, 1996, Stratigraphy, structural geology, and ductile- and brittle faults of New York City, p. 53-77 in Benimoff, A. I. and Ohan A. A., chm., The Geology of New York City and Vicinity, Field guide and Proceedings, New York State Geological Association, 68th Annual Meeting, Staten Island, NY, 178 p.
<br>
<br>
<br>=====
<br>
<br>Structural Geology and Metamorphism of the World Trade Center SiteCharles Merguerian (Principal, Duke Geological Laboratory, Stone Ridge, NY 12484 and Professor Emeritus, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549 [Charlesm@Dukelabs.com]) and Cheryl J. Moss (Senior Geologist, Mueser-Rutledge Consulting Engineers, NYC, NY 10122 [cmoss@mrce.com])
<br>
<br><a href="https://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts15/Merguerian%20and%20Moss%202015.pdf">https://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts15/Merguerian%20and%20Moss%202015.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>Previous published maps of southern Manhattan identify the bedrock in the area of the World Trade Center to consist of Manhattan Schist (Kemp 1887; Mather 1843; Berkey 1910 and 1933) covered by a thin mantle of glacial drift. Baskerville’s 1994 map of Manhattan indicates all Manhattan Schist south of Canal Street, following the published work of all previous workers.
<br>
<br>=====
<br>
<br>50 Ka Till-Filled Pleistocene Plunge Pools and Potholes Found Beneath the World Trade Center Site, New York, NY
<br>
<br>Cheryl J. Moss, Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, 14 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10122 (cmoss@mrce.com), and,
<br>
<br>Charles Merguerian, Geology Department, 114 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549 (geocmm@hofstra.edu; charlesm@dukelabs.com)
<br>
<br>During construction of the original World Trade Center Twin Towers in the 1970’s an unusual feature was encountered. The southeast corner of the slurrywall cut through a bedrock valley filled with rounded and polished glacial boulders and cobbles.
<br>
<br>=====
<br>
<br>Applying geology at World Trade Center site
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.geotimes.org/nov01/NNwtc.html">http://www.geotimes.org/nov01/NNwtc.html</a>
<br>
<br>Bob Fickies was sitting in his office at the New York Geological Survey (NYGS), pondering the press reports he had read that discuss how an unstable slurry wall could give way to water leaks at the World Trade Center (WTC) excavation site. Then he remembered: Bob Fluhr, a geological engineer, worked on water problems at the WTC more than 30 years ago. After Fluhr's death in 1987, Fluhr's family donated his work to NYGS.
<br>
<br>Fickies immediately looked up Fluhr's work in the NYGS's "open files." What he found were Fluhr's original renderings of cross-sections of bore holes taken at the WTC construction site from 1963 to 1967.
<br>
<br>Fluhr's survey says a lot about the geology and condition of the site prior to construction. The original survey consists of cross sections from bore holes drilled 60 feet apart along the construction site, and it reflects the changing landscape of the area over the past 300 years.
<br>
<br>Looking at a map from 1609, Fakundiny explains that the Hudson River's shoreline ran just under New York City. In fact, the eastern shore ran along what is now Greenwich Street, a block east of where the WTC towers stood. Since that time, developers used artificial fill, consisting of everything from river sediments to leather shoes, to extend the Hudson's shoreline west to its current location.
<br>
<br>Fakundiny says the change in shoreline is evident with even a cursory glance at current maps of the region. And Fluhr's cross-sections reveals even more. Below the fill is organic silt, and below that glacial till, leftover from the glaciers that once covered New York. The layers of glacial sands, gravel and sediment thicken to the west. In fact, Fakundiny says, layers of sand and gravel 10 feet thick extend west into the Hudson, posing a possible threat if there are any instabilities in the slurry wall.
<br>
<br>=====
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 592 -->
<!-- ***** 20200821_MCB_FB_FineUSGS.htm -->
<!-- ***** 20200828_MCB_FB_Fine_02.htm -->
<a name="x593"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x593" class="tiny">x594</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_594');">all I've got</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/lorenzonine/posts/10164178992945046?comment_id=10164183670340046">2020-08-28</a></p>
<div id="sect_594" style="display: block;">
<p>Two pictures = 2000 + words: This is all I need, all I've got.
</p>
</div><!-- section 594 -->
<a name="x595"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x595" class="tiny">x596</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_596');">don't have to follow me all over</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-28</p>
<div id="sect_596" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>- You don't have to follow me all over the 9/11 groups and pages - - - and I'm not "making you do anything" - - - it seems you have a learning disability - a lack of critical cognitive abilities when it comes to these geological features which, if bona fide are clear evidence that there were extremely hot times in the old town, especially beneath the Twin Towers and Building #4.
<br>Image may contain: text that says 'Later 2007 southern half remnants glacial lake built previous above gradually removed bathtub prepared along vitht nature of excavation depressions ELEVATION howeveri be. confirmed uncxpected how extensive new questions dramatic the CORTLAND STREET Figure4 LBEKTY STREET valley. contours comer levation (1929 NGVD), Figure8 coriginal USGS LIBERTY obtained thetop shading Tower4 indicates location ofthe 1929'
</p>
</div><!-- section 596 -->
<a name="x597"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x597" class="tiny">x598</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_598');">WTC-4: unexpected how extensive and dramatic the emerging basins would be</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-28</p>
<div id="sect_598" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine,
<br><br>Your two pictures make my case and not yours. Thank you.
<br><br>So that we are clear on what we're talking about, allow me to summarize. (A) You believe that the differences between the geological studies before and after 9/11 from underneath WTC-4 indicates the use of (for the sake of discussion) FGNW or other tactical nuclear weapons. (B) Whereas I seem to be the lone nut conspiracy theorists championing FGNW, I do not believe the geological formation under WTC-4 was created by 9/11 FGNW.
<br><br>If you look at the text of your images, it says: "The conclusions of the prior geotechnical investigations were confirmed and new questions that had arisen resolved, however it was unexpected how extensive and dramatic the emerging basins would be."
<br><br>Figure 4: "Data obtained prior to the geotechnical investigation for Tower 4 indicated that the feature, presumed to be a valley extended eastward into the Tower 4 site."
<br><br>Figure 8: "Pink shading on the cross-section shows the original interpretation of the bedrock, with a possible ledge in question."
<br><br>Why did they use the phrases "presumed" and "original interpretation"? Because the prior surveys done in the 1990's and much earlier in the 1960's did not have the luxury of removing all of the content filling those basins.
<br><br>What was the margin of error on the 2007 surveys? With laser beam surveying and GPS toolings, damn close to 0%. On the 1960's survey? They bored core samples every 60', but who knows how far and wide they did this. What about the 1990's survey? Probably used pinging and echo-locating. The margin of error was certainly greater than 0%.
<br><br>The reports I provided along with these diagrams from you proves that the anomaly below WTC-4 was known to have existed in the 1990's if not much earlier. Only the geological formation's exact extent with near 0% margin of error wasn't known.
<br><br>Further proof that a FGNW below didn't enhance this space, is that significant damage to WTC-4 did not extend into its vault and tunnel levels, certainly not below it, as given in other excavation GIF graphs re-posted by you of the WTC subbasement levels.
<br><br>Moreover, one can easily speculate motives and goals for other WTC destruction (and non-destruction) in terms of value to the Hollywood production and to the money heist. WTC-6 vaults were emptied prior. WTC-4 had gold vaults, and a loaded tractor trailer loaded with gold and abandoned in the tunnel proves a gold heist in progress.
<br><br>What would be the reason for a deep underground nuke aimed downwards from the WTC-4 vaults? Has no value add to the operation. And neither street level nor vault level indicates something nuclear energetic below it, like by leaving a sink hole that content above sank into into.
<br><br>In conclusion, the geological features were known to exist beneath WTC-4 well before WTC-4 existed and were not created by the 9/11 event. Q.E.D.
<br><br>I ask you respectfully to concede the point and stop distracting from 9/11 nuclear involvement with your flawed interpretation of WTC-4 geological formations.
<br><br>Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, you wrote: "You don't have to follow me all over the 9/11 groups and pages."
<br><br>I was a member of those 9/11 groups and pages before you posted (and posted and posted over months) your misrepresentation of ancient geological formations.
<br><br>You wrote: "and I'm not 'making you do anything' "
<br><br>Yeah, well, errors are my trigger and what attracted me to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
<br><br>You wrote the following, and now I get to pick it up and aim it back and you: "it seems you (Mr. Lawrence Fine) have a learning disability - a lack of critical cognitive abilities when it comes to these geological features."
<br><br>ERROR: "... if bona fide are clear evidence that there were extremely hot times in the old town, especially beneath the Twin Towers and Building #4."
<br><br>Do not conflate what was beneath WTC-1/2 with what was below WTC-4.
<br><br>*SMH*
<br><br>Of course. When improperly analyzed geological formations below WTC-4 are falsely associated with nuclear methods and that strawman debunked -- as I have done --, others will make the disinfo false argument "then there were no nuclear methods used on the towers either."
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 598 -->
<a name="x599"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x599" class="tiny">x600</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_600');">geological features were known to exist beneath WTC-4</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-28</p>
<div id="sect_600" style="display: block;">
<p>As proven by Mr. Lawrence Fine
<br><br>geological images, the geological features were known to exist beneath WTC-4 well before WTC-4 existed and were not created by the 9/11 event.
<br><br>I ask you respectfully to concede the point and stop distracting from 9/11 nuclear involvement with your flawed interpretation of WTC-4 geological formations.
<br><br>//
<br><br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 600 -->
<a name="x601"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x601" class="tiny">x602</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_602');">denying the obvious</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-28</p>
<div id="sect_602" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>- - - And I'm asking you to respectfully accept the basic truth and refrain from wasting your time by attempting to convince me that there is evidence where there is none and denying the obvious, these 40' spheroid cavities did not exist when the WTC was being built, therefore were NOT created, formed, eroded during the ice age by hydro/mechanical means.
<br>I do appreciate the attention and respectful "exposure" however.
<br>You've almost convinced me to continue with this banter as it is helping get my work get shared.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 602 -->
<a name="x603"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x603" class="tiny">x604</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_604');">reports were within their day's technology's margin of error</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-28</p>
<div id="sect_604" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine,
<br><br>You have not proved your "basic truth" even is a truth.
<br><br>What you're implying and haven't manned up to prove, is that the reports from the 2000's relied on false or outright fake reports from both the 1990's and the 1960's; that not only did no one in prior decades suspected anything geologically weird or amiss in the area of WTC-4; that there really was no deep cavities with your dimensions created previously by nature; that the cavities were created from the events of 9/11.
<br><br>I disagree with those speculation. Those geological efforts from the 1990's and 1960's were top-level comments to this thread. You haven't addressed them [a major omission and dropping of the ball], thus are unable to prove them false or outright fake. And in their validity and without the benefit of excavating the site as done in the 2000's, those reports were within their day's technology's margin of error for being accurate.
<br><br>... Speaking of margin of error. Did you know that the 40' spherical cavities you speak of could exist between the 60' bore hole locations and not be identified?
<br><br>Consider these: (1) clearing the complex of under-occupied, asbestos ridden and over-insured, relix was a motive for WTC-1/2; (2) stealing gold from the vaults was a motive for WTC-4, (3) wiping out the SEC records of several active cases [some against Bush supporters] was a motive for WTC-7; (4) covering over that its vaults were emptied was a motive for WTC-6; and (5) eliminating the ONI investigators and records into the missing $2.3 trillion was a motive for the Pentagon.
<br><br>What was the perpetrator motive for aiming a nuclear device downwards below the gold vaults in WTC-4? What strategic objective did this achieve? [Were these cavities made a usable part of the basements of the new structures?]
<br><br>In conclusion, your case hasn't been made and is faulty speculation.
<br><br>I now consider it both a distraction and now proven disinformation. In the future when I'm commending about nuclear mechanisms on 9/11, I will no longer look favorably on anything WTC-4 geological formation related made.
<br><br>Rest assured, I not only did my homework, I saved my work. I'll not ride the carousel anymore, but will have "goto" links to where I debunked your premise and you poorly defended it.
<br><br>Have a good weekend.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 604 -->
<!-- ***** 20200828_MCB_FB_Fine_02.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_12 -->
<a name="p13"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_13');">Part 13: FGNW Discussions with Leslie Schneider Brown</a></h2>
<div id="part_13" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200824_MCB_FB_LeslieSchneiderBrown_01.htm -->
<a name="x605"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x605" class="tiny">x606</a>
Leslie Schneider Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_606');">certain people will never accept truth no matter how much information and evidence</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_606" style="display: block;">
<p>So just read the article on weapons you posted. Thank you so much for that. Do you know if plutonium is traceable and would there ever be a time or an amount where it would not be. What are your thoughts on what weapon seemed the closest to be used on 9/11. I know plutonium was used somehow someway but wouldn't that of been traceable?
<br>Leslie
<br>
<br>Wow your answers back to people who just won't accept the truth are amazing. Personally I wouldn't waste my time on them but your answers are so informative truly amazing. But I believe certain people no matter how much information and evidence of the truth they will never accept it. That is what i am learning, some people just don't want to wake up, not just with 9/11 but with everything. Anyways I have been doing alot of research into figuring out the exact weapon used. I have been talking to many different scientists here is what I have so far
<br>1. Hurricanes produce alot of static electricity
<br>2. HARRP and Tesla standing waves
<br>3. Lasers
<br>4. You know about the Tesla papers and the alien property office sending his papers to Yugoslavia during the cold war?
<br>5.Do you know of the standing wave event in the late 70"s emanating from Riga in Latvia ?
<br>6.The Russians inherited all Tesla's papers during the cold war . They built a huge Tesla device in Riga . Latvia. They set up standing waves in the Earth's surface which affected weather and also messed with the VLF communications used by our submarine fleet. The US. Govt complained about it to Russia and they stopped it. But not before the citrus crops were destroyed that year.
<br>Do you think any of this is part of any weapon you have heard of?
<br>Leslie
<br>
<br>We did discuss other things as well just wanted your thoughts on these as well
<br>They pump the upper atmosphere with a great deal of energy
<br>The upper atmosphere acts like a giant capacitor and charges up energy . But if it lets go , all hell breaks loose.
<br>Charged particle beams and lasers those types of energy sources can travel relatively undetected and then wreak havoc when they got their desired target melting metals.
<br>The energy that's being used in haarp is totally new and never seen before in history
<br>The ionosphere can be pumped or charged with energy and using Tesla's science of standing waves it can be made to release the charge anywhere on Earth.
<br>This is what's going on secretly behind the scenes of haarp
<br>They are using microwaves
<br>Probably mocrowave lasers
<br>And setting up standing waves in the earth and ionosphere as well creating paths of least resistance in which the energy can be triggered
<br>All weather patterns can be affected by standing waves. It was proven back in the 70''s when the Russians did the Riga project and destroyed our citrus crops .
<br>Tesla postulated the control of world weather many years before that
<br>This information is not well know but true
<br>Leslie
<br>
<br>There was a lighting storm the night before did that play a role?
</p>
</div><!-- section 606 -->
<a name="x607"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x607" class="tiny">x608</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_608');">plutonium not part of the design of the nuclear weapons used on 9/11</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_608" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
<br>
<br>Thank you for your correspondence. You asked "if plutonium is traceable and would there ever be a time or an amount where it would not be."
<br>
<br>While it is true the plutonium is traceable, plutonium was not part of the design of the nuclear weapons used on 9/11. Yes, fission took place using Uranium, and the USGS dust samples shows uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities. A conventional charge kick starts the fission-trigger that then generates the heat required for fusion that then releases 80% of its nuclear yield in a cone of highly energetic neutrons.
<br>
<br>To recap, plutonium was ~not~ part of the dsign of nuclear weapons used on 9/11.
<br>
<br>I assume that you have been reading Dr. Wood with regards to areas of your research:
<br>1. Hurricanes produce alot of static electricity
<br>2. HARRP and Tesla standing waves
<br>3. Lasers
<br>
<br>You asked if any of this is part of any weapons. Yes. But this doesn't mean they were deployed on 9/11 as the primary mechanisms of destruction. ABL (airborne lasers) were operational on 9/11, but for the observed energy output (building pulverizations, beginning within the structures), ABL would not have been able transport sufficient chemicals needed for the lasers.
<br>
<br>HARRP may have been used on 9/11 to turn the hurricanes away (weather modifications). Doesn't surprise me that hurricanes produce a lot of static electricity, but that has to be harnessed in a reasonable way at scale and be operational.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "They pump the upper atmosphere with a great deal of energy
<br>The upper atmosphere acts like a giant capacitor and charges up energy . But if it lets go , all hell breaks loose."
<br>
<br>I have different speculation in the matter. Chemtrails drop aluminum and other metals into the atmosphere over specific places. When HAARP blasts its energy into the atmosphere, these metal particles heat up and allows the air to collect and hold more mosture. Keep heating until the weather fronts push this where mosture is desired. Turn off HAARP, the chemtrail particles cool, water condenses, and you get record breaking rain somewhere.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Charged particle beams and lasers those types of energy sources can travel relatively undetected and then wreak havoc when they got their desired target melting metals."
<br>
<br>True, but then you have to ask what are the energy sources for the charged particle beams and lasers. The observed output directly translates into energy requirements of the source. It isn't trivial.
<br>
<br>ABL has been successful in targeting and destroying aircraft and missiles, but it tends to rely on weaknesses in the target itself, such as explosive fuel or payload, that contribute to the target's destruction once a laser has breached its outer layers.
<br>
<br>The issue with 9/11 and the towers is that they (typically) contained no such explosive fuel or payload to aid in the destruction; all observed energy delivered as pulverization would have required even more energy input at the source of the laser or particle beam. Not very Occam Razor.
<br>
<br>You wrote about HAARP, standing waves, and microwaves. All true, but my main playground is 9/11 for my hobby-horse fourth generation nuclear devices. I don't see those items involved in a significant way in my tiny 9/11 playground.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 608 -->
<a name="x609"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x609" class="tiny">x610</a>
Leslie Schneider Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_610');">get the reader prepared for this</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_610" style="display: block;">
<p><br>Thank you once again brilliant and understandable. I read all your information you sent me. Let's look at tritium I think its called you mention this if I am reading it correct does burn alot like what we saw. You also use the word abrate sorry i don't have my notes in front of me my be spelling it wrong instead of dustification which I was looking for the right word would it be safe to also use vaporize or disintegrate? I dont know if you know much about me and my questions but I am at the end of finishing my book about 9/11. Its called and if you could just keep it between us cause nobody knows yet, "911 reasons 9/11 was not the way you remember" or "911 facts 9/11 was an inside job" i dont know just worried about using the word facts (eventhough) they are, because of the damn 9/11 truthers lol they will find some way to try to discredit me, they sound so dumb sometimes. But anyways the book is 550 pages long, super easy read, it starts with the key players and their roles. Then it goes into predictive programing and the 100 ways in which they do it. (SIdenote that is why i am so curious about plutonium because as crazy as this sounds or maybe you already knew this about Hollywood but in the trilogy of Back 2 the future alone I found over 200 references to 9/11. That is truly what got me thinking this movie was one of a couple for the playbook of 9/11. Which then that led me to nuclear and electrical powers and weapons which led me to Judy Woods which she did do a great job of getting people interested and wanting to learn more which i love that, but left you hanging. So then I talked to John Hutchinson brilliant guy but honestly between you and me I think the governement might of messed with his head a little or something. Mk ultra perhaps who knows? Maybe not. Which led me to some scientist that is what i sent to you. Which then came you the last piece of the puzzle. The best piece of all you might say. I will get to that in a second.
<br>
<br>Then the books goes into talking about during 9/11 the flights, planes or no planes, the passengers, the war games, the control room, and of course the attacks.
This is so important to me that i get this right i am so curious about this and believe you are saying it perfectly.
I of course explain why it can't be controlled demo or explosions and how no planes were involved.
I also discuss the difference between people wanting and knowing the truth and wanting to talk about it, research, help whatever it takes and then the what I call the 10% truthers and how its this or the highway and how they bash and name call and just go out to destroy the truth in so many ways. I have dealt with a few and I know you have as well. BRAVO on your response back to them but like i said I think they could have the truth in their face and still find away to argue it. Very frustrating to say the least. And then the last section is the after 9/11 where it talks about war on terror, Patriot Act, the wars, losing our privacy etc. I would love love love you to be a part of this. I can if it is ok with you recite everything you sent me of course citing you complete credit for your work if that is ok. here is the biggest challenge I face. I am going to be honest I know talking to you I am talking to a brilliant mind just like when I am talking to the sciencetist so here's the problem I personally knew very little about all of this science, space, electrostatic, information and still am a little confused because of the language and not knowing. I dont want to say it wrong or quote it wrong or say it in a way where the average Joe like myself would read it and be completely lost. And walk away confused or not understanding it. Because either they will say no way or convert back to the controlled demo way of thinking.
I do get the reader prepared for this by explaining how there is real history and the programmed history we were taught in school.
Then i go into listening around 40 things we were lied to about.
I then explain if you even doubt or know we were lied to on some of these things perhaps all of them then you have to question if we were lied to about History then what else were we lied to about.
That is where i go into discussing Science and real science. We were taught a certain science in school for many different reasons.
1. So that we believe this is the way everything works, so that if something out of the norm were to occur we would always be able to fall back on "the laws of physics" time and time again
when people talk about thinks like weapons, HARRP, Tesla, direct energry you will always here but that would defying the laws of phycis or bring up Newtons Law
<br>Which is number two we needed to be taught (progranmed) about gravity and how the earth revolves and electricity and on and on. So when we hear something out of the realms (sci-fi) perhaps we think impossible silly no way. Just like school and the movies tsught us to think. I also discuss how its funny to me how I can watch a you tube video of people in the military going into great lengths of discussing a direct energy weapon. How its used, show me test it have done on real aircrafts, even say how it is like sci-fi work. But then at the end of them they always say something totally insane like "well we don't have weapons like this yet, but maybe someday, the tecnology is advancing so quickly, we just don't have enough information on how they work" uh did I not just watch a 45 min video on you going into great detail of how they work and even showed examples but you want me to believe you don't have these yet? Are you kidding me but crazy how many people would believe that just because he made that statement at the end
<br>
<br>This is what i am trying to say. It needs to be explained in away where everyone can understand i dont want to say dumb it down but in away they understand. I also go into great detail explaining the pyramids and what they did to Tesla, Hutchison, I dont know if you know Ning-Li but I think she knew stuff science. Because her story is weird to say the least. But if I explain the cover ups lies everything they did I think it would help to prepare them for understanding what you say. What our your thoughts?
<br>
<br>Because I know some of what Judy is saying is correct but I also believe you are hitting the hammer on the nail. Just want to present it correctly. I still think the hurricane played a role in the charging process? I am going to also finishing reading everything you stated and ask a few questions if that is ok. Just to understand it better.
</p>
</div><!-- section 610 -->
<a name="x611"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x611" class="tiny">x612</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_612');">Qanon didn't spring up overnight</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_612" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
<br>
<br>You wrote: "I of course explain why it can't be controlled demo or explosions and how no planes were involved."
<br>
<br>Seeing how you want to be correct, you should explain why "it can't be a controlled demolition with chemical based explosives (whether or not mixed with nanothermite.)"
<br>
<br>Be very careful when you explain how "no planes were involved". because there were aircraft involved. The Pentagon and Shanksville, one could say that no aircraft crashed. At the towers, you could say "no commercial aircraft" crashed, because the discovered wreckage pieces (landing gear, engines) were never serial-numbered matched to the alleged commercial aircraft. But evidence of real aircraft at the towers is substantial.
<br>
<br>I will not be a fan of your work if you promote "no planes were involved" without qualifications.
<br>
<br>Qanon didn't spring up overnight. I'm convinced that most who tried to debunk 9/11 truth were in Qanon's predecessor, the NSA "Q-Group" and part of the PNAC plan to infiltrate online forums and control the narrative. Today, I suspect "persona management software" allows agents to field multiple personas in (Facebook) discussions and disinfo-bots to give a false impression of group tenor.
<br>
<br>It took me a second-pass on Dr. Judy Wood's work to understand its flaws. It drops a lot of dangling innuendo and doesn't connect dots, and that is the DANGER with Hutchison's work. Let us assume it is valid as a science, the next question is whether or not it is valid for 9/11. My answer is that it was not.
<br>
<br>When I did the research into DEW and nuclear devices that Dr. Wood should have, she had glaring omissions and misrepresentations. She never should have let her work get framed as "beams from space" (with free-energy sucked from hurricanes), because optimal optics through the atmosphere and transmission frequencies for best energy transfer don't always align and should have ruled them out as primary mechanisms of destruction. There she was, pointing out all sorts of evidence that should have led to nuclear suspicions which easily meet locally the energy requirements without transmission headaches, and she purposely drops the ball and distracts us with dangling innuendo from Hutchison, Tesla, and HAARP.
<br>
<br>If the scope of your book includes pyramids, Tesla, Hutchison, improper no planes speculation, improper nuclear speculation (e.g., plutonium, deep-underground nukes, singular per towers), you'll be embedding into your work its self-destruct / discrediting of self mechanisms. Maybe that's by design, because I believe the purposeful disinfo in Dr. Wood's, (Dr. Jones's, Dr. Fetzer's) work is what keeps them from being "taken out permanently."
<br>
<br>I don't rule out me contributing to your book, but we'd have to be in agreement [or provide space for "Maxwell's disagreement on Topic X"), because I don't really want my efforts discredited by those self-destruct mechanisms in a guilt-by-association manner. [It goes both ways. You don't want my baggage discrediting your work.]
<br>
<br>Two other names: Craig McKee and Adam Syed. They could be good assets in the authoring and review. Disclaimer: I don't have either convinced of FGNW involvement; or rather, Mr. McKee considers the exact details in the "how" to be a distraction from "who" and "what."
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 612 -->
<a name="x613"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x613" class="tiny">x614</a>
Leslie Schneider Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_614');">drove to Wisconsin to meet with Jim Fetzler</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_614" style="display: block;">
<p>On the plane no plane theory we are totally on the same page. I kind of think the pyramids and Tesla thing are kind of important in explaining how they hide real science just a thought, haven't added that in yet.
As far a hurricane I think it is important to explain they can manipulate the weather.
I just feel it is important for people to understand that we have been lied to so that when the truth is told its not a shock type thinking.
Because if they understand we have been lied to then anything is possible. What are your thoughts on the planes being seen at the towers?
Thoughts on the passengers? Because I feel we need to be on the same page or atleast somewhat maybe? Your thoughts?
<br>I actually drove to Wisconsin to meet with Jim Fetzler he is a little much dont think he is a fan of mine as well.
He took a copy of my book when it was in beginning stages to see if he wanted to publish it under moon rock, but of course it went against his theory so he denied it.
That's when I knew I was on the right track lol. But I decided I am going to self publish its not about making money to me its about getting the truth out.
Leaving zero questions to the reader. Which i am pretty sure there will always be haters i get that, but i want the truth told.
<br>
<br>So do you think Q is still ran by dictators persay? Or do you think what they are doing is for the good of the Americans i am so on the fence with what I read and hear
</p>
</div><!-- section 614 -->
<a name="x615"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x615" class="tiny">x616</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_616');">the government (and military) need to manage the narrative</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_616" style="display: block;">
<p><br>Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
<br>
<br>You asked: "What are your thoughts on the planes being seen at the towers? Thoughts on the passengers?"
<br>
<br>Not only were real aircraft seen by many witnesses at the towers, they were also caught on camera (40+ videos I believe) and two different radar systems. There used to be a video that did a 3D model of the WTC and overlaid a couple dozen of the (amateur) videos one at a time and proved they were co-linear with the two sets of radar data and each other. Important, because a disinfo trick of September Clues was misusing the different camera perspectives to imply they were CGI faked. "Look, the planing is coming down here, but this video has it going across, and this other video has it going up..."
<br>
<br>As mentioned before, the lack of effort to serial-number identify various plan parts with the alleged commercial aircrafts is a sign. Another sign is that all aircraft turned off their transponders; should have resulted in sending interceptors. Another sign is that some of the aircraft went briefly totally off radar over Ohio near an airport. The alleged commercial aircraft could very well have been swapped. Many tactical reasons for this, like having a more hardened military aircraft fly the low-altitude paths (high resistance) with such speed and precision.
<br>
<br>If the aircraft were swapped at some point, the fate of the passengers could be anything, including liquidating of some and assigning new identities to other. Let's Roll Forums and September Clues makes a big deal about "simVictims." To be sure, Operation Northwoods of the JFK era was planning on its version of simVictims (alleged college students and paid-actors as grieving family members.) Modern day (2001) social network and imagery manipulation would have made creation of simVictims even easier for both some passengers and some first-responders. (a) They needed to inflate the numbers to get to a threshold for American sympathy, and (b) they needed "victims" who, through their families, could be exploited for the government line, which many were.
<br>
<br>Funny you should mention Dr. Fetzer. I admire how he uses conspiracy theories to augment his retirement. But he, like Alex Jones and Rense.com, needs to embrace a much wider spectrum of conspiracies to help with his brand. I have had (online) discussions with him, and found the holes and deceit in his NPT substantiation that he refuses to acknowledge, because it would mean recanting some of his views (but that's what ethical people would do.) I feel sorry that Moon Rocks Books was so targeted with a court case (about Sandy Hook).
<br>
<br>Don't read the following A-Z. Skip around using the hide/show chapter/section features. Dr. Fetzer's exchange is worth more effort.
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html</a>
<br>
<br>As for Qanon and the former Q-group, I think it is a disinformation / propaganda division of a US government agency with heavy ties to Israeli Mossad. Bring the topic to Israel and what war criminals they are, and they out themselves in downplaying any such thing.
<br>
<br>Over the last couple of decades, I've captured many substantiating passages that documented how the government (and military) need to manage the narrative and how they planned on doing it, starting with PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses." Secretary to Obama, Cass Sunstein gave a great quote. "Our main policy claim here is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories." And in my experience online, it was and continues to be so.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Infiltration-Appointees-Undermine-Conspiracy/dp/1566568218">https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Infiltration-Appointees-Undermine-Conspiracy/dp/1566568218</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 616 -->
<a name="x617"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x617" class="tiny">x618</a>
Leslie Schneider Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_618');">flew to Cleveland and talked to this reporter</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_618" style="display: block;">
<p><br>Leslie Schneider Brown,
<br>
<br>Ok so we defintlt 100% agree on the why the Let's Roll had to be used and the aftermath the wars the patriot act etc so I have that 100%.
Feel the same way about Q as well. Now with the planes and passengers I did alot of math equations using flight times, where the planes were, calculated speed, and no way possible could the planes of did what they did.
Now as far as passengers and planes. Here is what we do know
<br>1. No videos at airport
<br>Extremely fishy cause that almost tells you a few things. no video means we don't know who boarded who didn't. We also don't know if certain people were taken away to a secluded section of the airport. Perhaps let's say Betty Um and Amy Sweeney and the two passengers from the other flight. To either have them be forced to make calls when the time was asked of them. Make the calls then killed. Or you can believe the record voice have them say whatever they want when they want. I totally know this technology existed back then. I go back and forth on this which I will explain in a minute.
<br>
<br>So flight 11 and 175 take off i have a problem right away i am not liking how it is heading up toward Canada I followed alot of plane patterns from New York to California and this is not normal. Then you have flight 175, both patterns show a new york hit? Or did it land in New Jersey. See here is a few things that struck me as odd.
<br>1. We lost flight patterns on both planes
<br>2. Flight 11 hits tower at 8:46 around the sametime Flight 93 was taking off.
<br>3. Speaking of flight 93 it was suppose to take off at 8:00 but was 40 mins held up.
<br>4. The time it takes for a flight from New York to New Jersey is around 30 mins.
<br>5. We had 2 boardings of flight 93 that morning i dont know if you knew this or not. We had a 7:00 boarding of people walking across a turnac which if F93 was suppose to leave at 7:56 or 8 then that would be the time they would be getting on. Clayton White NFL football player witness this. His plane of players was just landing and he was told a week later by a stewardess that was flight 93.
<br>6. But we all know that there is a plaque by the gate boarding area where passengers from 93 boarded. How could they board twice? They can't so someone had to board there right. It would not be that hard for who was ever in the know to take over radio contact with F175 and F11 and tell them we need to switch planes for whatever reason, the pilots would believe them i am sure. They land and board at the gate.
<br>7. Now here is the kicker if you minus the people who made the phone calls and the supposed hyjackers you get a total of roughly 190ish i have the exact number. Anyways of F93 + F 175 + F11. Ok remember that number.
<br>8. Then you have F 1989 leaving at the sametime headed to Cleveland.
<br>9. We have two planes landing at cleveland at different times one is 1989 and the other is F93. I am sure you heard this story.
<br>
<br>But let's take a harder look at it. So we have 2 flights landing one with 60 and one with 190ish. Major White first comes on saying it was F93 then later comes on and says no it was not F93.
You do some digging into Major White you realize he is pretty corrupt and tied to some bad people he was meeting with in secret. I have all that documentation.
<br>Ok furthermore we have
<br>A news reporter who wrote an article for the Beacon newspaper saying that a witness saw one plane land and 190ish people get off and put on a bus and taken to the NASA center.
So I flew to Cleveland and talked to this reporter and after further investigation talked to the witness who saw this. Only problem is both of them refused to let me use their names.
I get it they are scared.
So they did say they were fine with me saying I verified it, and off the record which means I can't write it but the reporter said years later they wrote an article chamging their story and saying they were confused.
She said you know why they did that, and I said because it was true and to many people were connecting the dots. She said yes. You can google the revised statement that they put on the web but like so much other things it to is fake news.
<br>
<br>So now with that being said I think the passengers were taken to NASA and killed but that extra part has to stay between us i never bring that up in arguments with the laughing at Cleveland stories which i so want to but i can't put people in danger that were so loyal to me. Plus I know the governemnt would be on my ass for that.
<br>
<br>Now back to voice recorded phone calls or real. I can see why voice recorded because of some of the wording used was not normal talk for them to say, but on the other hand Cee Cee Lyles says its a frame clear as day. So yoy wouldn't say that on a voice changer where they decide what the person says. Your thoughts?
<br>Ok now flight 77 this one is a tough one. Because when you do the math you have a few things.
<br>1. One they could of landed at a military base close to wear they did the turn around point at. But a few things stick out
<br>1. If you do the calculations from the turnaround point to the pentagon I think the plane would have been having to be gking like 767mph I dont have it in front of me but anyways then when spotted I think 5 mins out with time and caculation would of had to of basically come to a stop and glide in or be going 767mph at that low of altitude. IMPOSSIBLE. so I am 100% convinced they were missiles at pentagon and shanksville. It took me awhile to find the missile but this is the one based on the great description provided by the lady who witnessed the missile this is the one
<br>??1
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 618 -->
<a name="x619"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x619" class="tiny">x620</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_620');">Apologies that I am meh</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_620" style="display: block;">
<p>Apologies that I am meh, because I rode that carousel too many times when it wasn't even my hobby horse. I'll only weigh in if my recollection or speculation differs.
<br>
<br>Point about phones. Didn't work on those planes, and cellphone no way. But if planes were on the ground, phone calls not an issue whether real or fake or both.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 620 -->
<a name="x621"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x621" class="tiny">x622</a>
Leslie Schneider Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_622');">Can you dumb it down but give great detail explaining it all</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_622" style="display: block;">
<p>So where did flight 77 go. Here is what my research led me to. Reagan airport had some weird things going on.
<br>1. The news was saying how they thought F77 went to reagon then of course changed story, typical.
<br>2. Some really fast real estate deals on an abandoned building took place extremely fast. The realtor said he was shocked sold in 3 days refused to say who bought it. Strange? Or was it bought to take the passengers to.
<br>3. Reagab reported seeing F77 near by
<br>4. FbI came in and evacuated Reagan airport a radio control reporter thought it was crazy how they rushed them to leave he was trying to say he could help and they said leave. Which he was confused about
<br>Almost like a plane was landing nobody needed to know about
<br>Then the strangest thing of all Reagan airport was ordered to stay closed forever. By whom? No other then President Bush himself. kind of weird. It did reopen but was the last airport to reopen
<br>Exactly I agree just want you to know what I am writing because like you said you dont want to be a part of something where we could set each other up or something we don't agree with. I guess I see it as we agree on most of it and if there is a part where someone I talk about doesn't agree I say so or I say this is the only part I discussed with them. Such as in your case the attack part. Does that sound fair. But I do love talking to you about all of it. I jist don't want you to feel like telling what you feel comfortable telling. I hope you are excited about it and not scared. Why I say scared is because of course a section of the book does talk about all the whistle-blowers and what happen to alot of them. I will be honest there are times I am afraid to finish it because of that reason but I also talk about that as well. I doubt they will kill me but if they do I hope it makes more people aware of the truth.
<br>Now as far as your part the How the attacks happened.
<br>What are your thoughts on the leading up to it part. I think it is important like I explained earlier what are your thoughts?
<br>2. Can you dumb it down but give great detail explaining it all. The fireball, the heat, the paper, the jumpers, the cars, the vaporize or discingrated metal?
<br>Most of it I can take from your notes or if you want to combine everything in one in your own words that is fine too.
<br>
<br>What where your thoughts on the title. Should I say reasons or facts?
<br>And stop being so formal Mrs. Leslie Schneider Brown i consider you a friend now lol
<br>
<br>Tell me your thought on why you do not believe or maybe do believe the planes could not of been holograms? Here are my reasons for leaning that way maybe
<br>1. The technology of 4D and 5D holograms are insane they look so real you can't tell the difference between the fake and the real
<br>2. They can leave a shadow as we saw in the car window video of a plane
<br>3. The guy who talks about the crystsls that were found again i know the name just not in front of me and the guy who discovered them how he couldn't believe the 4d and 5d imaginary produced by them
<br>How it became a top classified military thing. There is much great detailed research on it
<br>How there is so many like I said over 200 things that relate to 9/11 in back to the future. One of them which if I go with the hologram then I will add but how there was so much in your face as they like to do about holograms. You had the Jaws 3D, you had the guy who wore the 3D glasses in one and two, and at the begining you had the power of love song playing which they wanted you to rdference it to Huey Lewis being in the room but crazy thing is Power of Love was the first 3D movie ever made. Everything in that movie points to it. I should send you my list its crazy. So here is a fun fact you discuss tritium being used. Remember at the beginning I thought plutonium because Back to the future referred to it so much. Well when I saw the word tritium I thought hmm maybe that is the hidden word behind them saying plutonium. Well it didnt stop there so I remember at the beginning of the movie a news reporter comes on and says "in other news officials at the Nuclear research facility have denied rumors two cases of plutonium were stolen from the vaults and blamed on terrorist." So guess what looked up theft on Tritium today guess what it was stolen officials tried to brush it off (deny) and even more scary read the whole article on how much has been taken. And who the company has been doing business with. The US government. So the more i look at how plutonium is used in the movie it references what you are saying about tritium. I know it sounds crazy I get that but its true a guy who has over 5 million followers all he does is back to the future tie ins. His videos are awesome he contacted me and asked if he could do one with my 200 tie ins. He got all these followers and I think he showed a total of 12 tie ins. He said I have watched that movie in slow motion 40 times what did I miss? I said I can't tell you them all but I gave him 25 and he was blown away. Home alone part one and two is almost as bad as back to the future. But I am so excited this means we got it right.
</p>
</div><!-- section 622 -->
<a name="x623"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x623" class="tiny">x624</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_624');">could have driven both sides of a discussion</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_624" style="display: block;">
<p><br>Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
<br>
<br>Writing in the formal can be both friendly and respectful. It isn't just a good habit, but an excellent debate tactic. It prevents you from writing maybe more colorful expressions to tweak the other's emotions rather than the substance of their argument. Even if someone suspects you added the honorific just to be sarcastic, it shouldn't get you bumped from a forum, although that was why Let's Roll Forums banned me, el-oh-el.
<br>
<br>I have my speculation that explains both the visual effects as well as the anomalies after [cars, vaporized metal, bent metal, etc.] Implementation of nuclear devices would have been easy (compared to conventional explosives), because the lion's share of the work would simply be installing secure mounting brackets on four faces or corners of the inner-core, repeated per detonation level which might be every 10 or even 20 floors. Once this prep work was done, the installing of the devices themselves into the mounting bracket could be as quick as clicking a ski boot into a binding and establishing wireless communication with the controller.
<br>
<br>You asked about holograms. If holograms were all that, we'd have holo-Santa and holo-Elvis at the malls on Christmas. The point is, if you look closely, you can tell it is a hologram, because it requires often a medium to go through or to project off of. Disney World had a convincing hologram of ghosts dancing on a ballroom floor, but the view was through several panes of glass and the haunted house cars kept on moving forward. Were the car to stop or go backwards, the dancing would have stopped or gone backwards.
<br>
<br>The scale and number of perspectives needed for a hologram to appear real to so many is beyond what we had.
<br>
<br>The kicker is that those who promoted holograms (like disinfo English agent Rich Hall and Dr. Fetzer to a degree) support the idea of a cloaked plane projecting the hologram as is evident by the two sets of radar data having a 1400' deviation. The idea was that one radar picked up the cloaked plane while the other radar picked up the hologram, which is ludicrous because holograms aren't anything physical that radar signals can ping off of; the two radars' data points were within acceptable tolerances of one another and represent a co-linear path.
<br>
<br>As for tritium, it is the building block of all fusion and of all late-3rd / early-4th generation nuclear weapons. Before and after 9/11, the Bush Administration and our Department of Energy were playing political games to make sure that (a) the US could maintain its tritium stores for weapons, because tritium has a half-life of 15 years, and (b) the tritium would be produced at the worst regulated, worst nuclear power offender (Tennesse power authority?) so that it could more easily go missing.
<br>
<br>I would prefer ~not~ using FB messenger. Email works great, but I admit to being very lax about checking my conspiracy email: maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us. {mcb: that email and website were de-serviced.} But if I know you sent something and that is the communication channel, I can check it more often.
<br>
<br>Surprise, surprise, "Maxwell C. Bridges" is my online persona, my avatar, my alias, my nom de la plume. Mr. Bridges has had other "sockpoppets" over time out of necessity like Señor El Once and Herr der Elf, but always one persona per forum, consistently used, and credit taken for all aliases on my blog eventually (because I do have a writer's ego.) I admit that I'm talented enough, I could have driven both sides of a discussion, but I find that tedious and dishonest, and bound to eventually get exposed. What makes it tedious is that at least one sockpuppet's side would be stilted, could never change its mind, and other quirks that expose it as insincere. That's what trips up agents and bots.
<br>
<br>By the way, I am also an active Master Mason in my local lodges, and am a former member of both Scottish Rite and York Rite, meaning technically I was 32nd degree SR and then another 9 or 12 (I forget) degrees YR. Masonry has value in a community, but power and influence long ago left the institution for places like "the Family," CFR, Bilderberg, etc. Whenever you see a meme or conspiracy article start mentioning Free Masons (and then Illuminati), let that be the first sign that the article has some degree of disinformation. Those who refuse to acknowledge the truth from an insider -- that Masonry isn't Satanic or into pedophilia -- usually flags the sincerity of that FB persona. Masons can barely host a pot-luck supper without the help of our better halves.
<br>
<br>(Yes, I'm married with children still in school. Until the kids are on their own or until I retire with no need of a nom de la plume to protect my or my wife's employment / job searches, seems like a prudent thing to have. Certainly, my exact GPS coordinates are available to the government's drones, but I don't have to make it easy for some right-winged overly patriotic hyped-up radical doing a vigilante on me either.)
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 624 -->
<a name="x625"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x625" class="tiny">x626</a>
Leslie Schneider Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_626');">not some crazy living in his moms basement</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_626" style="display: block;">
<p>I still am going to refer to you as friend whether you keep calling me Leslie Schneider Brown you are quite the stubborn stinker aren't you! Glad to hear you are married and have kids and not some crazy living in his moms basement.lol yeah I have to admit when you said masonary it scared me, because yes it is heavily tied into the illuminati I think I will have to re-read what you said a few times to understand it, but I get it. I dont judge people we are who we are. Anyways i will go through email if that is best sounds like you are in the ever so fun FBI tracker club I am starting to see signs i might be a member myself.
</p>
</div><!-- section 626 -->
<a name="x627"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x627" class="tiny">x628</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_628');">bat-shit crazy rant given to a willing audience</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_628" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
<br>
<br>If it bothers you, I'll only use your full name in my cheery salutation, because that is what FB prompts and generates a notification to you. Thereafter, you'll be called Ms. Brown.
<br>
<br>With regards to the Illumanati. Yes, the "Illuminati" was a group that sprung up in a German masonic lodge more than 150 years ago, and the German Grand Lodge expelled them, cutting the Masonic ties. But the expelled group were wealthy influential people, so they did their nefarious things anyway and maybe justified their "Illuminati" brand. But today, "brand" is all it is IMHO, like when they (Mossad, Bankers, CIA, CFR, Bilderberg, etc.) want to distract from themselves and discredit something. What better marketing scheme than to instigate nefarious actions and assign credit to the "Illuminati" brand and scape goat their original nemesis (good) free-masons in the same sentence.
<br>
<br>I listed Mossad first, because I think Israel and its Zionist are the deep state. AIPAC has so much influence. Epstein had Israeli ties.
<br>
<br>As an aside, Epstein got off easy in 2006 because he was a confidential informant to some government (Israel), according to Acoste who was prosecuting him and later became Trump's Transportation Secretary, briefly. Trump was also a confidential informant; crimes committed by CI's are overlooked, which is how Trump's sexual misconduct and the Casino Bankruptcies didn't affect Trump like it did certain criminal Russian investors.
<br>
<br>Trump is tyranny fast-track.
<br>
<br>The other right-wing party of Biden/Harris DNC will at least sugar coat its tyranny, but they'll be onboard with giving everybody Gates's Covid vaccines. The DNC never worked so hard as they did in knocking the Democratic Socialist out of the running, who could have easily beat Trump no matter how hard the GOP suppressed votes in key electoral college states and no matter how much he destroys the USPS. Instead with Biden/Harris, the election will be close and be exactly what the PTB want: either one.
<br>
<br>When you think about how much influence Zionist have on our media, movies, programming... on Congress, on the GOP and DNC... And how they foreshadow things.
<br>
<br>If you consider the Georgia Guidestones and its 500,000,000 humanity limit, Agenda 21 is in play and Israel / Zionists will be within their numbers and in control.
<br>
<br>In the 9/11 realm, its true "what" and "who" were blackholes that didn't omit light, but you knew of their existence by how other things behave around them (e.g., dance around it, don't address it, address it badly.)
<br>
<br>And now for something completely different, "Pleiadian" will be considered my self-destruct mechanism possibly to my FGNW work and will be spun as "he believes in aliens and Reptilians!" I know from resonance that human history as given through Pleiadian channels is the most probable, and connects logically so many historical dots, even giving rational sense to the Bible's Genesis and the Gods and demigods of Greek myths.
<br>
<br>Aliens, Reptilians, blood, dimensions, evolution,... shit happening today: the connection is there, as bat-shit crazy as it sounds.
<br>
<br>Before humans were genetically created on this planet by the Creator Gods (advanced aliens in DNA manipulation but not the Prime Creator), Reptilians were native to this planet. DNA from many different species of aliens including reptilian were included in our make-up. We were wonderful, powerful... four 12-stranded DNA.
<br>
<br>At some point in the wars over this planet, the new owners made a change: 2 stranded DNA and lots of junk DNA. Made us into intelligent and capable slaves, but dumber than version 1. Those creator gods got into trouble for our experiment, but we were allowed to proceed in hopes we would find our own way to evolution. [Many messengers were sent to show us the way, although much of the Biblical Jesus is a composit and then later heavily controlled.] Light energy, the resonance of love, is what aligns the junk DNA into the four 12-stranded DNA capable of healing and wonders, capable of realizing the expanse of our Soul beyond the ego of the material body. (Our true evolutionary path.)
<br>
<br>The Reptilians decided early on to go underground and more importantly to not evolve. But through their DNA being in our DNA, there is a bloodline connection, and I gather, communication with those most in tune aided by bloodlines (and through ceremonies and rituals). The Dark are into their satanic rituals and sacrifices. Theirs is a feeding off of pain and dispair, negative emotions, negative frequencies, Adrenchrome. The Epstein pedophilia depravity is the tip of the iceberg. Oh how the rich and powerful make deals "with the devil" to achieve it, hold it, and pass it on generation-to-generation. (Bankers, bloodlines, Zionists...)
<br>
<br>In the Light and Dark balance, today it has moved toward the Dark with a danger of a tipping point that can't be returned from, like if we change our DNA make-up from vaccines, make ourselves dumber, more feable, reliant then on technology. The cosmic worry is about a karmic trap, lifetime to lifetime, of child SRA victims from which they can't escape (without help) but having lives of fear and negative resonance (to continue to feed the Dark).
<br>
<br>Dark has had an advantage over more than centuries because of the information it suppressed from others, like how to reach other dimensions and beings through sacred ceremony including sacred geometry, symbols, and rituals. Light warriors used to have access to the same tools (think "good pagan witches", healers, seers, and mystic groups like free-masons), but when Dark took more control, such information was destroyed and withheld, first by churches and then by modern medicine.
<br>
<br>Masonry has ceremony and rituals, and fits in with the good or Light, although I have never seen any portals open [and there have been no human sacrifices or such.] The real metaphorical portal opening was in my mind after the fact, to consider a broader picture and harmony with all mankind, and symbols and sacred geometry / numbers as hints on how to get there.
<br>
<br>As I end this bat-shit crazy rant -- given only because you seem a willing audience and I had some time -- it is merely my boiled down state of thought after many years of contemplating about how the world really is and where it is going, and how 9/11 fit in and now Covid, and Spirit. If I participate in your book, I'm not saying the book should go to all of this, a real "jumping of the shark straight into a deep dive down rabbit holes." But hey, if it did go there, it might just be crazy enough to keep us alive [or to make us truth-seeking martyred heroes to latter generations, like William Cooper and others.]
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 628 -->
<a name="x629"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x629" class="tiny">x630</a>
Leslie Schneider Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_630');">Adenochrome</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_630" style="display: block;">
<p>[1] A113 Adenochrome - Wikipedia
<br>
<br>[2] Yes i agree with everything you are saying. I struggle with talking to people about the truth of aliens and reptillians because yes it is all true. As crazy as it sounds it took my brain along time to except it. What I mean by that is I spent alot of time looking into it and knew it was true. The pyramids. Zionist, movies, their agenda, the Adrenchrome, which here is a crazy sidenote think of the movie Monsters inc. That is 100% this, also every pixar movie has an Easter egg in it of A113 which their BS story is that was the room number the drawing classes were in at the university but here is the truth on that
<br>
<br>[3] You might notice I reference movies but the sick truth is they put all their plans in movies I believe to laugh in our faces or to communicate to one another. All Disney movies have some form of pedofilla sex reference in them. I also believe in clones as well and that they control all of hollywood. As far as the Iraseli tie in basically everyone has dual citizenship and are 100% for them not us. I write about that in my book as well. As far as Trump yeah I kinda of knew that too but again I dont know if its Q or just the fact I want to believe someone is fighting for us, but I believe Trump is for us, but my brain says hell to the no. Its hard living in a world where we have no one fighting for us. It can lead many into depression or suicide which is exactly what they want. I know everything is a lie history science Let's take a look at all the lies are government has told us about
<br>1. History
<br>2. Science
<br>3. JFK
<br>4. Shuttles into space
<br>5. Sandy Hook
<br>6. 9/11
<br>7. Landing on the moon
<br>8. The Titanic
<br>9. The media
<br>10. Predictive Programming
<br>11. Florida Airport Shooting
<br>12. The Earth
<br>13. Space
<br>14. Taxes
<br>15. Wars
<br>16. Protecting our children
<br>17. Direct Energy
<br>18. Aliens UFO's
<br>19. War on Drugs
<br>20. Anti Gravity
<br>21. The Laws of Physics
<br>22. Princess Diana
<br>23. Michael Jackson
<br>24. Prince
<br>25. Hollywood
<br>26. Missiles
<br>27. Terrorist
<br>28. Patriot Act
<br>29. War on Terror hell let's be real all wars
<br>30. Vaccines
<br>31. Corrupt government
<br>32. Vegas Shooting
<br>33. Controlling the weather
<br>34. Privacy Act
<br>35. Cures for diseases like cancer
<br>
<br>BUT I AM SURE THE PANDEMIC IS REAL!
<br>
<br>[3] Microchip with vaccines meme.
<br>
<br>[4] Speaking of the Pandumbmic I know they are using the vaccine to put the tracker in us people say i am crazy how would they do that? I always send this pic and say gee I dont know?
<br>
<br>[5] Ok now for the Bible and Jesus are you saying that was their made up book to lead people astray. Please be honest but I do believe in Jesus and the Bible. I do wonder though sometimes if that is a delusion as well because it was man written but I really am hoping not. Your thoughts that was the only thing i didn't understand what you were saying.
<br>
<br>[6] I know demons are 100% real i witness many people bringing up their demons and receiving deliverence from them. You want to talk about seeing some crazy stuff. Wow. If you ever want to see it for yourself there is a guy who travels the US and does free seminars on deliverences it is so worth going and watching. So if he is ever in your city or close by you should go, its pretty crazy. I have to look up his name for you.
<br>
<br>[6] Jay Bartlett
</p>
</div><!-- section 630 -->
<a name="x631"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x631" class="tiny">x632</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_632');">bio-weapon jointly developed by US and China is real</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_632" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
<br>
<br>I believe the bio-weapon jointly developed by US and China is real, and it was chosen because it is benign compared to others. I believe the plandemic is real, where they knew they were going to hype the fear in order to shake things up and establish new "normals" and population control. I believe most of the precautions other than social distancing and wearing a mask in stores are a knee-jerk over-reaction (otherwise protests and Sturgis would result in spikes).
<br>
<br>As for the Bible, it is a great collection of stories and has truths from their age and for Spirit. But the number of people (e.g., priests) with agendas involved in translating, editing, leaving out, and inserting afresh has to be considered. Taking EVERY word of the Bible literally and as the unerroring word of God, is in error. [Those who claim they do, really don't. What did David do immediately after he slew Goliath? Most churches stop the story there or skip ahead, and don't go into the subsequent passages. Answer: David took Goliath's broadsword and whacked off his head, put it on a pike, and had it paraded around to show the other side that their champion giant had been bested. Very spiritually enlightening, no?]
<br>
<br>I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't real. If Jesus were a complete composite of the experiences of his predecessors, the story would still be inspiring. But he wasn't born on Christmas; more likely March or April based on the position of heavenly bodies given in the text. Christmas was decreed later by royal command to compete with the winter solstice and pagan beliefs as well as Jewish Hanaka.
<br>
<br>I was raised Christian Science. Although they say "they do not believe in hell, the devil, or demons (or doctors and medicine)," the truth is that they believe in and focus on spiritual love and good which then leaves no room, no space, or mind-cycles for negativity and its downward spirals in mental state and health. They try not to give error power. Very much parallel to early Christians as well as Pleiadians. The enlightenment for me was that error or demons could exist and be part of the balance, but the message is still to focus on good.
<br>
<br>Like the Indian proverb about the good wolf and evil wolf in your mind fighting for dominance; the one who wins is the one you feed. In many ways, people's demons and devils are the bad wolf they feed. It can become a familiar crutch. It can be hard, oh so hard, to get people to mentally move away from thinking that isn't good and beneficial. Christian churches that teach of the devil, demons, evil even as a scare tactic to get the flock to turn to good, give too much power to bad in the minds of the flock and deviate from the Christ/Pleiadian message.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, what are you using to author your book? What sort of assistance do you perceive needing?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 632 -->
<a name="x633"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x633" class="tiny">x634</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_634');">mistaken on when Jesus actually birthdate was</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_634" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
<br>
<br>My bad; I might be mistaken on when Jesus actually birthdate was, except that it wasn't end of December.
<br>
<br>The question about what you are using to author your book refers to software tools to aid the writing process. I didn't want to name any applications, because I didn't want to taint your perceptions. There are some authoring tools that I am very proficient at, but won't use them if given a choice.
<br>
<br>For example, I use HTML-Kit, which is free and great for HTML syntax. Except, most of the time when I'm writing, I'm just using it as a text editor. My source efforts are glorified text files with spaces between paragraphs. When adding URLs or ownership or direct quotations, I'll add some HTML formatting to that portion. Then someday later when I'm compiling my work and getting ready for web publication, I'll open all those files and do mass formatting on all of them to make them qualified and well-formatted HTML/PHP objects. Funny thing, even my final PHP file with tons of conversations and sections isn't much bigger than a blank Microsoft Word file with no text.
<br>
<br>What formats do you need to publish in?
<br>
<br>How much have you written? Or is it still mostly an outline in your head on where it is going?
<br>
<br>Do you have a blog?
<br>
<br>Did you know that the content of Dr. Judy Wood's book and of Dr. James Fetzer's books were originally authored for their respective websites, where roughly each really long web page became a chapter of their book.
<br>
<br>Even as I write this message as text, I know that one day through my authoring/publication process it will be well formatted as HTML. If I desired a book, I could easily get that HTML into various authoring tools (like Word) to generate a PDF suitable for downloading and publishing into a book.
<br>
<br>I'm hinting that writing your book as blog articles first could be an effective way to get started, build it up, collaborate, and hone that even allows a review and comment by others BEFORE making it more permanent in dead-tree form. [If you don't have a blog, I've inherited an extra one that is just waiting for a worthy project and some activity.]
<br>
<br>You ask if I have written a book yet? I haven't written any books for pleasure or on my hobby-horse. [My hobby-horse is at most a Part of some book, but not worthy of being a book.]
<br>
<br>But it turns out technically that I have written or co-authored many books, and will be cranking out 4 books on one project and 2 on another before Thanksgiving. Not a single one of my published books won't make your eyes glaze over, bore you to tears, and put you to sleep! A newly hired manager on a project was curious about the documentation so asked for PDFs. These he had printed out and spiral bound. Helped him get up to speed. When he was done, he brought them to an annual team meeting and let me have them, the equivalent of about two reams of paper I carried back in my luggage to add to my small collection of printed books I had written. Generally, electronic publication to the web (HTML and PDF) is as far as my books go, just short of physical form.
<br>
<br>My pen-name does not brag about my education or career path, and generally down plays it, because then it won't be a distraction. I figured if they ever googled my pen-name and found my blog, it would be practically obvious what my profession is, and why they were getting their asses kicked royally in online discussions with me.
<br>
<br>I have two Bachelor degrees, one in a foreign language and one in an engineering area, plus a Master's degree in a technical area. Owing to the language skills, I'm a good writer; owing to the engineering background, I can do the hard work to understand technical topics. Together, I found my career niche in the world, even if the career was at more than a dozen plus different companies.
<br>
<br>All of the above is both good news and bad news.
<br>
<br>On the bad side, I have strong opinions on the writing side, and how to technically accomplish certain goals.
<br>
<br>On the good side, I collaborate well and can make YOUR work look really good.
<br>
<br>I prefer not getting FB messages. Messenger notifications come through to my phone and are a distraction. Any decent response won't come until I'm back at a keyboard anyway.
<br>
<br>I can see wanting to stay in a FB realm for awhile. I've created a FB posting on my wall that only you and I can see where this conversation can be continued.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 634 -->
<!-- ***** 20200824_MCB_FB_LeslieSchneiderBrown_01.htm -->
<!-- ***** 20200906_MCB_FB_LeslieSchneiderBrown_02.htm -->
<a name="x635"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x635" class="tiny">x636</a>
Leslie Schneider Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_636');">plane hit building</a></b></p>
<p>2020-09-05</p>
<div id="sect_636" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/966310460049320/">2020-09-05</a></p>
<p>So for all you plane hit building people, here is a little experiment anyone can do. If you screen shot the supposed plane hitting the building from any of the live TV reports that day on 9/11, then go into your editing photo tools and change the exposure, contrast, and lighting you get this picture. Because anyone who has taken photography classes know that if the picture has a fake image over it like lets say a hologram airplane and you Expose it the exposed or fake image will disappear revealing the real image. Example say you take a picture of a person and the picture is super bright from the light of the sun. Altgough the sun is not fake the light from the sun is what you would say is the image in the way of the true image. When you change the quality of the picture example exposure contrast etc the sun light or the over lap (sun rays) disappear showing the picture of the person. True objects dont change they are solid but any manipulated light source like sun rays or holograms can be taken out because they are light sources not objects. The second picture is what a tomahawk missile looks like
</p>
</div><!-- section 636 -->
<a name="x637"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x637" class="tiny">x638</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_638');">Operationally speaking, real aircraft would have been cheaper</a></b></p>
<p>2020-09-05</p>
<div id="sect_638" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
<br><br>Your posting's premise has issues: "If you screen shot the supposed plane hitting the building from any of the live TV reports that day on 9/11, then go into your editing photo tools and change the exposure, contrast, and lighting you get this picture."
<br><br>If you took the source footage before broadcast, maybe you'd have something. But how many translations have been imposed on the image? Broadcasting is one generation removed. Saving on video is another. Transforming the video to digital MP4 for posting on the internet is yet another. We don't have HD end-to-end, on purpose. And technology artifacts introduced along the way are being mis-used to dupe.
<br><br>"Because anyone who has taken photography classes know that if the picture has a fake image over it like lets say a hologram airplane..."
<br><br>Stop right there. You didn't have photography class.
<br><br>You are mixing film techniques with digital techniques. "If a picture has a fake image over it", that would be on the CGI side of things, and is not holograms.
<br><br>You're implying that an image of a hologram that has been run through several generations of processing, sampling, and down-sampling would retain enough information to peer through the hologram to what is behind.
<br><br>I know you didn't do this like you're telling us to do, but you've been duped by it so are spouting it as fact.
<br><br>The medium is required for holograms.
<br><br>You ignore this simple technological fact. Without a plastic screen or something to project the hologram on, there would be nothing for the laser light to get reflected off for the eyes to perceive.
<br><br>I know that 9/11 had imagery manipulation, but not to the extent that the hologams and CGI no-planers try to hype it.
<br><br>Operationally speaking, real aircraft would have been cheaper, easier to control precisely, introduce less risk (of glitches), and achieve the aims of a large audience with cameras believing it.
<br><br>If the planes were not the alleged commercial aircraft because they couldn't handle the air resistance at low altitude and high velocities and we're automated, swapping aircraft is completely different argument than "no aircraft", but still could lead to CGI happening to put final tweaks on the pixels.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 638 -->
<a name="x639"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x639" class="tiny">x640</a>
Leslie Schneider Brown : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_640');">Hologram technology make it look so real</a></b></p>
<p>2020-09-05</p>
<div id="sect_640" style="display: block;">
<p>Your right holograms don't leave holes like that tomahawk missiles do
<br>1. Your right lots of people did see planes. Hologram technology not only can make it look so2 real you cant tell the difference
<br>W
<br>2. Holograms can make any sound associated with it. Which alot of people said the sound of the plane was louder then a plane at that feet based on hearing real planes
<br>3. Holograms can even be touched that is how real they can make them so sound, sight, and touch
<br>3. Your right they did find plane parts weeks later totally planted and not even matching serial number and VIN of the plane that supposedly crashed.
<br>Ok Next? Trust me you can keep trying to debunk this but you won't
</p>
</div><!-- section 640 -->
<a name="x641"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x641" class="tiny">x642</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_642');">ruse required a large audience seeing an aircraft</a></b></p>
<p>2020-09-05</p>
<div id="sect_642" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Leslie Schneider Brown,
<br><br>The ruse required that a large audience see aircraft from multiple angles and distances. The ruse needed to stand up to scrutiny, like the radar pings from two different radar systems. Holograms 2001 (and 2020) cannot do that.
<br><br>You make the claim that holograms make sounds; you prove it. Substantiate it.
<br><br>Holograms cannot be touched. But if that is your claim, you prove it.
<br><br>No, plane parts were found before either tower came down. Please dispute this physical evidence.
<br><br>http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
<br><br>The wall assembly is from the back-side of the WTC-1 (with respect to direction of impact) with a portion of an aircraft's wheel assembly stuck in between a couple of its hollow box columns.
<br><br>An engine is captured from multiple angles rocketing through a corner and leaving a trail of smoke. It crashed into the roof of a building and fell to the street and under a scaffolding. This was photographed before either tower came down. An exit velocity of 122 mph could have achieved the distance it flew. The damage to the building it hit would have been hard to fake.
<br><br>That the plane parts were not (or could not be) serial-numbered matched to those of the alleged commercial planes does not logically conclude either holograms or CGI. At the most, it simply means the aircraft hitting the towers were not the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br><br>Why would you swap planes? Maybe to have a tougher military grade airplane/drone that could go faster at lower altitudes with high precision.
<br><br>++++
<br><br>The most convincing hologram I've seen was in a haunted Disney ride. At one point the ride goes along a balcony railing that overlooks a physical old saloon ballroom, with chairs and tables along the sides. Dancing in the middle of that realness were "ghosts."
<br><br>However, if you looked closely in the dim lighting, there was at the balcony a medium (plastic) that you were looking threw. That was where the hologram was etched that seemed to make ghosts appear below on the dance floor.
<br><br>The ride cart kept moving, so the holograms danced. But I imagine if the ride stopped or went backwards, the ghosts would stop or go backwards.
<br><br>In other words, the medium had holographic slices (much like frames of a movie) that each had a slightly different scene. As the slices move before your eyes, the images in the holograms appear to move.
<br><br>The Tupac video put up? Notice how dark it was, and there was no audience on the backside? I'm betting there was a plastic medium dropped down near the front of the stage, and onto this the lasers projected their holographic images.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 642 -->
<a name="x643"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x643" class="tiny">x644</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_644');">no missiles used on 911</a></b></p>
<p>2020-09-05</p>
<div id="sect_644" style="display: block;">
<p>there were no missiles used on 911, that entire theory has no facts to support it . .its only out there to make the truth movement look like morons . .
</p>
</div><!-- section 644 -->
<a name="x645"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x645" class="tiny">x646</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_646');">the WTC towers were not hit with missiles</a></b></p>
<p>2020-09-05</p>
<div id="sect_646" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jon Howland,
<br><br>Woa, woa, hold your horses there! Over-generalization is a high school sophomore writing mistake, because all it takes is one exception to prove it wrong. You need to qualify "there were no missiles on 9/11" to specific events of this multipart conspiracy.
<br><br>Maybe you meant to say: "the WTC towers were not hit with missiles." This is what I want to say as well.
<br><br>I distrust the whole misguided ruse into *cough* photoshopping hints of missiles from multi-generational videos allegedly capturing holograms of real planes to mask a cruise missile. (*Gag* WTF?)
<br><br>As for Shanksville and the Pentagon on 9/11, you would be in error if you discount the contribution of missiles to their specific events.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 646 -->
<a name="x647"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x647" class="tiny">x648</a>
Stuart Crosbie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_648');">Leslie Schneider Brown left the building</a></b></p>
<p>2020-09-05</p>
<div id="sect_648" style="display: block;">
<p>Leslie Schneider Brown
<br>has left the building
</p>
</div><!-- section 648 -->
<a name="x649"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x649" class="tiny">x650</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_650');">where is Leslie's booking gonna take us?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-09-05</p>
<div id="sect_650" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stuart Crosbie,
<br><br>Don't take this as a defense. I am curious to more details on her departure. Can be entirely subjective and in your view.
<br><br>Trying to judge her character.
<br><br>You see, she's been writing a book, and I was going to contribute a chapter and maybe other content. I wanted to see where she was taking the book before I'd agree, so she's sent me the intro and several chapters.
<br><br>You always have to give kudos to first drafts, because they teach a lot. First stab at a structure to build upon and improve, or to completely reject as unfeasible, which is damn good to know before you invest more time and effort into that sinkhole.
<br><br>Yeah, well... In its present form, it offers nothing new or unique to the 9/11 genre. Not having a niche, its scope is all of 9/11, yet it doesn't have the details or depth to be close to Dr. David Ray Griffin's level. Many sections could be enhanced meaningfully by quoting and data-mining from Wikipedia (or elsewhere) so at least the technical details and descriptions could be accurately provided. In many ways, it read like a PowerPoint presentation put to print, complete with the old "recap of the last chunk of material".
<br><br>My bat-shit crazy impression? Bot algorithms at their finest trying to output a book by dumping its database of topics consisting of on average three slim, generic paragraphs on the topic. It had no glue, no direction, no "stories" to compel someone to continue reading. Her target audience is not the 9/11 Truth Community, but to a tiny audience of those who might not know about the 9/11 deceit and for other reasons distrust their government. *cough* *cough* Not well defined.
<br><br>But the no planes and holograms... I've debunked them many times, saved my work, and lazy-ass me will plunk down URLs to save me unproductive carousel cycles. To save time, I brought these to her attention early and as a favor bullet-by-bullet debunked a couple of mini-cycles through the genres... *sigh*
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 650 -->
<!-- ***** 20200906_MCB_FB_LeslieSchneiderBrown_02.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_13 -->
<!-- End the page here -->
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
</body>
</html>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-40675293191327421652023-10-10T22:11:00.002-07:002023-11-05T09:29:33.621-08:00FGNW Discussions Vol. 3
<!--FGNW Discussions Vol. 3 -->
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 1000;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
// window.location.hash = id;
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function getURLParam(strParamName){
var strReturn = "";
var strHref = window.location.href;
if ( strHref.indexOf("?") > -1 ){
var strQueryString = strHref.substr(strHref.indexOf("?")).toLowerCase();
var aQueryString = strQueryString.split("&");
for ( var iParam = 0; iParam < aQueryString.length; iParam++ ){
if (aQueryString[iParam].indexOf(strParamName.toLowerCase() + "=") > -1 ){
var aParam = aQueryString[iParam].split("=");
strReturn = aParam[1];
// alert(strReturn);
break;
}
}
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
// alert(strReturn);
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
// alert(myTarget);
if (myTarget == "-false-") {
areaHideAll("part_");
areaHideAll("sect_");
} else {
areaHideAll("sect_");
areaShowAll("part_");
sectionShow(myTarget);
// location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<p>This article <u><b>defends</b></u> the premise that <i><b>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW)</b></i> were deployed as <b>the primary mechanisms</b> of destruction in the annihilation of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001. Discussions happened on Facebook between 2021-08 and 2022-11.</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
<a name="p1"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_1');">Part 1: FGNW Discussions with Bernie Saurez, Jason Crellin, Nicholas George, Tor Opdahl, Thomas Botch</a></h2>
<div id="part_1" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20210831_MCB_FB_Saurez.htm -->
<a name="x1"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x1" class="tiny">x2</a>
Bernie Saurez : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">C-4, but the story is so good</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Meme shows a man with long sideburns, a blonde mustache whose ends ended below his chin, small oval glasses, possibly hair pulled into a ponytail, a black string necklace threaded through a ring, and blue T-shirt, giving the impression of "modern-day hipster hippie". The person depicted was one of the five dancing Israeli's on a van in 9/11, who later admitted on Israeli television that he was with Mossad charged with recording the event that they were warned would happen.
<br>
<br>The caption read: <i>"I'm sure it was C-4, but the story is so good, so maybe it was Nano-Thermite, Directed Energy Weapons, and Mini-Nukes."</i>
</p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name="x3"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x3" class="tiny">x4</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">all from meme are limited hang-outs</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: block;">
<p>Everything mentioned in the meme is a limited hang-out. The evidence of nuclear involvement is in all samples of dust, in the videos of the debris piles, in the air measurements, and certainly in the lock-stepping cover-up that late-third generation nuclear devices (4 per detonation level every 10-20 floors). Conventional charge to kick-start fission phase, whose sole purpose is to generate the heat for fusion which released its highly energetic neutrons in a controlled fashion cone-shaped upwards from detonation level. Evidence of fission in the dust. The dog-and-pony-show tritium reports proves fusion. Camera scintillation of videos (if you are observant) proves that radiation was present.
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>//
<br>
<br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 4 -->
<a name="x5"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x6</a>
Bernie Saurez : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">Van test positive for radiation?</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Maxwell Bridges so how come the White Moving Van didn't test positive for radiation?
</p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x7" class="tiny">x8</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">van didn't carry any of the radioactive nuclear components</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, That's a rather red-herring question, but simple to answer. The white van didn't carry any of the radioactive nuclear components, maybe, could that be it?
<br><br>Doesn't matter what the white Israeli van had in it, what matters is the evidence after the events that -- when properly pieced together -- scream nuclear involvement.
<br><br>Read my blog posting, then well talk.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x9" class="tiny">x10</a>
Bernie Saurez : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">believe B7 was nuked or demoed</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges nah, anyone who doesn't care what was in the van is already discredited and losing shill. you're probably one of those typical fools who also believes B7 was nuked or demoed
<br>May be a cartoon of text
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x11" class="tiny">x12</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">no mutual-exclusivity</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, clearly you haven't read my blog posting yet, so you can't really comment knowledgably about what I do believe.
<br><br>There is no mutual-exclusivity with regards to your white van and what it carried and my nuclear premise. They had back-up plans to their back-up plans, and the overkill pulverization from the earliest moments of destruction is a clue.
<br><br>You go right ahead and make your case for the white van and what it was up to, and what it might or might not have carried. Completely separate argument but part of the same picture. No skin off my nose, and I'll probably join you singing in the choir.
<br><br>... Except for one tiny thing. You made the comment "how come the White Moving Van didn't test positive for radiation?" So you prove it. Show me the police reports that talks about what was measured in it and what wasn't. [I think you're making it up and can't actually research anything that proves your statement.]
<br><br>Before I leave you with that assignment [that you gave yourself], remember that we're talking late-third generation nuclear weapons [that I often lazily write as "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons."] This distinction is important, because a fission trigger doesn't require as much Uranium nor does it leave as much residual radiation at the scene, because destruction isn't its purpose; sufficient heat for fusion of tritium is its purpose. Lots of dog and pony shows done about tritium, all of them disengenuous.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x13" class="tiny">x14</a>
Jason Crellin : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">can't find on your page</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I'm interested to see your blog post but can't find on your page..?
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x15" class="tiny">x16</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">top level comment to this thread has it</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jason Crellin, Can't find my blog posting? The top level comment to this thread has a link to it along with a thumb-nail with a picture. You don't even have to bore into my top-level comment to get to it. Loud and clear it says "MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM: 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case."
<br><br>I humbly request that you try just a little bit harder to get to it. Other than a few typos, you won't be disappointed.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x17" class="tiny">x18</a>
Bernie Saurez : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">don't need to read your blog to know what you believe</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I don't need to read your blog to know what you believe, you're typically more fixated on the WTC rather than the hijackings or geopolitics or even intelligence agencies, you've already asserted nuclear devices, which is utterly nonsensical, and you're not the one that came up with such an idea. William Rodriguez did not experience a nuclear blast go off before flight 11 struck.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x20</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">opening statement blatantly admits willful ignorance regarding <i>"not needing to read"</i></a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, You will not get passing grades on your "book report" if your opening statement blatantly admits willful ignorance regarding you supposedly <i>"not needing to read"</i> the material in question, because you allegedly already know what it states and what my believes are.
<br><br>Might as well put a sticker on your forehead that says,
<blockquote><p>"I'm as stupid as they come! Kick me in the nuts, because my DNA is not deserving of being propagated!"</p></blockquote>
<p>You still haven't done your first self-assigned homework problem that asked you to prove your assertion about what was measured by investigators in the white van.
<br><br>Now you've gone and assigned yourself another task, which is to prove that the mere mention of nuclear devices on 9/11 "is utterly nonsensical." I'll make that task easier for you. The anchoring comment to this very discussion thread has a 19 section blog posting on the subject that such a stellar book-report-writer such as yourself can easily debunk, section-by-section.
<br><br>[And by the way, maybe after you get to that posting on my blog, you should maybe right-click explore some its other content to see where I'm coming from, what my 9/11 views are, what my skill-set is, and how it (like the re-publication of exchanges with you) can negatively affect you (in becoming a permanent internet record of your ignorance.) Don't make me go there. This ought to be a teaching moment.]
<br><br>You mentioned William Rodriguez and "nuclear blasts". First of all, "nuclear blasts" is a complete and total fabrication on your part based on your own misinformed propagandized views on nuclear devices, views that are so "correct" that they won't even let you read the salient arguments spelled out by your discussion opponent in prior work, just begging for you to wade in, section-by-section.
<br><br>Let me frame the FGNW properly, because these aren't your grandpa's nukes. I am taking liberties with the acronym FGNW which are intended to be pure fusion devices. Nope, I'm really talking about late-3rd/early-fourth generation nuclear weapons, which were hybrid fission-fusion. They detonated a small conventional shaped and controlled chemical explosive charge to initiate a tiny fission phase. Because the fission phase is tiny and not destructive, you don't get the typical radiation badness that media likes to hype. The purpose of the fission phase is to generate the heat necessary for fusion. The fusion phase though was special, based on the principles of neutron bombs, which namely releases the highly energetic neutrons (instead of letting them bounce around in the chamber and creating a much larger destructive energetic yield.) The neutrons were released in a cone-shape upwards. The devices were already scaled-down to tactical levels, but that 80% of the yield was neutrons and only 20% was conventional heat wave, blast wave, and EMP puts them into a completely different camp with regards to the destruction one would expect and actually observed. I speculate minimum of 4 FGNW per detonation level every 10 to 20 stories, based on the recorded audible cadence of that aforementioned kick-starter conventional charge (and in some cases created a squib on the face of the towers.)
<br><br>Here's a little thought experiment for you. When you shoot highly energetic neutrons through content (because on the atomic level, matter is mostly space and neutrons can freely travel through that), what sort of destructive outcomes would you expect to see? Hint: those highly energetic neutrons often leave energy behind deep within the atomic structure of the materials they pass through. That energy is typically in the form of heat. Imagine steel rebar within concrete floors suddenly getting huge amounts of heat deposited deep within its molecular structure. What would happen?
<br><br>Let me assist you one step further in overcoming your misinformation about nuclear devices. Check out Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
<br><br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br><br>Dr. Gsponer was writing about FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11. It should concern you as an alleged 9/11 Truther that Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood both did monumentally shitty jobs of researching nuclear devices; how could they have missed Dr. Gsponer's work?
<br><br>Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, you just got your ass schooled proper about 9/11 nuclear devices. I come prepared; your refusal to read what substantiates my discussion position makes you completely unprepared and even highly disingenuous.
<br><br>Grasshopper, you need to up your game if you want to convince me -- and I can be convinced of the opposite, because I'm open-minded and intelligent -- that nuclear devices were ~not~ used on 9/11, but only evidence and proper scientific analysis [or dozens of death-bed confessions] can do that.
<br><br>If you can't argue the specifics, then you've already lost the debate, homeboy. And throwing out hypnotic suggestion about "utter nonsense" ain't gonna cut it, you feel me?
<br><br>A real 9/11 Truther who believed themselves to be intelligent, open-minded, and sincere already would have looked through my bat-shit crazy-ass blog posting to find and inform me of the errors in my ways. The problem you have in debunking me is that my FGNW premise uses validated nuggets of truth from many sources, nuggets that the "consensus 9/11 Truth Movement" has skillfully purposely ignored, because super-duper nano-thermite can't explain them. The 9/11 Truth Movement (and AE9/11Truth) were infiltrated with the expressed purpose of keeping even "9/11 deviant" public thought from considering nuclear devices; that was the disinformation battle lines they were charged with defending.
<br><br>//
<br>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x22</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">FGNW premise is not mutually-exclusive</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_22" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, I apologize that the class taught above about the true 9/11 nuclear devices (FGNW) did not directly address your William Rodriguez concern. First of all, the FGNW premise is not mutually-exclusive with any other premise; they had back-up plans to their back-up plans and had very deep arsenals and pockets to pay for things.
<br><br>Secondly, if the explosion that William Rodriguez and others was conventional, so what? No skin off of the nose of FGNW for accounting for the majority of the demolition.
<br><br>You claim: "you're typically more fixated on the WTC rather than the hijackings or geopolitics or even intelligence agencies"
<br><br>Because you've never been to my blog or website to get a real deep-dive into my thought process and position on other 9/11 things and on other things, the few comments you've read from me on Facebook in this thread would be insufficient to come to that over-generalized -- hell, it is probably re-purposed from somewhere else -- statement.
<br><br>Because I am a sincere, fair, and honest fellow, let me spell out my game plan (and life's work). Indeed, my FGNW premise is a hobby-horse, my humble contribution to 9/11 Truth to call attention to it. [I've shopped it around to get it debunked by others -- and would be proud to have you debunk it --, except that FGNW is a truth that addresses more evidence than any other 9/11 theory-du-jour, including NT.] FGNW is fast becoming a validate truth, by default from a litany of poor performances and no-show efforts.
<br><br>Today at the 20th anniversary of 9/11, the government and the PTB won! They ran out the clock and prevented the public from caring sufficiently in mass to "vote out" and "change the system" based on exposed misdeeds. Were we not now within the next major world catastrophe, by golly revelation that the US government nuked US citizens on US soil with Mossad help using these fancy, low-radiation FGNW ... all that would have been the viral public catalyst for change.
<br><br>That was prevented, but persists, like figurative nuclear fallout from FGNW, as a data point in the negative trend line of governments, corporations, the PTB.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x24</a>
Bernie Saurez : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">I deal with facts. where is the evidence for nuclear devices?</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_24" style="display: block;">
<p>"true 9/11 nuclear devices", I don't deal with truth, I deal with facts. where is the evidence for nuclear devices? according to who, what, where, why? I don't give a fuck about your blog. I make the claim explosives were used by individuals who had provable foreknowledge. if you have something to prove, show the documents.
</p>
</div><!-- section 24 -->
<a name="x25"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x25" class="tiny">x26</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">Disinfo-bot trying to assign busy work to me and make me repeat my case here?</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, Congratulations! You have just pegged yourself as a Disinfo-Bot, and an insincere one at that. Disinfo-bots don't have the ability to follow links, let alone bring back to the discussion here factoids from that source. Thank you for demonstrating this so skillfully.
<br>
<br>Disinfo-bots are good at spewing platitudes strung together from various database entries:
<blockquote><p>"I deal with facts." "where is the evidence of nuclear devices?" "I don't give a fuck about your blog." "according to who, what, where, why?"</p></blockquote>
<p>Duh, dude! Maybe if you would have read the blog entry about FGNW that anchors this discussion, you would have discovered the reference links to many different sources, easily answering your bot-ish refrain: "according to who, what, where, why?"
<br>
<br>Typical of disinfo-bot to ask me to re-invent the wheel in this discussion, rather than reading about the wheel on my blog so that the discussion here could go next level: what was wrong or right about my wheel?
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<blockquote><p>"I make the claim explosives were used by individuals who had provable foreknowledge."</p></blockquote>
<p>Congratulations on inserting something from the white van! Yeah, you get kudos points from me! Again a red-herring, though, because did that report say they took a Geiger counter to the van? Nope. Thus, you can't definitively rule out nuclear components from this alone, and FGNW are speculated to have conventional explosive triggers. So, this piece of evidence ends up helping the FGNW argument as well. Thank you.
<br>
<br>You bot-ishly wrote:
<blockquote><p>"if you have something to prove, show the documents."</p></blockquote>
<p>Ho-hum. Did you not see the link to Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed work on FGNW and published in a reputable science journal that was posted before your comment? Or how about my blog posting on the subject that is chock-full of quotations and reference links to source material?
<br>
<br>Disinfo-bot trying to assign busy work to me and make me repeat my case here?
<br>
<br>Nope, bots! That's not how it works. The case has already been made in the blog entry (prima facie case) that you don't give a fuck about. Your job here in this discussion is to extract elements from that prima facie case and disprove / dispute them, or their usage in context of the prima facie case.
<br>
<br>Chop, chop! We already have this discussion's starting point, and you, Mr. Bernie Saurez in typical disinfo-bot fashion, repeatedly and vocally refuse to get on the same literal (web) page.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x28</a>
Bernie Saurez : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">Only a disgusting and callous shill</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges "Congratulations
<br>on inserting something from the white van! Yeah, you get kudos points from me! Again a red-herring"
<br>Only a disgusting and callous shill would say something like that, given the seriousness and sensitivity of the subject/event. That's all anyone needs to hear from you to see who you are and what you're about, and they will not follow you, because as with no evidence you have, you also have no plausible lead.
</p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<a name="x29"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x30</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">... argues not reading (a book) somehow makes one smart in the very same (book)</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, Weasel manuevers? Is that all you got in the form of a rational discussion?
<br>
<br><i>"Only a disgusting and callous shill"</i> would be incapable of following a URL anchoring this thread, let alone of reading its content and finding something worthy to drag back into this FB thread.
<br>
<br><i>"Given the seriousness and sensitivity of the subject/event"</i>, your disinfo-bot tactics makes you inadequate to the challenge.
<br>
<br><i>"All anyone needs to hear from you"</i> are your statements like <i>"I don't need to read your blog to know what you believe"</i> and then all of your doubling-down on this woefully faulty premise that <i>"not reading something somehow makes you smart in that very same area"</i> just pegs you as disinfo-shill-bot. Congratulations!
<br>
<br>Your disinfo-bot algorithms hit a bug with your statement <i>"as with no evidence you have"</i>. How in the fuck would you know, when you so proudly proclaim that ya "ain't gotta read nuthin' to be smart about it"? But hell, Mr. Saurez, I'll bite.
<br>
<br>Kindly prove your contention that my prima facie case of FGNW at the WTC (as given on the anchoring URL) has no evidence. I'll even make it easy for you by altering your attack. Prove that the quotes and references are not validated pieces of evidence. [Be careful, disinfo-bot, because discrediting evidence borrowed from other premises to make mine, might be more damaging to those other premises and your very 9/11 belief system.]
<br>
<br>Mr. Saurez, if indeed you are not a disinfo-bot, then I hope that you take to heart that your debate skills and reading comprehension are worth shit. You fucked up. I'll let you redeem yourself, though.
<br>
<br>Step 1: Apologize for being such a blatant ass and then STFU until step 3.
<br>Step 2: Read and attempt to understand the FGNW Prima Facie Case.
<br>Step 3: Ask questions based on what you didn't understand in the Case.
<br>Step 4: Think.
<br>Step 5: Form an educated opinion.
<br>Step 6: [Optional] Debunk the details and consequently the premise, if you can.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 30 -->
<a name="x31"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x31" class="tiny">x32</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">fake fission nukes</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_32" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Fission Nukes are fake
</p>
</div><!-- section 32 -->
<a name="x33"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x33" class="tiny">x34</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">first generation nukes were fission</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_34" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, are you also a disinfo-bot? Because I can assure you, some of the very first nuclear weapons and much of the arsenal for several decades were/are "Fission Nukes" and very much "not fake."
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 34 -->
<a name="x35"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x35" class="tiny">x36</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_36');">If fission nukes exist they would’ve actually been used by now</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_36" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>My father was raised on the island of Japan by a CIA agent who was tasked with re-educating the Japanese after the dirty bombs were dropped. They were conventional explosives packed with plutonium and uranium. The.fission device we are sold on the television would not have allowed for that island to be inhabitable. Yes, I know the bullshit theory about how detonating the nuclear device above ground saved the island from being uninhabitable. If fission nukes exist they would’ve actually been used by now. I sold a truck to a guy whose grandfather worked in the Nevada experiments. He discovered when talking to other soldiers that each of them were creating TNT structures, and none of them were the nuclear control group. Each TNT group was told that the other group was building the nuclear devices in contrast. It was pyrotechnics at a psychotically mind-controlling level. Later they added hydrogen to the pyrotechnics, and for the same reasons that pyrotechnitions do -for extraordinary effect. Easier to pull off than the moon landing, and 9/11. The Cold War was fake. The same people that own our federal reserve controlled Russia throughout that entire period of time. They’re playing each population control group against the other so that they would cling to their governments, and socially engineered mandates. It doesn’t take much research to find out that we were overthrown by Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg in 1913 with the federal reserve act, and only 4 or 5 years later This duo financed the successful Bolshevik Revolution. Once they were in control of the formally capitalistic Russia, they started the communist beta test that is now coming to the United States. The fake Cold War helped us get where we are right now. People that watch too much television helped us get where we are right now. I seriously doubt that even JFK was aware that the nukes were fake when he was legitimately responding to the Cuban crisis. I think JFK figured it out before he died though. Just like he figured out that we weren’t going to the moon. After he was assassinated they liquidated the moon budget into cinematography and kept the profits for deep-state black-budget purposes.
</p>
</div><!-- section 36 -->
<a name="x37"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x37" class="tiny">x38</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_38');">faked us out with "conventional explosives packed with plutonium and uranium"</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_38" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, If you use SHIFT-ENTER, you can create paragraphs on the fly when entering FB comments. Your posting needed some paragraphs, if not whole new comments (in other threads) for certain whole new ideas and concepts that are not related to ~THIS~ particular thread. [I'm ignoring everything after and including "The Cold War was fake", just because it is a distraction here.]
<br><br>Your premise seems to be that fission nuclear devices have never existed, and that they created a big lie in telling us they did. They supposedly faked us out with <i>"conventional explosives packed with plutonium and uranium."</i>
<br><br>This is bullshit on many levels and necessitates that you go to the library of your public institution of higher education and research nuclear weapons to get a basic understanding.
<br><br>Specifically to your faulty premise, if they could create a super duper conventional explosive [capable of the observed/recorded events of a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP], why in the fuck would they also pack it also with plutonium and uranium when (according to you) neither would be activated into creating a chain reaction of highly energetic neutrons bouncing around. According to you, your super conventional explosive finely sliced-and-diced the packed plutonium and uranium and spread that as badness in the destruction dust to fake out the world.
<br><br>Unfortunately, this is not true. You see, when a real fission process occurs, you won't see just traces of the plutonioum and uranium, you'll see all of their decay elements in the dust as well. Or stated another way, if you wanted to fake a fission explosion, your dust samples would need the source material and their decay elements IN CORRELATED QUANTITIES. Other than false-flag framing of someone, there aren't too many use-cases for faking a fission-based nuclear detonation when a real fission-based nuclear detonation exists. [Haven't you ever seen nuclear power plants? Are you saying they faked this, too?]
<br><br>Be that as it may, the USGS survey of the 9/11 dust shows it its data tables uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities, which is a clear indication of fission. However the quantities of these and the explosive yield were not at the level expected if it were a fission device used for destructive purposes as the media has hyped us into believing all nukes supposedly are. This FGNW differences is that it is a fission-triggered-fusion device. [Conventional charge starts the fission stage. Fission stage's only purpose is to generate sufficient heat for the fusion stage, configured to release its highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion, rather than having those neutrons bounce around in the chamber and creating more chain reactions and a HUGE heat wave, blast wave, and EMP.] They did a whole 9/11 dog-and-pony show on tritium in the run-off and lamely explain it away, despite it being a building block of all fusion devices, essentially all FGNW.
<br><br>You wrote: "The.fission device we are sold on the television would not have allowed for that island to be inhabitable."
<br><br>The fission devices that corporate media plants into our misinformed beliefs represent mostly old school fear-mongering: "blasts that make a crater of a city block and levels many other blocks surrounding it, and spreading radioactive deathly particles everywhere with half-lives into the hundreds of years thereby preventing habitation."
<br><br>Nuclear devices have been improved way beyond that, which FGNW shows.
<br><br>Prove that you aren't a disinfo-bot, Mr Nicholas George. Read what Dr. Andre Gsponer wrote on the subject in 2005 and let's discuss.
<br><br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>P.S. Because my super powers are being naive and trusting, let us assume that your father was indeed raised on the island of Japan by a CIA agent tasked with re-educating the Japanese. That would not bestow on your grandfather any secret nuclear knowledge that was then trickled to your father and then to you. The bombs that decimated two Japanese cities were indeed dirty bombs in the sense that they left radioactive contamination spread everywhere. They weren't dirty bombs in the modern sense of advanced munition used by the US in Iraq and other places in some of their tank-piercing dirty bombs.
<br>
<br>If anything, your cute little personal story demonstrates that when the information is compartmentalized and controlled, duped useful idiots with CIA titles will willingly go into contaminated areas with their young offspring to indoctrinate another people, even if their intelligence affiliation could have provided the appropriate health information to maybe make different decisions for his family.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 38 -->
<a name="x39"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x39" class="tiny">x40</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_40" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>You can tell when someone’s intelligence has been challenged when they try to poke fun at your grammar and composition primary to your content/intentions. I’ll check out the latest propaganda on the advancement in fission nuclear weapons you shared today. Keep in mind that the banking system would never allow this to happen to any of its assets. It’s fear-based control. I outlined the plot, and the players, regarding the fake Cold War. Why haven’t you addressed that? Your dissertation on the uselessness of a dirty bomb neglects the fact that the forensic "Geiger counter" data had to be collected at Ground Zero to verify the staged conventional ?? TNT event. Immediately following the blast the military took to the air and did the same fire bombing/phosphorus meltdown campaign that was done by the Allied air forces to German cities after Germany’s surrender. The aftermath look like glass. Just like in Germany were no "nukes" were dropped. It’s odd to me that you didn’t understand that they needed nuclear material fallout in order to sync the hook psychologically. And instead of capturing this very simple necessity, you skip over it like there’s no reason for it, and then you go into the diatribe that you did justifying modern fear and control by the two sides of the Cold War you refuse to address because it scares you. Either that or you’re giving people misinformation on purpose. I double dog dare you publicly to address the simplicity of the fact that both sides were owned by the same title holders in the Cold War. I named the names Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg. Ball’s in your court. Let’s find out who is the authentic researcher here, and at the same time exposing the ridiculousness of the concept of one side in the Cold War nuking the other out of existence. That’s the reason you won’t address it, because it exposes the logical impossibility of the propaganda that we have suffered for too long.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 40 -->
<a name="x41"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x41" class="tiny">x42</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">post-edit your comments with the readability improvements</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_42" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George,
<br>SHIFT-ENTER is well meaning advice to improve the overall effectiveness of not just the presentation of your argument but also the argument itself in this Facebook forum here. Chunking your work into paragraphs with separation by context differentiates the paragraphs for the reader, makes them easier to identify and easier to skim, and hence easier to consume for the deep truths that you think they contain.
<br>
<br>By the way. Nothing prevents you, dear Mr. Nicholas George, from going back into your two posted comments and post-editing them with the readability improvements suggested. [Warning: failure to post-edit posting / comments with needed corrections is one of the signs of bot-ism, similar to not being able to follow links and discuss things from those links.]
<br>
<br>You wrote: "I outlined the plot, and the players, regarding the fake Cold War. Why haven’t you addressed that?"
<br>
<br>To date, I haven't addressed it because it has NOTHING to do with the details of the 9/11 event and are a huge fucking distraction and weasel effort by a person (or bot) incapable of arguing specifics, much less following a link to see what it says.
<br>
<br>If you would like me to seriously address them, please make a posting in this Facebook group or where ever with your analysis and invite me to comment. It doesn't belong under this discussion, and I'll not pollute this thread with your bot attempt at a diversion. First glance, it appears as a collection of conspiracy related database entries (probably vacuumed up from valid sources but separated from context) that are simply strung together and output here, with no rhyme or reason or SHIFT-ENTER paragraph breaks.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, dear Mr. Nicholas George, the starting point for this FB discussion thread was the blog article from me posted in my top-level comment. A second related discussion point is the link to Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed work on FGNW.
<br>
<br>Bot test: Please go to either one of those referenced URLs, copy a paragraph or two, and paste them into a comment here, albeit while indicating appropriately that it is a quotation and not your own words.
<br>
<br>To make the effort worthwhile, please select paragraph(s) that you have issue with because of errors that you identify (and hopefully substantiate their faulty ways.) If you don't correct errors, you're doing nobody any favors.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 42 -->
<a name="x43"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x43" class="tiny">x44</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_44');">a flat earther kind of disinformation agent</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_44" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I don’t think you’re a robot, but you are definitely a flat earther kind of disinformation agent. You want to cause division within the "9/11 was an inside job"/(we need a revolution) community. How many people that could affect our common enemy wasted their efforts fighting you over weightless information instead? Hopefully very few after this interaction. The most discerning knowledge seekers will know what I’m talking about
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 44 -->
<a name="x45"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x45" class="tiny">x46</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">please identify all instances of me promoting flat-earth</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_46" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George,
<br>Yet another bot-ish reply. Kudos. Projecting your weaknesses onto me, I see. Otherwise armed with a URL to my blog [obtainable by the comment that anchors this FB discussion thread], please identify all instances of me promoting flat-earth. My blog has a search feature, and I have written about it tangentially.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html</a>
<br>
<br>Along with the bot-ish reply, comes the bot-weasel move of avoiding the FGNW topic of discussion, avoiding editing a comment to make it clearer, and avoiding going to a website to copy-and-paste a paragraph into a comment.
<br>
<br>Don't complain about ~me~ causing division within the 9/11 Truth Community. I'm following the truth, and if those so-called 9/11 Truthers can't do likewise, can't defend their premises, can't legitimately discredit mine, etc., then maybe they were really infiltrators and 9/11 Fakers and by no means "Truthers." That's what you seem to be: bot-fake.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 46 -->
<a name="x47"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x47" class="tiny">x48</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_48');">your focus is akin to that type of disinformation campaign</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_48" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I don’t think you’re promoting flat earth. I said your focus is akin, or parallel to that type of disinformation campaign. Freemasonic horseshit.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 48 -->
<a name="x49"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x49" class="tiny">x50</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">scapegoat masons for the ills of the world</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_50" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George,
<br>I happen to be a Master Mason. As an insider, I can attest to there being horseshit, but the biggest elephant dumps are those ignorant masses outside of Masonry trying to scapegoat masons for the ills of the world [often using centuries old defamation material proven a hoax that they just recycle.] All human institutions have horseshit, but being a world dominating influencing power isn't one of their horse apples, despite what our enemies will say [to hide their actual roles and scapegoat us.]
<br>
<br>Ever hear of OCD? Maybe I got it, and it exhibits itself in my focus on 9/11 FGNW [and preserving my work myself.] Doesn't mean that my nuclear hobby-horse is wrong, you twit. If anything, by scope limiting my efforts, I'm given a better chance at accomplishing something needed in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
<br>
<br>It is only a fluke that it also happens to expose "9/11 Fakers" and disinfo-bots. [Where is the requested copied paragraph from my links?]
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 50 -->
<a name="x51"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x51" class="tiny">x52</a>
Tor Opdahl : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_52');">Thermite is confirmed</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_52" style="display: block;">
<p>Thermite in use 911 is confirmed from the pouring furniss rivers from the towers, and from the chemical data from the dust. ... What the extreme heat in the basement came from, I am mot sure. I remenber some bottom colums with some clear cuts that suggested some planned takedown.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 52 -->
<a name="x53"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x53" class="tiny">x54</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">duped by crafty disinformation promoted by AE9/11 Truth</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_54" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Tor Opdahl, You have been duped by crafty disinformation promoted by AE9/11 Truth (and Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Neils Harrit, etc.) You wrote:
<blockquote><p>"Thermite in use 911 is confirmed from the pouring furniss rivers from the towers, and from the chemical data from the dust."</p></blockquote>
<p>The chemical data from the dust does NOT confirm NT. Not from USGS, not from Paul Lioy et al. [Only in Dr. Jones' dust samples.] What all the studies found were a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres. The USGS shows in its data tables Uranium and all its decay elements in correlated quantities [indicating fission].
<br>
<br>As part of the NT propaganda promoted by AE9/11Truth, NT is supposedly the only substance that can create those tiny iron spheres, burn for months under the rubble pile, etc.
<br>
<br>Except that when you do the high school level chemistry and math, you'd learn that the calculated amount of NT to create that amount of tiny iron spheres is massive. When you then calculate the amount of NT that was unspent from the pulverizing purpose and available in the debris pile to burn for months, the original amount is obscenely huge and very much not Occam Razor friendly.
<br>
<br>Fourth generation nuclear devices are Occam Razor friendly.
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>Dr. Gsponer wrote about FGNW but doesn't write about 9/11. But I do.
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>By the way, the FGNW argument is not mutually exclusive with any other premise. If you want to say NT cause the red-hot dripping from the towers, fine. But that doesn't mean it was the primary mechanism of destruction.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 54 -->
<a name="x55"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x55" class="tiny">x56</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">Judea was the longest leader of the original messianic church</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_56" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>Thank you for admitting your allegiances to masonry. Perhaps you’ll understand this then:
<br><br>September was the seventh month of the year 1,959 years ago. Rome has added a couple of months to our calendar year after this "great reset" almost 2 millennia ago. The event I’m going to speak of is also the reason that time as we record it today (2021) was reset to a zero year by Rome. Ground Zero. perhaps an even bigger tragedy is that most people won’t understand what I’m talking about even though it’s that significant. Its OK, I have more faith in each of you then all the people you’ve trusted so far that haven’t given you this information yet. September, and the number "7", was the month and the number of significance that was dedicated to the "Lord of the harvest", "Saturn/Satan". Saturn is the 7th body in the solar system, and "the administrator".
<br><br>(see the meanings of "Tav", the 22nd and final letter of the Hebrew alphabet, "the mark of Saturn" = the mark of Satan/the beast. It is the Saturnic cross worshiped at all churches and placed on the foreheads of the faithful on Ash Wednesday -"Odin’s day".)
<br><br>The Beast, Saturn, is "the Administrator" over earth and our solar system. This is why the Knights of Malta chose building 7 (WTC7) as their counterintelligence headquarters in their tasks against the sovereignty and freewill of the American people on 9/11/2001. This is the hidden and original meaning behind the CIA’s choice of building #7 (WTC7), and its collapse following the Twin Towers’ collapse on 9/11/2001.
<br><br>9/11, 20 years ago, was actually "7"/11 1,959 years ago. Both were the ultimate manifestation(s) of evil magic by the same ancient terrorist (Saturnian) organization. The original September 11th (inside job) tragedy was carried out the next day after Yom Kipper 7/10/0062 CE. Saint Paul’s and Saturnia/Rome’s original September 11th "great reset" signified the destruction of the original messianic movement, and in a very tangible way, the retarding of human freewill, and our overall mental and spiritual sovereignty and wellbeing.
<br><br>One of the two most important people/figureheads in the first century of Judea was the longest leader of the original messianic church, "James the just". This is why he was given this name. There was no one in all of Judea who was considered to be more righteous in the first century. This is also why his assassination was so important to get right, using all aspects of Hermetic spiritual teachings in order to manifest the desired outcome on earth.
<br><br>Even Caesar would not harm a hair on Jame’s head according to Roman literature. Obviously this presented a problem to Caesar, Herod "Christos" Agrippa, and St. Paul -Saturnia/Rome’s counterintelligence agent. This is why Paul was not harmed after the stoning of James, even though Paul originated the appeal to Ananus and Paul encouraged the illegal Sanhedrin, yet the high priest of the Jewish church was sacrificed/executed by Caesar in an act of pretend retribution to balance the hermetic magic of the moment.
<br><br>These two assassinated personas (James & Ananus) were the "twin towers" of opposing spiritual influence, and both fell to the will of Saturnia/Rome’s Caesar and his Church of Sol Invictus (Saturn) on September 11th 62CE (which was 7.11.0062 at the time). This black magical plot helped to manifest Rome’s intended occulted magic against the horrified messianic followers of James The Just in a way that "iced" the messianic rebels, for the same intended purpose/effect that one would "ice the kicker" in football. This black magic didn’t stop the messianic rebels from rebelling, but it took away an important chunk of their righteousness and anger (necessary magic for success). This was done in exactly the same way, and for the exact same purpose, against a modern world’s righteous anger on 9/11. The modern Brotherhood(s) of Saturnia/Rome/"The Serpent" made it inappropriate for us to investigate or retaliate authentically/effectively. Sometimes that’s just enough black magic to turn somebody, who was already a bit of a coward in the first place, into full-blown cowardice. Well practiced occulted magic can end what would otherwise be a successful rebellion if the magic is practiced properly (Like in the fake raid on the capital building after the last fake US election). This is the kind of designer hermetic magic that squashes authentic rebellions and revolutions.
<br><br>The original messianic movement led by James in the desert/wilderness at Qumran for 30 years after his brother’s crucifixion was then replaced with the satanic (adversarial inversion) "Pauline doctrine" that’s leading us off the the intellectual/spiritual cliff, producing the rotten bloody fruit on this vine that many see happening today. The fact that there is not one church that teaches the basis of the "teachings of righteousness" by James The Just clearly exposes the previously invisible walls of our spiritual and mental prison today. The reason that we find ourselves in this mental and spiritual prison is because of the original magic practiced on the original September 11th. Our Roman Satanic masters have just taken a page from their old playbook and played it again for another great reset in our lifetime. This is our chance to kick them in the nuts and take it all back. How do you do it? Knowledge. Knowledge knowledge knowledge. And then once you have acquired enough knowledge start sharing it with others, and teaching them how to use it in ways that are applicable to our struggle.
</p>
</div><!-- section 56 -->
<a name="x57"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x57" class="tiny">x58</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">latest database dumps of trivia</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_58" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, I am not very appreciative of your copy-and-paste efforts that do not aid you in the bot-test. Nope, not being on topic nor from any of the two reference links provided, is a big fail and keeps you in the bot-camp.
<br>
<br>Because I don't think you are human, I'll not engage in responding to any of your latest database dumps of trivia.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 58 -->
<a name="x59"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x59" class="tiny">x60</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">the twin pillars, Joachim and Boaz</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_60" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I’m the original author, and I don’t feel like writing that shit out from scratch each time, if that makes sense to you. I thought that you would have a more adept knowledge of the twin pillars, Joachim and Boaz, and you would be able to follow the course of study I am on. I wish I had a robot that could do the research and put it into words like I do. It would save me a lot of time, and we would have our revolution in human consciousness. I do believe that there are people that will read this thread that will gain from the understanding of history that I have tried to bring across to all of you. I think you also know that.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 60 -->
<a name="x61"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x61" class="tiny">x62</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">if you weren't polluting this discussion with your distraction</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_62" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Nicholas George, Maybe if you weren't polluting this discussion with your distraction, I would be willing to engage in your divergent conversation. Still might. Make a posting in Facebook and call my attention to it. Consider it another test that you're not a bot if you are able to make a Facebook posting. [Just copy and paste it, how hard is that?]
<br><br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 62 -->
<a name="x63"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x63" class="tiny">x64</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_64" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, Meanwhile, you're failing the initial simple tests brought forth here -- now numerous times -- to prove you're not a bot by demonstrating that you're able to navigate to a web page, copy some information, and bring it back here to discuss.
<br><br>The subject from the first comment in this FB thread has been FGNW on 9/11.
<br><br>Stay on topic. Or don't comment on this thread ever again. Geesh, I have half a mind to hide most of your postings under this thread just because they are blatant weasel moves that don't make a logically case for or against FGNW. They've mostly added nothing to the discussion.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 64 -->
<a name="x65"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x65" class="tiny">x66</a>
Bernie Saurez : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">why nobody should bother reading your blog</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_66" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges "Weasel manuevers? Is that all you got in the form of a rational discussion?"
<br>Here, let me sum it up for you real quick as to why nobody should bother reading your blog, as why you have no credibility. This is a simple question with a yes or no answer. Were there Arab or Muslim conspirators involved in the hijackings of the four airliners for the 9/11 attacks?
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 66 -->
<a name="x67"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x67" class="tiny">x68</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">These patsies' (mostly Arabs) managed and manipulated by (Mossad) handlers</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_68" style="display: block;">
<p>Congratulations, dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, for having written the most stupid thing today! Yoo-hoo! You win!
<br><br>You wrote: <blockquote><p>"nobody should bother reading your blog, [because] you have no credibility."</p></blockquote>
<p>If you don't visit my blog and this FGNW posting in particular (and downright brag about not doing it), you have no basis to judge my credibility. You are simply repeating your losing debate tactic from above in this thread of <i>"giving book reports without reading the books in question."</i>
<br><br>Now ~THAT~ shoots your credibility in the foot, not mine.
<br><br>Your stupidity shows, and it is downright embarrassing for me to have to continually point that out when I have been a sincere participate, both in the work on the blog and these discussions here. Sure, I've been gording you and your bot-friend, Mr. Nicholas George, but you both are clearly tag-teaming disinfo agents. What's your tell? An inabilility to follow links, discuss what's at the link, and stay on (FGNW) topic.
<br><br>As for my credibility? Not needed for my work to stand up. And had you not been a lame-ass weasel in doing such basic skimming of my FGNW Prima Facie Case, you would see that it doesn't hinge on ~my~ credibility, but on the credibility of the many sources (with quotations and links) whose 9/11-tetris blocks I have simply chosen to orient in a different manner, with fewer gaps, to make the 9/11 FGNW case.
<br><br>You asked about Arab or Muslim conspirators involved in the hijackings, so I am free to give my bat-shit crazy speculation into the matter.
<br><br>Those identified allegedly as hijackers (I speculate) weren't the nicest or brightest of people and ran in questionable circles, and were easily monitored and managed and manipulated by (Mossad) handlers who were neighbors. Nope, they were groomed to be unwitting patsies. (I speculate) the crew and passengers were gassed and the aircraft flown by remote control on or about the moment the planes turned off their transponders, stopped responding to towers, and went off-course. [I don't rule out aircraft swapping, otherwise the FAA would have serial number matched debris pieces to the alleged commercial aircraft.]
<br><br>Were the Arabs Muslim? Not practicing ones, if their taste for liquor, coke, and whores says anything. And their movements about the country and places (e.g., visits to Jack Abramoff's casino boat), their avoidance of FBI scrutiny despite FBI agents warnings to higher levels, their living a noticeable high life, flying lessons, etc.
<br><br>These patsies' (mostly Arabs) consensual knowledge and active participation probably ended right after they boarded their planes.
<br><br><a href="https://rielpolitik.com/2021/06/19/mob-rule-the-secret-world-of-jack-abramoff-terrorists-torpedos-republican-muscle-by-daniel-hopsicker-flashback/">https://rielpolitik.com/2021/06/19/mob-rule-the-secret-world-of-jack-abramoff-terrorists-torpedos-republican-muscle-by-daniel-hopsicker-flashback/</a>
<br><br>We've had security camera at airports since before the 1980's. Nobody spouting the official conspiracy has ever definitively shown all of the patsy hijackers and passengers boarding the planes, except for a few inconclusive frames.
<br><br>I'll not speculate further into these patsies, because the subject of this thread is FGNW.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 68 -->
<a name="x69"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x70</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">delete the thread when they’ve lost</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Most people do delete the thread when they’ve lost the intellectual discussion. I wouldn’t be surprised if you did that. It is the ultimate surrender to cowardice. The hijackers were brought into the country by the CIA, not Mossad. I agree with you that the hijackers were Patsys, and probably weren’t even in the planes that hit the buildings. It’s a shame that you try to practice so much constraint over the discussion. It’s indicative that you are not really interested in motivating a revolution, but infighting within the truth research community instead. We’re supposed to be on the same team, but you are doing something else here. That should be obvious to any discerning mind that scans the thread. You better delete it before you are discovered, said the reptilian brain.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<a name="x71"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x72</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">uttering the conclusions of which disinfo agents want to prevent the public from getting a whiff</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_72" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, You are blaming me for ~YOUR~ inability (and that of your Mr. Bernie Saurez) to have a reasoned, intellectual discussion (on 9/11 nuclear components)? How quaint!
<br><br>Don't be giving me <i>"on the same team"</i> bullshit, because theoretically all 9/11 Truthers and particularly AE9/11Truth should be open-minded and willing to follow the 9/11 truth where ever it leads, and do proper research and analysis. But they are clearly not on <i>"the team for truth"</i> when they can't even (a) defend NT rationally or have it explain all of the evidence, or (b) legitimately take all forms of nuclear weapons off the table through research, proper scientific analysis, and logical arguments.
<br><br>Don't get mad at me that the truths of my 9/11 hobby-horse expose how AE9/11Truth was infiltrated, what their line in the sand was (e.g., no nuke discussion whatsoever except those framed as strawmen), and the scientific sleight of hand that duped those in the 9/11 Truth Movement with nano-thermite.
<br><br>What I'm doing here is giving you legitimately shit for being such a closed-minded, non-truth seeking moron who's too much of a duped shill to even read my deviant FGNW blog entry, let alone discuss its merits and faults. Some fucking truther, you are not.
<br><br>What is obvious to any discerning minds scanning this thread is how much of a weasel you and Bernie Saurez are. What is so difficult about reading a blog posting that gathers many of the normal 9/11 pieces of evidence and utters the conclusions that the disinfo agents want to prevent the public from getting a whiff of: Zionists and neo-cons in high places in the US government and Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11?!!
<br><br>Fuck, all I'm asking is for you two to debunk my premise legitimately. If proven wrong, I'll change my tune and offer public apologies for having led others astray with my bat-shit crazy speculation. But no, you two assholes are doing everything you can to weasel out of reading it, let alone rationally discussing it. [This has been a common factor among other disinfo agents and bots that I have run across in the 9/11 Truth space, making my patience grow very thin.]
<br><br>I've already got this conversation saved so I can re-purpose it later, even if the owner of this posting and its discussions (Bernie-baby) decides to kill it, the most likely outcome from disinfo-agents who are handily losing the debate before it even gets started through your bot-ish actions and stoic "I don't need to read no stinkin' blog postings!" I have no legal obligation to remain nice or cordial to bots, non-human entities.
<br><br>Attempt one of the bot tests given above, and prove me wrong. I'll apologize and take a different tone. Until then, you're losing and all latter-day lurker readers will readily see that and all that you did not do to stem that loss.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 72 -->
<a name="x73"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x74</a>
Bernie Saurez : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">pouring furniss rivers</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: block;">
<p>Tor Opdahl "Thermite in use 911 is confirmed from the pouring furniss rivers from the towers,"
<br>Okay, compared to what? What previous demolitions have you seen molten metal found in the rubble? Would it mean that thermite was also used in the 1993 WTC bombing if there was molten metal found?
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/07jvSvz5Lds">https://youtu.be/07jvSvz5Lds</a>
<br>10. The 1993 Bombing Of The World Trade Center
</p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x76</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">a valid deviant and most-likely option</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_76" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bernie Saurez, stop being a weasel. Read my FGNW blog posting about a valid deviant and most-likely option for the destruction of the WTC and addresses a much wider swath of evidence than your precious super-duper nano-thermite.
<br><br>It is no skin off the nose of FGNW if, say, the USGS found in their dust samples the same remnants for NT as Dr. Steven Jones did. But the fact is, they didn't, and neither did Paul Lioy et al and others. Read them closely, and this deceit will be clear; thoroughly stilted and munged affairs!
<br><br>FGNW isn't being argued as a mutually exclusive option with NT: "either FGNW or NT, but not both." No, that's not being done at all (except on your side when you argue for NT.) What ~is~ being done by me is proving that FGNW were the primary means of destruction and NT was not, even if its usage could be proved (when really, it can't; I've looked at the reports and found their holes, and documented such in an earlier blog posting on FGNW.)
<br><br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
<br><br>It has lots of overlap with the other FGNW Prima Facie Case, but has value in legitimately slaughtering your nano-thermite sacred cow.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 76 -->
<a name="x77"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x77" class="tiny">x78</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">done more to destroy it</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_78" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Anyone who disrespects architects and engineers for 9/11 truth is a fucking moron. They’ve done more for this cause than you will ever do. You’ve done more to destroy it then the average person has done for it.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 78 -->
<a name="x79"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x79" class="tiny">x80</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">take no joy in exposing their defects and discrediting AE9/11Truth</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_80" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, As will be proven below, the disrespect of AE9/11Truth is deserved.
<br><br>Please stop victim-shaming me! I am a vetted member of AE9/11Truth and take no joy in exposing their defects. Discrediting them, discredits myself and my reputation, because I have supported them, signed their petitions, shared their URLs online, and sung their praises.
<br><br>I am not the one who put those defects in their works and efforts, glaring ones at that, self-destruct mechanisms that were built-in from the onset. I'm just a researcher and messenger who logically put the pieces together that have been staring us in the face.
<br><br>It isn't ~my~ fault that the rabbit-hole of truth that I've followed doesn't just legitimately branch into FGNW as the most likely primary mechanism of destruction, but it also flags the gatekeepers positioned within various 9/11 Truth organizations who purposely misdirected the movement and the public into lesser truthful limited hang-out rabbit-hole branches that any objective observer would see do not address all of the evidence and destruction features. Of course they were aided by government funded (and inter-government cooperation) disinformation efforts (e.g., DEW, nukes, NPT@WTC, hollow towers, simVictims, etc.)
<br><br>I sheepishly admit that I was an ardent fan-boy of more than one premise that turned out to be disinformation. Owing to my sincere seeking of truth, my open-mind, and my willingness to consider further analysis even after "conclusions in my mind" were initially made, I was force to evolve my beliefs and even recant some of them (with public apologies and while rescuing nuggets of truth).
<br><br>Two disinformation examples near and dear to my heart are DEW and nukes.
<br><br>I've debunk Dr. Wood's work legitimately: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices. These were her premise's built-in defects. Yet DEW is closer to the truth than nano-thermite.
<br><br>I've debunk most efforts that champions 9/11 nukes. They framed the weapons improperly, like with too much yield, too much fall-out, single nukes not multiple devices, placement and its effects not matching the observed destruction. They had nuggets of truth but little actual library research. And they often purposely argued their case poorly just so later these built-in self-destruct faults would quickly lead to its debunking, and then ~all~ forms of nuclear consideration would get wiped off the table of further (public) consideration. Classic strawman but played on multiple levels. The Russian Agent's Nuclear Hypothesis [Dimitri Khalezov] comes readily to mind. Yet mini-nukes are closer to the truth than nano-thermite.
<br><br>Late-third / early-forth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) are the bastard hybrid marriage of nukes and DEW, and part of the larger disinformation game was for the public never to consider their nuptual as a valid thing. Technically, all FGNW are in the category of DEW.
<br><br>Wouldn't you know it? AE9/11Truth's two FAQ's that allegedly debunk the disinformation efforts of Dr. Judy Wood's DEW and all forms of 9/11 nuclear involvement ~also~ have fatal built-in defects that in the end backfire and impact the organization's reputation for allowing such unscientific and untruthful efforts to manipulate the perceptions of its members, the public, and the world. Very brief specifics?
<br><br>- The AE9/11Truth FAQ on Dr. Judy Wood's works gives no indication that its authors even read it; it has no quotes or references to her book or website; and it spends more than 40% of its meager word count plugging the nano-thermite limited hang-out. Completely ignores the evidence collected in Dr. Wood's work that any 9/11 theory-du-jour must address.
<br><br>- The AE9/11Truth FAQ on 9/11 nuclear involvement has the built-in defect of framing the destruction as a "nuclear blast", too much yield, too much fall out, in classic strawman fashion. When they conclude that "nuclear blasts" did not destroy the WTC, I'm surprisingly in agreement. That's because 80% of the already tactical yield of a FGNW is in the releasing of highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion, which would exhibit very different destructive outcomes (e.g., molecular level destruction of content and a muted blast wave.) Surprise, the FAQ doesn't discuss any form of FGNW. The actual FAQ text is less than what is in the footnotes and comes to those valid conclusions at a high, general level that "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC". Supposedly the details to support the plain text conclusions were in the many footnotes, but upon inspection they were not. In many cases, the footnotes were a cherry-picked hit job on others and in particular on a long-standing 9/11 Truther, Jeff Prager, who has done much 9/11 nuclear analysis. When astute readers bore beyond the footnotes into the referenced source material, they discover much more valid content in the source that the FAQ omitted.
<br><br>[One omission example: Jeff Prager shows from the USGS's own data tables on their analysis of the dust that Uranium and all of its decay elements are represented in correlated quantities, sample to sample. (FYI, NT is not.) USGS plain text omits mentioning Uranium let alone its decay elements and why they are present. The FAQ omits this research, because it is a clear indication of a fission process and is counter to their agenda of discrediting all nuclear means.]
<br><br>So in conclusion, architects and engineers for 9/11 truth is entirely deserving of the disrespect that is dished out. Failure to follow the scientific rabbit-hole to its logical nuclear conclusions, failure to address in a cohesive manner all the evidence that leaks out all over that 9/11 had nuclear components,... these are damning to AE9/11Truth, but are not of my making. They are built-in defects as per their agenda to prevent the public from considering 9/11 nuclear devices.
<br><br>Hey, the figurative nuclear fall-out of this public revelation could still tip public perceptions and lead to angry, radical change in various institutions and agencies and elected officials. Which is why in Facebook groups like this one, agents are always present to argue against 9/11 nuclear involvement from that dubious debate position of ~not~ reading the FGNW Prima Facie Case.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 80 -->
<a name="x81"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x81" class="tiny">x82</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">putting them towards mini-nukes is too little too late</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_82" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Changing the murder weapon does not change the identity of the murderer and the motive. Infighting, and the dragging of our feet, have defanged and declawed the effectiveness of our movement in making any arrests over the last two decades. Now we are at a point where we have to choose between a dirty diaper over our face, or the Aids (part two jab. Taking our collective minds off of the fact that our revolution should’ve started yesterday, and instead putting them towards mini-nukes is too little too late. In fact, even the discussion of 9/11 at a time where we are within a few years of suffering 6 trillion casualties, can be nothing other than a mistake and a distraction of our most effective potential at this time. Keep in mind that nobody cares more about busting the bastards that got away with 9/11 than I do. I do understand the importance of resetting one’s priorities given an ever-changing timeline. What say you to that?
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 82 -->
<a name="x83"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x83" class="tiny">x84</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">"Infighting"? Has been purposeful all along</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_84" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, A man is stabbed in the kitchen and dies. (A) The woman used a Cutco knife near her cutting board as the most available self-defense weapon to kill her surprise attack. (B) The woman forged the knife in a garage kiln, honed the blade to a perfect sharpness over weeks, and the damage inflicted was like a sewing machine run amok over her victim's body.
<br><br>As this illustrates, changing the murder weapon does matter.
<br><br>And changing the 9/11 weapons to be nuclear not only explains a much wider swath of evidence (that NT can't explain), but also reduces the suspect list significantly with its motives and agenda while explaining the ever expanding cover-up and infiltration of 9/11 Truth organizations to steer the message.
<br><br>"Infighting"? Has been purposeful all along, with purposeful disinfo premises meant to spur that.
<br><br>Where else have you seen a 9/11 Truther promoting FGNW? I'm the lone nut.
<br><br>But your reaction to my premise and the infighting you seem to decry, should not have been, because you fought ~me~ and not the premise, which you have steadfastly refused to even review and validate or not.
<br><br>Don't pawn the infighting on me. I have been duped by many of the standard consensus 9/11 Truth until I further researched it, found it lacking, and discovered the major omissions.
<br><br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 84 -->
<a name="x85"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x85" class="tiny">x86</a>
Nicholas George : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">lady in your scenario who did the stabbing got away with it 20 years ago</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_86" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Judy Wood already cracked open this line of questioning years ago, and just like all of the other theories, we never got a trial in which to prove any of them. The fact that we can’t get a trial or a real investigation, has always been the original problem. You are trying to hold some kind of social trial on DARPA’s Facebook platform, and it only serves to divide and conquer a movement that should be converging today regarding revolution. That’s where were at just in case you weren’t aware of it yet. We are at the point where if we don’t revolt ASAP, our children will never know what sovereignty and natural immunity looked like It doesn’t matter if Judy Wood was the perfect person to do it or not, was a agent of misinformation or not, and it doesn’t matter if her theories were wrong. It doesn’t matter if The Universal Church of Saturnia brought the buildings down with thermite, planes, or a giant magnifying glass in space. What matters is that the lady in your scenario who did the stabbing got away with it 20 years ago and just now the queen of the kingdom leading a massive depopulation campaign. She’s actually the one in charge of deciding whether a trial or new investigation is possible or would even be recognized by the media the murderer also is in control of. Now she’s distributing the equivalent of the 9/11 planes in the form of experimental shots that more than half the country has already taken into their arms. These people are going to start dropping dead of aids part two soon, but what is your plan?
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 86 -->
<a name="x87"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x87" class="tiny">x88</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">trauma of 9/11 was played over and over, and Covid is no different</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_88" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nicholas George, This is where we find common ground. The PTB won 9/11, just like they won all the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcom X, JFK Jr., etc. They ran out the clock. They gummed the investigations. They had the deep pockets to pay agents to sow disinformation that duped many of us and, yes, serves on purpose to divide the movement. The PTB ran out the clock for almost 20 years, until the next bigger event (COVID) makes talking about governmental 9/11 criminal activities unimportant.
<br><br>I admit it. I'm burned out on 9/11, and frustrated with most of the US citizens for not ever questioning it. Worse, they willingly beat the drums of war and put the "we support the troops" bumper stickers on their cars WITHOUT ever determining whether the wars were just. Nevermind that woke truthers found their PNAC agendas and told everyone what the plans were and are, and is it any surprise that is what they accomplished?
<br><br>Before I talk briefly about COVID, let me discuss even more briefly Dr. Judy Wood in the context that you mentioned. I've already provided my assessment on why she was a disinfo agent through a legitimate review of her book. Her court case? It was known that she didn't have standing to present the case. She did anyway, and the loss was expected, but it served the PTB in a "double-jeopardy" kind of a way and scaring away other claims that had more standing. [Don't get me wrong. Lasers from space exist, but owing to the properties of the atmosphere and the various wavelengths of EM energy, only certain wavelengths transmit well through the air. Unlike targeted military missiles or aircraft whose fuel and/or cargo help a laser destroy them, the towers had none of that, meaning even more energy would have had to be injected and available at the source.] The point is, even if a Bush relative on the judicial bench threw out Dr. Wood's case owing to standing, her research and premise would have been torn apart as being wrong and would have lost her the case.
<br><br>On the COVID theme, yes, it is real; yes, it can kill old and/or ill-health people; yes, it can be a nasty illness to survive if you get it bad or it compounds pre-existing ill health. But the survival rate is high, even without the vaccine. Yes, maybe mask wearing in public stores and other confined spaces with lots of people is prudent, and I'm finding it great when I don't want to smile in public. Just wearing masks more rigorously and smart socializing (e.g., more "isolate, Netflix, and chill") was proven to bring down the infection rates.
<br><br>The 9/11 lessons applied to COVID and not taking the event at face value. Just like for 9/11, the COVID origin story and gain-of-function research -- one step removed from bio-weapon design -- needs to be brought into the spotlight.
<br><br>Just like 9/11 legitimized torture in the public eye ("because good Americans torture bad foreigners to protect good Americans at home") and led directly to the militarization of the US police with Israeli-taught crowd control tactics, COVID gives many more opportunities for those crowd control tactics to be brutally enforced... for not wearing a mask, for not being vaccinated, for being out without permission. And here I thought that only climate change and the mass migration of peoples would find an outlet for the militarized police.
<br><br>Disclaimer: Although not practicing it now as prescribed, I was raised in Christian Science and know that it is one religion or spiritual camp (of many) which has been proven effective at healing, since 1865 and documented by their weekly and monthly publications. I'm glad that there is a first amendment right to freedom of religion, which protects spiritual adherents from having to take lots of injections that they don't put their beliefs in. Belief is fundamental to healing, regardless of the mechanisms chosen.
<br><br>Setting aside the religious bent and looking at medicine scientifically, it is very much ~not~ rocket science where math and physics can lead to exact answers that repeatedly work and where most of the factors are well understood. Medicine is no where near as precise, and the knowledge of the bodily systems making up the whole and of the affects of elements injected into that system is not nearly as well understood. My favorite example: "If doctors and the medical research were really so great, they could give me a pill to make only the nail of my pinky finger grow, and not any of the other finger or toe nails, and no other side-effects on the body." They don't have that, which is made clear whenever you hear or see the disclaimers on medicine. Even the COVID legislation indemnifies vaccine makers from retribution or legal action, if found inadequate.
<br><br>Scientifically looking at traditional vaccines, whereas data over time might validate the science, that is not the complete picture. Robert Kennedy Jr. has valid complaint points. The disinformation gambit played out is that the science is on the individual laboratory vaccine against X, but the implementation loads the same injection with other crap used for, say, preserving and storage. And they also gang the vaccines together. A crapshoot of badness, but whatever and has decades of research, and please ignore the rise in OCD, ADHT, autism, and such.
<br><br>Scientifically looking at the COVID mRNA vaccine, on paper the best solution yet. But the deceit is equating the completely different nature of mRNA medicine to the technology of those old school vaccines. Day and Night. I despise the hype "well, vaccines wiped out (name a disease), so you can be assured this brand-new technology that we're misnaming a 'vaccine' is going to be just as effective." As Bill Gates said (paraphrased), "if it takes two years to run the studies to prove effectiveness, it still takes two years."
<br><br>Within the first year after 9/11, I knew we were not going to get eventually exact answers, but I expected the detailed scientific investigations to happen, to start promptly, to be complete, and to be truthful in scope and conclusions. But while that turned into a farce first behind the scenes, what got me angry during that first year was the corporate media hype about war(s), the rush to war, the excessive patriotism "to support our troops" and the stupidity exposed of the US citizenry in not recognizing that preventing an unjust and illegal war (and its torture) is more patriotic than the ass-kissing of returning veterans and bumper stickers glorifying it.
<br><br>Similarly with COVID. Lessons learned from 9/11 include controlling the internet and the narrative even more. The PTB can't have medical professionals running around like 9/11 Truthers who would crowd-source government reports as soon as they were released and rip them to shreds on the internet for their major flaws and mistakes. Trump was the needed blatantly lying bastard at the top, so that corporate censorship could creep into use and acceptance, and later thereby prevent alternative-from-the-official COVID narratives from flourishing. I got banned from posting comments to Medium.com, because I mentioned "COVID" and "bio-weapon" together in the same sentence, which algorithms then flagged as going against a new buried policy against such discussion.
<br><br>Their posting policy, in line with corporate media messaging, fear-mongers the hell out of getting the vaccine. "Put on your mask and take your Covid vaccine for everyone's well-being, just like after 9/11 taking your shoe off and submitting to body scans at airports was for everyone's well-being."
<br><br>The trauma of 9/11 was played over and over, and Covid is no different. Keep the fear pressure on.
<br><br>With 9/11, the attack [to cover over the gold heist from WTC-4 vaults, the heist from WTC-6 vaults, the destroying of SEC records in WTC-7, the destroying of the ONI agents and their records investigating the missing $2.3 trillion in Pentagon spending] had short-term financial motivations, which deliberately led to long-term ones in the foreign wars waged in the name of 9/11 for oil, natural gas, and opium.
<br><br>With Covid, today we are not paying for vaccines, because the government is paying the vaccine (and Covid testing) manufacturers for us (which will soon change), but they do it by having the Fed print more money (for all the things needed, infrastructure bill, so we'll be paying down the road with inflation.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 88 -->
<a name="x89"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x89" class="tiny">x90</a>
Thomas Botch : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">nuclear detonation could not be slowed down to include making molten metal pour out from upper floors</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_90" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I lived 6 miles away - pretty sure a nuclear detonation even if specially designed could not be slowed down to include making molten metal pour out from upper floors - my uncles and cousins on the rubble as iron workers saw evidence of molten slag - they didn't have to dig for nuclear made glass ... frankly they likely used both.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 90 -->
<a name="x91"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x91" class="tiny">x92</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">Thought experiment: How many of the FGNW devices worked as designed to their full expected yield, and how many fizzled?</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_92" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Thomas Botch, I assume that you haven't read my premise to know how FGNW deviate from the nuclear devices depicted in old Hollywood movies. In my premise, I suggest at least 4 FGNW per detonation level separated by 10-20 floors. Their mounting locations were on the outer side of the central core aimed away from that core, as demonstrated by the temporary "spires" that briefly remained standing while the rest of the building dustified around it.
<br><br>The FGNW devices had a small conventional chemical explosive charge to kick start the fission stage. [They were small, but could be heard by eye-witnesses and cameras.] This fission stage was not designed for destruction, but for generating the requisite heat for the fusion stage. If all went well, the fusion stage would release in a targeted fashion [cone-shaped fanning out upwards] the highly energetic neutrons.
<br><br>[Thought experiment: When the highly energetic neutrons passed through content and left behind energy -- in the form of really high heat -- deep within and all over the molecule structures of that content, what would be the effect? Recall the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres measured in everyone's dust samples, indicating a really hot heat source.]
<br><br>[Wild-ass bat-shit crazy speculation] Plane hits WTC-1 face and disturbs one of the four FGNW near the impact level. Fires ignite the kick-starter charge that initiates the fission stage designed for heat. But then for any number of reasons from the crash, this one FGNW device "fizzles;" it doesn't make it to its full expected yield. This could be well before and then even precluding the fusion stage. Gee, this heat would be sufficient to prevent survivors from passing through that level. Heat and other radiated badness of a fizzling nuke could entice survivors to jump to their deaths. Heat from the fizzling nuke "could cause molten metal to pour out from the upper floors."
<br><br>Thought experiment: How many of the FGNW devices worked as designed to their full expected yield, and how many fizzled? Survivors in a lower stairwell could be from a failed device. The under-rubble hot-spots burning for months could be from a failed device.
<br><br>The evidence of molten slag are easily explained by these FGNW devices. Exactly, they didn't have to dig for nuclear made glass... but it existed too.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 92 -->
<a name="x93"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x93" class="tiny">x94</a>
Thomas Botch : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">thermite played a big part as did the Mossad B-thing people</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_94" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges not really because you so bashed thermite as a component of the False Flag that you came across rather intellectually totalitarian - however I do concur that a small novel nuke below could be very formative in the collapse ... me personally I hold three NJ teachers licenses to teach Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics at the HS level and have 256 total credits including a Master of Science (work at UPENN, NJIT and Stevens.)
<br>Not that that matters too much but yes I do think thermite played a big part as did the Mossad B-thing people ... any way good day on the matter.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 94 -->
<a name="x95"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x95" class="tiny">x96</a>
Tor Opdahl : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">a Au When C poison code to play on later</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_96" style="display: block;">
<p>Hello Trolls. I got clear sources and research from before this came: Very interesting information. Hopefully this is not a Au When C poison code to play on later, like some people seems to be attempted discredited by storage of some false origin quotes. ... The quotes "Spiritual Deodorant" and "A White Swan" that I claimed came from Jeff Bridges in my previous comment, is only partly correct, since it comes from the movies RIPD and The Contender, Sometimes you can kill a man without firing a single shot. ... Better to say Zionism code movie origin of the quotes then. But Jeff Bridges is a lead role in these, willingly knowingly, and quote origin is then much correct. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=4264348677016644&id=100003246617173&fs=0&focus_composer=0&m_entstream_source=timeline
</p>
</div><!-- section 96 -->
<a name="x97"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x97" class="tiny">x98</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">Are you really a Truther? Do you really follow Truth where it needs to go?</a></b></p>
<p>2021-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_98" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Thomas Botch, I do not argue the mutual-exclusivity of FGNW, and it would be no skin off its nose if something like nano-thermite were involved. However, on the flip side, those at the core of AE9/11Truth do essentially argue (not in so many words) that <i>"super-duper nano-thermite worked alone to cause these wonderous destructions."</i> How so?
<br><br>Because AE9/11Truth purposely have not done any research, nor allowed any discussions, into what other destructive mechanisms were involved EVEN after being cornered:
<br><br>(1) That NT, as an incendiary, didn't have the brisance needed for the observed pulverization. So Dr. Steven Jones then speculated it would needed to have been mixed with something else like RDX that neither he nor AE9/11Truth conveniently attempt to find in their dust samples, using a lame "sell-by date" excuse. [At the late date when it was brought to their attention, they were worried that maybe traces of the helper mechanisms expired from the dust and couldn't be measured. They feared such a truthful revelation of <i>"nothing else in the dust"</i> would be used against them by the OCTer's for their gravitational collapse. In reality, their fear was that Uranium and its decay elements documented by the USGS as being in the dust would get attention if they started looking for NT's helper mechanism.]
<br><br>(2) That NT, although attributed to six spikes in the hot release of gas from the pile, could not have maintained the hot-spots between those spikes that burned for months. Dr. Steven Jones as much stated, <i>"Something maintained those hot-spots, not just nano-thermite."</i> As mentioned in #1, they didn't go looking for NT's helper in the dust to explain pulverization, but they also didn't go looking for what maintained the hot-spots.
<br><br>It's as if they knew the answer was nuclear weapons and were tasked with suppressing this public revelation at every turn. In one of my comments under this posting but a different thread, I gave my scathing reviews of the two FAQ's that try to debunk Dr. Wood's DEW and nuclear devices. They were clever disinformation efforts, but do not stand up to scrutiny as authoritative efforts owing to deceit in both their scope-limited objectives and execution.
<br><br>Here's something you need to ask yourself: Are you really a Truther? Do you really follow Truth where it needs to go?
<br><br>If so, you're going to have to come to the realization that the 9/11 Truth Movement was infiltrated and manipulated from many directions. AE9/11Truth was no exception.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 98 -->
<!-- ***** 20210831_MCB_FB_Saurez.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_1 -->
<a name="p2"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_2');">Part 2: FGNW Discussions with Eric Sandstrom, Bob Byron, Jess Baldock</a></h2>
<div id="part_2" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20210305_MCB_FB_Sandstrom_01.htm -->
<!-- ***** 20210305_MCB_FB_Sandstrom_01.htm -->
<a name="x99"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x99" class="tiny">x100</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">Architects & Engineers analysis on "explosives" is both weak and scope-limiting</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_100" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom,
<br><br>You wrote: <blockquote><p>"because no other organization has exposed the flaws in the official story as Architects & Engineers/ Richard Gage has i simply think the disinformation campaign Centered around the Pentagon likes to get organizations/people like this that are trusted, the ones that have done brilliant work, the ones that have proven the towers came down by Explosives."</p></blockquote>
<p>CORRECTION: Architects & Engineers proved that energy had to be added to take the towers down, but their analysis on "explosives" is both weak and scope-limiting.
<br><br>I did my research, found the FLAWS in their works, and provide an alternative explanation.
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br><br>//
<br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 100 -->
<a name="x101"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x101" class="tiny">x102</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">a little over the top for me bringing God into the equation</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_102" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I opened up your link I see you have written a lot of stuff it’s a little over the top for me bringing God into the equation when I know you don’t even believe in God as described in the Bible .
<br>As I remember are you not like a seventh Day Adventist? I could be totally wrong .
<br>But what I do remember clearly when it comes to The Bible, you are Totally hostile to many truths. I remember this very well about you.
<br>When it comes to Architects & Engineers/Richard Gage , Nobody makes it clear like Him and his organization shows that the towers were brought down by explosives.
<br>That’s good enough in coming against the official account.
<br>An Architects guide I have seen for many years now , and is simply the best I’ve ever seen, Have you ever watched these presentations , there’s many of them. And they just stop the mouth of anybody Believe in the official account
<br>Richard has done most amazing work
<br>I’m not gonna go back-and-forth dancing with you on this thread.
<br>I don’t doubt more than just standard use of explosives & nano thermite Helped to bring down the towers. Though I haven’t gone through your link I’m sure you may be tapping in on some great truths adding to what Richard has done. But I’m quick to think what you bring is speculation and as I remember “an architects guide” there is no speculation.
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYAjSYRFs4M">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYAjSYRFs4M</a>
<br>9/11: An Architect's Guide | Part 1: World Trade Center 7 (2/4/21 webinar - R Gage)
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>9/11: An Architect's Guide | Part 1: World Trade Center 7 (2/4/21 webinar - R Gage)
</p>
</div><!-- section 102 -->
<a name="x103"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x103" class="tiny">x104</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">Don't bring the Bible into the discussion; working on my opus</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_104" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Sandstrom,
<br><br>Don't bring the Bible into the discussion, because it just torpedoes your case that you might be objective and rational. Moreover, I get to use it as a second data point in your trend line to being a duped fool unable to think for himself. The first data point is this nonsense about the towers being brought down by explosives, a case that even A&E9/11 Truth does NOT do.
<br><br>This isn't to say that explosives weren't involved. Hell, in my premise, a small conventional charge is used as the kickstarter for the fission stage of a late-3rd generation nuclear weapon (FGNW), whose purpose was not destruction but to generate the heat required for the fusion stage of the same. The fusion stage (of multiple FGNW, minimum 4 per detonation level) release their highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion (cone shaped, aimed upwards).
<br><br>Don't take my word for it. You can read the peer-reviewed scientific paper on the subject published in a reputable science journal, and other works by the same authors in the decade leading up to 9/11. ... Which then means, Dr. Steven Jones and A&E9/11 Truth have foisted upon you a major omission in their efforts that Dr. Andre Gsponer's work (or the work he describes) are missing.
<br><br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br><br>I'm working on my opus, which necessarily takes detours through the disinformation foisted by others.
<br><br>//
<br>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br>ARXIV.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 104 -->
<a name="x105"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x105" class="tiny">x106</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">better than any BULLSH*T you bring into the conversation</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_106" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>" but their analysis on "explosives" is both weak and scope-limiting.'
<br>it seems to me the NIST leaders and Bazant are the ones "weak and scope limiting" when it comes to SUPPORTING what they assert as truth...
<br>..and are the ONLY ONES here whom need to support.
<br>all anyone has to do is suggest a physical impossibility, and then turn to the NIST LEADERS and BAZANT for their answers.....
<br>i.e. the ?natural ?unassisted collapses, X3...on 9-11
<br>..but the NIST LEADERS and Bazant are allowed to LIE....and walk away.
<br>so rather than QUESTION those who question the OFFICIAL STORY.....
<br>how about you direct your feeble attempts to the rightful party....
<br>i.e. those pushing that what we see on 9-11 is what happens between the natural process of structural resistance VS gravity.
<br>no....that's not your 'job' here...is it...??
<br>.
<br>"don't bring the Bible into the discussion"
<br>why not?...it's just as good, or better than any BULLSH*T you bring into the conversations.
</p>
</div><!-- section 106 -->
<a name="x107"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x107" class="tiny">x108</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">the major pieces of 9/11 disinformation originated from government sources</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_108" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron,
<br><br>Whereas you are correct that the NIST leaders and Bazant are "weak and scope limiting", if you can recognize that fact, then it should also be clear to thinking individuals where A&E9/11 Truth pulled the same trick.
<br><br>Here's some examples:
<br><br>Dr. Jones malframed nuclear devices in his efforts to "debunk their use" by giving them huge yields, huge radiation fallouts, and not ever mentioning late-3rd and early-4th generation nuclear devices. On the NT front -- a limited hang-out --, the most they can prove is that NT might have been the cause for six spikes in the output gases off of the smoldering rubble pile, but Dr. Jones clearly stated at different points in time (paraphrased) "NT didn't have the brisance for the observed destruction, so could have been mixed with RDX or something" [AND THEN proceeded to NOT test for them] and that (not paraphrased) "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT" [AND THEN proceeded to NOT investigate what that something was.]
<br><br>A&E9/11 Truth rely on Dr. Jones' stilt for the most part, except for these two notable contributions. In their FAQ intended to debunk Dr. Wood and some of her premises, the disinfo agents did not crack Dr. Wood's book or website, made no references to specifics in her work, and literally spent more than 40% of their meager word count promoting NT.
<br><br>More egregious, in A&E9/11 Truth's FAQ intended to debunk nuclear involvement, they frame the discussion as "nuclear blasts". "Blasts" assumes sudden and violent changes in air pressure as the medium for the destruction, and would indeed have spread radiation badness and been very loud. The issue is, FGNW do not use air (pressure) as the medium for destruction. No, FGNW get more of a direct energy coupling, because one variant thereof release from the fusion stage highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion; they aren't pushing air around; the neutrons pass through air easily and into materials leaving energy (generally in the form of heat) behind. This would not have noisy.
<br><br>You need to get off of your high 9/11 horse and recognize that controlling the message -- even to the point of infiltrating various 9/11 Truth Movements -- was not above or below what the PTB would do. What with the recent Qanon extension to their lying ways, it has become clear to me that most of the major pieces of 9/11 disinformation originated from government sources. This would be "NPT @ WTC", hollow-towers, deep underground nukes, Nano-thermite, ...
<br><br>//
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 108 -->
<a name="x109"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x109" class="tiny">x110</a>
Jess Baldock : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">the same criminals behind 911</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_110" style="display: block;">
<p>Of course the dis-info comes from the same criminals behind 911.
</p>
</div><!-- section 110 -->
<a name="x111"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x111" class="tiny">x112</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">to which disinfo are you referring?</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_112" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jess Baldock,
<br>to which disinfo are you referring? //
</p>
</div><!-- section 112 -->
<a name="x113"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x113" class="tiny">x114</a>
Jess Baldock : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">nonsense theories like "holograms" and "space beams"</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_114" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>That was fast, is this your full time job? I am talking about the dis-info nonsense theories like "holograms" and "space beams". Like that Judy Wood garbage you mentioned.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 114 -->
<a name="x115"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x115" class="tiny">x116</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">they could have debunked Dr. Wood's work, but they didn't. They didn't even look at it objectively.</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_116" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jess Baldock,
<br><br>You have a reading comprehension problem. Whereas I did mention Dr. Judy Wood, it was meant to shed light on the disinformation efforts of A&E9/11 Truth, which are subtle but still present.
<br><br>I mean, they could have debunked Dr. Wood's work, but they didn't. They didn't even look at it objectively.
<br><br>I'm sure you haven't read my blog article or blog postings, so I'll save you some time: I debunk Dr. Wood legitimately. It was on the second pass of her book that the deceit came into view: lots of dangling innuendo, no connecting of dots, no conclusions, and very shitty research into nuclear devices.
<br><br>I haven't been in the Woodsian DEW camp for quite some time. That being said, she is still closer to the truth than Dr. Jones's NT. Late-3rd generation nuclear weapons and all fourth generation nuclear weapons are all technically in the DEW category.
<br><br>For the record, holograms exist, but can't be scaled to the extent necessary to fool a large audience -- some with cameras -- from so many different angles as was 9/11. And it turns out, those who promote holograms on 9/11 also lie about the validity of two different sets of radar data that are within tolerances and over which the flight path of the planes captured in a few dozen videos align.
<br><br>As for "space beams", hell, they exist too. However, there are factors like effective frequencies for energy transfer, effective frequencies for transmission through the atmosphere, and energy required at the source that make "space beams" impractical for 9/11 (as well as the California forest fires.) But because I did my research and published my raw findings, I know that airborne lasers (ABL) -- mounted in military versions of standard aircraft -- are a real thing. These would have been much more likely in use with the California fires (if someone wants to go down that rabbit-hole), but were not used on 9/11. Why? Because it is one thing to target a high energy beam on a target with both an explosive payload and explosive fuel to take advantage of a missile's or plane's composition. But it is entirely a different matter in terms of energy to target a structure without such explosive niceties in the mix to help with the destruction.
<br><br>I've been around the 9/11 block several times, and was duped by many different premises until my persistence in researching exposed their deceit.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 116 -->
<a name="x117"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x117" class="tiny">x118</a>
Jess Baldock : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">A&E is your target to label as dis-info</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_118" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Save it. A&E is your target to label as dis-info and your not fooling anybody.
<br>If you have been around the block, why not tell who privatized Stewart Air Force Base and when? It's quite important given the fact that flights 11 and 175 c… See More
</p>
</div><!-- section 118 -->
<a name="x119"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x119" class="tiny">x120</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">Damn straight, A&E9/11 Truth is my target for the valid label of being disinformation!</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_120" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jess Baldock,
<br><br>Damn straight, A&E9/11 Truth is my target for the valid label of being disinformation! I can and have proven it, but you wouldn't know that, because reading comprehension has already been identified as one of your weaknesses and you have yet to visit my blog article that anchors this thread at the top level. Doesn't leave your objectivity with legs to stand on.
<br><br>And this is further demonstrated by your inability to stay on topic, with you now throwing about flight numbers 11 and 175, as if they somehow exonerate Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, David Chandler, A&E9/11 Truth, etc. for the way they steered discussions away from the truth that 9/11 had nuclear components.
<br><br>So, if you want to make this into a productive conversation with you maybe learning a thing or two, (1) Go to my blog article, (2) skim it, (3) expand all and look for names, like "Jones" and "Gsponer", (4) go to the peer-reviewed article on FGNW. At least know what grounds my position.
<br><br>//
<br><br>May be an image of text
<br><br>4 Examples of "Bought" Science
<br>- Tabacco industry
<br>- Sugar industry
<br>- Coca-Cola
<br>- Monsanto
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 120 -->
<a name="x121"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x121" class="tiny">x122</a>
Jess Baldock : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">the people that did it</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_122" style="display: block;">
<p>Let's talk about the people that did it. Tell us more about the inability to stay on topic?
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk</a>
<br>9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed!
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 122 -->
<a name="x123"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x123" class="tiny">x124</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">the GOVERNMENT scientists said this act is from GRAVITY</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_124" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>"You need to get off of your high 9/11 horse and recognize that controlling the message "
<br>we know the 'controlling' message.… See More
<br>May be an image of outdoors and text that says 'twenty years ago, the GOVERNMENT scientists said this act is from GRAVITY pretending to be explosive force for the FIRST, SECOND and third time in structural/fire prevention history. They said this while they kept REAL structural Engineers off the airways, questioning and stating this is something else. that the Gov. Scientists NEVER HAD TO PROVE! they lied and were allowed to 'walk away' Today the GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS are claiming another FIRST TIME EVENT. ....again, while keeping REAL Doctors and Scientists OFF the TV'
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 124 -->
<a name="x125"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x125" class="tiny">x126</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">Among the PTB are Zionists and hence Israel</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_126" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jess Baldock,
<br><br>Among the PTB are Zionists and hence Israel.
<br><br>In my opinion, 9/11 was a joint operation with (a) leadership over US military and agencies (e.g., Cheney and the neo-cons) to keep the military bogged down in exercises and distractions, to prevent the FBI from following its leads that should have exposed the patsy hijackers sooner, and to slow walk the cover-up; and (b) Israeli Mossad who did boots the ground efforts, handled the patsies, etc.
<br><br>Let us not forget the Israel is a nuclear state and always seems to have their hands deep into US arsenals, whereby them installing US design FGNW isn't so far fetched, at least at the towers. WTC-7, on the other hand, was a secure facility for the SEC, the FBI, and the CIA. I could go either way on whether a US agent or Israeli agent did the install there.
<br><br>The Zionists have for over a century exercised pressure where ever they could to achieve their ends. Old news on this front is the very creation of Israel itself and the genocide it still implements against Palestinian people, which wouldn't be possible without American support. The USA PATRIOT ACT gave Israel a get-out-of-jail free card for anything associated with 9/11. So, yeah, that is a huge tell right there.
<br><br>Others cover these topics better, like Kevin Ryan ("The Other Nineteen") and Christopher Bollyn (Israel).
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 126 -->
<a name="x127"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x127" class="tiny">x128</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">Architects & Engineers as pulling tricks</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_128" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>You wrote:
<br>“Dear Mr. Jess Baldock, to which disinfo are you referring? //“
<br>I read the first paragraph above where you referred to Architects & Engineers as pulling tricks. So more than likely the dis-info Jess
<br>referred to is your own
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 128 -->
<a name="x129"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x129" class="tiny">x130</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_130');">identified exactly where A&E9/11 Truth has been deceitful</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_130" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom,
<br><br>I've done my homework and identified exactly where A&E9/11 Truth has been deceitful. I'm working on my 9/11 Opus where this will be made more public, but I've already given you the gist of it: they did lame and unscientific efforts in an attempt to debunk Dr. Wood's work and any form of nuclear involvement, plus they are supportive of the NT limited hang-out that cannot go the distance in explaining all of the anomalies. And this is in addition to several NT/A&E9/11Truth players having kind of wonky support for the OCT at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
<br><br>How far have you read into Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed work on Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons?
<br><br>(a) Let the omission of this information [as but one example] from the works of 9/11 Truth Leaders (and in particular A&E9/11 Truth) be as gentle as a 2x4 smacked up side your head to get you to see.
<br><br>(b) Let your inability to be objective and review those efforts posted be a 2x4 smacked up side the head of anybody who thinks you'd be more sane and open-minded to science/research, because your religious bent already makes you a gullible little puppy with no credibility.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 130 -->
<a name="x131"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x131" class="tiny">x132</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">there’s no organization like Architects & Engineers</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_132" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I read the very beginning of this and in no way has
<br>Architects & Engineers been deceitful,? rather there’s no organization that has exposed And continues to expose the flaws in the official story like Architects & Engineers.
</p>
</div><!-- section 132 -->
<a name="x133"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x133" class="tiny">x134</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">Let me spell it out for you again</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_134" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom,
<br><br>I am a vetted member of A&E9/11 Truth. Let me spell it out for you again two very simple ways that they have been deceitful.
<br><br>[1] The FAQ #3 on Dr. Judy Wood. Don't interpret this complaint as me championing Woodsian DEW. However, their FAQ to debunk a book and website with far-reaching topics did not reference a single section from either. The word count was already low. Quoting me from 2014: "Of the FAQ #3's terse ~2,600 words, only a mere ~1,500 words (57%) were devoted to the topic of DEW itself and have zero references to anything specific in Dr. Wood's work. [Another case of a book report without having the book.] The remaining 43% went off topic and into the weeds with a distraction into NT."
<br><br>[2] Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth FAQ #15 only debunks a "nuclear blast", and that in a stilted and underhanded way that ignored huge areas from Jeff Prager while focusing on minutia. FAQ #15 does not debunk nuclear involvement, and most certainly doesn't mention FGNW.
<br><br>If you use "Expand All" and then search for "x20", you'll get all the gory details about A&E9/11 Truth's issues. And get this, the conversation was with Mr. Craig McKee himself.
<br><br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/remnants-of-truth-shadows.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/remnants-of-truth-shadows.html</a>
<br><br>[3} NT doesn't address all of the anomalies, on purpose.
<br><br>I'm sure there are more examples, but these are the glaring ones.
<br><br>//
<br>Remnants of Truth & Shadows
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 134 -->
<a name="x135"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x135" class="tiny">x136</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">you support Judy Wood after she comes against the fact that thermite was found?</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_136" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>And you support Judy Wood after she comes against the fact that thermite was found? That’s pretty telling Re You, thanks for sharing.
<br>It is no wonder Respected people standing for the truth at the Pentagon have blocked you
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 136 -->
<a name="x137"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x137" class="tiny">x138</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');">You know what was found in the dust by USGS?</a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_138" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom,
<br><br>I love how you demonstrate your piss-poor reading comprehension. Case in point: identify where I have ever stated (a) that I support Dr. Judy Wood and (b) that I continue to support Dr. Wood! ... I'll wait. And please, don't stumble upon anything from the last decade where my published words LEGITIMATELY debunk Dr. Wood's work.
<br><br>Thermite found in the dust?!! Whose dust?
<br><br>"Not documented in the USGS Survey of the dust in the tables or explanatory text, nor by the RJLee Group, nor by Paul Lioy et al, nor by Dr. Steven Jones. The latter has never tested his samples for chemical explosives and A&E9/11Truth refused to test when brought to their attention. The true findings from the dust samples were (a) a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres, and (b) the radioactive and decay elements in proportional quantities as signature to fission/fusion devices (appeared in tables but never addressed in text of the USGS Report.)"
<br><br>You know what was found in the dust by USGS?
<br><br>"The United States Geological Survey (USGS) study on the dust documents not only all of the trace elements of nuclear devices, including their expected decay elements. And the exact same report has all the elements of NUCLEAR COVER-UP because these elements were only mentioned in the tables, not in any plain-text discussion."
<br><br>Yet A&E9/11 Truth never mentions this, fool.
<br><br>What about tritium?
<br><br>Look it up. It is the building block of all late-third/early-fourth generation nuclear weapons. Here's some research that I did, but you didn't but you still can.
<br><br>"In December 1998, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson announced that the U.S. planned to begin producing tritium for its nuclear weapons in commercial nuclear power plants. This decision overturned a fifty-year policy of keeping civilian and military nuclear production processes separate. Tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, is needed to turn A-bombs into H-bombs, and the commercial nuclear power plants that are to be modified to produce tritium are called ice condensers. This book provides an insider's perspective on how Richardson's decision came about, and why it is dangerous.Kenneth Bergeron shows that the new policy is unwise not only because it undermines the U.S. commitment to curb nuclear weapons proliferation but also because it will exacerbate serious safety problems at these commercial power facilities, which are operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority and are among the most marginal in the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review of the TVA's request to modify its plants for the new nuclear weapons mission should attract significant attention and opposition.Tritium on Ice is part expose, part history, part science for the lay reader, and part political science. Bergeron's discussion of how the issues of nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear reactor safety have become intertwined illuminates larger issues about how the federal government does or does not manage technology in the interests of its citizens and calls into question the integrity of government-funded safety assessments in a deregulated economy."
<br><br><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243492655_Tritium_on_Ice_The_Dangerous_New_Alliance_of_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Nuclear_Power">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243492655_Tritium_on_Ice_The_Dangerous_New_Alliance_of_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Nuclear_Power</a>
<br><br>//
<br>Tritium on Ice: The Dangerous New Alliance of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power
<br>RESEARCHGATE.NET
</p>
</div><!-- section 138 -->
<a name="x139"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x139" class="tiny">x140</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_140');">EP Haidner did an awesome job of <i>"follow the money"</i></a></b></p>
<p>2021-03-05</p>
<div id="sect_140" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jess Baldock,
<br><br>Thank you for posting that video, "9/11 Conspiracy Solved". I'm glad that at as early as 1:40, the narrator mentions EP Haidner, who did an awesome job of "follow the money" and to prove huge monetary motivations for 9/11.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 140 -->
<!-- ***** 20210305_MCB_FB_Sandstrom_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_2 -->
<a name="p3"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_3');">Part 3: FGNW Disucssions with Jon Howland, David Peacock, Gary H Camp</a></h2>
<div id="part_3" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_fgnw_01.htm -->
<a name="x141"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x141" class="tiny">x142</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_142');">Susan Lindauer was fed some previously unknown nuggets of truth</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-10</p>
<div id="sect_142" style="display: block;">
<p>In my experience with Susan Lindauer, she was fed some previously unknown nuggets of truth or was allowed to expose them in exchange for being a stop-gap on truthful rabbit-holes that went much deeper.
<br>For instance (paraphrased), she claims that her supervisors ordered her not to come back to NY around 9/11, owing to "a nuclear event" about to go down. Consider that a nugget of truth, and there might have been a couple more.
<br>But did she ever expand upon that? Research it further? Actually obtain model numbers for the devices used? Used her leverage while she was still a CIA insider to get info? No. She drops the nugget, and then parades the party line on other OCT elements without much depth. Weak and ineffective. [Exactly what the PTB ordered.]
<br>I mean, she exhibits the traits of many "captured" 9/11 truthers by "going thus far, and no further."
<br>At the very least, she (and Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Fetzer) could have stumbled upon this peer-reviewed effort published in a reputable science journal:
<br>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>So, in conclusion, I think Ms. Lindauer is still sometimes part-time on the company payroll.
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 142 -->
<a name="x143"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x143" class="tiny">x144</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_144');">how low is the radiation on these 4th generation nukes</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-10</p>
<div id="sect_144" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you have quite a bit of knowledge on the subject , how low is the radiation on these 4th generation nukes ? . .. to me it looked like mini nukes could have been planted every 3-4 floors down, around the elevator shafts , and the floors had spray on foam laced with thermite .. between the crawl spaces . . . her story about the vans , could have been mini nukes, wiring , who knows . i see her as an honest person , i known her for 5 years, and chatted many times
</p>
</div><!-- section 144 -->
<a name="x145"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x145" class="tiny">x146</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_146');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-10</p>
<div id="sect_146" style="display: block;">
<p>+++ Thru Messenger
Dear Mr. Jon Howland, I got banned from FB for a few days, but messaging seems to work. You responded to a comment that I made about Susan Lindauer and FGNW. You asked about how low the radiation is.
<br>
<br>So each devices is a conventional chemical explosive that is used to kick-start the fission stage, whose sole purpose is to generate heat necessary for the fusion stage. The kick-starter wasn't radioactive, and neither it nor the fission stage were designed for destruction. Thus, radiation badness from the fission stage was significantly reduced. But, as the analysis of the dust, other studies, and even camera "effects" document that minor badness from fission existed, just not to the extent that someone could label it a "(fission-based) nuclear device" and its implied energy output.
<br>
<br>All fusion weapons have tritium as one of its building blocks, and this is true for the aforementioned fusion stage of these FGNW. However, instead of letting the highly-energetic neutrons bounce around in the kernel in an ever greater chain reaction, they were released in a targeted fashion, coin-shaped upwards. The observable effects of highly energetic neutrons passing through materials and leaving energy in the form of heat behind throughout the molecular structures would have some unusual effects. Wouldn't necessarily be noisy. There would be lots of evidence of high heat, such as tiny iron spheres in the dust and dustification of concrete (for direct hits), and arches/sags, horseshoes, and steel doobies out of large support beams and wall assemblies (just grazed).
<br>
<br>Owing to both towers having evidence of a "spire" in their demolitions which was the inner core, I think the placement of FGNW was on four points on the outside of the core, for each detonation levels. Could be that the start-up had a measurable delay getting to the fusion stage, or that the fusion ignition had a slight duration, or much more likely that a misaligned and mis-timed tandem device could foul its nuclear neighbors with its neutron output. The bottom line is that the FGNW needed a stable platform for ignition and aimed their badness away from the core to assure this.
<br>
<br>Several pieces of evidence including the cadence of explosions counted by surviving first-responders indicates to me that a placement every 10 floors was more realistic. The placement in WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 was different and didn't have them sitting on top of one another. In those cases, you can that the range of a FGNW in a building was easily greater than the number of stories in those buildings, as per the resulting craters and destruction of entire wings.
<br>
<br>I want to believe that NT was the primary mechanisms of destruction, just like I want to believe that COVID isn't man-made and that the mRNA tech is safe and effective, but "wanting" doesn't make it so.
<br>
<br>NT doesn't address all of the evidence, and has a super hard time trying to explain the duration of hot-spots. On the other hand, FGNW including one or more fizzled devices much more easily explains that feature, plus the energy observed in the pulverization. You can't just "light a fuse" with NT; no, you need a burning magnesium lighting stick. The amount of logistics and effort required to plant NT (in just a few days that bomb sniffing dogs had holiday) to produce over-kill pulverization (when "less would have been more" and "more believable") just does not match to the proven many billions available to this operation.
<br>
<br>Makes much more sense for van workers to be installing mounting brackets and wiring in the many weeks prior to 9/11 [in all WTC buildings] and then leaving the final "click-in" install and alignment of the FGNW devices [4 per detonation level, 10 detonation levels, 2 towers, 3 neighboring buildings] to a small team on those final days.
<br>
<br>//
<br>{mcb: I don't know who wrote the following notes; punctuation isn't mine. Copied from someone.}
<br>tritium, was found in the dust
<br>
<br>all this heat could of course provide ignition for thermite spray foam under every floot .
<br>
<br>much of the massive white clouds was steam . .so what you are saying , i have always thought makes sense
<br>
<br>previous record for buiding demo was like 43 floors . .
<br>
<br>crazy !
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 146 -->
<a name="x147"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x147" class="tiny">x148</a>
Jon Howland : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_148');">that guy should not be a moderator</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-10</p>
<div id="sect_148" style="display: block;">
<p>Sam Haschets
<br>that guy , should not be a moderator
</p>
</div><!-- section 148 -->
<a name="x149"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x149" class="tiny">x150</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_150');">multiple run-ins with Mr. Sam Haschets</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-10</p>
<div id="sect_150" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Howland, tritium (for fusion) was found in the water run-off and in the air particles down wind; not in the dust, though. The dust has Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities (for fission).
<br>
<br>While true that the heat from the fission stage could have ignited the NT spray foam, that doesn't make a lot of sense from the logistics point of view. They wanted the event to be explained away as a gravity-driven failure, so spray foam NT in its observed overkill amounts would give that away and simply doesn't make sense that it would be so planned. On the other hand, FGNW have energy to spare and overkill is a side-effect.
<br>
<br>I've had multiple run-ins with Mr. Sam Haschets. I wouldn't call them enlightening or good from the perspective of his participation. Mostly he was chiming in on the side of, or allowing the antics of others, who were the actual agents and bots. They were in the FB groups "Debunker vs Truther", "Fair and Civil Debate", which were both probably CIA/Mossad based.
<br>
<br>Come to think of it: <b>"It's a fact! 911 was an inside job!"</b> isn't far removed from a controlled disinfo group.
<br>
<br>If curious, you can search for Sam's name in this collection of FB exchanges [saved to a medium that I control and won't so quickly be disappeared by a vengeful moderator or heavy-handed FB disinfo action.]
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 150 -->
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_fgnw_01.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202203_mcb_fgnw_02.htm -->
<a name="x151"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x151" class="tiny">x152</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_152');">poking holes in disinformation and the limited hang-out (NT)</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-07</p>
<div id="sect_152" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/david.peacock.9066/posts/10159673304983788?comment_id=10159673440653788&reply_comment_id=10159673516483788¬if_id=1646686295902722¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/david.peacock.9066/posts/10159673304983788?comment_id=10159673440653788&reply_comment_id=10159673516483788¬if_id=1646686295902722¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br><br>Sorry to chime here and poke holes in disinformation and the limited hang-out (NT) that too many 9/11 Truthers continue to believe, owing to their own levels of cognitive dissonance and the fact that AE9/11Truth was infiltrated precisely to hold to certain "lesser" narratives.
<br><br>Details are given in these two blog postings.
<br><br>In a nutshell, NT is incapable of explaining all of the evidence, even the pictured "meteor"; those with PhD's promoting NT know of this glaring weakness yet have never looked into alternative explanations legitimately. 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components that leak out all over, such as this "meteor" as well as the USGS data tables that show Uranium and all of its decay elements (indicating fission) and the song-and-dance Tritium report that tried to explain the tritium in the run-off water as coming from content already present in the buildings (tritium indicates fusion and is the building block of all late-3rd and early-4th generation nuclear devices.)
<br><br>Yes, AE9/11Truth did eventually try to debunk the use of nuclear devices, except that they purposely framed the nuclear devices in inappropriate ways (too large, too much yield, too much radiation, "nuclear blast") and have never considered legitimately FGNW, which are tactical in nature.
<br><br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
<br><br>This is a predecessor blog posting with much overlap to the above, but it is being brought up because it has several sections that slaughter the NT sacred cow.
<br><br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br><br>I speculate four FGNW per detonation level in the towers; 6-12 detonation levels; affixed to the inner core but the cone-shaped output aimed upwards is targeted to miss the inner core [else it could foul neighboring devices and lower devices.]. Conventional chemical charge to kick-start the fission stage, and evidence of this are the out spurts deemed "squibs" many floors ahead of the destruction. The sole purpose of the fission stage is to generate the heat necessary for the fusion stage, so not being designed for destruction, its radiation and fallout would be heavily mitigated [but proven to exist]. The fusion stage, instead of letting the highly energetic neutrons bounce around in the core creating really large reactions, the highly energetic neutrons were released in a targeted fashion (cone-shaped upwards), missing the inner core (which later became known as "the spire" had happened with both towers to some degree), going through floors and content [leaving high levels of energy behind through out the molecular structure of that material causing weird effects like the "meteor"], and grazing the outer wall assemblies [causing features like the "steel doobies"].
<br><br>The two ways to create some of the artifacts (that NT absolutely cannot explain) are the arches/sags and horseshoes from large steel beams: (1) High temperature for a measurable period of time [many minutes]; (2) an extremely high temperature for a measurable much shorter period of time [fractions of seconds]. FGNW have energy to spare and can easily achieve #2 as well as all of the tiny iron spheres found in significant quantities in all dust samples.
<br><br>//
<br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 152 -->
<a name="x153"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x153" class="tiny">x154</a>
David Peacock : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_154');">the nuclear arguments are the limited hangout</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-07</p>
<div id="sect_154" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I appreciate your thoughts, info & perspective on this and there may be some truth to it.. but I tend to see it as opposite: that the nuclear arguments are the limited hangout..designed to muddy the waters. I don't pretend to know absolutely about a highly complex set of events that we can only try to fathom from some distance, can only say that certain technical arguments make more sense to me and my direct interactions (communications) with numerous folks from AE911T suggest they're honest.
<br>In the end, I try to focus on what most of us can easily agree upon: the Official explanations for how the 3 towers collapsed utterly are outlandishly wrong. All else can be used to endlessly divide us.
</p>
</div><!-- section 154 -->
<a name="x155"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x155" class="tiny">x156</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_156');">correct that the nuclear components to 9/11 had a shit-ton of disinformation spread over it to cover it up</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-07</p>
<div id="sect_156" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Peacock, you would be correct that the nuclear components to 9/11 had a shit-ton of disinformation spread over it to cover it up, with nearly every "Truther" who championed it having glaring errors. They framed it as a single large nuke per tower with a giant yield and lots of fallout, positioned in the basement and somehow having its energy travel upwards to start destruction at high levels. Clear bullshit from the get-go.
<br><br>Just like with the no plane theory at the WTC (and all the flat-earth nonsense), it was spun up to muddy the waters on purpose, split the movement from within, discredit those who question the official narrative (including AE9/11Truth), etc.
<br><br>AE9/11Truth got into the game with its very lame FAQ's that try to debunk Dr. Wood and nuclear components. [Disclaimer: Dr. Wood is disinformation, but her works collect tons of pictorial evidence to 9/11 being nuclear. And technically, all FGNW are in the category of DEW.]
<br><br>When you dive into the FAQ's, plow into the footnotes, and follow the footnotes to their sources, that's when the deceit is readily visible, if it wasn't already present by trying to debunk "nuclear blasts." On that front, AE9/11Truth did a good job of proving that "nuclear blasts" did not destroy the WTC. The glitch in their disinformation is that FGNW -- being DEW and releasing 80% of its nuclear yield as targeted highly energetic neutrons -- destroyed things from that yield, and not the 20% remaining of traditional heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. So while true that "nuclear blasts" did not destroy the WTC, they hide that they never present any information about late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) that would destroy by highly energetic neutrons leaving energy behind deep within and throughout the molecular structures of the materials penetrated.
<br><br>If someone from the 9/11 Truth Movement and in particular from AE9/11Truth had done some legitimate nuclear research effort, debunked nuclear involvement legitimately, AND presented a theory that addressed more pieces of evidence than FGNW (e.g., nuclear involvement), why I'd already be singing that new tune and apologizing for having led people astray.
<br><br>Stated another way, I eagerly read all of the 9/11 information from its many sources. A hallmark of 9/11 is that there isn't a single source of 9/11 information that isn't in some way misinformation (accidental) or disinformation (purposeful). The accidental shit came about from proponents maybe getting burned out or not having the smarts to follow the science and details, so they accepted what PhD's from AE9/11Truth were peddling without question, without pressing them to have NT address all of the evidence, and without offering anything to fill the blatant gaps. [High school math and chemistry applied to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots already debunks NT as the primary cause of destruction, because the deceit is assuming that there would be massive overkill amounts of NT that were not consumed in the original pulverizing purpose and were unspent in the debris pile smoldering.]
<br><br>How was it that Dr. Steve Jones, the only nuclear scientist speaking on 9/11 and who got in no trouble with his NDA, missed the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer? Reputable scientist, peer reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal.
<br><br>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br><br>NDA's already forced all nuclear scientists (except Dr. Jones) to keep mum about their 9/11 suspicions. The penalties of expressing their concerns amounted to treason with penalties including death, so ain't nobody speaking up.
<br><br>We see a similar game played with COVID and Dr. Fauci, where only Fauci / Gates connected scientists and medical professionals who supported the government narrative got research, got paid, got air time, etc. Fauci has killed many a career of dissenters to his orthodoxy. [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s book on Dr. Fauci is worth reading, but you'll end up agreeing that Fauci and big Pharma have committed many times over the last decades crimes against humanity.]
<br><br>At any rate, I've had these discussions before. Sincere discussion participants ask questions and more or less accept the researched response. Agents and bots do not, but crank lots of carousel spins.
<br><br>At the following link, my discussion with Wayne Coste is probably the best.
<br><br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
<br><br>P.S. Before I forget, AE9/11Truth isn't just caught with their pants down on their lame "nuclear blast" debunking efforts, but some of those same fools champion the official conspiracy theory of the Pentagon, not willing to admit that the Pentagon was mostly likely hit by a missile and pre-planted explosives [for how neatly it wiped out the investigators and their records from the Office of Naval Intelligence looking into Rumsfeld's missing $2.3 trillion in Pentagon spending announced on 9/10 (not a typo).]
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 156 -->
<a name="x157"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x157" class="tiny">x158</a>
David Peacock : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_158');">plans of neutron-centric bombs discussed back in the 70's</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-07</p>
<div id="sect_158" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Thanks for laying out more details and arguments--will try to delve back in sometime and do a fresh assessment.. easily agree with you on some points--esp re Fauci/Gates, etc.
<br><br>Recall there were plans re neutron-centric bombs back in the 70's if not earlier, but they came under 'attack' (ha?) because they tended to leave most buildings/structures intact while wiping out living beings.. guess that's too sterile? a way to mass-murder?
<br><br>Off top of my head, it does seem that avoiding some degree of EMP would be difficult, and all the more if multiple sources of extreme energy. Can only imagine the perpetrators would have needed to overdo certain aspects in order to ensure sufficient+rapid destruction in all 3 towers.
<br><br>Yeah, that 'announcement' by Rumsfeld one day prior to 9/11 got buried under an avalanche of well, 9/11 news.
<br><br>Pretty crazy announcement..hard to fathom his rationale for making such--guess it could lend some perverse cred to him if needed in the future?
<br><br>Btw, that $2.3 Trillion has gone up by an order of magnitude since 2001.
<br><br>Will try to check out your links soon.. it's all some wildly complex stuff so I'm cautious~skeptical of most of it. A million rabbit holes to dive into and get lost in! 😮
</p>
</div><!-- section 158 -->
<a name="x159"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x159" class="tiny">x160</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_160');">Ever wonder why the discussion stopped?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-07</p>
<div id="sect_160" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Peacock, Yes, the neutron bomb was discussed back in the 70's. Ever wonder why the discussion stopped? Those neutron devices were intended to be ignited in the atmosphere, were large in payload, spread neutrons & radiation everywhere, and also had significant traditional yield (heat wave, blast wave, and EMP) that would damage things not "hardened".
<br>
<br>The inventor of the neutron bomb (Teller) was asked if it could be made directional, and he answered to the effect "semi-sphere".
<br>
<br>The reason discussion stopped is that those PhD's tweaked and tweaked and got the nuclear devices to the point where the neutrons could be directed or aimed (cone-shaped). The neutron bomb became the foundation for all late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear bombs. All public discussions about nuclear weapons of any kind had significant amounts of disinformation or omission, because they weren't going to "enable those with bad intentions with all the details" or reveal the US nuclear arsenals "ways and means."
<br>
<br>As for EMP, this was present on 9/11 with the multiple FGNW deployed. And this is where Dr. Wood's disinformation comes into play. She documented the evidence, then botched the explanation; let it get framed as "beams from space" despite atmosphere issues for the wavelengths required, didn't power it with anything real world; did a shitty job of nuclear research...
<br>
<br>But, she did document the vehicles that were destroyed near WTC-7 and in the car park across the way. EMP line of sight slipping out through window slits and falling debris explains it. [EMP creates Eddy currents in the metal hit; sufficiently high currents results in heat that can ignite items attached to it, like paint, rubber door seals, etc.]
<br>
<br>Owing to the observed pulverization overkill anomaly, one can conclude that conventional chemical-based explosives (whatever proportion of NT might have been added to it if defending that theory) presented a logistics hurdle that bomb-sniffing dogs would have caught well before the date they took holiday. Lugging it in, installing it, painting it on the fire proofing (hahaha)? All that would have been hard to conceal and make the time schedule even with a large crew (and their loose lips). And why? If they were going to actually wire in that much explosive, they could have gone more Hollywood by making the destruction more believable, as in, ~not~ at gravitational acceleration with glaring examples of excess energy (ejecting content, pulverizing content).
<br>
<br>However, FGNW have overkill as a side-effect, not as a design goal [which NT would have had to have had to get what was observed.] Most of the weeks of installation time for FGNW would have been them putting in brackets to hold the devices and possibly wiring (if it wasn't wireless), and bomb sniffing dogs wouldn't have been the wiser. 4 devices per detonation levels times (say) 10 levels times 2 towers [although WTC-4. WTC-5. WTC-6, and WTC-7 probably had them as well] is something that a small team could "click FGNW into place in the mounting brackets" in the few days bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday before 9/11. I mean, the logistics is so much easier, and rather than planning, implementing, and executing an overkill pulverization demonstration, they'd get the outcome for free for devices that have that energy in excess. The implementation energy they saved by going with FGNW they plowed into the cover-up, despite nuclear evidence leaking out all over.
<br>
<br>Read the abstract from Dr. Andre Gsponer, and then ask yourself how nuclear physicists Dr. Steven Jones missed his work in his literature review? Or Dr. Wood? They didn't even try, but they did try to frame this incorrectly in a very strawman fashion.
<br>
<br>In my article in the top-level comment from me, look into the section on camera scintillation. We effectively have video recordings of radiation leaching off of the debris pile and still present in various forms at the Fresh Kills Site. Stated another way: FEMA and NIST had the money for the best quality cameras. Why did they all of a sudden in certain shots becomes so glitchy and snowy?!! [Yes, I was raised on 70's rabbit-ear-antenna television and am used to lots of snow in my shows and visually compensating.] But these high quality cameras glitching? Radiation will do that.
<br>
<br>Why did they ban Geiger counters and phones/cameras from the debris pile? The phone/camera technology is the same in today's smart phones. Did you know that there is an app to make your phone into a Geiger counter? Pixel cameras pick up radiated particles as tiny flashes. [Video tape cameras when confronted with radiation get all wonky, only you wouldn't notice until playback later.]
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 160 -->
<a name="x161"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x161" class="tiny">x162</a>
David Peacock : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_162');">multiple forms of 'energetic' materials were used to both simplify & confound the results & later interpretations</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-07</p>
<div id="sect_162" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Lots of intriguing points to consider, and often just at the edge of my established physics & chemistry knowledge, so would need to research quite a bit to feel confident pro or con. I do know that radiation cuts across a very large spectrum (at least radio waves to gamma rays--several orders of magnitude differential) and there are a slew of penetration energies for different materials, & then wavelength shifts going thru dif materials, reflections, refraction, etc.. so trying to predict & then contain a range of energies (sufficiently) for multiple FGNW blasts per huge building seems extremely challenging.. but then there are lots of challenges for using some form of nano-thermite as well.
<br><br>Could be that multiple forms of 'energetic' materials were used to both simplify & confound the results & later interpretations--so we each have some justification for whatever general structural-collapse theory we happen to glom onto.. at some point (for me, at least), I must exit the vast fields of weeds and go back to basics we all (mostly) agree upon:
<br><br>There was much more to '9/11' than we were told.. it wasn't just a score or so of cave-dwellers who pulled off the entirety of a complex, highly synchronized set of operations; we know the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, NRO, etc were well aware of many if not all of the 19 hijackers; we know the Anthrax that followed a very short time later originated in a US Military Bioweapon lab; we know those 3 massive towers did not come down due (solely) to 2 planes, esp since WTC7 was not hit by any plane, etc.
<br><br>And perhaps ultimately even more important: we know how our own Gov't leveraged 9/11 for horrific ends.. resulting in the deaths of at least 2 Million, with millions more maimed & many millions more forced to flee their homes from numerous countries, and all at a astro-whopping cost of $8 Trillion+ (imagine the Good we could've done with those $Trillions?!?) .. and I think this is partly why someone such as Noam Chomsky doesn't seem to worry too much re the how/why of '9/11' specifically, because he's long been focused on the much larger history.. a relentless series of atrocities committed by our own leaders..going back long before 9/11 & ever since.
<br><br>But many of us happen to be especially intrigued by the events of 9/11 directly--so we focus long & hard on it (I certainly have), but meanwhile, there are roughly 10 million human beings dying every year from relatively easy & cheap to prevent/offset dire poverty.. ðŸ™
<br><br>Again, I greatly appreciate your knowledge & ability to share your perspectives..well worth learning more about and seriously considering.
</p>
</div><!-- section 162 -->
<a name="x163"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x163" class="tiny">x164</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_164');">agreed</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-07</p>
<div id="sect_164" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Peacock, I am in agreement with what you write. And I feel somewhat of a stuck-in-a-rut idiot talking hidden (but obvious) details about an event 20 years ago, when in the meantime the US has instigated multiple wars, eroded civil liberties at home, primed us for the authoritarian lockdowns of COVID, etc.
<br>
<br>To this end, the powers that be WON, because they successfully delayed public realization of the depth of the 9/11 deceit until it was rendered moot and near meaningless today in COVID's shadow.
<br>
<br>But I cling to Truth. I hold out hope that when the nuclear depths of 9/11 are understood in the proper context, THAT could very well result in a catalyst and in some much needed figurative nuclear fall-out on various institutions, agencies, and psychopaths in positions of leadership in government and private corporations. In fact, this is the danger that government still knows exists -- that the public wakes up and simply votes them out-of-existence --, which is why twenty years later there is still an active 9/11 coverup and disinformation campaign, and agents & bots still spin their hampster wheels to distract and mislead.
<br>
<br>The government could have achieved some of their shock-and-awe goals with one plane. Two reasons (of many) why they had four planes are that they can more easily confuse by mixing causes and effects of the four(+) separate events with one another, and they had objectives [Pentagon ONI, WTC-7 SEC records, WTC-1/2 symbolism, WTC-4 gold vaults, WTC-6 vaults] "go big or go home" as their mantra.
<br>
<br>In a parallel manner, they purposely misrepresent science and physics, particularly when it comes to the WTC destruction. The overkill energy of the pulverization of the towers while ejecting content and plowing through its path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration was a red flag to a very energetic source that practically screams nuclear involvement. Yet, the official government theory doesn't acknowledge this energy inbalance and tries to claim "gravity and jet impact and jet fuel alone."
<br>
<br>You don't need to dive too deeply into nuclear education or the spectrum of EM waves. I've provided primers within my blog articles. The ARXIV.ORG article from Dr. Andre Gsponer on FGNW is also excellent.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 164 -->
<!-- ***** 202203_mcb_fgnw_02.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202203_mcb_fgnw_03.htm -->
<a name="x165"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x165" class="tiny">x166</a>
Gary H Camp : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">hearing construction noise in the weeks prior to 911 in WTC-1</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-11</p>
<div id="sect_166" style="display: block;">
<p>I used to work in the towers in building 1. I distinctly remember hearing construction noise in the weeks prior to 911. Could they have been fitting the structure for explosives and demolition? It was early in the morning (1-2am) when I would hear the noise...
</p>
</div><!-- section 166 -->
<a name="x167"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x167" class="tiny">x168</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">a ski boot into a ski's bindings</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-11</p>
<div id="sect_168" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gary H Camp, they weren't wiring explosives. No, they were installing mounting brackets into which later and very quickly the FGNW could be clicked, like a ski boot into a ski's bindings.
<br>
<br>Here's my humble analysis on the matter. Be sure to follow the links from my work into that of Dr. Andre Gsponer.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>They were using, say, four FGNW per detonation level, and ten detonation levels, meaning only 40 mounting bracket installation points per tower. Mounting brackets because the tandem nature of their detonation and a misaligned device could result in neighboring devices experiencing a "nuclear fizzle", as in, "not reaching its full potential and expected nuclear yield. Most of their output (80%) nuclear yield was in the form of targeted (cone-shape) highly energetic neutrons, aimed to fan-out upwards from ignition point and away from the inner core where they were mounted. [Hence the artifact known as "the spire".]
<br>
<br>Because they were only installing mounting brackets, their work would not be detected by bomb-sniffing dogs when they were on duty. In the three or so days that the dogs were off-duty just prior to 9/11 would have been a good time to quickly "click the FGNW into place." Managed by a small team.
<br>
<br>The FGNW had a conventional shaped chemical explosive to ignite the fission stage. Neither that charge nor the fission stage were designed for destruction. The fission stage provided the heat necessary for the fusion stage. The fusion stage, similar to a neutron bomb, instead of letting the neutrons bounce around into an every increasing chain reaction, would release those neutrons, but in a targeted fashion (upwards, cone-shaped fanning from ignition point). The kick starter charge would have been audible and probably even visible, as the "squibs" that preceded the destruction wave along the face of the towers. However, the sound of the kick starter charge added to the sound of highly energetic neutrons penetrating deep within the molecular structure of materials in their way and leaving energy behind would not have necessarily been LOUD (as compared to the massive amounts of conventional explosives need for the same task), given that it wasn't relying on a "blast" of air to destroy.
<br>
<br>P.S. Explosives -- even mixed with any quantity of NT -- would have (a) had more detonation levels and (b) been very loud, much louder than it was. And this mechanism is also supposed to be in such overkill quantities that massive unspent quantities burned under-rubble for weeks?!! NT debunks itself as the primary mechanism of destruction. Nuclear fizzle in one or more of the FGNW in a non-perfect operation could easily create those under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>
<br>A&E9/11Truth's FAQ allegedly debunking "nuclear blasts" succeeds, but its stilted nature also disqualifies it from debunking "highly energetic neutrons released from an FGNW in a cone shape", because that isn't a "nuclear blast" that involves the violent pushing of air and spreading nuclear residue everywhere. Completely different effects.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 168 -->
<a name="x169"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x169" class="tiny">x170</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_170');">follow the links into Dr. Andre Gsponer</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-11</p>
<div id="sect_170" style="display: block;">
<p>Okay, now that we've been through COVID -- a bio-weapon designed to be highly infectious among humans that triggers and exasperates various comorbidites, leaving healthy people alone -- and seen exposed other deceit in the PCR testing, the accounting, and the military efficient rollout of "Operation Warp Speed" with an untested vaccine, maybe we can appreciate new depths to the deceit of 9/11 and it not being beyond those psychopaths [who are high fiving that 20 years after, most of the public doesn't know.]
<br><br>Name, 9/11 had nuclear components.
<br><br>Here's my humble analysis on the matter.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>Be sure to follow the links from my work into that of Dr. Andre Gsponer, peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 170 -->
<!-- ***** 202203_mcb_fgnw_03.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_3 -->
<a name="p4"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_4');">Part 4: FGNW Discussions with J Remy Bullitt, Stu Kingston, Stacy Richardson, Colin Leese, Michael W. Lurie, Dan Kunes, Jody McIntyre, Dan Smith </a></h2>
<div id="part_4" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202203_mcb_fgnw_04_gage.htm -->
<a name="x171"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x171" class="tiny">x172</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_172');">FAQ from AE9/11T exhibiting clever disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-19</p>
<div id="sect_172" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/VoicesFor911Truth.Radio/?multi_permalinks=5551223018239901¬if_id=1647710089436908¬if_t=group_highlights&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/groups/VoicesFor911Truth.Radio/?multi_permalinks=5551223018239901¬if_id=1647710089436908¬if_t=group_highlights&ref=notif</a>
<br>Dear Mr. Richard Gage, Despite the many 9/11 truths that your efforts through out the years have tried to bring to the attention of the general public, there has still been a bit of gatekeeping and not following truth where it leads. In the early years, I accepted the AE9/11T (and your) position as the baby-steps needed for public acceptance. But as those years progressed into literally decades, it became clear that those efforts were gatekeeping and fixing the 9/11 Truth Movement's collective beliefs into limited hang-outs.
<br>
<br>Nothing exhibits AE9/11T infiltration better than two FAQ's published under your leadership. One of the FAQ's was supposed to debunk Dr. Wood's work, yet it did not address a single item from her book giving no confidence to the readers that the writers even smelled the ink in the crack of her book, and then spent 40% of its already wimpy word-count in plugging the limited hang-out nano-thermite.
<br>
<br>DISCLAIMER: Dr. Wood's book is very crafty disinformation: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices.
<br>
<br>The above is a summary of the legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood's work that the FAQ should have performed. Why didn't AE9/11T legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work? Because she collected a lot of evidence that any 9/11-Theory-du-jour would have to address in order to be even part-way valid. Recall: arches/sags, horseshoes, steel doobies (of the wall assemblies), and "meteors." These are just the opening examples of artifacts in need of an explanation that NT champions (Dr. Jones, et al) have no explanation for.
<br>
<br>The second FAQ from AE9/11T under your leadership exhibiting clever disinformation on par with Dr. Wood is the one that does indeed debunk "nuclear blasts" as the primary mechanism of destruction. Owing to that FAQ's very limited scope [nuclear blasts], I am logically inclined to agree: "nuclear blasts were not the primary mechanism of destruction at the WTC." But this deceitful and limited premise only debunks nuclear devices that are designed with "nuclear blasts" being a primary part of their nuclear yield. And of course in the strawman debunking, there is also the element of framing those nuclear devices as being too powerful and having too much radiation fall-out. [And the FAQ suffers badly in its cherry-picked footnotes, that if a reader traces into its source (e.g., Jeff Prager publications) demonstrates the clear disinfo agenda.]
<br>
<br>The FAQ attempts to discredit ALL FORMS OF NUCLEAR DEVICES with its faulty logic, yet does not even mention those nuclear devices that do ~not~ use a "nuclear blast" as its primary yield.
<br>
<br>Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>In a nutshell, late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices (FGNW) used a single conventional explosive charge to kickstart the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted, cone-shaped manner (upwards). Technically, these FGNW are in the category of DEW. [Means that Dr. Wood's disinfo is closer to the truth than the NT, is why her work stops short, why it was framed as "beams from space", and why it inserted "Hutchison Effects" and other unconnected themes.]
<br>
<br>This release of 80% of its yield would not have necessarily been loud. The device was already tactical in total yield, but 80% of it went into these highly energetic neutrons and 20% into other artifacts: heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The latter three were all present. Heat wave = arches, sags, and horse shoes of big steel beams; steel doobies of wall assemblies; "meteors". Blast wave = laterally ejected content, such as wall assemblies. EMP = vehicle damage in the parking lot and along the streets near WTC-7, captures on video before WTC-7 was destroyed.
<br>
<br>Because the output could be aimed, fracticide between adjacent devices could be reduced. But probably not eliminated, as evidenced by the under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>
<br>Four FGNW per detonation level clicked into brackets mounted to each side of the inner core and aimed away from the core and to graze wall assemblies many floors above the detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels in the towers. The multi-stages of ignition and a possible measureable duration constituted a need for a stable platform that neither that FGNW nor an FGNW from lower in the tower should destroy pre-maturely, else (a) a FGNW becomes misaligned and cause observable collateral damage or (b) the FGNW does a nuclear fizzle and fails to meet its full nuclear yield in the designed manner. The spire [remnants of the inner core] is an artifact of both towers' destructions if you look closely.
<br>
<br>The kickstarter charge was not designed for destruction, but was visible and distinguished as "squibs" on the face of the towers 10-20 floors ahead of the destruction wave. [Had they been "squibs" used in conventional demolition, they would have been more frequent, more symmetrical on all faces, and much much louder.]
<br>
<br>The fission stage was not designed for destruction or radiation, but its fingerprints are present in the USGS data tables on the components measured in their dust samples and included Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities [and no mention in the plain text explanations of the tables as to why such would be present.]
<br>
<br>The fundamental building block of all FGNW is tritium for that fusion stage. Not only do we have the song-and-dance tritium report that scope-limits its shoddy measurement and analysis efforts of tritium to "possible building content" that amounts to air plane exit signs, gun sights on weapons, and time-pieces [ignoring any other explanations and something that Dr. Jones accepts unquestioned and unchallenged], but we also have Dr. Cahill who was weeks late to the scene to measure air samples and who still measured downwind for weeks tiny particles of metal, which indicates that an extremely hot heat source was still present under the rubble and was continually generating them.
<br>
<br>The high school math and chemistry applied to NT combined with any helper explosive to achieve the observed pulverization results in a massive number. But when you calculate the amount needed to maintain even a single hot-spot for just 4 weeks and ignore that this is allegedly unspent and overkill from its original pulverizing purposes, the amount is obscenely massive, a logistics nightmare, and Occam Razor unreasonable [because "less would have been more" in implementing something that was more natural and not "pulverizing itself through its path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration while ejecting content laterally" with -- allegedly -- no extra energy from other sources added.] Turns out that FGNW have energy in excess and can get you overkill pulverization with less logistics and installation headaches.
<br>
<br>The evidence that 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components literally leaks out all over, from the pulverizing overklll nature, to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, etc.
<br>
<br>However one of my favorite pieces of nuclear evidence [that NT champions also ignore] is somewhat new and also something that older people who were raised on televison snow from rabbit-ear antennas would probably not even notice: camera scintillation.
<br>
<br>NIST and FEMA had the money for the best video and digital camera technology available. It doesn't take much radiation to totally foul a video recording. How many NIST video recordings of the pile or of the Fresh Kills site suddenly experience near catastrophic failure in what remains rendered? Digital recording devices, such as the technology present in our smart phones today and was in digital cameras and phones then, registers radiation effects differently [sparkles in the picture]. Did you know that you can turn your smart phone into a Geiger counter; there's an app for it?
<br>
<br>We have recorded evidence from NIST and FEMA of radiation literally leaching off of the debris. This is why they suppressed those recordings for many years, and also why the edict came early that outlawed Geiger counters and phones/cameras from Ground Zero.
<br>
<br>Here is my write-up with lots of substantiating links that simply arranges all of the Tetris evidence blocks to support a FGNW theory that has fewer gaps than the traditional 9/11 theories of NT, (large) nukes, or Woodsian DEW.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>[also: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158402690006269?comment_id=10158402989826269&reply_comment_id=10158403087096269¬if_id=1647983226576939¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158402690006269?comment_id=10158402989826269&reply_comment_id=10158403087096269¬if_id=1647983226576939¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>]
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 172 -->
<a name="x173"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x173" class="tiny">x174</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_174');">cone shaped output of highly energetic neutrons</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-19</p>
<div id="sect_174" style="display: block;">
<p>Yes, the cone shaped output of highly energetic neutrons, which was 80% of the yield of late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons, can have that effect on the human body.
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>Want to know how the concrete was pulverized but not in a loud manner?
<br>
<br>When highly energetic neutrons pass through materials, they tend to leave energy behind in the form of heat. Imagine the trapped water molecules in, say, the concrete suddenly transforming from liquid to extremely hot gas (steam) whose expanding volumentric pressure literally causes micro fractures throughout the material.
<br>
<br>More importantly, imagine the rebar and the metal pans being hit by this neutron beam? They would ablate, with the leading edge vaporizing so fast that it causes a shock wave in the rest of the material.
<br>
<br>To all who champion NT: NT was not found in all of the dust samples. In fact, allegedly the suspicion and calculations for NT came about from the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres found in the dust of various groups (like the RJ Lee group and analysis of dust in the lobby of an adjacent building). Dr. Harrit speculated that this came about from the NT chemical reaction with steel, and then calculates backward to some outragous sum for the towers. [No attempt is made to calculate the unreasonable overkill amounts unspent from the pulverizing purpose that would have had to remain in the pile to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.]
<br>
<br>NEWS FLASH: FGNW can create those tiny iron spheres in the dust with energy to spare. Some portion of fizzle and fracticide of the multiple FGNW (4 per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels, per tower) can easily account for the duration of under-rubble hotspots, plus all of the lame disinformation efforts to steer public thinking away from this factoid.
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 174 -->
<a name="x175"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x175" class="tiny">x176</a>
J Remy Bullitt : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_176');">Dr. Judy Wood IRREFUTABLE</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-22</p>
<div id="sect_176" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158402690006269?comment_id=10158402989826269&reply_comment_id=10158403087096269¬if_id=1647983226576939¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158402690006269?comment_id=10158402989826269&reply_comment_id=10158403087096269¬if_id=1647983226576939¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br>Some of you may refute this video. But the only way that is scientifically possible is with Direct energy weapons. Research dr judy woods and dustification. But heres the video https://youtu.be/vlkZLlzOfVQ
<br>Dr. Judy Wood IRREFUTABLE (HD Full Length)
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 176 -->
<a name="x177"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x177" class="tiny">x178</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_178');">I have Dr. Judy Wood's book and recommend it, although it is DISINFORMATION.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-22</p>
<div id="sect_178" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. J Remy Bullitt, I have Dr. Judy Wood's book and recommend it, although it is DISINFORMATION. Dr. Wood drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices.
<br>
<br>Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>In a nutshell, late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices (FGNW) used a single conventional explosive charge to kickstart the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted, cone-shaped manner (upwards). Technically, these FGNW are in the category of DEW. [Means that Dr. Wood's disinfo is closer to the truth than the NT, is why her work stops short, why it was framed as "beams from space", and why it inserted "Hutchison Effects" and other unconnected themes.]
<br>
<br>Here is my write-up with lots of substanting links that simply arranges all of the Tetris evidence blocks to support a FGNW theory that has fewer gaps than the traditional 9/11 theories of NT, (large) nukes, or Woodsian DEW.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 178 -->
<a name="x179"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x179" class="tiny">x180</a>
Stu Kingston and Stacy Young Richardson: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">the amount of power required to run a laser</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-22</p>
<div id="sect_180" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Stu Kingston</b>
<br>J Remy Bullitt directed energy weapons aren't yet powerful enough to take down buildings,the amount of power required to run a laser to take a sky scraper sown would be colossal,
<br>
<br><b>Stacy Young Richardson</b>
<br>Stu Kingston I wouldn't be so sure about that. They have them in space now .....
</p>
</div><!-- section 180 -->
<a name="x181"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x181" class="tiny">x182</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_182');">technically in the DEW camp</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-22</p>
<div id="sect_182" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stu Kingston, Your statement needs qualifications. DEW is a very broad category that even shaped-chemical charges can fall into. When speaking of airborne DEW or space based DEW, they are indeed not powerful enough to measure out the observed pulverization. The former has limitations in the amount of chemicals required for DEW in an airplane. And the latter has issues with the atmosphere, whereby not all frequencies are well suited for transferring EM energy through the atmosphere. Also, when either is aimed at a target with fuel or an explosive payload (e.g., plane, missile), they can be very effective. But the towers had none of that, so all of the energy (and then some) observed in the delivery would have to be at the DEW source: airborne or satellite.
<br>
<br>Hence, when I was researching the state of DEW and nukes at the turn of the century, I started ruling out most DEW devices and Woodsian DEW, and deep underground nukes.
<br>
<br>Turns out, late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices are all technically in the DEW camp as well.
<br>
<br>In my other comment at a higher level in this thread, I provide a link to a peer-reviewed scientist. It is also in my write-up about 9/11 FGNW.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 182 -->
<a name="x183"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x183" class="tiny">x184</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_184');">Dr. Andre Gsponer, dozens of nuclear publications in several languages</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-22</p>
<div id="sect_184" style="display: block;">
<p>Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>In a nutshell, late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices (FGNW) used a single conventional explosive charge to kickstart the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted, cone-shaped manner (upwards). Technically, these FGNW are in the category of DEW. [Means that Dr. Wood's disinfo is closer to the truth than the NT, is why her work stops short, why it was framed as "beams from space", and why it inserted "Hutchison Effects" and other unconnected themes.]
<br>
<br>This release of 80% of its yield would not have necessarily been loud. The device was already tactical in total yield, but 80% of it went into these highly energetic neutrons and 20% into other artifacts: heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The latter three were all present. Heat wave = arches, sags, and horse shoes of big steel beams; steel doobies of wall assemblies; "meteors". Blast wave = laterally ejected content, such as wall assemblies. EMP = vehicle damage in the parking lot and along the streets near WTC-7, captures on video before WTC-7 was destroyed.
<br>
<br>Because the output could be aimed, fracticide between adjacent devices could be reduced. But probably not eliminated, as evidenced by the under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>
<br>Four FGNW per detonation level clicked into brackets mounted to each side of the inner core and aimed away from the core and to graze wall assemblies many floors above the detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels in the towers. The multi-stages of ignition and a possible measureable duration constituted a need for a stable platform that neither that FGNW nor an FGNW from lower in the tower should destroy pre-maturely, else (a) a FGNW becomes misaligned and cause observable collateral damage or (b) the FGNW does a nuclear fizzle and fails to meet its full nuclear yield in the designed manner. The spire [remnants of the inner core] is an artifact of both towers' destructions if you look closely.
<br>
<br>The kickstarter charge was not designed for destruction, but was visible and distinguished as "squibs" on the face of the towers 10-20 floors ahead of the destruction wave. [Had they been "squibs" used in conventional demolition, they would have been more frequent, more symmetrical on all faces, and much much louder.]
<br>
<br>The fission stage was not designed for destruction or radiation, but its fingerprints are present in the USGS data tables on the components measured in their dust samples and included Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities [and no mention in the plain text explanations of the tables as to why such would be present.]
<br>
<br>The fundamental building block of all FGNW is tritium for that fusion stage. Not only do we have the song-and-dance tritium report that scope-limits its shoddy measurement and analysis efforts of tritium to "possible building content" that amounts to air plane exit signs, gun sights on weapons, and time-pieces [ignoring any other explanations and something that Dr. Jones accepts unquestioned and unchallenged], but we also have Dr. Cahill who was weeks late to the scene to measure air samples and who still measured downwind for weeks tiny particles of metal, which indicates that an extremely hot heat source was still present under the rubble and was continually generating them.
<br>
<br>The high school math and chemistry applied to NT combined with any helper explosive to achieve the observed pulverization results in a massive number. But when you calculate the amount needed to maintain even a single hot-spot for just 4 weeks and ignore that this is allegedly unspent and overkill from its original pulverizing purposes, the amount is obscenely massive, a logistics nightmare, and Occam Razor unreasonable [because "less would have been more" in implementing something that was more natural and not "pulverizing itself through its path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration while ejecting content laterally" with -- allegedly -- no extra energy from other sources added.] Turns out that FGNW have energy in excess and can get you overkill pulverization with less logistics and installation headaches.
<br>
<br>The evidence that 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components literally leaks out all over, from the pulverizing overklll nature, to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, etc.
<br>
<br>However one of my favorite pieces of nuclear evidence [that NT champions also ignore] is somewhat new and also something that older people who were raised on televison snow from rabbit-ear antennas would probably not even notice: camera scintillation.
<br>
<br>NIST and FEMA had the money for the best video and digital camera technology available. It doesn't take much radiation to totally foul a video recording. How many NIST video recordings of the pile or of the Fresh Kills site suddenly experience near catastrophic failure in what remains rendered? Digital recording devices, such as the technology present in our smart phones today and was in digital cameras and phones then, registers radiation effects differently [sparkles in the picture]. Did you know that you can turn your smart phone into a Geiger counter; there's an app for it?
<br>
<br>We have recorded evidence from NIST and FEMA of radiation literally leaching off of the debris. This is why they suppressed those recordings for many years, and also why the edict came early that outlawed Geiger counters and phones/cameras from Ground Zero.
<br>
<br>Here is my write-up with lots of substanting links that simply arranges all of the Tetris evidence blocks to support a FGNW theory that has fewer gaps than the traditional 9/11 theories of NT, (large) nukes, or Woodsian DEW.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 184 -->
<a name="x185"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x185" class="tiny">x186</a>
Colin Leese : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_186');">well done</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-22</p>
<div id="sect_186" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges well done
</p>
</div><!-- section 186 -->
<a name="x187"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x187" class="tiny">x188</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_188');">thank you for your kind words</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-22</p>
<div id="sect_188" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Colin Leese, thank you for your kind words. As my blog will attest, I have been at this 9/11 Truth stuff awhile, been duped by more than my share of disinformation (in part because I'm open-minded and willing to consider opposing points of views), persisted in my research and legitimately debunked what had duped me, and am now a burned-out old fart and one of the only duped useful idiots on this particular hobby-horse topic of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons in use on 9/11 at the WTC.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>I'm a "duped useful idiot", because I don't have serial numbers, configurations, yields, etc. and am willing for someone (like AE9/11Truth) to convince me otherwise.
<br>
<br>... And therein lies the disinformation rub.
<br>
<br>Why? First of all, the 9/11 nuke champions and the Woodsian DEWers should have been all over their unholy marriage and its devil spawn: FGNW. I mean, FGNW takes both of their premises to the next level, but none of their champions got on board. I think it is because they were agents and purposely peddling strawmen conspiracy theories (deep underground nukes, beams from space) to keep even the "woke" 9/11 Truthers in check with an Achilles Heel of purposeful disinformation.
<br>
<br>Alas, even the bastion of 9/11 Truth -- Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth -- have been infiltrated. The posting I made before was the second half of a posting made to a new AE9/11T group from Richard Gage. The group is on moderation. I don't think they've published it yet, otherwise there might be a comment or two.
<br>
<br>Here's the first half of that posting.
<br>
<br>++++
</p>
</div><!-- section 188 -->
<a name="x189"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x189" class="tiny">x190</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_190');">AE9/11T infiltration exhibited with two FAQ</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-22</p>
<div id="sect_190" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Richard Gage, Despite the many 9/11 truths that your efforts through out the years have tried to bring to the attention of the general public, there has still been a bit of gatekeeping and not following truth where it leads. In the early years, I accepted the AE9/11T (and your) position as the baby-steps needed for public acceptance. But as those years progressed into literally decades, it became clear that those efforts were gatekeeping and fixing the 9/11 Truth Movement's collective beliefs into limited hang-outs.
<br>
<br>Nothing exhibits AE9/11T infiltration better than two FAQ's published under your leadership. One of the FAQ's was supposed to debunk Dr. Wood's work, yet it did not address a single item from her book giving no confidence to the readers that the writers even smelled the ink in the crack of her book, and then spent 40% of its already wimpy word-count in plugging the limited hang-out nano-thermite.
<br>
<br>DISCLAIMER: Dr. Wood's book is very crafty disinformation: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices.
<br>
<br>The above is a summary of the legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood's work that the FAQ should have performed. Why didn't AE9/11T legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work? Because she collected a lot of evidence that any 9/11-Theory-du-jour would have to address in order to be even part-way valid. Recall: arches/sags, horseshoes, steel doobies (of the wall assemblies), and "meteors." These are just the opening examples of artifacts in need of an explanation that NT champions (Dr. Jones, et al) have no explanation for.
<br>
<br>The second FAQ from AE9/11T under your leadership exhibiting clever disinformation on par with Dr. Wood is the one that does indeed debunk "nuclear blasts" as the primary mechanism of destruction. Owing to that FAQ's very limited scope [nuclear blasts], I am logically inclined to agree: "nuclear blasts were not the primary mechanism of destruction at the WTC." But this deceitful and limited premise only debunks nuclear devices that are designed with "nuclear blasts" being a primary part of their nuclear yield. And of course in the strawman debunking, there is also the element of framing those nuclear devices as being too powerful and having too much radiation fall-out. [And the FAQ suffers badly in its cherry-picked footnotes, that if a reader traces into its source (e.g., Jeff Prager publications) demonstrates the clear disinfo agenda.]
<br>
<br>The FAQ attempts to discredit ALL FORMS OF NUCLEAR DEVICES with its faulty logic, yet does not even mention those nuclear devices that do ~not~ use a "nuclear blast" as its primary yield.
<br>
<br>Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 190 -->
<a name="x191"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x191" class="tiny">x192</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_192');">Fauci's COVID prove that medical professionals and scientists can be purchased to pursue agendas</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-22</p>
<div id="sect_192" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Johnny Plectrum, if Fauci's COVID (and his other creations) didn't already prove that medical professionals and scientists can be purchased to pursue agendas (or risk their very careers and livelihoods), then ratcheting back in time demonstrates the same things with AE9/11 Truth.
<br>
<br>It isn't that they haven't mastered science. It is that those who get exposure are promoting an agenda "thus-far-and-no-further." They haven't followed truth wherever it led; they've settled for limited hang-outs, because the 9/11 nuclear truth can still have figurative radioactive fall out in leadership, agencies, institutions. Hell, a large enough public revelation of 9/11 having nuclear components could lead to us simply voting out the government. [The danger there is the void and what authoritarian rushes in to fill it.]
<br>
<br>+++ Here's a repeat
<br>
<br>Nothing exhibits AE9/11T infiltration better than two FAQ's published under your leadership. One of the FAQ's was supposed to debunk Dr. Wood's work, yet it did not address a single item from her book giving no confidence to the readers that the writers even smelled the ink in the crack of her book, and then spent 40% of its already wimpy word-count in plugging the limited hang-out nano-thermite.
<br>
<br>DISCLAIMER: Dr. Wood's book is very crafty disinformation: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices.
<br>
<br>The above is a summary of the legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood's work that the FAQ should have performed. Why didn't AE9/11T legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work? Because she collected a lot of evidence that any 9/11-Theory-du-jour would have to address in order to be even part-way valid. Recall: arches/sags, horseshoes, steel doobies (of the wall assemblies), and "meteors." These are just the opening examples of artifacts in need of an explanation that NT champions (Dr. Jones, et al) have no explanation for.
<br>
<br>The second FAQ from AE9/11T under your leadership exhibiting clever disinformation on par with Dr. Wood is the one that does indeed debunk "nuclear blasts" as the primary mechanism of destruction. Owing to that FAQ's very limited scope [nuclear blasts], I am logically inclined to agree: "nuclear blasts were not the primary mechanism of destruction at the WTC." But this deceitful and limited premise only debunks nuclear devices that are designed with "nuclear blasts" being a primary part of their nuclear yield. And of course in the strawman debunking, there is also the element of framing those nuclear devices as being too powerful and having too much radiation fall-out. [And the FAQ suffers badly in its cherry-picked footnotes, that if a reader traces into its source (e.g., Jeff Prager publications) demonstrates the clear disinfo agenda.]
<br>
<br>The FAQ attempts to discredit ALL FORMS OF NUCLEAR DEVICES with its faulty logic, yet does not even mention those nuclear devices that do ~not~ use a "nuclear blast" as its primary yield.
<br>
<br>Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 192 -->
<a name="x193"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x193" class="tiny">x194</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_194');">aren't "squibs" in the traditional sense of building demolition</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_194" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158405447081269?comment_id=10158405838821269&reply_comment_id=10158405854101269¬if_id=1648153499803941¬if_t=feed_comment_reply&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158405447081269?comment_id=10158405838821269&reply_comment_id=10158405854101269¬if_id=1648153499803941¬if_t=feed_comment_reply&ref=notif</a>
<br>Those aren't "squibs" in the traditional sense of building demolition, because (a) there would be more of them on more floors and (b) they would have been very loud.
<br>
<br>My premise is that those "squibs" are really residual kick-back on a conventional chemical charge used to kickstart the fission stage of a tactical late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear device.
<br>
<br>Late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices (FGNW) used a single conventional explosive charge to kickstart the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted, cone-shaped manner (upwards). Technically, these FGNW are in the category of DEW. [Means that Dr. Wood's disinfo is closer to the truth than the NT.]
<br>
<br>Four FGNW per detonation level clicked into brackets pre-mounted to each outer side of the inner core and aimed away from the core and to graze wall assemblies many floors above the detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels in the towers. The image shows the ignition of the FGNW via these squibs 10-20 floors below the main destructive wave.
<br>
<br>The multi-stages of ignition and a possible measureable duration constituted a need for a stable platform that neither that FGNW nor an FGNW from lower in the tower should destroy pre-maturely, else (a) a FGNW becomes misaligned and cause observable collateral damage or (b) the FGNW does a nuclear fizzle and fails to meet its full nuclear yield in the designed manner. The spire [remnants of the inner core] is an artifact of both towers' destructions if you look closely.
<br>
<br>The kickstarter charge was not designed for destruction, but was visible and distinguished as "squibs" on the face of the towers 10-20 floors ahead of the destruction wave. [Had they been "squibs" used in conventional demolition, they would have been more frequent, more symmetrical on all faces, and much much louder.]
<br>
<br>The fission stage was not designed for destruction or radiation, but its fingerprints are present in the USGS data tables on the components measured in their dust samples and included Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities [and no mention in the plain text explanations of the tables as to why such would be present.]
<br>
<br>The fundamental building block of all FGNW is tritium for that fusion stage. Not only do we have the song-and-dance tritium report that scope-limits its shoddy measurement and analysis efforts of tritium to "possible building content" that amounts to air plane exit signs, gun sights on weapons, and time-pieces [ignoring any other explanations and something that Dr. Jones accepts unquestioned and unchallenged], but we also have Dr. Cahill who was weeks late to the scene to measure air samples and who still measured downwind for weeks tiny particles of metal, which indicates that an extremely hot heat source was still present under the rubble and was continually generating them.
<br>
<br>Because the output could be aimed, fracticide between adjacent or neighboring devices could be reduced. But probably not eliminated, as evidenced by the under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>
<br>This release of 80% of its yield would not have necessarily been loud. The device was already tactical in total yield, but 80% of it went into these highly energetic neutrons and 20% into other artifacts: heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The latter three were all present. Heat wave = arches, sags, and horse shoes of big steel beams; steel doobies of wall assemblies; "meteors". Blast wave = laterally ejected content, such as wall assemblies. EMP = vehicle damage in the parking lot and along the streets near WTC-7, captures on video before WTC-7 was destroyed. [BTW, NT has no explanation for these artifacts.]
<br>
<br>Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>The evidence that 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components literally leaks out all over, from the pulverizing overklll nature, to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, etc.
<br>
<br>However one of my favorite pieces of nuclear evidence [that NT champions also ignore] is somewhat new and also something that older people who were raised on televison snow from rabbit-ear antennas would probably not even notice: camera scintillation.
<br>
<br>NIST and FEMA had the money for the best video and digital camera technology available. It doesn't take much radiation to totally foul a video recording. How many NIST video recordings of the pile or of the Fresh Kills site suddenly experience near catastrophic failure in what remains rendered? Digital recording devices, such as the technology present in our smart phones today and was in digital cameras and phones then, registers radiation effects differently [sparkles in the picture]. Did you know that you can turn your smart phone into a Geiger counter; there's an app for it?
<br>
<br>We have recorded evidence from NIST and FEMA of radiation literally leaching off of the debris. This is why they suppressed those recordings for many years, and also why the edict came early that outlawed Geiger counters and phones/cameras from Ground Zero.
<br>
<br>Here is my write-up with lots of substantiating links that simply arranges all of the Tetris evidence blocks to support a FGNW theory that has fewer gaps than the traditional 9/11 theories of NT, (large) nukes, or Woodsian DEW.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 194 -->
<a name="x195"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x195" class="tiny">x196</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_196');"> more exotic weaponry was absolutely not required</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_196" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges, more exotic weaponry was absolutely not required for total destruction of the towers by controlled demolition. FYI.
</p>
</div><!-- section 196 -->
<a name="x197"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x197" class="tiny">x198</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_198');">absolutely mistaken in your ill-researched statement trying to poo-poo "more exotic weaponry"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_198" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, I believe that you are absolutely mistaken in your ill-researched statement trying to poo-poo "more exotic weaponry" as not being required for total destruction of the towers by controlled demolition. Why?
<br>
<br>Conventional chemical explosives [regardless of how much NT is mixed in] would have been deafening, would have been a logistics nightmare not easy to hide from bomb-sniffing dogs (who were on vacation for just a few days prior to 9/11), and cannot account for all sorts of anomalous evidence: steel arches/sags & horseshoes, steel doobies, the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, Uranium and its decay elements measured by USGS in the dust, the shoddy tritium report, the air samples with tiny metal particles measured by Dr. Cahill weeks after the event (indicating a very hot heat source was continually regenerating them), etc.
<br>
<br>The real bottom-line against conventional chemical explosives (plus NT) is why? Meaning, why have as both a design and implementation goal the overkill pulverization through its path of greatest resistance at near free-fall acceleration: [a] if conventional means with Hollywood trickery could produce something not so obvious (albeit still loud and louder than it was), particularly if they were going to argue "plane impacts, jet fuel, and gravity"? [b] if the observed effects represented overkill in the implementation and increased the risk of being discovered beforehand?
<br>
<br>Or looking at this from a different perspective, why are YOU, Mr. Michael W. Lurie, arguing against "more exotic weaponry" (late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons) [a] when FGNW addresses MANY MORE PIECES OF EVIDENCE than your conventional chemical explosives (plus NT) can? [b] when FGNW have energy to spare, wouldn't be as loud, would have been easier to install, wouldn't have been so easily detected beforehand? [c] when FGNW are in the arsenals of the main culprits?
<br>
<br>I mean, you are ruling out FGNW for what reason? Is it because you have invested a decade or more defending the limited hang-out known as nano-thermite and have cognitive dissonance and don't want to believe that Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth could have been infiltrated and led the public astray?
<br>
<br>Nothing exhibits AE9/11T infiltration better than two FAQ's published by AE9/11Truth. One of the FAQ's was supposed to debunk Dr. Wood's work, yet it did not address a single item from her book giving no confidence to the readers that the writers even smelled the ink in her book's crack, and then spent 40% of its already wimpy word-count in plugging the limited hang-out nano-thermite.
<br>
<br>DISCLAIMER: Dr. Wood's book is very crafty disinformation: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices.
<br>
<br>The above is a summary of the legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood's work that the FAQ should have performed. Why didn't AE9/11T legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work? Because she collected a lot of evidence that any 9/11-Theory-du-jour would have to address in order to be even part-way valid.
<br>
<br>The second FAQ from AE9/11T exhibiting clever disinformation on par with Dr. Wood is the one that does indeed debunk "nuclear blasts" as the primary mechanism of destruction. Owing to that FAQ's very limited scope [nuclear blasts], I am logically inclined to agree: "nuclear blasts were not the primary mechanism of destruction at the WTC." But this deceitful and scope-limited premise only debunks nuclear devices that are designed with "nuclear blasts" being a primary part of their nuclear yield. And of course in the strawman debunking, there is also the element of framing those nuclear devices as being too powerful and having too much radiation fall-out. [And the FAQ suffers badly in its cherry-picked footnotes, that if a reader traces into its source (e.g., Jeff Prager publications) demonstrates the clear disinfo agenda.]
<br>
<br>The FAQ attempts to discredit ALL FORMS OF NUCLEAR DEVICES with its faulty logic, yet does not even mention those nuclear devices that do ~not~ use a "nuclear blast" as its primary yield. Here's where you need to deep-dive into Dr. Andre Gsponer's work that was peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal [given above] and his work in the decade leading up to 9/11 that Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth conveniently left out of their literature review.
<br>
<br>In other words, AE9/11Truth has gone to great efforts to ignore "more exotic weaponry" (FNGW) in their research and reports in a most stilted and deceitful way.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 198 -->
<a name="x199"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x199" class="tiny">x200</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_200');">I know much more about this shit than you do</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_200" style="display: block;">
<p>...because I know much more about this shit than you do. And I don't intend to waste my time arguing about it with someone who already knows all the answers.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 200 -->
<a name="x201"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x201" class="tiny">x202</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_202');">Are you gatekeeping or something?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_202" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, that response from you -- <i>"because [you] know much more about this shit than [I] do"</i> -- is very lame, doesn't substantiate any point you might legitimately have against 9/11 FGNW aka "exotic weaponry," and doesn't prove your boastful statement of allegedly "knowing more about this shit" than me.
<br>
<br>I love the contradiction between your first sentence and the second. According to your second sentence, I am <i>"someone who already knows all the answers"</i> yet supposedly you <i>"know more about this shit"</i> than I do. Does that mean you have all the answers and then some? Do tell! Spill the beans! What am I missing? You make the claim, you prove it.
<br>
<br>As for your intention to not waste time, why did you even bother to make a comment? Are you gatekeeping or something?
<br>
<br>This isn't our first exchange on this topic. Your previous contributions to discussions that also centered on this 9/11 FGNW topic were... JUST AS LAME quite literally. You seem to have little substance.
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br>
<br>[In the above, (1) expand all chapter and expand all subsections; (2) Ctrl+F in your browser and search for "Lurie".]
<br>
<br>Go away, Mr. Lurie, and let's let the adults have a rational discussion on "exotic weaponry" and the disinformation foisted on us by various subgroups of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 202 -->
<a name="x203"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x203" class="tiny">x204</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_204');">overt ignorance amuses me?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_204" style="display: block;">
<p>Because overt ignorance amuses me?
</p>
</div><!-- section 204 -->
<a name="x205"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x205" class="tiny">x206</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_206');">you sure don't walk the talk with accurate and substantiated criticism</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_206" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, I loved your question as if you don't know what amuses you! Based on your contributions to the FGNW threads that have come across your bow and where you "participated", not a whole lot of competence in debunking the FGNW premise or promoting another premise (e.g., not-FGNW). Thus this exhibition of "overt ignorance" on your part must give you many hours of amusement when you gaze into the mirror at yourself each day.
<br>
<br>For someone who <i>"knows more about this shit than I do"</i>, you sure don't walk the talk with accurate and substantiated criticism. Without substantiation, what do your bold statements become? Dangling innuendo and in cases bald-faced lies. Not a good reflection on you.
<br>
<br>Mr. Lurie, if you had an inkling of "wasting" even a little bit of time to drop seeds for lurker readers to discover valid 9/11 truth -- allegedly "not-FGNW" --, then the FGNW topic as presented and defended by me certainly deserves your A-game, more thought, and more effort.
<br>
<br>Your wimpyness only hurts you. And it hurts AE9/11Truth (of which I am a vetted member since its inception), because I have presented legitimate criticism of their gatekeeping and limited hang-out efforts, criticism to which you have had zero response. Could you be any more overt in your "overt ignorance"?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 206 -->
<a name="x207"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x207" class="tiny">x208</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_208');">Keep at it, champ.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_208" style="display: block;">
<p>Keep at it, champ.
<br>"The only difference between misinformation and disinformation is intent."
</p>
</div><!-- section 208 -->
<a name="x209"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x209" class="tiny">x210</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_210');">Bots are incapable of (or prevented from) deep-diving into references outside</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_210" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, quoting yourself from 2019-11-12, I see. Of course, it is a bit disengenuous of you (e.g., bad intent) to drop this gem again within the body of your other lame efforts to participate in a serious discussion about which you have offered no evidence that you know anything. A repeat performance of lameness here in this thread.
<br>
<br>Keep at it, Champ, and outing yourself as a disinformation agent. Some of your clear tells are an inability to argue specifics, an inability to follow links, and blithe two sentence responses as if served up from a database of acceptable brush-off, no-substance, near-ad-hominem responses.
<br>
<br>+++ Here's me quoting from myself.
<br>
<br>A real person who was a sincere seeker of Truth would be able to say: <i>"Those anomalies are some real fucked up shit, and I don't know how NT would have been positioned to explain them."</i>
<br>
<br>They'd say: <i>"Mr. Bridges re-arrangement of the 9/11 Tetris evidence blocks into his FGNW does surprisingly have fewer gaps while addressing a wider swath of evidence, and my cognitive dissonance gives me headaches trying to grasp it."</i>
<br>
<br>Bots are incapable of (or prevented from) deep-diving into references outside of their scope or of expounding in depth on premises within their scope.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 210 -->
<a name="x211"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x211" class="tiny">x212</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_212');">freakin' hilarious</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_212" style="display: block;">
<p>You are freakin' hilarious. In a sad sort of way.
</p>
</div><!-- section 212 -->
<a name="x213"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x213" class="tiny">x214</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_214');">"freakin' hilarious nothingness"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_214" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael W. Lurie, My participation is not as sad as yours. I at least did my homework, came prepared, and argue with substance and elegance. This is at least your second time on my FGNW carousel where some form of your participation to the topic was registered, and they are "freakin' hilarious" in their "Seinfeld nothingness".
<br>
<br>Latter-day lurker readers here on Facebook (and later my blog) are not going to favorably judge your efforts, because in total their <i>"freakin' hilarious nothingness"</i> doesn't add up to a single counter-point to the FGNW premise that gatekeeping-you seems to want to debunk. That dog don't hunt.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 214 -->
<a name="x215"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x215" class="tiny">x216</a>
Don Kunes : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_216');">we all can't be gems</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_216" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges well guess we all can't be gems
</p>
</div><!-- section 216 -->
<a name="x217"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x217" class="tiny">x218</a>
Jody McIntyre : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_218');">I use building 7 and the pentagon</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_218" style="display: block;">
<p>I don't even use the twin towers in my arguments anymore. I use building 7 and the pentagon. People seem to have far fewer 'answers' surrounding those.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 218 -->
<a name="x219"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x219" class="tiny">x220</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_220');">WTC-7 only rivaled by Dr. Anthony Fauci</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_220" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Jody McIntyre, Yes, the ability of the corporate media to keep WTC-7 out of the "News Discussion" and of the general public's mind for literally decades is a feat only rivaled by Dr. Anthony Fauci's ability to muzzle corporate media in keeping the origins (and funding) of COVID-19/Coronaviruses out of the world's mind for over a year of the pandemic.
<br>
<br>However, my tactical nuclear premise (FGNW) applies to not just the towers, but also WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7. The difference with the first three is that the multiple FGNW in each building were all planted at more or less the same detonation level (as opposed to multiple detonation levels in the towers).
<br>
<br>The FGNW in WTC-6 were probably mounted near the outer walls and aimed upwards but away from those walls. Vaporized all the floors and the roof in the way leaving a very pretty crater looking shell. It should be noted that FEMA made it to WTC-6's vaults; not much is mentioned of its actual condition except the certainty that its contents were emptied before the event.
<br>
<br>And then there's WTC-4 that had its main edifice leveled to the ground but not its north wing, nor its gold vaults underneath.
<br>
<br>Have you ever installed a big screen television to the wall? It involves attaching to the wall a mounting bracket and is the task that requires the most attention so that screws hit wall studs and the bracket is solid to support the weight it will have. A receptacle bracket is attached to the back of the television (where the manufacturer designed in screw holes for this purpose). The final step is to click the bracket from the television into the wall mount bracket, like a ski boot into a ski binding.
<br>
<br>Owing to my suspicion that the multi-stage FGNW and measurable ignition time necessitated a fixed and unchanging (from the destruction) mounting point, I believe most of the demolition effort involved attaching mounting brackets to the walls [without any devices present] and adding needed wiring, and wouldn't necessarily be noticed. Very close to D-day, or even D-hour, the many FGNW devices could be quickly clicked into their brackets.
<br>
<br>Fracticide and nuclear fizzle (e.g., devices not meeting their expected nuclear yields in the expected manner) are always a risk with tandem devices. FGNW in WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, or the towers could have fouled thosed in WTC-7. Replacement or newly "clicked in" alternate FGNW could be done with a small team in a few hours. Remember, FGNW are in the category of DEW and have energy to spare. Certainly enough to suddenly and symmetrically give us 8 stories (100 feet) of destruction indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration in WTC-7's demise, as noted by NIST.
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 220 -->
<a name="x221"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x221" class="tiny">x222</a>
Dan Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_222');">What of the molten metals</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_222" style="display: block;">
<p>Jody McIntyre What of the molten metals, the nanothermite, the pyroclastic flows, the molten steel, iron pouring from WTC2 minutes before it was blown up, Jody?
</p>
</div><!-- section 222 -->
<a name="x223"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x223" class="tiny">x224</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_224');">the evidence of nanothermite is actually very thin</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-24</p>
<div id="sect_224" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Dan Smith, not to split-hairs, but the evidence of nanothermite is actually very thin. What everyone (RJ Lee Group, Paul Lioy et al, USGS) found in the dust was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres that required a very hot heat source to create.
<br>
<br>The fallacy of Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, et al was to ASSUME nanothermite was the sole cause of this anomaly and to do all in their power to avoid even looking at or considering any other mechanism of destruction.
<br>
<br>Their error in this is even more clear when you look at how they extrapolated backwards to arrive at a minimum NT payload to allegedly accomplish this artifact, only to have that payload be massive and Occam Razor defying of the logistics. Worse, Dr. Jones made two admissions over the years: "NT was mixed with RDX or something to achieve the observed pulverization" (yet little effort was made into "the something") and "something maintained the hotspots, not just NT" (yet little effort was made into "the something"). Worst of all, the calculations on the amount NT allegedly unspent from its pulverizing purposes needed to maintain even one hot spot for only four weeks is obscenely massive and totally incredible as an action plan that could get by bomb-sniffing dogs. FGNW don't have that problem.
<br>
<br>Peer-reviewed and in a reputable science journal, available at the time Dr. Jones was "repudiating all forms of nuclear involvement", and purposely missed in his literature review. For shame.
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 224 -->
<!-- ***** 202203_mcb_fgnw_04_gage.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_4 -->
<a name="p5"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_5');">Part 5: FGNW Discussions with Lucy Moyer, Lorraine Clarke</a></h2>
<div id="part_5" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202203_mcb_fgnw_05_harrit.htm -->
<a name="x225"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x225" class="tiny">x226</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_226');">nanothermite (mixed with any amount of conventional chemical explosives) does not address a host of anomalies</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-26</p>
<div id="sect_226" style="display: block;">
<p>Dr. Harrit is being deceitful, and the first indication thereof is that nanothermite (mixed with any amount of conventional chemical explosives) does not address a host of anomalies: arches/sags, horseshoes, "steel doobies" (of wall assemblies), the meteor, duration of under-rubble hot-spots, Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities sample-to-sample, the shoddy tritium report that Dr. Jones accepted unquestioned and unchallenged, etc. Not only are those anomalies not addressed, those who champion NT do not even attempt to explain them.
<br>
<br>NT was not found in the dust samples analyzed by the RJ Lee Group, Paul Lioy et al, or the USGS. NT was only allegedly found in the dust samples given to Dr. Jones, who coincidentally was more instrumental than anyone else in steering the rational elements of the 9/11 Truth Movement away from considering 9/11 nuclear components.
<br>
<br>What was found in everyone's dust samples was a high percentage of tiny iron spheres, that Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit try to calculate backwards (paraphrased): "given percentage X of iron spheres in the dust, then ASSUMING nanothermite as the source in the chemical reaction with steel, then the original quantities were Y and massive."
<br>
<br>Unfortunately, the high school chemistry and math applied to a single hot-spot that burned for only 4 weeks proves the unreasonableness of NT (mixed with whatever). Not only is a massively obscene amount of NT required, but this is also allegedly unspent from its original (observed) pulverizing purposes.
<br>
<br>Speaking of pulverization, Dr. Jones said that NT was mixed with something like RDX to achieve it, yet did no research into that "something". Likewise, Dr. Jones et al measured six spikes in the off-gases of the smoldering pile and confidently stated NT might have been responsible, but more importantly "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." Alas, they did no research into that "something" either.
<br>
<br>Bottom-line, high school chemistry and math disprove NT as the "primary source of destruction" before other debunking questions are asked (and not answered): how was NT allegedly position to achieve the artifacts known as "the steel doobies" (rolled up wall assemblies), the meteor, the arches/sags of heavy I-beams? Logistically how was obscenely massive overkill amounts of NT installed to achieved the observed overkill pulverization [not to mention duration of under-rubble hot-spots]? Why was pulverization even a design goal of the implementation when "less is more" in terms of an event that executed "pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration without extra energy added"?
<br>
<br>When Dr. Jones tried to debunk "all nuclear devices", he framed his examples with too much yield and too much radiation.
<br>
<br>Dr. Andre Gsponer is a reputable nuclear scientists with dozens of publications in several languages. Here is one example, peer-reviewed, and published in a reputable science journal. How is it that Dr. Jones (et al) [and Dr. Wood] missed Dr. Gsponer's work when they were doing the literature review for their own "reputiation of 9/11 nukes"?
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>In a nutshell, late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices (FGNW) used a single conventional explosive charge to kickstart the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted, cone-shaped manner (upwards). Technically, these FGNW are in the category of DEW. [Means that Dr. Wood's disinfo is closer to the truth than the NT, is why her work stops short, why it was framed as "beams from space", and why it inserted "Hutchison Effects" and other unconnected themes.]
<br>
<br>This release of 80% of its yield would not have necessarily been loud. The device was already tactical in total yield, but 80% of it went into these highly energetic neutrons and 20% into other artifacts: heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The latter three were all present. Heat wave = arches, sags, and horse shoes of big steel beams; steel doobies of wall assemblies; "meteors". Blast wave = laterally ejected content, such as wall assemblies. EMP = vehicle damage in the parking lot and along the streets near WTC-7, captures on video before WTC-7 was destroyed.
<br>
<br>Because the output could be aimed, fracticide between adjacent devices could be reduced. But probably not eliminated, as evidenced by the under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>
<br>Four FGNW per detonation level clicked into brackets mounted to each side of the inner core and aimed away from the core and to graze wall assemblies many floors above the detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels in the towers. The multi-stages of ignition and a possible measureable duration constituted a need for a stable platform that neither that FGNW nor an FGNW from lower in the tower should destroy pre-maturely, else (a) a FGNW becomes misaligned and cause observable collateral damage or (b) the FGNW does a nuclear fizzle and fails to meet its full nuclear yield in the designed manner. The spire [remnants of the inner core] is an artifact of both towers' destructions if you look closely.
<br>
<br>The kickstarter charge was not designed for destruction, but was visible and distinguished as "squibs" on the face of the towers 10-20 floors ahead of the destruction wave. [Had they been "squibs" used in conventional demolition, they would have been more frequent, more symmetrical on all faces, and much much louder.]
<br>
<br>The fission stage was not designed for destruction or radiation, but its fingerprints are present in the USGS data tables on the components measured in their dust samples and included Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities [and no mention in the plain text explanations of the tables as to why such would be present.]
<br>
<br>The fundamental building block of all FGNW is tritium for that fusion stage. Not only do we have the song-and-dance tritium report that scope-limits its shoddy measurement and analysis efforts of tritium to "possible building content" that amounts to air plane exit signs, gun sights on weapons, and time-pieces [ignoring any other explanations and something that Dr. Jones accepts unquestioned and unchallenged], but we also have Dr. Cahill who was weeks late to the scene to measure air samples and who still measured downwind for weeks tiny particles of metal, which indicates that an extremely hot heat source was still present under the rubble and was continually generating them.
<br>
<br>The evidence that 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components literally leaks out all over, from the pulverizing overklll nature, to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, etc.
<br>
<br>However one of my favorite pieces of nuclear evidence [that NT champions also ignore] is somewhat new and also something that older people who were raised on televison snow from rabbit-ear antennas would probably not even notice: camera scintillation.
<br>
<br>NIST and FEMA had the money for the best video and digital camera technology available. It doesn't take much radiation to totally foul a video recording. How many NIST video recordings of the pile or of the Fresh Kills site suddenly experience near catastrophic failure in what remains rendered? Digital recording devices, such as the technology present in our smart phones today and was in digital cameras and phones then, registers radiation effects differently [sparkles in the picture]. Did you know that you can turn your smart phone into a Geiger counter; there's an app for it?
<br>
<br>Here is my write-up with lots of substantiating links that simply arranges all of the Tetris evidence blocks to support a FGNW theory that has fewer gaps than the traditional 9/11 theories of NT, (large) nukes, or Woodsian DEW.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 226 -->
<a name="x227"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x227" class="tiny">x228</a>
Lucy Moyer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_228');">Oh lord, another ego</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-26</p>
<div id="sect_228" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges ,
<br>Oh lord, another ego beckoning folks to follow him down the "yeah but"¦" rabbit hole.
</p>
</div><!-- section 228 -->
<a name="x229"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x229" class="tiny">x230</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_230');">your glowing invitation for you and others to explore my unique rabbit-hole</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-26</p>
<div id="sect_230" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lucy Moyer, Why thank you so kindly for your glowing invitation for you and others to explore my unique rabbit-hole that ain't no "Yosemity Samantha" been able to TNT shut yet, but I welcome the attempts! I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this premise. Alas, I'm a religious fanatic; I'm fanatical about Truth.
<br>
<br>If you were sincere and a sincere seeker of Truth, you'd exhibit a host of different traits. Like, you'd be curious and dive into the reference material before offering a comment that demonstrates how you don't have the strength of intellect or character to Alice down my rabbit hole with an open-mind.
<br>
<br>Lucy, Lucy, Lucy. If you can't play nicely and with rational, reasoned, researched words, your ego is already outmatched on all discussion dimensions pertaining to this FGNW topic.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>{MCB: Within a day of my response, Lucy Moyer's comment was deleted. Because my reply comment was dependent, it was deleted too.}
</p>
</div><!-- section 230 -->
<a name="x231"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x231" class="tiny">x232</a>
Lorraine Clarke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_232');">near vicinity reported that the dust cloud was COOL?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-26</p>
<div id="sect_232" style="display: block;">
<p>Interesting.
<br><br>But if there was a heat wave that instantly rolled up those massive steel columns, then how is it that people in the near vicinity reported that the dust cloud was COOL?
<br><br>There were several people inside the tower who survived unharmed and walked out after the event, who did not suffer from any heat wave effects.
<br><br>What of the metal cabinets, apparently melted as though from extreme heat, which contained undamaged paper?
<br><br>What of the melted motor vehicles, progressively dissolving like candles in a heatwave, right next to unaffected vehicles, and again, amidst clouds of unburned paper?
<br><br>Where did their engines go?
<br><br>Nobody but Judy Wood has ever attempted to discuss these apparently vapourised engine blocks. Just a big empty cavity beneath the hood.
<br><br>The only other option is that the City authorities moved many engine-less vehicles into position on the surrounding streets as "fillers", which would require a large scale operation of unloading undriveable cars along the roads, apparently something which did not occur.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 232 -->
<a name="x233"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x233" class="tiny">x234</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_234');">Dr. Wood got it wrong</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-26</p>
<div id="sect_234" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, You ask excellent questions that I will endeavor to answer.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"But if there was a heat wave that instantly rolled up those massive steel columns, then how is it that people in the near vicinity reported that the dust cloud was COOL?"</i>
<br>
<br>There are different nuclear yields and happening at the same time, and can easily get confused with one another. 80% of the already-tactical nuclear yield was aimed upwards in a cone shape of highly energetic neutrons that did the dustification of the cement and the metal pans and trusses that supported them in the floors. [4 per detonation level.] The remaining 20% of the yield would have been divided between a localized heat wave at that detonation level, EMP (that escaped through window slits), and a blast wave [which might be the "squibs" seen on the face 10-20 floors ahead of the dustification wave.]
<br>
<br>I believed this caused wall assemblies to have their spandrels weakened from the heat, and the subsequent blast wave allowed the hollow box columns of the wall assembly over three stories to be rolled like a "steel doobie".
<br>
<br>The <i>"dust was COOL"</i> is relative, and the dust felt by the people in the near vacinity had a significant cooling distance to travel to get to them.
<br>
<br>I disagree with the assessment of "cool", because among the evidence collected by Dr. Judy Wood were reports of first responders driving across bridges to Ground Zero and noticing where the ambient air temperature increased.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"There were several people inside the tower who survived unharmed and walked out after the event, who did not suffer from any heat wave effects."</i>
<br>
<br>Owing to the multiple-FGNW deployed per level and the many detonation levels, the risk exists that one or more FGNW become misaligned or mis-timed, and thereby causing a neighboring device to not reach its expected nuclear yield, or even nuclear fizzling (a real term). The hot-spots burning for months are an indication that maybe a few of the FGNW experienced some form of nuclear fizzle in not reaching its expected nuclear yields in all of its outputs.
<br>
<br>Thus, the surviving people inside the towers (a stairwell, to be specific) experienced the fate of one of several possibilities:
<br>
<br>- no FGNW was planted and / or aimed from below them in their vacinity.
<br>- the FGNW that should have creamed them malfunctioned.
<br>
<br>Note that remnant of the inner-core deemed "the spire" is an artifact of both towers' demise, and hints that the devices were mounted on the outer sides of the inner core and aimed away from the core, precisely to assure a stable platform for all FGNW at all detonation levels.
<br>
<br>Those people from the stairwell were not on the detonation levels and were shielded by many floors, and the stairwell itself. They would not have experienced the heat wave localized to a detonation point.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"What of the metal cabinets, apparently melted as though from extreme heat, which contained undamaged paper?"</i>
<br>
<br>80% of the yield was highly energetic neutrons that would travel through all content in their path and leave energy behind deep and throughout the molecular structure of that content. Dustification is an appropriate Woodsian term. Content further away and/or outside the output cone of destruction would experience the event differently, making it easy for a file cabinet's side to be grazed and ablated into oblivion while some lonely papers in its former storage were missed by the cone and survived.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"What of the melted motor vehicles, progressively dissolving like candles in a heatwave, right next to unaffected vehicles, and again, amidst clouds of unburned paper?"</i>
<br>
<br>EMP was one of the side-effects in the 20% of the yield that could conceivably slip out through window slits and falling debris. Line-of-sight it could induce Eddy currents in metal it hits; large currents results in heat that became sufficient to ignite what was attached, like car paint.
<br>
<br>I assume you are referencing the cars parked near WTC-7 before it came down, and in the car parking lot.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Where did their engines go?"</i>
<br>
<br>I think you got this "nugget" from Dr. Wood, and it references the wilted front-end of a special type of pumper firetruck. Dr. Wood's analysis that the engine melted is simply an ERROR that she needs to fix on her website and in new editions of her book. The engine in that model firetruck sat back much further in the chassis and isn't in the front that somehow got bashed in.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Nobody but Judy Wood has ever attempted to discuss these apparently vapourised engine blocks."</i>
<br>
<br>Dr. Judy Wood got this issue wrong; the engines sat further back so physically never were in the empty cavity supposedly captured in pictures.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Just a big empty cavity beneath the hood."</i>
<br>
<br>By design of that type of fire truck. Look it up. Sadly, Dr. Wood got this one wrong.
<br>
<br>The fire truck that Dr. Wood should have made hay out of was parked near WTC-7 and absolutely torched.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"The only other option is that the City authorities moved many engine-less vehicles into position on the surrounding streets as "fillers", which would require a large scale operation of unloading undriveable cars along the roads, apparently something which did not occur."</i>
<br>
<br>No, sorry, that isn't "the only other option", because this is a definite case where factually Dr. Wood got it wrong and purposely describes the design of that fire truck wrong to come to the wrong conclusion of "engines vaporated."
<br>
<br>By the way, I've legitimately debunked Dr. Judy Wood's work: by design she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices. Still, I recommend her book for the color images and evidence that she collects. Moreover, even though I consider it clever disinformation, Dr. Wood with DEW is closer to the truth than nanothermite ever will be, because FGNW are technically in the category of DEW.
<br>
<br>Also, I've had many riveting discussions with Woodsian DEWer's, including those closest to the dame herself. They were not sincere, and ran away from the task considering that if "Dr. Wood drew no conclusions", then her work needed to be brought to the next level to get to some conclusions. FGNW does that, but they are so cognitively dissonant mired in their limited hang-out premise, they won't acknowledge their patrona saint's work's failings (e.g., "no conclusions").
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 234 -->
<a name="x235"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x235" class="tiny">x236</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_236');">the discussions that I have had with notable Woodsian DEWers</a></b></p>
<p>2022-03-26</p>
<div id="sect_236" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, FTR Woodsian DEW was a premise that I had been duped or at least enamoured by. I loved her book until I starting reading it selectively the second and third time and observing the missed opportunities, the screwed opportunities, and the irrelevant opportunities leading astute readers to the conclusion that it was crafty disinformation, albeit with over 500 full-color images on its over 500 pages.
<br>
<br>More interesting are the discussions that I have had with notable Woodsian DEWers such as Andrew Johnson, Atahan Ganduu, and Roger Gloux.
<br>
<br>Before you over commit yourself to the Woodsian DEW disinformation, please review some of my earlier exchanges with proponents of such. If you know their arguments and how they were countered, your task becomes to agree with or debunk the counter to move the overall discussion forward. Alas, if you repeat their lame arguments without adding anything new, leaves the door open for me to copy my already authored response and paste it in here to rebut your efforts.
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html</a>
<br><a href="">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 236 -->
<!-- ***** 202203_mcb_fgnw_05_harrit.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_5 -->
<a name="p6"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_6');">Part 6: FGNW Discussions with Henry Beckwith, Phil Fellows, Bernie Soreass, Henry Hansteen, Darin Harvey, Ronald Bleier</a></h2>
<div id="part_6" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202204_mcb_fgnwSunstein.htm -->
<a name="x237"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x237" class="tiny">x238</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_238');">Sunstein agents did infiltrate and destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_238" style="display: block;">
<p><br>
<br>Meme
<br>2022-04-14
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/bernie.saurez.3/posts/536709384697212?notif_id=1649975021252900¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/bernie.saurez.3/posts/536709384697212?notif_id=1649975021252900¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I do have proof that <i>"Cass Sunstein agents did infiltrate and destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement"</i> and in particular AE9/11 Truth.
<br>
<br>One piece of evidence are the supposedly "energetic flakes" that only Dr. Jones found in his dust samples, but not the USGS, RJ Lee group, or Paul Lioy et al. What they all did find was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres. Of course, AE9/11T tries to say that this is the by-product of the NT/steel chemical reaction, but purposefully and deceitfully left out the calculations as to the quantity of such required to burn under the rubble for literally months.
<br>
<br>AE9/11T produce fraudulent FAQ's. The one that tries to debunk ~all~ nuclear weapons really only debunks (legitimately) "nuclear blasts", as in "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC." And I agree.
<br>
<br>Mostly because late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) were hybrid fission-triggered-fusion where the fusion stage released 80% of its nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion (cone-shaped, upwards, 4 FGNW per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels).
<br>
<br>Here's one of many peer-reviewed articles in a reputable science journal on the subject of FGNW that Dr. Jones (and Dr. Wood) missed in their alleged research and literature reviews.
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>Here's my write up.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br>ARXIV.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 238 -->
<a name="x239"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x239" class="tiny">x240</a>
Henry Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_240');">Maxwell Bridges omg</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_240" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges omg.
</p>
</div><!-- section 240 -->
<a name="x241"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x241" class="tiny">x242</a>
Phil Fellows : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_242');">Complete nutter off his Jesus freak hobby horse</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_242" style="display: block;">
<p>Henry Beckwith ~ Complete nutter off his Jesus freak hobby horse - just like that other nuclear attack woman dingbat Judy in Disguise - with glasses !!!lol ~
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0za_ZDXZ7k">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0za_ZDXZ7k</a>
<br>Rogan & Maher Mock "Racism" Of Wuhan Lab Leak Theory
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 242 -->
<a name="x243"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x243" class="tiny">x244</a>
Phil Fellows : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_244');">why people run away when you mention 9/11 truth</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_244" style="display: block;">
<p>Henry Beckwith ~ That guy is why people run away when you mention 9/11 truth... if they know anything about such idiots
</p>
</div><!-- section 244 -->
<a name="x245"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x245" class="tiny">x246</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_246');">Dr. Andre Gsponer's religion deserves an apology for your disrespectful comments</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_246" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith and Mr. Phil Fellows, so your entire argument against a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal about the subject of FGNW is <i>"omg"</i> and <i>"Complete nutter off his Jesus freak hobby horse"!</i>
<br>
<br>I do not know Dr. Andre Gsponer's religious bent, so you might well owe him an apology for your most disrespectful comments that do nothing to debunk his nuclear science (or his nuclear credentials).
<br>
<br>Thank you for identifying yourselves as disinfo agents.
<br>
<br>First clue was your inability to follow links. Second clue was opening with essentially ad hominem. Third clue was an inability to stay on subject or provide anything that would indicate you knew what your were talking about.
<br>
<br>You really need to up your game, because I came prepared.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 246 -->
<a name="x247"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x247" class="tiny">x248</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_248');">because of people like you who are quick to character assassinate</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_248" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Phil Fellows, the topic is Cass Sunstein infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The subtopic is about the very real potential that FGNW were the primary mechanisms of destruction at the WTC: tactical, low yield, used in tandem,...
<br>
<br>So you're saying that <i>"people run away from 9/11 Truth"</i> because of people like me, who researched the FGNW subject extensively and wrote up his findings!
<br>
<br>No, maybe <i>"people run away from 9/11 Truth"</i> because of people like you who are quick to character assassinate a fellow truther and not consider his research and reasoned work. [I would be happy for you to debunk it legitimately, because I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the subject.]
<br>
<br>I'm out of your league. I've been doing this for quite some time. I'm burned out on 9/11 but still alive and kicking.
<br>
<br>But every once in a while, something like the infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement peaks my interest. Why? Because it is precisely why my 9/11 conspiracy theory involving FGNW isn't more widely known and championed, because the energy requirements of pulverization through its path of greatest resistance and near free fall acceleration while ejecting content laterally (and not very loud compared to conventional demolition with chemical-based explosives) is a SCREAMING OBSCENELY HUGE energy sink for anyone even half-way science literate that, when combined with the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, should have already given us LEGITIMATE speculation into 9/11 nuclear means.
<br>
<br>The fact that most 9/11 nuclear speculation is wrong (e.g., single nukes per tower deep underground, too large in yield, of only one type of yield) and that LEGITIMATE speculation is a black hole [because those associated with research, development, usage of nuclear devices have really strict NDA's that involves treason and has consequences that include death.]
<br>
<br>So, Mr. Fellows, if you are going to participate here, kindly up your game. Step one to being able to debunk me is to RTFM, or in this case, read what I wrote. Step two is to legitimately find my errors, while also acknowledging nuggets of truth, because otherwise you aren't being objective and are exposing yourself as an agent with an agenda.
<br>
<br>Certainly infiltrating agents to FB to keep discussions away from 9/11 nuclear truths would be considered further proof of what the top-level meme complains about. Bravo!
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 248 -->
<a name="x249"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x249" class="tiny">x250</a>
Bernie Soreass : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_250');">you're going to pretend you don't know who this is</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_250" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges right dude... I bet you're going to pretend you don't know who this is... and even if you do know, you'll ignore it for the sake of your anti-Obama Alex Jones marching orders. Cass Sunstein theories are projected by those who haven't even focused on 9/11 anymore, that's how stupid and irrelevant.
</p>
</div><!-- section 250 -->
<a name="x251"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x251" class="tiny">x252</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_252');">Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wood were clever disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_252" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bernie Soreass, Don't be putting me into any camp with Morgan Reynolds (or Dr. Judy Wood). Shame on you by trying to associate me with them.
<br>
<br>I hesitate to point out that I don't know why Dr. Reynolds is being brought up with regards to anything I'm championing here.
<br>
<br>But yeah, Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wood were clever disinformation. So was Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Harrit, and all of AE9/11 Truth. NT is a limited hangout.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 252 -->
<a name="x253"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x253" class="tiny">x254</a>
Phil Fellows : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_254');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_254" style="display: block;">
<p>~ You are entertaining. So you criticize my ad hominem attacks against you and then call me a disinfo agent !!!!lol. I'll look through your stuff in a while - but seriously what do you think of Judith Woods or whatever her name is who talks about microwaves or whatever? And what is your opinion on this fellow former DC investigator? :
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPN3deAm5gU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPN3deAm5gU</a>.
Does he take you seriously? Or Richard Gage - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPN3deAm5gU">https://richardgage911.org/</a> ~
or Kevin Barrett : https://noliesradio.org/.../archive-2/kevin-barrett-show ???? Just humbly asking, since you are the big expert !!!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 254 -->
<a name="x255"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x255" class="tiny">x256</a>
Henry Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_256');">Why opt for a more exotic answer</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_256" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Henry Beckwith</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges have you heard of occam's razor? Why opt for a more exotic answer when the answer is already there in a less exotic, evidenced explanation? The only thing I give you credence for is your criticism of the Judy Woods "evidence" (which any rational person knows is a bad bad joke and obviously a disinformation campaign). Everything is spurious. To call major elements of the AE/911 liars is just disgraceful. What possible motive would they have for lying? And what of their peer reviewed paper? Cherry picking again?
<br>Your offensive hostility appears to expose an agenda that goes beyond an earnest seeking of the truth.
<br>
<br><b>Henry Beckwith</b>
<br>Has anyone here seem "nuclear powered controlled demolitions"? Anywhere? Any evidence that they actually take place? On the other hand we see thousands of conventional controlled demolitions that take buildings down..exactly as we saw on 9/11. So again ..what is your agenda?
<br>
<br><b>Henry Beckwith</b>
<br>Phil Fellows Interestingly I think the lab leak theory is the covid equivalent of the Judy Woods theory. A red herring.
<br>
<br><b>Henry Beckwith</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges just looking at your link and read the response by the rabid (and vapid) Judy Woods supporter who brings up "intangibles" to make her case (this moron merely copies her idiotic thesis verbatim and does no cogitation to consider reality). Papers (unburnt) coming from office building explosions, whilst under normal controlled demolition would not be present as the buildings would be empty, but unburnt papers would be possible under certain circumstances as the explosives occur at set distances apart and so not all elements within the building are pulverised and burnt....as was blatantly obvious from what was removed from the site. Hence for people to buy her theory they have to buy the initial premises the she feeds them, namely lies (such as, zero evidence of explosives in the dust or video evidence, everything pulverised, no signs of explosives visually or audibly....etc...none of it at all true). And thus the zombies that follow her buy the gospel of lies in entirety and so pretend to rationalise within that fantasy.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 256 -->
<a name="x257"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x257" class="tiny">x258</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_258');">haven't made a single comment related to what I wrote</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_258" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Phil Fellows, You are not so entertaining. You complained that I legitimately criticized your ad hominem attacks against me and then called you "a disinfo agent." The difference between your efforts and mine was that I provided evidence to support my contention.
<br>
<br>Case in point: the top-level posting to this thread was from me, was on-topic regarding the original FB meme, and laid down a small guantlet on how AE9/11Truth experienced Cass Sunstein style infiltration as exhibited by their FAQ trying to debunk "nuclear blasts" (as a deceitful catchall meant to debunk all forms of nuclear involvement including FGNW).
<br>
<br>You haven't made a single comment related to what I wrote to steer this thread. Instead you and others try to steer the discussion into the weeds of Dr. Wood, Christopher Bollyn, Kevin Barrett, and Richard Gage.
<br>
<br>If you are sincere in your desire for my humble opinion of those people, then kindly make a posting and tag me. [Might require friending me to get me to see it.] That discussion does not belong under this thread.
<br>
<br>Stay on the topic of this thread. Your inability to do so, to follow links, to drag back relevant information from the link to discuss, have been hallmarks of disinformation agents in my tenure championing 9/11 Truth, and most certainly on Facebook where sometimes automated bots assist.
<br>
<br>If you aren't a disinfo agent, engaging in a rational, on-topic discussion could easily prove that, at which point I'll apologize. Until then, consider it a jab in the ribs for you to be more of a real, objective, rational person in your interactions with me. I'm human and tire of bot-games.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 258 -->
<a name="x259"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x259" class="tiny">x260</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_260');">I'll not be dragged into a Dr. Judy Wood discussion</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_260" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith, Four comments in a row in the same time period when they could have been combined with a couple simple SHIFT-ENTER's is akin to you spamming this thread mostly because it indicates that maybe you didn't think out your response very well. Write your responses offline maybe.
<br>
<br>I laid down the gauntlet at the start of this thread with Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article appearing in a reputable science journal. I'll not be dragged into a Dr. Judy Wood discussion, even though her work is closer to the truth than nano-thermite given that FGNW are technically in the category of DEW.
<br>
<br>As for the Occam Razor reference and your question: "Why opt for a more exotic answer when the answer is already there in a less exotic, evidenced explanation?"
<br>
<br>I've already discussed this in this blog postings that you were linked and haven't read, and below is a predecessor article [with lots of overlap and] a debunking of NT as the primary mechanism of destruction.
<br>
<br>*snap of the fingers*
<br>
<br>Let us shut down your hypnotic spell about an alleged less exotic answer already being there. That NT dog don't hunt for Occam Razor, because the logistics on the amounts necessary to achieve just the observed overkill pulverization is huge, but the amounts needed to be unspent and above-and-beyond to maintain under-rubble hot-spots is OBSCENELY MASSIVE HUGE, and just plain STUPID if (a) you could achieve the destruction with less payload and (b) make it look like a much slower-than gravity destruction (c) that you were going to try to claim anyway.
<br>
<br>The overkill pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration is a massive energy sink that it just so happens exotic FGNW have in excessive abundance as more of a side-effect than a design goal [which any NT implementation explanation has difficulty explaining.]
<br>
<br>Where Dr. Wood's work is dangerous are in the nuggets of truth, the many images of destruction that no champion of NT has ever ventured to explain "how NT was position to get these particular artifacts: steel arches/sags, horseshoes, steel doobies, meteors" and "the damage to vehicles around the WTC-7 and the adjacent parking lot." [EMP from the multiple FGNW slipping out through window slits explains the latter.]
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Has anyone here seem "nuclear powered controlled demolitions"? Anywhere?"</i>
<br>
<br>Means and methods are two things that all nations, but particularly paranoid USA, Russia, and China, desire to keep secret and out of the public eye. Any FGNW used isn't going to have them bragging in public; more likely, they'll be blaming it on some perceived enemy and attributing it to "fertilizer truck bombs" like they did for OKC.
<br>
<br>When you read my write-up, you'll be hard-pressed not to observe the dustification of the WTC towers (and destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7) as anything but exotic FGNW as described by Dr. Andre Gsponer.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"To call major elements of the AE/911 liars is just disgraceful."</i>
<br>
<br>As a vetted member of AE9/11Truth, I can see where you would be upset with me calling them out, and I don't do so lightly. But it isn't defamation if it is true, and I've come to the table with receipts. I've done my homework [which you have consistently been skirting to grade for accuracy.]
<br>
<br>The headaches you receive are from your cognitive dissonance. Whereas you are open-minded enough to recognize that the Official Conspiracy Theory is bullshit, you aren't thinking critically enough if you believe even the most stallwart 9/11 Truth organizations wouldn't have their message and activities controlled in some manner!
<br>
<br>And now you probably have a decade or more in championing NT. I can bet it doesn't sit well for you when it is pointed out that NT doesn't address a fraction of the evidence, and logistically and logically doesn't even address well the evidence that they attribute to it.
<br>
<br>You asked: <i>"What possible motive would they have for lying?"</i>
<br>
<br>Were even the whiff of a "9/11 nuclear anything" to seep out in a serious fashion in the public consciousness -- particularly after last century's decades of nuclear weapon fear-mongering --, today 20 years later figurative nuclear fall out could happen in institutions, agencies, ... hell, even in the very demarkations of our country, because we might get woke and wise and just "VOTE OUT OF EXISTENCE" the old government structures and implement something new.
<br>
<br>Silverstein was trying for a "Fields of Dream" (film) "if you re-build WTC, they will come" type of a deal. But the public getting the nuclear scent (too early) -- regardless of or despite the actual nuclear make-up and yield of the devices -- and you'd cause a panic exodus from NYC that would ripple through the nation. Ain't nobody want a toxic waste dump or nuclear wasteland in their backyard or place of employment.
<br>
<br>So when the Q-Group of the NSA/CIA infiltrated the 9/11 Truth Movement, they took leadership positions to keep the discovery of truth at lesser evils than the truth "the USA with Israeli assistance nuked itself and lied to the world about it."
<br>
<br>When you think about all of the often purposely off-the-mark 9/11 conspiracies, they were obviously manufactured by the PTB to distract the movement and get them swinging at strawmen.
<br>
<br>You asked: <i>"And what of their peer reviewed paper?"</i>
<br>
<br>You'll have to be more specific, but I've probably already reviewed it for its flaws and the tilt-and-lean to its scope-limited effort with my blog link above. Ball is in your court on that one already.
<br>
<br>But now I get to fling that same question right back at you: <i>"And what of the peer reviewed paper"</i> that was linked at the top comment of this very discussion thread by Dr. Andre Gsponer? Have you read it? What about my researched and referenced blog articles?
<br>
<br>I'm several steps ahead of you. Get to work. If you want to debunk me, you'll have to get on the same (web) page and do it section by section.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 260 -->
<a name="x261"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x261" class="tiny">x262</a>
Henry Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_262');">You damn control freak</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_262" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Henry Beckwith</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges WTF stop trying to tell people how they should respond. You damn control freak. I keep it short for the benefit of people like you who are too busy spouting to look at what else is being said. I won't waste anymore time with you. You cannot take criticism and fail to address such criticisms so stop this pretence and thinking you are superior. You aren't.
<br>
<br><b>Henry Beckwith</b>
<br>And the other thing (as I am going to respond the way I desire) this peer reviewed paper is not in relation to 9/11, so this is just your imagination at work and using the same game as Woods in making claims of "infiltration" and other logical fallacies to build your fantasy. You fool.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 262 -->
<a name="x263"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x263" class="tiny">x264</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_264');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_264" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith, I will hold you to your promise stated as: <i>"I won't waste anymore time with you."</i> And that gives me the last word in this thread.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"You cannot take criticism and fail to address such criticisms."</i>
<br>
<br>The problems with that hypnotic suggestion are manyfold. You have not provided any criticism to any of my contentions (e.g., FGNW, 9/11AETruth infiltration). Thus, you're just projecting your own weaknesses onto me regarding "failure to address criticisms".
<br>
<br>You tell me to: <i>"stop this pretence and thinking you are superior. You aren't."</i>
<br>
<br>It isn't a pretense that I am superior, but is fact supported by the difference between your lame engagement of the topic and my superior efforts. The thought of me being your superior didn't even enter my head until you planted the seed. Thank you.
<br>
<br>You should have delayed your first comment, inserted a couple of SHIFT-ENTER's, and then added your second comment about the peer-reviewed paper.
<br>
<br>To your criticism, yes, Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed paper about FGNW and published in a reputable science journal does not mention 9/11, and to my (limited) knowledge, Dr. Gsponer has not written or publicly uttered a single sentence about his 9/11 beliefs.
<br>
<br>But I did. I stood on the shoulders of Dr. Gsponer research and showed how it was applicable to 9/11. RTFM. Read my blog. Debunk the articles section by section.
<br>
<br>You wrote paraphrased: <i>"this is just your imagination at work ... in making claims of "infiltration" and other logical fallacies to build your fantasy. You fool."</i>
<br>
<br>It isn't my imagination that AE9/11Truth's FAQ that debunks "nuclear blasts" as sort of a catch-all attempt to debunk all forms of 9/11 nuclear involvement is a most excellent example of infiltration. They don't even mention neutron bombs, much less late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices based on such that are fission-triggered-fusion releasing 80% of their (already tactical) nuclear yield in the form of targeted highly energetic neutrons is quite different than "nuclear blasts" that use the medium of air and sudden & violent changes in local air pressure to destroy things.
<br>
<br>You are projecting your logical fallacies onto me, because I'm not the one who is trying to debunk a peer-reviewed FGNW paper and a blog extrapolating that to 9/11 by -- *cough* -- not reading it, not referencing it, not being able to extrapolate the descriptions of FGNW to the anomalous destruction of the WTC.
<br>
<br>Such lame and dubious efforts are exactly what disinformation agents would exert. Because sincere participants and thinkers not promoting an agenda would possibly delay their rebuttal until AFTER they had read what substantiates their opponent's argument.
<br>
<br>Because I am a fair and generous fellow -- and as you mentioned, far "superior" to you --, if your subsequent comments provide some substantiated criticism to the FGNW subject (and AE9/11Truth's cover-up), they logically fall outside of your promise: "I won't waste anymore time with you." Meanwhile, though, if you criticise me personally, fool, that is technically you "wasting time on me", puts you in default, and is a clear indication of your sincerity and honesty.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 264 -->
<a name="x265"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x265" class="tiny">x266</a>
Henry Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_266');">no one is interested. No one. Bye.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_266" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges blah blah blah....no one is interested. No one. Bye.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 266 -->
<a name="x267"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x267" class="tiny">x268</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_268');">voiding your own promise: <i>"I won't waste anymore time with you."</i></a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_268" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith, Ah, shucks! Talk about torpedoing your own credibility, sincerity, and integrity by not being able to make one comment without voiding your own promise: <i>"I won't waste anymore time with you."</i>
<br>
<br>Such bot-ish, agenda-toting, disinfo agent antics isn't very becoming of you, especially when you were forewarned how you were going to be treated for not being able to address the subject.
<br>
<br>I must say, "blah blah blah" is a very intelligent rebuttal to the peer-reviewed FGNW paper and my blog extrapolation. Really shows how superior your bot algorithms are. Kudos.
<br>
<br>Worse, your comment proves wrong your statement: <i>"no one is interested. No one."</i>
<br>
<br>You responded. You could have STFU, but instead you had to show your interest by giving your stellar "blah blah blah". El-oh-el. Yep, you just proved yourself a LIAR in your interest exhibited by your lame reply.
<br>
<br>You're out of your league. I will hold you to your promise of <i>"Bye."</i> Don't engage me, because it isn't going and won't go well for your bot algorithms and canned database responses.
<br>
<br>Glad we got all of that cleared up... While ironically at the same time proving the contention about the infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement and in particular its Facebook representation.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 268 -->
<a name="x269"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x269" class="tiny">x270</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_270');">receipts that "the lab leak theory" is the most likely scenario</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_270" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith, In reviewing your participation to this thread, readers spot quite quickly another avenue where you play the government disinfo agent in trying to keep public understanding at fiction. You wrote to Mr. Phil Fellows:
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>"Interestingly I think the lab leak theory is the covid equivalent of the Judy Woods theory. A red herring."</p></blockquote>
<p>The recent books from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Mercola have the receipts that "the lab leak theory" is the most likely scenario, although it could be argued "accidental versus deliberate." The two decades of Bill Gates sponsored war gaming of a bio-agent event tells us that it wasn't a case of "if planning" but of "when planning".
<br>
<br>The Wuhan market had no bats for sale anywhere at the very start of the pandemic, and the live bats were 400 miles away in hibernation at that time of year. On the other hand, the NIH (Fauci) funded bio-defense lab was literally within walking distance of the Wuhan market.
<br>
<br>What was present at the Wuhan market was a worker from the lab who got infected (unknowingly) in the course of their "gain-of-function" research into Covid viruses and simply walked to the neighoring market -- as most Chinese citizens do -- to get their food and began infecting others.
<br>
<br>Read RFK, Jr.'s and/or Dr. Mercola's books on the subject of COVID. Just like you get headaches from your cognitive dissonance relating to 9/11 nuclear components, you'll get even bigger headaches in learning of the decades-long corruption of NIH, CDC, WHO, and the (US) medical establishment in general thanks to Big Pharma. It isn't what you were led to believe, and you'll be pissed at yourself at your compliance actions of wearing known-ineffective, germ-toting, clothe masks.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 270 -->
<a name="x271"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x271" class="tiny">x272</a>
Henry Hansteen and Henry Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_272');">Maxwell bridges is one mad and stupid commentator</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_272" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Henry Hansteen</b>
<br>Henry Beckwith soreass' Facebook page is infested with disinformation trolls. These imbeciles are a waste of time for any informed, rational 9/11 truth researcher. No planes, nuclear bombs, space beams, and holograms are all examples of the delusional spew of disinformation trolls. These imbeciles don't do hard evidence or logic. They only do troll spew.
<br>
<br><b>Henry Beckwith</b>
<br>Henry Hansteen Maxwell bridges is one mad and stupid commentator. His responses get more and more irrational and the more you point it out the worse he gets. I think he ought to be on medication, and if he is already...he ought to take them.
<br>
<br><b>Henry Beckwith</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges your take on covid reveals what a pathetic and sloppy operative you are. The only agent here is you. Time wasting troll whose mind is devoid of logic....and whose arguments are thus similar..I need to remove you now as your stench is repulsive.
<br>
<br><b>Henry Beckwith</b>
<br>The only person spamming this post is you. Everything you write is a lie, a deception ..even your responses. You claim that "all" are with you in condemning your fabrications, but no one is. You are alone in your mental illness. By God it needs seeing to as you are one tedious, odious and vapid commentator. Not one response had the decency of an iota of honestly. Begone
</p>
</div><!-- section 272 -->
<a name="x273"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x273" class="tiny">x274</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_274');">the irony from your three-in-a-row comments projecting your spamming on to me</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_274" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Henry Beckwith, I was totally el-oh-el as I read the irony from your three-in-a-row comments projecting your weakness on to me by saying "The only person spamming this post is you."
<br>
<br>Could you get any more triggered?
<br>
<br>And what do your comments say? Do they address anything from deviant conclusions on the 9/11 and Covid psychological operations? No, they do not.
<br>
<br>Your comments address me in unflattering and libelous ways. Your three-in-a-row comments demonstrates your inability to keep your recent promise -- <i>"I won't waste anymore time with you"</i> -- and shoots a hole in the ass of your integrity.
<br>
<br>... Wait a minute! *SMH*
<br>
<br>The depth and intelligence exhibited in those three-in-a-row comments look to be "covid" triggered quite literally. Bot algorithms assigned to maintain a narrative and tote an agenda are prone to do that. A keyword or position triggers an algorithm to output multiple responses [which can push discussion comments pre-maturely into Facebook's "See more..." regions] on the sole theme of attacking the messenger and avoiding the message at all costs. This tactic is independent of the triggering deviant ideology, and does not need to acknowledge anything from the deviant premises, because its purpose is to inspire emotional, equally as offensive responses that could result in a Facebook suspension.
<br>
<br>I was so looking forward to having a rational, on-topic discussion with you, dear Mr. Henry Beckwith. Alas, this isn't going to happen, no fault of mine. I do thank you for revealing yourself to be a government agent/bot. Whereas I have been known -- for shits and giggles -- to take agents/bots for carousel spins, I don't anymore. Agents/bots are paid/programmed to not change their stance no matter how much their position/narrative is undermined. Discussions aren't sincere for the agent/bot, but could be enlightening to lurker readers.
<br>
<br>The multiple attempts to engage me in a flame war to foul myself out [going against FB terms of use] is another data point in their agent / bot trend line. Because you're an agent/bot, I won't bother to flag/report your comment; bots can programmatically spawn quickly. Ain't that right, sockpuppet Mr. Henry Hansteen?
<br>
<br>
<br>Been there, done that, and so nobody can blame me for my prejudices today against discussions with agents / bots. They simply waste time. And in this case, they control / own the top-most FB posting under which this thread exists, so can disappear this time-suck at any point in time and "win". [Good thing I work off-line and copy-and-paste into FB, so have my own "record".]
<br>
<br>Here is a tell from the agent / bot who wrote: "Everything you write is a lie, a deception ..even your responses."
<br>
<br>Normally, I'd be like: <i>"You make the claim; you substantiate the claim and make that case."</i> That's how the rules of rational discussion go. Failure to take such efforts voids that original claim, transforms the claim into "ad hominem", and boomerangs back onto the claimant as substantiation for claimant lying among other integrity-dinging actions.
<br>
<br>But then I be like: <i>"FYI, high school English class teaches to avoid over generalizations (e.g., all, none, everything, nothing) in your writing, because it takes only one exception to prove it wrong."</i>
<br>
<br>Originally, I was like: <i>"Buh-ought! Could you be any more over the top and extreme? Way to lose all your credibility, bot!"</i>
<br>
<br>And then I transition into being like: <i>"It is just an insincere agent / bot whose very triggering, lame flame-baiting, and avoidance of substance is just trying to waste my time and tweak my emotions by projecting its weaknesses in a hypnotic fashion."</i>
<br>
<br>*SNAP OF THE FINGERS* That spell is broken.
<br>
<br>You may have the last word in this thread, Mr. Henry Beckwith. Please, please, please make it another triggered three-in-a-row! Let me help: "COVID is a psyops just like 9/11 was, and 9/11 used nuclear components, FGNW!"
<br>
<br>Now, go! Three-in-a-row, baby! Give me three-in-a-row as I hand you the last word in this thread. Go! Another three-in-a-row! Don't disappoint me, bot! Go. Three-in-a-row!
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 274 -->
<p>source <a href="https://www.facebook.com/bernie.saurez.3/posts/534763338225150?comment_id=536851631349654&reply_comment_id=536883004679850¬if_id=1649980518589023¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/bernie.saurez.3/posts/534763338225150?comment_id=536851631349654&reply_comment_id=536883004679850¬if_id=1649980518589023¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a></p>
<a name="x275"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x275" class="tiny">x276</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_276');">I was once duped mightily by September Clues</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_276" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>I was once for about 3 years duped mightily by the 1-9, A-H videos of September Clues, so I have a lot of empathy for sincere folks who might fall into the NPT@WTC trap, such a clever stroke of disinformation that was!
<br>
<br>I kept an open mind and my research skills honed for things that might legitimately debunk that particular conspiracy theory from my CV. How embarrassing that was, my active championing of NPT@WTC for 3 years. When I found the sources that destroyed certain elements of the NPT@WTC ruse, I offered public apologies for having led others astray, and vowed to help other SINCERE FOLK to adjust their beliefs.
<br>
<br>All disinformation has nuggets of truth that helped make the deceitful case and must be preserved, because the attempts to sink such truths through guilt by association is often one of many of its goals.
<br>
<br>Here are some of the NPT@WTC nuggets of truth that must be preserved.
<br>
<br>- The media knew about the events and were complicit, even in the shots they shared between networks and from helicopters.
<br>
<br>- NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville are valid. (Which is why NPT@WTC disinfo was spun up in the first place with its faulty digital imagery analysis and speculation.)
<br>
<br>- The argue about not having correlated evidence (e.g., serial numbers off of found aircraft pieces matched to the maintenance records of the alleged commercial planes) is valid, but the most you can conclude from that alone is that the crashed aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft, allowing for all sorts of speculation about when and how the planes were swapped that is a side tangent.
<br>
<br>- Digital imagery manipulation did occur. (One example is the four versions of a helicopter shot of the 2nd impact: nothing, an orb, a plane, and then the overlay of the impact onto a different perspective of the towers.) However, they needed eye-witnesses to see real aircraft and even for this to be recorded (so they could play it over and over again "shock-and-awe, baby!" So small digital manipulation to blur or change the actual aircraft into looking more like the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br>
<br>How many cameras did the FBI visit to steal their footage and never make public of the alleged Pentagon plane? The number is greater than 80. They needed the circus of the NPT@WTC to mask the fact that the Pentagon with all its cameras never proved a plane impact, much less Shanksville.
<br>
<br>I've been around the NPT carousel many times, tire of it, and can end it quickly with a well placed "go to" statement (in the form of a URL). SINCERE folks will let me provide the superior arguments to debunk the NPT@WTC while leaving important nuggets of truth still in play.
<br>
<br>Alas, too often, the champions of NPT@WTC are not sincere. They are agents and bots paid to promote an agenda that can never be convinced of errors in its ways, learn, and change course and opinions (like I did). "By their fruits ye shall know them."
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 276 -->
<a name="x277"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x277" class="tiny">x278</a>
Bernie Soreass : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_278');">Zoom conversations or online debate on video</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_278" style="display: block;">
<p>Bernie Soreass
<br>Maxwell Bridges can you handle Zoom conversations or online debate on video?
</p>
</div><!-- section 278 -->
<a name="x279"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x279" class="tiny">x280</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_280');">much better with the written word anyway</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_280" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bernie Soreass, Nope. I'm much better with the written word anyway, because I take the time to contemplate and formulate reasoned responses. Zoom meetings favor the discussion opponent with better rhetoric, but not necessarily reasoning abilities.
<br>
<br>Furthermore and shouldn't be a surprise, my pen-name doesn't have a Zoom account, and using my Zoom account from my work computer would defeat the purpose of having an alias (although the real "me" can be found easily enough, with my GPS coordinates already known to the matrix.)
<br>
<br>What are we debating?
<br>
<br>If it is digital fakery and NPT@WTC, then count me out. I've dropped my seeds and watered them, but have no hankering to get sick from another spin on that disinfo carousel. Ain't really my hobby-horse anyway.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 280 -->
<a name="x281"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x281" class="tiny">x282</a>
Darin Harvey : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_282');">now nothing about 9/11. You sound like a coward</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_282" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Maxwell Bridges that's because you don't know nothing about 9/11. You sound like a coward
</p>
</div><!-- section 282 -->
<a name="x283"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x283" class="tiny">x284</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_284');">me sounding like a coward. So what if I am?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_284" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, With that comment, I have proof that you are a mindless bot, because bots are incapable of following links and writing anything relevant about the content from those links.
<br>
<br>I've posted lots of links to my blog. Had you gone there, you'd see a collection of many years of internet participation re-purposed to my blog, and nearly all on the subject of 9/11.
<br>
<br>With regards to your second sentence about me sounding like a coward. So what if I am? Doesn't make me wrong in either the premises that I defend or me wanting to hold onto my private personal information.
<br>
<br>If you are participating under your real name, how stupid are you?
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 284 -->
<a name="x285"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x285" class="tiny">x286</a>
Darin Harvey : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_286');">your rambling and paranoia</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_286" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges what's up with your rambling and paranoia? You should see a specialist for that
</p>
</div><!-- section 286 -->
<a name="x287"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x287" class="tiny">x288</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_288');">0101011000101010001001001 and 010100111001010</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_288" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, 0101011000101010001001001 and 010100111001010.
<br>
<br>That's binary tailored for your bot circuits that I'm sure you'll understand quickly enough.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 288 -->
<a name="x289"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x289" class="tiny">x290</a>
Darin Harvey : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_290');">take medication for your paranoia</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_290" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges You know you can take medication for your paranoia, right? Judging by it you believe in a lot of crazy conspiracies
</p>
</div><!-- section 290 -->
<a name="x291"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x291" class="tiny">x292</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_292');">will do nothing for the fact that you are insincere</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_292" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, whatever medication that you think I need for my paranoia still will do nothing for the fact that you are insincere in your participation, almost to the point as if you've been programmed with an agenda and quirky database entries generic enough to be re-posted in all sorts of situations. No medication will help you.
<br>
<br>Your programming makes you intractable in your opinions (when faced with new evidence and analysis) and truly a lost-cause for me to engage in any serious fashion.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 292 -->
<a name="x293"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x293" class="tiny">x294</a>
Darin Harvey : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_294');">one weird dude. Get out of the basement</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_294" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you're one weird dude. Get out of the basement and enjoy sunlight
</p>
</div><!-- section 294 -->
<a name="x295"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x295" class="tiny">x296</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_296');">Thank you so much for encouragement to enjoy sunlight</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_296" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Darin Harvey, I am most appreciative of your proclaimation that I'm <i>"one weird dude."</i> I'm in the company of Tesla and Einstein in that regard, and many other intellects of note, I suppose.
<br>
<br>Thank you so much for encouragement to get out of my windowless basement office to enjoy sunlight. Oh the sacrifices we make to work from home! This is indeed an activity that I regular make time for, and the dog and chickens really appreciate my scheduled time with them sitting in the sun and catching up on my reading. Of note, I finished RFK, Jr.'s book recently while in the pursuit of this healthy habit.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, I couldn't help but notice that your entire participation here has not amounted to a hill of beans in defending what is wrong about what I champion.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 296 -->
<a name="x297"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x297" class="tiny">x298</a>
Henry Hansteen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_298');">stench of disinformation trolls is strong</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_298" style="display: block;">
<p>The stench of disinformation trolls is strong on soreass' FB page.
<br>Anyone who pushes the no plane insanity, nuclear bombs, space beams, or holograms is either an imbecile, or a disinformation troll.
</p>
</div><!-- section 298 -->
<a name="x299"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x299" class="tiny">x300</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_300');">let us use our reason, logic, and imagination </a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_300" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, You are correct about the stench of disinformation trolls being strong here. <i>[This is where I discretely tell you to take a shower, because you are obviously one source of that stench.]</i>
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Anyone who pushes the no plane insanity, nuclear bombs, space beams, or holograms is either an imbecile, or a disinformation troll."</i>
<br>
<br>Anyone who tries to discredit the factual usage of nuclear components in the 9/11 WTC discussion by associating it with government-funded, proven disinformation premises <i>"is either an imbecile, or a disinformation troll."</i>
<br>
<br>Because you brought up nuclear bombs, let's talk about late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear bombs by referring to Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal.
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>After reading that reference and acknowledging that FGNW are technically in the category of DEW, let us use our reason, logic, and imagination to extrapolate the technical description of what FGNW are and can do to the real, dustification events of 9/11 at the WTC.
<br>
<br>If you are having trouble with such mental exercises, you may cheat off of my homework. Here's my write-up of how FGNW as described by Dr. Andre Gsponer apply to a much wider spectrum of 9/11 evidence that ALL OTHER 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES (including of course the OCT).
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>Or stated another way. The above link is your debunking TARGET with a big hunking round red bulls-eye on its back, because it makes the case for FGNW.
<br>
<br>In order to legitimately label it "disinformation", you are to debunk it section by section. Find the disinformation, if it exists, section by section. Sections and nuggets of truth not debunked remain in play, must be acknowledged as such, and must be legitimately incorporated into whatever other 9/11 conspiracy-du-jour that the debunker is championing. Nuggets of truth don't die just because they were embedded in someone's disinformation vehicle for a time.
<br>
<br>Ok, disinformation agents? That was your trigger. Now, go! Three-in-a-row. If they are ad hominem and don't address specifics from either linked reference, bingo! FGNW wins by default.
<br>
<br>//
<br>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br>ARXIV.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 300 -->
<a name="x301"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x301" class="tiny">x302</a>
Ronald Bleier : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_302');">I take your general point</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_302" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I take your general point. Explosives were used to bring the buildings down. Planes weren't necessary and as Holmgren writes, too complicated for the mission of awe and terror.
</p>
</div><!-- section 302 -->
<a name="x303"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x303" class="tiny">x304</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_304');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_304" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ronald Bleier, My general point is <b>~not~</b> that <i>"explosives were used to bring the buildings down"</i>, but that late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) were used and address not only the evidence but the wonkiness in the OCT and various stilted disinfo premises to steer us away.
<br>
<br>While true that planes weren't needed -- and in fact, failed -- to bring the towers down, the planes at the WTC were absolutely required as part of the ruse and psyops precisely to be viewed by witnesses and recorded by news to be replayed over and over and over. Three of the four main 9/11 events absolutely required planes to be observed; Shanksville did not.
<br>
<br>I've read Holmgren in the past and deemed him a disinfo agent trying to dupe well-meaning but science-challenged researchers with dubious math and science. Resting on his work is resting on disinformation.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 304 -->
<!-- ***** 202204_mcb_fgnwSunstein.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_6 -->
<a name="p7"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_7');">Part 7: FGNW Discussions with Rod Drew, Darris Mishler, Gary Fowler, Andy Rowlands, Leon Prevot</a></h2>
<div id="part_7" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202204_mcb_fgnwAE911T.htm -->
<a name="x305"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x305" class="tiny">x306</a>
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_306');">where is the top of the building</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_306" style="display: block;">
<p>2022-04-21
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158444470296269?comment_id=10158444927976269¬if_id=1650597501602286¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10158444470296269?comment_id=10158444927976269¬if_id=1650597501602286¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br>Please explain, since the top of the building is allegedly crushing the bottom, why the destruction on one side of the building is racing far ahead of the destruction on the other side. Wouldn't the destruction be more or less level all the way down?
<br>And come to think of it, where is the top of the building?
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 306 -->
<a name="x307"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x307" class="tiny">x308</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_308');">extrapolate Dr. Gsponer's FGNW to the many pieces of evidence available to us on 9/11, such as your handy video</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_308" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear sincere members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, You ask the question: <i>"And come to think of it, where is the top of the building?"</i>
<br>
<br>The answer is readily known after you study Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article on Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices published in a reputable journal... *cough* in the same time frame that Dr. Steven Jones was doing his literature review on his "repudiation of ~all~ things 9/11 nuclear." Given that Dr. Gsponer was writing on this theme in the decade leading up to 9/11, how did Dr. Jones et al (and Dr. Judy Wood) miss it?!!
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>DISCLAIMER: Dr. Andre Gsponer, to my knowledge, has not written or uttered publicly a single sentence on his 9/11 speculation.
<br>
<br>"Das Gedankenexperiment" is to extrapolate Dr. Gsponer's FGNW to the many pieces of evidence available to us on 9/11, such as your handy video.
<br>
<br>If you need a framework for your thought process or a target to aim at for debunking -- section-by-section --, it just so happens that I've stood on the shoulders of Dr. Gsponer as well as of Dr. Judy Wood and all of the forerunner purposeful "9/11 nuclear disinformation", and I rescued the nuggets of truth from the jaws of many disinformation vehicles. THAT'S THE DANGER. Because when the 9/11 conspiracy-du-jour does/can ~not~ address those nuggets of truth, then the theory is incomplete and a limited hang-out.
<br>
<br>Here's my work:
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>Late-3rd/early-fourth generation nuclear devices (4 per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels in towers; 1 detonation level in WTC-4, 5, 6. TBD WTC-7.)
<br>
<br>FGNW used a conventional explosive (back-kick seen as a squib on tower faces) to kick-start the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for fusion. The fusion stage, instead of letting its highly energetic neutrons bounce around in the kernal and chain react, are allowed to escape in a targeted fashion (cone-shaped, fanning out upwards), 80% of its already tactical yield.
<br>
<br>Owing to the multi-stage process and maybe even a notable firing duration, each was required to be mounted on a structure that would be guaranteed to remain stable for the ignition. Hence, both towers' demolition has the artifact known as "the spire", a residual inner-core area that remained standing briefly after the formerly attached floors were dustified and wall assemblies peeled away.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 308 -->
<a name="x309"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x309" class="tiny">x310</a>
Rod Drew : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_310');">Aliens stole the top of the building</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_310" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Aliens stole the top of the building and then landed an i visible spacecraft on the remainder of the structure, causing it to collapse in on itself.
</p>
</div><!-- section 310 -->
<a name="x311"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x311" class="tiny">x312</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_312');">look forward to reading your researched and substantiated position on this alien topic</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_312" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Rod Drew, I look forward to reading your researched and substantiated position on this alien topic. You make the claim; you defend the claim.
<br>
<br>However, your hypnotic suggestion does not belong here, under a thread that makes the claim about 9/11 FGNW and defends it. No, please take your sure-to-be stellar efforts about alien crush down of the towers and create your own top-level comment.
<br>
<br>Here? Under this FGNW thread? Just makes you like an agent bot who got triggered, doesn't know how to dive into and debunk a researched and well-reasoned alternative 9/11 premise, and therefore spams with ignorance. You lose before you even begin.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 312 -->
<!-- ***** 202204_mcb_fgnwAE911T.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202204_mcb_fgnwEnergy.htm -->
<a name="x313"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x313" class="tiny">x314</a>
Darris Mishler : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_314');">collapse due to fire weakening the steel</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_314" style="display: block;">
<p>Question:
<br>Does this look like a collapse due to fire weakening the steel?
<br>This is WTC7, the third tower to "collapse" on 9/11.
<br>They told us that it collapsed due to fire weakening the steel: something that has never happened before 9/11/2001 and has never happened since; yet, we're to believe that it happened not once or twice but three times, on the same day.
<br><eye~roll>
<br>World Trade Centers One and Two were literally pulverized in midair and the remains of all three "collapsed" at near free fall speed, into their own footprints.
<br>Defies the laws of physics, don't you think?
<br>I mean literally: don't you fucking think!?
<br>The TV told us that this was because "fire weakened the steel."
<br>No, fire did not weaken the steel: the TV weakened the minds of the masses.
<br>The same minds that believe in fake as fuck moon landing videos, fear boogieman terrorists, boogieman bugs, threats of "nuclear annihilation" their whole lives long, believe the stethoscope clad butcher coats, and so on.
<br>Hypnotized from cradle to grave.
<br>Is there anything that the TV tells you that you'll question?
<br>Anything at all?
<br>Please, wake up.
<br>One-minute video:
<br><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A49a9pXwDQs">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A49a9pXwDQs</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 314 -->
<a name="x315"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x315" class="tiny">x316</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_316');">... is a huge energy sink requiring some huge energy sources.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_316" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, You wrote: <i>"Defies the laws of physics, don't you think?"</i>
<br>
<br>The destruction does ~not~ defy the laws of physics once you realize that the overkill pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near free-fall acceleration while ejecting content laterally... is a huge energy sink requiring some huge energy sources.
<br>
<br>Rather than defying the laws of physics, we've had government agencies and infiltrated 9/11 Truth groups defying the laws of good research and Truth.
<br>
<br>The evidence leaks out all over that 9/11 had nuclear components. Preventing the public and the 9/11 Truth Movement from getting a valid whiff of this was and is an active disinformation campaign. I've got the receipts, but here's some simple examples.
<br>
<br>- Most champions of a nuclear 9/11 did so in unrealistic fashions, such as excessive yield, singular per tower, deep underground devices.
<br>
<br>- The debunkers of a nuclear 9/11 also mischaracterized the devices regarding yields and outputs; they mention fission and fusion, by not neutron devices and certainly not hybrid of all three; they debunk "nuclear blasts" but not "highly energetic neutrons aimed in a targeted fashion" (sometimes poo-poo-ed as "exotic weapons.")
<br>
<br>Peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal, we have Dr. Andre Gsponer writing about fourth generation nuclear devices.
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>Of course, late-3rd/early-fourth generation nuclear devices (4 per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels in towers, 1 detonation level in WTC-4, 5, 6. TBD WTC-7.) They used a conventional explosive (back-kick seen as a squib on tower faces) to kick-start the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for fusion. The fusion stage, instead of letting its highly energetic neutrons bounce around in the kernal and chain react, are allowed to escape in a targeted fashion (cone-shaped, fanning out upwards), 80% of its already tactical yield.
<br>
<br>Owing to the multi-stage process and maybe even a notable firing duration, each was required to be mounted on a structure that would be guaranteed to remain stable for the ignition. Hence, both towers' demolition has the artifact known as "the spire", a residual inner-core area that remained standing briefly after the formerly attached floors were dustified and wall assemblies peeled away.
<br>
<br>Here's my write up:
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 316 -->
<a name="x317"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x317" class="tiny">x318</a>
Darris Mishler : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_318');">per the official narrative</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_318" style="display: block;">
<p>It defies the laws of physics per the official narrative: that's my point.
<br>The South Tower's top section leaning over and pulverizing to dust was a huge red flag to me on day one.
<br>Even regardless of that it's impossible for skyscrapers to collapse at near free-fall speed, into their own footprints, pulverizing along the way without explosives of some sort.
<br>One doesn't need to be an engineering and/or physics master to realize this.
<br>As for the how of it, who knows for certain.
<br>We don't have to prove the how of it: we just have to prove that the official narrative is a lie - and this is an obvious fact.
<br>At least it should be obvious "¦ but this is clown world.
</p>
</div><!-- section 318 -->
<a name="x319"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x319" class="tiny">x320</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_320');">we are in rabid agreement</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_320" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, we are in rabid agreement on most points, except for two items.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"As for the how of it, who knows for certain"?</i>
<br>
<br>The perpetrators know, and I believe that many of those involved with the disinformation cover-ups knew/know.
<br>
<br>Take for instance the group assigned to do the tritium report that was scope-limited to attributing tritium to pre-existing building content (and not into speculating about destructive mechanisms). With such a focus, they got away with shoddy and unscientific measurements and expounding upon scope-limited speculation, which Dr. Steven Jones (and Dr. Judy Wood) accepted unquestioned and unchallenged.
<br>
<br>As another instance, how about preventing fire investigators from doing their work for weeks/months, carting away and destroying evidence, or banning Geiger counters and cellphones/cameras from the ground zero.
<br>
<br>The extent of the black hole on rational nuclear considerations inside and outside 9/11 Truth even by organizations associated with science and technology demonstrates that many knew/know, which is why their research had deliberate dead-ends and misdirections, otherwise logic would have discretionally brought their findings to nuclear conclusions.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"We don't have to prove the how of it: we just have to prove that the official narrative is a lie - and this is an obvious fact."</i>
<br>
<br>A decade ago, I believed in this fallicious argument, too. And by golly, when dealing with rational and sincere people, what you write should suffice.
<br>
<br>The problem is: insincere people otherwise known today as agents and bots. [And dumb people with no critical thinking in vetting conspiracy theories they put into their arsenals.] The government purposely created disinformation and championed it dubiously to lead the public's awareness away from (figuratively) radioactive truths. When dealing with such coordinated efforts to deceive, I no longer believe it is sufficient to convince my neighbor that the official narrative is a lie.
<br>
<br>No, at this point, "going nuclear" on the depth of the rabbit hole of "9/11 being also nuclear" is about the only truthful 9/11 revelation that could conceivably still have figurative nuclear fall-out in a positive manner today, because the list of suspects gets reduced significantly and the lengthy list of opportunistic disinfo agents willing to carry that water bucket exposed [from Presidents, to Senators, to Representatives, to judges, to media personalities] suggests a figurative nuclear cleaning of institutions and agencies is in order, if we don't simply vote the bad out of existence and create a new. [Therein lies the danger, because enemies of free-thought are already preparing the authoritarian solution to fill the void of anything citizens vote out. We don't have our alternative paradigm built and ready to deploy for truth.]
<br>
<br>It's 20 years after the event, and the establishment is already several pychological operations down the road. If the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't go nuclear -- because it's a valid 9/11 premise --, then they might as well just shut up about 9/11 [and self-isolate with their face diapers and boosted arms while popping some of big pharma's finest in illicit substances while Netflixing and chilling.]
<br>
<br>9/11 nuclear revelations is about the only thing that could still make 9/11 worthy and relevant of talking about.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 320 -->
<a name="x321"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x321" class="tiny">x322</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_322');">the details unaddressed by truth in today's disinformation age</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_322" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, I see your point and was in that same thought camp for many years: <i>"it is most important to prove the official narrative is a lie."</i>
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"I purposely avoid going into the how of it with sleepers, whenever possible, because it gives them ammo: I prefer to keep their ass backed up against the official narrative, with no wiggle room."</i>
<br>
<br>Facebook participation -- on the theme of 9/11 -- can be divided into two main groups: the sincere and the insincere. Most of the sincere participants are in fact latter-day lurker-readers; they arrive late after the discussion happens, and judge the discussion based on the substantiation and rhetoric of the participants.
<br>
<br>A small subset of the sincere attempt to participate, but often have cognitive dissonance of their own as exhibited by their huge blind spot: the infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement to keep it at lesser truths. They don't have the intelligence, persistence, or conviction to be able to challenge what those infiltrating PhD's foisted upon them. And yeah, after a decade of championing nano-thermite to convince 9/11 newbies, they have a mental investment and a large "sunk cost" in the NT premise that prevents them from objectively seeing the vast weaknesses of NT in explaining the 9/11 evidence and anomalies or the need to research more.
<br>
<br>Then we have the insincere participants that range from the "Haha" emoticon spammer, to the meme spammer, to the flame-baiters and bots. [Flame wars to defend certain narratives are easy to maintain and access from a database, because such are independent of topic and details.]
<br>
<br>The insincere are the most active in places like Facebook, and are known for never being able to acknowledge weaknesses in their own premises, never being objective enough to dive into alterative rational arguments, and spamming / attacking activities.
<br>
<br>Whereas discussing subtle details can be annoying to lurker-readers (and repetitive), when participants are sincere, it ought to lead to shifted understanding for all, because when various premises get undermined that substantiate certain beliefs, change is what rational, sincere people do.
<br>
<br>The point you miss is that sometimes a crucial detail -- like all of the leaking evidence of 9/11 nuclear components -- is what is needed to convince the sincere and the duped useful idiots about why the official narrative is a lie.
<br>
<br>Further, an error or lie in the details unaddressed by truth in today's disinformation age is the wiggle room needed to keep the masses hypnotized.
<br>
<br>Thomas Pynchon wrote: <i>"If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."</i>
<br>
<br>The flaws in your 9/11 activism are that if you keep to superficial matters (e.g., "official narrative is a lie") and avoid details discussions, you effectively enable disinformation that is probably keeping you at "a lesser level of Truth" (e.g., limited hang-out) and powerless to capitalize on the figurative "nuclear fallout" of 9/11 nuclear revelations in getting mass public awareness and vote-getting activism.
<br>
<br>By the way in case you were wondering, I'm not a "sleeper." I have legacy that documents evolution. I've had so many spins on 9/11 carousels that if I condensed them to a moment in time and stuck my arms out, I'd be able to lift off the ground like a helicopter. It is because I'm sincere that I'm persistent in following truth and pointing out the obvious errors and disinfo even in "respectable" AE9/11Truth, of which I am a vetted member.
<br>
<br>If, through me, this is the first time in 20 years you're learning of FGNW, then the 9/11 disinformation has been a success. They want to you park your activism at wimpy exposure of "official narrative lies" rather than imparting the requisite figurative nuclear fall-out in public thought needed for any meaningful societal change. I don't subscribe to that playbook anymore.
<br>
<br>Sadly, RFK Jr.'s and Dr. Mercola's books on COVID documenting world-wide medical deceit, they now overshadow 9/11 and all its revelations EXCEPT the most important one that it had nuclear components.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 322 -->
<a name="x323"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x323" class="tiny">x324</a>
Darris Mishler : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_324');">it's a time-suck and a distraction overal</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_324" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>I'm quite aware of all the rabbit holes around 9/11 - and most of them around JFK, for that matter. I've been at this for a long time.
<br><br>The owl people love to throw false trails at us.
<br><br>People have spent much of their lives researching the JFK assassination and 9/11. That's fine. I appreciate their work and I have been over it, a few times.
<br><br>If the sleeper can't see that fires didn't bring down the towers, going into elaborate details as to the how of it isn't going to get through to most of them.
<br><br>I think it's a time-suck and a distraction overall, unless someone has the time for it. If they have the time to study it in fine detail, great.
<br><br>Everyone has their thing.
<br><br>Getting sucked into the fine details of the how of it is not my thing.
<br><br>We have different approaches, which is fine.
<br><br>At the end of the day, if the sleepers haven't figured it out by now they're not likely to, no matter what we say.
<br><br>These false trails the owl people plant are not only there for the sleepers to mock us but most importantly they are there to divide us and waste our time.
<br><br>The seekers will never agree on the true how of it but we could all agree that the official narrative is a lie: it is impossible for fire to cause free-fall speed, into the path of most resistance, of a steel reinforced skyscraper "¦ but here we are bickering over the how of it "¦
<br><br>I've been over all the scenarios several times over the years and I'm still not 100% certain as to the how of it.
<br><br>Who the hell knows.
<br><br>I am 100% certain that fire did not cause that, so a true investigation is in order - but I'm not going to waste my life on it.
<br><br>I'm all for others doing so.
<br><br>Enjoy.
</p>
</div><!-- section 324 -->
<a name="x325"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x325" class="tiny">x326</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_326');">a well written, fine, and agreeable position</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_326" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, That was a well written, fine, and agreeable position on the differences between two different kinds of 9/11 Truther activism: one that simplifies and more readily identifies 9/11 topics that sleepers could follow to become woke, versus a details oriented and even somewhat OCD discussion on some fringe 9/11 topic and how poorly it resonates with almost everybody.
<br>
<br>I get it.
<br>
<br>Both are needed, though. Without the details defended, the simplified version is just someone's propaganda.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"I think it's a time-suck and a distraction overall, unless someone has the time for it."</i>
<br>
<br>Yes, indeed, these detailed type discussions are most certainly a time-suck, by design. That's why I often see agents and bots doing the engagement. The theory is that if the participant wastes enough time in Facebook engagement, he'll compromise his time commitment to other engagements, like a job and work.
<br>
<br><i>"... unless someone has time for it."</i> I don't have time for it anymore, which is why I saved my work and even the carousel spins that tried to knock my FGNW hobby-horse from underneath me. Now, lazy-ass me plops down the URL to my FGNW hobby-horse, rather than spelling it out in the forums each time.
<br>
<br>It is a target that the agents and bots don't even want to aim at, let alone debunk section-by-section. Because they can't.
<br>
<br>Because you've made your aspirations known, Mr. Mishler, have no fear that I'll try to drag you into debunking or vetting my FGNW hobby-horse. Owing to my sincerity, you should accept it at face value. Just kidding. No, you should recognize that I am in an entirely different class of 9/11 fanaticals. For this reason alone, my work is worthy of study and of you passing judgment on it, because the connotation of its very rabbit-hole depths shines a very different light on the information you present to sleepers to waken them. Stand on my shoulders.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 326 -->
<a name="x327"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x327" class="tiny">x328</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_328');">"Haha" emoticon reaction to a peer-reviewed article on FGNW in a reputable science journal</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_328" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Kat Ashley, I'm just curious as to why your emoticon reaction to a peer-reviewed article on FGNW in a reputable science journal was the "Haha" one? What does that signify?
<br>
<br>What part of Dr. Gsponer's abstract made you laugh the most?
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>+++ Abstract
<br>"The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previous-generation nuclear-explosives and from conventional weapons based on chemical-explosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shaped-charge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc."
<br>+++ end</p></blockquote>
<p>Please explain the large amounts of "Haha" humor that you received from my commenting efforts and their substantiated sources.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 328 -->
<a name="x329"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x329" class="tiny">x330</a>
Darris Mishler : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_330');">I appreciate those that look into the how of it</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_330" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>I should have said that I appreciate those that look into the how of it but the most important point is to prove that the official narrative is a lie and this is an obvious fact.
<br><br>The same thing goes for JFK and so on.
<br><br>I purposely avoid going into the how of it with sleepers, whenever possible, because it gives them ammo: I prefer to keep their ass backed up against the official narrative, with no wiggle room.
<br><br>The actual how of it is an endless sandpit argument.
<br><br>I'm glad people devote their time to it and I have spent my share of time at it but I avoid these possibilities when trying to "wake" someone up: I prefer to keep it simple - the official narrative is an easily provable lie.
<br><br>Going into no planes, mini-nukes, and so on right off the bat with sleepers is too much for most of them - especially since fire not causing free-fall speed is too much for them.
<br><br>They are literally hypnotized.
<br><br>Best to keep the seed simple, like the snap of the fingers.
</p>
</div><!-- section 330 -->
<a name="x331"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x331" class="tiny">x332</a>
Gary Fowler : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_332');">video link</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_332" style="display: block;">
<p>video of the fire fighters talking about their impressions</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/100080290101526/videos/2526244367512240/">https://www.facebook.com/100080290101526/videos/2526244367512240/</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 332 -->
<a name="x333"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x333" class="tiny">x334</a>
Andy Rowlands : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_334');">is there no limit to the paranoid conspiracy theories?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_334" style="display: block;">
<p>First we had the towers laced with explosives, then we had claims of no aircraft hitting them, now we have nuclear weapons. My God, is there no limit to the paranoid conspiracy theories?
</p>
</div><!-- section 334 -->
<a name="x335"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x335" class="tiny">x336</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_336');">The disinfo campaign against rational and valid nuclear discussions is still ongoing today</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_336" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Rowlands, Your comment is actually glorious praise for the effectiveness of the various government funded disinformation efforts. WWII bombers used to say, <i>"if you aren't getting flak, then you aren't over the target."</i>
<br>
<br>I'm confused by your statement: <i>"First we had the towers laced with explosives..."</i>
<br>
<br>This was a valid (but failed disinfo) attempt to balance the gross Newtonian energy equations. <i>"Laced with explosives"</i> is deserving of our mocking, because (1) logistically would have been difficult to implement, (2) logistically would have been difficult to conceal from bomb-sniffing dogs, and (3) logically could have been done in a manner that wasn't so obviously above-and-beyond overkill pulverization so as to better fit their lame pre-ordained explanations of "plane impacts, jet fuel and office furnishing fires, and gravity."
<br>
<br>Now the claims of <i>"no impact hitting them"</i> was valid for the Pentagon and Shanksville, which is why the <i>"no planes theory"</i> was spun up for the WTC that even needed Parts 1-9 and A-H of the disinfo video premise known as "September Clues."
<br>
<br>You go on to write: <i>"now we have nuclear weapons."</i>
<br>
<br>For the record, disinformation agents have been promoting nuclear weapons from the onset, but what flags their work is improper framing of the nuclear characteristic, yields, and placement such as to not conceivably being able to match the recorded evidence of destruction. They avoided speculation into "exotic nuclear weapons", neutron bombs, or anything fourth generation.
<br>
<br>What is different today about my promotion of nuclear devices is that the nuclear devices and their yields are described more appropriately, and we find them being able to address much larger swaths of 9/11 anomalous evidence THAN ANY OTHER 9/11 CONSPIRACY-DU-JOUR including AE9/11Truth fan favorite of limited hang-out nano-thermite.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"My God, is there no limit to the paranoid conspiracy theories?"</i>
<br>
<br>When I read your comment, I was thinking <i>"my God, is there no limit to poo-poo'ing disinfo agents today demonstrating their uncritical thinking skills by NOT even skimming the researched and referenced materials provided as evidence?"</i> And,
<i>"The disinfo campaign against rational and valid nuclear discussions is still ongoing today.</i>
<br>
<br>DISCLAIMER: Dr. Andre Gsponer, to my knowledge, has not written or uttered publicly a single sentence on his 9/11 speculation. But in the decade leading up to 9/11, he wrote many technical papers on aspects of next generation nuclear weapons.
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>What part of Dr. Gsponer's abstract do you think is "paranoid conspiracy theory."
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>+++ Abstract
<br>"The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previous-generation nuclear-explosives and from conventional weapons based on chemical-explosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shaped-charge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc."
<br>+++ end</p></blockquote>
<p>While Dr. Andre Gsponer, to my knowledge, has not written or uttered publicly a single sentence on his 9/11 speculation, I've stood on his shoulders, Dr. Wood's shoulders, and vetted & rescued nuggets of truth from quite the lot of "(dis)information" sources.
<br>
<br>Here's my work:
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>If it is just "paranoid conspiracy theories", should be easy for you to debunk. Unless that phrase -- originally made popular by the CIA/NSA/FBI to belittle alternative theories on public events [JFK assassination] -- flags you as a disinfo agent / bot, overly reliant on generic but cutting entries from your database. Your goal maybe then isn't to "vet or debunk" but to "distract".
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 336 -->
<a name="x337"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x337" class="tiny">x338</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_338');">Muted explosions</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_338" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gary Fowler, Thank you for posting that video of the fire fighters talking about their impressions, albeit propagating some misinformation.
<br>
<br>The following numbers can be tweaked, but the conclusion is still the same. The towers fell at near gravitational acceleration, so let's say 10 seconds, and let's round the number of floors to an even 100.
<br>
<br>The firefighters said that <i>"it was as if the towers were taken out (blown out by explosives) floor by floor. Pop-pop-pop!"</i>
<br>
<br>If that were case (with the given rounding of numbers assumptions), the audio evidence would have 10 explosions a second, and the firefighters would not have been able to count them or mimic what they heard: "boom-boom-boom". No, the cadence would have been too fast to approximate.
<br>
<br>Instead, the destruction cadence that they suggest -- and that video captures -- indicates a muted explosive boom once every half or third second, which translates into detonation levels, say, every 5th or 10th floors (or greater).
<br>
<br>"Muted explosions" is an important concept, because conventional chemical based explosives use the medium of air to transmit destructive energy to structural elements at a distance from the detonation point; because of this, they are loud, and in the case of 9/11 would have been deafening for anyone within 1/4 mile. (Hearing loss was not one of the ailments exhibited by surviving first responders and witnesses.)
<br>
<br>Late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices -- based on neutron bombs -- release 80% of their already tactical yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons. Certainly, this travels through the medium of air and through the molecular structure of content, but this isn't using air (e.g., sudden changes in air pressure) as a medium for destroying content. As such, the destruction measured out by energy left behind deep within and throughout the molecular structures of the content in the cone-shaped beam of highly energetic neutrons would ~not~ necessarily be loud and would comparably be less than chemical based explosives.
<br>
<br>Of course, non-pure fusion devices would need to be hybrid with fission (to generate the requisite heat for fusion), and all traditional fission weapons typically use a conventional kick-starter chemical charge to ram the nuclear materials into one another to start the reaction. The point is, those kick-starter charges -- not designed for destruction -- probably can be heard and at the cadence counted by firemen, and kick-back from the kick-starter charge is probably what recordings captured as "squibs" on the faces of the towers 10-20 floors ahead of the dustification destruction wave.
<br>
<br>Allow me to repeat myself on an important Gedankenpunkt: "energy left behind deep within and throughout the molecular structures of the content in the cone-shaped beam of highly energetic neutrons."
<br>
<br>What would that look like? What effects would it have?
<br>
<br>Although the following "isn't quite right", it is a useful analogy. Imagine the trapped water molecules in, say, concrete. The energy left behind in the wake of a highly energetic neutron beam would have been in the form of heat. So, imagine those water molecules instantly turning into super super super hot steam, whose expanding volumetric pressure would in effect blow apart and "dustify" concrete from within and throughout.
<br>
<br>Of course, the agregates and rebar in concrete would react even more radically, ablating where the vaporization of the leading edge happens so suddenly it sends a violent shock wave throughout the rest of the material blowing it apart. FTR, while the outer wall assemblies and the inner core are well represented in the debris pile, what isn't well represented are the metal floor pans, trusses, and rebar used in the concrete floors... until you see leaking out of the findings of various agencies studying the dust that it had a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres (that takes an extremely hot heat source to generate.)
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 338 -->
<a name="x339"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x339" class="tiny">x340</a>
Leon Prevot : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_340');">dustified in mid air</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_340" style="display: block;">
<p>The steal columns that lingered after the collapse, which then dustified in mid air, maybe 60 plus stories, was the tell tale sign for me.
</p>
</div><!-- section 340 -->
<a name="x341"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x341" class="tiny">x342</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_342');">not "dustified in mid air"; telescope down</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-21</p>
<div id="sect_342" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Leon Prevot, The remnants of the inner-core that remained standing for a few moments after the collapse ("the spire") were ~NOT~ dustified in mid-air. This is a point that Dr. Wood factually gets wrong. When you go beyond one perspective of the video and study other view points, it becomes clear that the spire sort of telescoped on itself and fell over, albeit leaving dust lingering in the air where it once was.
<br>
<br>It is certainly valid to study what caused the sudden telescoping and falling of the spire.
<br>
<br>I speculate into why the spire was even present as a demolition anomaly... in both towers. I conclude the spire was a necessary feature.
<br>
<br>My premise is late-3rd/early-fourth generation nuclear devices (4 per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels in towers, 1 detonation level in WTC-4, 5, 6. TBD WTC-7.) The FGNW used a conventional explosive (back-kick seen as a squib on tower faces) to kick-start the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the requisite heat for fusion. The fusion stage, instead of letting its highly energetic neutrons bounce around in the kernal and chain react, are allowed to escape in a targeted fashion (cone-shaped, fanning out upwards), 80% of its already tactical yield.
<br>
<br>Owing to the multi-stage process and maybe even a notable firing duration, each FGNW was required to be mounted on a structure that would be guaranteed to remain stable for the ignition. The FGNW mounted lower in the tower did not destroy the inner-core above them. Their cone-shaped output was aimed away from the inner-core. Only at the far range of its cone-shaped neutron emission several floors above the ignition level were the wall assemblies grazed.
<br>
<br>That grazing resulted in the artifact that I like to call "the smoking wall assemblies": wall assemblies that fell outside the structure and were "streaming off" dust and smoke and "steam", as if they'd been heated to an extent that they could cook / burn off material (e.g., paint, insulation) that might have been previously attached.
<br>
<br>I think the 20% of the FGNW's nuclear yield in the form of a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP gave us "the steel doobies": the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly were wrapped together by their three spandrels. The wall assemblies were three stories high, yet the wide spandrels at all three levels were heated to a level such that they became pliable and allowed the blast wave to wrap them up.
<br>
<br>The FEMA/NIST videos of the Freshkills scrap yard (even after a great amount of evidence was scrapped and shipped to China) gave us "the smoked steel doobie". Similar to above, except that it was shorter and one end had weird wavey bends that began to separate at the welds the four sheets of each face of a hollow box column, as if that were the burned end of a "steel doobie that got part-way smoked".
<br>
<br>[I digress. The FEMA/NIST videos -- I assume -- on some of the best recording equipment available to man at the time demonstrate to this day that radiation did leach off of the debris in cases. Many who were raised on rabbit-eared televisions might not even notice some of the snow, sparkle, and glitches, except for when it is so obvious it can't be ignored. Video tape technology is very susceptible to radiation, and those videos have the most catastrophic imagery failures. It'd be working fine until they turned and pointed at something "hot", and then the video glitch beyond recognition keeping the audio. Digital camera technolgy also registers radiation, but as aparkles and flashes. Did you know that there is an app to turn your smart phone into a Geiger Counter? Of course, 9/11 is before smart phones, but the camera technolgy is the same. Hence Mayor Bloomberg's orders to prohibit unauthorized cameras and Geiger counters at Ground Zero. They could have caught the glitches.]
<br>
<br>Wherease the spire wasn't dustiried, the concrete floors, their supporting metal pans and trusses, and building content (including humans and aircraft parts) in the cone-shaped lines of fire were dustified.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 342 -->
<!-- ***** 202204_mcb_fgnwEnergy.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_7 -->
<a name="p8"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_8');">Part 8: FGNW Discussions with Lawrence Fine</a></h2>
<div id="part_8" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202204_mcb_fgnwLFine.htm -->
<a name="x343"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x343" class="tiny">x344</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_344');">figurative radioactive fallout from 9/11 could still damage</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-27</p>
<div id="sect_344" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/evelynine.ruthtay/posts/389585223088366?comment_id=339795391581415&reply_comment_id=1178965782940042¬if_id=1651095793482880¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/evelynine.ruthtay/posts/389585223088366?comment_id=339795391581415&reply_comment_id=1178965782940042¬if_id=1651095793482880¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>The government is still blocking the 9/11 Grand Jury because the figurative radioactive fallout from 9/11 having had nuclear components could still damage institutions, agencies, and even the existence of the states.
<br>
<br>This is me, plopping down my research and written up homework assignment.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 344 -->
<a name="x345"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x345" class="tiny">x346</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_346');">A singular device</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-27</p>
<div id="sect_346" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Mr. Bridges almost has it correct. I have resigned to a simple conclusion. YES, thermo nuclear devices were utilized in the destruction of the Twin Towers but not in the TOP DOWN explosive dismemberment.
<br>IMO, A singular device
</p>
</div><!-- section 346 -->
<a name="x347"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x347" class="tiny">x348</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_348');">an observable wave going from top to bottom</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-27</p>
<div id="sect_348" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, given that the tower's destruction has an observable wave going from top to bottom and in cases observable squibs at the ignition level preceding the destruction wave, then you'll have to provide a few more details to your "not in the TOP DOWN explosive dismemberment" and "IMO, A singular device."
<br>
<br>... Oh wait a minute. Mr. Fine. If you are peddling a deep underground nuclear device owing to the geological formation under WTC-4 and discussed in other FB carousels, please don't do that under my top-level comment.
<br>
<br>Be courteous. Make your own top-level comment and provide the defense of your premise there.
<br>
<br>Here's my discouragement of you discussing that here [and you can defend my attack under the top-level comment that you'll be making, as per the edict of the previous paragraph.]
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br>Each building in the WTC needs to be considered as separate events, and may or may not have used similar destructive mechanisms. So your premise of "IMO, A singular device" dies a sudden death with the fact that WTC-1 and WTC-2 represent two separate events and could not have succumbed in the manner observed without there being at least two separate device, one for each tower.
<br>
<br>Assuming you make that clarification to your premise, don't be pulling in the WTC-4 geological formation erroneously, calling it nuclear evidence. How did it not damage the slurry walls yet somehow damage a tower? How did the North wing of WTC-4 survive while its main edifice at that building juncture was leveled to the ground and most importantly not sucked below ground where that geological formation -- which was known to exist from historical geological surveys -- was allegedly carved out by your device? How did that device also not destroy WTC-4's gold vaults or the old subway tunnels used for service entrances where a semi was found abandoned but loaded with gold?
<br>
<br>9/11 had money as a motivating goal: (1) ONI at Pentagon was investigating the missing $2.3 trillion; (2) WTC-7 had SEC records destroyed for cases then in progress; (3) the re-opening of the stock markets laundered tons of money, with one small example being put-options placed against the airlines involved; (4) the vaults under WTC-6's custom house -- with confiscated weapons, guns, money -- were emptied prior to 9/11.
<br>
<br>This subset of the actual money trail (before even considering the war profiteering) suggests that the gold in WTC-4 underground vaults was important, and thus figuratively "nukes" the notion that the geological formation under WTC-4 had any other cause but ancient geological events.
<br>
<br>Here's an example of an earlier carousel spin that should have knocked down your single-nuke-per-tower hobby-horse:
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/lorenzonine/posts/10164178992945046?comment_id=10164183670340046">https://www.facebook.com/lorenzonine/posts/10164178992945046?comment_id=10164183670340046</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>Another spin
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/911CONSENSUS/posts/2992241680874515/?comment_id=2995501487215201&reply_comment_id=3009616859136997">https://www.facebook.com/groups/911CONSENSUS/posts/2992241680874515/?comment_id=2995501487215201&reply_comment_id=3009616859136997</a>
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br>2022-07-08
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/?multi_permalinks=1271643723373204%2C1268216043715972¬if_id=1656851482804067¬if_t=group_activity&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/?multi_permalinks=1271643723373204%2C1268216043715972¬if_id=1656851482804067¬if_t=group_activity&ref=notif</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 348 -->
<a name="x349"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x349" class="tiny">x350</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_350');">Links to his nuclear premise using WTC-4</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-27</p>
<div id="sect_350" style="display: block;">
<p>Meme: WTC-4 was heavily damaged by the perimeter columns from the east wall of the south tower when the tower was demolished but it remained "standing" in spite of the "subsidences" (plural), two 40' spheroid cavities, discovered during cleanup that were not represented in the pre 9/11 geotechnical survey.
<br>
<br><a href="https://lorenzonine.wixsite.com/nineelevensynthesis">https://lorenzonine.wixsite.com/nineelevensynthesis</a>
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/YZQhItjqkiI">https://youtu.be/YZQhItjqkiI</a> Richard Gage on seismic activity
<br><a href="https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/09/08/a-morning-that-shook-the-world/">https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/09/08/a-morning-that-shook-the-world/</a>
<br>\video of corner and buckling columns: <a href="https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif">https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif</a>
<br>Project Plowshare: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare</a>
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/kpjFU_kBaBE">https://youtu.be/kpjFU_kBaBE</a>
<br>SOLKYM - <a href="https://youtu.be/VJmG0DRU0Rc">https://youtu.be/VJmG0DRU0Rc</a>
<br>#ninelevenbuildingnumberfour
</p>
</div><!-- section 350 -->
<a name="x351"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x351" class="tiny">x352</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_352');">monetary motive precludes underground nukes</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-08</p>
<div id="sect_352" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, The WTC-4 main edifice was leveled neatly at the line that demarcated its North wing, while sparing the gold vaults and old subway tunnels re-purposed into service tunnels where they found an abandoned truck and trailer loaded with gold whose amounts from the trailer and the vaults are never made public. They don't talk about any gold loss or to what degree the gold heist was foiled.
<br>
<br>The take-away for you is that this monetary motive in execution on 9/11 would preclude in the planning the ignition of nuclear devices (a) positioned at depths way below the basements/vaults of WTC-4 and (b) whose energy output and nuclear yield is somehow routed through un-damaged slurry walls to somehow be involved in WTC-2's demise and (d) not affect the street level or WTC-4's North wing.
<br>
<br>Your meme outright lies when it states "two 40' spheroid cavities, discovered during cleanup that were not present in the pre-9/11 geotechnical survey."
<br>
<br>To the tolerances of the improved equipment over the various eras when the pre-9/11 surveys were completed, they knew there were geological anomalies under where they built WTC-4, but not the depth and extent (because unlike the cleanup operation, the earlier surveys did not have the luxury of excavating it to get its exact dimensions.)
<br>
<br>You make the error of discounting the truth of those several early surveys -- to the tolerances of their methods -- documenting an anomaly of unknown size. You conflate this geological artifact with the theme of 9/11 having nuclear components in a misguided and deceitful way that only serves to poison the well of 9/11 Truth and the true implementation of the tactical FGNW.
<br>
<br>Planting seeds for latter-day lurker readers. No need for Mr. Fine and I to make another revolution on his flawed WTC-4 analysis carousel, because here's one of those early spins "Chapter 6: FGNW Discussions with Lawrence Fine".
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Fine and I do agree that 9/11 had nuclear components. Here's my 9/11 nuclear speculation.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 352 -->
<p>Source <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/permalink/1271643723373204/?comment_id=1271728833364693&reply_comment_id=1271748403362736¬if_id=1657316062793971¬if_t=group_comment&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/permalink/1271643723373204/?comment_id=1271728833364693&reply_comment_id=1271748403362736¬if_id=1657316062793971¬if_t=group_comment&ref=notif</a></p>
<a name="x353"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x353" class="tiny">x354</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_354');">Absolute balderdash</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-08</p>
<div id="sect_354" style="display: block;">
<p>Absolute balderdash 🙂 OH! and poppycock 😉
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 354 -->
<a name="x355"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x355" class="tiny">x356</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_356');">with the EXCEPTION of the thermonuclear events</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-08</p>
<div id="sect_356" style="display: block;">
<p>with the EXCEPTION of the thermonuclear events. Good luck and good night.
</p>
</div><!-- section 356 -->
<!-- ***** 202204_mcb_fgnwLFine.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_8 -->
<a name="p9"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_9');">Part 9: FGNW and OKC</a></h2>
<div id="part_9" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202204_mcb_fgnwOKC.htm -->
<a name="x357"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x357" class="tiny">x358</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_358');">OKC used FGNW, owing to the fingerprints of nuclear involvement, similar to 9/11</a></b></p>
<p>2022-04-</p>
<div id="sect_358" style="display: block;">
<p><br>Dear Mr. Chris Cox, After you study what late-3rd/early-fourth generation nuclear devices could do based Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal on FGNW, the evidence of their tactical nuclear yield in observable in more than a couple "big" events.
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>I believe that OKC used FGNW, owing to the fingerprints of nuclear involvement, similar to 9/11. And what a coincidence that the same team that tried to explain away OKC as fertilizer truck bombs led the charge on 9/11 with pile driving blocks through the path of greatest resistance and near free-fall accelerations while also pulverizing and ejecting content, and with no extra energy added beyond airplane impacts and jet fuel & office furnishing fires.
<br>
<br>
<br>Here's my write up on part of 9/11 at the WTC>
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>Something I don't often discuss is that the placement of the multiple FGNW devices in the other WTC buildings (WTC-4,-5, -6) was different than the towers, in that all devices were mounted on the same level or plane. (The towers deployed 4 FGNW per detonation levels, and 6-12 detonation levels.) Their cone-shaped output of highly energetic neutrons was aimed upwards but away from critical structure, such as the very walls the FGNW is mounted to. (Hence the WTC-6 crater that spared its vaults sufficiently for FEMA to claim they were already emptied.)
<br>
<br>WTC-4 was cut and leveled at a neat line with the (surviving) north Wing. They've been hush about the original and final amounts of gold contained in those vaults, as well as the abandoned semi loaded with gold in the old WTC-4 subway tunnels re-purposed into delivery access.
<br>
<br>WTC-5 had these neat circular anomalies on its roof that disinfo Woodsian DEWers complain are "beams from space." Closer to their true nature, the circular holes represent the diameter and effective neutron-targeting region of the cone-shaped output of a FGNW.
<br>
<br>The topic is OKC, and its damage patterns -- somewhat cylindrical in its strike pattern. I recall reading about at least one other device that did not go off. [Fracticide between FGNW is an issue with poor planning or timing, leading to nuclear fizzle and FGNW not meeting their expected nuclear yields.]
<br>
<br>FTR, FGNW (particularly late-3rd/early-4th) use a conventional chemical charge to kick-start a small fission stage whose sole purpose is generate the requisite heat for the fusion stage. Instead of letting the neutrons bounce around in the kernel and chain-react, the highly energetic neutrons are allowed to escape -- the premise of the neutron bomb -- but in a targeted fashion and at tactical yields.
<br>
<br>USGS (9/11) dust samples show the finger prints of fission with Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities. [I recall the OKC studies having stilted issues as well.] The tritium report was scope-limited to building content and not into speculating that the tritium measured in the run-off (haphazardly and un-systematic) came from FGNW.
<br>
<br>OKC was trial run for 9/11. Among the lessons learned, don't use local patsies. Coordinate your devices better, because nuclear fizzle (having many forms from nothing to Chernobyl-like) is a real. Have multiple events at once so they can be constantly confused with one another. Have a ruse like an aircraft to explain the initiation of destruction, because trucks with fertilizer bombs don't cut it (and FGNW are fairly precision.)
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 358 -->
<!-- ***** 202204_mcb_fgnwOKC.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_9 -->
<a name="p10"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_10');">Part 10: FGNW Discussions with Henry Hansteen, Peter Karig, Winston Smith, Greg Skomaroske, Amybeth Hurst, Maverick D. Powell, Steve Ryan, Bob Solo, Richard Dihlman</a></h2>
<div id="part_10" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202206_mcb_AE911.htm -->
<a name="x359"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x359" class="tiny">x360</a>
Henry Hansteen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_360');">the upper block begins to tilt</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_360" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/henry.hansteen/posts/pfbid0ohAHGkTXhwBThiDf7qWQzbpr2MjUg79h6A3zpyd3s9EDM9AhcRpyxtiXVGKoXU8Zl?comment_id=2857748057850910&reply_comment_id=1269200836950736¬if_id=1656023235021647¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/henry.hansteen/posts/pfbid0ohAHGkTXhwBThiDf7qWQzbpr2MjUg79h6A3zpyd3s9EDM9AhcRpyxtiXVGKoXU8Zl?comment_id=2857748057850910&reply_comment_id=1269200836950736¬if_id=1656023235021647¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br>Notice that at the start of the demolition of WTC2, the upper block (which consists of about thirty floors and is structurally sound above the jet impact) begins to tilt significantly to the left. But rather than continue to tilt off the steel structure below, it explodes and disintegrates mid tilt, followed by the undamaged steel frame below. This is just one of many examples of the government/media conspiracy theory contradicting the evidence. Obviously, their claim that the upper block served as a "pile driver" and caused the much thicker, stronger, heavier, cold undamaged steel frame below to explode and disintegrate didn't happen. There was no "pile driver". But there were extreme high temperature, nearly inextinguishable underground fires, molten and vaporized steel, and high tech incendiary material present after the demolitions.
</p>
</div><!-- section 360 -->
<a name="x361"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x361" class="tiny">x362</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_362');">my write-up</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_362" style="display: block;">
<p>Here's my write-up.
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 362 -->
<a name="x363"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x363" class="tiny">x364</a>
Henry Hansteen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_364');">no nuclear bombs were detonated in New York City on 9/11/01</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_364" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges no nuclear bombs were detonated in New York City on 9/11/01. That, like no planes, holograms, and space beams, is disinformation that helps the real terrorists get away with their crimes by making people who question their absurd conspiracy theory seem just as out of touch with reality as those who believe it.
<br>For evidence-based research by highly credible professionals, see the website below. And I'll ask you the same thing I ask people who still believe the government's absurd 9/11 conspiracy myth. Let me know if you disagree with any of the evidence or analysis on the website below. All the professionals behind this website as well as all other credible 9/11 researchers reject the nuclear bomb theory because the evidence contradicts it.
<br><a href="http://911speakout.org">http://911speakout.org</a>
<br>911SpeakOut.org | The World Needs Truth
<br>911SPEAKOUT.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 364 -->
<a name="x365"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x365" class="tiny">x366</a>
Peter Karig : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_366');">The nuclear bomb idea is absurd</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_366" style="display: block;">
<p>Henry Hansteen Yep. The nuclear bomb idea is absurd
</p>
</div><!-- section 366 -->
<a name="x367"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x367" class="tiny">x368</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_368');">*snap-of-the-fingers* I dispell your "absurd" hypnotic suggestion!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_368" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Peter Karig, With this *snap-of-the-fingers* I dispell your "absurd" hypnotic suggestion! Absurb is thinking that you can disprove the 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case without first reading it and identifying its fallacies. That is not how reasoned debate goes.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 368 -->
<a name="x369"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x369" class="tiny">x370</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_370');">I'll be damned?!! I've already had one FB carousel spin with you</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_370" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, With this *snap-of-the-fingers* I dispell your hypnotic suggestion! You'll not defeat a substantiated FGNW premise by lamely associating it with other individual premises that indeed were manufactured disinformation designed to undermine the 9/11 Truth Movement from within (e.g., no planes, holograms, and space beams). Yes, even the "nuclear premise" championed by many involving single devices per tower and deep underground was manufactured disinformation. FGNW is not "that" nuclear premise. You ding your own integrity and your alleged "open-mind" when you so casually brush it off.
<br>
<br>Absurb is thinking that you can disprove the 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case without first reading it and identifying its fallacies. That is not how reasoned debate goes.
<br>
<br>I'll give you a point for linking in 9/11SpeakOut(dot)org, except that (a) their home page does not address the FGNW premise, (b) you did not do your homework to present an applicable reference, and (c) I have had less-than-satisfactory communication with various individuals at 9/11SpeakOut that was saved and already re-published.
<br>
<br>I've communicated with David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Frank Legge, but was blocked by gatekeeper Chandler from communicating with Jonathon Cole. Not making this up.
<br>
<br>As one example, you'll find interesting the "Chapter 11: FGNW Discussions with Wayne Coste" at:
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br>
<br>However, once you get there, you'll be blown away by "Chapter 7: FGNW Discussions with AlienScientist, Henry Hansteen, Adam Fitzgerald".
<br>
<br>I'll be damned?!! I've already had one FB carousel spin with you where, again, right out of the gate you attempt to associate FGNW with one of the aforementioend manufactured disinformation premsies.
<br>
<br>In case you were curious, here is a direct FB link to that discussion.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10155820409191269?comment_id=10155830555616269¬if_id=1542828112272844¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10155820409191269?comment_id=10155830555616269¬if_id=1542828112272844¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br>What is most sad is that discussion was three years ago. Had all that time to debunk my FGNW premise [which did evolve] and you squandered away the time doing nothing by spinning guilt-by-association lameness.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 370 -->
<a name="x371"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x371" class="tiny">x372</a>
Henry Hansteen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_372');">spreading disinformation that's flatly contradicted by the evidence</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_372" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges please stop spreading disinformation that's flatly contradicted by the evidence and all of the credible, respected 9/11 researchers. None of them support your nuclear bomb fantasy. They reject it because the evidence proves it didn't happen. Again, please don't post this sort of disinformation on my Facebook page. It's harmful to the 9/11 truth movement and helps the real terrorists get away with their crimes.
<br>Of course David Chandler and his colleagues want nothing to do with you. They know you're spreading disinformation and ignoring the hard evidence and research. I support them blocking you. Disinformation trolls should be exposed and flushed at every opportunity. Please do not comment with this nonsense on my Facebook page again or I'll have to block you too. I know a disinformation troll when I see one. And I have studied your nuclear bomb disinformation. That's why I also know it's nonsense.
</p>
</div><!-- section 372 -->
<a name="x373"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x373" class="tiny">x374</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_374');">Big on blarney and small on specifics</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_374" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, Please stop inserting your agenda-toting hypnotic suggestion into what should be a sincere discussion on a valid 9/11 topic. You do not have the moral authority to call any premise wrong (or misinformation, or disinformation) if you do not substantiate it, as I have done.
<br>
<br>You make the claim that my FGNW premise is <i>"contradicted by the evidence and all of the credible, respected 9/11 researchers."</i> You prove the claim. Onus is on you. I've made it easier on you by consolidating a portion of the evidence with my analysis that relates it to FGNW. So, yes. Using the evidence that any 9/11 theory-du-jour must include to be complete, please explain (a) how it was allegedly not FGNW and (b) how it was allegedly caused by something else explained with detail.
<br>
<br>Be careful. It is a trick assignment. Why? Because (a) no other "something else" addresses even a fraction of the evidence (e.g., horseshoes, arches/sags, steel doobies, FEMA/NIST camera failures, audio signature, excessive energy, duration of hot-spots). And because (b), you'll find that "credible, respected 9/11 researchers" can be bought-and-paid-for just like anybody else: politicians, scientists, doctors. I don't relish legitimately bashing others for their blatant failings on technical matters, but I have a hunch that for just about any "credible, respected 9/11 researcher" name that you would bring up already has write-up's from me on the issues in their work. Save yourself some grief; find this analysis on my blog; know what my argument is going to be before it smacks you across the face and proves those 9/11 researchers undeserving of being credible and respected.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"None of them (the alleged credible, respected 9/11 researchers) support your nuclear bomb fantasy."</i>
<br>
<br>When you misstate my "fantasy" as a singular "nuclear bomb", it indicates quite clearly that you haven't read my FGNW premise which calls for 4 devices per detonation level and 6-12 detonation levels. Your failings is their failings, because (a) they haven't read the FGNW premise and (b) they have not published anything to debunk it: section by section. And the embarrassing one (c) they probably created FAQ#13/#15 in a successful attempt to debunk "nuclear blasts"; the issue is that highly-energetic neutrons emitted from a FGNW is a completely different mechanism of destruction than a "blast." In other words, the FAQ outs itself as controlled opposition attempting to smear all forms of nuclear involvement without even mentioning neutron bombs or their bastard hybrid off-spring FGNW.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"They reject it because the evidence proves it didn't happen."</i>
<br>
<br>You make the claim, you defend the claim. I doubt that you will find one article from any of those bought-and-paid-for "credible, respected 9/11 researches" who legitimately discusses the evolution of nuclear weapons or who mentions specifically neutrons bombs and their evolution into FGNW, or "exotic weapons."
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Again, please don't post this sort of disinformation on my Facebook page. It's harmful to the 9/11 truth movement and helps the real terrorists get away with their crimes."</i>
<br>
<br>Again, you have no basis to hypnotically suggest that FGNW is disinformation, and you've had three years to get your ducks in a row and accomplish the task.
<br>
<br>What hurts the 9/11 truth movement is when duped useful idiots, such as yourself, aren't willing to question and study (a) the weaknesses of existing premises [e.g., NT] and/or (b) an alternative analysis [e.g., FGNW] that addresses wider swaths of the evidence. It exposes you as a hypocrite, because you aren't open-minded enough to take on this validating task. When this character failing happens repeatedly, it exposes an agenda that isn't following "the Truth."
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Of course David Chandler and his colleagues want nothing to do with you. They know you're spreading disinformation and ignoring the hard evidence and research."</i>
<br>
<br>Did you get this from the horse's mouth, or are you making this up?
<br>
<br>David Chandler and his colleagues want nothing to do with me, because among my super-powers are persistence, a fanaticism for Truth, and an ability to research and to understand technical things. I expose the weaknesses of their premises in back-handed ways.
<br>
<br>Here's a great example. Along my 9/11 evolutionary path, I became enamoured with Dr. Judy Wood's text book "Where did the towers go": 500 pages long, over 500 full-color images, large page format, not cheap. I earnestly sought several times assistance from others in validating it or debunking it (while rescuing nuggets of truth) to the extreme that I would purchased and gift (and ship) a copy of the book to others (with their permission). David Chandler was one. He skirted the task in a monumental fashion, and gave not one iota of substantiated commentary to justify a blanket verdict "disinfo."
<br>
<br>Later with my own research efforts and second pass through Dr. Wood's book, I was able to legitimately debunk it [although I had hoped to validate it; bummer for me, had to alter my views.] Her book had seemingly lots of low-hanging fruit. She dropped lots of dangling innuendo, connected no dots, drew no conclusions, and did a shitty job of nuclear research.
<br>
<br>Why couldn't David Chandler (and others) assist in debunking Dr. Wood's DEW theories?
<br>
<br>Because in the process, nuggets of truth would get separated from the chaffe and would have to be addressed by any-and-all would-be 9/11 conspiracies. They couldn't/wouldn't address anything specific in her book, because their premise had no explanation for it.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"I support them blocking you."</i>
<br>
<br>El-oh-el. I can still communicate with David Chandler through two different channels. Wayne Coste did the most ludicrous gymnastics to avoid finding a venue (even within FB) to have a rational discussion; when it did happen, he lost. Their website has never allowed commentary. Chandler only cock-blocked me from using their 911SpeakOut website to directly converse with Jonathon Cole, because at that time (and still today) I have the receipts on what makes NT a 9/11 limited hang-out.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Disinformation trolls should be exposed and flushed at every opportunity."</i>
<br>
<br>You outed yourself as said "disinformation trolls." You see, I did my homework, have it in presentation form, and allow it to be discussed there and where I champion it in Facebook. You can't even bring yourself to read it, and this after three years of it being on your direct radar. For shame.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Please do not comment with this nonsense on my Facebook page again or I'll have to block you too."</i>
<br>
<br>The onus has been on you to prove it "nonsense". Hasn't happened.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"I know a disinformation troll when I see one."</i>
<br>
<br>Every time you look at yourself in the mirror while brushing your teeth.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"And I have studied your nuclear bomb disinformation. That's why I also know it's nonsense."</i>
<br>
<br>Liar. (a) FGNW on 9/11 is not about a singular "nuclear bomb" and was never described that way in my work. (b) Any "nonsense" that you see should be flagged by section and brought to my attention about why it is wrong.
<br>
<br>Ergo, you have ~not~ studied my work. This carousel spin through your hypnotic suggestion matches the last spin I had with you. Big on blarney and small on specifics.
<br>
<br>P.S. If your argument can only be defended by blocking your opponent, then it is a weak argument. In your case, your argument is so devoid of facts and details, it outs you as a disinfo-bot. Rest assured, this exchange is being preserved for re-publishing later.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 374 -->
<a name="x375"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x375" class="tiny">x376</a>
Henry Hansteen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_376');">stop posting your idiotic disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_376" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I asked you twice to stop posting your idiotic disinformation on my Facebook page. So what do you do? You do what any loose some troll would do. You repeat the same delusional nonsense.
<br>At least try to show a little bit of self-respect or pride. Don't stick around where you're unwanted and unwelcome. Go away troll. You've been exposed.
</p>
</div><!-- section 376 -->
<a name="x377"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x377" class="tiny">x378</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_378');">you could have done me a great, positive service if you would have taken the time to point out exactly what was in error!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_378" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, Your multiple requests to have me <i>"stop posting ... idiotic disinformation"</i> were unfounded and heeded even before you asked, because I've posted nothing "idiotic" or "disinformation."
<br>
<br>But golly, if I *had* posted something either "idiotic" or "disinformation," you could have done me a great, positive service if you would have taken the time to point out exactly what was in error! Armed with your improved analysis, I would have re-considered what I posted and offered apologies for having led your loyal Facebook followers astray.
<br>
<br>Alas, that "improved analysis" from you -- those nuggets of wisdom that I yearn for because I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on my FGNW premise -- failed to convince me. Hell, it failed to convince you, as it failed to make it over the keyboard and in a message to me: "here is where you are wrong exactly!"
<br>
<br>Instead of "improved analysis", all I get from you is hypnotic suggestion to your loyal Facebook followers.
<br>
<br>In all of our exchanges (today and 3 years ago), you've refused to demonstrate an open-mind or an ability to make a coherent argument either in support of your premise or in debunking mine: except that aforementioned "hypnotic suggestion."
<br>
<br>You may have the last word in this thread, unless you address me directly or present something needing a response.
<br>
<br>If you feel so weak in your debate abilities or "improved analysis" that you are tempted to block me (unfriend me, whatever), then be mindful of the huge red flag it raises for latter-day lurker readers, here and elsewhere. Should I discover your banishment or censorship, I'll be sad, and will add it as a post-script to my re-publication of this conversation, giving your words and actions life and meaning outside the confines of Facebook.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 378 -->
<a name="x379"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x379" class="tiny">x380</a>
Winston Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_380');">No planes? No brains!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_380" style="display: block;">
<p>No planes? No brains!
</p>
</div><!-- section 380 -->
<a name="x381"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x381" class="tiny">x382</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_382');">all champions of no planes on Facebook are agent-bots</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_382" style="display: block;">
<p>No, sorry, Mr. Winston Smith. I've come to the realization that almost all champions of no planes on Facebook are agent-bots poisoning the well of other verified (9/11) conspiracies [and alternative thinking]. None can argue the NPT position even lamely, and they are paid (or programmed) to not change their minds despite overwhelming evidence (or URL) that -- get this bot-tell -- can not even visit, let alone discuss.
<br><br>Put down a link and ask them to paste in a quote or image URL from that source, and then discuss what might be wrong about it, you will inspired all sort of lame database rebuttals and insults but nary a word or sentence to indicate they even followed the link. Certainly no quotes or image URLs.
<br><br>Here's one that trips them up.
<br><br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 382 -->
<a name="x383"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x383" class="tiny">x384</a>
Greg Skomaroske : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_384');">Thats rediculous</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_384" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Thats rediculous. No one can saythat any of tis info is accurate because the government is lying about so much and nearly everything. They need to be brought up on treason charges nd punished severily for crimes against humanity is what i am sure of! This was a coup de tat for the Military to keep getting their regular budget they were robbing the American people for already and then they wanted more despite being missing 2.3 trillion between 1995 and Sept 10th 2001 as reported by Donald Rumsfeld
</p>
</div><!-- section 384 -->
<a name="x385"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x385" class="tiny">x386</a>
Greg Skomaroske : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_386');">takes some intelligence with the totality of all the info to come to the grand conclusion</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_386" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Your asking them to prove a negative and that is impossible and why it then takes some intelligence with the totality of all the info to come to the grand conclusion.
</p>
</div><!-- section 386 -->
<a name="x387"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x387" class="tiny">x388</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_388');">none are permitted to actually discuss vetted evidence of aircraft</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_388" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Greg Skomaroske, I put down a link to evidence of real aircraft involvement at the WTC. Rather than posting a quotation (or URL to an image) from that article, your response is: <i>"Thats rediculous."</i> And it is followed by grammatically challenged database entries that have little to do with defending or debunking the NPT@WTC premise.
<br>
<br>Your second response hot on the heels of your first response also doesn't defend or debunk NPT@WTC. And it contains a logical fallacy and meaningless database entry with no applicability to the NPT@WTC discussion. But if applicability there is, the onus is on you to prove it. You haven't.
<br>
<br>Your wrote: <i>"Your asking them to prove a negative."</i>
<br>
<br>Not true. I'm asking readers to objectively review all of the evidence. The link alone has vetted photographs (that no one has challenged or disputed or explained in an alternative fashion) of an aircraft.
<br>
<br>Paste a quote or image URL from the link to prove that you at least "got on the same (web) page" for being able to legitimately carry forth in this discussion (without outting yourself as an agent-bot.)
<br>
<br>See, Mr. Winston Smith, even when the agent-bots use persona-management software, none are permitted to actually discuss vetted evidence of aircraft.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 388 -->
<a name="x389"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x389" class="tiny">x390</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_390');">deceitfully extrapolating those factoids into the premise</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_390" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. அபà¯à®¤à¯à®²à¯ ரபீகà¯, Your claim -- as was mine for three years over a decade ago -- is that no planes impacted the WTC towers. I believed that too -- how embarrassing! But at least I was open to new evidence and analysis. Armed with such, I realized NPT@WTC was clever disinformation. F* me, man! I had to publicly apologize and recant, which I did.
<br><br>Debunking NPT@WTC isn't my hobby-horse, and I only do it as a favor to sincere seekers of truth who were deceitfully and purposely duped by September Clues and other NPT@WTC nonsense.
<br><br>An explanation is needed (by the wannabe-NPT@WTC-believers) for the physical evidence of real aircraft. My favorite is a portion of a plane's landing gear embedded between two hollow-box-columns of a WTC wall assembly that it managed to rip out of the backside of WTC-1 and fall into a parking lot near the towers and that was photographed from multiple angles before either WTC tower came down.
<br><br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br><br>Remember: Just because they didn't serial-number identify found aircraft pieces and match them to the alleged commercial aircraft (and ignore that they might belong to a different make and model of aircraft than the alleged commercial planes), the most a sincere seeker of Truth can conclude is that the impacting aircraft might not have been the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br><br>That extra step into "crazy" by deceitfully extrapolating those factoids into the premise "no planes at all at the WTC", that is the disinformation exposing itself. And it was necessitated because the Pentagon and Shanksville incidents have a shocking lack of physical evidence of aircraft and lack of following standard operating procedures (like rebuilding the aircraft from its pieces in a hangar). So disinfo NPT@WTC was spun up to poison the well on (9/11) conspiracies and smear the 9/11 Truth Movement as crazies.
<br><br>If 9/11 had gone according to plan, both aircraft impacts would have more or less had their aircraft parts contained within the towers, and not escaping (like 10 pieces of landing gear and an engine that flew a couple football fields, bounced off a roof, and fell to the street), then they wouldn't have to do any cover-up to hide that the actual aircraft weren't the alleged commercial aircraft. Why? Because they knew that their chosen mechanisms of destruction (FGNW, tactical, 4 per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels) would ablate whatever aircraft evidence remained within the confines of the towers.
<br><br>From my FB discussions of late, just about all champions of NPT@WTC are disinfo agents-bots who can't even follow a URL (above) and copy a quote or image URL to paste back into here as evidence that they visited that webpage. Consider this my bot-test for you.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br>+++++++++++
</p>
</div><!-- section 390 -->
<a name="x391"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x391" class="tiny">x392</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_392');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_392" style="display: block;">
<p>I've done my research, wrote out my homework, published it for review, and shopped my premise around all sorts of (FB) forums with the explicit purpose of having other sharp, intelligent, rational people debunk (or vet) the FGNW premise.
<br><br>Sincere seekers of truth hold their opinions, follow & read my content, and stew on its possibilities and maybe other information to support my "bat-shit-crazy" 9/11 FGNW premise, or debunk it.
<br><br>The insincere seekers? Why they play all sorts of games that only expose them as agent-bots. I mean, most provide their "book reviews without every having smelled the ink from the book's crack"; they try to debunk a premise without ever going to the URL where the premise is discussed and identifying section-by-section where the error is. The governments have long held that the best way to challenge uncomfortable (and damning) premises is to not even acknowledge it in the slightest or that it exists, because that ends up being a form of validation. I mean, if they address anything about it, that generates validating interest that didn't previously exist and raises more questions (like why they didn't go in and debunk it section-by-section).
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br><br>At any rate, by their fruitful responses you will know them.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 392 -->
<a name="x393"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x393" class="tiny">x394</a>
Amybeth Hurst : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_394');">all claiming to be fact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_394" style="display: block;">
<p>In this thread, I see dozens of theories and all claim to be "fact." I also see several people blamed, all claiming to be fact. Thousands of people would have to have been involved for these buildings to have been imploded, and dozens of explosives experts to place the bombs, and 100+ security personnel to keep quiet. I guess anything's possible, but I just wish one of these people would have a guilty conscience and come forward.
</p>
</div><!-- section 394 -->
<a name="x395"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x395" class="tiny">x396</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_396');">start with the wrong assumption, you'll come to wrong conclusions</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_396" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Amybeth Hurst, trying to debunk theories based on the number of people involved is a weak argument. Thousands worked on the Manhattan project and other nuclear endeavors and keep it secret (until used) and the details need-to-know to this day.
<br><br>Be that as it may, if you start with the wrong assumption, you'll come to wrong conclusions. You assume "dozens of explosives experts to place the bombs" to have the buildings implode, and security personnel keeping quiet.
<br><br>"Dozens of explosives experts" would have been able to configure a demolition that had the appearance of a natural event at non-free-fall-accelerations and certainly without the blatant overkill pulverization.
<br><br>The chemical bombs theory with or without NT is the wrong assumption, because indeed the logistics for just the towers would have had high risk of early exposure; the bomb sniffing dogs only had a few days off prior to 9/11, which is insufficient to achieve the pulverization for chemical based bombs.
<br><br>However, when you examine the traces of nuclear involvement leaking out all over (including the USGS data tables on the dust, the scope-limited tritium report, and the NIST/FEMA "high-quality" videos of the debris pile and later Fresh Kills landfill), then considering late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) greatly simplifies logistics. Like bindings mounted to skis for later ski boot insertion, a much smaller team could install the FGNW mounting brackets and cabling over a long period of time without raising too much suspicion, even from bomb sniffing dogs.
<br><br>I estimate 4 FGNW per detonation level, 6-12 detonation levels per tower (1 detonation level for WTC-5, WTC-6). They only used a conventional chemical charge to kick-start the fission stage, whose sole purpose is (not for destruction but) to generate heat for the fusion stage, which -- like its 1970's neutron bomb predecessor -- released its highly energetic neutrons but in a targeted fashion aimed upwards, emitted as a cone shape. This smaller number of devices could be "clicked" into their mounting brackets (each side of the inner-core aimed away from that inner core) in the few days dogs were away.
<br><br>I did my homework, found the right references, extrapolated appropriately.
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br><br>At any rate, the boots-to-the-ground were probably Mossad for plausible deniability, while the Zionists in positions of authority made sure to stymie any sort of response until too late. (The number of war games scheduled for that day is over a dozen, and some involved insertion of fake radar blips.)
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 396 -->
<a name="x397"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x397" class="tiny">x398</a>
Maverick D. Powell : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_398');">Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth You guys really are pathetic</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_398" style="display: block;">
<p>Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth You guys really are pathetic. You reply to a comment of mine w/ "is that the best you can do"? I ask you to answer a very simple question about the collapse of WTC7 & you delete the question? What have you got to hide? Maybe this question will be deleted too? Cowards & fraudsters.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 398 -->
<a name="x399"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x399" class="tiny">x400</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_400');">AE9/11Truth has always been controlled opposition</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_400" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Maverick D. Powell, The AE9/11Truth group has always been controlled opposition who slow-walked and severally down-played actions that they could have taken, research they could have done, etc.
<br>I used to be a Woodsian DEWer, but the FAQ that allegedly debunks her theories gives no evidence that its authors ever smelled the ink from Dr. Wood's book crack and wastes 1/3 of its word count plugging the NT limited hang-out.
<br>Despite requesting assistance in the debunking effort, I ended up debunking Dr. Wood's work on my own: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and did a shitty job of research into nuclear weapons. Be that as it may, DEW is closer to the truth than NT.
<br>AE9/11Truth does not acknowledge the limitations of NT in explaining all of the evidence, and they don't even try. The reason they don't debunk Dr. Wood's book chapter-by-chapter is that it presents evidence that they'd have to acknowledge and address.
<br>AE9/11Truth has an FAQ that is a great example of quality disinformation. They attempt to debunk all forms of nuclear involvement without even mentioning neutron bombs or their FGNW offspring. Worse, they frame their argument as "nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC." Surprisingly, I have to agree, because blasts implies rapidly changing air pressure. FGNW, on the other hand, release 80% of their already tactical nuclear yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons that pass through materials and leave energy (usually in the form of heat) behind, deep and throughout the very molecular structure of the materials. Hardly moves air at all except when materials ablate after being run through by the DEW output.
<br>How could AE9/11Truth and its respect PhD's miss the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer, peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal, who had also been writing about FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11?
<br>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 400 -->
<a name="x401"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x401" class="tiny">x402</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_402');">AE9/11Truth don't follow truth where ever it leads</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_402" style="display: block;">
<p>Hey AE9/11Truth, The issue that you have is that if you objectively listen to these firemen and then try to match up the limited hang-out NT to the evidence, NT comes up short in so, so, so many ways. I mean, if NT was used for the pulverization of the towers, then how much overkill above-and-beyond amounts were needed to remain -- unspent from their pulverizing purposes -- to account for the duration of the under-rubble hot-spots, much less the evidence that these firemen talk about.
<br>
<br>The issue for AE9/11Truth is that they don't follow truth where ever it leads and they don't follow the edicts of their patron saint, David Griffin, in considering ~all~ of the evidence. Disclaimer: Dr. Judy Wood has disinformation, but she does collect a shit-ton of evidence that all theories must address. When AE9/11Truth tried to debunk Dr. Wood (whose work is debunkable; I've done it), they provide no indication that they even smelled the ink in her book's crack and spend 1/3 of their meager word-count promoting the limited hang-out NT, and zero time addressing how NT can account for Dr. Wood's evidence.
<br>
<br>Smoking gun link here:
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>Dr. Andre Gsponer was writing about FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11, has been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal. FGNW are essentially the devil spawn of those dreaded "neutron bombs" they scared us with in the 1970's and 1980's. They expell 80% of their already-tactical nuclear yield in a targeted fashion (aimed upwards, cone-shaped output) putting them ironically technically in the same category as DEW.
<br>
<br>Dr. Gsponer hasn't written a single word about 9/11 to my knowledge. But I have, using his research that (purposely) coincidentally both Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood missed in their literature review in their respective works. For shame.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 402 -->
<a name="x403"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x403" class="tiny">x404</a>
Steve Ryan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_404');">Thermite anyone?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_404" style="display: block;">
<p>Thermite anyone?
</p>
</div><!-- section 404 -->
<a name="x405"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x405" class="tiny">x406</a>
Bob Solo : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_406');">No</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_406" style="display: block;">
<p>No.
</p>
</div><!-- section 406 -->
<a name="x407"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x407" class="tiny">x408</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_408');">Nano-thermite has many issues to be considered the primary mechanism of destruction. Secondary Involvement? Maybe</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_408" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Steve Ryan, Nano-thermite has many issues to be considered the primary mechanism of destruction. Secondary Involvement? Maybe, but when this assumption is revisited after objectively considering (a) NT's weakness in addressing all of the evidence, like horseshoes, arches/sags, and steel doobies [nuggets of truth rescued from Dr. Wood's disinformation], like duration of hot-spots, like not found in dust samples of USGS, Paul Lioy, or RJLee Group; (b) FGNW being more capable of addressing all of the evidence, as well as why there were so many song-and-dance distractions and "controlling the narrative" detours.
<br>
<br>This is an earlier version of my FGNW premise, but you'll find sections that legitimately slaughter the NT-sacred cow. Not my intention nor the pinging of PhD reputations, but that is simply where the truth leads.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 408 -->
<a name="x409"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x409" class="tiny">x410</a>
Richard Dihlman : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_410');">Military grade Thermite</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_410" style="display: block;">
<p>Military grade Thermite.
</p>
</div><!-- section 410 -->
<a name="x411"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x411" class="tiny">x412</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_412');">Secondary Involvement? Maybe</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_412" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Richard Dihlman, Nano-thermite has many issues to be considered the primary mechanism of destruction. Secondary Involvement? Maybe, but when this assumption is revisited after objectively considering (a) NT's weakness in addressing all of the evidence, like horseshoes, arches/sags, and steel doobies [nuggets of truth rescued from Dr. Wood's disinformation], like duration of hot-spots, like not found in dust samples of USGS, Paul Lioy, or RJLee Group; (b) FGNW being more capable of addressing all of the evidence, as well as why there were so many song-and-dance distractions and "controlling the narrative" detours.... even NT as secondary starts looking like a questionable assumption.
<br>
<br>This is an earlier version of my FGNW premise, but you'll find sections that legitimately slaughter the NT-sacred cow. Not my intention nor the pinging of PhD reputations, but that is simply where the truth leads.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 412 -->
<!-- ***** 202206_mcb_AE911.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_10 -->
<a name="p11"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_11');">Part 11: FGNW Discussions with Bob Byron</a></h2>
<div id="part_11" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202207_mcb_fgnw_BobBryon.htm -->
<a name="x413"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x413" class="tiny">x414</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_414');">your lying-by-omission meme</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-29</p>
<div id="sect_414" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/pfbid0TctjWdaAVxRXjrmrJoLVZieVFVi6aMt8FYxTNpLcTYVkZpYH2ufNgHa8VTCmwWAol?notif_id=1659081029442609¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/pfbid0TctjWdaAVxRXjrmrJoLVZieVFVi6aMt8FYxTNpLcTYVkZpYH2ufNgHa8VTCmwWAol?notif_id=1659081029442609¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>I take issue with your lying-by-omission meme, which wants to con the world into believing that super-duper nanothermite is the only mechanism that could possibly heat the WTC dust to 4000 degree F.
<br>
<br>What is the alleged evidence of NT? It actually isn't NT, because that was only "found" in the dust samples given to Dr. Jones, but not in the dust samples of USGS, RJLee Group, Paul Lioy et al. But what do all the dust samples have in common? A high percentage of tiny iron spheres that takes that really high heat to create. Could something else achieve that? (Yes.)
<br>
<br>And the dust samples show Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities (indicating a fission process), and then there was the tritium scope-limited report that Dr. Jones accepted unquestioned and unchallenged as the final authority on tritium (when all late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices have a fusion stage with tritium as the convenient building block.)
<br>
<br>Here is the reference material that Dr. Jones (and Dr. Judy Wood) purposely missed in their literature review on possible nuclear means, thereby leaving out of consideration all "exotic weapons", that are documented below...
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>Here's my extension from that:
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 414 -->
<a name="x415"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x415" class="tiny">x416</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_416');">the fires we see did not do it</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-29</p>
<div id="sect_416" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges the point here is, the fires we see did not do it.
<br>
<br>we are not here for the critical analysis or the EXACT item causing what did occur.
<br>
<br>with the THOUSANDS of different combinations of what it 'COULD BE', the FIRES PRESENT and GRAVITY is not one of them.
<br>
<br>and those are the ONLY TWO options available for the official story.
<br>
<br>but you refuse to enlighten people on that fact they have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support their hypothesized notions.
<br>
<br>you only push what you want to push.
<br>
<br>a method which is on par with those wanting to HIDE THE FACTS of 9-11
</p>
</div><!-- section 416 -->
<a name="x417"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x417" class="tiny">x418</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_418');">the discussion (and research and public thought) tends to STOP there and go no further where Truth leads</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-29</p>
<div id="sect_418" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Byron, I agree with the first half of your comment.
<br>
<br>Where you begin <i>"but you refuse to enlighten people on the fact they (the government) have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support their hypothesized notions."</i> Beep! Beep! FAIL!
<br>
<br>Dude, I have a website and blog that are each older than a decade & a half! I've been enlightening people on "that fact" mentioned by you for quite some time in all sorts of venues -- consolidated for your reading pleasure on my re-purposing web efforts.
<br>
<br>You continued with: <i>"you only push what you want to push."</i>
<br>
<br>Dude, yes! It isn't that I never push for "that fact" which my blog handily disproves. The issue has been -- with 9/11 Truthers of your consensus brand -- is that the discussion (and research and public thought) tends to STOP there and go no further where Truth leads.
<br>
<br>The meme talks about thermite, which is a limited hang-out, and to quote you: "a method which is on par with those wanting to HIDE THE FACTS of 9-11."
<br>
<br>I've done my research, completed my homework, published it, and shopped it around precisely so that others would debunk it, because I don't relish being the sole "duped useful idiot" on my hobby-horse premise of 9/11 having nuclear components. I've collected and re-published those efforts at rational debate, just to prove that I gave it a good faith effort and quite often as it were with agents and bots, my discussion opponent did not give it a good faith effort in various inglorious and non-endearing ways.
<br>
<br>Here is an earlier version of my premise with a title parallel to the infiltrated slow-walking of AE9/11Trtuh. It has sections that slaughter the NT sacred cow.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>Me only pushing what I want to push?!! I push for Truth, and not some infiltrated consensus mini-truth or limited hang-out that stops rational thinking from coming to appropriate conclusions. Only the depths of the Truth can inspire the needed public change to government and agencies.
<br>
<br>So, yeah. My FGNW premise -- debated and validated -- can still have figurative nuclear fall-out to institutions and agencies by a public revelation of 9/11 having nuclear components, and explains a whole slew of cover-up and deceitful actions all.along.the.way.
<br>
<br>NT? Not so much. NT, which can't even logically and rationally address even a fraction of the evidence. NT, which can't even be vetted as truly existing at the WTC as per the dust samples of USGS, RJLee Group, Paul Lioy et al. Their dust samples had a high percentage of tiny iron spheres and Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities sample-to-sample (USGS), but they didn't have NT.
<br>
<br>My push for truth, alas, means that I am often an instrument of the painful side-effects of YOUR cognitive dissonance. You've been duped by NT, man, and the true mechanisms of destruction have been suppressed.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
</p>
</div><!-- section 418 -->
<a name="x419"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x419" class="tiny">x420</a>
Bob Byron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_420');">provide nothing BUT YOUR OWN words</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-29</p>
<div id="sect_420" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges "" Beep! Beep! FAIL! '
<br>
<br>you claim "failure" yet you provide nothing BUT YOUR OWN words, to support you and the failure you claim.
<br>
<br>Max, what I do here is show that the amazing NIST LEADERS making the assertions, have NO ACTUAL supporting evidence giving their scientific direction to 'hypothesize' a collapse scenario.
<br>
<br>I show the NIST report has absolutely NO evidence offing that scientific direction to hypothesize that in 56 and 120 minutes, THOSE FIRES WE SEE CAUSED WHAT WE SEE.
<br>
<br>and I can challenge ANYONE to show me wrong.
<br>
<br>...even you.
<br>
<br>You attack my person.(just like debunkers do)
<br>
<br>So, then what do you do to show me wrong?
<br>
<br>You point to your OWN WORDS rather than the NIST reports I am discussing.😎.
<br>
<br>"I've done my research, completed my homework, published it"
<br>
<br>GREAT!!!.....but that doesn't seem to do anything to assist you when you're confronting me.
<br>
<br>I'm not here pushing anything BUT the FACT the NIST LEADERS have no supporting evidence WITHIN the NIST reports.
<br>
<br>why is it people like you wave this fact off and seem to do NOT WANT others to know this FACT???
<br>
<br>To me and many others, THAT is the one catalyst that is going to END 9-11 truth once and for all.
<br>
<br>why not, that is how 9-11 truth STARTED.
<br>
<br>In 2005 when the NIST reports were released, no one was discussing thremite.
<br>
<br>Or DEMANDING explosives did it.
<br>
<br>EVERYONE WANTED THEIR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that those fires we see and GRAVITY did it.
<br>
<br>...that has never come to fruition.....and here we are.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 420 -->
<a name="x421"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x421" class="tiny">x422</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_422');">you get the triple X of failure in those spin cycles</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-29</p>
<div id="sect_422" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Bryon (BB), Kudos on your attempted carousel spin. Here's a summary.
<br>
<br>BB: You never wrote about the [X] aspect of 9/11; you ignored it, you fool!
<br>
<br>MCB: My legacy web efforts contradict that assertion, with [X] being covered in many conversations first elsewhere on the internet, but then consolidated in postings of my vanity sites.
<br>
<br>BB: Yeah, but you provide nothing but your own words.
<br>
<br>MCB: My words plus direct quotations from others with substantiating URLs. Most of my web effort -- had you bothered to skim it -- involves analyzing the words of others, sentence-by-sentence, and finding agreement or disagreement. This is a technique exhibited by Dr. David Griffin, and one that is logical and rational.
<br>
<br>Yeah, so Mr. BB, you get the triple X of failure in those spin cycles. And I wrote the above without having read or analyzed your latest reply. And when I get to that, ... oh, wow!
<br>
<br>You wrote: "You point to your OWN WORDS rather than the NIST reports I am discussing."
<br>
<br>Dude, I already took a ride on that particular pogo-horse (e.g., NIST reports), saved my old-school Tik-Tok of the interaction, and re-purposed the experience to my web efforts. As my legacy proves, I have been known to quote liberally from those very same NIST reports, un-earthing nuggets of truth while exposing disinformation in the premise.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "In 2005 when the NIST reports were released, no one was discussing thremite. Or DEMANDING explosives did it."
<br>
<br>There is a reason for this. They knew when they scope-limited the NIST reports that nano-thermite with or without explosives was not the primary mechanism of destruction. In for a penny, in for a pound. Why demand something they knew didn't exist when they could go all "bat-shit-crazy" and demand something that any science-literate informed citizen would question? "Jet fuel, office furnishing fires, and gravity alone caused the upper-stories to accordion in on themselves at 2/3 gravitational acceleration whose dust went and pulverized the remaining structure through its path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration while also ejecting wall assemblies and material laterally."
<br>
<br>They went with the more stupid of the options -- FIRE AND GRAVITY --, because it switches the blame ("karma-avoidance") from the instigators to the public who should have had sufficient schooling to recognize the stupidity and put a stop to the nonsense. It becomes, "You, like any other non-science-challenged informed citizen, should have known that we so obviously lied, it becomes your fault for letting patriotism and racism blind you into permitting and championing autrocities abroad and deminishing of rights at home, right down to the militarization of our local law enforcement."
<br>
<br>At any rate, Mr. BB, you seem to be stuck in an admirable rabbit-hole that is worthy of study, and a place where I have already been, but you have to keep moving.
<br>
<br>What you are missing is the why? The why to their stupid efforts is that 9/11 had nuclear components. Fire and gravity is the first disinfo defensive position; nano-thermite is a fall-back disinfo defensive position. (Disinfo efforts into deep underground nukes and DEW beams from space also played flanking roles to keep public thought away from the FGNW sources.)
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
<br>
<br>Make sure you read the quotations from others that I inserted in the above work.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 422 -->
<!-- ***** 202207_mcb_fgnw_BobBryon.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_11 -->
<a name="p12"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_12');">Part 12: FGNW Discussions with Dom Kelly, Francois Morin, Wolfgang Schräder, Jeremy Epstein, John McDermott, Paul Wenc</a></h2>
<div id="part_12" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202208_mcb_fgnw_ae911t.htm -->
<a name="x423"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x423" class="tiny">x424</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_424');">spire is a very important artifact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_424" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?comment_id=776453663599875&v=776389933781196¬if_id=1660821013680129¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/watch/?comment_id=776453663599875&v=776389933781196¬if_id=1660821013680129¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br><br>The spire is indeed a very important artifact that debunks controlled demolition using chemical-based explosives (including mixtures with NT). It should also be noted that the other tower also had a brief artifact involving portions of the inner core remaining while the surrounding rest got decimated.
<br><br>Many other reasons exist that rule out chemical-based explosives, but in route to that conclusion -- or to debunk it (e.g., many such explosives were the primary means of destruction --, that destructive mechanism would need to explain why / how such an artifact came about? Did it serve a purpose? How come it wasn't creamed with other content surrounding it?
<br><br>Alas, this is where I let my FGNW hobby-horse out into the pasture to play.
<br><br>To recap, FGNW are late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices involving 1970's neutron bomb evolution. Conventional chemical-based kicker starter charge, whose kick-back is observed on the face of the structure ahead of the destruction wave and often mislabeled "squibs." Kick starter charge initiated the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate heat for the fusion stage. Wasn't designed for destruction, so radiation and its spread via a blast were greatly reduced. The fusion stage, like neutron bombs, released its highly energetic neutrons, but in a targeted fashion: cone-shaped, aimed upwards and away from the 4 outer faces of the inner core on which they were mounted per detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels (speculated from the cadence that first responders could count of the kick-starters' "boom-boom-boom."
<br><br>The point is, the ignition charge up time coupled with a possible measurable duration of the energetic output, meant that each FGNW should be mounted on a stable platform that wasn't going to be shot out from underneath it (by FGNW at the next lower detonation level). Otherwise, FGNW could misalign, hit / foul one another, and not produce the expected tandem tactical nuclear yields.
<br><br>Ergo, spires, until the lowest mounted devices did their clean-up action.
<br><br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
<br><br>As an aside, though. When the collapse of the spire is viewed from other perspectives, it becomes clear that fell over while telescoping; this view only shows it telescoping and leaving dust hanging in the air. The real anomaly is how the spire suddenly and throughout its height would decimate itself and leave dust hanging in the air.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 424 -->
<a name="x425"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x425" class="tiny">x426</a>
Dom Kelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_426');">part of the perimeter skeleton</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_426" style="display: block;">
<p>Dom Kelly
<br>Maxwell Bridges what we see above is not the spire. It's part of the perimeter skeleton. The spire falls with the roof. Watch from 1:29
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/yaydhlOVogk">https://youtu.be/yaydhlOVogk</a>
<br>9 11 2nd Tower Collapse WTC1 Compilation Raw Footage
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 426 -->
<a name="x427"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x427" class="tiny">x428</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_428');">"loose-English" spire</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_428" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Dom Kelly, you make an excellent point highlighting some <i>"loose-English."</i> What you are calling "the spire" is the radio antenna, and it does fall with the roof.
<br><br>What I and others have call "the spire" was remnants of the inner core. You say that anomaly was "part of the perimeter skeleton." I disagree, because the perimeter skeleton were interlaced wall assemblies consisting of 3 hollow box columns 3 stories high and connected by spandrals. Their designed-in weak points were the connecting bolts connecting assemblies together. The debris pile had lots of examples of wall assemblies more or less in tact and recognizable for what they were.
<br><br>I say that the anomaly appearing after the dustification and shedding of the perimeter wall assemblies was part of the inner-core. I speculate as to why such an artifact even existed (in both towers) via the initiation and duration of FGNW necessitating a stable mounting platform that both neighboring and lower detonation levels should not destroy. FGNW are in the category of DEW, and in this case released their highly energetic neutrons in a cone shape upwards and aimed away from the inner core.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 428 -->
<a name="x429"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x429" class="tiny">x430</a>
Francois Morin : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_430');">Dustification anyone ?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_430" style="display: block;">
<p>Francois Morin
<br>Dustification anyone ??? ...
<br><a href="<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkZLlzOfVQ"></a>">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkZLlzOfVQ</a>
<br>Dr. Judy Wood IRREFUTABLE (HD Full Length)
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 430 -->
<a name="x431"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x431" class="tiny">x432</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_432');">dustification is the right term and it is DEW, but it isn't "Beams from Space."</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_432" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Francois Morin, dustification is the right term and it is DEW, but it isn't "Woodsian DEW" or "Beams from Space." I recommend Dr. Wood's book, but it is disinformation: she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, can't power her DEW with anything real-world, and did a shitty job of researching nuclear devices. I discovered this on my second pass through her book and led to my own research on the matter.
<br><br>DEW is closer to the truth than NT, so Dr. Wood beats Dr. Steven Jones. Alas, like all good disinfo agents, she parks her theories in cul-de-sacs.
<br><br>The third link is my write-up on the 9/11 FGNW premise. However, you might find the first link more interesting. It consolidates discussions that I've had with various people when trying to shop around my premise and get it debunked. (I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this front.)
<br><br>Alas, those attempts to get others to debunk my 9/11 FGNW failed, sometimes in rather spectacular fashion.
<br><br>Faithful and ardent Woodsian DEWer Andrew Johnson is of note in the first round of discussions, where he banned me rather than address the weaknesses in Wood's book.
<br><br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html
<br><br>The discussions with Wayne Coste and Roger Gloux are notable in this second collection.
<br><br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html
<br><br>Again, this was my write-up of the 9/11 FGNW premise.
<br><br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
<br><br>Word of advice: now that you know your discussion opponent and his legacy, if you still want to champion Dr. Wood, make sure you advance the discussion. In other words, if you pick a discussion point that I have already debunked in my previous carousel spins, I'll be lazy and copy-paste what my responses were. But, if you leap-frog and see how your point might have been debunked by me years ago, then advancing the discussion would be disproving my debunking. No sense in us re-inventing the wheel and spinning on the same carousel; take the discussion further. Learn from your Woodsian colleagues failures and be better.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 432 -->
<a name="x433"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x433" class="tiny">x434</a>
Wolfgang Schräder : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_434');">why turned steel to dust?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_434" style="display: block;">
<p>The question is, why turned steel to dust.?
</p>
</div><!-- section 434 -->
<a name="x435"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x435" class="tiny">x436</a>
Jeremy Epstein : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_436');">accept what you are told</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_436" style="display: block;">
<p>Wolfgang Schräder the question is why are you asking questions? Be a good little boy and accept what you are told.
</p>
</div><!-- section 436 -->
<a name="x437"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x437" class="tiny">x438</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_438');">turned into the tiny iron spheres</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_438" style="display: block;">
<p>Sehr geehrter Herrn Wolfgang Schräder, Sie fragten: <i>"why turned steel to dust?"</i>
<br><br>That isn't a completely correct framing, because most of the wall assemblies and even the inner-core were found in the debris pile. The steel that was affected and isn't represented in the debris pile were the steel pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors.
<br><br>And they weren't turned to dust. They were turned into the tiny iron spheres that were well represented in all of the dust samples (even from the inside of neighboring buildings) and needed a very high heat source.
<br><br>Here's what AE9/11Truth and others purposely missed in their nuclear literature reviews.
<br><br>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br><br>Here was my write-up of my 9/11 FGNW premise that comes closest to addressing all of the evidence.
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 438 -->
<a name="x439"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x439" class="tiny">x440</a>
Wolfgang Schräder : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_440');">my question was more like a little joke</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_440" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges thanks, I knew that information, my question was more like a little joke, because many people don't ask fore it, they sleep in belive of the political stories.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 440 -->
<a name="x441"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x441" class="tiny">x442</a>
John McDermott : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_442');">Mr. Heinz Pommer of Germany</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_442" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. Pommer of Germany has published best explanation images and been recognized by Vets Today, another leading source.
</p>
</div><!-- section 442 -->
<a name="x443"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x443" class="tiny">x444</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_444');">his discovery of camera scintillation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_444" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. John McDermott, I have had discussions with Mr. Pommer. I commend him for his discovery of camera scintillation. However, I do not support his <i>"nuclear chimney"</i> premise and singular devices per tower.
<br><br>Here's a repurposing of my discussions with Herr Pommer.
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br><br>Here's the research that he missed, peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal before Dr. Jones "poo-poo-ed all forms of nuclear devices" and Dr. Wood wrote her book. Literature review fails.
<br><br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br><br>Dr. Andre Gsponer, to my knowledge, has not written a single word about 9/11. I have. Here's me standing on his shoulders and that of Dr. Wood.
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 444 -->
<a name="x445"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x445" class="tiny">x446</a>
John McDermott : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_446');">my main reservation is no account for the top-to-bottom demo wave</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_446" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges my main reservation about Mr. Pommer's model is that it does not account for the top-to-bottom demo wave we all saw.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 446 -->
<a name="x447"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x447" class="tiny">x448</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_448');">Me thinks they don't want discussions.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-18</p>
<div id="sect_448" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. John McDermott, [Please excuse this minor Facebook rant. They notify me of a comment tagged for me (e.g., from you) but provide no links in the notification to exactly WHERE that comment is, to the side of the video. I have to constantly expand the comments and go traipsing around until I can find the discussion. Me thinks they don't want discussions.]
<br>
<br>At any rate, I had the same main reservations about Mr. Pommer's model. After I found Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, peer-reviewed and in a reputable science journal, and missed by Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood (and others), I knew FGNW better matched (a) the evidence, (b) the destruction, (c) the logistics, (d) the aftermath.
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>So we're on the same page.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 448 -->
<!-- ***** 202208_mcb_fgnw_ae911t.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202209_mcb_fgnw_Wenc.htm -->
<a name="x449"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x449" class="tiny">x450</a>
Paul Wenc : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_450');">NOT In the rubble/debris piles of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-11</p>
<div id="sect_450" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>
<br>Paul Wenc
<br>September 11, 2019
<br> ·
<br>What was NOT In the rubble/debris piles of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 ??
<br>and
<br>WHAT energy was required to create the enormous dust cloud that literally had people running for their lives ??
<br>There were No desks (45,000), No chairs, No computers (45,000), No monitors, No telephones, No copy machines, No file cabinets (40,000), No toilets or sinks (14,700), No vending machines (5,000), No door knobs (40,000), No doors (22,000 and No fire extinguishers (650).
<br>Also missing from the rubble was 8.8 million square feet X 4.5 inch thick lightweight concrete poured on each floor - Gone !!
<br>Additionally, 1,100 bodies to date, have NEVER been IDENTIFIED. The bodies were Pulverized & Vaporized.
<br>Less than 300 whole bodies were recovered from the rubble pile of the WTC towers along w more than 20,000 body parts.
<br>343 Firefighters died on that day because they know that fire alone will not cause a sudden implosion / collapse of a skyscraper.
<br>NEVER in history has a steel framed skyscraper collapsed from FIRE 🔥
<br>ALL of the above and more, was the tremendous dust cloud which created dust several inches thick for blocks !!!
<br>WTC 1, 2 & 7 were brought down via CONTROLLED DEMOLITION !!!
<br>Jet Fuel is KEROSENE and burns ~ 1,000 degrees f less than the 2,770 degrees required to melt steel.
<br>Military Grade Nano Thermite has been analyzed in the dust from three Independent Laboratories:
<br>1. RJ LEE Report, May 2004: Nano-THERMITE
<br>2. U.S. Geological Survey, 2005: Nano - THERMITE
<br>3. Dr. Steven Jones, 2008: Nano - THERMITE
<br>Six % of the dust contained Iron Microspheres.
<br>LIQUID MOLTEN steel was identified under the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 & 7.
<br>The Controlled Demolitions have been proven Scientifically, Forensically, by the Laws of Physics and First Responder eye witness testimony.
<br>Aluminum Planes and resultant fire CANNOT destroy two 110 story steel framed skyscrapers through tens of thousands of tons of steel in 10 seconds ... Identically !!!
</p>
</div><!-- section 450 -->
<a name="x451"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x451" class="tiny">x452</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_452');">write-up on the true mechanisms of destruction</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-11</p>
<div id="sect_452" style="display: block;">
<p>Here's my write-up on the true mechanisms of destruction deployed: late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW).
<br><br>Sorry, my write-up is actually the second link. The first link is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
<br><br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br><br>HERE is my write-up, because to my knowledge Dr. Andre Gsponer hasn't written a single word about FGNW relating to 9/11.
<br><br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 452 -->
<!-- ***** 202209_mcb_fgnw_Wenc.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202211_mcb_PM_Debunking911Myths_00.htm -->
<a name="x453"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x453" class="tiny">x454</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_454');">I'm his "lob", bitches</a></b></p>
<p>2022-11-</p>
<div id="sect_454" style="display: block;">
<p>Admin Ax Eye Om more than once rescued my FB persona from suspension from this group; he has more than once restored postings. I'm his "lob", bitches, and in his very words he just gave me the stage! And let's face it: without some controversy on your site, it is uninteresting milktoast.
<br>
<br>Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Special Report - The World Trade Center
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/">https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/</a>
<br>
<br>Here's how my circus will be played out on the Popular Mechanics article about debunking 9/11 myths. The article has been divided into six sections, each of which will be posted as a top level comment.
<br>
<br>[In other words, here's Conspiratard me immediately carrying water for and doing the grunt work of the Curer-tards who were somehow unable to copy and paste the content into a FB discussion, content that they claim could be read by them without paywall blurring (as was my case).]
<br>
<br>Under each top-level comment (section), I will make one or more reply comments as warranted for my learned analysis and my level of conspiratardism on that particular section.
<br>
<br>Under each of my reply comments -- in particular and heaven forebid if my Conspiratardism has an error! -- is where the wisdom, beauty, and goodness of the curer-tard cure will set my ass straight on the matter. And if they don't, if they don't even try [which is what I'm betting], I will get to call them "sealions"!!!
<br>
<br>Everyone participating here is allegedly a real "persona", meaning 100% Batman from a Bruce Wayne, and 0% Bruce spoofing sidekick Robin to engage in the same discussions. [Real Dick Grayson's playing sidekick Robin is another matter.]
<br>
<br>As real personas, we are open to ideas and also to their weaknesses, and engage in discussion in the true sense of "convince me of your point, or let me convince you of mine, and let the better and more truthful point win in bringing us to the same page of understanding."
<br>
<br>Real personas can change their mind in the face of new evidence and analysis. The issue with spoofed sidekicks is that they are a deliberate compartmentalization of a psyche with purposeful (agenda-established) hard boundaries in beliefs, expressions, mannerisms that are programmed not to change; they can never be convinced of anything by design and conception. They reduce Bruce's Batman from 100% to 70% or less so that 30% can be split between side-kicks Robin, Alfred, and Batgirl. [If spoofed sidekicks could change, over time they'd all morph from sidekick Robin into an exact psyche clone of Batman or even Bruce. Hence, they don't change, can't be changed, and are no fun.]
<br>
<br>As for the agent-bots? Again with the limitations and comparmentalizations that make them less than genuine, but the ease with which they will crank another spin on the exact same carousel, the ease with which they're comments are only two or three lines, barely enough for a "see more..." content break and almost repetitive as if a single data base entry re-used...
<br>
<br>Okay, I concede that texting from a smart phone while on the toilet does not lend itself to long answers. Instead of 1-thumb comments, get on a computer and give me 10-fingers from an actual keyboard!
<br>
<br>... But when the answers are shallow, generic, probably with ad homimem, and definitely without meaningful reference to the discussion, without ability to follow links, without ability to bring back ideas (much less quotations) from links... well... Latter-day lurker-readers will know what to make of ~that~.
<br>
<br>Admin Ax Eye Om has already laid down the law in one of his postings not that long ago, paraphrased "don't make claims that you can't support and don't defend."
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>-----------------------
<br>
<br>Secion 1/6 of PM's "Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Special Report - The World Trade Center"
<br>
<br>All quotations are from PM.
</p>
<blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br> keywords: Military, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
<br>
<br>Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Special Report - The World Trade Center
<br>
<br>Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
<br>By Popular Mechanics Editors
<br>Published: Sep 9, 2022
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>The authors do not identify themselves individually, because they take neither credit, nor responsibility, nor blame for this disinformation effort. Editors are just employees for a time, easily changed.
</p>
<blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br>September 2022: For the past 21 years, conspiracy theories about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States have swept the nation. The destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City, for instance, was an inside job, according to "truthers" who have propagated the claim for two decades.
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>Omission is a key tool for disinformation vehicles. PM admits that the truthers have propagated a claim, but PM omit the fact that truthers also defended the claim, and brought forth many pieces of evidence and coincidences that support the claim.
<br>
<br>Up front, this PM article is establishing straw-man arguments -- by not representing the claim fairly or completely -- that they can more easily debunk.
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br>It was in this climate that Popular Mechanics first took on the task of debunking 9/11 myths. Our first report appeared as the cover story for the March 2005 issue. The reporting grew into a 2006 book with a forward by Sen. John McCain, which was updated in 2011.
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br>Oooo, how special?!! A forward by Sen. Johm McCain! Wow!
<br>
<br>David Ray Griffin published in 2007 a revised version of his "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and the Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory". His reference book has over 100 pages that -- section by section -- address the fallacies in the March 2005 PM cover story and its 2006 book.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X">https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X</a>
<br>
<br>In rational discussion, entity 1 makes statement A; entity 2 in response to A makes statement B; entity 1 in response to B makes statement C; and so on back and forth, with the discussion growing on and building upon the back and forth.
<br>
<br>If the PM article and book from 2005 and 2006 is statement A, Dr. Griffin responded to A point-by-point with his book B in 2007. Between 2007 and 2022, PM has yet to respond to B and Griffin's criticism of A's errors. The 2022 effort does not address B, nor does it fix identified errors from A; PM effectively doubles down on A.
<br>
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br>Below, you'll find a lightly-edited version of the section on the World Trade Center.
<br>Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
<br>Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
<br>$125 at Amazon
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>Based on the price, this is only sold to gullible boot-lickers, if at all. It certainly isn't priced for the masses.
<br>
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br>Twenty years later, 9/11 conspiracy theories linger on. In the years following the report of this publication, truthers would launch of variety of attacks on Popular Mechanics, accusing the magazine of being a tool of the federal government and drawing tinfoil-hat diagrams to tie Popular Mechanics to the Bush Administration and the supposed big conspiracy. If all this nonsense accomplished anything, it was to presage our current era of "alternative facts" and attacking the messenger whenever the message clashes with one's predetermined beliefs.
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>Defending criticism of your work and errors in your work with "tinfoil-hat" labels is an excellent example of hypnotic suggestion. It certainly isn't rational discourse, and already limits the perceived objectivity of the PM editors.
<br>
<br>At any rate, this is a great example of PM trying to play the victim card, when the true victims were those who accepted PM's OCT narrative unquestioned and unchallenged. What authority did PM have anyway when it authored its story? And why didn't the government assign one of its agencies to take on this task?
<br>
<br>
<br>// end Section 1/6
<br>
<br>-----------------------
<br>
<br>Secion 2/6 of PM's Debunking 9/11 Myths
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br>The collapse of both World Trade Center (WTC) towers"”and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later"”initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes.
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br>
<br>However, that explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br>Widespread Damage
<br>world trade center attacked by terrorists
<br>The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses September 11, 2001 in New York City.
<br>Thomas Nilsson//Getty Images
<br>
<br>CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center website (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
<br>
<br>FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)"”a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce"”released another report in spring 2005. NIST shared its initial findings with Popular Mechanics at the time, and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
<br>
<br>The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel"”and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."
<br>âž¡ï¸ Read This Next
<br>
<br> hyatt walkway collapseThe Deadliest Accidental Collapse in U.S. History
<br>
<br>Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary 9/11 by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
<br>"Melted" Steel
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>// end Section 2/6
<br>
<br>
<br>-----------------------
<br>
<br>Secion 3/6 of PM's Debunking 9/11 Myths
<br>
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br>CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the website AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
<br>
<br>FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, not hot enough to melt steel (2750 degrees Fahrenheit). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength"”and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
<br>
<br>"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 [degrees Fahrenheit]," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800 [degrees] it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
<br>
<br>But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that Popular Mechanics consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832 degrees Fahrenheit.
<br>
<br>"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells Popular Mechanics. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
<br>Puffs of Dust
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>// end Section 3/6
<br>
<br>-----------------------
<br>
<br>Secion 4/6 of PM's Debunking 9/11 Myths
<br>
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br>CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
<br>
<br>FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers team that worked on the FEMA report.
<br>
<br>Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air"”along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse"”was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells Popular Mechanics. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
<br>
<br> Myths About the 9/11 Pentagon Attack: Debunked
<br> Debunking Myths About United Flight 93
<br> Debunking 9/11 Myths: About the Airplanes
<br> John McCain: The 9/11 Conspiracy Myths and the Truth Under Attack
<br> World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
<br>
<br>Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells Popular Mechanics. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
<br>
<br>Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
<br>Seismic Spikes
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>// end Section 4/6
<br>
<br>-----------------------
<br>
<br>Secion 5/6 of PM's Debunking 9/11 Myths
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br>CLAIM: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the website WhatReallyHappened.com. A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a website run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
<br>blue, text, white, line, font, colorfulness, azure, parallel, slope, electric blue,
<br>Screenshot/PM
<br>
<br>Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disagree with the claim.
<br>
<br>FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells Popular Mechanics. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
<br>
<br>The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
<br>
<br>On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear"”misleadingly"”as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves"”blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower"”start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
<br>WTC 7 Collapse
<br>
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>// end Section 5/6
<br>
<br>-----------------------
<br>
<br>Secion 6/6 of PM's Debunking 9/11 Myths
</p>
<blockquote><p>++++ begin quote
<br>CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
<br>pollution, smoke, vehicle, explosion, world,
<br>Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management
<br>
<br>WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse.
<br>
<br>FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells Popular Mechanics. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom"”approximately 10 stories"”about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
<br>
<br>NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
<br>
<br>According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 square feet of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
<br>
<br>🤯 More Mind-Blowing Conspiracy Theories
<br>
<br> Astrophysicist Addresses Possibility of UFO SightingWhy You Believe In Conspiracy Theories
<br> nasa captured this image during the sts 88 space shuttle mission while 246 miles above the coast of namibia and looking northThe Truth About the Black Knight Satellite
<br> best conspiracy theory podcastsThe 13 Best Conspiracy Theory Podcasts
<br>
<br>There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
<br>
<br>Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to seven hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
<br>
<br>WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors"”along with the building's unusual construction"”were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
<br>++++ end quote</p></blockquote>
</p>
<br>// end Section 6/6
</p>
</div><!-- section 454 -->
<!-- ***** 202211_mcb_PM_Debunking911Myths_00.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_12 -->
<!-- End the page here -->
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
</body>
</html>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-53761604842960063262023-10-10T10:11:00.002-07:002023-11-05T09:29:49.842-08:00FGNW Discussions Vol. 4<!-- FGNW Discussions Vol. 4 -->
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 1000;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
// window.location.hash = id;
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function getURLParam(strParamName){
var strReturn = "";
var strHref = window.location.href;
if ( strHref.indexOf("?") > -1 ){
var strQueryString = strHref.substr(strHref.indexOf("?")).toLowerCase();
var aQueryString = strQueryString.split("&");
for ( var iParam = 0; iParam < aQueryString.length; iParam++ ){
if (aQueryString[iParam].indexOf(strParamName.toLowerCase() + "=") > -1 ){
var aParam = aQueryString[iParam].split("=");
strReturn = aParam[1];
// alert(strReturn);
break;
}
}
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
// alert(strReturn);
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
// alert(myTarget);
if (myTarget == "-false-") {
areaHideAll("part_");
areaHideAll("sect_");
} else {
areaHideAll("sect_");
areaShowAll("part_");
sectionShow(myTarget);
// location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<p>This article <u><b>defends</b></u> the premise that <i><b>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW)</b></i> were deployed as <b>the primary mechanisms</b> of destruction in the annihilation of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001. Discussions from 2023-07 through 2023-10.</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
<a name="p1"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_1');">Part 1: FGNW Discussions with Lauralei Burnette, Andrew Kelly, Russell Weber, Jeff Hunziker </a></h2>
<div id="part_1" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20230708_mcb_fb_fgnw.htm -->
<a name="x1"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x1" class="tiny">x2</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">gauntlet against individuals who were influential and in leadership roles AE9/11Truth</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-08</p>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: block;">
<p>A 9/11 Truth colleague, Mr. Craig McKee, who I've internet-known and respected for over a decade, has legitimately thrown down the gauntlet against certain individuals who were influential and in leadership roles (mostly with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth): for their support of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) of alleged commercial aircraft impacting the Pentagon.
<br>
<br>From a different direction, my 9/11 hobby-horse exposes those same individuals and 9/11 organizations: for having no explanation (even with super-duper Nano-thermite) for many anomalous pieces of evidence that suggest nuclear involvement, and for completely side-stepping any rational, scientific considerations of the matter when they weren't malframing it into strawman arguments.
<br>
<br>An FAQ from AE9/11Truth that attempts to debunk "all forms of nuclear involvement" exhibits this steering-disinfo quite clearly. The FAQ does indeed prove -- even to my conspiracy minded satisfaction -- that "nuclear blasts" did ~not~ destroy the towers. Very true. "Nuclear blasts" implies sudden and violent changes in air pressure that brings destruction in the surrounding structure from where the device was installed. Nuclear blasts violently push air (like conventional explosives) would indeed have been deafeningly loud, would have been observable, etc. Further in their malframing, they suggest only individual nuclear devices per tower, deep underground; they suggest the nuclear blast would have blown bad radioactive things everywhere. So, yes; I agree; nuclear blasts did not destroy the various buildings of the WTC.
<br>
<br>Because I read footnotes/endnotes, follow references from footnotes, and was familiar with the scope of the work (of Jeff Prager) that several of those same footnotes tried to debunk: I noticed that they cherry-picked lame issues and completely ignored Prager's analysis of the USGS dust tables that revealed not just Uranium and its decay elements, but in correlated quantities sample-to-sample. The FAQ made general, wide-sweeping, supposedly "debunking" statements in its flowing text that the footnotes were supposed to substantiate, but in reality did not. The FAQ had two versions: one with endnotes only, and one with footnotes (where footnotes=endnotes in terms of content). The endnote version front loads their work with the flowing text which really wasn't that many pages out of the total and highlighted its general and unspecific claims; looked very week. The footnote version looked much beefier, with footnotes consuming half or more of the space on some pages, but with the content of the note though not actually substantiating the claim from the flowing text and in cases making it worse in its attempt to discredit Prager's work with cherry-picking and smear.
<br>
<br>Back to the nuclear theme: late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) would release, say, 80% of their already tactical nuclear yield in the form of targeted highly energetic neutrons. Being able to aim the cone-shaped output of highly energetic neutrons is what allows these devices (FGNW) to work in tandem -- 4 per detonation levels, 6-12 detonation levels for the towers --, because otherwise the typical spherical (or hemispherical) nature of "traditional" big-bang nukes would have fouled or destroyed neighboring devices.
<br>
<br>The type and nature of destruction when 80% of the destructive energy is highly energetic neutrons would be vastly different. Concrete, floor pans, trusses, office furnishings in the cone path of a device: Dustification. Pulverization. Vaporization. Of everything the cone-shaped output went through, and aimed away from the inner-core and only grazing at the extent of its destructive range the wall assemblies. While 20% of the already tactical energy was the traditional blast wave, heat wave, and EMP, and there is evidence of this. Refer to the 500 images of 9/11 destruction published in Dr. Judy Wood's disinformation book. The "steel doobie" (wall assemblies that were wrapped up with their spandrels as if they were "steel doobies" or rolled-up carpet rolls.
<br>
<br>The evidence that WTC had nuclear components leaks out all over. The USGS survey of the dust has Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities sample-to-sample, yet no plain-text explanation from USGS why this (evidence of fission) would be present, and complete ignorance of these factoids by those in AE9/11Truth (e.g., Dr. Steven Jones) except lame attempts to frame the "speculated" devices as large fission whose blast wave and nuclear fallout would have been what was observed.
<br>
<br>True 4th generation nuclear devices (FGNW) are pure fusion; and the technology isn't there. Which is why late-3rd/early-4th generation devices (that I mislabel FGNW on purpose) are hybrid fission-fusion. A conventional chemical charge kicks off the fission stage, whose sole purpose is to generate the heat requisite for the fusion stage, which then releases its highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion. Because fission wasn't used for destruction (or nuclear blasts), its traces would be much much smaller compared to the large nukes they wanted to distract you with in their strawman argumentation. Further, tritium is the building block of all FGNW, lest we forget the tritium report (accepted unquestioned and unchallenged by Dr. Jones) had a stilted scope from the onset (limited to building content), did a shoddy job of tritium measurement, re-defined trace-element measurements to be 55 times greater than it was previously, etc. Evidence of fusion.
<br>
<br>The following pulls together all sorts of evidence of 9/11 nuclear involvement. But the name "Dr. Andre Gsponer" and his research into FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11 is a ~grand~ omission by Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood. I mention Dr. Gsponer's work early in this article to prove "I'm not pulling this out of my ass."
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
<br>
<br>FGNW are technical in the category of DEW, making Dr. Wood closer to the truth than Dr. Jones. However, Dr. Wood let her work get framed as "beams-from-space" [which, along with ABL, is a real thing, but both have major energy-source related issues to create the observed destruction.] Dr. Wood on disinfo purpose did not research nuclear means properly; she let "cold-fusion" disinfo offer distractions for the obvious obscenely massive energy requirements of what was observed.
<br>
<br>FTR, most of the previous "9/11 nuke" (ur-)champions were disinformation, because they framed things as single-nukes-per-tower deep-under-ground and falsely attributed the geological formation under WTC-4 (known to exist for decades, just not its extent until they excavated it) as being the results of a nuclear detonation.
<br>
<br>The true measure of the Woodsian-DEWers and the 9/11-Nukers DISINFORMATION is that they never fucked around with one another, let alone got married -- despite FGNW being the real-world offspring of such a union.
<br>
<br>At any rate, the 9/11 Truth Movement was deceived by the leadership of AE9/11Truth with their promotion exclusively of nano-thermite, despite admitting (Dr. Jones paraphrased) "NT would have had to have been mixed with something more brissant, like RDX, to achieve the observed pulverization" and "something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT"; despite NT not being able to address even a fraction of the anomalies; despite evidence of fission/fusion both staring them in the face.
<br>
<br>I'll single out Mr. David Chandler (and Mr. Wayne Coste) in particular, both of whom Mr. Craig McKee lambasts for their illogical and unscientific support of the OCT alleged Pentagon plane.
<br>
<br>On the FGNW front (or more correctly in my 9/11 journey), I had been a champion of Dr. Wood's work, even while suspecting it was disinformation (that I later was able to prove on my own). Mr. Chandler was given a copy of Dr. Wood's book (with his permission) and asked to help me/us/"the 9/11 Truth Movement" to legitimately debunk it.
<br>
<br>As an aside, several different disinformation pysops groups promoted different premises (e.g., Woodsian DEW, Nukers, No Planes at WTC, hollow-towers/simVictims) that then duped useful idiots (such as myself) championed (until I researched further and found the errors). With 20/20 hindsight, these different pysops groups were under the marching orders, and this is evident by the fact that pysops group 1 promoting disinfo A would never directly take on and attempt to debunk disinfo B (from pysops group 2). Neither group would really even acknowledge, let alone defend or debunk, the disinfo from their brother pysop groups.
<br>
<br>Hence, Mr. Chandler put zero effort into a "good, bad, ugly" review of Dr. Wood's book, of ~any~ nuclear premise, of NPT. [Of course, he also didn't review my FGNW works, either.] Part of the reason for this is that a legitimate debunking of ~any~ disinfo premise necessitates acknowledging nuggets of truth that may supposedly support the disinfo premise. Dr. Wood's book has a great collection of evidence that the AE9/11Truth FAQ, which tries to debunk it, completely ignores. Geesh, that FAQ's meager word count had no images or quotes from Dr. Wood's book that they found to be in (disinfo) error, kind of screaming that their FAQ book-review was accomplished without even sniffing the new ink from Dr. Wood's book's crack. And then 40% of that FAQ's word-count ended up promoting the limited-hand-out NT.
<br>
<br>I've been disappointed (but it shouldn't have been the shock it was) when my attempts to shop my FGNW premise around with the purpose of having others review it and debunk it (or vet it) did not provide me with any useful (let alone debunking) criticism, even when Mr. Chandler and Mr. Coste (through separate avenues at different points in time) were asked to assist in setting me and my premise straight.
<br>
<br>They don't go there, because taking my work even 25% seriously requires acknowledging nuggets of truth that I've collected that the 9/11 truth movement gate-keepers knew would undermine their promoted limited-hang-outs for the simple fact that (NT) can't explain it.
<br>
<br>I've been a member of AE9/11Truth since they first put word out seeking scientists and engineers to join their website/efforts. [My credentials were vetted (for my Bruce Wayne).] I was sorely disappointed in their gate-keeping, steering, and closed minds over time. The debunking of two of their fundamental FAQ's makes their deceit just too blatant.
<br>
<br>In conclusion: Mr. David Chandler, Mr. Wayne Coste, (Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Harrit, et al), and Mr. Richard Gage deserve condemnation for their gate-keeping on WTC destruction, in addition to their Pentagon gate-keeping as exposed by Mr. Craig McKee.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<!-- ***** 20230708_mcb_fb_fgnw.htm -->
<!-- ***** 20230716_mcb_fb_andrewKelly_RussellWeber_01.htm -->
<a name="x3"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x3" class="tiny">x4</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>Dear Mr. Andrew Kelley, Thank you for posting that. Whereas an unjust instance, this middle-aged white man still has more sympathy for Miss Shanika and Jamal than the author or his co-workers or Boeing.
<br><br>The terminated author and his co-workers have the education and skillset to land on their feet and plow forward with their careers. They all felt the sentiment "fuck bullshit Boeing" prior to this instance for other reasons, because this is true in all corporations. And all probably already are better off.
<br><br>So how is it that I have such sympathy and respect for Miss Shanika and Jamal? When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When your family has had to endure over generations systematic racism and lesser from neighborhoods, to schools, to employment opportunities... you use what you can to prosper. I have great respect for Black Music and how oppression caused it to grow, in popularity and quantity. [I enjoy Funk.] Still, they were taken advantage of, stolen from, black listed in favor of white copy cats.
<br><br>It is unfortunate that Miss Shanika and Jamal had to resort to deceit to get ahead. I'll be damned, though, if Facebook doesn't put into my feed these click-bait collections data-mined from reddit and other places of stories of employment deceit [primarily of us crackers.] Many even document cases of white generational nepotism of the white owners over the skilled and educated and experience underpaid workforce. More to the point, I've read parallel and similar stories of ethical code breeches, and it proves such things aren't race specific.
<br><br>The number of stories of subtle systematic "defirmative" action across centuries overshadows this. Their tool used deceitfully was affirmative action. Karma isn't finished with them, because it can be a dangerous thing to be promoted to the level of your incompetence, but when promoted way above that?
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 4 -->
<a name="x5"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x6</a>
Lauralei Burnette : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">Real men work and build</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges maybe you need to read Color Communism and Common Sense. If you feel bad for liars and cheaters you have a moral compass problem.
<br><br>And RAP is Tavistock Institute manual on how to debase the black mind which is easy to do.
<br><br>You also might want to read the Bell Curve and Race Difference in Intelligence by Richard Lynn.
<br><br>Rap music isn't music, it's hate speech and vulgarity with beats that are low frequency.
<br><br>Real music was classical and Monk chants and Buddhist chants are music with higher frequency.
<br><br>And Miss Shanika and Jamal will fail because they have no moral compass, no work ethics and zero skills, they're tools for the Jew. Because the Jew knows the average IQ of these people are low and are easily manipulated.
<br><br>It's not Conjecture it's facts.
<br><br>Companies are going Woke because they need funds.
<br><br>BlackRock and Vanguard are owned by the Jew, who hates all European people and is hell bent on destroying us.
<br><br>We've been to nice, white guilted for far to long.
<br><br>One only has to look to their neighborhoods to see what they are really made of.
<br><br>Poverty is not an excuse to be lawless and cheat and liar.
<br><br>During the Great Depression Rigged by the Jew , they stole wealth and generational wealth from Europeans but they rebuilt and created wealth again.
<br><br>Not the African though, he is unable to build that wealth because he likes to play victim and blame the White Man.
<br><br>Real men work and build.
<br><br>Every human has faced adversity and discrimination at some point.
<br><br>I'm of Irish and Scottish decent, my Irish folk were slaves, and outcasts when they came to this country.
<br><br>No Irish or Blacks allowed. Remember.
<br><br>But did the Irish man cry Racism , no they built the cathedrals and bridge's and Sky Scrappers instead.
<br><br>They don't need reparations or hand outs , because they have something that Jamal and Sheneka don't have, it's called Skills and Integrity.
<br><br>✌ï¸
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x7" class="tiny">x8</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">Let us agree that this story has not been vetted</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lauralei Burnette, I thank you most kindly for taking the time to make an in-depth reply.
<br><br>Let us agree that this story has not been vetted, and it could very well be a clever psyops (created by a chat-bot) to stoke racists fears, get the racists to rally around the flag, and get eyeballs on the adds run in our feeds and the sides.
<br><br>But assuming truth in the story for the sake of discussion, the story isn't complete, doesn't reveal the karmic conclusions to any of the participants except the manager who went into retirement early -- what a bonus!
<br><br>"Systematic racism". That's the phrase you need to embed in your thinking. Whereas it doesn't condone the deceit perpetrated in the story, it does explain why that might have been the only tool or skill in their wheelhouse -- instead of actual technical or leadership skills.
<br><br>The Ohio schools I went to as a child imposed bussing, mostly on black kids from farther away into our schools. While true they sat in the same classrooms as I did, many did not come from households that fostered learning and doing well. So this turns into a huge factor (in any race household) in no success.
<br><br>Granted, crack came a decade later, part of the conspiracy behind it is that it was aimed at black communities to decimate them; cannabis laws were aimed at black people (and leftist hippies; according to those in the Nixon administration, because these ain't gonna vote Republican so might as well throw some red meat to the conservative racists in the GOP.) In the larger scope of things, this is what filled the prison-industrial complex that grew up around it and its own version of slave labor.
<br><br>Here's a parallel white story. There once was an offspring to a wealthy man with no great skills or intellect, and was no stranger to ripping people off, not paying contractors, etc. whose only value was the millions that he inherited and invested (often poorly, and sometimes with Russian mafia.)
<br><br>At any rate, this pathological liar got himself elected president despite lacking any skills or disposition for the job, and installed into his administration -- despite them also lacking any skills -- his own daughter and son in law, both of who go sweat-heart Chinese contracts and a shit ton of money from certain middle east countries.
<br><br>Trump was right that we'd be tired of all the winning! How many court cases have we won against Trump so far, how many are in the works, how serious the crimes particularly THE INTENTION to give national secrets to others.
<br><br>Talk about generational wealth and how money corrupts! Trump's only skill is casting spells.
<br><br>Point is: deceitful people (sociopaths) with no other skills will leverage the only tool in their toolbox to advance their own personal interests, and it is independent of race. If race is a factor, then Trump is the poster-child for white crimes and how they are so much bigger than any perpetrated under "affirmative action."
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x9" class="tiny">x10</a>
Andrew Kelley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">a different animal in forcing equality</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges thank you for your reply.
<br><br>Again, it's one thing to treat people equally, it's whole a different animal in forcing equality on industries who bare the responsibility of life and death in the construction of a product whom others trust their life and the life of their children in its structural integrity.
<br><br>Turning engineering construction education and the military into a societal racial experiment with unqualified parts and pieces which do not fit the qualifications is akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole.
<br><br>Then making them team leaders only exasperate the dysfunctional and dangerous insanity. IMO.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x11" class="tiny">x12</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">the story is |<--this-->| close to being a complete fraud</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andrew Kelley, you wrote: <i>"... forcing equality on industries..."</i> Yes. Because when private industries aren't regulated, they do what the hell they want, they fire you with or without cause (at-will), and if a federal issues wasn't made of it, they have no motivation to change, be inclusive for minorities, and this is a historic trend.
<br><br>If Boeing doesn't want clueless employees being forced on them through affirmative action, maybe they should take a step back and donate money to the schools in neighborhoods where minorities are raised so that they have the education and skills to compete.
<br><br>Again, I think the story is |<--this-->| close to being a complete fraud and made-up narrative [because armed with the evidence of foul play, I doubt the Miss would remain.] But even if it is not fake, what is fake is hyping it and making it a red-meat appeasement right in this era when similar right-wing radicals pushed got the bought-and-paid-for SCOTUS to strike it down (just like Roe-vs. Wade.)
<br><br>The right-wing doesn't know how to run government. They certainly don't know how to improve it, piece-meal or whole-cloth. They only know how to break it and make it completely dysfunctional so, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, we all have to agree that "government is broke". They are clever enough to make it so that the breaks they make financially benefit the owning class, and not any other class. [I'm still waiting for the details of Trump's health care plan that was going to be totally awesome and he plugged while campaigning in 2016. Where is it?]
<br><br>But hey, I too have a real world story of the (appointed) black CEO of a small high tech company where I worked (last century). Based on how his business decisions affected me, my project, and whatnot, I really thought that he was "affirmative action," although in truth just about everybody I've ever known who advanced to the executive level were in some way "legacy", "affirmative action for the connected white", nepotism (rare but still present), and in clever ways were sociopaths. In other words, they didn't work their way to the top; they didn't intern in every department before getting to the top which would have been reason for respect. Nope, they were foisted on us by venture capitalists.
<br><br>Nope, the stories are far greater where career advancement for whites came through "bro-think" and not skills or merit.
<br><br>Further, given the extent of the lies perpetrated by Miss and Jamal, if true, their balderdash lies and spell-casting make them emulators of Trump and his organization itself, so the right-wing actually should be applauding them for the extent of the ruse they were able to carry forth and not get derailed (if true). Because that signifies the Trump years and his campaigning: double down on the lies, because the truth is too damning.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x13" class="tiny">x14</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">Right-wing fascist, constitution-shitting, domestic terrorist in the flesh!</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Busch, Correction. Now we know who YOU are. Right-wing fascist, constitution-shitting, domestic terrorist in the flesh!
<br><br>Man, I always knew that Trump knew how to get his share of unearned media time, but the downfall media coverage is a particular schadenfreude and delight, I must say.
<br><br>How many indictments does he have? He has so many, and so many concurrent court cases, I've lost count.
<br><br>Make sure that you have a made-in-China Trump dildo in your mouth when you explain that Trump had absolutely no intention of leaking (for money) the classified documents that he illegally horded, refused to return, and conspired to keep away from investigators. If that isn't a class act of a law-abiding Presidential candidate... A real ratings grabber and AI-driven social-media feed driver.
<br><br>Please, please, please, make sure that the aforementioned implement remains within your oral cavity in any further discussion to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt your loyalty to his spells and lies and making clear the extent of what you'd do (on your knees) for dick-tator Donnie.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x15" class="tiny">x16</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">left-wing middle aged white-fucking-male democratic socialist who can read minds</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Busch, and as if it is any of your business, I'm an enlightened and educated left-wing middle aged white-fucking-male democratic socialist who can read minds, and I already know you're thinking "TL; DR woke-pinko-commiee."
<br><br>The irony is, Trump's casino was a joint venture with Russian mafia figures and failed for those reasons: too many criminals leaching off the profits. Trump did condo deals with them, but didn't get in trouble because -- like his party-buddy Jeffry Epstein who Trump totally idolized and wanted to emulated -- Trump was a CI for the government on Russian activities. Trump wouldn't have become president without Russian help. [People from Trump's campaign and administration were found guilty of this and served prison time.]
<br><br>So who is the real commie-loving bastard? Trump. And you ain't woke enough to see it.
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x17" class="tiny">x18</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">lying is wrong and lying is a sin</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Do you understand that lying is wrong and lying is a sin, because clearly you don't. You need to be tossed off in north st louis on a Friday evening to wake up your woke ass to how everything in this world revolves around race, religion and politics. Why don't you have a moral compass or a developed Christian conscience?
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x20</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">trump and kornpop joe and every US senator and congressman are bought and paid for whores of aipac and the adl</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Do you understand that trump and kornpop joe and every US senator and congressman are bought and paid for whores of aipac and the adl. And another thing, do you understand that Jesus Christ and his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary call the Holy Land, Palestine.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x22</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">a chatbot programmed to be: <i>"Right-wing fascist, constitution-shitting, domestic terrorist!"</i></a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_22" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Busch, So your entire rebuttal is less-than twitter length and SQL-extracted from a database of generic one-liner flamers: <i>"I was correct. Lib commie and you don't know sh**."</i>
<br><br>Clearly, I was wrong, to which I offer apologies. I wrote: <i>"Right-wing fascist, constitution-shitting, domestic terrorist in the flesh!"</i>
<br><br>Nope. You're not. You're a chatbot programmed to be: <i>"Right-wing fascist, constitution-shitting, domestic terrorist!"</i>
<br><br>Go away. You are not up to the challenges of an intellectual discussion to improve our country for everybody.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x24</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">not saying it is fake (but reeks so). I assumed the premise true</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_24" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, let me start off by lauding the wisdom exhibited behind your two comments. To your point, Zionists and Israel are the power behind the scenes that completely overshadows the valid examples of Russian collusion. We are in more agreement than you surmise, precisely because I'm woke.
<br><br>I do take passing issue with your language impugning my understanding and morals regarding lies and deceit. When you read my words, I don't condone the lies (from the story) and wrote that karma would act.
<br><br>The issue for me is that this witty little piece -- hot on the heels of the SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action cases -- seems a bit conjured up and hyped up, as a weak explanation almost, aside from the story not being vetted and possibly being completely fake.
<br><br>I'm not saying it is fake (but reeks so). I assumed the premise true. I expressed however sympathy for the perpetrators. I related that I've seen lots of other stories [datamined from reddit] of dysfunction in [blank]. I wrote about karma for the perpetrators still unknown in the works.
<br><br>In short, you can take back your insults to my morals and character, because they do not apply.
<br><br>DRUM ROLL....
<br><br>I am a Master Mason, and the Masonic fraternity revers Truth. I was raised Christian Science that uses Truth as one of seven synonyms for God.
<br><br>You wrote: "this world revolves around race, religion and politics."
<br><br>But it shouldn't.
<br><br>Be the change. We can change it.
<br><br>On a hair split about Jesus and his mother. Agreed that according to the official Christian dogma, Palestine is closer to their homeland than Israel.
<br><br>Alas, in my woke-study, the notion of Jesus-the-composite in their creative writing of Jesus 100 years after the events, attributing to him wonders and signs that actually Jesus's predecessors in history exhibited. Just like the writers of Christianity consolidated holy calendar dates, they consolidated wonders from history so those other famous and spiritual predecessors could be forgotten.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 24 -->
<a name="x25"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x25" class="tiny">x26</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">Threatening someone face-to-face with their physical stench seems pretty damn low to me</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Busch, Your comment is particularly troubling. You wrote: <i>"How about I go away meeting you face to face?"</i>
<br><br>Aside from that seeming threat of your physical stench in my personal space, it is troubling for hinting that your inability to articulate and argue your point in this forum will remain so in person, frustratingly ending with you engaging upon the "V"-word [and that ain't "vagina" unless you're packing.]
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"Like I said you are the enemy."</i>
<br><br>The enemy of what? In that I support the constitution more than you do [*nyah-yah-yah*] and am woke enough to recognize that supporting a candidate who castes spells over his followers to "suspend the constitution to install him as President" (after which the spell goes that he'll not only re-instate the constitution but follow it, a promise as glorious as Trump's health care package has been) is in truth figuratively "sh**ing on the constitution". All domestic terrorists "sh** on the constitution" while wrapping themselves in blue line flags.
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"Your attempt at being "intellectual" reveals how brainwashed you are."</i>
<br><br>How so? Please explain yourself.
<br><br>That whole sentence reeks of recycling. Meaning, in a previous discussion with an intellectual superior, they must have thrown that comment at you. So. Kudos on your re-purposing here, except that it doesn't apply unless you defend it. No defense? Then it unravels as "hypnotic suggestion" instead of "substantiated truth" and validates the insult having been thrown at you previously.
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"Typical lib."</i>
<br><br>Please explain what a "typical lib" is, because otherwise that sounds just like what a brainwashed person would recycle.
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"Always thinking they are above everyone else, but really the low of the low."</i>
<br><br>Correction: I know I'm above you; it just is. I don't think about it.
<br><br>Threatening someone face-to-face with their physical stench seems pretty damn low to me, so you maybe oughta avoid positions that also out you as a flaming-hypocrite.
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"Keep talking Maxwell and show yourself. You know you have to."</i>
<br><br>Oh, MYYyyy! Dear Mr. Busch, I am so flattered by your invitation to keep talking! Don't mind at all if I do. Indeed, as a star-seed and embodiment of Truth, I DO KNOW I HAVE TO... A fucking requirement of this incarnation on the planet, leavening the masses, feeding the sheep.
<br><br>Some are just too stubborn to listen, except to their confirmation-bias social-media news-feed brainwashing. You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x28</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">a lost soul and quite the windbag</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Clearly you are a lost soul and quite the windbag. If you actually are a master mason and was raised christian science, what I wrote did not insult your morals or character, you have neither.
And I used to run a print Christian ad agency, LPI of St. Louis, and dealt with 500+ Christian churches in 25 states, and that was 500+ pastors, priests, preachers, ministers, church staff and 10,000+ Christian businesses.
What Christian churches have you actually been in? I don't seek approval from females or sissy boys, and whether that story was real, the fact is eeoc hires are a nightmare,
they can't have a moral compass or developed Christian conscience to accept a job where they are the least qualified, these idiots are a hell on Earth to deal with.
There isn't a hair split about Jesus Christ and his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, you don't get it mr magoo. Are you aware of the Blessed Virgin Mary's documented appearances and miracles at Lourdes and at Fatima?
Using words such as karma and this incarnation on the planet are not what a practicing Christian would use.
Do your boyfriends actually like the snooty, self-absorbed way you talk and write, it is so long winded and shows that you are a product of the frankfurt school of political correctness and social conditioning.
I would be surprised if you have ever done any hard physical labor, you strike me as a poofer.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<a name="x29"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x30</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">who are you to call me a windbag? At least I know how to use SHIFT-ENTER to create breaks</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, Ever hypocrite much? I mean, who are you to call me a windbag? At least I know how to use SHIFT-ENTER to create breaks so my readers can take a breath when reading my wisdom. If your "ad copy" in the above is any indication, it is no wonder your "Christian ads" convinced no one but the already subjugated.
<br><br>Given that your theme is hypocrisy, there isn't a single gap in your verbiage above [literally] that let's in Christ Love. Not a single space where "unconditional love" is evident. And you did "Christian ad copy"?!! What a hoot!
<br><br>Again in the hypocrisy vein, "poofer", "boyfriends", "approval from females or sissy boys"... Sounds like some deep-seated psycho-trauma unhealed from one of your past lives that you should really address in this life time, assuming you want to evolve and ascend like your way-shower, Jesus Christ.
<br><br>You wrote: "If you actually are a master mason and was raised christian science, what I wrote did not insult your morals or character, you have neither."
<br><br>Please explain.
<br><br>Are you saying: "Free Masons... have no morals or character?" "Christian Scientists... have no morals or characters?" If you have morals and character, you can't be a Free Mason or a Christian Scientist?
<br><br>And you base these beliefs on what?
<br><br>Although you said that you "don't seek approval from females or sissy boys", maybe you should!
<br><br>Masculine and feminine qualities are equal in importance. We all have varying qualities of each, but having "deez nuts" doesn't mean I am forbidden from expressing any (traditional) feminine qualities (e.g., nurturing, supportive, loving).
<br><br>So when you visit your shrink, tell HER that your masculine ego is massively over-developed to the point of having no -- zero -- appreciation for feminine attributes in either female or male gendered beings. The short word for it is "misogyny."
<br><br>Heal that, and you can evolve and ascend. Otherwise, you'll be here for another loop.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 30 -->
<a name="x31"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x31" class="tiny">x32</a>
Jeff Hunziker : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">For a look at REAL racism, just take a peek at Israel</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_32" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Systemic racism is just a term invented by Jews to destabilize Christian civilization.
<br><br>For a look at REAL racism, just take a peek at Israel.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 32 -->
<a name="x33"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x33" class="tiny">x34</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">work sets you free</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_34" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges You didn't answer my questions and deflecting, gas lighting show you are rather emotionally and spiritually immature.
That you have posted is annoying gibberish, is there some confusion mr magoo, what don't you understand, if you are what you claim, you have no morals or character and are headed for hell, plain and simple.
Christ Almighty did you attend the special school district for high school?
All souls are judged by Jesus Christ and his judgement is final, so there is heaven, purgatory or hell, and hell isn't like a hot tub, there will be no getting used to it, and you'll find out.
And again you don't strike me as someone who has ever done hard physical work, and work sets you free.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 34 -->
<a name="x35"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x35" class="tiny">x36</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_36');">I agree most vigorously with your criticism of Israel</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_36" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jeff Hunziker, I disagree most vigorously with your implied notion that the origins of a phrase negates somehow its validity in general and its applicability elsewhere.
<br><br>On the other hand, I agree most vigorously with your criticism of Israel for being a true role model for racists across the globe...
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 36 -->
<a name="x37"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x37" class="tiny">x38</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_38');">"Arbeit macht frei." (Christian) Nazi's. Literally.</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_38" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, You lead off by proclaiming to high heaven and God almighty himself that I committed a grand sin of <i>"not answering your question"</i> and then didn't have the intelligence to repeat the burning question so I wouldn't have to go up and look for it.
<br><br>When I go looking for the burning question, I see sentences that were questions, but the "Christian ad man" didn't punctuate them properly with question marks. And the sentence/question with the question mark seemed as a rhetorical question, given that you already knew one of the answers and seemingly mocked it.
<br><br>I have been known to be a bit of a religious fanatic; I'm fanatical about Truth.
<br><br>But you, Mr. Weber, are simply fanatical in an unrational and unhinged way.
<br><br>Proving your brainwashing, you wrote: "And again you don't strike me as someone who has ever done hard physical work, and work sets you free."
<br><br>No, no, no. So sad, Mr. Weber. Hard physical labor is simply hard physical labor. It sounds like you are endorsing slavery. Ain't no talk of monetary compensation, only the satisfaction of exerting muscles and completing someone else's vision who will enjoy it with nary another thought of your efforts.
<br><br>The only way hard physical labor can set you free is if you are prone to day-dreaming and taking your mind elsewhere. With this trick, you never have to be present in the now in your body.
<br><br>But you know what? Meditation allows for the same state of awareness, doesn't tax the muscles, doesn't make you sweat, doesn't injure you if your lack of attention on the physical labor puts you unwittingly in danger.
<br><br>So whoever conned you into the notion that <i>"physical labor would set you free,"</i> they were probably (Christian) Nazi's. Literally.
<br><br><i>"Arbeit macht frei."</i> Run that through google, and find out what it means, who used it, and where. Please enlighten the forum with the results of the research.
<br><br>Now as for your brand of Christianity, sounds like a terrorists cult that everyone should be afraid of. It promotes slavery and Nazi principles. For the purposes of black listing it from the libraries in Florida, please state the specific denomination for the record.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 38 -->
<a name="x39"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x39" class="tiny">x40</a>
Jeff Hunziker : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">cultural Marxist Jews have a largely unspoken symbolic relationship with the Zionist Jews</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_40" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell Bridges Then we agree to disagree. The cultural Marxist Jews(racism, tranz bs) have a largely unspoken symbolic relationship with the Zionist Jews.
<br><br>There's deception involved in BOTH camps, one involved with backstabbing a culture(American) that foolishly knowingly allowed them to enter their country and government, and the other
<br><br>deceitfully claiming to have ties to Palestine, and then trying to buy up all of the best land and then sparking an insurrection which resulted in massacres and the Nabka.
<br><br>Here's more information on the cultural Marxists.
<br><br><a href="https://youtu.be/VY33e0GQi7Q">https://youtu.be/VY33e0GQi7Q</a>
<br><br>The Origins of Cultural Marxism
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 40 -->
<a name="x41"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x41" class="tiny">x42</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">capitalism is fertile ground for the grift and con, and organized corruption</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_42" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jeff Hunziker, "agree to disagree" on what? I have not been writing favorably about Zionism or Israel.
<br><br>I don't fault the content of your comment, except that you seem to be aiming it at me in the spirit of: "Marxist Jews created leftist shit over a hundred years ago and may have popularized and perverted words like 'communism' and 'socialism', therefore it makes any leftist stance today bad news and another duped by a Jewish ploy."
<br><br>Socialism ain't a swear word. Democratic socialism -- on paper -- would solve many societal issues and fix both domestic and foreign policy [e.g., re-allocating military money for domestic programs, like universal health care, free education...]
<br><br><i>"On paper".</i> Sure, other countries have had corruption interfere and besmirch socialism. But as we are seeing in America -- and with the Trumps --, capitalism has more than its share of corruption and grifters.
<br><br>What is ironic is that both "on paper" and "in practice", capitalism is fertile ground for the grift and con, and organized corruption. Corporations are only legally required to look out for their shareholders in generating profit. Only through (leftist) regulation for worker safety and environmental protection are they ever nudged into doing something token in those regards.
<br><br>Money in politics is the bane on the USA. It is corruption written large.
<br><br>Pure capitalism is an evil, because (among other wrongs) the only value that capitalism sees in a forest is when it is cut down, in a nature preserve when it is drilled for oil, in a river or ocean when it is polluted.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 42 -->
<a name="x43"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x43" class="tiny">x44</a>
Jeff Hunziker : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_44');">Leftists believe in big authoritarian government</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_44" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Leftists believe in big authoritarian government which seeks to rule through police power and diminishes liberty and freedom.
<br>Cultural Marxists could give a shit about the people and set about to create racial divisions to make it easier to rule over them.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 44 -->
<a name="x45"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x45" class="tiny">x46</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">a "working government" as opposed to "an underfunded crippled dysfunctional government"</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_46" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jeff Hunziker, You do a good job of repeating the propaganda that was aimed at you, so I guess we can count as a success its programming over you.
<br><br>You should maybe identify a specific person or party when you say (as a lame-ass slur without any teeth) "leftist", because on the Green and Democratic Socialist platforms that I am aware of, none of them champion "big authoritarian government."
<br><br>As I recall, they want a "working government" as opposed to "an underfunded crippled dysfunctional government", which is all the right wing offers by way of "solution:" break it. If it works or could provide any real tangible benefit to the rank-and-file voters, the GOP way is against that. And the MAGA ones are fascists who don't see anything wrong with enabling a wannabe dictator or king who makes his own laws (and has quite literally ripped off almost everyone he has done business with, particularly contractors, vendors, and lawyers.)
<br><br>The level of spells and hypnosis exhibited by the pathological liar Trump is extraordinary, and his duped followers suck it up, hook-line-and-sinker. The Trumpian suggestion to his followers to suspend the Constitution in order to install Trump as President, who would then quickly re-instate the Constitution... THAT ONE is good enough for his hall of fame.
<br><br>I'm impressed with Trump's ability to suck the air of media cycles with his court cases. I absolutely love how various judges from his several on-going concurrent legal engagements have expressly forbidden Trump using any form of social media to discuss details, and ordered lawyers to always be present with Trump when reviewing discovery material, to always be in control of material, and if any breeches occurred, the lawyers (and Trump) face consequences. So not trustworthy is this ex-President.
<br><br>In some perverse ways, I'm happy to see the die-hard Trumpers standing behind their guy no matter what crimes he is (proven) guilty of, leaving the impression that Trump could anally rape their grandmothers, mothers, and daughters (and their female livestock) in the middle Main Street, and even this isn't big enough a crime to taint their loyal support.
<br><br>Happy, because right there is the poster-child for improved mental health in the nation (part of the democratic socialist's agenda for universal health care), as we observe quite clearly dementia and cognitive dissonance overtake the Maga group think. Certainly, simple counseling is preferred over medication, but above all else, improved education for all ages (tuition free) could possibility nip this right-wing ailment in the bud and stop it from generationally spreading.
<br><br>Talk not to me about Marxist anything.
<br><br>Democratic Socialism is the movement.
<br><br>And listen up. If I can jump off the green bandwagon (after years of supporting Nader) to register as a Republican (years ago) so I could support Ron Paul in the caucus and at county (because I was listening to the message and not the propaganda and wanted to shake things up in a positive manner), then maybe some of you Trump-fascists should dump him and go Democratic Socialism. Why?
<br><br>Because deep in your heart, the primary reason why you voted for Trump was because you knew he'd shake up Washington. And he did. Completely shot to hell all sorts of norms [particularly in his lies and spells and personal Presidential crimes], but duped you into thinking he wouldn't be lining his pockets. "I'll not take a salary... because I've required the secret service to stay at Trump properties on the government dime that went to me; my daughter got sweat-heart deals in China; my son-in-law got billions from the Saudi's; we had our grift in the pandemic; I made sure to take classified documents with me so that I can sell them; make no mention of the universities, charities, and PAC." But no salary! Remember that.
<br><br>At any rate, if your motivation was to shake things up in politics? Then, gee, a democratic socialist vote, or a vote for Marianne Williamson, or a vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. really would shake things up in Washington, kick out the lobbyests and money-changers. Shake things up in a positive manner, and one that really could have positive effect on you and those you know personally.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 46 -->
<a name="x47"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x47" class="tiny">x48</a>
Jeff Hunziker : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_48');">a long-winded diatribe about TDS</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_48" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Talk about a long-winded diatribe about TDS …🤣
<br>I actually like Kennedy's position on vaccines and the deep state, but he is clueless about the evils of Zionism.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 48 -->
<a name="x49"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x49" class="tiny">x50</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">poofer you have failed to truthfully answer my questions</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_50" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Again poofer you have failed to truthfully answer my questions, and again deflected and gas lighted gibberish and nonsense. Now pay attention dumbass, there were no nazi's, members of the NADAP never referred to themselves as that slur, nor do tea parry members refer to themselves as tea baggers, but guess what tribe of (goblins) did. Again clearly lying means nothing to you, nor have you done any hard physical labor, because you would understand the sense of self-satisfaction from the results of hard physical labor in diy projects. You don't remotely write like a real man, a mature white Christian real man, but a self-absorbed sissy boy who has verbal ed. I seriously doubt you have been to a rifle range and if were handed a Glock 29 10mm pitbull pistol, you would probably turn your fruit of the looms into a fudge factory. And you being so proud of being a freemason, did you know that kkk members were freemasons and many were jew rite freemasons and thus controlled opposition. Your silly boy responses have all the emotional and spiritual maturity of a 14 year old girl having her 1st period, grow up.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 50 -->
<a name="x51"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x51" class="tiny">x52</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_52');">I wrote NSDAP</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_52" style="display: block;">
<p>I wrote NSDAP, this phone changed what wrote.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 52 -->
<a name="x53"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x53" class="tiny">x54</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">anti to every kind of "orientation" except incest and bestiality</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_54" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, I get it. You're a bot programmed to be a Christian Terrorist Nazi and anti to every kind of "orientation" except -- for you -- incest and bestiality. Had you really been a "Christian ad copy editor" -- or at least a good one --, your replies would (a) have availed themselves of SHIFT-ENTER to break paragraphs of discordant thought, (b) have used not a phone but a computer for ease of composition, and (c) have used a tone and tactic most that involved "unconditional love" instead of "fruit of the looms... fudge factory."
<br><br>What's funny about your recycling of taunts others aimed at you and that you OCD stored away in your database of witty-one liners, is that strung out one after another as you wrote it, they still reflect you and become just you-projecting-you onto me.
<br><br>You wrote: "Again poofer you have failed to truthfully answer my questions,"
<br><br>Proof that you don't read my words. You were asked to repeat your dying question (which now suddenly is "questions") so that I could be clear it was a question you wanted an answer to.
<br><br>What were the questions. Make a top level comment tagging me, and then put each question into its own reply to that. Then, if warranted, I'll be able to create threads under each to reply.
<br><br>You wrote: "and again deflected and gas lighted gibberish and nonsense."
<br><br>Oooh, MYyyy!
<br><br>You wrote: "Now pay attention dumbass, there were no nazi's, members of the NADAP never referred to themselves as that slur, nor do tea parry members refer to themselves as tea baggers, but guess what tribe of (goblins) did."
<br><br>Projecting of YOUR tea bagging Nazi-ism.
<br><br>You wrote: "Again clearly lying means nothing to you, nor have you done any hard physical labor, because you would understand the sense of self-satisfaction from the results of hard physical labor in diy projects."
<br><br>These are the words of the under-master with a whip in his hands: "ARBEIT MACHT FREI". Remember that, slaves!
<br><br>You wrote: "You don't remotely write like a real man, a mature white Christian real man, but a self-absorbed sissy boy who has verbal ed. "
<br><br>I'm so sorry that this attempt at projecting reveals that you... err, yours doesn't "project" no more.
<br><br>And thank you for the compliment that I "don't remotely write like a real man, a mature white Christian man", because my writing is head-and-antlers above that and better, not even remotely in the same league.
<br><br>And if "mature white Christian real man" writes like you, no wonder you'all get confused with Christian Tea Bagging Terrorists.
<br><br>You wrote: "I seriously doubt you have been to a rifle range and if were handed a Glock 29 10mm pitbull pistol, you would probably turn your fruit of the looms into a fudge factory."
<br><br>Who's the sissy boy projecting his fruity fudge looms?
<br><br>You wrote: "And you being so proud of being a freemason, did you know that kkk members were freemasons and many were jew rite freemasons and thus controlled opposition."
<br><br>Worse than that. KKK members were esteemed members of your Christian Terrorist Church. [I don't doubt that some Masonic lodges had KKK members. Some Masonic lodges also had members from your exact Christian Terrorist Church.]
<br><br>You wrote: "Your silly boy responses have all the emotional and spiritual maturity of a 14 year old girl having her 1st period, grow up."
<br><br>How many 14 year old girl 1st periods have you lived through? Holding out on us, transgender silly "boy"? So you were a late bloomer, because 11-12 is the running average age nowadays.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 54 -->
<a name="x55"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x55" class="tiny">x56</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">a lost soul with a dark demonic presence around it</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_56" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Again this gibberish and nonsense indicates the poster is a lost soul with a dark demonic presence around it. Going on the utube channels of Catholic exorcists such as Father Chad Ripperger and Father Dan Reehill, this maxwell joker sure fits the profile. I use my real name on social media why doesn't maxwell bridges? Does he fear being outed at highway rest stop restrooms giving knobs jobs in crap house stalls?
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 56 -->
<a name="x57"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x57" class="tiny">x58</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">Stop the mental malpractice and casting spells on me</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_58" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, Stop it with the mental malpractice and the attempt to caste spells on me.
<br><br>You wrote: "Again this gibberish and nonsense indicates the poster is a lost soul with a dark demonic presence around it." And now you can take your dark demonic presence back, too. You and it missed each other so much in that no-no moment.
<br><br>You also missed the irony. The comment from me, that is alleged to be gibberish and nonsense, is in actuality 50% composed of quotations directly from you. Glad that you recognize your own words as "gibberish and nonsense."
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"Going on the utube channels of Catholic exorcists such as Father Chad Ripperger and Father Dan Reehill, this maxwell joker sure fits the profile."</i>
<br><br>You flat out admit that you go in search of demonic youTube videos of Catholic exorcists. They seemed to have caste a spell over you to keep you watching, and then projecting that nonsense onto others.
<br><br>*brushing your dust off my shoulders and feet*
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"I use my real name on social media why doesn't maxwell bridges?"</i>
<br><br>Only idiots and agents try to shame others with the "real name" gambit.
<br><br>Since the early days of the internet, users were encouraged ~NOT~ to reveal any person-identifying information. So, indeed, my Bruce Wayne persona doesn't travel in the same circles as my Batman persona. Paraphrased from the movie: "You don't don the mask to protect yourself, but those you love."
<br><br>Allow me to provide a real life example, right here in this very thread ABOVE. The exchange with Mr. David Busch is almost crippled in its readability, because someone booted Mr. Busch right quickly, disappearing his entire participation except what remains quoted from him in my responses.
<br><br>FTR, I did not take any FB reporting actions with Mr. Busch's comment. However, Mr. Andrew Kelley might have, as is his right as FB owner of the top-level postings.
<br><br>You wrote: "Does he fear being outed at highway rest stop restrooms giving knobs jobs in crap house stalls?"
<br><br>No. Quite frankly, your participation in this thread makes YOU worthy of fear, if I were prone to fear. You were working in tandem with Mr. Busch, and could be sockpuppets of one another.
<br><br>Your instigation of flame wars does not benefit the discussion.
<br><br>You made earlier the claim that I didn't answer your question(s), but then couldn't be bothered to repeat concisely the question(s). Indicates you didn't really care about the answers, making them rhetorical and/or busy work in nature after all.
<br><br>Or it means that this discussion has reached the limits of your narrowly-programmed ChatAPI, whereby the bot in not able to recognize and act on requests that real humans have no problems with. Like repeating and/or re-writing the dying questions if they are so important.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 58 -->
<a name="x59"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x59" class="tiny">x60</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">tell me your real name, and don't lie to me sissy boy</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_60" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Again lying is wrong and lying is a sin, why can't you get that. Now boy tell me your real name, and don't lie to me sissy boy.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 60 -->
<a name="x61"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x61" class="tiny">x62</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">only if my Johnson is in your oral cavity do I recognize your need to maybe know whose Johnson you're servicing</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_62" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, lying is a sin. You lied by saying I never answered your question, but when confronted about <i>"what was the question you wanted answered"</i> because much confusion legitimately existed, you -- <i>"the Christian copy ad man"</i> -- could not be bothered with repeating your question and making it clear that it wasn't some rhetorical trick or busy work.
<br><br>I loved your whining: <i>"Now boy tell me your real name, and don't lie to me sissy boy."</i>
<br><br>Are you planning on blowing me? Because only if my Johnson is in your oral cavity do I recognize your need to maybe know whose Johnson you're servicing.
<br><br>I have a blog. Had it for years. And a website (now de-commissioned) for years before that. One of these days, I'll ramp it up again. Proves I stand behind my words in the grand tradition -- from Ben Franklin, the Federalists Papers, etc. -- of writing under a pseudonym. One day, full credit will be taken under my Bruce Wayne for all of my Batman actions, but that day is not here, and you are not anybody with authority needing to know. (Those with authority already know. They can easily extract every FB comment ever made by me; they know my IP address and its GPS coordinates should a drone strike be required.)
<br><br>Your illogical, unsafe, and irrational requests to obtain the Bruce Wayne for my Batman reeks to high heaven as if you are an armed Christian Terrorists, who really needs to know whether or not your blow-job visit will be met with "make my day" and fudging of your panties already in a wad in brown squishy delight.
<br><br>Unless you express right now your love for my manhood and its ballsy buddies, and your desire to sexually service such, then your arguments become very weak very quickly about needing to know my Bruce Wayne and the GPS coordinates for the Bat cave.
<br><br>Let's hear it then: your undying love for my long schlong!
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 62 -->
<a name="x63"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x63" class="tiny">x64</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');">blow each other on breaks</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_64" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Do infidel idf trolls get to blow each other on breaks, a work perk working for satan? I would not be surprised if this foaming at the mouth homoerotic gibberish is being posted by several pathetic weasels who have never been in a bar fight, street fight or playground fight in their lives. I don't whine you little worm and what are you bill clinton, lying about what is is, you are sad excuse for a human being. Which makes me wonder if your homosexual molester rapist or rapists were ever arrested and charged with crimes? Again you write with the emotional and spiritual maturity of a 14 year old girl having her 1st period.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 64 -->
<a name="x65"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x65" class="tiny">x66</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">an agent constantly probing for weaponry and fighting skills and projecting sexual bents and desires to trigger</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_66" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, Stop with the sexual projection; your hypnotic suggestion has no power here.
<br><br>Your efforts, and those who "thumbs-up-ur", more closely resemble your wonderfully described gaggle of pathetic weasels.
<br><br>You out yourself as an agent, with your constant probing for weaponry and fighting skills, and then projecting your own sexual bents and desires in an effort to trigger me.
<br><br>You've already lost the debate. What were you defending? Ultimately, weren't you defending Trump? Trump's downfall is a specularly planned and orchestrated to be the biggest and best E.V.E.R., the ratings are screaming through the roof! The count is 37 indictments, and the number only continues to grow. More than four parallel lawsuits, lawyers coming and going (and filing counter-suits for lack of payment), nobody ever got this much attention proving the Trump truism that even bad publicity is good publicity. Man, that Trump brand is figuratively "on fire."
<br><br>So I get all this hatred from you, because you've been brainwashed into overlooking the Trump crimes by the master in hypnotic suggestion -- "but what about her emails"...
<br><br>It is okay to admit that you were duped and conned by the Don. It isn't your fault he took advantage of your psychological and mental weaknesses, found the buttons to push (that actually have zero effect on you, such as abortion) to get you hot-headed, not thinking, black-white, one-zero, true-false, either-or rut single-issue (or two-issue with guns) not seeing the bigger picture of manipulation, deceit, and crimes, crimes, crimes. Trump committed more overt crimes than the covert crimes of the other Presidents, so he wins.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 66 -->
<a name="x67"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x67" class="tiny">x68</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">debunked, proved to be a slanderous liar and a punk</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_68" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Again you failed to answer my questions and I didn't vote or support trump, he's a bought and paid for whore for aipac and the adl.
In addition E. Michael Jones the editor of Culture wars magazine proved that trump was bought and owned by sheldon aldeson and 2 other very rich jews.
Now I realize that you are a product of the frankfurt school of political correctness being in the public school system and seem to have a myriad of personal problems being a mr magoo type.
That being said, social security declared me disabled from a severe knee injury, work related some time ago and being 63 makes me a senior citizen.
Which means the lies and slander your dumbass has posted about me, are federal and state crimes, harassing a disabled person in the state of Missouri is a class E felony.
I have a long time friend, St. Louis County Judge John Newsham, he could explain the various Missouri state crimes you have committed in your slanderous lying posts about me.
And there are federal laws you have committed, so it won't be hard maxie, to find out your real name and what grandma or aunt's basement you are a keyboard warroir in.
Now there was no trump debate, but you have been debunked, proved to be a slanderous liar and a punk.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 68 -->
<a name="x69"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x70</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">you repeatedly accuse me of not answer a question that you stubbornly cannot even reproduce in the discussion</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, Your disability doesn't appear to be limited to your "severe knee injury" from a life of "hard physical labor," which itself should have been a sign of your mental deficiencies but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I mean, people with brains develop and use tools for the "hard physical labor", precisely to spare their bodies from damage. Guess you didn't get that message in your education.
<br><br>However, I cannot ignore the large neon sign flashing "MENTAL ISSUES" when you repeatedly accuse me of not answer a question that you stubbornly cannot even reproduce in the discussion despite many requests to clearly and unambiguously state: "this is the question I want you to answer."
<br><br>With 20/20 hindsight, I missed many other signs of you weakened mental capacities (my bad), such as your "Christian Subjugation" bent. As an aside, if you were actually a believer in the Christ Spirit [and not a "Christian Terrorist"], your knee would have been healed some time ago and you'd still be in the workforce. That your knee is not healed is testament to larger unhealed issues in your psych, such as your misogyny, phobia of all those different.
<br><br>The truth of your situation is that you considered that knee injury a blessing for the early retirement is brought and your new-found ability to "suck off of the tit" of the very government social welfare nets that right-wingnuts decry. Hypocrite much.
<br><br>I look forward to the update to your Facebook profile that broadcasts your crippled physical and mental state, so that others who might engage you are forewarned and not entrapped by a disabled, elderly, mentally challenged citizen of the state of Missouri who baits with similar class E felony fodder. Make sure that you show your "long time friend, St. Louis County Judge John Newsham" the various comments you made, so that "he could explain the various Missouri state crimes you have committed in your slanderous lying posts" about me.
<br><br>Just so that I didn't miss anything. If the burning question that you seem to think you unambiguously and clearly asked was along the lines of: "Now boy tell me your real name, and don't lie to me sissy boy."
<br><br>Then your long sought after answer was already provided in a most articulate fashion: "Are you planning on blowing me? Because only if my Johnson is in your oral cavity do I recognize your need to maybe know whose Johnson you're servicing."
<br><br>Thus, ~if~ that was your burning question, then it was appropriately answered and you are demonstrating both lies and mental issues in stating it was never answered. Bearing false witness as you have done is a grave sin as documented in the Old Testament.
<br><br>P.S. Trump was part of the debate. Read the thread again and my comments to others before you tag-teamed in as your suck-buddy and sockpuppet David Busch fouled himself out so bad, his comments and participation flat-out disappeared with all that remains being what my comments quote from him.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<a name="x71"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x72</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">clearly are a fake fb account</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_72" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges You clearly are a fake fb account, now whether these lies and slander which this fake account has posted, are going to be used to have you arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted for various crimes, whether it is pound me in the ass federal prison,or state prison, you deserve it, grandma's basement will not hide you from the authorities. Unless this idiot garbage is coming from a mental institution, a knucklehead who was a zero nobody in the public high school they slided thru, but aching for that cheerleader that payed zero attention to you, yea that guy dude cheerleader. The thing is you in public high school weren't a fly speck on a mound of horse turds, that is 1 of several reasons, you are a pathetic whore for attention
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 72 -->
<a name="x73"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x74</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">my Facebook account is REAL and much older than yours by years</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, You start with: <i>"You clearly are a fake fb account."</i>
<br>
<br>No, I can assure you that not only is my Facebook account REAL, I'll wager without actually fact-checking that my REAL Facebook account's history is much older than yours by YEARS with the activity to prove it. All it takes is for them to run a database query (or two) to obtain e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g that I ever wrote here -- including what may have been deleted by me or others.
<br>
<br>This REAL Facebook account is, however, for a pseudonym, my Batman as it were. And your unhinged rant(s) against me only solidify the wisdom of keeping Batman separate from my Bruce Wayne (who also has a real Facebook account but the two aren't FB friends and a tiny Venn area of overlap FB friends.)
<br>
<br>Your first clue that you were dealing with a pseudonym or pen-name ought to have been my profile picture. Heisenberg a.k.a. Walter White from "Breaking Bad" and played by the actor Bryon Cranston (sp).... Oooh shit. Heisenberg is a pseudonym for Walter White in the show played by an actor: that's three-levels of deep pseudonym. And my profile pictures uses that very same pseudonym's picture. Oh snap!
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"... these lies and slander which this fake account has posted, are going to be used to have you arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted for various crimes."</i>
<br>
<br>OOooooh, MYyyyy!!!
<br>
<br>FTR, slander is verbal only. Given that our oral cavities are not engage in this discussion, nothing I've written is technically "slander." FAIL.
<br>
<br>I am a religious fanatic; I'm fanatically about Truth.
<br>
<br>So, identify the lies. More importantly, identify the "various crimes" I'd be charged with.
<br>
<br>Unlike you, I stand behind my words posted here. Not just that, I collect my words in an OCD way, save them locally (or even compose them locally to begin with), and then re-publish them in venues that I control. Like my blog. That's me, standing behind my Batman's words. [Normally, I'd provide a link, but Googling will do you good.]
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"whether it is pound me in the ass federal prison,or state prison, you deserve it"</i>
<br>
<br>Good job of exposing both your anal fetishes and the two places where you obtained first-hand experience in such.
<br>
<br>FTR, you've written way more about gay things than I have. Stop trying to mask your true self with your FAKE homophobia. Embrace who you are.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"grandma's basement will not hide you from the authorities."</i>
<br>
<br>Your one truthful statement! At last!
<br>
<br>(a) Grandmas are all dead since well into last century;
<br>(b) they didn't have much in the realm of basements to bequeth to 25 grandkids;
<br>(c) I'm in a basement now, but so is my internet router whose IP address, physical street address, and GPS locations are known
<br>(d) to the authorities, from whom I have no reason to hide.
<br>
<br>Now if we were to change the subject to libel (which is written) and defamation (which libel and slander are forms of), you provided excellent examples:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><p>"Unless this idiot garbage is coming from a mental institution, a knucklehead who was a zero nobody in the public high school they slided thru, but aching for that cheerleader that payed zero attention to you, yea that guy dude cheerleader. The thing is you in public high school weren't a fly speck on a mound of horse turds, that is 1 of several reasons, you are a pathetic whore for attention."</p></blockquote>
<p>Your botish-taunts have no power.
<br>
<br>Time for you to ignore me and go away.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x76</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">you were a nobody in high school, a total loser</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_76" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges You can't be a real yikebook account because you are faked. Again you were a nobody in high school, a total loser.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 76 -->
<a name="x77"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x77" class="tiny">x78</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">I was a total dweeb in high school</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_78" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, Stop your projection. Just because you are a fake Christian but a real Christian Terrorist, that has no bearing on the realness of my Batman identity and its kick-ass real FB account. I stand behind my words and take credit for them. You, on the other hand, are still stuck in high school, which your many comments make clear.
<br>
<br>FTR, I was a total dweeb in high school. The "total loser" charge is your high school experience projected onto me. Did you even complete high school? Is that why you had a life of "hard physical labor"? Isn't that the expected life of criminals who were total losers in high school?
<br>
<br>Far be it from me to tell you what your sexual needs are, but in this case, you really do need to go away.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 78 -->
<a name="x79"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x79" class="tiny">x80</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">you have a gerbil up your butt in a cardboard toilet paper tube</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_80" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges There is no we, us or our unless you have a gerbil up your butt in a cardboard toilet paper tube. Now why does lying not mean anything to you? Clearly you have no moral compass or a developed Christian conscience. You have been debunked and your lies systematically destroyed, so why are you still posting nonsense and nuthouse gibberish. Any white Christian with a thinking mind knows that every US senator and congressman are bought and paid for whores of aipac and the adl, so is kornpop joe and trump, they have zog puppet masters. Now what public schools in Ohio did you attend, if you are telling the truth? I went from k-7th grade to Baden public grade school from 1965 to 1973 and 8th grade at Holy Cross Catholic school. Now Baden was basically an all white Christian neighborhood that was very German. The ghetto primates that got bused into Baden school made it a literal hell on Earth. Every one there got iq tested, the ghetto primates could not test above 80, I tested 150+, with the Iowa test skills tests not 1 negro could test in any subject and plenty had flunked a grade. In 7th grade my average was 10th grade. Fast forward to 2004, I saw a newspaper ad for a forklift driver for the purex corp. warehouse and faxed a resume and got a letter to go take a company exam at a community College in Granite City, IL. Several thousand people took the exam for the job and I got a letter to come in for an interview. 3 guys told me I scored perfect on the exam and I had experience operating propane and electric forklifts. Purex could not hire me, the top job candidate, eeoc mandates forced Purex to hire black females and all 3 guys told me you have to score at least 65% on math, chemical and science portions of the exam. But not 1 black could even score a 60% in those subjects, yet the US government was forcing that corporation to hire stone stupid, black females, now that is wrong and evil.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 80 -->
<a name="x81"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x81" class="tiny">x82</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">you have a vast knowledge of what can be shoved up your butt and how</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_82" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, You wrote: <i>"Clearly you have no moral compass or a developed Christian conscience."</i> Yet, how does your comment begin?
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><p>"you have a gerbil up your butt in a cardboard toilet paper tube."</p></blockquote>
<p>Unlike me, you seem to have a vast knowledge of and are pretty specific about what can be shoved up your butt and how. This and many other off-color comments from you (flame-baiting) doesn't demonstrate much Christ Conscience, thereby making you a Christian Hypocrite.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"You have been debunked and your lies systematically destroyed, so why are you still posting nonsense and nuthouse gibberish."</i>
<br>
<br>Kudos on your wishful thinking and your attempt to emulate me. Unlike you, though, I actually have debunked and systematically destroyed your lies.
<br>
<br>But in case I missed something, what specific things do you think that you debunked? I mean, you have taken this thread so far off the topic of my top-level comment, your homophobic slurs are all that stand out.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Any white Christian with a thinking mind knows that every US senator and congressman are bought and paid for whores of aipac and the adl, so is kornpop joe and trump, they have zog puppet masters."</i>
<br>
<br>Except for a three word phrase right at the beginning, I am in agreement.
<br>
<br>But that three word phrase pokes me in the eye: "any white Christian". You forgot "male", as in "any white Christian male" which your racists, misogynistic, Christian-Terrorist ego really wanted to write.
<br>
<br>Why couldn't you write: <i>"Any thinking mind knows that..."?</i>
<br>
<br>I mean, you don't have to be "white", "Christian", (or "male") to recognize the Zionist influence over American politics. You just have to study and think.
<br>
<br>You didn't write that because you have no Christ Conscience. You wrote "white" because you are a racists Nazi ("Arbeit macht frei" is your chant). You wrote "Christian" because you're trying to cover for your demonic possession and have no qualms about lying about your "qualifications." Gee, someone who once did "Christian ads" ought to know and practice good formatting like in the use of paragraph breaks to make your message easier to digest.
<br>
<br>As for your narrative, it doesn't prove anything except that the systematic oppression of blacks was alive and well in the 1970's as exhibited by black candidates for a low-paying, (nearly) unskilled job not having sufficient education in math (and reading) to pass "white" employment tests for a fork-lift driver (who is expected to do algebra while fetching pallets).
<br>
<br>FYI, the Moors were blacks (from Ethiopia) and brought math and geometry to Europe. When I was in an international college dorm in Germany, my (literally) African colleagues were intellectually equal or even superior [which is how they got scholarships to study out-of-country in the first place]. The intellect of the African females (studying medicine) made them even hotter. They were the same race as my (greater Cleveland) black schoolmates which maybe had only three or more of them making it out of the systematic racist cycle to be considered a success (at our 40th reunion), and military is what beckoned many of them post-high school because they didn't have the infrastructure and (family) support required to value and be successful in college. Ergo, the home environment was key, and genetics/race had nothing to do with it.
<br>
<br>This, above, is how you systematically debunk and destroys lies. You break it apart sentence by sentence and re-quote the lies being debunked. Make a note.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, you have so polluted this thread, all that remains in your flame-wars and homophobia. Hardly worth any lurker-reader taking their time to bore into it, for you provide no wisdom and no Christ Conscience (in your racist, anti-any-one-different, Christian-hypocrisy).
<br>
<br>Let his thread that you shit all over die.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 82 -->
<a name="x83"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x83" class="tiny">x84</a>
Russell Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">not truthfully answered a single question of mine</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_84" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Again lying is wrong, and lying is a sin. You have not truthfully answered a single question of mine, but shot back in the manner of a demon possessed soul does and just watch the utube channels of Catholic exorcists Father Chad Ripperger and Father Dan Reehil. Clearly there is no love of Jesus Christ in your inky black hellbound soul and heart, the mocking gibberish and nonsense proves it.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 84 -->
<a name="x85"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x85" class="tiny">x86</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">It is assuming a lot to call them "questions," given they lacked the punctuation and formatting to be deemed as such.</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_86" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Russell Weber, (a) I haven't written a single non-truth in this exchange.
<br>
<br>(b) I don't have any obligation to answer your questions.
<br>
<br>(c) It is assuming a lot to call them "questions," given they lacked the punctuation and formatting to be deemed as such.
<br>
<br>(d) Owing to the aforementioned unclarity in your effort, you were incapable of clearly articulating what questions needed to be answered.
<br>
<br>Obviously the reasons you no longer work in "Christian ad copy" and instead went into "hard physical labor" are that:
<br>
<br>(a) You write "gibberish and nonsense" poorly formatted and punctuated.
<br>
<br>(b) The ideas contained in your writing exhibits zero "Christ spirit."
<br>
<br>(c) Instead of demonstrating your "love of Jesus Christ" in your actions and words, you wasted all your time learning about "demon possessed souls" and watching "utube channels of Catholic exorcists." Where you devote your attentions, there will be your heart also.
<br>
<br>(d) As such, the result is you demonstrating pure projection of "your inky black hellbound soul and heart" that is worthy of being mocked.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 86 -->
<!-- ***** 20230716_mcb_fb_andrewKelly_RussellWeber_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_1 -->
<a name="p2"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_2');">Part 2: Contributions to the discussion</a></h2>
<div id="part_2" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20230911_mcb_fb_fgnw.htm -->
<a name="x87"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x87" class="tiny">x88</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">A wave of explosions or squibs below the canopy of falling debris destruction</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-11</p>
<div id="sect_88" style="display: block;">
<p><br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>2023-09-11
<br>
<br>Here's my contribution to this anniversary of 9/11, a re-posting of Mr. David Chandler's video of WTC-1 (North Tower) being destroyed.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdYu46M6gr0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdYu46M6gr0</a>
<br>
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4oeD-pZetvupW97EqIzfXcOc9r39ntbOOkRFUlW0i_rnB3z5mHnHTSCvIvKKC0LqTcaWAWcRXGH1clYXeEJZgfYgT_cpnI4y7sp2R4VGW2W3X3H8cXGkc1e07OV0jCZTY7HcNAIFiqg/s1600/FissionBombAssemblyWikimediaCommons.jpg" alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4oeD-pZetvupW97EqIzfXcOc9r39ntbOOkRFUlW0i_rnB3z5mHnHTSCvIvKKC0LqTcaWAWcRXGH1clYXeEJZgfYgT_cpnI4y7sp2R4VGW2W3X3H8cXGkc1e07OV0jCZTY7HcNAIFiqg/s1600/FissionBombAssemblyWikimediaCommons.jpg" />
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv7FNUtz3i0LIRqK9JadDYXDjAPq1l4b8tsmzIaL69OcKEkhoiT_w6tzH_gqpPjH8BVUROA05rvOFgajXBf_OX79BFnzw5ALLzdizinr6RlUSbD94zUrgTraP8srgNiK0zDA09sZ8d2RE/s1600/WTC_innerCore_31.png" alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv7FNUtz3i0LIRqK9JadDYXDjAPq1l4b8tsmzIaL69OcKEkhoiT_w6tzH_gqpPjH8BVUROA05rvOFgajXBf_OX79BFnzw5ALLzdizinr6RlUSbD94zUrgTraP8srgNiK0zDA09sZ8d2RE/s1600/WTC_innerCore_31.png" />
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJA-54RJ25SwurxAfwBBSwVox-JofGV8ZkK-SPghFhX97Byrpc2H_ppnnX3MrBTbi9gaizhp9GmB2CtDA6AkRcZY5ogzRXqfNNgfCBg52k_88o5xj7ycjXjMG6U2gyTMN5HuDf4CzzlCA/s1600/wtc2core_02.jpg" alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJA-54RJ25SwurxAfwBBSwVox-JofGV8ZkK-SPghFhX97Byrpc2H_ppnnX3MrBTbi9gaizhp9GmB2CtDA6AkRcZY5ogzRXqfNNgfCBg52k_88o5xj7ycjXjMG6U2gyTMN5HuDf4CzzlCA/s1600/wtc2core_02.jpg" />
<br>
<br>
<br>At 8:11 in video, "what we actually see here is the falling sections of the building turning to dust before our eyes.
<br>
<br>A wave of explosions or squibs below the canopy of falling debris destruction.
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 88 -->
<!-- ***** 20230911_mcb_fb_fgnw.htm -->
<!-- ***** 20230911_mcb_fb_fgnw_new_05.htm -->
<a name="x89"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x89" class="tiny">x90</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">my contribution to this anniversary of 9/11</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-11</p>
<div id="sect_90" style="display: block;">
<p>Here's my contribution to this anniversary of 9/11, a re-posting of Mr. David Chandler's video of WTC-1 (North Tower) being destroyed.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdYu46M6gr0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdYu46M6gr0</a>
<br>
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4oeD-pZetvupW97EqIzfXcOc9r39ntbOOkRFUlW0i_rnB3z5mHnHTSCvIvKKC0LqTcaWAWcRXGH1clYXeEJZgfYgT_cpnI4y7sp2R4VGW2W3X3H8cXGkc1e07OV0jCZTY7HcNAIFiqg/s1600/FissionBombAssemblyWikimediaCommons.jpg" alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4oeD-pZetvupW97EqIzfXcOc9r39ntbOOkRFUlW0i_rnB3z5mHnHTSCvIvKKC0LqTcaWAWcRXGH1clYXeEJZgfYgT_cpnI4y7sp2R4VGW2W3X3H8cXGkc1e07OV0jCZTY7HcNAIFiqg/s1600/FissionBombAssemblyWikimediaCommons.jpg" />
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv7FNUtz3i0LIRqK9JadDYXDjAPq1l4b8tsmzIaL69OcKEkhoiT_w6tzH_gqpPjH8BVUROA05rvOFgajXBf_OX79BFnzw5ALLzdizinr6RlUSbD94zUrgTraP8srgNiK0zDA09sZ8d2RE/s1600/WTC_innerCore_31.png" alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv7FNUtz3i0LIRqK9JadDYXDjAPq1l4b8tsmzIaL69OcKEkhoiT_w6tzH_gqpPjH8BVUROA05rvOFgajXBf_OX79BFnzw5ALLzdizinr6RlUSbD94zUrgTraP8srgNiK0zDA09sZ8d2RE/s1600/WTC_innerCore_31.png" />
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJA-54RJ25SwurxAfwBBSwVox-JofGV8ZkK-SPghFhX97Byrpc2H_ppnnX3MrBTbi9gaizhp9GmB2CtDA6AkRcZY5ogzRXqfNNgfCBg52k_88o5xj7ycjXjMG6U2gyTMN5HuDf4CzzlCA/s1600/wtc2core_02.jpg" alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJA-54RJ25SwurxAfwBBSwVox-JofGV8ZkK-SPghFhX97Byrpc2H_ppnnX3MrBTbi9gaizhp9GmB2CtDA6AkRcZY5ogzRXqfNNgfCBg52k_88o5xj7ycjXjMG6U2gyTMN5HuDf4CzzlCA/s1600/wtc2core_02.jpg" />
<br>
<br>
<br>At 8:11 in video, "what we actually see here is the falling sections of the building turning to dust before our eyes.
<br>
<br>A wave of explosions or squibs below the canopy of falling debris destruction.
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0xUn2o8n2VHNqRvJ1qrQgaoxTgt1L3VQWnwkuoKGhAyUPdq1AZgbmJfqvNE6WP7rl">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0xUn2o8n2VHNqRvJ1qrQgaoxTgt1L3VQWnwkuoKGhAyUPdq1AZgbmJfqvNE6WP7rl</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 90 -->
<!-- ***** 20230911_mcb_fb_fgnw_new_05.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_2 -->
<a name="p3"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_3');">Part 3: FGNW Discussions with Gene Laratonda</a></h2>
<div id="part_3" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_gene.htm -->
<a name="x91"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x91" class="tiny">x92</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">Conversation with Gene Laratonda was just getting started</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-20</p>
<div id="sect_92" style="display: block;">
<p>conversation with Gene Laratonda 2023-09-20 was just getting started. It was under a posting about Nanothermite. He copy and pasted several references. One was to Dr. Steven Jones work. I mentioned that an earlier posting of mine in that discussion had an article with a section that debunks that very work from Dr. Jones.
<br>
<br>I had to go offline and mentioned such.
<br>
<br>When I come back, it is as if the whole posting is gone, or as if Gene FB blocked me.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 92 -->
<a name="x93"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x93" class="tiny">x94</a>
Gene Laratonda : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">the arguments and evidence presented do not conclusively prove the use of fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW)</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-20</p>
<div id="sect_94" style="display: block;">
<p>Gene Laratonda <!-- gene.laratonda@gmail.com --> has left a new comment on your post "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW":
<br>
<br>Based on my analysis, the arguments and evidence presented do not conclusively prove the use of fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Here are some key issues:
<br>
<br>1. The levels of radioactive contaminants like tritium measured at Ground Zero were very low, not indicative of nuclear explosions which would produce vastly higher amounts. The redefinition of "trace levels" is exaggerated - the increase proposed was still very low.
<br>
<br>2. No convincing documentation is provided of radiation-related effects like neutron activation and induced radioactivity that would necessarily occur with nuclear explosions. Assertions of evidence tampering do not prove nuclear devices were used.
<br>
<br>3. The theoretical capabilities described for FGNW are speculative and their existence as operational weapons is unverified. The sources cited are analyses of future potential capabilities, not confirmation of real covert weapons.
<br>
<br>4. The proposed placement and effects of FGNW do not match observed collapse patterns. For example, the spire behavior is inconsistent with intended directional energy emission. Videos show pulverization originating from above, not precise directional sequences.
<br>
<br>5. Conventional explosives or some other technological means could potentially account for the damage patterns cited as evidence for FGNW. Lack of deafening noise can also be explained by unconventional explosives directing energy into the building rather than air.
<br>
<br>6. The arguments for nuclear devices rest on selective interpretation of evidence while ignoring issues that challenge the theory, such as lack of extreme heat, radiation, and shockwave effects. The theory relies heavily on hypothetical capabilities.
<br>
<br>In summary, while the article assembles some circumstantial evidence, the overall case presented does not rise to the level of concrete proof when all evidence is objectively considered. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof for nuclear devices at the WTC is very high. The arguments may merit further investigation but fall short of scientific consensus or definitive conclusions. I would recommend submitting this thesis to scholarly peer review before asserting it as confirmed fact.
</p>
</div><!-- section 94 -->
<a name="x95"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x95" class="tiny">x96</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">Rebuting the key issues that helped establish your conclusions</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-21</p>
<div id="sect_96" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, Thank you for taking the time to "consider" my FGNW premise and leaving your comment on <i>"Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW".</i>
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<blockquote><p>"Based on my analysis, the arguments and evidence presented do not conclusively prove the use of fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) at the World Trade Center on 9/11."</p></blockquote>
<p>I appreciate you pointing out the key issues that helped establish your conclusions. I will now point out the issues with "your issues" which should affect your conclusions.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<blockquote><p>"1. The levels of radioactive contaminants like tritium measured at Ground Zero were very low, not indicative of nuclear explosions which would produce vastly higher amounts. The redefinition of "trace levels" is exaggerated - the increase proposed was still very low."</p></blockquote>
<p>(a) "Very low" does not mean zero. Shoddy sampling in the methodology should not be confused with low amounts.
<br>
<br>(b) Where did you get this "very low" characterization? Probably from a report like "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" that is taken apart in section 10 above, because the study was scope-limited from the onset to attribute any measured tritium to RL devices that may have already been in the content of the WTC complex. Because the authors weren't looking at nuclear weapons as being the source for tritium or the destruction, (1) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (2) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.
<br>
<br>(c) The redefintion of "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than they were prior to 9/11 is not an exaggeration, even if "still very low." It is a fact. Worse, Dr. Steven Jones accepted that study at face value, unquestioned and unchallenged, and thus himself is guilty of perpetuating the deceit of "tritium only being at trace levels", when it was not.
<br>
<br>(d) When you toss out the phrase "not indicative of nuclear explosions", you don't describe any nuclear devices to prove your point: not fission devices, not fusion devices, not neutron devices, not hybrid-fission-fusion devices, and not a word on any of the possible devices described by Dr. Andre Gsponer.
<br>
<br><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>(e) "Nuclear explosion" is a malframing from the onset. "Explosion" implies a "blast", or a sudden, violent, and large change in air pressure that destroys things. You should be talking in terms of "nuclear yield", whereby 80% was in the form of targeted highly energetic neutrons. The only "explosion" was the conventional chemical-based kick-starter charge required to initiate the fission stage wasn't designed for destruction or radiation, but to generate the heat required for fusion (which then output the neutrons). Only 20% of the nuclear yield was in the form of a head wave, blast wave, and EMP.
<br>
<br>In your general language, you want to lump all them together, as if they all nuclear devices would have the same signature. Shame on you.
<br>
<br>// Part 1/8
<br>
<br>Part 2/8 You wrote:
<blockquote><p>"2. No convincing documentation is provided of radiation-related effects like neutron activation and induced radioactivity that would necessarily occur with nuclear explosions. Assertions of evidence tampering do not prove nuclear devices were used."</p></blockquote>
<p>Again with the malframing of discussion as "nuclear explosions."
<br>
<br><i>"No convincing documentation"</i>? Of course there's not.
<br>
<br>Had you read section "8. Controlling the Opposition" above, you would see examples of "no convincing documentation" in (a) The 9/11 Commission Report, (b) NIST Report on WTC-1/2, and (c) NIST Report on WTC-7.
<br>
<br>"No convincing documentation" is par for the course. I assume you are referring to "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001" by The Paul Lioy et al that had my criticism in section 11. Among its flaws:
<br>
<br>- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
<br>
<br>- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
<br>
<br>- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
<br>
<br>- Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). The Lioy report only mentions "Uranium" twice: once in the methodology section and once in table 2 indicating metals found. Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
<br>
<br>In other words, you have "no convincing documentation" that 9/11 didn't have nuclear components.
<br>
<br>// Part 2/8
<br>
<br>Part 3/8 You wrote:
<blockquote><p>"3. The theoretical capabilities described for FGNW are speculative and their existence as operational weapons is unverified. The sources cited are analyses of future potential capabilities, not confirmation of real covert weapons."</p></blockquote>
<p>Indeed, the theoretical capabilities described for fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) is speculative, because they are assumed to be pure fusion. Getting a fusion reaction started is the hard part.
<br>
<br>But "late-3rd/early-4th genreation nuclear weapons" are hybrid fission-fusion. The fission stage is needed to get the requisite heat for fusion.
<br>
<br>So maybe it was lazy of me to simplify my language to "FGNW" instead of correctly stating "late-3rd/early-4th genreation nuclear weapons". However, you'd have to read and understand the source material from Dr. Andre Gsponer to be able to discover my laziness in naming things.
<br>
<br>You mentioned: <i>"Their (FGNW) existence as operational is unverified."</i>
<br>
<br>Who is going to verify it? Do they have non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties stemming from charges of treason? Has the US not been very tight-lipped about keeping and maintaining nuclear secrets?
<br>
<br>The questions above already invalidate your assertion.
<br>
<br>Given Dr. Andre Gsponer's CV in Swiss nuclear physics; given that Dr. Andre Gsponer was writing & publishing about the state of nuclear weapons in the decade leading up to 9/11; given that he'd been publishing and refining those publications; given that they were peer-reviewed and published in reputable places; and given that nobody from the 1990's until today (2023) has come out against his descriptions of FGNW: the verification you seek is the agreeing silence of his colleagues and peers in the nuclear field.
<br>
<br>// Part 3/8
<br>
<br>Part 4/8 You wrote:
<blockquote><p>"4. The proposed placement and effects of FGNW do not match observed collapse patterns. For example, the spire behavior is inconsistent with intended directional energy emission. Videos show pulverization originating from above, not precise directional sequences."</p></blockquote>
<p>Your number 4 is all hypnotic suggestion, because the proposed placement and effects of FGNW do indeed match the observed collapsed patters. You mention the spire behavior as somehow being "inconsistent with intended energy emission." I disagree and say that the spire behavior is evidence of FGNW.
<br>
<br>The configuration is 4 FGNW per detonation levels, and 6-20 detontation levels. Each device has a conventional chemical based explosive to kick-start the fission stage. The sole purpose of the fission stage is to generate the heat for the fusion stage, which then released its highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion, cone-shaped from ignition point.
<br>
<br>There is room in this description for the FGNW to have a delay between trigger of the kick-starter charge to full nuclear yield, and for the nuclear yield to have a duration. A misaligned FGNW could cause nuclear fizzle in neighboring devices. Thus, a stable platform that was not going to be blown out from under a FGNW while it's outputting the desired nuclear yield.
<br>
<br>I speculate that the spires (which the destruction of both towers had) was the stable portion of the outer walls of the inner-core where the FGNW were mounted. The cone-shaped output was aimed away from that spire.
<br>
<br>The vanishing of the 9 stories of WTC-4 main building gives an idea of the range of the cone. Everything in neat lines from the ground floor through the ceiling of WTC-6 were vanished, but not the outer walls where the FGNW were mounted and aimed away from.
<br>
<br>The videos do indeed show pulverization originating from above. [There were others, but this is a blatant clue that (a) you didn't read my premise, (b) this work is copy-pasted from somewhere else.]
<br>
<br>I repeat: FGNW per detonation levels, and 6-20 detontation levels.
<br>
<br>The first detonation level was probably below the airplane impact floor. The ignition of its devices dustified the upper 20 stories, got it accordioning in on itself at 2/3 gravitational acceleration, suddenly. It was needed, because in WTC-1 that upper block had angular momentum and was toppling over, but then a cohesive block gets decimated suddenly into dust and no more toppling.
<br>
<br>// Part 4/8
<br>
<br>Part 5/8 You wrote:
<blockquote><p>"5. Conventional explosives or some other technological means could potentially account for the damage patterns cited as evidence for FGNW. Lack of deafening noise can also be explained by unconventional explosives directing energy into the building rather than air."</p></blockquote>
<p>Wrong, conventional explosives or some other technological means can not potentially account for the damage patterns cited as evidence for FGNW. And after 20 years, if they could have accounted for it [e.g., Dr. Judy Wood's book], they would have already. They would have given us details on where it was mounted, how much was mounted, etc.
<br>
<br>Now I'm confused, because you're saying the <i>"lack of deafening noise can also be explained by unconventional explosives..."</i>
<br>
<br>Please do. What explosives are those?
<br>
<br>I interrupted you: <i>"... unconventional explosives directing energy into the building rather than air."</i>
<br>
<br>I assume you are not referring to <i>"ignition outside building but output energy directed from outside into the building."</i> This is Woodsian-DEW, and neither of us is championing that (in this instance.)
<br>
<br>I assume you mean <i>"ignition inside the building and from its mounting points directing its output into the structure of the building."</i> By directing energy into the structure and not moving air in its explosions, it might lack a deafening noise as compared to a willy-nilly positioned conventional chemical-based weapon.
<br>
<br>Alas, your unconventional weapons (still probably chemical-based) somehow needs to pulverize the concrete into powder (and vaporize the metal pans and trusses supporting it, as well as office content and people on those floors), because this is what the debris pile showed.
<br>
<br>The logistics of installing unconventional (chemical-based) explosives that can pulverize concrete from all levels as one of its design features (because it was observed) is already unrealistic to implement, before we add the observed stipulations that overall decibel level is not deafening and that there are only about a dozen detonations (as describe by firefighters and others in a cadence you could count, so 1 every 10 or 20 floors of collapse wave).
<br>
<br>*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*!!! You get a prize!
<br>
<br>You mentioned <i>"an unconventional weapon"</i> that could direct its energy, yet don't describe such a weapon; your research and that on whom you rely is lacking.
<br>
<br>Guess what? FGNW are unconventional weapons in the category of DEW.
<br>
<br>// Part 5/8
<br>
<br>Part 6/8 You wrote:
<blockquote><p>"6. The arguments for nuclear devices rest on selective interpretation of evidence while ignoring issues that challenge the theory, such as lack of extreme heat, radiation, and shockwave effects. The theory relies heavily on hypothetical capabilities."</p></blockquote>
<p>Let me address the lie first. You suggest there was a lack of extreme heat in the 9/11 demolition. Can you say "arches/sags, horse-shoes, and steel doobies"? Can you say a high percentage of tiny iron spheres (found in the dust)?" Can you say "under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months"?
<br>
<br>Extreme heat was present, but when the heat wave is well under 20% of the nuclear yield (with blast wave and EMP -- which did exist) of already tactical devices, then the heat wave is not going to match the larger nukes you're thinking about.
<br>
<br>You suggest there was a lack of radiation. Yet, the reports already discussed prove this assertion wrong. Again, if fission isn't used for destructive purposes, and if neither fission nor fusion are designed for "nuclear blasts" that blow radiation everywhere, the nuclear fingerprints will not match the larger nukes you're thinking about.
<br>
<br>You suggest there was a lack of shockwave effects. The nuclear ignition did have a shockwave, but it was with the heat wave and EMP in that 20% of the nuclear yield. Although I've stated often that kick-back from the conventional kick-starter charge was observed as squibs along the face of the building 10-20 stories ahead of the debris canopy, I'd be willing to amend my opinion that the squibs were the directed blast wave from individual FGNW.
<br>
<br>However, where your statement about "lack of shockwave effect" is really off, is that when highly energetic neutrons pass through material and leave energy behind deep and throughout the molecular structure (typically in the form of heat), sometimes the leading edge (of say, metal) vaporizes so quickly that it causes a shockwave within the rest of the material that blows the material apart.
<br>
<br>The missing office furnishings, concrete floors, metal pans and trusses, from the debris pile is telling. Pulverization of all that concrete alone is a huge energy sink. FGNW have energy to spare, and overkill dustification comes about as a side-effect of the nuclear devices. Remember, NT (mixed with whatever you want) would necessitate equavalent overkill implementation and overkill logistics, so much overkill that sufficient unspent quantities could burn under the rubble for weeks.
<br>
<br>To the degree that my arguments "rest on selective interpretation of evidence", your arguments -- your NT premise that triggered this exchange -- rest on ignoring the evidence.
<br>
<br>No, your brief rebuttal relies on hypothetical capabilities that all nuclear devices are created equal.
<br>
<br>
<br>// Part 6/8
<br>
<br>Part 7/8 You wrote:
<blockquote><p>"In summary, while the article assembles some circumstantial evidence, the overall case presented does not rise to the level of concrete proof when all evidence is objectively considered. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof for nuclear devices at the WTC is very high. The arguments may merit further investigation but fall short of scientific consensus or definitive conclusions. I would recommend submitting this thesis to scholarly peer review before asserting it as confirmed fact."</p></blockquote>
<p>Each of the six points in the canned rebuttal used to justify the conclusion (of no form 9/11 nuclear involvement) were rebutted and proven non-gating. Thus, the conclusion is invalid.
<br>
<br>The rebuttal acknowledges the assembly of "some circumstantial evidence." Thank you. They are nuggets of truth. FGNW tries to address them; NT does not and cannot. This "circumstantial evidence" is not going away.
<br>
<br>Dr. David Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: <i>"None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."</i>
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof for nuclear devices at the WTC is very high."</i>
<br>
<br>Very good hypnotic suggestion.
<br>
<br>I'm not making "extraordinary claims." Nuclear devices should have been rationally and legitimately considered from the onset by e.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y. alone from the energy sink of concrete pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration while also energetically ejecting laterally large pieces of wall assembly structures.
<br>
<br>But nuclear devices were not "rationally and legitimately considered." No, nuclear considerations were given "the black-hole treatment." And the few efforts made to address not even a portion of the assembled circumstantial evidence, were found with built-in self-discrediting flaws right in their limited-scopes.
<br>
<br>The nuclear powers of the world had been improving nuclear devices for over half a century. Owing to national security, details went dark for the public. Really stiff NDA's with penalties including death for treason were signed by all who truly know, which is why they aren't here confirming or denying anything. But the DoD couldn't help itself but brag in many Hollywood movies that it provided technical advice and assistance.
<br>
<br>You hypnotically suggest that the burden of proof for nuclear devices at the WTC should be very high. Wrong. The burden of proof, also known as addressing all of the evidence, is the same for all 9/11-theory-du-jour including the Official Conspiracy Theory of gravity pile-drivers and nanothermite.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"The arguments may merit further investigation but fall short of scientific consensus or definitive conclusions."</i>
<br>
<br>Correction. The arguments do merit further investigation, because the circumstantial evidence must be addressed by any 9/11-theory-du-jour to be valid.
<br>
<br>Of course I fall short of "scientific consensus", because of those aforementioned NDAs by those in science, politics, or military and nuclear credentials. But you under estimate Dr. Andre Gsponer's work and the scientific consensus that his speculative work leaks out.
<br>
<br>Of course I fall short of "definitive conclusions," because I don't have the model numbers or actionable blue-prints of anything nuclear. I have no VPN access to nuclear research repositories. What I obtained was in the public domain through the library of my public institution of higher education, and available to anybody.
<br>
<br>// Part 7/8
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Part 8/8
<br>Of course I fall short. I am a short, bald, old, white, male, lone, nut (Blues Brother on a mission from God) on a hobby-horse topic connecting obvious nuclear data points that he expected Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to have done long ago, but finding instead the "black-hole treatment" for legitimate discussion of nuclear topics.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"I would recommend submitting this thesis to scholarly peer review before asserting it as confirmed fact."</i>
<br>
<br>That is mighty fine advice that someone else very recently gave me, where upon I acted on it immediately and submitted the URL to my FGNW Prima Facie Case to a 9/11 Research Site for some scholarly peer review.
<br>
<br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br><a href="https://ic911.org/debated-topics-forum">https://ic911.org/debated-topics-forum</a>
<br>
<br>Who knows? Maybe if the review legitimately happens and the circumstantial evidence properly acknowledged [and other as-of-to-date explanations found lacking if not evasive], a figurative nuclear trigger will spark within the 9/11 Truth Movement and result in larger public knowledge of the 9/11 nuclear deceit and in figurative nuclear fall-out and massive (career) casualties.
<br>
<br>// Part 8/8
</p>
</div><!-- section 96 -->
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_gene.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_3 -->
<a name="p4"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_4');">Part 4: FGNW Discussions with Norman Swanepoel</a></h2>
<div id="part_4" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_Norman.htm -->
<a name="x97"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x97" class="tiny">x98</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">four orphans that never get discussed WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-04</p>
<div id="sect_98" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>A WTC Orphan - Building 6
<br>There are four orphans that never get discussed WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6.
<br>Article: <a href="https://911revision.substack.com/p/a-wtc-orphan-building-6">https://911revision.substack.com/p/a-wtc-orphan-building-6</a>
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 98 -->
<a name="x99"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x99" class="tiny">x100</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">FGNW can do this</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_100" style="display: block;">
<p>Multiple tactical hybrid fission-fusion late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices can do this, but only one detonation level is needed (above the WTC-6 vaults) as opposed to many in the towers (which the poor-man's snippet is from).
<br>
<br>You get the sense, though, of the targeting cone of highly energetic neutrons can do when used in tandem.
<br>
<br>BTW, Dr. Wood misuses images such as these to have it malframed "beams from space" [whereby that and ABL are real things but economically logistically unreasonable at the scale of energy observed]. Why didn't she speculate DEW devices that were nuclear powered and mounted within the structure. Wild-ass speculation is that they could look like soft-drink refill kegs or large fire extinguishers mounted on wall brackets. For that matter, they could be observed installing mounting brackets and wiring, and save the click-in of the device into the brackets until the day of.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>Shows FGNW 4 per detonation level at WTC.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 100 -->
<a name="x101"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x101" class="tiny">x102</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">explain the survivors...</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_102" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges explain the survivors...
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 102 -->
<a name="x103"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x103" class="tiny">x104</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">there was no FGNW near or below them or it misaligned or fizzled</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_104" style="display: block;">
<p>Elementary, my dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel!
<br>
<br>(1) Notice how the cone shaped output from multiple devices is aimed? If one that was to cover that particular stairwell were to become misaligned, it could miss them completely, just like the FGNW were aimed away from the inner core (WTC towers) and away from outer-walls (WTC-6).
<br>
<br>(2) "Nuclear fizzle" is when a device does not achieve its full nuclear yield, and its possible effects runs the spectrum from "nothing" to "underground hot-spot burning for months". Nuclear fizzle can happen when a nearby or lower FGNW misalignment of, or pre-mature emission of, highly energetic neutrons hits another device messing up its ignition. [This is why "traditional" mini-nukes can't be used in tandem. But these FGNW are not your grandpa's nukes.]
<br>
<br>(3) 9/11 was not a perfect operation, as evident by WTC-7 not going down when the other buildings did, by the underground hot-spots that burned for months, by the surgical chopping of WTC-4 at the main edifice leaving the North Wing and underground gold vaults and gold loaded in a semi-trailer abandoned in the tunnels.
<br>
<br>I digress. The survivors in the stairwell survived because (a) there was no FGNW near or below them to take out that portion, (b) the FGNW near or below them was misaligned or did a nuclear fizzle and spared them.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 104 -->
<a name="x105"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x105" class="tiny">x106</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">The mostly EMPTY basements of the Twin Towers</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_106" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges The mostly EMPTY basements of the Twin Towers.
<br>Most people have been led to believe the lie that the basements were full of rubble.
<br>The mostly EMPTY basements of the Twin Towers.
<br>
<a href="https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-mostly-empty-basements-of-the">https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-mostly-empty-basements-of-the</a>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 106 -->
<a name="x107"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x107" class="tiny">x108</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">The 100 days of "smoke" at ground zero</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_108" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges The 100 days of "smoke" at ground zero.
<br>The disintegration of ALL 7 WTC prefixed buildings at the COLD rubble pile at the World Trade Center...
<br>The 100 days of "smoke" at ground zero.
<br><a href="https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-100-day-fuming-and-molecular">https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-100-day-fuming-and-molecular</a>
<br>911REVISION.SUBSTACK.COM
<br>The 100 days of "smoke" at ground zero.
<br>The 100 days of "smoke" at ground zero.
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 108 -->
<a name="x109"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x109" class="tiny">x110</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_110" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges re: survivors
<br>0:00 / 11:09
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 110 -->
<a name="x111"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x111" class="tiny">x112</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">You're posting supporting evidence for FGNW</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_112" style="display: block;">
<p>Indeed, dearest Mr. Norman Swanepoel! You're posting supporting evidence for FGNW. Thank you! //
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 112 -->
<a name="x113"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x113" class="tiny">x114</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">head out yer arse</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_114" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges read the articles, watch the vid and pull your head out yer arse.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 114 -->
<a name="x115"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x115" class="tiny">x116</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">NIST FOIA #09-42</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_116" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Enhanced Video - NIST FOIA #09-42
<br>Key time stamps:
<br>1. Ankle deep dust and paper everywhere
<br>2. Strange "burning" metal - 01:30
<br>3. Standing opposite WTC 2 - 02:00
<br>4. "Toasting" Fire truck - 03:19
<br>5. Toasted cars - 4:20
<br>6. Building 6 getting it's hole - 06:10 & 12:12
<br>7. Building 7 from top to bottom - 09:00 & 12:12
<br>8. Burst water mains, water not boiling 9:50
<br>9. Building 3 (10% left) - 10:50 & 11:43
<br>10. Windows just with outer glas, not inner glas broken 11:30
<br>To understand what you're seeing better, read: https://wheredidthetowersgo.com
<br>0:00 / 13:21
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 116 -->
<a name="x117"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x117" class="tiny">x118</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">Standing on Dr. Wood's shoulders</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_118" style="display: block;">
<p>Dearest Norman Swanepoel, Sorry for this brutally quick debunking. I was an ardent champion of Dr. Wood's book, but my 2nd and 3rd passes reading revealed the disinformation.
<blockquote><p>Dr. Wood drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, let her DEW devices get framed as "beams from space", did a monumentally shitty job of researching nuclear sources that could power her DEW more locally as opposed to from afar. She knew she wasn't the end-station and as much as said so in her preface and in a sticker on the inside cover of my book referring to <b>"look at what the evidence is telling you and not what people are saying."</b></p></blockquote>
<p>Standing on Dr. Wood's shoulders, shoring up her DEW weaknesses (nuclear power source), is how you get at FGNW:
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>Or to be brutal [again my apologies]. Dr. Wood was an disinfo agent assigned to gather all evidence of things nuclear and camp them under kooky umbrellas. She was not an end-station. Anybody with knowledge of her book or website will tell you (and Dr. Wood herself) that Dr. Wood was not an end-station. Meaning, you have to keep learning and evolve. Those stuck in the Woodsian DEW theories [although valid for Californian and Hawaiian fires; ABL and beams from space are real things, but not easily scalable for what was observed], and refuse to consider what the next level DEW from Dr. Wood's is, those are the agents.
<br>
<br>Don't be an agent. Learn and evolve. [It is okay to admit that you were duped by clever disinformation; I was too for several years.]
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 118 -->
<a name="x119"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x119" class="tiny">x120</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">FGWN is next-level Dr. Judy Wood</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_120" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel, everything listed in your comment and the evidence in the videos points towards (multiple) late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices. 80% of the yield was the highly energetic neutrons which ablated the metal pans and trusses holding the concrete that it dustified. When grazing the inner side of the wall assemblies, it made them pliable to give us steel doobies in the pile.
<br>
<br>20% of the yield was the traditional heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. My bet is that most of it was EMP, which slipped out through window slits and falling debris line of sight to various parked vehicles (like near WTC-7 and in the adjacent parking lot), where generated Eddy currents from the EMP in the metal of those vehicles causing very anomalous fires. Also to the steel belts in tires hit line-of-sight. Those steel belts would act like secondary windings of a transformer, but being only single loops, the currents generated would be excessive causing ignition of the tires.
<br>
<br>Any rate. FGWN is next-level Dr. Judy Wood. It goes where her research couldn't. Powers what her speculation couldn't. And are in the category of DEW. Don't be fighting or denying it. Learn and grow to the next level.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 120 -->
<a name="x121"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x121" class="tiny">x122</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">Looking forward to reading your RFC to NIST</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_122" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Looking forward to reading your RFC to NIST or reading your paperwork you'll be filing against NIST or the 23 subcontractors for science fraud...
<br>0:00 / 1:00
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 122 -->
<a name="x123"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x123" class="tiny">x124</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">Nukes - The distraction behind door no 3</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_124" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Nukes - The distraction behind door no 3
<br>Official narrative – Jet fuel. Option behind door no 1 – explosives, door no 2 – thermite, door no 3 – buried or mini nukes. Just don't look at where the EVIDENCE points to.
<br>Article: <a href="https://911revision.substack.com/p/nuking-the-steel-of-the-twin-towers">https://911revision.substack.com/p/nuking-the-steel-of-the-twin-towers</a>
<br>Nukes - The distraction behind door no 3
<br>911REVISION.SUBSTACK.COM
<br>
<br>0:00 / 3:07
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 124 -->
<a name="x125"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x125" class="tiny">x126</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">Magnetic Electro Gravitic Nuclear Reactions</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_126" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Magnetic Electro Gravitic Nuclear Reactions
<br>0:00 / 4:31
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 126 -->
<a name="x127"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x127" class="tiny">x128</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">your website points you try and argue is laughable</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_128" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges your website points you try and argue is laughable - now crawl back under the rock you crawled out from...
<br>0:00 / 4:42
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 128 -->
<a name="x129"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x129" class="tiny">x130</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_130');">why did the nukers never fuck the DEWers? Because they were sibling disinformation efforts,... ewww!</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_130" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel, I fully agree that nukes are the distraction behind door number 3 without even fully watching your videos. When championed as <i>"single-device per tower"</i> and exclusively deep-underground, THAT WAS DISINFORMATION.
<br>
<br>Just like Dr. Wood is disinformation.
<br>
<br>How so? How come neither nukers nor the Woodsian DEWers never debunked each other? More importantly, <b>why did the nukers never fuck the DEWers? Because they were sibling disinformation efforts,... ewww!</b>
<br>
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>Let your eyes be opened by the implications of just the abstract of the above peer-reviewed article. In fact, you need to ask yourself why Dr. Wood's in her literature review of nuclear possibilities never came across this work and others (by Dr. Andre Gsponer).
<br>
<br>Learn and evolve your opinions accordingly.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br>ARXIV.ORG
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 130 -->
<a name="x131"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x131" class="tiny">x132</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">video playlist on Directed Energy Weapons</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_132" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges You might just find this video playlist on Directed Energy Weapons rather informative.
<br><a href="https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/3A.-911-Free-energy:7">https://odysee.com/@911revisited:7/3A.-911-Free-energy:7</a>
<br>A short history on “science fiction†that's been available in the real world since the 1970's.
<br>0:00 / 0:32
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges U.S. Army Col. Tom Bearden (ret.) & John Hutchison 1996
<br>0:00 / 5:02
</p>
</div><!-- section 132 -->
<a name="x133"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x133" class="tiny">x134</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">Dr. Wood was not an end station, FGNW is the next station on down the line in the direction of Truth, riding on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_134" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel, If you are a sincere seeker of truth, you shouldn't have such antagonism to my 9/11 premises or me. Technically, FGNW are in the category of DEW.
<br>
<br>I did my research into ABL and laser satellites, and know it is valid in theory and small scale. Optics through the atmosphere and frequencies conducive to EM transfer are would debunk "beams from space." Sure, ABL can shoot down missiles and aircraft, largely by taking advantage of fuel or explosive things within the target for a piercing laser to ignite. ABL emitted targeted EM could indeed target things like vehicles, induce currents (such as steel belts in tires) sufficiently high to generate heat that ignites things. Thus, the California and Hawaii fires (and others) point to this. BUT NOT WTC, because the energy observed at the target must have been at the source, and the logistics to achieve that [e.g., using chemicals] becomes obscenely heavy to get aloft.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood's book is clever disinformation, but I cherish it for the nuggets of truth. All 9/11 theories-du-jour need to address them to be valid. FGNW does.
<br>
<br>Open your eyes.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood was not an end station, and my FGNW premise is simply the next station on down the line in the direction of Truth, riding on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work.
<br>
<br>Learn. Evolve your understanding.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 134 -->
<a name="x135"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x135" class="tiny">x136</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">THE FIRES OF PROPAGANDA</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_136" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges THE FIRES OF PROPAGANDA
<br><br>The continuous fuming was the natural, resultant effect of the breaking down of solid matter into isolated particles.
<br><br>From a visual perspective, the heavy fuming appeared to be the result of the “towering infernos†that were being described through the news reporting. Although fire teams, working inside the towers right up to the moments of destruction, had not found any fire whatsoever in the floors below the initial damage zones.
<br><br>After the destruction, these fictional propaganda fires were extended into all of the floors below the initial damage zones.
<br><br>As the fuming continued, the propaganda technicians used the effect to great advantage. However, when the rescue teams went down into the sub-street basement levels of the complex, they did not experience any fires or molten metal.
<br><br>Even the air in these lower levels was not filled with particles from either fire, or from molecular dissociation.
<br><br>The source of the “on-going fires†was therefore limited to the material that was above the street level decking. Topside visual evidence shows no such fire (excepting the strange clumps of concentrated synthetic fires laying on top of the wreckage.
<br><br>There were no underground fires!
<br><br>Once this is realized, it is then possible to understand more about the propaganda approach to the coverup.
<br><br>As always all of the details of the thermal-energy coverup is conveniently shared by the LEVEL-TWO engineered truth!
<br><br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DnIp8384fo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DnIp8384fo</a>
<br>
<br>RA -006. THE FIRES OF PROPAGANDA THAT BURNED UNDERGROUND FOR MONTHS.
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 136 -->
<a name="x137"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x137" class="tiny">x138</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');">Hop aboard my 9/11 hobby-horse, because it is the DEW that Dr. Wood alludes to but could not achieve</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_138" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel, my 9/11 hobby-horse premise involves per tower 6 to 20 detonation levels each with four FGNW devices. Emitted neutrons from one device, through misalignment during ignition or pre-mature ignition, can cause "nuclear fizzle" in neighboring FGNW. Nuclear fizzle is when a device doesn't meet its expected nuclear yield and runs the spectrum from nothing to "under-rubble hot-spots burning for weeks."
<br>
<br>WTC-7 is glaring proof in not going down with the rest of the complex that the operation was not 100% according to plan.
<br>
<br>Fizzled nukes is another example.
<br>
<br>That any aircraft parts at the WTC were recovered, like landing gear and engines from having gone through the building, because they could not be serial number identified as belonging to the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br>
<br>Hop aboard my 9/11 hobby-horse, because it is the DEW that Dr. Wood alludes to but -- owing to massive personal pressuring involving employment and even the life of an associated student -- could not achieve without great personal risk.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 138 -->
<a name="x139"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x139" class="tiny">x140</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_140');">eagerly await your RFC or suit filed against NIST</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_140" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I eagerly await your RFC or suit filed against NIST or the 23 subcontractors for SCIENCE FRAUD.
<br>0:00 / 1:00
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 140 -->
<a name="x141"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x141" class="tiny">x142</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_142');">the suit you desire against NIST or the 23 subcontractors was in the direct purview of AE9/11Truth</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_142" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel, the suit you desire against NIST or the 23 subcontractors was in the direct purview of AE9/11Truth.
<br>
<br>Standing is also an issue for bringing the suit, which Dr. Wood knows now but should have known before she tried to bring suit and get it thrown out for not having standing. It was all just a game, and it prevented it double-jeopardy from being brought up again.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 142 -->
<a name="x143"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x143" class="tiny">x144</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_144');">You have been found wanting</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_144" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges go away shill - you have nothing to add except b/s - You have been found wanting. Without a RFC or a filed suit against NIST or the 23 subcontractors, you're NOTHING but wind.
</p>
</div><!-- section 144 -->
<a name="x145"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x145" class="tiny">x146</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_146');">so you go away</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_146" style="display: block;">
<p>Correction, dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel. This may be your posting, but my thread that you engaged me on, so you go away.
<br>
<br>And please, stop your shilly projections. Real people who think have the ability to change their minds when presented with new information or analysis.
<br>
<br>Agents and ChatGPT-bots are monetarily or algorithmically prevented from changing their minds no matter how their premise gets disabused and no matter how much the new information or analysis is so much better.
<br>
<br>I presented you with the next-level Woodsian-DEW that can be properly powered, installed, and ignited to achieve the evidence collected in Dr. Wood's book, the USGS dust survey, David Chandler physics videos, etc.
<br>
<br>You chose defending limited-hang-out disinformation instead of expanding your understanding with the keys that turn that same "limited-hang-out disinformation" into damning nuggets of truth.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 146 -->
<a name="x147"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x147" class="tiny">x148</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_148');">WTC-4 video with Dr. Wood</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_148" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges BUILDING FOUR - NOW YOU SEE IT... NOW YOU DON'T
<br>Both levels of the coverup (the Official U.S. governmental experts, and the LEVEL-TWO the architects for an engineered 9/11 truth) have evaded the astonishing disappearance of the north wi… See more
<br>0:00 / 20:47
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 148 -->
<a name="x149"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x149" class="tiny">x150</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_150');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_150" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel, That video of WTC-4 is totally awesome! Yes, we can certainly give Dr. Judy Wood credit for calling our attention to WTC-4. It had gold vaults underneath it that were in the process of being robbed.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, because FGNW are technically in the category of DEW, have a handy nuclear source, can be targeted, can be aimed away from street level and gold vaults underneath it,... achieves the aim of the operation with more precision that beams from space.
<br>
<br>Thank you again. I'll be sharing it to my wall.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 150 -->
<a name="x151"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x151" class="tiny">x152</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_152');">You're a fucking idiot</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_152" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Maxwell Bridges You're a fucking idiot.
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 152 -->
<a name="x153"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x153" class="tiny">x154</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_154');">stop projecting onto me</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_154" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel, Please stop projecting onto me. I'm not the one stuck at a limited hang-out that "connects no dots and draws no conclusions" and is seen as a strength by its champions, rather than as a clear sign "not an end station, keep going."
<br>
<br>I'm not the one who can't see that FGNW are precisely the DEW weapons that Dr. Wood purposely -- in a black hole fashion -- could not mention. She could mention other kooky stuff and not power her speculation with anything real-world, but she couldn't say "we nuked ourselves." She wanted others to stand on her shoulders, and not be satisfied with what she offered the world.
<br>
<br>Evolve. It is okay to change your mind when presented with new information that actually validates and realizes the anomalies you've been championing from Dr. Wood's book. [For sure, NT can't address them.]
<br>
<br>FGNW is the devil's offspring of Woodsian DEW and nukers. Very much a real thing.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 154 -->
<a name="x155"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x155" class="tiny">x156</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_156');">behind door no 3 🤡</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_156" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges nukes, the distraction behind door no 3 🤡
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 156 -->
<a name="x157"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x157" class="tiny">x158</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_158');">Your ChatGPT algorithms have reached their limits</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_158" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel, Your ChatGPT algorithms have reached their limits. Here's a test.
<br>
<br>In the following blog article, identify the images that came from Dr. Wood's book/website.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>And while you're there, see the new context that the Wood's evidence is placed in. YOU'LL GET A KICK OUT OF THE COMMENTS, because a Woodsian DEWer probably more Woodsian than you also gave a performance proving that -- without improvement/next-level speculation -- Woodsian DEW is distraction behind door no 2.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 158 -->
<a name="x159"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x159" class="tiny">x160</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_160');">Thank you for the great videos and reference material</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_160" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel, Mr. Norman Swanepoel, and Mr. Norman Swanepoel, Allow me to thank you most kindly for all of the great videos and reference material that you posted in furtherance of Woodsian-DEW.
<br>
<br>Alas, because Dr. Wood connected no dots and drew no conclusions, all of that fine evidence goes in support of late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices of a hybrid fission-fusion nature ala Dr. Andre Gsponer (a major omission from Dr. Wood's literature review into nuclear devices).
<br>
<br>FGNW stands on the shoulders of Dr. Wood and advances the DEW truth to the proper level: nuclear.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 160 -->
<a name="x161"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x161" class="tiny">x162</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_162');">door no 3 🤡</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_162" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges nukes, the distraction behind door no 3 🤡
</p>
</div><!-- section 162 -->
<a name="x163"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x163" class="tiny">x164</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_164');">an inability to see that FGNW completes Woodsian DEW and makes it whole</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_164" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Norman Swanepoel, Twitter-length comment. Longer comments were copy-and-past. Repetitive responses demonstrating an inability to comprehend opposing arguments, an inabilility to follow links, three FB profiles...
<br>
<br>WORST OF ALL, an inability to see that FGNW completes Woodsian DEW and makes it whole, or at least more whole than where Dr. Wood left it in non-concluding-cul-de-sacs.
<br>
<br>Your ChapGPT ways have outlasted me.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 164 -->
<a name="x165"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x165" class="tiny">x166</a>
Norman Swanepoel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">No, sweetie</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_166" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Maxwell Bridges No, sweetie, it boils down to something rather simple. Where's your RFC to NIST?
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 166 -->
<a name="x167"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x167" class="tiny">x168</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">"RFC to NIST" is your hobby-horse. My hobby-horse is 9/11 FGNW</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-18</p>
<div id="sect_168" style="display: block;">
<p>Dearest Mr. honey-cakes Norman Swanepoel with the ever twerking cabouse! It boils to something even more simple. "RFC to NIST" is your hobby-horse. My hobby-horse is 9/11 FGNW and awakening the duped 9/11 Truthers, particularly Woodsian-DEWers, the deep-underground Nukers, the NTers...
<br>
<br>Your matron-saint of 9/11 in her glorious works did not draw any conclusions. Many a Woodsian-DEW champion has flung that in my face as a "strength" of her work, despite it being a weakness. She explicitly wrote to listen to what the evidence is telling you, not what others (Dr. Wood included) are saying. That was the Easter Egg that you completely missed. Multiple times in her work, by rights and momentum of the research, it was leading towards obvious nuclear conclusions before her wheel was cranked steering it into the weeds.
<br>
<br>Because she had no conclusions -- a strength --, sincere truth seekers, ever valuing Dr. Wood's contribution, are duty-bound to keep their eyes open to mechanisms that can address what the evidence is telling us: the next level Woodsian-DEW that she was threatened and warned off of.
<br>
<br>This is exactly what FGNW is: it fulfills Dr. Judy Wood's prophecy!
<br>
<br>But because you are a ChapGPT bot, you can't follow links let alone let information from those unsanctioned locations affect your agenda. An agenda limited to supporting a purposeful disinfo limited hang-out. You repeat "RFC to NIST" in bot fashion, as if that were a real thing as opposed to learning, growing, evolving.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 168 -->
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_Norman.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_4 -->
<!-- End the page here -->
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
</body>
</html>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-23160331240431519952023-10-01T22:11:00.002-07:002023-11-04T23:32:09.922-07:00McKee and Orbitals
<!-- McKee and Orbitals -->
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
// window.location.hash = id;
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function getURLParam(strParamName){
var strReturn = "";
var strHref = window.location.href;
if ( strHref.indexOf("?") > -1 ){
var strQueryString = strHref.substr(strHref.indexOf("?")).toLowerCase();
var aQueryString = strQueryString.split("&");
for ( var iParam = 0; iParam < aQueryString.length; iParam++ ){
if (aQueryString[iParam].indexOf(strParamName.toLowerCase() + "=") > -1 ){
var aParam = aQueryString[iParam].split("=");
strReturn = aParam[1];
// alert(strReturn);
break;
}
}
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
// alert(strReturn);
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
// alert(myTarget);
if (myTarget == "-false-") {
areaHideAll("part_");
areaHideAll("sect_");
} else {
areaHideAll("sect_");
areaShowAll("part_");
sectionShow(myTarget);
// location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<p>This article re-publishes Facebook exchanges from people associated with Mr. Craig McKee through his social media presence and blog. </p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
<a name="p1"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_1');">Part 1: Adam Syed on Adam Ruff</a></h2>
<div id="part_1" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20200329_MCB_FB_SyedRuff_01.htm -->
<a name="x1"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x1" class="tiny">x2</a>
Adam Syed : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">Adam Ruff Comment to unfriend now</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-29</p>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10222506661154940">https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10222506661154940</a>
<br>
<br>Adam Syed, screenshot of Adam Ruff comment.
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>"Oh give me a break Jesus Christ Adam socialism is a disaster and as anti American Constitution as a system can possibly get. Individual liberty is the opposite of socialism. Anyway we are way past the time for arguing about which NWO puppet to vote for now. Martial law in many states is being rolled out to save us all from what? The flue. Over the flue we are going to destroy the entire world economy and plunge the world into chaos and desperate poverty and you are trying to promote fucking Bernie Sanders? What the hell is wrong with your brain man? Just unfriend me now."</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>Bye!
</p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name="x3"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x3" class="tiny">x4</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">a blow-hard, poor researcher, and misinformed</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-29</p>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Adam Syed, I have my own experiences with Mr. Adam Ruff that led me to conclude he is nothing but a blow-hard, poor researcher, and misinformed.
<br>
<br>His comment "individual liberty is the opposite of socialism" is just so wrong.
<br>
<br>Starters: Nobody is talking about socialism, but democratic socialism.
<br>
<br>Likewise, it is wrong to equate "individual liberty" with capitalism, and if you've ever worked for an employer, you'd know there's no "individual liberty" there except what the executives get away with.
<br>
<br>What made discussions with Mr. Ruff particularly fruitless were his bragging about not reading my comments, much less the sources that substantiated them.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff is a proud high school graduate who had a failing business that sold "rare earth" to people on line. His business model was to travel to various national parks (or Area 51, etc.), scoop up some dirt, put it in small fancy bottles at home, and sell these souvenirs online. Wow. He had other great stories he shared.
<br>
<br>Back in the day of Truth and Shadows, I suspect that Mr. Ruff and Mr. HybridRogue1 (aka Willy Whitten) were somehow related as sockpuppets. Mr. Rogue may have been AWright, arguing from both sides of the net with himself.
<br>
<br>Needless to say, Mr. Ruff won't FB friend me.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 4 -->
<a name="x5"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x6</a>
Robert Olinger : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">a 'flu' that has a 2% chance of killing you</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-29</p>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: block;">
<p>So this guy does not understand political science, science, math, or public health...He thinks he understands the economy, but has yet to ask the question "who is going to participate in an economy where going outside regularly will guarantee you get a 'flu' that has a 2% chance of killing you, plus if anything else happens where you need to see a doctor...they are all busy with the 'flu'?" Hint--people will self-quarantine.
</p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x7" class="tiny">x8</a>
Adam Syed : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">proud high school (barely) graduate</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-29</p>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: block;">
<p><br>Not only does he not understand those things, he is, as Maxwell Bridges said, a "proud high school graduate," and to be honest, even his high school education does not seem to be that strong. Anytime an opportunity exists to get a word wrong, such as their vs there, respectful vs respective, capital vs capitol, etc, he gets it wrong each and every single time.
<br>
<br>But, those climate scientists are engaged in a left wing propaganda program with their scientific, or as Ruff would say, "scientific," papers. And he, in all his wisdom, can see through all this propaganda because he has the lucidity to recognize that the sun and only the sun causes climate change.
</p>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x9" class="tiny">x10</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">hypocrisy against his own grand statements about how real / sincere truthers should behave</a></b></p>
<p>2020-03-29</p>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Adam Syed, the error that he (and Mr. Rogue) would constantly get wrong was accusing my online comments of being slander! I kept telling him: "libel is written, and slander is verbal, therefore even if what I wrote was defamation [it wasn't defamation because it could be substantiated], it could never be slander."
<br>
<br>Also, I pointed out several times that sophomore English writing class (high school) cautioned us against using "all/none" over-generalizations, because it only took one exception to defeat the entire argument.
<br>
<br>What pissed me off the most about Mr. Ruff was his hypocrisy. He'd come up with these grand statements about how real / sincere truthers should behave (e.g., open to both sides, ability to read alleged substantiation from both sides, open to a back-and-forth, responding to criticism). Then I would quote Mr. Ruff back to himself and prove him a glaring hypocrite and "not debating in good faith."
<br>
<br>He boasted of having the best debunking of Dr. Wood (and nuclear means), and I put his feet to the fire and made him prove it... And he didn't attempt it.
<br>
<br>To me, Mr. Ruff's bad behavior went beyond ego, because rational people would at least be able to admit that (a) because they hadn't or weren't willing to research it, they weren't well informed or (b) the abundance of arguments, which they couldn't refute, at least put them back on the fence on some subject.
<br>
<br>No! It was the "stiltedness" with which they could not admit even "human failing" in understanding a given topic. It screamed "(agency) agenda driven."
<br>
<br>In one of his rules rants about disinformation discovery and then discarding all from that source, I made an amendment. Discovery of disinformation from a given source does not immediately discredit all that came from that source, but it does necessitate a review of old shit that came from that source and a new evaluation on each items' validity promoted by that source.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 10 -->
<!-- ***** 20200329_MCB_FB_SyedRuff_01.htm -->
<!-- ***** 20200831_MCB_FB_syed_01.htm -->
<a name="x11"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x11" class="tiny">x12</a>
Adam Syed : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">pseudoscience were exhibited in the US government's investigation</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/adam.syed.92/posts/10224260512320123">2020-08-31</a></p>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: block;">
<p>All six characteristics of pseudoscience were exhibited in the US government's investigation into what happened on September 11th, 2001. #science
<br><a href="https://digwithin.net/2015/02/15/science-died-wtc/">https://digwithin.net/2015/02/15/science-died-wtc/</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x13" class="tiny">x14</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">Facebook, an arm of the NDAA propaganda machi</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: block;">
<p>Hate to have to say it, but AE9/11 Truth continued this anti-science trend to keep the 9/11 Truth Movement at limited hangouts. I've got lots of details available upon request, but the starting point is that they accepted unquestioned and unchallenged the "official" reports of others that had issues ranging from scope limits to shoddy sampling [e.g., tritium report]. ... One of their more recent un-scientific moves (FAQ#13/#15) was to lamely attempt to debunk "all forms of 9/11 nuclear device" by framing the destruction as "nuclear blasts." Fail.
<br><br>When I ride my lonely "Nookiedoo" hobby-horse into discussions (the name was coined in battle by a HybridRogue sockpuppet in Truth and Shadows), three types of participants emerge.
<br><br>(1) The sincere who had never seen the evidence compiled and built into a different theory stack with fewer gaps.
<br><br>(2) The science challenged NT yeomen suffering from cognitive dissonance and failing to realize that even their beloved AE9/11Truth group can be infiltrated and controlled; owing to the dissonance, it literally pains their well-meaning brains to acknowledge the glaring weaknesses of NT in account for all of the evidence, particularly the anomalous kind that AE9/11Truth completely ignored.
<br><br>(3) This being Facebook and an arm of the NDAA propaganda machine, the vast majority of discussion opponents are agent-bots with an agenda, and destroying attempts at unfolding truth is key to controlling the message. They're the ones immediately spamming the thread with memes and belittling one-liners probably served up from databases.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x15" class="tiny">x16</a>
Adam Syed : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">AE911TRUTH say NT was used in combination</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: block;">
<p>I am quite sure that AE911TRUTH does NOT say that only nanothermite was involved. They say that it was used in combination with more conventional explosives. Whether you are correct or not in your theory that mini nukes were involved, it is important here for readers to understand that all of us agree that the official story is bogus. Namely, the story that the damage from the aircraft impacts as well as the ensuing fires were what collapsed the buildings, and that falling debris from those buildings made Building 7 catch on fire and cause it to collapse. (Much of your comment, with its acronyms and abbreviations, will be Greek to 99/100 of my readers.)
</p>
</div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x17" class="tiny">x18</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">AE911Truth's deceit was not following science</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. <b>Adam Syed</b>,
<br><br>Your first sentence is a great example of another fraud committed by AE911Truth. Namely, if they say NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction and other things were used, then their scientific deceit is stopping analysis there without pin-pointing what else was used.
<br><br>Moreover, NT in any combination with more conventional explosives was debunked by Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST with a straight face and no lying ticks... He knew what was really used and it wasn't NT/conventional-explosives, because such would have been absolutely deafening to survivors within 1/4-1/2 of a mile; hearing loss was not one of the medical conditions of the survivors. Plus, NT with or without conventional explosives does not go the distance in accounting for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without implying obscenely massive quantities ~UNSPENT~ from their original pulverizing purpose. That dog don't hunt for Occam Razor.
<br><br>So AE911Truth's deceit was not following science and truth to where it really led.
<br><br>The fingerprints of nuclear involvement leak out of all reports, like the USGS analysis of the dust. It shows in its data tables Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities (indicating fission), while of course they never plain-text explain why these would be measured. Those same data tables don't show nanothermite or things conventional explosives. And let's not forget the scope-limited tritium report and how it re-defined what trace levels were.
<br><br>For those unaware, the "squibs" preceding the destruction wave were not conventional ones, because otherwise, they would have have been more symmetric and common. No, the squibs were the conventional charge used to kick-start the fission-trigger phase of the FGNW, neither designed for destruction. The fission-trigger generates the heat for fusion. Fusion releases its highly energetic neutrons in a targeting cone generally aimed upwards. Four FGNW per detonation level aimed upwards to miss the inner core; detonation levels every 10-20 floors. Look at how the top-20 floors accordion in on themselves at 65% gravitational acceleration and a cloud of dust.
<br><br>Tritium is the building block of all fourth generation nuclear weapons, and boy are their stories about the government's song and dance to keep 15-year half-life tritium available in its stores for weapons. ("Tritium on Ice" goes into the gory political details.)
<br><br>Here is the major omission from the works of Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood.
<br><br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br><br>Dr. Andre Gsponer has not written a single word about 9/11. But I took his work and I have.
<br><br><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br><br>WHY DOES DESTRUCTION MECHANISMS MATTER?
<br><br>Imagine a domestic stabbing in a household kitchen. Version A. Suspect was battered by victim; fearing for her life, she reached for her Cutco serated knife from its wood block on the counter, and defended herself. Version B. Suspect had a hobby of forging knives in a little kiln in the garage, machining the blade, and spending countless hours sharpening into a fine blade. The victim looked like he had been run through a large sewing machine, too many stab wounds to count. MEANS DO MATTER!
<br><br>//
<br><br>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br><br>ARXIV.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x20</a>
Adam Syed : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">stretching to say that AE is engaging in fraud</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br><br>I really think that it is stretching to say that AE is engaging in fraud. You also use the word "deceit." That implies intentionality.
<br><br>In case you lost sight of the big picture, the main goal of AE is their petition. They have succeeded in getting well over 3000 (so far) architects and engineers design a controversial petition that states that the official account of 9/11 is false. by signing this petition they have put their credibility and careers on the line. They are by far the most effective public outreach organization the movement has; for you to come into this thread and casts doubt on the credibility of the organization does not help me as far as me trying to reach a more general audience. It's one thing to bring the stuff up at the truth and shadows blog, but it really doesn't help the situation here. The average person would read this thread and be like "see, they can't even agree among themselves, what a joke they are!"
</p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x22</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">gives me no pleasure to call AE out for deceit</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_22" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. <b>Adam Syed</b>,
<br><br>I happen to be one of the 3,000 signers of their petition, and my qualifications were vetted. It gives me no pleasure to call AE out for deceit. But the theme of this discussion is "science dying at the WTC", and through AE's actions there is pretty conclusive proof that they, too, were controlling the message.
<br><br>Why? If the public were to get any solid whiff of "nuclear anything" on 9/11 in any great measure, then the figurative nuclear fall-out could still be felt today on institutions and leadership. (Combine it with Epstein and other vices, and their beloved status quo and their souls would go up in a mushroom cloud.)
<br><br>Remember 9/11 blogger? Mr. McKee was banned real quick, but I was never even granted admission to talk this subject. And it was there that Dr. Jones proclaimed: "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT". Yet, no research was spent looking for that something else, on purpose. Science dying at the WTC.
<br><br>Do you recall how Mr. HybridRogue1 and Mr. Adam Ruff would go bat-shit crazy at even the slightest off-hand one-off comments about "Neu Nookiedoo"? Par for the course with the NDAA propaganda aimed at us and the Cass Sunstein cognitive infiltration of online forums.
<br><br>I have zero problems being proven wrong. But ain't nobody done that. Done everything but. Good thing I save my work so I can offer up example after example of people arguing deceitfully.
<br><br>9/11 Truthers like to joke about the cognitive dissonance in the general population who have never questioned the OCT. Well, 9/11 Truthers believing in nanothermite and unwilling to see its glaring weaknesses in being able to describe all of the evidence suffer from probably even greater cognitive dissonance, because maybe they spent years already championing it, and what a loss for their efforts, eh?
<br><br>Dr. David Ray Griffin, the patron saint of 9/11 Truth who showed us how to debunk the debunkers, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored." AE9/11Truth violated this principle handily.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x24</a>
Adam Syed : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">intra-movement stuff best discussed behind closed doors</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_24" style="display: block;">
<p>My view: this is intra-movement stuff that is best discussed behind closed doors (9/11 specific sites). It does not help the cause of 9/11 truth to air all this laundry in front of an audience of general readers. Of my roughly 1,000 friends on here, probably at least 800 to 850 of them believe the official story, and these kinds of threads do not help get through to them.
</p>
</div><!-- section 24 -->
<a name="x25"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x25" class="tiny">x26</a>
Adam Syed : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">waking up the public is not a "hobby horse"</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: block;">
<p>You have referred to your specific theory as your "hobby horse."
<br><br>That's fine, but waking up the public to the fact that the official story is false is not a "hobby horse" for me. It is a call of duty, and one that has been met with a lot of ridicule and ostracization.
</p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x28</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">taking ownership of the ridicule</a></b></p>
<p>2020-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. <b>Adam Syed</b>,
<br><br>I've been sincere, respectful, articulate, ~and~ ON-TOPIC, and kept this to a thread that readers have to bore into to follow. Certainly, I can see your point in the light of how much disinformation was created and fed into the 9/11 discussions, from NPT at the WTC to holograms to deep underground nukes to DEW beams from space to pancakes to crush-down...
<br><br>I call myself a religious fanatic; I'm fanatical about Truth. When 9/11 Truth doesn't follow truth where it needs to go, ... well, what then? It is my "call of duty, and one that has been met with a lot of ridicule and ostracization."
<br><br>I just don't mind using Jujitzu and taking ownership of the ridicule aimed at me and turning it into my armor (God told me to "embrace it", el-oh-el). "Neu nookiedoo hobby-horse" wasn't my coinage. [Stands for "neutron nuclear-DEW" and my niche area I observed being poorly and under-served in the 9/11 truth movement. I have personally debunked the nukers-deep-underground and the Woodsian DEWers, and AE's lame attempt to debunk nuclear involvement, by malframing and scope limiting.]
<br><br>Mr. Craig McKee also talks about not caring about "what" or "how", but "that" controlled demolition happened and getting public awareness of this is job number 1.
<br><br>The disconnect here is that "nuclear 9/11" could very well be that klaxon call to get that public awareness, to fire up the people: "Those same damn Zionists and pedophiles in places of power in our government deployed nuclear devices against us, its citizens, on 9/11, and those not actively involved jumped on the bandwagon to cover it up and march us into Israeli wars."
<br><br>This is the missing piece and the catalyst for you that you don't see, and is reason enough even cherished 9/11 Truth groups -- like the BLM/antifa protests -- were infiltrated and controlled. Not an exception for the military strategies of controlling the public discourse. Why else would a professor of public myths be called to be the executive of the 9/11 Commission Report?
<br><br>I may be riding a one-trick pony, but that don't make it wrong. The only thing wrong... you still aren't convinced and there is doubt you've even reviewed my works. (The agent-bot detractors regularly get their integrity dinged for this failing of not reviewing what substantiates the FGNW premise.)
<br><br>I'm saying, the 9/11 FGNW can help you in your quest, if you'd get over your cognitive dissonance and let it.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<!-- ***** 20200831_MCB_FB_syed_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_1 -->
<a name="p2"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_2');">Part 2: MCB Mullings on Opus</a></h2>
<div id="part_2" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20210217_MCB_Mckee_01.htm -->
<a name="x29"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x30</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">my 9/11 opus, the pinnacle of my life's work?</a></b></p>
<p>2021-02-17</p>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. McKee, Soliciting your opinion at the end.
<br>
<br>Backstory: My abject procrastination on finishing my 9/11 Opus -- the pinnacle of my life's work (outside of family and profession) -- has been lifted. I'm now reasoning how the pieces should be fit together and the scope. Motivation has come from several directions, not the least of which is that this is the 20th anniversary year of 9/11.
<br>
<br>Alas, that alone is going to make it hard for my humble efforts to get noticed amidst what will be surely a parade of 9/11 Truth and Propaganda pieces.
<br>
<br>On top of the 20th anniversary, this year is the 40th anniversary of the class of 1981, where I plan to attend the celebrations of two different high schools with whom I was associated growing up. [Coincidence that they happen within a week of each other including the 9/11 weekend?]
<br>
<br>A truism of good books, theatre, movies, and music, is that if you remain true to yourself -- the characters, the culture, and the environment -- and if you aim at the audience from that environment, the work and its truth naturally resonate to audiences well outside that environment. [I'll not bore you with a list of Netflix films or music from other cultures and languages that bear this out.]
<br>
<br>My plan for the 40th high school reunions was simply to have business cards for my online persona with URLs to my work. If an opportunity arose in the re-acquaintance rituals to tell of my conspiracy theory hobbies, I could keep the conversation short and painless, hand them my "conspiracy" card, and have my larger body of work speak (crazy) for itself.
<br>
<br>Yet, the gears in my head were turning. My website and blog efforts have always had a future audience in mind: my unborn and unknown descendants. "See! Your great grandpappy was woke on things, and maybe was only crazy in his persistence."
<br>
<br>The 40th reunion, however, presents an opportunity to expand the target audience for my 9/11 opus to my former classmates. The new underlying goal of the writing would be to convince those classmates to question official accounts. IF I GOT REALLY PERSONAL in my evolution into a conspiracy theorist, I believe I'd hold the interests of my descendants and these curious classmates. Moreover, its sincerity and truth could raise the work to attract a wider audience and make it stand out amidst all of the other 20th anniversary 9/11 tripe.
<br>
<br>Your thoughts on this new approach for my 9/11 opus, the pinnacle of my life's work?
<br>
<br>Is going personal a worthy strategy? Would it set it apart?
<br>
<br>I was going to make a narrative on my thinking over time, how I got involved, what disinformation duped me and how I overcame it, etc. Embedded in between with "expand/collapse" hooks, I'd supply my substantiating references, full-text if possible, to make the opus a real rabbit-hole with multiple forks to skim and explore. Other than the narrative portion, the intent isn't to get the audience to read from A-Z through all substantiating forks of the rabbit-hole. The intent is to make content available as a reference, and to prove "hey, I'm not making this up! Here are the receipts!"
<br>
<br>All the best,
<br>
<br>// mcb
</p>
</div><!-- section 30 -->
<!-- ***** 20210217_MCB_Mckee_01.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_2 -->
<a name="p3"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_3');">Part 3: Controll Opposition Alex Jones</a></h2>
<div id="part_3" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202206_mcb_ControlledOpposition.htm -->
<a name="x31"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x31" class="tiny">x32</a>
Matt Landmann : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">is Alex Jones controlled opposition? How about Joe Rogan?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-16</p>
<div id="sect_32" style="display: block;">
<p>Matt Landmann,
<br>June 16, 2021 [1 Year ago] is Alex Jones controlled opposition? How about Joe Rogan? Asking for a friend.
</p>
</div><!-- section 32 -->
<a name="x33"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x33" class="tiny">x34</a>
Angi Madama Huff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">Alex Jones is not</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-16</p>
<div id="sect_34" style="display: block;">
<p>Alex Jones is not . He has paid a heavy price
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 34 -->
<a name="x35"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x35" class="tiny">x36</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_36');">everything in this day and age is or has some measure of disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-16</p>
<div id="sect_36" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Angi Madama Huff, Everybody who aspires to be a <i>"clearing house of conspiracy theories"</i> will always have some degree of disinformation along for the ride, in part because it is easy to get duped by, but mostly because the goal is to get consumer eyeballs/ears to the commercials which pay the bills. The content itself? In walking the talk about being open-minded, the interviewer doesn't have to be the mindset of the conspiracy theory (hiding the disinformation), possibly provided and defended by an interviewee; and bonus if the interviewer manages to debunk it. Any conspiracy theory slipped in to the programming appeals to the viewing audiences and fills that particular news cycle. That is business.
<br>
<br>Alex Jones, Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Wood (and her biggest follower, Andrew Johnson), and many others have fallen into this trap. To give themselves more to peddle and be a reason for visitors to come, sometimes their product catalog included things that they probably didn't fully believe, but also didn't want to be the one gate-keeping on it in case it really was important.
<br>
<br>More to the point, everything it seems in this day and age (and underscored by the Republicans even before Trump and the Democrats) is or has some measure of disinformation.
<br>
<br>Even AE9/11Truth -- so near and dear my heart -- is controlled opposition [details upon request] for the deliberate suppression of some fundamental 9/11 Truths.
<br>
<br>Controlled opposition can promote disinformation even in an individual assumption or various barred rabbit-hole branches near the base of the conspiracy theory. For instance, a flaw in the vaccine debate on both sides is the assumption on the effectiveness of modern medicine even before the science on vaccines is discussed (and proved wanting.) Another instance, AE9/11Truth assumes that 9/11 had no nuclear components, so therefore did a shitty job of trying to debunk nuclear involvement by limiting their scope from the get-go to "nuclear blasts" and no mention of neutron bombs of old, let alone their offspring fourth generation nuclear weapons.
<br>
<br>So, yes, Alex Jones and Joe Rogan will both have had their moments when they were used.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 36 -->
<!-- ***** 202206_mcb_ControlledOpposition.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_3 -->
<a name="p4"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_4');">Part 4: Eric Sandstrom</a></h2>
<div id="part_4" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202207_mcb_fgnw_sandsrom.htm -->
<a name="x37"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x37" class="tiny">x38</a>
Eric Sandstrom : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_38');">the evil force that did 9/11 is the same evil force that brought the 9/11 truth movement</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-</p>
<div id="sect_38" style="display: block;">
<p>David Chandler alive and well when it comes to his fraudulent stand at the Pentagon. Even though this link https://truthandshadows.com/.../coste-chandler-fraud.../ rightly comes against David and tells the truth about David Chandler and Wayne Coste's fraudulent work, don't be mistaken Craig McKee/"truth and shadows" is all part of the sham, purposed confusion/disunity under the guise of 9/11 truth. "¢published just now:
<br> "¢ <a href="https://youtu.be/zBRPFFMei1c">https://youtu.be/zBRPFFMei1c</a>
<br>PS
<br> With all my 9/11 post lately the underlying theme is that I'm believing the same evil force that did 9/11 is the same evil force that brought the 9/11 truth movement, with its purposed disunity & confusion re Shanksville and the Pentagon as if we can't see clearly that no plane hit either location. There is complicity under the guise of 9/11 truth. I believe Richard Gage and many others could speak about this but do not. As *Claudio Marty (*I am the face of truth) said: (who by the way is also complicit) "the agent (SHILL) is right in front of us"
</p>
</div><!-- section 38 -->
<a name="x39"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x39" class="tiny">x40</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">if Mr. Chandler misrepresents one aspect of 9/11, then he might be misrepresenting others</a></b></p>
<p>2022-07-</p>
<div id="sect_40" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eric Sandstrom, I'm up to speed on the issues with the Pentagon, although it isn't my hobby-horse. Various translations of a Biblical New Testament were <i>"Faithful in the small; faithful in the large"</i> and <i>"unfaithful in the small; unfaithful in the large."</i>
<br>
<br>Meaning if Mr. Chandler misrepresents one aspect of 9/11, then he might be misrepresenting others.
<br>
<br>Turns out, FGNW is my hobby-horse that I sincerely solicited assistance from high school physics teacher (Mr. Chandler) to vet or debunk. In fact, when I was briefly in the Woodsian DEW camp, I purchased and had sent to Mr. Chandler (with his permission) his own copy of Dr. Judy Wood's book so that we could be on the same literal page when debunking it (or vetting it).
<br>
<br>[Spoiler: On my own, I proved Dr. Wood's book disinformation. She drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, can't power her theories with anything real world (that wasn't nuclear), allowed it to be framed as "beams from space", and did a shitty job of nuclear research. Oh, but the pictorial evidence she collects, precious nuggets of truth, remain.]
<br>
<br>Mr. Chandler declined to provide any assistance, although he's quick to call it disinformation. When my theories evolved to FGNW, Mr. Chandler avoids the discussion, claiming he doesn't have the physics background to participate even though he does; he had the requisite classes to get his degree and can easily refresh his knowledge.
<br>
<br>The point is, from a direction different than the Pentagon plane (namely FGNW at the WTC), Mr. Chandler proved himself deceitful.
<br>
<br>As for Mr. Wayne Coste, he ultimately debunks himself, because he won't defend the deliberate weaknesses in his work (or the FAQ's he relies on), because those weaknesses -- the scope limits and stilt -- were deliberate.
<br>
<br>If you're morbidly curious, my discussion with Mr. Wayne Coste originally on FB but re-purposed at this location is worth scanning. It was like pulling teeth just to get an appropriate FB forum to have the discussion, such a weasel clown he was.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/fgnw-discussions.html</a>
<br>
<br>[Spoiler: "Nuclear blasts did not destroy the WTC." A conclusion from the FAQ that I am forced to agree with. Because the "nuclear yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons destroyed the WTC." Ask yourself what became of that dastardly nuclear weapon from the 1970's that the fear-mongered us with called "the neutron bomb"? Hint: FGNW.]
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>What I learned is that full-fledged government disinfo groups (say, "Woodsian DEWers", "NPT @ WTC", "Deep underground Nukers", "hollow towers and CGI victims", "real Pentagon plane", and even "nanothermite") will not go "balls out" debunking mode on any of the other disinfo theories. They don't ever legitimately debunk a premise from their sister disinfo group, because they report to the same masters and are ordered off before any real damage is measured out. Keeping (and not killing off) disinfo premises maintains the poison in the well and the distraction and division of the 9/11 truth movement.
<br>
<br>However, I'm a sincere seeker of truth. I admit to being duped by the above mentioned disinfo premises until further research revealed them to be implausible and deceit, but with rescuable nuggets of truth. New evidence and analysis can and does get me to change my mind. Not so for those championing disinformation.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 40 -->
<!-- ***** 202207_mcb_fgnw_sandsrom.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_4 -->
<a name="p5"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_5');">Part 5: The Lobbying of Craig McKee</a></h2>
<div id="part_5" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20230722_mcb_fb_McKee_01.htm -->
<a name="x41"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x41" class="tiny">x42</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">proclamation of re-activation as a 9/11 truther</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-22</p>
<div id="sect_42" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Seeing your proclamation of re-activation as a 9/11 truther is indeed most exciting to me. Your adherence to truth over the years in this subject matter has proven you a spiritual and moral LEADER. I am so proud of you! (And the TruthAndShadows reboot.)
<br>
<br>Now that you are a leader in the 9/11 truth movement, it is now [pun intended] high time that you and I have the famous "Jefferson/Franklin" style rational discussion on 9/11 nuclear involvement.
<br>
<br>You would be the hero of the 9/11 Truth Movement if you took it seriously, and followed the white rabbit of Truth where it leads you. Debunk it (or vet it). Win-win, either way.
<br>
<br>AE9/11Truth was not able to debunk 9/11 nuclear involvement, nor could Mr. Adam Ruff, Mr. Adam Syed, Mr. Wayne Coste, Mr. David Chandler, etc.
<br>
<br>I'm not married to the FGNW premise and have proven that convincing evidence and analysis does get me to change my opinions [and apologies again for my September Clues and Dr. Judy Wood phases of 9/11 evolution]. So when you identify errors or weaknesses in my work, it will be for everybody's benefit including my own, because I don't like being the sole duped useful idiot on the matter and would be grateful to be corrected and led back into the fold of "9/11 truth consensus beliefs."
<br>
<br>THAT DISCUSSION won't happen here in this thread under this posting, no worries Mr. McKee, because you're going to establish where that valuable discussion is to transpire so that all the truthers of the world can benefit from the unfolding of truth that our exchanges will bring.
<br>
<br>What will happen here is a small discussion about, say, your engagement eagerness, the boundaries of the discussion. [Being a single entity, multi-front engagements don't favor me. You anchor a home for the discussion, there need not be any bleed-out of nuclear premises (by me at least) into your many other valuable discussions and thread.]
<br>
<br>We are not spiritual enemies and are on the same figurative 9/11 truth page in many areas. We are not even debate opponents, because this (nuclear considerations) is an area that you felt was outside your field of expertise and didn't want to research on your own (even seeded with my research to leap-frog you ahead).
<br>
<br>Here is why YOU in particular need to rationally explore this (in dialog with me): the Venn diagram intersection of your 9/11 Pentagon hobby-horse and my 9/11 FGNW hobby-horse is the same cabal of 9/11-gatekeepers.
<br>
<br>P.S. Mr. Adam Ruff and Mr. Adam Syed both have me blocked on Facebook. Thus, they won't see this comment or any that I make, and could miss 50% of the conversation. Given that you value their opinions and contributions, you could make them aware. I'll accept their FB friend requests. However, Mr. Ruff will need to be a changed and objective man from who he was in past exchanges, because I have the receipts from those past exchanges where he was [pun intended] highly disingenuous in his debating style and tactics (that includes "running out the clock").
<br>
<br>Mr. Syed, being a professional musician, felt, like you Mr. McKee, "out-of-his-league" in discussing things nuclear. Inform him and yourself, that it is not. And that all the public needs to know to prove evidence of 9/11 nuclear involvement has been before our eyes, on our cameras, in our reports this whole time... for musicians and journalists to readily comprehend and see.
<br>
<br>Mr. McKee, this is ~OUR~ time to shine and bring truth to the masses. This is where our Venn diagrams overlap again. This is me and you, long-time internet friend, having a deep and enlightening conversation with references and substantiation, and questions, and reasoning.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 42 -->
<a name="x43"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x43" class="tiny">x44</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_44');">if I were to have sufficient knowledge to discuss</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-22</p>
<div id="sect_44" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges It might well be a positive thing if I were to have sufficient knowledge to discuss, or even debate, this subject. There are a number of areas of 9\11 research that I could stand to learn more about. But I have to be selective about where I put my time, especially the significant amount of time this would take. But it's not just the time. I think in terms of strategy as well as priorities - along with wanting the know the truth about everything.
<br>
<br>With respect to the contention that there was a nuclear component to the destruction of the towers, I think first about whether my devoting time to investigating the issue would advance the cause. Or would I have more of an impact focusing on things I've already become a bit more expert in. I think about the agents, trolls, and infiltrators and their efforts to chip away the body of 9/11 evidence the movement has assembled. I see value in exposing their deception. I see value in diving deeper into the Pentagon and Shanksville.
<br>
<br>I think we've proved that the towers were demolished with some kind of explosives. Truthers are pretty united on this. I don't see how devoting a major amount of time to debating the type of explosives that were used is worth the time it would take. Not for me, anyway. If I've been at all effective in this fight, it has been because I have focused on areas where I think I can do the most good. And my plan is to continue with this approach. Having said all that, I try never to discourage anyone from genuinely pursuing the truth about any subject.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 44 -->
<a name="x45"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x45" class="tiny">x46</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">intolerant of learning something new</a></b></p>
<p>2023-07-22</p>
<div id="sect_46" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, when you use words like "explosives" instead of more inclusive phrases like "in a planned and controlled manner," you already frame the debate and stake your position (and it can be proven "not the primary mechanism of destruction.")
<br>
<br>No one is asking you to be a master in the area of nuclear means, but you can certainly become proficient in the details and the body of evidence that leaves the barnyard door completely open for this premise to be valid.
<br>
<br>Because you seem to be first weighing the relative impact of "allowing nuclear discussions" on your watch, on your turf, with your paying attention, with your moderation, and you think going into "demolition" details might be counter productive.
<br>
<br>Here's an analogy for your position.
<blockquote><p>"A person is murdered. You think it is sufficient to know they are dead. Someone tells you DNA science can help narrow down both the cause and the suspects, but because you don't know DNA science and aren't willing to be taught, it might not be worth your time to even consider and allow others to discuss DNA relevance, for it might take you out of your comfort zone off of your WELL WORN AND BEATEN DOWN PATH."</p></blockquote>
<p>You're being such a gate keeper, and intolerant of learning something new.
<br>
<br>As long as we are philosophically weighting merits of where intellectual effort should be spent, assume for the brief span of the next few paragraphs that 9/11 really did have nuclear components... chapter and verse, anomaly after anomaly, the nuclear explanation connects more dots, answers more questions, is a comprehensive solution.
<br>
<br>Wouldn't its <i>"ah-ha revelation"</i> change how you approach 9/11, and make you re-evaluate your understanding, not just of the events themselves but the coordinated cover-up all these decades? It would foist your accusing fingers directly into the face of AE9/11Truth, with whom you collaborated, when you suddenly recognize their glaring omissions.
<br>
<br>Remember the predictive programming before 9/11, how they were pumping us full of patriotic movies, like "Pearl Harbor". There is a reason the "Oppenheimer" is out now, and there is real danger in the world of nukes being thrown about today.
<br>
<br>However, it is best if we understand what those modern day nuclear devices look like, particularly when they get deployed in unique and tactical ways (and not always as payload to a cruise missile).
<br>
<br>Under the given assumption expressed above, wouldn't the validity of the nuclear premise -- when presented afresh to the 9/11 community -- raise public consciousness and awareness and activism, your desire? "We were nuked with our own weapons on our turf by our own teams (and Israel), and were then told straight up lies and fantasies for two straight decades, spun in circles, for what was in hindsight obvious just from the energy levels required and the anomalies in the debris."
<br>
<br>Think about it this way.
<br>
<br>If you put in a good faith effort to understand the scope of the evidence and the factors hinting nuclear methods that "explosives" can't easily explain, YOU WOULD BE DOING A HUGE FAVOR TO THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT regardless of whether it gets debunked or vetted in the discussion. Either outcome is a WIN for the public, because it came about [we hope] legitimately through researched, substantiated, and reasoned discussion.
<br>
<br>Assuming still the validity of the nuclear premise, this factoid helps you on other 9/11 discussion fronts; data points that not only relate to your hobby-horse areas but narrow the suspect list. On the cover-up side, your Pentagon cabal was also active first in the NT limited hang-out.
<br>
<br>And the trendline drawn from these nuclear 9/11 data points pierces quite well data points from Covid, and how to manipulate the public. Hence why it remains relevant.
<br>
<br>I think you vastly underestimate the power of (9/11 nuclear) truth and how it can still have today (figurative) nuclear fallout on government institutions and leaders.
<br>
<br>And the beauty of criminal ex-President Trump is that his trials prove Presidents aren't above the law, and sets the precedence for other past-Presidents being called out to answer for their war crimes.
<br>
<br>Final argument: Here's the song my FGNW hobby-horse wants you to hear:
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crgQGdpZR0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crgQGdpZR0</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 46 -->
<!-- ***** 20230722_mcb_fb_McKee_01.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_mckeeFGNW_02.htm -->
<a name="x47"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x47" class="tiny">x48</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_48');">Mr. Coste ignored these 14 top-level comments containing objections to his work from a technical point of view</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_48" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Indeed on the 9/11 nuclear front, Mr. Wayne Coste proved beyond a shadow of a doubt his shilly-ness. I managed to come into a discussion with him under a group/posting/thread about "no planes at WTC" (NPT@WTC), where he and I were on the same side, namely that NPT was blatant disinformation in part because its champions could never acknowledge when one or more of their pillars of understanding was knocked out from underneath them.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, while I had his attention (and knowing his shilly-ness about the Pentagon), I tried to engage him in a discussion about his alleged debunking of 9/11 nuclear means. The group/posting/thread where we met wasn't appropriate for this discussion that he was amiable to, but I couldn't get him to confirm a FB friend request or to submit a FB friend request to me to improve the FB communications so that we could discuss the matter on his or my FB wall.
<br>
<br>He baited me: <i>"What specifically do you find objectionable from a technical point of view."</i>
<br>
<br>Yet, he wouldn't even make a dedicated posting about his (and AE9/11Truth's) "no nuclear blasts" premise to the group to which we both belonged, even though the one posting it has "control" (and can remove other's comments).
<br>
<br>So I made a posting and dissected his premise (built largely on the disinfo "no nuclear blasts" efforts from AE9/11Truth) section-by-section and even paragraph-by-paragraph in places with a diversion into AE9/11Truth's disinfo FAQ. I made the top-level posting and then individual top-level comments for each section of his work, leaving still two levels of reply-comments.
<br>
<br>Mr. Coste ignored these 14 top-level comments containing objections to his work from a technical point of view. Not a single acknowledgement or rebuttal. But we eventually did have a conversation about properly described late-3rd generation nuclear devices, but even there he was an elusive weasel.
<br>
<br>It was, however, one of the better discussions that I've had in my defense of 9/11 WTC nuclear components, but reflected poorly on Mr. Coste from start to finish. One of its highlights was me tearing apart the FAQ's from AE9/11Truth that debunk "nuclear blasts"; not that either of us was championing the destruction as coming from "nuclear blasts", but that "nuclear blasts" is a complete disinfo malframing of the form the energy would take.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../fgnw-discussions.html
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 48 -->
<a name="x49"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x49" class="tiny">x50</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">Do something new. Learn something new. Let's you and me bring closure to this</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_50" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I do not wish to have his agent-like behavior concerning the Pentagon confused by getting into his views on the nuclear WTC issue. That just muddies the waters. The Pentagon is clear: Coste wants everyone to accept more and more of the official story. He's a fraud who lies regularly. I don't need to bring the towers into this. Like the rest of the cabal, Coste uses the towers to give himself fake "credibility."
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 50 -->
<a name="x51"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x51" class="tiny">x52</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_52');">Do something new. Learn something new. DEBATE ME</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_52" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, What you "wish" isn't important; the truth is. The cabal's actions covering up the Pentagon and the WTC nuclear involvement are related, because they point to the same suspects and use the same cover-up team infiltrated into, say, AE9/11Truth.
<br>
<br>What is muddying the waters today, dear Mr. McKee, is YOU.
<br>
<br>Case in point. How long have you been promoting your Pentagon hobby-horse? Hasn't it become a little bit retread, a has-been carousel, exceptionally boring-that-you-know-every-detail, however valid it may still be? You've got a hard-sell, because the evidence YOU need -- assuming it hasn't already been destroyed -- won't be released until next century probably. So how explosive on public understanding and ACTION is any revelation you could trigger in the public about the Pentagon gonna be?
<br>
<br>A decade later [since writing about your Pentagon hobby-horse], two decades since the event.
<br>
<br>Do something new. Learn something new. DEBATE ME, for Eff's sake!
<br>
<br>Looky here: My nuclear hobby-horse has its hoof-prints stamped everywhere, with evidence leaking out all over from official reports to unofficial reports to videos (of the day, of the debris pile later, of fresh kills salvage yard) all the way to the stilted and lame-ass cover-ups that included banning under the penalty of arrest cameras and geiger counters at GZ. 9/11 nuclear involvement is like a black hole that you can't see and nobody will officially acknowledge, except that its gravity pull is so heavy, agencies (EPA, NIST, FEMA, AE9/11Truth, etc.) flat-out lied to keep the lid on and through stilted-non-action prove the (nuclear) black hole's very existence.
<br>
<br>This ^^^^ above nuclear hobby-horse -- debunked or vetted -- is required for the 9/11 TM and the world at large: an open 9/11 question in search of a definitive answer. You would be a hero to all, but particularly to me in greater esteem than I already hold you. Debunked or vetted, you'd be the hero with the platform that hosted it.
<br>
<br>This ^^^^ above nuclear hobby-horse would figuratively be nuclear in explosive impact on public consciousness leading towards ACTION and figurative nuclear fallout on various government agencies, institutions, and officials: your stated goals (paraphrased).
<br>
<br>You want to put me and my hobby-horse out to pasture?!! Please do, but do it LEGITIMATELY. Take it seriously one time; give it a field to run around in and let the agents, bots, and naysayers take their crackshots at it.
<br>
<br>But you, Mr. McKee, <i>"convince me or let me convince you."</i> DO YOUR JOB AS A TRUTH SEEKING JOURNALIST AND FOLLOW THE WHITE RABBIT.
<br>
<br>FTR IMHO, similar to the Reese's commercials of yore, <i>"my FGNW hobby-horse? Muddying the waters of your Pentagon hobby-horse? Preposterous, old chap! Quite the contrary. Your Pentagon hobby-horse is muddying the waters for my FGNW hobby-horse, and sucks YOUR attention away from what could be much more important to the public."</i>
They each have some of the same suspects, some of the same cover-up agents, and aren't mutually exclusive. Both hobby-horses can exist and be true at the same time.
<br>
<br>Let's you and me bring closure to this. Win-win for you all the way down the line, because you were open-minded enough (if not brow-beaten by me enough) to allow rational discussion on this 9/11 nuclear black hole topic.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 52 -->
<a name="x53"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x53" class="tiny">x54</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">how was NT positioned to achieve thisstunning, sudden, and symmetric dustification?</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_54" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Remember this image? Because you believe the Pentagon cabal in its WTC analysis (but not its Pentagon analysis), how was NT positioned to achieve this stunning, sudden, and symmetric dustification? NT has been a theory for over 15 years, but did they ever rationally speculate how NT achieved this, where it was positioned/mounted, why it wasn't loud, how it could have maintained the duration of hotspots (unspent from this pulverizing activity)?
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJA-54RJ25SwurxAfwBBSwVox-JofGV8ZkK-SPghFhX97Byrpc2H_ppnnX3MrBTbi9gaizhp9GmB2CtDA6AkRcZY5ogzRXqfNNgfCBg52k_88o5xj7ycjXjMG6U2gyTMN5HuDf4CzzlCA/s1600/wtc2core_02.jpg" alt="stunning, sudden, and symmetric dustification" />
<br>No photo description available.
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 54 -->
<a name="x55"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x55" class="tiny">x56</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">how were FGNW positioned to achieve thisstunning, sudden, and symmetric dustification?</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_56" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, consider this image of late-3rd generation hybrid fission/fusion nuclear devices.
<br>
<br>4 devices per detonation levels, 6-12 detonation levels. A conventional chemical based charge kick-started the fission stage. I speculate that kick-back from that kick-starter charge is what is observed on the faces of the towers 10-20 stories below the "pulverization" wave.
<br>
<br>USGS survey of the dust shows Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities, sample-to-sample, indicating a fission process. But this fission wasn't designed for explosive energy release or for spreading its radioactive badness all about. It was designed to generate the heat required for the fusion phase.
<br>
<br>Why was there even a tritium report, so lame and stilted as it was, with shoddy sampling and scope-limited speculation into "office furnishings"? Because tritium is the building block for all 3rd/4th gen devices.
<br>
<br>Why did they ban cameras? Because the old (VHS) tape recording equipment gets fouled in a major way just being around radioactive things. Don't believe me? This is exactly what happened to much of the FEMA/NIST video footage of Fresh Kills.
<br>
<br>Modern digital cameras also record radiation, but we're so used to <i>"snow in our broadcasts"</i> from the old broadcast television and rabbit ear antennas, we don't notice. But if you study, it is there as at the WTC in the video images.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv7FNUtz3i0LIRqK9JadDYXDjAPq1l4b8tsmzIaL69OcKEkhoiT_w6tzH_gqpPjH8BVUROA05rvOFgajXBf_OX79BFnzw5ALLzdizinr6RlUSbD94zUrgTraP8srgNiK0zDA09sZ8d2RE/s1600/WTC_innerCore_31.png" alt="" />
<br>An image of text that says 'Outer Wall Assemblies Inner Core Speculation of one scenario. Not drawn to scale. 9-11-2001 WTC towers demolition using Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons'
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 56 -->
<a name="x57"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x57" class="tiny">x58</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">recorded instances that was then real-time radiation</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_58" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>At about 0:52 in the following video of the South Tower Dust Cloud, the camera is over-run by the dust cloud. Suddenly the video camera, that worked perfectly before, starts registering small flashes in the dust cloud.
<br>
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/uGaiSrxhRhU?t=52">https://youtu.be/uGaiSrxhRhU?t=52</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>9/11: South Tower Dust Cloud
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 58 -->
<a name="x59"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x59" class="tiny">x60</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">camera scintillation from radiation</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_60" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>
<br>Here is an example from "Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10." Notice how the camera scintillation affects the lower portion of the image where the debris is piled up and not the structure in the upper portion.
<br>
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/p4HOCf7WK3g?t=291">https://youtu.be/p4HOCf7WK3g?t=291</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 60 -->
<a name="x61"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x61" class="tiny">x62</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">Captured on video real-time radiation</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_62" style="display: block;">
<p>Two digital videos that captured real-time radiation as it was happening and then later in the debris pile. There are more videos, like at Fresh Kills (where they tried to used tape video cameras that fouled almost immediately).
<br>
<br>Open your eyes, Mr. Craig McKee, for this is the new thing (to you) that will invigorate your 9/11 reporting and provide "nuclear" power to the public revelation of badness that would bring them to a tipping point that your Pentagon hobby-horse cannot.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 62 -->
<a name="x63"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x63" class="tiny">x64</a>
Xander Arena : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');">Mini nuke themes are a deflection tactic</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_64" style="display: block;">
<p>Craig McKee Mini nuke themes are a deflection tactic. Start honing in on something, the cabal will toss us a Red Herring. Bridges is an agent too. Sorry but nobody cares this much about fake fallout with no requisite daughter decay chains. It's obvious to me, as obvious as David Chandler's dismissive approach to Sgt Legasse and Sgt Brooks' testimony.
</p>
</div><!-- section 64 -->
<a name="x65"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x65" class="tiny">x66</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">If the nukes can be proven true, then it can be done without my contribution</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_66" style="display: block;">
<p>I will definitely not be watering the Pentagon evidence down by tossing in stuff about nukes. If the latter can be proven true, then it can be done without my contribution.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 66 -->
<a name="x67"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x67" class="tiny">x68</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">so willy-nilly -- all ignorant and know-nothing -- for sure is a deflection technique</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_68" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Xander Arena, First of all, calling it "mini-nukes" so willy-nilly the way you banty it about -- all ignorant and know-nothing -- for sure is a deflection technique. Because I've done my homework and provide it as the basis for a rational discussion, maybe you should start there and at least learn what needs to be debunked (or vetted).
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"fake fallout with no requisite daughter decay chains."</i> Liar, liar, pants on fire.
<br>
<br>First of all, the USGS dust analysis has tables that show sample to sample in correlated quantities exactly the Uranium decay chains that you hypnotically suggest are fake.
<br>
<br>[Interesting side story: Jeff Prager noted these correlations from the USGS data tables and published his findings. When AE9/11Truth created their disinfo FAQ to debunk "WTC destruction by nuclear blast", their analysis does not mention Prager's findings on the dust and neither do their footnotes. Instead they cherry-picked a "different usage of phrase" from one of Prager's publications, and essentially used the footnotes to defame Prager.]
<br>
<br>Secondly, fall-out did happen, but because it was not a "mini-nuke" (e.g., fission designed for destruction via heat wave, blast wave, and EMP) but instead multiple tactical hybrid fission/fusion devices (e.g., fission exclusively to generate heat for fusion that release 80% of the nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons aimed in a targeted fashion), the nuclear finger prints exist but differ in scale from "mini-nukes".
<br>
<br>[Interesting side story: When the sole nuclear physicists in the 9/11 Truth Movement repudiated the use of nuclear devices (shortly before introducing the NT limited hang-out), he accepted various government reports at face value, unquestioned and unchallenged despite in cases sampling issues (small number of samples, limited locations), and stilted premises; he framed his nuclear devices as large fission devices destroying with traditional heat/blast/EMP waves and thereby being dirtier and spreading bad radioactivity further in larger quantities not observed in the reports he accepted unchallenged; he made no mention of neutron devices; he made no mention of "exotic nuclear devices" such as FGNW that Dr. Andre Gsponer had been writing about and publishing books and articles in peer-reviewed papers in the decade leading up to 9/11. >>THAT<< majorly sucky literature review by Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood, et al is pretty indicative about who the agents were and what the black-hole was.]
<br>
<br>You wrote to Mr. McKee regarding the Pentagon: <i>"Start honing in on something, the cabal will toss us a Red Herring."</i>
<br>
<br>I gave reasons to Mr. McKee in a previous comment why the Pentagon is a hard-sell, because the government controls the evidence and because it really isn't a topic that energizes. But the topic of "WTC nuclear devices in use on 9/11"?!! Why, that would certainly get a more energetic public reaction [that can be used to educate about other things 9/11, like WTC-7, the Pentagon]!!!
<br>
<br>In fact, I have it on good authority that the very same "Truther-cabal" who gives grief to Pentagon truths have done the same thing in spades to WTC nuclear components. Nuclear anything they will not discuss legitimately. Hell, they couldn't even discuss Dr. Judy Wood's research legitimately and debunk it in a valid fashion, because after the strawman beams-from-space is debunked, too much residual evidence is presented in her book that NT can't address, but FGNW in the category of DEW can.
<br>
<br>When you write that <i>"Bridges is an agent too"</i>, are you saying that Mr. Craig McKee is an agent, as well as you?
<br>
<br>Sorry to disappoint, but I'm just the sole duped useful idiot on the FGNW-front because I'm a religious fanatic; fanatical about TRUTH. I'd very much love to be convinced otherwise and have LITERALLY for years been begging Mr. McKee (and others -- including Adam Ruff, David Chandler, Jon Cole, Wayne Coste, etc.) to debunk (or vet).
<br>
<br>The black-hole treatment is rather noteworthy.
<br>
<br>Want to know what I have that agents don't? Legacy. I've been around a long time, tried to write from the onset words worthy of preservation, respectfully and sincerely defended my positions with substantiation and scientific analysis, stood behind those words by re-purposing in forums I control, and demonstrated evolution in thought and understanding when presented with new evidence or analysis.
<br>
<br>Bots don't change their minds. Agents don't change their minds either until new administrations come in, but even then typically one sockpuppet fades away and another comes into being, because legacy of their past actions can reflect poorly on them. Typically, though, they keep some continuity in the disinformation beach-heads that they defend.
<br>
<br>FTR, Mr. McKee knows the Bruce Wayne to my Batman.
<br>
<br>Here's the 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case. It is on my FB wall if you want to go at it and explain where it is wrong.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>[If you make comments under my blog, ping me here. Comments are moderated and I don't check hardly at all.]
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 68 -->
<a name="x69"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x70</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">provide the corral (discussion forum and moderation) for Nookie-Doo to play</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, First of all, nobody is asking you to <i>"water down the Pentagon evidence by tossing in stuff about nukes."</i> Keep those Pentagon discussions pure. Alas the discussion is about the cabal who is vulnerable from multiple directions, two of which are the Pentagon and WTC nuclear components.
<br>
<br>Secondly, you can avoid me dousing your cabal with nuclear water in the places where your Pentagon hobby-horse is playing if you merely provided the corral (discussion forum and moderation) for it to play. Being an individual, I prefer single-front engagements rather than dividing myself over multiple fronts.
<br>
<br>Thirdly, you were attacking the cabal (rightly) for their mistreatment of the Pentagon. Phooey-on-you if you can't understand (a) that the trendline for the cabal is establish with just two data points, (b) mistreatment of WTC nuclear evidence is your needed second data point for your cabal treadline, and (c) that nuclear data point -- assuming valid -- is figuratively more "nuclear damning" by orders-of-magnitude than your data point even on its best day, because its evidence is everywhere once you open your eyes to it and its figurative nuclear blast wave and fall-out is still possible.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "If the latter can be proven true, then it can be done without my contribution."
<br>
<br>You weasel.
<br>
<br>For the record, the FGNW Prima Facie Case has been made; hasn't been debunked (no thanks to you for either); and based on the concerted black-hole efforts from, say, your cabal and YOU, to not even acknowledge let alone legitimately debate/debunk, is therefore assumed to be true -- fucking typos and all.
<br>
<br>[Shame on you, Weasel Journalist, that you couldn't even be bothered to contribute to the eradication of its typos that still exist when you were asked for that professional favor by a long-time 9/11 Truther and FB friend.]
<br>
<br>I supported you and your efforts for truth with every article and FB post over the last decade. I've pointed out your typos; beaten back trolls with analysis and substantiation (while you were otherwise busy); engaged the carousel-spinners on fringe topics (e.g., NPT, Woodsian DEW, deep-underground nukes) eventually proving many of them disinfo; and more importantly provided a second even more viable leg in substantiating allegations against the cabal.
<br>
<br>Did you give me kudos for using high velocity physics analysis at the Pentagon in support of your no plane contention but from a different perspective? Ironic that this same high velocity physics analysis is what helps debunk the NPT@WTC premise.
<br>
<br>The only thing asked from you -- respectfully, OCD-REPEATEDLY, OVER LITERALLY YEARS -- is a single venue for my hobby-horse's discussion on your platform(s) so that the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world can definitively get the nuclear facts, have them discussed rationally with substantiation, and get it legitimately debunked... or vetted.
<br>
<br>*Ding* *Ding* *Ding.* Or maybe more like 2x4 smacked up side my head: *whack!* *whack!* *whack* as two of my super powers trip over themselves into this discussion. Namely, my being naive and trusting, until given reason not to be.
<br>
<br>Blatant evidence of the black-hole for all forms of legitimate 9/11 nuclear discussions.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"Et tu, Mr. McKee?"</p></blockquote>
<p>Sunlight on error is what helps it destroy itself; sunlight on truth is what helps it grow.
<br>
<br>Be the sunlight, Mr. McKee, and let's see what happens to my hobby-horse.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_mckeeFGNW_02.htm -->
<!-- ***** 20230909_mcb_fb_mcKee_03.htm -->
<a name="x71"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x72</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">"black-hole treatment" is particularly noteworthy</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-09</p>
<div id="sect_72" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Re-writing the words of our patron-saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Griffin:
<br>
<br><blockquote><p>"Those who claim that a steel-framed high-rise building has never come down without the use of explosives ~have~ provided evidence that such an event would even be possible," </p></blockquote>
<p>only you are too stubborn to see it.
<br><br>Such a softball premise for my hobby-horse.
<br>
<br>The cover-up team will gladly show you the USGS data tables that don't show residual of RDX or other chemical explosives (that Dr. Steven Jones assured us was required to give nano-thermite -- assuming its usage -- the pulverizing brissance observed in the destruction.) So yeah! The claimants are factually right! This is an instance where chemical explosives did not bring down a steel-famed high-rise building!
<br>
<br>The catch is what those USGS data tables do contain and that the report completely ignores in its plain-text explanation: Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities, sample-to-sample, indicating a fission process but at much lower levels than expected for even mini-nukes, hence the pre-mature ejaculation "thus no nukes at all" (according to Dr. Steven Jones).
<br>
<br>Alas, the energy source leaks out of all 9/11 reports, stares at us from the data tables, literally glitches at us from taped videos, and should have been evident from the observed massive energy sink of pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitation acceleration.
<br>
<br>Just like Dr. Sunder could say with a straight-face and no-lying-ticks that if conventional chemical explosives had been used (in context of WTC-7 and some magical pillar), it would have been deafening to those within 1/4 mile radius; and "this wasn't so, ergo no chemical explosives in use."
<br>
<br>A bit of truthful misdirection, because the audio signature of late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices, which are technically "not explosives", would be quite different. The primary nuclear yield is targeted highly energetic neutrons, and any nuclear blast is well below 20% of the already tactical nuclear yield. It isn't using the medium of air and sudden changes in air pressure to destroy things at a distance from the detonation point; no, the highly energetic neutrons passing through all material and leaving energy (typically very high heat) behind deep within and throughout the molecular structure of the material would be very muted compared to a "blast".
<br>
<br>The patron-saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Griffin, showed us how to legitimately and effectively take on disinformation, such as in his Popular Mechanics debunking: namely, chapter-by-chapter, section-by-section, sentence-by-sentence, if you have to.
<br>
<br>In my own experience in searching for 9/11 Truth, I've proven this technique to be quite effect, such as when I disassembled the AE9/11 Truth FAQ's on Woodsian DEW and Nuclear Blasts.
<br>
<br>Pay attention.
<br>
<br>Nobody's dared to disassemble in a legitimate fashion my 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case, ala Dr. David Griffin.
<br>
<br>David Chandler and Wayne Coste were both given opportunities. And many more.
<br>
<br>The "black-hole treatment" is particularly noteworthy.
<br>
<br>When a conspiracy theorist's premise goes completely bat-shit, is a stretch, is wrong, these are the premises that are allowed to exist and get cycles of attention and discussion. Wrong theories are permitted, because they are easy strawmen and provide fodder for ridicule to undermine anyone thinking out of the box.
<br>
<br>However, when a conspiracy theorist's premise is valid but very damning, the black-hole treatment doesn't even acknowledge its existence, or brushes it aside as being inconsequential or muddying of waters of other premises for awaking the masses.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 72 -->
<a name="x73"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x74</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">I won't be wading into those waters</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-09</p>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Good luck with that. I won't be wading into those waters.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x76</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">The "black-hole treatment."</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-09</p>
<div id="sect_76" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, The "black-hole treatment." //
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 76 -->
<a name="x77"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x77" class="tiny">x78</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">has to make choices about where they think their efforts will be most beneficial</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-09</p>
<div id="sect_78" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges No. Everyone has to make choices about where they think their efforts will be most beneficial. My priorities lie elsewhere.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 78 -->
<a name="x79"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x79" class="tiny">x80</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">argument was valid early on</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-09</p>
<div id="sect_80" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, That argument was valid early on -- within the first 2 decades --, before your efforts thoroughly documented repeatedly most of the other anomalies. However, given that you persist (in the laudable undertaking) of being "Mr. 9/11 Reasonable Rational Journalist", have over time covered all of the other angles, and at this very moment are offering re-tread carousel spins through Pentagon and Shanksville, you really need to get out of your rut, change your bag, and go into different territory. You're becoming stale and repetitive.
<br>
<br>Learn something new.
<br>
<br>Both your reporting and 9/11 understanding need to be re-invigorated and energized. And what could do that better than "nuclear energy" that you have steadfastly ignored?!! A thorough debunking of 9/11 nuclear -- if it can be achieved -- is woefully needed by the 9/11 Truth Movement. And if it can't be debunked, the very least your journalism chops are required to present its evidence fairly.
<br>
<br>Given that it has been over 2 decades, given that you've been an AE9/11Truth Insider, it would be most enlightening to know with whom you've conversed (even tangentially on nuclear topics) who might have influenced you into "black-holing" nuclear considerations, and what their reasons were. Who within AE9/11Truth drew the line in the sand? Do their reasons still hold up? Or are they weak "consensus 9/11 truther" arguments where they want you to lowest-common-denominator dumb down what you present, for fear of the details overwhelming?
<br>
<br>Well it ain't the first 2 decades anymore. All of those lowest-common-denominator arguments have not netted the massive public enlightenment that (we) desire.
<br>
<br>Vetted or debunked, my hobby-horse changes that.
<br>
<br>It is fresh and invigorating, not stale and repetitive. This new (to you) thing is absolutely required for the 9/11 Truth Community, the world, and your 9/11 journalistic career. Don't be giving it the black-hole treatment; face your fears head-on.
<br>
<br>You got this.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 80 -->
<a name="x81"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x81" class="tiny">x82</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">it's about having a breakthrough with the public</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-09</p>
<div id="sect_82" style="display: block;">
<p>Craig McKee
<br>Maxwell Bridges It isn't about learning something new, it's about having a breakthrough with the public.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 82 -->
<a name="x83"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x83" class="tiny">x84</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">stale repetitions over things already well covered by you in previous carousel spins isn't going to do it</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-09</p>
<div id="sect_84" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, we can agree that <i>"it's about having a breakthrough with the public"</i>!!! Our disagreement is that you think stale repetitions over things already well covered by you in previous carousel spins is going to do it, and I don't. Two decades in, you done did dat; try something new.
<br>
<br>I think the 9/11 nuclear components has been consistently treated by the government, its actors, and its 9/11TM infiltrators as a black-hole topic to be avoided at all costs, precisely because -- if vetted -- it would be a BREAKTHROUGH WITH THE PUBLIC on a figuratively nuclear scale with figurative nuclear fall-out still possible.
<br>
<br>Here again, my naive and trusting super-powers are tripping over themselves with regards to you, that you neither see nor understand how 9/11 nuclear components IS THE DESIRED public breakthrough (on top of your other 9/11 reporting). Assuming it is valid.
<br>
<br>But if my hobby-horse isn't valid, your efforts will be rewarded for definitively proving why it is wrong.
<br>
<br>A related side-story: remember how I had phases (a) where I actively (maybe even OCD) supported the September Clues brand of No Planes Theory at the WTC; (b) where I studied all even tangential nuclear arguments; (c) where I plugged Nano-Thermite; or (d) where I as a rabid-fan of Dr. Judy Wood was purchasing her book out of my own pocket and sending it (with receiver's permission) to influential people / discussion opponents in 9/11 Truth so that we could literally go to the same pages and discuss its content rationally?
<br>
<br>Embarrassingly, it was as a champion of those disinfo theories that I discovered their nuggets of truth and their disinformation. I was open-minded enough to see that when the pillars to my understanding of the disinfo premise were one-by-one knocked out (by my further research and analysis), I should stop championing them, apologize publicly for having been an ardent champion of something I now know is wrong, rescue the nuggets of truth, and spread the Truth from the results of my evolution and enlightenment whenever those disinfo premises were spun up in my social media engagements.
<br>
<br>In diving into those disinfo premises -- mostly in search of nuggets of truth --, I had to take them seriously and consider all their evidence. I have legitimately publicly debunked NPT, Woodsian DEW, deep-underground nukes, hollow-towers, and Nano-Thermite.
<br>
<br>Mr. McKee, you are being given a similar opportunity!
<br>
<br>Assume my FGNW premise is disinfo but TAKE IT SERIOUSLY; consider all the evidence and persistent nuggets of truth from many sources. One of two outcomes:
<br>
<br>1) While rescuing nuggets of truth, you might find -- leg-by-leg, hoof-by-hoof --the FGNW hobby-horse at the end of the day to be lame and unrideable, but listing/detailing why in one or more articles and postings. Do legitimately what AE9/11Truth and the cabal would not even touch with a 10-foot pole: debunk FGNW.
<br>
<br>2) While rescuing nuggets of truth, you might find that the lack of AE9/11 speculation into how NT (mixed with other chemical explosives) could achieve the varied evidence and that the FGNW hobby-horse really did put its hoof-prints all over everything and thus got the black-hole treatment e.v.e.r.y.w.h.e.r.e. Except by you, because you'll document your revelation and receive your public catalyst, your public breakthrough, your lifting to 9/11 hero status and having to make fresh-rounds through the conspiracy talkshow circuits (and even find spin that into supplementing your income)!
<br>
<br>My money is on #2, because since my understanding evolved towards FGNW, it has not been disabused of this notion despite many many sincere attempts. But this would be the sincerest, our Jefferson-Franklin style rational discussion!
<br>
<br>We got this.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 84 -->
<a name="x85"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x85" class="tiny">x86</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">all for trying new approaches</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-09</p>
<div id="sect_86" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I'm all for trying new approaches but that doesn't mean I think it will be beneficial for me to plunge into a subject like this when we have already proven controlled demolition. We need new approaches, not new evidence.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 86 -->
<a name="x87"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x87" class="tiny">x88</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">I hear is sucking black-hole silence from your inactivity</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-09</p>
<div id="sect_88" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, It doesn't sound like you are <i>"all for trying new approaches."</i> Instead, what I hear is sucking black-hole silence from your inactivity.
<br>
<br>When you write: "we have already proven controlled demolition", who exactly is "we"? And if any of the "we" are members of the cabal, then it also matters how the controlled demolition was allegedly proven and if black-hole techniques weren't in full deployment.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "We need new approaches, not new evidence."
<br>
<br>David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br>
<br>We're not talking about "new" evidence. We're talking about how relevant evidence was black-hole ignored.
<br>
<br>When the word "nuclear" is bantied about in literal and figurative usages, it does bring that magnitude of energy -- as if casting spells -- to the weight of the discussion, and shines a different light on those who kept us away from these obvious nuclear deductions.
<br>
<br>So when we figuratively talk about 9/11 nuclear fall-out today, everyone in steerage of AE9/11Truth, its FAQ's, and NT promotion would be in the cone-shaped line of fire. Yes, it is bad and bad publicity when this nuclear revelation spreads nuclear fallout on the actions and motives of leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement (e.g., the cabal), a final discrediting that was planned from the get-go in the infiltration, the built-in self-destruct that all disinformation premises contain.
<br>
<br>So now that I've uttered the notion above, it dawns on me your new approach.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "We need new approaches, not new evidence."
<br>
<br>You should figuratively nuclear blast the cabal and discredit them using the nuclear argument (seconded by the Pentagon argument), and really dustify AE9/11Truth for the infiltrated limited-hang-out that it was providing nuclear-cock blockages and slow-walking "consensus weak truths of lowest-common-denominator", and thereby really nuclear vaporize a major crater equivalent to WTC-6 in the entirety of the 9/11 Truth Movement, a real psyops plot-twist for the public. Bad publicity the whole way, which is good publicity.
<br>
<br>"9/11 Truth Leaders figuratively nuked for not legitimately considering literal nukes for 9/11, thereby nuking major holes into the public's understanding and misunderstandings of 9/11."
<br>
<br>There you go, right there, Mr. McKee. Exactly what you asked for. The new approach.
<br>
<br>Of course, when the existing but historically ignored evidence is fairly presented in the frame work of Dr. Andre Gsponer's late-3rd generation nuclear devices, each of the cabal is afforded the opportunity to say:
<br>
<br>"In light of this different analysis previously unknown to me and seeing the FGNW's ability to address much wider swaths of evidence and anomalies, I consider this more viable, apologize for having led people astray with NT, and from now own will champion this nuclear truth." And all will be forgiven.
<br>
<br>Given that you are already making a drama about the cabal, you should energize it with nuclear drama and let the fall-out go wide with the infiltration conspiracy of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
<br>
<br>Another reason this is important, because public nuclear 9/11 breakthroughs makes today's COVID bio weapon/defense as belonging to the same ethical and moral camp, and unbeneficial for this planet's survival.
<br>
<br>Your destiny. Step up. You got this.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 88 -->
<a name="x89"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x89" class="tiny">x90</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">could simply be a Jefferson-Franklin style exchange</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-09</p>
<div id="sect_90" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, In case my humor went missing and to be clear, I am not advocating a mud slinging fest against the cabal. But, you are already going there with the Pentagon. More importantly, release of the suppressed 9/11 nuclear speculation is going to fling greater amounts of mud on the cabal or worse, as per karma.
<br>
<br>The new approach to bring a massive public breakthrough could simply be a Jefferson-Franklin style exchange or interview that you publish: you asking (in writing) questions about my Nookie-doodoo hobby-horse, and me answering (in writing) with substantiation. [Copy-paste]
<br>
<br>David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: <i>"None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."</i>
<br>
<br>We're not talking about "new" evidence. We're talking about how relevant evidence was black-hole ignored.
<br>
<br>Along the way, I could give summaries about why certain 9/11 premises are wrong and disinfo. It could be a real clearing of the baffles and setting public understanding at an enlightened level.
<br>
<br>We got this.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 90 -->
<!-- ***** 20230909_mcb_fb_mcKee_03.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_5 -->
<a name="p6"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_6');">Part 6: Xander Arenas</a></h2>
<div id="part_6" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 20230909_mcb_fb_mcKee_04_fgnw.htm -->
<a name="x91"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x91" class="tiny">x92</a>
Xander Arenas : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">You really want to be proven wrong</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-10</p>
<div id="sect_92" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges You really want to be proven wrong so that you can finally surrender your nuclear hobby horse? Provide me the USG data that you say shows the requisite amount of Uranium decay chain radionuclides.
<br>
<br>[2023-07-08] Maxwell Bridges
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0enb9AjKkFGRsVMxDj8woPZD5xLUSKk3vD7MSfkzRjuv2AQjTeMQGC2ZewrRN1nZl">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0enb9AjKkFGRsVMxDj8woPZD5xLUSKk3vD7MSfkzRjuv2AQjTeMQGC2ZewrRN1nZl</a>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 92 -->
<a name="x93"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x93" class="tiny">x94</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">Yes, so that I can finally put my nuclear hobby horse out to pasture</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-10</p>
<div id="sect_94" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Xander Arena, Yes, I really want to be proven wrong so that I can finally put my nuclear hobby horse out to pasture!
<br>
<br>With the tone of "busywork" you wrote: <i>"Provide me the USG data that you say shows the requisite amount of Uranium decay chain radionuclides."</i>
<br>
<br>Beat you to it, and at the same time prove that you can't follow links.
<br>
<br>"Section 8 Radiation => Nukes" from the article I posted in my comment to you. The second half of that section provides an explanation into what the USGS tables show, as well as links to the USGS source material.
<br>
<br>The tables document the Uranium decay paths (1) Strontium, Yttrium, Zircontium, Niobium, and (2) Barium, Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodym.
<br>
<br><a href="https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html">https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html</a>
<br>
<br>I should note that Mr. Jeff Prager extracted the information from the USGS data tables and wrote up his results. When AE9/11Truth spun up their FAQ disinfo to debunk "nuclear blasts", they don't reference Prager's dust analysis either in the plain text or in the footnotes. They do mention Prager in the footnotes in an almost defamatory way and cherry-pick inconsequential nits from his other publications. I call that the black-hole treatment.
<br>
<br>The end of the section in my posting quotes from Mr. Prager's dust analysis. But what the hell, seeing how you can't follow links. Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed this USGS data in Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis:
</p>
<blockquote><p><br>+++
<br>
<br> Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
<br>
<br> Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
<br>
<br> Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
<br>
<br> Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
<br>
<br> Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
<br>
<br> Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
<br>
<br> Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.
<br>
<br>+++ end</p></blockquote>
<p>The following is based on Mr. Prager's conclusion.
</p>
<blockquote><p>+++
<br>
<br> The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance.
<br>
<br> The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.
<br>
<br> The USGS report shows Barium and Strontium present and in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships.
<br>
<br> The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship and to other radionuclide daughter products.
<br>
<br> The dust samples provide an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. Nuclear weapon scientists, such as Dr. Jones, should have seized this data to analyze it and determine exactly what type of device produced it.
<br>
<br>+++ end</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>//
<br>USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS Leachate Table
<br>PUBS.USGS.GOV
</p>
</div><!-- section 94 -->
<a name="x95"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x95" class="tiny">x96</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">taken this discussion to my FB wall</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-10</p>
<div id="sect_96" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Xander Arena, out of respect for a thread under Mr. McKee's posting, I have taken this discussion to my FB wall. I sent you a friend request. Accept. Go to my profile and search (FGNW).
<br>
<br>Both entries in the search result need your attention.
<br>
<br>Having a Devil of a time trying to get a FB link that could get you there easier. Maybe this one...
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0enb9AjKkFGRsVMxDj8woPZD5xLUSKk3vD7MSfkzRjuv2AQjTeMQGC2ZewrRN1nZl">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0enb9AjKkFGRsVMxDj8woPZD5xLUSKk3vD7MSfkzRjuv2AQjTeMQGC2ZewrRN1nZl</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 96 -->
<a name="x97"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x97" class="tiny">x98</a>
Xander Arena : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">you clearly have no scientific foundation</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-10</p>
<div id="sect_98" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Maxwell Bridges I'll start slowly since you clearly have no scientific foundation. Where is the Cesium137?
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 98 -->
<a name="x99"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x99" class="tiny">x100</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">you have no common-sense, lack scientific foundation much?</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-10</p>
<div id="sect_100" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Xander Arena, You complain that I have no scientific foundation? Wow.
<br>
<br>I complain that you have no common-sense as evident by (a) your inability to accept a FB friend request so that this conversation could be continued under the article pinned to the top of my FB wall and its comment that explicitly tags you, (b) your inability to follow links [a common-failing for ChatGPT bots] to the USGS's table on the dust, and (c) your inability to Ctrl+F in your browser with "Cesium" while on the webpage with USGS's table on the dust to find exactly what you are looking for.
<br>
<br>I guess I'll have to start this slowly since you clearly have no common-sense.
<br>
<br>Here is the direct FB link to the article on my FB wall where this conversation should resume, out of respect for Mr. McKee.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0enb9AjKkFGRsVMxDj8woPZD5xLUSKk3vD7MSfkzRjuv2AQjTeMQGC2ZewrRN1nZl">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/pfbid0enb9AjKkFGRsVMxDj8woPZD5xLUSKk3vD7MSfkzRjuv2AQjTeMQGC2ZewrRN1nZl</a>
<br>
<br>Uranium has decay paths (1) Strontium, Yttrium, Zircontium, Niobium, and (2) Barium, Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodym.
<br>
<br>Cesium 137 doesn't appear in either of them. Lack scientific foundation much?
<br>
<br>Answer on under the linked article. You'll have to either accept my FB friend request or submit one of your own to me probably to be able to see it.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 100 -->
<a name="x101"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x101" class="tiny">x102</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">exhibiting all of the traits of a ChatGPT bot</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-10</p>
<div id="sect_102" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, I'm trying to get Mr. Xander Arena to continue this discussion under the article that I have pinned to the top of my FB wall. Alas, he is exhibiting all of the traits of a ChatGPT bot:
<br>
<br>(1) can't accept FB friend requests,
<br>
<br>(2) can't follow links, let alone discuss content from those links knowledgably,
<br>
<br>(3) can't write more than twitter-length,
<br>
<br>(4) throws out red-herring Cesium 137.
<br>
<br>Keep an eye on him, a bot assigned to you and with instructions to muddy waters in off-limit topics.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 102 -->
<!-- ***** 20230909_mcb_fb_mcKee_04_fgnw.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_6 -->
<a name="p7"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_7');">Part 7: Pete Davenport</a></h2>
<div id="part_7" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_davenport.htm -->
<a name="x103"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x103" class="tiny">x104</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">assume but vet</a></b></p>
<p>2020-09-</p>
<div id="sect_104" style="display: block;">
<p>It is fine to make assumptions and for the sake of discussion assume as true certain portions of the official story. The issue is that the research and analysis -- particularly in the face of glaring anomalies some of which are contrary to expectations from high-velocity incidents -- should have continued and uncovered which assumptions at the end of the day could NOT be true. You go through the hoops of assuming things true so that analysis would either validate or invalidate those assumptions.
<br>
<br>This is the purposeful, deceitful "mistake" that Mr. Chandler made at both the Pentagon and WTC. He never circled back around and validated the initial assumptions. Or more importantly, he never circled back to invalidate assumptions.
<br>
<br>The reason Mr. Chandler draws the line at the Pentagon is because the WTC is more glaring in his stop-gap, no-assumption-validation.
<br>
<br>For Christ sake, ain't nobody validated super-dooper nano-thermite, which only appeared in Dr. Jones' samples and not those of USGS and others. Ain't nobody looked at various anomalous pieces of evidence -- such as pulverization or duration of underground hot-spots -- and definitively explained "this is how NT mixed with a chemical explosive would have been mounted to achieve", say, steel arches/sags, wall assembly "steel doobies", pulverization of concrete into fine powder [which is a HUGE energy sink.]
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 104 -->
<a name="x105"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x105" class="tiny">x106</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">We know the towers were blown up</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_106" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Pete Davenport</b>
<br>We know the towers were blown up.
<br>
<br>What's the point of arguing about the details?
<br>
<br><b>Pete Davenport</b>
<br>The important narrative is, "WHO DUNNIT?"
</p>
</div><!-- section 106 -->
<a name="x107"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x107" class="tiny">x108</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">My hobby-horse left its hoof-prints everywhere</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_108" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, You have me in agreement that the "who" is an important narrative, but I don't think we can get to the "who" without fully understanding more of the "how". Why? Because the "who" has spent plenty of resources after-the-fact to obscure the "how", to introduce all manner of disinformation to hide the truth, and even to infiltrate and steer the 9/11 Truth Movement. [Which we all knew would happen, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it." We need to ask "how" they steered us in addition to slow-walking us.]
<br>
<br>We've almost met the limit expressed by former Reagan CIA Director William Casey (paraphrased) "We will know our (disinfo) efforts are complete when everything the public thinks they know about something is wrong."
<br>
<br>Here's a brief analogy about why the "how" is important. Man gets killed in kitchen with a knife.
<br>[Version A] Woman was being attacked by the strange man, and used her handy Kitchen Cutco knife from the counter to defend herself. [Version B] Woman forged and honed the perfect knife for weeks in the garage giving it a leather handle and ornamental engravings, and used it like a speed-crazy sewing-machine up and down the dead man's body.
<br>
<br>The "how" matters.
<br>
<br>Case in point: When people throw about willy-nilly that <i>"the WTC towers were destroyed with explosives,"</i> every country on this planet has explosives... Oh, wait! Supposedly it was super-duper nano-thermite, which many countries have, isn't an explosive but an incidiary, needs to be mixed with RDX or something brissant. [According to Dr. Steven Jones himself just after he used his nuclear credentials to "repudiate all forms of 9/11 nuclear involvement".]
<br>
<br>My 9/11 hobby-horse is that multiple tactical late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices of a hybrid fission-fusion nature releasing 80% of the yield as highly energetic neutrons were used 4 per detonation level (x 6-20 detonation levels) in the towers, and in WTC-4 leveling the main edifice at a neat line with its North Wing and leaving its gold vaults, in WTC-6 leaving its outer walls while gutting the inside but aimed upwards to allow some preservation of its vaults, in WTC-5 the punch-out holes, and in WTC-7 on that infamous key "pillar 47".
<br>
<br>My hobby-horse left its hoof-prints everywhere if you just open your eyes to it.
<br>
<br>Therefore, assuming the validity of this "how", the list of suspected countries gets reduced to two: the USA and Israel. Based on the mischaracterization of the "dancing Arabs" in a van with a 9/11 miral painted on it who were Mossad, it wouldn't surprise me if Mossad was WTC boots-to-the-ground while the neo-cons in charge (e.g., Cheney, Rumsfeld) ran interference with their dozen military exercises for 9/11.
<br>
<br>Getting into the "how" also explains lots of pysops disinfo that we went through in the meantime: from deep-underground nukes, to beam-from-space-DEW, to nano-thermite, to no-planes-at-the-WTC.
<br>
<br>"USA/Israel Nuked Us on 9/11"
<br>
<br>Any small but growing whiff in the public conscience that any form of nuclear weapons were used from our own stockpiles by our agents and/or allies against innocent US civilians on US soil in the heart of its commerce on 9/11 [despite the devices to be proven to be comparatively low radiation -- the good news from 9/11] could/should/would lead even today to a figurative massive nuclear fallout to the reputations of all sorts of people, agencies, institutions, and corporate media.
<br>
<br>The complicity with the cover-up, the distraction, the official narrative would become a type of litmus test that could figuratively nuke many a career in all sorts of fields of endeavor.
<br>
<br>They know this, which is why "the black-hole treatment".
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 108 -->
<a name="x109"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x109" class="tiny">x110</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">aftermath w/ Geiger counters</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_110" style="display: block;">
<p>Did anyone scope out the aftermath w/ Geiger counters? Tip: Don't spend so much time telling me you know exactly what happened, and don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head.
<br>I just want the truth & anyone who thinks they can nit-pick about any observations I have - spend your time elsewhere. The TRUTH / details will eventually come out - and I am not one that wants to continually kick the TRUTH can down the road and ask for $ ETC.
</p>
</div><!-- section 110 -->
<a name="x111"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x111" class="tiny">x112</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_112" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, You ask an interesting question: <i>"Did anyone scope out the aftermath w/ Geiger counters?"</i> But it is partly a trick question.
<br>
<br>The answer is: <i>"No, they did not scope out the aftermath with Geiger counters."</i> Shoddy measurement sampling is a bane to all 9/11 Government reports, as are scope-limited reports from the onset. They had the really "hot" areas off-limits [aside from melting your boots.] They outlawed cameras and Geiger counters in the clean-up workers at GZ, by order of the Mayor.
<br>
<br>I did review the reports, and provide a snippet of my critique of such below. Before offering that, allow me to interject the reports do have finger-prints of nuclear activities, so their "trick" was to frame all "nuclear devices" as being "big, bad, lots-of-radiation and much more than in the data tables, thus no nukes were involved." Not so.
<br>
<br>From a "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW"
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>=== begin "Section 11. Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al"
<br>
<br>The fiction in the 911TM about the WTC not having any radiation seems to come from the report: "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001" by The Paul Lioy et al.
<br>
<br><a href="https://archive.org/details/CharacterizationOfTheDustsmokeAerosolThatSettledEastOfTheWorldTrade_552">https://archive.org/details/CharacterizationOfTheDustsmokeAerosolThatSettledEastOfTheWorldTrade_552</a>
<br>
<br>Among its flaws:
<br>
<br>- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
<br>
<br>- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
<br>
<br>- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
<br>
<br>- Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). The Lioy report only mentions "Uranium" twice: once in the methodology section and once in table 2 indicating metals found. Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
<br>
<br>The Lioy report states:
<br>
<blockquote><p>+++
<br> We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.
<br>+++ end</p></blockquote>
<p>The tritium study re-define "background levels", so this report might be following the same pattern. Except that this report provided neither the measured values nor the values of what they "background level".
<br>
<br>It is significant when they write: "Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level." For the gravity-driven-pile-drivers that the government attributes to the WTC tower destruction, nothing radioactive elevated to twice background level should have existed at all. Likewise, chemical explosives and incendiaries are not known for releasing radiation, so even "slightly elevated beta activity" should not be left around as a signature if such were the only cause of destruction.
<br>
<br>With regards to radiation, the argument is sometimes made that there is no proof of "measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero". This has been proven wrong. On the flip side, the opposite cannot be proven: namely of "~no~ measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero." Where are the reports that measure systematically, thoroughly, and timely all forms of radiation at or below background levels?
<br>
<br>The Lioy report characterizes the dust as:
</p>
<blockquote><p><br>+++
<br> [T]he particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-Âμm diameter) particles, not the fine (<2.5-Âμm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-Âμm diameter)... Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a "star-wars" beam destroying the Towers).
<br>+++ end</p></blockquote>
<p>This is a straw man created by splitting hairs with regards to the amount of these Âμm particles and by framing it as "near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke)".
<br>
<br>First, Lioy does ~not~ state that there was ~no~ fine (<2.5-Âμm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-Âμm diameter) particles generated in the WTC destruction, because indeed there was and indeed this still represents a massive energy sink even if the greatest abundance of dust particles were supercoarse (>10-Âμm diameter). It takes much energy to make even the unregulated supercoarse dust particles.
<br>
<br>Second, they make no effort to describe "mini-nuke" correctly for the observed outcomes. They allow the imagination of the readers, formed by many years of nuclear weapons PR hype, to fill in the blanks.
<br>
<br>=== end From a "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW"
</p></blockquote>
<p>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 112 -->
<a name="x113"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x113" class="tiny">x114</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">Thanks for taking the time / details</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_114" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Maxwell Bridges Thanks for taking the time / details, Maxwell Bridges
</p>
</div><!-- section 114 -->
<a name="x115"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x115" class="tiny">x116</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">flubbing of the physics problem of the wings against light poles at high velocity</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_116" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/posts/1750238365416448/?comment_id=1750259705414314&reply_comment_id=1750817322025219">https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/posts/1750238365416448/?comment_id=1750259705414314&reply_comment_id=1750817322025219</a>
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, Regarding Chandler and the Pentagon, it is the light poles with high velocity physics that really undermines his credibility. He comes on to the scene as Mr. High School Physics Teacher as if all humble and whatnot. In reality, he has at least a B.S. in Physics before he went back and got the teaching certificate.
<br>
<br>As such, his flubbing of the physics problem of the wings against light poles at high velocity? Right up his alley of expertise even for high school students. But to so spectacularly IGNORE it and not discuss it? Why, that exposes the agenda.
<br>
<br>==== This right here is below the FB fold of "see more."
<br>
<br>Therefore I get to remind you that Mr. High School Physics Teacher (Chandler) had sufficient college level physics to understand nuclear power and nuclear reactions. But when cornered by me on the theme of a nuclear 9/11, suddenly he doesn't have the educational background in that physics to be able to comprehend. [Not to brag but to validate the claim, the first three semesters of engineering school contains the same physics classes that the physics majors take, and in 3rd semester (if not 2nd as well) it gets into nuclear concepts. Been there, done that with my B.S. in an engineering field.]
<br>
<br>So although I praise Mr. Chandler's videos of high school physics applied to the towers' destruction, here again he had his hand on the steering wheel of the 9/11 TM by ignoring the obvious questions in physics having to do with the massive energy sink. They never cough up realistic speculation into how NT was position in the towers to achieve what was observed (and heard in low decibels). They never discuss WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. Or the evidence in Dr. Wood's book [and remember Chandler's piss-poor good, bad, ugly book review. One of my better $50 gifts that keeps on giving. Agent of disinfo A will never engage, let alone debunk, disinfo B from another agent.]
<br>
<br><i>"None of the relevant evidence should be ignored..."</i> Dr. Griffin
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 116 -->
<a name="x117"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x117" class="tiny">x118</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">Joo-dy Wood is disinfo</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_118" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Joo-dy Wood is disinfo, cold event BS. I don;t dispute DEW but not in the case of the Twin Towers & all the burnt vehicles about the place.
<br>
<br>Listening to her say the word "dustification" over and over, years ago, on Coast To Coast Am - was truly ANNOYING.
</p>
</div><!-- section 118 -->
<a name="x119"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x119" class="tiny">x120</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">AE9/11Truth failed to debunk Dr. Judy Wood's work legitimately</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_120" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, don't be such a brainless bot. Her name is spelled Dr. Judy Wood. I have personally debunked her work, which AE9/11Truth failed to do. Why did they fail while I succeeded? Because I address the nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's disinformation vehicle.
<br>
<br>When I debunked Woodsian-DEW, part of the reason was ABL and beams-from-space having optics and energy sources (sufficient to meet the WTC energy sink) issues that makes it unreasonable. She did a shitty job of nuclear research and dropped the innuendo of cold fusion. If she did any nuclear research, she omitted the good parts like nothing on neutron bombs (of the 1970's) that became the late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices hybrid fission-fusion. Nuclear power is well understood; only a disinfo agenda would prevent her from powering her DEW with something real-world actionable from within the towers.
<br>
<br>When highly energetic neutrons pass through materials, they typically leave energy behind, deep and throughout the molecular structure of the materials. The result is "dustification".
<br>
<br>All the burned vehicles like on West Broadway near WTC-7 (before it came down) and in the parking lot can be explained from the side-effects of the FGNW. Namely, while 80% of the already tactical nuclear yield of each device was in the form of directed highly energetic neutrons, the remaining 20% was in the traditional heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The heat and blast wave gave us the "steel doobies" highlighted in Dr. Judy Wood's work, as well as arches/sags. However, the EMP slipping out line-of-sight through window slits and hitting vehicles (generating Eddy currents of sufficient amperes to heat the metal to ignite things.)
<br>
<br>However, this video of WTC-4 (from Dr. Wood) gives me pause to rethink the extent of EMP. Maybe the FGNW destruction of the main edifice of WTC-4 (dustified to street level and not below into the gold vaults) and EMP sources closer.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRhJgaa3qLw&t=104s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRhJgaa3qLw&t=104s</a>
<br>
<br>Don't answer me here, because this is off-topic in this Pentagon discussion, but be thinking of an answer. How does nano-thermite explain WTC-4, such a neat cut from its North Wing? Ask yourself why AE9/11Truth would not explore this smoking gun legitimately.
<br>
<br>//
<br>RA-008. BUILDING FOUR - NOW YOU SEE IT ... NOW YOU DON'T
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 120 -->
<a name="x121"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x121" class="tiny">x122</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">I am NOT going to read your long comment</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_122" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Guess what? I am NOT going to read your long comment. Does that make me dis-info? Does that make me an agent? NO, because I am working. Self-employed. And Jewdy Wood is providing disinfo. How could DEW beams from the Buck Rogers spaceship destroy floors, 1 by 1. NO, they could not.
<br>
<br>I'll let the chips fall where they may - and they did, on 9/11. 'Nuff said.
</p>
</div><!-- section 122 -->
<a name="x123"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x123" class="tiny">x124</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">Unmasking you as a bot was not my agenda. You just kind of proved it yourself.</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_124" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, Your twitter-length response wastes precious characters trying to explain your ChapGPT's limitations on not being able to read and comprehend long comments, and it certainly isn't going to follow links to the WTC-4 videos.
<br>
<br>If you are working now, get out of FB! When you're done with work, done with dinner, done with the dishes, and desire to educate yourself before bedtime, come back to my FB comment, read it, and respond with your objections rationally. "Not reading it" and bragging about not reading it? That doesn't cut it.
<br>
<br>Another clue that you're ChapGPT. Your algorithms confused my debunking of Dr. Judy Wood's work as being me championing her premises. Had you been a rational and curious human, your reading of my comment would have informed you of my true nature and agenda.
<br>
<br>Unmasking you as a bot was not my agenda. You just kind of proved it yourself.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 124 -->
<a name="x125"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x125" class="tiny">x126</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">CHAP GPT - whatever the f--- that is ~</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_126" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Hey, I am just out for TRUTH. NOT reading miscellaneous ramblings of other TRUTHERS - self-professed - like yourself.
<br>I am WELL AWARE of the damage done to the other buildings @ WTC.
<br>Spend your energy elsewhere..
<br>You are confronting one who is only interested in the TRUTH about 9/11, and you could spend your energy more wisely.
<br>CHAP GPT - whatever the f--- that is ~
<br>I was part of the Rethink 9-11 team supposedly, until my 2 prospective political agents backed out - yes, to run Federally on 9/11 TRUTH, so I don't need any lessons from Maxwell Bridges, THX just the same. Be gone
</p>
</div><!-- section 126 -->
<a name="x127"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x127" class="tiny">x128</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">oh the things bragged about!</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_128" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, Bragging about <i>"not reading"</i> even the <i>"miscellaneous ramblings of other TRUTHERS"</i> does not support your contention that you are <i>"only interested in the TRUTH about 9/11."</i> If you truly did not read it -- and I have no reason to doubt your fortitude in not reading things --, then you would not be in an intellectual position to objectively judge that it was supposedly "miscellaneous ramblings" or reasoned argumentation.
<br>
<br>Kudos for being aware of damage to other WTC buildings, but demerits for not being curious enough to rationally explore how they got damaged and how various pieces of anomalous evidence (some of which Dr. Judy Wood collected) came into being. Those non-actions combined with bragging about your non-action [as far as my premise goes] contradict you, "who is only interested in the TRUTH about 9/11."
<br>
<br>Yes, this discussion doesn't completely belong here, except that the theme was the cabal who steered the 9/11 TM.
<br>
<br>When you run across me elsewhere in FB in the 9/11 discussions, this will remain an outstanding issue needed resolution.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 128 -->
<a name="x129"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x129" class="tiny">x130</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_130');">I do not like the insinuation that I am a bot.</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_130" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Hey, I'm no BOT, Mr. And in taking a break, [from actual WORK], I DID just now read through your comments. I also have a good memory and we got into deep discussion a couple of years ago. I don't need to spend the rest of my life trying to figure out exactly WHAT happened to evry WTC building. When eventually society in general grows a pair - the criminals - at least some of them, still alive, can explain their actions in a court of law.
<br><br>I did MY part when Richard went on his cross-CANADA tour in 2014, I put up my hand in Toronto and said I was willing to help. About 50 people across the country did the same - and most of them backed out, due to fear, I am sure.
<br><br>Not me. Not Craig. And again, I do not like the insinuation that I am a bot.
<br><br>Paste: "Unmasking you as a bot was not my agenda. You just kind of proved it yourself."
<br><br>Bye Bye, Sir.
</p>
</div><!-- section 130 -->
<a name="x131"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x131" class="tiny">x132</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">your word at face-value that you are not a bot</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_132" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, Because trusting is one of my super-powers, I will take your word at face-value that you are not a bot. I can see that repeated bot claims could have hurt your feelings.
<br>
<br>But now that we're talking about feelings. How did you think that made ME feel *whimper* when you BRAGGED about not reading the words that I had SLAVED over! *Sniff* When all you could offer was shoot-from-the-hip, shallow, twitter-length brush-off twat!
<br>
<br>*Wiping tears from eyes* When I had to face the utter hypocrisy of you bragging about being a woke truther while also bragging about not reading the researched -- never invalidated -- 9/11 premise of another sincere (if OCD) truther... THAT was most hurtful and sad indeed! *wiping eyes again*
<br>
<br>You wrote: "I don't need to spend the rest of my life trying to figure out exactly WHAT happened to evry WTC building."
<br>
<br>Dude, that's why there's division of labor! You don't have to spend the rest of your life figuring out HOW or WHAT! Just as before your weak understanding stood on the shoulders of others, it can also stand now on the shoulders of my work to get to the next and proper level of 9/11 Truth, particularly now in light that the Pentagon cabal that you decry, also caste hypnotic NT spells over you at the WTC.
<br>
<br>*Snap of the fingers*
<br>
<br>Remember how in Lord of the Rings, "one ring to bring them together, one ring to rule them all." FGNW is the one 9/11 (valid) premise that could unite the TM movement, ignite public awareness, and have figurative radioactive fall-out still today offering many (career) casualties in the deceivers.
<br>
<br>FGNW exposes NT, Woodian-DEW, and (mini, micro, deep under-ground, etc.) 9/11 nukes as pysops limited hang-outs. FGNW validates the Pentagon ruse, "in for a penny, in for a pound."
<br>
<br>FGNW offers a clearer view of the deceit various agencies and commissions exerted as omissions and misdirections.
<br>
<br>FGNW offers figuratively radioactive fall-out still today where needed to many a career.
<br>
<br>FGNW aligns itself nicely with COVID in terms of the breadth of the lies.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 132 -->
<a name="x133"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x133" class="tiny">x134</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">spend hours on end debating minutia</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_134" style="display: block;">
<p>So be it.
<br>I SAID... I was willing to run for election on 9/11 Truth in Canada. I don't need to spend hours on end debating minutia when the larger populace doesn't even GET the basics. See you down the road - but I ain't kickin' that truth can there whilst asking for $ and going to Lost Vegas, etc etc etc
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 134 -->
<a name="x135"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x135" class="tiny">x136</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">"debating minutia" shouldn't even be a thing here</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_136" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, You wrote: <i>"I don't need to spend hours on end debating minutia..."</i>
<br>
<br>I do not doubt your contention of spending hours on Facebook, but as far as "debating minutia" goes, that shouldn't even be a thing here for several reasons.
<br>
<br>(a) The minutia are facts that need to find their place in the true narrative of 9/11;
<br>(b) You're expected to acknowledge them as valid [or prove them invalid] and move on;
<br>(c) Any debate should be on the larger premise, as in, what do these "minutia facts" paint for a big picture when together, as opposed to when they are ignored and omitted;
<br>(d) I'm a sincere seeker of truth.
<br>
<br>You continued: <i>"... when the larger populace doesn't even GET the basics."</i>
<br>
<br>Dude, "shock-and-awe" got us into this; shock-and-awe can get us out.
<br>
<br>From here on in this discussion, let's assume that my 9/11 FGNW premise is correct, becoming more and more correct when applying it to, not just the towers, but also to WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7.
<br>
<br>When Mr. Craig McKee goes nuclear, we'll get nuclear shock-and-awe in the public, because that's what any public whiff of 9/11 nuclear involvement will do. And today 20 years after the fact, figurative radioactive nuclear fallout can still be measured against a host of conspirators, cover-up agents, and the like. THIS IS BIG, and BIGGER than the Pentagon... If true, if the assumption holds.
<br>
<br>At any rate, instead of bragging about what you didn't read, simply read it, see if it makes sense, see if it connects together more data points (the minutia you want to ignore).
<br>
<br>I'm just a Blues Brother on a mission from God: "feed my sheep." This I have done.
<br>
<br>The public's 9/11 nuclear shock-and-awe is for you to ignite, grass-hopper.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 136 -->
<a name="x137"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x137" class="tiny">x138</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');">listening to the right people. And doing research, yes</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_138" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges What is important is listening to the right people. And doing research, yes.
<br>
<br>I know enough to debate obvious liars, they seem to disappear from comments when I put them up to the task. I'm not disparaging any research you have done, and you've already implied that I might be a BOT.
<br>
<br>Working on an acronym - Thanks for the 'kind words', Sir.
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 138 -->
<a name="x139"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x139" class="tiny">x140</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_140');">a thumb to the steering of 9/11 TM thinking</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_140" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, When you proclaim that listening to the right people is important, very subjective it is who is deemed "right people." And even those with PhD can be paid extra, under-the-table, or any which way, to apply <i>"a thumb to the steering of 9/11 TM thinking."</i> What are "wrong people," and in what way are they "wrong?" The literal themes for my hobby-horse where legitimate, substantiating conversation is given "the black-hole treatment."
<br>
<br>Does the "debate obvious liars" refer to our discussion and me? Other than my pseudonym -- my batman, as it were -- I am entirely sincere and genuine and truthful. [I'm a religious fanatic; I'm fanatical about Truth. And if you knew anything about Master Masons, it would be how we revere Truth.]
<br>
<br>I haven't "disappeared from comments when put up to the task." In fact, I have an OCD history of collecting my comments off-line and re-purposing (later; when my procrastination gets beaten back) to venues that I control, which has instilled in me the habit of first writing words worthy of preservation.
<br>
<br>Thank you for not disparaging my research. Because I don't provide model number or color to my FGNW speculation, it ain't an end-station but an important branch line needing sincere and genuine exploration, in part because otherwise it gets concerted efforts into "black-hole treatment."
<br>
<br>As a Blues Brother (but not a Blues fan) on a mission from God -- feed my sheep --, my only desire is to plant the FGNW seed.
<br>
<br>Thereafter whenever you watch any of the WTC destruction footage, you'll think and ask yourself if the observed pulverizing energy and relative silence except for falling crushing debris.
<br>
<br>Thereafter whenever you watch FEMA/NIST videos of the Fresh Kills Scrapyard months after much debris processed, you'll think FGNW particularly when the video tape completely looses its marbles except for sometimes audio track [because video tape recorders were highly succeptable to major glitches caused by radiation.] Digital cameras weren't as prone to failure, and could and did capture radiation in the "snow pixels" when panning over debris.
<br>
<br>You'll water the FGNW seeds yourself whenever you revisit quite literally any aspect of 9/11 (at the WTC) and its cover-up.
<br>
<br>And thus, ye receive nourishment that thou knowest not thy needeth of, spoketh the shepard (from underneath his batman mask).
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 140 -->
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_davenport.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_7 -->
<a name="p8"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_8');">Part 8: Linear evidence assessment</a></h2>
<div id="part_8" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_linearAssessment.htm -->
<a name="x141"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x141" class="tiny">x142</a>
Colin Doran : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_142');">Linear evidence assessment.</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-22</p>
<div id="sect_142" style="display: block;">
<p>Linear evidence assessment.
<br>Mistaking a working hypothesis for a conclusion.
<br>Not evaluating the working hypothesis against the evidence that contradicts it.
<br>Not having a theory that is logical or credible.
<br>Presenting a conclusion that involves a plan without recognising the fact that a plan should make sense to the people planning it.
<br>Being involved in a movement whose objective is to contradict one version of an event and replace it with any other no matter how implausible or illogical.
</p>
</div><!-- section 142 -->
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_linearAssessment.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_8 -->
<a name="p9"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_9');">Part 9: Lorraine Clarke</a></h2>
<div id="part_9" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_loraine.htm -->
<a name="x143"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x143" class="tiny">x144</a>
Lorraine Clarke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_144');">I'll never know what you wrote</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-26</p>
<div id="sect_144" style="display: block;">
<p>Hi there, I notice you wrote a comment to me under McKee's derisory post on Wayne Coste.
<br>
<br>Thanks for the support, but alas I'll never know what you wrote, as McKee has yet again resorted to his favoured tactic of deleting all comments which question his gross hypocrisy and disingenuous statements.
<br>A snake in the grass.
<br>
<br>This happened years ago when I first encountered his Truth & Shadows blog, and posted there. I was viciously attacked by him and Adam Ruff, and numerous comments of mine were deleted, to ensure that he had the last word.
<br>He is devious and dishonest.
<br>Also derivative to the point of plagiarism of his idols CIT.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 144 -->
<a name="x145"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x145" class="tiny">x146</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_146');">|<--this-->| far from getting his deceit publicly exposed on T&S</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-26</p>
<div id="sect_146" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, I have several super-powers, such as being naive and trusting until given reason not to be, persistence, and verbosity. I have internet-known Mr. McKee since just after he started T&S, where I was a regular under the handle "Senor El Once." [I vaguely remember your name as a participant there.]
<br>
<br>I have Mr. McKee's email; he knows the Bruce Wayne to my Batman. Rarely I'd use this back-channel; FB messenger nowadays also infrequently. For most articles on 9/11 he has written, I've provided feedback on typos and concepts. One time, when I was still a left- and back-handed Woodsian-DEWer (and wrong), he let me publish an article to T&S about it, which mostly was about being objective: "Even if Dr. Wood is wrong, nuggets of truth within must be rescued." Man did it bring out the trolls, particularly HR.
<br>
<br>Owing to the first two super powers, I have been giving Mr. McKee the benefit of the doubt all these years: he let me exist and plant my (verbose and articulate) seeds in his forum; he sometimes took my advice; he didn't mind me championing disinfo topics such as September Clues, NPT, Hollow Towers, SimVictims, NT, Woodsian DEW, although to me at the time I was on the fence until I had done my due-diligence; when my understanding on various disinfo topics changed, he let me disassemble its new would-be champions with the truths I had learned leading to my own conversion.
<br>
<br>Mr. McKee banned me in 2014 from T&S, not for my actions but for the suspected future over-reactions of my detractors and how they would spoil the discussion/thread/posting if I made even a single (verbose) comment here or there.
<br>
<br>My evolution in 9/11 thought had brought me to FGNW, which is the direct result of the hook-up of Woodsian-DEW with nuclear devices. Today with 20/20 hindsight, I recognize the black-hole treatment. I couldn't get McKee to allow me to publish an article on this new concept; couldn't get him to review it to give me feedback like what I provided him; or couldn't get him to publish a placeholder article that allows the discussions to legitimately go into nuclear topics. I wanted a coral for my hobby-horse to ride in, and would have saved me from having dropped FGNW seeds in other discussions (verbose, yes; but individual comment and relation to thread), to which agents would react with silly games.
<br>
<br>The two main detractors were HybridRogue1 [aka HR aka Willy Whitten] and Adam Ruff [aka AR].
<br>
<br>HR got banned a few months after me after an almost astroturf tuff between HR and McKee that HR exasperated with purposely inflamatory posting/comments on his own blog, which actually was the nature and purpose of his blog. [On more than a few occassions on COTO and T&S, the rules of decorum were applied against HR resulting in deletion of his postings and comments. So HR created postings on his own blog underneath of which he'd be pretty much the only commenter writing all of the vile things he couldn't write on COTO or T&S about others. I believe he got to three postings on "Maxwell Bridges Disinfo Agent", each filled with hundreds of only his discrediting comments.]
<br>
<br>However, this was also the time-frame when a long-term deceit of HR's was exposed. [Early on, HR was given a copy of Dr. Wood's book, which he ran out the clock on reading much less reviewing; then claimed for 2.5 years it was destroyed as bird cage liner to avoid rationally discussing it (for nuggets of truth); then after my unvoluntary departure from T&S in a discussion with a new T&S participant, HR admitted he still had the book and quoted from it.]
<br>
<br>I suspect or like to think that the exposure of the Dr. Wood's book deceit (after maintaining the lie for 2.5 years) completely discredited the sockpuppet of HR as a valued contributor to T&S [where a sliding window of the last 3000 comments on T&S would reveal 1/3 of them were HR's].
<br>
<br>As for Mr. Adam Ruff, he was |<--this-->| far from getting his deceit publicly exposed on T&S [for weasel lies relating to Dr. Wood and FGNW], so I'm sure this factored heavily into my T&S banishment.
<br>
<br>The credibility of Mr. Adam Ruff and Mr. HR are in tatters from their disengenuous T&S debates with me on my hobby-horse topic.
<br>
<br>Adam Ruff
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html</a>
<br>
<br>HybridRogue
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/laying-bare-propagana-techniques-and.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/laying-bare-propagana-techniques-and.html</a>
<br>
<br>I don't recommend reading my blog front-to-back, A-to-Z, such a repetitive bore it has become even for me. Certainly, if you're directed anywhere on my blog, make use of the expand/collapse section features to more effectively scan the work and bore into areas of interest.
<br>
<br>Adam Ruff still advises Mr. McKee.
<br>
<br>Mr. McKee overtly states that he wants to use the Pentagon to bring public awareness of 9/11 deceit. Despite years of my begging, he won't even allow a placeholder for FGNW discussions to transpire on the forums he owns, even if I author it and defend it in the comments.
<br>
<br>Black-hole treatment.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"I notice you wrote a comment to me... I'll never know what you wrote, as McKee has yet again resorted to his favoured tactic of deleting all comments which question his gross hypocrisy and disingenuous statements."</i>
<br>
<br>Not completely. My comments, which undoubtedly related to my FGNW hobby-horse, were the true targets. My comments related to the AE9/11Truth cabal who McKee charges with steering of Pentagon towards OCT, because the same cabal also black-holed all legitimate nuclear considerations at the WTC.
<br>
<br>You wrote in reference to Mr. McKee: <i>"A snake in the grass. He is devious and dishonest."</i>
<br>
<br>This is direct contraction with my naive and trusting super-powers that remain in place until given reason to be. I don't know if I can concur with your personal assessment. All I know is he's doing a good job of giving my hobby-horse the black-hole treatment.
<br>
<br>You wrote in reference to Mr. McKee: <i>"Also derivative to the point of plagiarism of his idols CIT."</i>
<br>
<br>I told him that he is stuck in a rut and spinning the same carousel he was 10 years ago with the Pentagon. The main issues is that the 80+ surveillance videos that could show an approaching plane (or flyover plane) will never be released (in our lifetimes). If he was sincere about bring greater public awareness to the deceit of 9/11, he could literally nuclear energize his efforts and outreach if he would objectively as a journalist legitimately and rationally consider my FGNW hobby-horse premise; hosted a place for discussion to transpire. Whether ultimately debunked or vetted, either outcome is valuable and important to the 9/11 TM, and he'd be the one who brought it to light.
<br>
<br>Black-hole treatment for nuclear 9/11 topics.
<br>
<br>If any part of FGNW is acknowledged even for the purposes of debunking it, it gets validated as a concern. The cat jumps out of the bag. Worse, the figurative massive nuclear fall-out starts with all sorts of (career) casualties, not just the AE9/11Truth cabal.
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff, with or without the skills of HybridRogue1, knows that he can't defeat me/FGNW in debate; he won't even FB friend me and has me FB blocked; game playing will be quickly exposed; and unless bad behavior is repressed and objectivity is exhibited, the portion of my legacy that intersected with AR in the past, could be used to impeach him today.
<br>
<br>AE9/11Truth might also cause Mr. McKee problems if he had any involvement with their FAQ's that I debunked.
<br>
<br>Mr. McKee's Achilles Heel and where outside pressure (Adam Ruff) is exerted on Mr. McKee, is my FGNW hobby-horse. Black-hole treatment for nuclear 9/11 topics.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 146 -->
<a name="x147"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x147" class="tiny">x148</a>
Lorraine Clarke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_148');">a toothless terrier</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-26</p>
<div id="sect_148" style="display: block;">
<p>Well thankyou for that!
<br>I've mentioned that I used to see Ruff as McKee's Rottweiler who he would unleash on me when he wanted to tear me apart, but I have since realised that he is a toothless terrier.
<br>He exposed himself with his superficial and frequently erroneous statements on the Pentagon event.
<br>I find him a bit thick actually, as well as bloated with his own conceit, and generally ignorant of the narrative after so many years actively involved in "the truth movement".
<br>
<br>I used to study the WTC event years ago, and like you, I can see the merit in many of Judy Wood's questions, if not all of her answers.
<br>Her attackers deal only with replacing selected lines of her theories with their own hobby horses, without addressing the many conundrums that remain.
<br>
<br>I accept that we will never know the whole story. It is far too complex, deliberately so. We know that the military has weapons much more sophisticated than anything they tell us about. They can do anything they choose.
<br>The naivete of Truthers who argue "Well why would they go to so much trouble to fake a plane crash at the Pentagon when they could just crash a plane" is stunning. Or else evidence of their duplicity.
<br>
<br>On T&S I had the username Ruby Gray. An homage to my grandmothers, and my other name. But although many commenters use pseudonyms, apparently when I do so, it is evidence of my Machiavellian intent, highly suspicious, and used as a big stick to publicly beat me with, for the sole purpose of discrediting my research.
<br>
<br>I have tried for years to approach this clique of CIT groupies with the new evidence I have found, assuring them that we are on the same page, and that after CIT's errors are corrected, my work builds on theirs and drives it forward again after 12 years of stagnation.
<br>But they are obstinately welded to the ludicrous idea that accusing a dead taxi driver of lying, has somehow "solved 9/11" and negates the necessity for unravelling any evidence.
<br>
<br>They all disgust me.
<br>How they can apply the word "truth" to themselves, I know not.
<br>
<br>Eric Sandstrom is a viper. Mentally unhinged and a loose cannon. He had a very public psychotic breakdown all over FB 2 or 3 years ago. I'm glad I live on a different continent. I try not to inflame his insanity by interacting with him, but he is now targeting me again.
<br>
<br>Ruff has blocked me, so presumably is now libelling me to his heart's content from behind his wall of anonymity.
<br>
<br>Adam Eisenberg, now calling himself Adam Charles, is another who has blocked me after having once sought me out and including me in his "inner circle" of researchers on his "Orion Project".
<br>Again, he sought me out originally due to my work on the Pentagon, but now claims that he never even read it, and that he was "only being nice to me". Another devious player, with a gift for bloviating. But he has yet to come up with anything solid about his claimed month on cleanup at the Pentagon.
<br>Again, he suffered a drug-induced psychotic meltdown when I dared question his story, and he is also in contact with Sandstrom and other questionable characters.
<br>So no doubt the slander is flying thick and fast behind my back.
<br>
<br>You have provided me with a substantial reading list which I shall delve into.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 148 -->
<a name="x149"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x149" class="tiny">x150</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_150');">a bit thick, bloated with his own conceit, and ignorant of the narrative after so many years actively involved in the truth movement</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-26</p>
<div id="sect_150" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, I must caution you [for your sanity] to temper your exploration of exchanges preserved on my website that I've had with others, because when I was dealing with them on T&S or Facebook, it was for me maybe one to a handful of comments a day that I was composing. To read them all at once fire-hose style?!! Woe unto you!
<br>
<br>Comparing notes with you is interesting, particularly Mr. Ruff. You call him <i>"McKee's Rottweiler."</i> After Mr. McKee order HR not to engage me, Mr. Ruff also mostly ignored me.
<br>
<br>My substantiated opinion of Mr. Ruff is: <i>"boastful, lying, weaseling, hypocrite."</i> I can see where you'd call him: <i>"a bit thick actually, as well as bloated with his own conceit, and generally ignorant of the narrative after so many years actively involved in the truth movement."</i>
<br>
<br>Agreed: "I can see the merit in many of Judy Wood's questions, if not all of her answers. Her attackers deal only with replacing selected lines of her theories with their own hobby horses, without addressing the many conundrums that remain."
<br>
<br>Your participation as "Ruby Gray" either was after my time (2014), or not on my hobby-horse topics.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Eric Sandstrom is a viper. Mentally unhinged and a loose cannon."</i>
<br>
<br>He's a Christian Nazi. It's fun to poke holes into Jesus and Christianity to drive him nuts. I don't know what his thing is in life, and 9/11. I limit my engagement. Through messenger, he's accused me of nefarious things with McKee.
<br>
<br>Don't know Adam Eisenberg.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 150 -->
<a name="x151"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x151" class="tiny">x152</a>
Lorraine Clarke : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_152');">according to him, I am a fake truther</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-26</p>
<div id="sect_152" style="display: block;">
<p>Hi! Yes, I was a latecomer to 9/11, being an Australian much less exposed to it. Unfortunately I missed the heydays of debating forums when intelligent, educated people used to share research and evidence.
<br>
<br>Ruff has ridiculed me purely on the basis that I did not start sooner, therefore according to him, I am a fake truther.
<br>
<br>Adam Eisenberg was (so his story goes) an infantryman in one of 2 units on duty for 1 month in 12 hour shifts, cleaning up inside the Pentagon.
<br>He later worked in a job dealing with aircraft parts.
<br>
<br>3 years ago he was unknown. He messaged me, wanting to talk about his experience there. Somehow we lost touch.
<br>Then about 18 months ago he had done a talk show interview, claiming that when he worked in the Pentagon, he never saw any plane parts.
<br>
<br>He is a gifted spruiker, and somehow manages to fill an hour or so with his testimony, while never actually disclosing anything substantial. He has done numerous talk shows now. You can find them on Rumble etc.
<br>
<br>He is allegedly writing a book on this.
<br>I was once included in his circle of researchers and interested parties, and he was constantly messaging or calling, promising to do a big reveal, and make huge waves.
<br>
<br>Early this year he dumped his girlfriend and son, and announced on Facebook that he recommended to all his friends that they buy up all the recreational drugs they could afford, and spend a month or more lazing about a Florida beach, as he intended to.
<br>
<br>He then bombarded FB with pics of him on said beach, blonde bikini clad bimbo draped over him.
<br>
<br>I was so sick of waiting all this time for him to come good on his hype, and hinted that I was not impressed with his behaviour.
<br>
<br>He totally lost it, and became very abusive. There are still numerous voice messages that I've never bothered opening. He said he is going to "expose" me, that he considers me worse than Chandler, and I'm going to rate a chapter in his book. Then he blocked me, so who knows what he is telling people.
<br>
<br>I know that he contacted Eric Sandstrom, is in touch with McKee and Ruff, also Aldo Marquis. They seen to have become even more rabidly aggressive to me lately.
<br>
<br>No matter. I do have some highly valued friends whose opinions and research I respect, as they do mine.
<br>
<br>I had a browse through your archive today. Very interesting that your different approach has received the identical response from Ruff as mine has, years later.
<br>"I've analysed your work and debunked it and I'm not going to waste any more of my precious time on it."
<br>Basically that says he hasn't read it, doesn't intend to, and doesn't have the knowledge to refute anything. What a fraud.
<br>
<br>Don't worry, I'm not likely to OD on reading all that. The sheer weight of semantic waffle would do my head in.
<br>This is what I have been trying to get through to the CIT groupies. They say nothing original. They do no research. They do not address specifics of the evidence.
<br>They waste their lives exchanging insults.
<br>
<br>This is why I said I reluctantly have to agree with Chandler on this one thing - that McKee has never done anything at all, except attack people with a different opinion from his.
<br>
<br>I note that McKee has just posted a self-righteous comment about how Truthers should not engage in censorship.
<br>Ha.
<br>
<br>Please do not call Sandstrom a Christian.
<br>He is just a psychopath.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 152 -->
<a name="x153"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x153" class="tiny">x154</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_154');">McKee, Ruff, and Rogue were individuals</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-26</p>
<div id="sect_154" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, If I had not known of Mr. Adam Ruff for many years and seen "news" videos with chubby Mr. Ruff on his "Unspunnews" before it cratered, I would be closing the sockpuppet circuit between him and Mr. McKee for circumstantial reasons. BUT I'M NOT. And I'm not even completely positive that Mr. Ruff had his hand up the sockpuppet Mr. Rogue, mostly because Mr. Rogue was clever, articulate, but very spiteful, while Mr. Ruff is, as you wrote, "a bit thick actually, as well as bloated with his own conceit."
<br>
<br>Whereas Mr. Rogue almost pulled off the A.Wright sockpuppet as a weak foil to gain 9/11 Truther-cred, (a) Mr. Rogue was much worse at his other sockpuppets and their twitter-length meaningless back-slapping, and (b) thick Mr. Ruff can barely pull-off his own persona and gets caught in boastful lies "I've got Woodsian Debunkary like nobody else, and nukes, too."
<br>
<br>I'm left with the sad conclusion: McKee, Ruff, and Rogue were individuals, but A.Wright was one of Rogue's sockpuppets, and may have had others like TamborineMan.
</p>
</div><!-- section 154 -->
<a name="x155"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x155" class="tiny">x156</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_156');">"these guys had an agenda orthogonal to truth."</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-26</p>
<div id="sect_156" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, My super-powers of being naive and trusting are meeting their match with Mr. McKee. Whether or not valid, I held him in high esteem as an impartial host for (deviant) 9/11 discussions. He'd write an article and might acknowledge a comment or two, but once discussion threats started if he wasn't otherwise involved, the discussions evolved and took their natural course.
<br>
<br>But when HybridRogue1 was discredited severely, when thick Mr. Ruff walked eyes-wide-open into the same discrediting trap, the lessons Mr. McKee learned were not: <i>"these guys had an agenda orthogonal to truth."</i> The lessons learned were to not host discussions where certain AE9/11Truth premises as collateral get discredited, along with many who were once their champions. Too much of a nuclear crater, I guess.
<br>
<br>The krytonite of my super-powers is: "until given reason not to be" (trusting).
<br>
<br>That's kind of where Mr. McKee is now.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 156 -->
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_loraine.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_loraine_02.htm -->
<a name="x157"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x157" class="tiny">x158</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_158');">Mr. Ruff. "McKee's Rottweiler."</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-</p>
<div id="sect_158" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lorraine Clarke, I must caution you [for your sanity] to temper your exploration of exchanges preserved on my website that I've had with others, because when I was dealing with them on T&S or Facebook, it was for me maybe one to a handful of comments a day that I was composing. To read them all at once fire-hose style?!! Woe unto you!
<br>
<br>Comparing notes with you is interesting, particularly Mr. Ruff. You call him "McKee's Rottweiler." After Mr. McKee order HR not to engage me, Mr. Ruff also mostly ignored me.
<br>
<br>My substantiated opinion of Mr. Ruff is: "boastful, lying, weaseling, hypocrite." I can see where you'd call him: "a bit thick actually, as well as bloated with his own conceit, and generally ignorant of the narrative after so many years actively involved in the truth movement."
<br>
<br>Agreed: "I can see the merit in many of Judy Wood's questions, if not all of her answers. Her attackers deal only with replacing selected lines of her theories with their own hobby horses, without addressing the many conundrums that remain."
<br>
<br>Your participation as "Ruby Gray" either was after my time (2014), or not on my hobby-horse topics.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Eric Sandstrom is a viper. Mentally unhinged and a loose cannon."</i>
<br>
<br>He's a Christian Nazi. It's fun to poke holes into Jesus and Christianity to drive him nuts. I don't know what his thing is in life, and 9/11. I limit my engagement. Through messenger, he's accused me of nefarious things with McKee.
<br>
<br>Don't know Adam Eisenberg.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 158 -->
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_fb_loraine_02.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_9 -->
<a name="p10"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_10');">Part 10: Linking Pentagon with a different Hobby Horse</a></h2>
<div id="part_10" style="display: block;">
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_mckeeFGNW_03_pretend.htm -->
<a name="x159"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x159" class="tiny">x160</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_160');">first two bullet points are grossly in error and non-compliant with physics</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_160" style="display: block;">
<p>Shame on you, Mr. Craig McKee! The meme needs to be fixed post-haste, because your first two bullet points are grossly in error and non-compliant with physics.
<br>
<br>Bullet 1: It is a completely false notion to expect any large pieces of aircraft outside the building after the alleged high-velocity crash. Your physics thinking is low-velocity, where energies aren't sufficient to shatter, and pieces are large cohesive wholes. This was high-velocity, high energy. The same proofs that disprove NPT@WTC disprove the assertion that the Pentagon would have any large pieces of aircraft (such as wings, tail). Refer also to Sandia F4 and Mythbuster Rocket Sled.
<br>
<br>Bullet 2: Theoretically (if we assume an alleged aircraft), the wings would have shattered; there is no expectation of the tips of wings creating a hole the full width of the aircraft, although they'd leave a mark (as at the WTC where they left an outline where the wings removed the aluminum cladding). If the wing tips weren't clipped off by the light poles. As at the WTC, the fuselage and the wings up to the engine would have plowed a hole (but smaller than size of plane) through which the tail section would pass. Yes, the upper spine of the tail ought to have left a mark on the face of the building, but neither it or the other portions of the tail.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 160 -->
<a name="x161"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x161" class="tiny">x162</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_162');">hook me into linking the Pentagon with your "hobby horse"</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_162" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I think you've finally revealed yourself. Have you been pretending to oppose the disinformation of people like Coste and Chandler just to hook me into linking the Pentagon with your "hobby horse"? It sure sounds like it based on your comment just above. I'm not going to waste as much time as you would like me to arguing with you about the tail section, a significant portion of which would obviously have been left on the lawn. My first two bullet points are questions, and therefore cannot be "errors." And I will not jump "post-haste" to obey your command. Why don't you find an audience of people who want to talk about what you want to talk about and stop trying to play me?
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 162 -->
<a name="x163"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x163" class="tiny">x164</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_164');">Mistake or Easter Egg that the plane didn't fly the path of the light poles?</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_164" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, your panties seem to be in a wad because I pointed out legitimate weaknesses in your malframed questions to Mr. Chandler about the alleged Pentagon plane.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><p>*John Belushi voice* Well, E.X.C.U.S.E--M.E for trying to warn you about the defect that physics teacher Chandler will straw-man beat down and use to make you look like a science-challenged fool who, neither in high school or college, had any course work in basic physics.</p></blockquote>
<p>Summation: From a physics perspective and the energy involved (velocities two orders of magnitude greater than parking lot fender benders wing/light-pole impacts that put deep gashes in the wing, of which you have images and memes), THERE IS NO EXPECTATION FOR there to be any LARGE PIECES OF WRECKAGE outside the Pentagon, because the impact shatters the wings leaving no cohesive whole (or partial) wing to see, including the upper fin of the tail). Assuming an aircraft, once the wall was breached by a shattering and crumpling leading fuselage, through that plowed path would flow the rest of the fuselage and tail (in a situation similar to the towers).
<br>
<br>But this ASSUMES that the high-velocity plane made it through the gauntlet of the light poles without leaving fragments of wings or aircraft and (soon) ignited fuel all over the lawn.
<br>
<br>The physics to use against Chandler/Coste and the alleged Pentagon aircraft impact is the high-velocity wings-versus-light-poles. [Images of low-velocity impacts do have some relevance, like to show low-velocity energy is sufficient to slash the materials of aircraft wings. Sandia F4 and Mythbuster Rock Sled videos are helpful to grasp shattering impacts.]
<br>
<br>Your premise (that I agree with) is they staged the fly-over plane and the light poles (and other things). [Mistake or Easter Egg that the plane didn't fly the path of the light poles?] They knew light pole damage would give "direction" and "cause" to the aircraft ruse, certainly for science-challenged rubes.
<br>
<br>However, the premise (OCT or cabal) of a real aircraft to be physics-compliant requires more-so-than-ever that the light poles be staged, because otherwise the high-velocity wing/light-poles shattering would foul the precision strike needed (and targeted damage observed).
<br>
<br>With or without a real aircraft, the light poles had to be staged, indicating fore-knowledge and complicity.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 164 -->
<a name="x165"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x165" class="tiny">x166</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">FOR YEARS I have been trying to "hook you (up)" or "saddle you up" into riding my hobby-horse</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_166" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, When you were getting started with your 9/11 blog(s), and me with mine over a decade ago, I told you that our purposes and aims, aside from striving towards Truth, were different.
<br>
<br>You know the Bruce Wayne to my Batman, and that the responsibilities of my humble Wayne Manor made me unlikely for the limelight of running a broad-ranging 9/11 blog, attending 9/11 conferences, being a celebrity on conspiracy radio or pod-casts, protesting on street corners, working for AE9/11Truth, etc.
<br>
<br>So whereas you took a broad-approach, I did deep-dives into specific rabbit-holes that you could not, and rode those hobby-horses until, all but one, they died from the weight of their purposeful errors when their deceit was discovered, catalogued, and re-promoted as great examples of disinformation (and what made it so.)
<br>
<br>Just because I use a Batman to participate on the internet, it does not mean that I'm pretending or less-sincere. I've got legacy that shows evolution in thought and understanding. The OCD collection of my words documents my sincerity in shopping my FGNW hobby-horse -- last one still alive -- to the various corners of the internet (and Facebook) for the expressed purpose of getting it debunked [euthanized], or vetted.
<br>
<br>You ask me: <i>"Have you been pretending to oppose the disinformation of people like Coste and Chandler just to hook me into linking the Pentagon with your 'hobby horse'?"</i>
<br>
<br>It should be embarrassing for you that AFTER LITERALLY YEARS of me BEGGING you to objectively CONSIDER my FGNW hobby-horse, you out yourself as never having read it! Because if you had read it, you'd see where I've pointed out the errors/disinformation from Coste/Chandler from a completely different direction than your Pentagon hobby-horse.
<br>
<br>You accuse me of pretending. El-oh-el.
<br>
<br>Was that a projecting slip of the tongue, Mr. McKee? Have you been <i>"pretending"</i> to be <b><i>"the"</i> 9/11 Journalist-extraordinaire?</b>
<br>
<br>In riding my 9/11 hobby-horse around, the black-hole treatment to nuclear 9/11 topics has been pretty consistent. [It was the reason 9/11 blogger was "nuked" into nothingness. They couldn't contain the number of objective, open-minded participants who legitimately questioned nuclear use.]
<br>
<br>Yes, Mr. McKee, literally FOR YEARS I have been trying to "hook you (up)" or "saddle you up" into riding my hobby-horse: just once around my off-line corral and identify its typos, at the very least. Black-hole style, you couldn't be bothered; you couldn't help out another brother in 9/11 Truth using your writing/editing skills to improve his work (or identify why it belongs in the trash.)
<br>
<br>Open-minded? Objective? ^^^ THAT black-hole action above shows that maybe YOU were pretending.
<br>
<br>And let's explore what "hooking you" on my FGNW really means.
<br>
<br>- You aren't required to agree with FGNW. You could base your article debunking FGNW. [Although given my debating talents, you know I'd be a formidable discussion opponent. Franklin-Jefferson?]
<br>
<br>- You aren't required to argue one side or the other either in the article or discussion.
<br>
<br>- The low-bar for hooking your involvement was: hosting the discussion on your world-famous 9/11 blog(s) and moderating the subsequent lively discussion. [Because it won't be just the already-discredited HybridRogue's and Adam Ruff's rushing and shooting-from-the-hip to try to deep-six it, while also spamming back-channel your email. They'll be a whole new caste of agents and ChatGPT bots spamming the threads with twitter-length shallowness.]
<br>
<br>Once the corral for my FGNW hobby-horse is built [with or without my labor or materials that I make available] on your plantation of 9/11 journalism truth and excellence, it would be my task to defend it.
<br>
<br>All my hobby-horse really needs is a more public corral to run around in, where it will easily buck-off the disinformation agents and put hoof-prints in the asses of their disinformation.
<br>
<br>I've made a lot of hay over the years tearing apart 9/11 disinformation section-by-section in the spirit of our great patron saint of 9/11, Dr. David Griffin.
<br>
<br>That kind of becomes the gold-standard for how my FGNW premise should be treated.
<br>
<br>Remember: this is literally and figurative nuclear.
<br>
<br>If you build the corral, it will nuclear-energize the 9/11 Truth Movement, and thereafter the awareness of public at large WHICHEVER way the discussion goes (a) my hobby-horse's legitimate slaughter, or (b) my hobby-horse's legitimacy!
<br>
<br>Debunked or vetted, this effort is important to Truth, the world, and your reputation.
<br>
<br>And you'll be "the host with the most" who got it done! You'll be the persistent journalist who got to the bottom of this one rabbit-hole; you'll be the one who goes on both social media tours and corporate media tours. [Like Dr. Fetzer before us who showed us how to monetize conspiracy theory in retirement, this could be how you supplement yours.]
<br>
<br>Full disclosure: Hosting is the easy part; moderating the discussion isn't. Moderating won't be without cost (time, effort, others' ire.)
<br>
<br>Right now, though, you continue your slow-walking, stone-walling, and black-holing trend to what for you should be a BLOCK-BUSTER, MEDIA-BREAKING, CAREER-BOOSTING endeavor (whichever way it goes).
<br>
<br>Now with quite literally YEARS of being on your radar festering, your Achille's Heel is this FGNW hobby-horse and how you treat it.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 166 -->
<a name="x167"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x167" class="tiny">x168</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">A complete waste of time, Mad Max is</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_168" style="display: block;">
<p>Craig McKee Maxwell Bridges is our commander in brief, and we must follow ALL his directions, post hate...
<br>LOL
<br>Plenty of absurd comparisons and statements in the latest round(s).
<br>A complete waste of time, Mad Max is.
<br>Citing the Mythbusters now, looks good on you MM, "Take that!".
<br>And there's a few of us here that could leave a rather good "boot-print" on your lying ass, in a debate about the pentagon.
<br>Of COURSE no jet plane, fighter or not, is going to penetrate, what was it, a 3 foot thick wall of reinforced concrete ~ We're talking about a specific situation here - a supposed 757 hitting a specific area of the pentagon.
<br>ALL good bullet points / Q'ss / observations, Craig.
<br>And yes, it's pants-down time for you, Mad Max. You truly have exposed yourself. 🤓📅🪬🪠ðŸ´â€â˜ ï¸
<br>May be an image of 1 person
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 168 -->
<a name="x169"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x169" class="tiny">x170</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_170');">Complete goofiness, once again</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_170" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Complete goofiness, once again. I read the whole thing, MM, only because it's 3 in the morning LOL
<br>And I can also say when I used boot-print on your ass in another comment earlier, I hadn't read your hoofprint remark. Synchronicity.… See more
<br>May be pop art of 1 person and eyewear
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 170 -->
<a name="x171"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x171" class="tiny">x172</a>
Uno Raza : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_172');">never seen the results of a plane crash!</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_172" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Maxwell Bridges ROTFL!!! I'm guessing you've never seen the results of a plane crash! Clue: lots of big parts!
</p>
</div><!-- section 172 -->
<a name="x173"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x173" class="tiny">x174</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_174');">title</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_174" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges It was Steve Martin who the "Excuse me" thing
</p>
</div><!-- section 174 -->
<a name="x175"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x175" class="tiny">x176</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_176');">Ray Charles great "excuse me" with John Belushi</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_176" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee <i>*Steve Martin voice*</i> <b>Well, Ex-CUSE ME for being so factually wrong on 30+ year-old SNL trivia!</b> I stand corrected. Although Ray Charles did have a great "excuse me" line in a scene with John Belushi.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK33V7FGjd8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK33V7FGjd8</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 176 -->
<a name="x177"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x177" class="tiny">x178</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_178');">at the peril of your own understanding of high-velocity physics</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_178" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Pete Davenport, There is no need for expressing your desire to execute physical violence <i>"boot-print on (my) lying ass"</i>. Almost as bad as your violent thoughts towards me, I notice that you quoted me zero times and put in zero effort to identify for the lurker-audience what I allegedly lied about.
<br>
<br>Worst of all, you seem to want to debate me on the Pentagon, when we're on the same side in debunking an alleged 757, only I do it first with light poles.
<br>
<br>It's not a debate if we're saying <i>"I agree", "yes, you're right", "no issue with that", "good job of summarizing some of my points in your efforts"... </i>
<br>
<br>For these painful reasons, I have no desire to debate you on the Pentagon.
<br>
<br>You mock the Mythbuster Rocket-sled videos that you have never seen at the peril of your own lack of understanding of high-velocity physics. Seek them out, at 3 in the morning, and fast forward to observing the energy from the high-velocity SHATTER materials. This is a very important concept on 9/11, at the Pentagon with both light poles and re-inforced walls and at the WTC (debunking NPT@WTC claims).
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 178 -->
<a name="x179"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x179" class="tiny">x180</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">a precision missile would take away all risks associated with a real aircraft</a></b></p>
<p>2023-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_180" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Uno Raza, You are missing some clarifications when you wrote: <i>".. the results of a plane crash! Clue: lots of big parts!"</i>
<br>
<br>The missing clarifications begins with the velocities at the time of crash and impact angle. For example, planes taking off or landing have lower velocities, and this plays a major physics role in how big the pieces are. Planes taking off and landing have a flight vector (intended to be) parallel to the ground, as opposed to a flight vector that is orthogonal to what it impacted (e.g., side of mountain, side of building). High-velocity crashes magnifies exponentially the energy available to shatter materials. [This is the take-away lesson from both the Sandia F4 and the Mythbuster rocket-sled videos.]
<br>
<br>Another missing clarification is where the crash happened. Conveniently three of four 9/11 crash managed to embed themselves in building, and the fourth in an old mine, thus allegedly hiding the evidence.
<br>
<br>FTR, I'm not OCT at the Pentagon; I believe they staged it.
<br>
<br>Assuming a real plane at the Pentagon for a brief moment, I believe -- to your point -- we would have observed large pieces of the wings on the Pentagon lawn from having clipped the light poles and been sheered off, which would not have made the rest of the fuselage not precisely controllable thereby scraping and breaking fuselage along the lawn and into construction trailers then smacking the wall. Most important of all, there would be luggage and content of luggage strewn about, and a lot more seats.
<br>
<br>My point in this discussion was that OCT suggests the Pentagon plane clipped the light poles and was in tact when it hit the side of the building. Using their logic and given the (achieved) goal of wiping out ONI at the Pentagon, the light poles were a known risk factor that would foul the precision of the plane, and therefore had to be staged. They probably discovered other risk factors with a real plane, like maybe not being able to pierce the re-enforced Pentagon walls and executing the damage required by the agenda (e.g., shutting down ONI investigation). So, "in for a penny, in for a pound", if they're gonna stage the light poles, why not stage the fly-over plane (mistake or Easter Egg that it flew the wrong vector?)
<br>
<br>Related off-track considerations.
<br>
<br>Construction sites are typically organized with rows and aisles to be able to get at materials stacked and stored there with forklifts and other vehicles. Vehicles and trailers would be parked in an orderly fashion with respect to one another, but also probably to the building itself.
<br>
<br>In the aftermath of the Pentagon (alleged) plane, one of the construction trailers that was torched was sitting at an angle with respect to the other trailers, the site organization, the Pentagon, etc. but the angle was consistent with the (alleged) flight path through the light poles.
<br>
<br>Rather than releasing any of the 80+ confiscated surveillance videos, at one point an animation of the Pentagon plane was created that made light-hearted mention of hitting light poles and emphasized a wing allegedly hitting the construction trailer, knocking it out of parking alignment with others, and knocking it in alignment with the flight path.
<br>
<br>My wild-ass speculation is that the alignment of the construction trailer to match the alleged flight path was done as part of the light pole staging. That construction trailer was the launching point for a point-blank missile strike which gave directional damage to the building that they falsely attributed to a plane. The construction trailer was torched by the exhaust of missile igniting and getting up to speed.
<br>
<br>Such a precision missile would take away all risks associated with a real aircraft, such as not being able to precisely take out the ONI objective.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 180 -->
<!-- ***** 202309_mcb_mckeeFGNW_03_pretend.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_10 -->
<!-- End the page here -->
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
M. C. Brueckehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11749873350461333806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-87602889170866131252023-10-01T10:11:00.014-07:002023-11-11T13:50:07.232-08:00NPT@WTC Discussions Vol. 3
<!-- "NPT@WTC Discussions Vol. 3" -->
<p>by Maxwell C. Bridges
<br>2023-10-01</p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
// window.location.hash = id;
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function getURLParam(strParamName){
var strReturn = "";
var strHref = window.location.href;
if ( strHref.indexOf("?") > -1 ){
var strQueryString = strHref.substr(strHref.indexOf("?")).toLowerCase();
var aQueryString = strQueryString.split("&");
for ( var iParam = 0; iParam < aQueryString.length; iParam++ ){
if (aQueryString[iParam].indexOf(strParamName.toLowerCase() + "=") > -1 ){
var aParam = aQueryString[iParam].split("=");
strReturn = aParam[1];
// alert(strReturn);
break;
}
}
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
// alert(strReturn);
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
// alert(myTarget);
if (myTarget == "-false-") {
areaHideAll("part_");
areaHideAll("sect_");
} else {
areaHideAll("sect_");
areaShowAll("part_");
sectionShow(myTarget);
// location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<p>This article spins a few times on the carousel called <i>"no plane theory at the World Trace Center"</i> (NPT@WTC), that I first took serious with September Clues. </p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
<p>Previous carousel spins:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html">Round 1</a> (2014-03): NPT with Norma Rae and FB "All Theories Welcome"</li>
<li><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html">Round 2</a> (2015-01: NPT with Rosalee Grable</li>
<li><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html">Round 3</a> (2016-01): NPT with Shiela Casey</li>
<li><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html">Round 4</a> (2016-06): NPT with Dr. James Fetzer</li>
<li><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">Round 5</a> (2019-05): NPT with Art Olivier, Thomas Digan</li>
<li><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">Round 6</a> (2019-12): NPT with Chukwudi Onugha</li>
<li><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">Round 7</a> (2020-01): NPT with Michael Rose</li>
</ul>
<p>In this volume:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/10/nptwtc-discussions-vol-3.html">Round 8</a> (2022-02): NPT Discussions with Andy Christensen, David Tame, Winston Smith, Darris Mishler, Michael W. Lurie, Malcolm Sturrock, Tim Hussey</li>
<li><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/10/nptwtc-discussions-vol-3.html">Round 9</a> (2022-05): NPT Discussions with Max Pruss </li>
<li><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2023/10/nptwtc-discussions-vol-3.html">Round 10</a> (2022-08): NPT Discussions with Daniel M. Plesse, Mike Johnson, Lisa Brooks, Jerome Grogan, Edward Irwin, Cole Anderson, Noel Kreutzmann </li>
</ul>
<a name="p1"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_1');">Part 1: Round 8 NPT Discussions with Andy Christensen, David Tame, Winston Smith, Darris Mishler, Michael W. Lurie, Malcolm Sturrock, Tim Hussey</a></h2>
<div id="part_1" style="display: none;">
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_npt_andyChristensen.htm -->
<a name="x1"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x1" class="tiny">x2</a>
David Tame : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">pre-planted incendiary substance acting like a propellant</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250&notif_id=1644182966593526&notif_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">2022-02-06</a>
<br>A pre-planted incendiary substance, part of controlled demolition, which here is acting like a propellant, so that portion of the blown-up building is actually being propelled downward faster than it would fall from normal gravity. A lot of this is going on in the photo, and in all such photos, and videos, from 9/11. That's not a 'falling' building, but very clearly a building being blown up under pre-planted controlled demolition.
<br>
<br>The nonsensical official story is a cover-up. So who *really* did it?
</p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name="x3"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x3" class="tiny">x4</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">coincidentally supporting unwittingly my deviant FGNW premise</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Tame, we agree in the nonsensical official story as a lame-ass cover-up. And I regret playing right into the role of splitting this 9/11 Truth kum-by-ya fellowship by arguing about a detail.
<br>
<br>It was not pre-planted incendiary. Don't feel bad. You've been duped by some of the best disinformation in the business, that you and nearly the entirety of AE9/11Truth have been suckered by the NT limited hang-out.
<br>
<br>Rather than repeating myself, I'll point you to another top-level comment from me that goes into my FGNW theory. Upon request, I can debunk NT as the primary mechanism of destruction, and have a section of a blog posting that already has it written up.
<br>
<br><b>Spoiler:</b> high school math and chemistry debunk NT, as do the reports on the dust, while coincidentally supporting unwittingly my deviant FGNW premise.
<br>
<br>To your question. Capitalists did 9/11. Zionists in high places, plus boots to the ground Mossad in places.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 4 -->
<a name="x5"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x6</a>
David Tame : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">I agree on who done it</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I agree on who done it. As in who most were at the very top, and some important boots on the ground.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x7" class="tiny">x8</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">and no planes?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges ...and no planes...?
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x9" class="tiny">x10</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">planes at the WTC were involved</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, planes at the WTC were involved, and lots of evidence was available to this fact before either tower came down. The whole disinformation campaign NPT@WTC was spun up when too many questions about missing planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville kept getting asked. //
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x11" class="tiny">x12</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">zero debris at any and all points of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges sorry. Proof is there for anyone to see...
<br>
<br>There is zero debris at any and all points of impact...impossible the have been a crash. But, please, go ahead and give be your best explanation as to why that is true or even possible.
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>And it was not spun up because of that. That is nothing more than an assumption.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x13" class="tiny">x14</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">photographs of aircraft debris at the towers</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You are factually wrong regarding airplane debris at the towers.
<br>
<br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>The wall assembly is from the back-side of the WTC-1 (with respect to direction of impact) with a portion of an aircraft's wheel assembly stuck in it.
<br>
<br>This wall assembly in the street also destroys arguments about crash physics. The plane plowed through one wall and the core area, and it still had enough energy to several the bolts of a wall assembly on the back-side and knock it to the street. If nothing else, this should be saying how weak those connection bolts were. Therefore, any damage on the front-side that can be attributed to entire wall assemblies being pushed about reduces total energy requirement and leaves energy available to bend or break box columns of wall assemblies elsewhere.
<br>
<br>I also have it written up with images in the very last section of the re-purposed page [that documents some of my many discussions with no-planers.]
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br>CRYPTOME.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x15" class="tiny">x16</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">neglect my argument and create their own instead</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges precisely...not one of those reference anything that a have said...you did read what I said, right? Amazing how many neglect my argument and create their own instead
</p>
</div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x17" class="tiny">x18</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">spare you the embarrassment for being wrong owing to being duped by a very crafty disinformation campaign</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You made the comment <i>"zero debris at any and all points of impact."</i> So? When the physics of both the towers and planes is described properly, why would there be aircraft debris left at the entrance hole?
<br>
<br>The wall assemblies had built in failure points: namely, the bolts that connected wall assemblies to one another. If these bolts fail because they were severed [which takes energy, but not massive amounts] the wall assembly could then be plowed out of the way.
<br>
<br>Once penetration happened, what structural content was there to resist the incoming plane? The concrete floors had 12 feet of air in between, and office content not fixed to anything would not necessarily have stopped heavy items from the plane, like wheel assemblies and engines, which both the WTC-1 backside punch out and the engine rocketing to Church and Murray (after bouncing off a roof) adequately prove.
<br>
<br>I was duped by NPT for a few years, but I kept both my eyes and mind open for alternative, more physics compliant explanations. I had to recant my NPT views particularly after I saw the pictures of the wheel assemblies.
<br>
<br>Only because I was duped by NPT@WTC did I ever step up to discuss the matter with other no-planers. As a friend in 9/11 Truth, I wanted to spare them the embarrassment for being wrong owing to being duped by a very crafty disinformation campaign. Because I'm lazy, I saved the discussions. I'll be happy to cut-and-paste from those discussions and disprove anything you'd want to bring up to support your NPT@WTC argument, but you can jump the gun and see what ammo I have diligently stored towards truth. Save ourselves some time and effort.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>NPT and Internet Bots
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x20</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">2,000,000 parts simply disappear</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges why? Because every crash in aviation history did.
<br>
<br>What makes you think that 2,000,000 parts simply disappear... impossible.
<br>
<br>Not one single, isolated, individual, sole, lone piece of aircraft at either site.
<br>
<br>But that's ok. I know how belief overwhelms evidence
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges wingtip to wingtip, nothing of any aircraft exists. Zippo.
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges but please share what you've discovered
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x22</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">your faulty premise is no structure or building content sufficient to keep the mass of the airplane right at the entrance hole</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_22" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, you are making daft comments. You complained about me allegedly not reading your words, yet I quoted you back in a comment that was in the process of being finished before you hurriedly posted another. Now I get to fire that complaint right back at you, because you clearly haven't visited the blog entry the debunks several NPTers.
<br>
<br>You cannot compare 9/11 to <i>"every crash in aviation history"</i> for many reasons, including (a) the plane didn't impact the ground, (b) the planes impacted hollow buildings, (c) the event involved nuclear components that destroyed remnants of the plane left in the building, just as they dustified the concrete, turned thin metal into tiny iron spheres, and created arches/sags, horseshoes, and steel doobies.
<br>
<br>Yes, I think FGNW can disappear 2,000,000 parts.
<br>
<br>However, it didn't. Plenty of parts remained.
<br>
<br>The point you miss is that aircraft debris surrounded the towers and was recognized and identified as such by arriving first responders. MORE IMPORTANTLY, you have yet to address the evidence of the wheel assemblies, with my favorite being the tire embedded between two hollow box columns that was part of a wall assembly that got ripped out of the back side of WTC-1, fell into a neighboring parking lot, and was photographed from several angles before either tower came down. DON'T IGNORE THIS EVIDENCE. ADDRESS IT, OR STFU.
<br>
<br>Shit, the comment with links was already made that debunks your later comment above: <i>"Not one single, isolated, individual, sole, lone piece of aircraft at either site."</i> Is 10 enough? 10 pieces of wheel assemblies, one even found in a hot-tub in a neighboring building.
<br>
<br>BTW, the argument here is that real planes were involved at the WTC. (And why not? They needed a spectacle for the public, and couldn't just raze a building without this pretext.) It is a completely different argument to say that the <i>"real planes were the alleged commercial aircraft,"</i> which is <b>~not~</b> my argument at all. In fact, the engine from a different aircraft and lack of effort to serial-number match engine/wheel assemblies to the alleged commercial aircraft already expose that lie and cover-up.
<br>
<br>Now, regarding your wing-tip to wing-tip comment. Again, the physics of both the towers and the aircraft NEEDS TO BE DESCRIBED PROPERLY. Specifically, the wall assemblies had aluminum cladding on the outside. Wing-tip to wing-tip, this cladding was damaged and gives us from a distance, from disinfo sources, a false impression of a cartoon outline and full wingtip-to-wingtip penetration.
<br>
<br>But no, if you look closely, the outline is only on the aluminum cladding. The penetrating damage to the actual wall assemblies stops just outside the engines on both sides. (In other words, the fuselage and engines were sufficient in mass and structure to plow their way into the building and keep going.)
<br>
<br>Now as far as the wings and their tips go, here is where the equation for energy comes in that uses a velocity squared term. High velocity impacts are much different than low-velocity impacts. The main difference is that the energy of the impact is sufficiently high to shatter materials (e.g., light wing materials, aluminum cladding) but not others (e.g., the wall assemblies at the wing-tips.) [Low velocity crashes, materials maybe deform, maybe break, and if plastic, shatter. We're talking high-velocity with enough energy to shatter aluminum and sheet metal of plane wings.]
<br>
<br>SHATTER is the proper word, because when first responders arrived, they saw lots of identifiable small fragments from the aircraft littering the plaza all around the towers.
<br>
<br>Study the pictures, and you will know what I'm saying is true, and is physics compliant.
<br>
<br>The disinformation campaign purposely described both the towers and the aircraft improperly. NPTers make the claim that <i>"the tail entered the towers in the same number of frames as it took to go through thin air."</i> First of all, owing to the slow video frame rate of the cameras compared to the high speed event, while this statement is true, it masks the fact that deceleration happened. (In other word, what range of velocities will allow an aircraft to travel its length in, say, four frames.) Secondly, I've already mentioned the built-in failure points (bolts) and that once penetration has succeeded, not much building structure or content were present (if not going through the core area) to resist further penetration. And as is observed by the evidence YOU HAVEN'T CONSIDERED YET, a wheel assembly had enough energy after penetration to severe the bolts of a back-side wall assembly and send it to the ground. Likewise, an engine rocketed out of a corner window and flew a couple football fields to bounce off of a building (whose roof damage was noted and would have been hard to fake) before landing on the street at Church and Murray. IF THEY WERE GOING TO PLANT THAT ENGINE, THEY WOULD HAVE AT LEAST CHOSEN THE RIGHT MODEL FOR THE AIRCRAFT, and how in the hell could they have faked the roof damage?
<br>
<br>The point is, there was no structure or building content sufficient to keep the mass of the airplane right at the entrance hole, which is your faulty premise.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x24</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">Plane parts cannot disintegrate</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_24" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Not one piece of evidence of any aircraft impacted here. Wings had 3052sqft of aluminum. That's the area of a Ranch three-bedroom house with a two-car attached garage....aluminum cannot simple shatter away.
<br>
<br>May be an image of outdoors
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>The nine columns to the extreme left are all damaged but not penetrated.
<br>
<br>All alleged films shows no 'blowback' as the plane seamlessly melted in the building. The columns are not peetrated, nothing bounced back and no debris is wedged, jammed, dangled, impacted, wrapped, hung, spiked or smashed. Zero...not one piece of debris.
<br>
<br>All other columns at both sites (you know what I mean) can be described similarly as no debris.
<br>
<br>No photo description available.
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>No debris anywhere
<br>No photo description available.
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Plane parts cannot disintegrate
<br>No photo description available.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 24 -->
<a name="x25"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x25" class="tiny">x26</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">physics compliant reasons why you don't see any plane parts at the entrance holes</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, If you want to debunk a discussion opponent legitimately, you have to read their arguments and substantiation and address their issues. If you fail to do this and it gets pointed out, it comes back on you personally with a wide assortment of negative adjectives that your purposeful stupid (in)actions validated.
<br>
<br>The link to the punch-out site and all of its pictorial evidence of real aircraft, you haven't made peep-one about. That is your target. If you don't address it -- or let it address you and your misconceptions --, you out yourself.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"No debris anywhere"</i> and <i>"Plane parts cannot disintegrate."</i>
<br>
<br>Here is a recap. Some plane parts are light and flimsy [compared to steel wall assemblies]. When the velocity becomes very large as it was in this case [~500 mph, which is already more 5 times normal autobahn speeds], the velocity-squared term in the energy equation really is sufficient to shatter such parts (e.g., wing materials). And wouldn't you know it, the very pictures that you post show that the wall assemblies suffer less and less damage as you go from about the engines to the wing tips. First responders reported seeing that shredded material on the ground surrounding the towers, and there are videos that also show the shattering and falling of small pieces.
<br>
<br>But some plane parts are heavy and solid. When this mass is inserted into that energy equation with the velocity-squared term, the energy is sufficient to sever connecting bolts between wall assemblies, push wall assemblies out of the way, bent hollow box columns of an assembly, and sever similar bolts on the wall assembly of the back side to send it to the street. Similarly, an engine was able to rocket out the corner, fly some distance, bounce off a roof, and land under scaffolding on the street.
<br>
<br>The point is that there are physics compliant reasons why you don't see any plane parts at the entrance holes. The parts are either (a) shattered, bounced off, and on the ground (e.g., wings), (b) passed through the structure and accounted for on the street, or (c) lodged within the structure and not visible from the entrance hole, because remember, <i>"once the outer wall was penetrated, only the inner core and the backside wall prevented parts from escaping,"</i> but escape some still did and you need to OWN UP TO THAT FACT.
<br>
<br>Here. Let me post the link again. Go there. Debunk it.
<br><a href="https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br>CRYPTOME.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x28</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">Cant have a plane coming out if it never went in.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges but I did read your argument. And looked at your pictures. But you can't get to second base if you never touch first first.
<br>
<br>Cant have a plane coming out if it never went in.
<br>
<br>Why is there no air plane in the building.... You see are telling me what you believe happened... I'm not fo that...never really ever do. Nope, I'm telling what DIDN'T happen....and showing you direct evidence which you have yet to disagree with..and your only explanation is impossible. I don't NEED to debunk anything.... I'm telling you no plane hit either one...you can guess what happened after that and believe anything you want.
<br>
<br>What makes you think I was trying to debunk anything? Certainly not from what I said.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<a name="x29"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x30</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">I'm not trying to get into your panties, sir</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, you joker, you. How funny your statement: <i>"Cant have a plane coming out if it never went in." </i>???
<br>
<br>Even more hilarious was your statement: <i>"but I did read your argument. And looked at your pictures. But you can't get to second base if you never touch first first."</i>
<br>
<br>I'm not trying to get into your panties, sir, so let's not talk second or first bases if you can't talk "thoughts" and "impressions" first, honey.
<br>
<br>You saw validated pictures of large pieces of aircraft debris that were discovered and photographed immediately after an event that everyone seems to think involved actual aircraft, except you [and other NPTers that get outed as agents].
<br>
<br>Whatever theory-du-jour you are peddling about the towers has to address all of the relevant evidence (according to Dr. David Griffin in his fine wisdom.)
<br>
<br>Please enlighten me on how those pieces of evidence were created, when, and why. The onus is still on you.
<br>
<br>Let this also be a bot test of you. From the punch out website, quote something or link a picture. Optional: because you seem to want to discount the images on that web page, please debunk them or point out their flaws, really exhibit some original thought in your response.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 30 -->
<a name="x31"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x31" class="tiny">x32</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">zero debris at point of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_32" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>My premise stands
<br>There is zero debris at point of impact.
<br>
<br>No one yet has been able to counter that premise. Outside some lunatic explanation with vaporized, disintegrated, atomized, and now for the first time "shattered", no one can explain that fact.
<br>
<br>But like I said, keep believe in what you think happened.... I'm telling you what didn't....
<br>
<br>There is no debris at point of impact...X 2...
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Validated by whom...those bringing you the narrative? Of course.
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>How those pieces of evidence got there? How the hell would know.. I don't and neither can you.
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>You ask me to debunk immediately after I said I don't debunk....ugh!
<br>
<br>Tou think you know happened when i know i know what didn't.
<br>
<br>So, the government had two no plane crashes not four then?
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 32 -->
<a name="x33"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x33" class="tiny">x34</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">What part of high velocity physics suggests the hole of impact is supposed to have aircraft debris visible?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_34" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, let the record show that in four comments sent in rapid-bot fashion, you did not drag back anything from the website in question. No quotes. No images.
<br>
<br>Answer this question in your head: how many years of physics have you had?
<br>
<br>Me? 1.5 years in an engineering track, last century, at the university. This sort of stuff was covered in the first 1/4 of the first semester class.
<br>
<br>What part of explaining high velocity physics impacts would suggest that the point of impact -- a hole in the side of the building -- is required to have recognizable debris of (a) what penetrated it and/or (b) what was shattered off of it, right there?
<br>
<br>Have you seen the F4-Sandia crash video, or MythBusters rocket-sled? The high velocity examples they present don't show pieces of the aircraft / sled at the point of impact.
<br>
<br>Your rusty physics education won't let you believe that the copious quantities of air between concrete floors might let the momentum of the penetrating fuselage and engines continue on, unimpeded.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"How those pieces of evidence got there? How the hell would know.. I don't and neither can you."</i>
<br>
<br>Fail.
<br>
<br>You aren't paying attention and are deliberately being a jokester. As if I can't know that the evidence of real aircraft found, say, lodged between two hollow columns of a wall assembly ripped off the back side of WTC-1 didn't come from the same aircraft that eye-witnesses saw and cameras from many different perspectives captured?
<br>
<br>Jokester that you are, you aren't willing to follow even your own premise to its logical conclusion. The amount of effort to fake all aspects of WTC aircraft crashes, including "planting 10 instances of large landing gear fragments before either tower came down (say, 45 minutes)" widens the circle of complicit participants greatly and itself would have been noted as it happened, when it would have been much simpler and tighter to use a real aircraft, even if effectively a drone.
<br>
<br>In your 4th comment, you wrote: "So, the government had two no plane crashes not four then?"
<br>
<br>YES.
<br>
<br>They needed real aircraft to be seen and captured on cameras at the WTC as part of the shock-and-awe that complicit corporate media replayed over and over in their fear-mongering to accept war-mongering. However for other reasons, the Pentagon and Shanksville did not involve aircraft. [The real aircraft, if they ever existed, were sent elsewhere and lose-ends dealt-with there.]
<br>
<br>So in some disinfo jujitzu, they put a lot of effort into spinning up and maintaining the disinfo premise of "NPT@WTC", precisely because they know it would get debunked, but at the same time smear valid questions into the lack of Pentagon / Shanksvilled aircraft in a guilt by association manner "all you NPTers are the same."
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 34 -->
<a name="x35"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x35" class="tiny">x36</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_36');">no debris can be found at point of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_36" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>"As if I can't know that the evidence of real aircraft found, say, lodged between two hollow columns of a wall assembly ripped off the back side of WTC-1 "
<br>
<br>But that doesn't counter my premise that no debris can be found at point of impact... Planting evidence on the ground would be required for the hoax to look real...
<br>
<br>No debris at any (4) points of impact...
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>As for the alleged civilian videographers...? Professionals set in place. I did research on them and listed them.... Why weren't there 1000s of videos and only a dozen or so...?
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>So if no planes at Shanksville and the P, that would make you a No Planer as well.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 36 -->
<a name="x37"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x37" class="tiny">x38</a>
Winston Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_38');">how a 36 foot long very heavy wall assembly is planted?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_38" style="display: none;">
<p>Andy Christensen says<i>" Planting evidence on the ground would be required for the hoax to look real..."</i> Please explain how a 36 foot long very heavy wall assembly is planted. And how the pipe that came down with it, whipped across the street and severely damaged a blue truck and scaffolding next to it.
</p>
</div><!-- section 38 -->
<a name="x39"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x39" class="tiny">x40</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">I can't say how it did get there</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_40" style="display: none;">
<p>Winston Smith I am not denying it was lying there and I can't say how it did get there.... Neither can you.
<br>
<br>What I can say is there is no evidence of a plane coming through the 'other' side....and, yes, planted evidence is in all false flag/hoax events. Or how the engine goes 25 ft under a scaffold and the Murray Sign conveniently lands right next it., or the landing gear was also under another scaffolding, or landing gear with rope tied around as it ay wedge between two building, or how a plane can crash into a steel building and leave no debris at point of impact.... Lots of mysteries....
<br>
<br>May be an image of 1 person and text that says 'Airplane crashed through 3 sections of steel and remains in pristine condition, lands on top of roof and one hour later the Tower Collapses and and building debris wnds up UNDER the airplane debris ~1C C ingiipicon Sure, WHY C The NOT!'
</p>
</div><!-- section 40 -->
<a name="x41"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x41" class="tiny">x42</a>
Winston Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">improbability of planting such a huge piece of debris</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_42" style="display: none;">
<p>Andy Christensen I'm simply pointing out the improbability of planting such a huge piece of debris on a street so close to the WTC at rush hour. It would require a very large crane and a long ass flatbed truck. Then a crew would have to scatter lots of other stuff all around it. Impossible.
</p>
</div><!-- section 42 -->
<a name="x43"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x43" class="tiny">x44</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_44');">Not if it were blown from the building</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_44" style="display: none;">
<p>Winston Smith Not if it were blown from the building...
<br>I look at four aspects.
<br>Impractical
<br>Improbable
<br>Implausible
<br>Impossible
<br>The first three are possible.
<br>A crash of a full-sized aircraft into a steel building and leaving no debris--and happening twice exactly the same...is which one?
<br>I am not making up scenario of truck dumping off debris, you are...
<br>You are still trying to guess what happened, I'm not doing that....I'm telling you what didn't happen...
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 44 -->
<a name="x45"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x45" class="tiny">x46</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">more implausible than just sacrificing some real aircraft</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_46" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: This comment got flagged and removed by FB. <i>Your comment goes against our Community Standards on harassment and bullying</i>.}</p>
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, I regret to inform you that you are being stupid, disingenuous, and incoherent. Must be some good drugs.
<br><br>Nothing says "high-as-a-kite" like your lame comment: <i>"I look at four aspects: impractical, improbable, implausible, impossible."</i> Those are not aspects. They are adjectives. And the only thing they apply to is your non-existent explanation, or did I miss it when you coughed up that hairball?
<br><br><i>"I'm telling you what didn't happen..."</i> No you aren't. You're just throwing tomatoes. And after you've created doubt or a void, you fill it with nothing. Classic disinformation move.
<br><br>Here are some improbable and implausible things: that a camera without knowledge of the plane could pan and zoom it into frame and capture its final moments. With advanced knowledge, sure. Further if we turn the coin over to the "September Clues" clever disinfo that you've been smoking where the plane was CGI, why would the camera turn and pan and zoom in on... what? Nothing? That's pretty implausible of your premise, and several orders of magnitude more implausible than just sacrificing some real aircraft.
<br><br>As is par for your disinfo course, you haven't addressed the question of why you think debris from a high-velocity aircraft would be neatly nestled at the entrance HOLE. You throw out the term "steel building" as if to imply that its entire structure -- outside and in -- were some solid, immovable steel block that would continue to resist a penetrating plane with the same force after the initial wall assembly was breeched.
<br><br>I've mentioned before that one of the games of disinformation was to improperly describe the physics / structure of both the building and aircraft so as to make false claims. The question remains, once the entrance wall assemblies were breeched, what content or structure would be present to resist the fuselage and engines from penetrating completely with ease? If you are tempted to say <i>"concrete floors and their metal floor pans and trusses"</i>, there was 12 feet of literally air between each and how much resistance would that air provide? (One of the building designers in an early video said that the towers would act like a screen with a pencil pushing through it with regards to an aircraft impact. And it did.)
<br><br>Moreover, there were two different radar systems -- one civilian and one military -- that were within tolerances of one another that documented the incoming aircraft and alerted ground personnel of what was happening, and aligned with the flight path shown in dozens of amateur videos as proven with a 3D rendering of all that showed co-linear flight paths for everything. THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT ANALYSIS -- which along with the airplane debris outside -- convinced me that NPT@WTC was disinformation, and I should change my tune. You see, September Clues made a big deal about how one camera showed the 2nd plane swooping down, another showed it swooping up, and another showed it level, which led to their disinfo premise that all videos were CGI faked. But when overlaid on the 3D rendering, the difference was accounted for by CAMERA PERSPECTIVE to the action, and all depictions of the 2nd plane were co-linear with one another and two sets of radar data.
<br><br>I don't know what strain you're smoking, but you should refrain from driving automobiles, using heavy equipment, and posting on the internet while under its influence. Geesh.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 46 -->
<a name="x47"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x47" class="tiny">x48</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_48');">what makes you think large-enough-to-be-seen aircraft fragments would be hanging out at the impact location?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_48" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, some replies to some other comments of yours. You asked: <i>"Why weren't there 1000s of videos and only a dozen or so...?"</i>
<br><br>First of all, it was not "one dozen" videos, it was more than "four dozen" videos or more. The aforementioned 3D analysis used three dozen of them.
<br><br>Secondly, what makes you think there would be 1000s of videos? This was the year 2001, and cameras were just starting to be built into mobile phones. I -- a grown-ass adult at the time gainfully employed in high-tech -- didn't even have a cellphone then. Further, why would 1000 of people to recording <i>"smoke from WTC-1"</i> and what clues would they have that they should record a second plane that they didn't even know about?
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"So if no planes at Shanksville and the P, that would make you a No Planer as well."</i>
<br><br>This is what the disinfo spreaders want you to do. They don't want you looking at each event separately and deciding what did and did not apply. They want you to assume the same cause-and-effect for everything. And for sure with regards to Shanksville and the Pentagon, if they can get you to say <i>"I'm a no-planer"</i> (for those two instances), then they'll twist that to be <i>"you're a no-planer for all instances"</i>, and then debunk the NPT disinfo they spun up on the towers to smear valid NPT elsewhere.
<br><br>You wrote: <i>"No debris at any (4) points of impact..."</i>
<br><br>I assume you mean the four alleged aircraft crashes. Valid for Shanksville and the Pentagon. Invalid for the towers. Again because it is very much relevant and key, what makes you think that after an aircraft's fuselage & engines breeched the wall assemblies and penetrated into the building that there would be remnants of the fuselage hanging around at the entrance hole? Or when lighter aircraft materials from the wings got shattered on impact, what makes you think they'd be hanging out at the impact location?
<br><br>Get some understanding of high-velocity impacts. Refer to the videos of the F4 Sandia crash test or the MythBuster's rocket-sled.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 48 -->
<a name="x49"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x49" class="tiny">x50</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">takeaway from this is the shattering of materials</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_50" style="display: none;">
<p>Sandia Test with the F4. Yes, the towers weren't some concrete slab. The takeaway from this is the shattering of materials owing to the energy (velocity-squared term).
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ</a>
<br>//
<br>Total Destruction Redux: F4 Phantom vs. Concrete Wall - Additional Camera Angles
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 50 -->
<a name="x51"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x51" class="tiny">x52</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_52');">high velocity adds so much energy, solid materials get shattered</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_52" style="display: none;">
<p>Myth Buster Rocket Sled. Again, it isn't exactly the 9/11 case, but does show how high velocity adds so much energy, solid materials get shattered.
<br><br>The reason this (and Sandia F4) aren't totally applicable is that they had solid almost immovable backstops they were launching into.
<br><br>In the case of the towers, they were not solid. Even the wall assemblies were NOT solid steel. They were three HOLLOW box columns connect together. The thickness of the metal of the sides of the HOLLOW box columns varied depending on where you were measuring it in the towers. (Thicker at lower levels, because it supported more weight.)
<br><br>One the towers walls were breached, there was not mound of dirt or concrete barrier to prevent further penetration.
<br><br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ</a>
<br><br>//
<br>Mythbusters - Compact Compact Rocket Sled
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 52 -->
<a name="x53"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x53" class="tiny">x54</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">overcoming the deceit you've been duped by with high velocity physics</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_54" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>High velocity physics is your key to overcoming the deceit you've been duped by with the NPT@WTC disinfo.
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 54 -->
<a name="x55"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x55" class="tiny">x56</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">impossible for an aircraft to leave zero debris at the point if impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_56" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges impossible for an aircraft the size of an airliner to impact the buildings and leave zero (which you've admitted) debris at the point if impact. The F4 exampe is phony as it has no comparison.
<br>
<br>But it's important to keep up on the personal attacks as the hallmark of every shill or sheeple...
<br>
<br>Hundred of films, uh? Where are they?
<br>
<br>Haven't done much in sales, it seems, have you?
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Allknown ohotographers were professionals and none of the live cameras from msm none showed points of impact.. . CGIed prepared for the event...all they needed was smoke, flames and schills to promote it.
<br>Shalom....
</p>
</div><!-- section 56 -->
<a name="x57"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x57" class="tiny">x58</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">not going address the obviousness of impact studies</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_58" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I can see you're not going address the obviousness of impact studies...so I'll let you go on with your narrative support and creative beliefs of 'military remote flying style explosive reenforced wing shattering debris theories.
<br>Shalom
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 58 -->
<a name="x59"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x59" class="tiny">x60</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">comment goes against our Community Standards on harassment and bullying</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_60" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: 9 hours later <i>"Your comment goes against our Community Standards on harassment and bullying"</i>}
<br>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, it isn't slander or libel when it can be proven true. I called you "stupid, disingenuous, and incoherent."
<br>
<br>Your last comment begins (sic) "Allknown ohotgraphers" and proves the incoherent claim.
<br>
<br>You state that all videos came from professional photographers. Maybe this is true for the "one dozen" videos that you think exist, but not for the two or three dozen videos that your accounting doesn't acknowledge. At least three dozen videos were in the 3D analysis of the flight path. Whatever, you are making the claim that all 9/11 videos came from professionals, so you prove it. Otherwise, I'll put this in your column of being disingenuous.
<br>
<br>As for my comment that you are "stupid", unfortunately this has been rather ongoing for you. Let's take the F4 example. It has elements that most definitely apply, because it demonstrates that high velocities have high energies that shatter materials.
<br>
<br>Further, it is well to note the differences from the F4 example. The barrier was very much fixed in the Sandia test. But the towers were designed to give way, with the connecting bolts being a built-in mechanism for that purpose. Where the fuselage hit, the wall assemblies were pushed out of the way. Where your stupidity comes in is not recognizing that the mass which pushed wall assemblies in isn't going to hang out right at the entrance hole. No, that mass might just enter complete into the towers and not be seen from a distance.
<br>
<br>Other examples of your stupidity include not acknowledging ANYTHING from the Punch-Out website. You can't even provide a logical explanation for the partial tire assembly lodged between 2 of the 3 box columns of a wall assembly knocked out from the back-side of WTC-1 and in the parking lot. No, someone with an agenda for truth would at least come up with: "They got that tire and broken assembly from a jet junk yard, carried it up the elevator, carried a cannon of sorts up the elevator, loosened connecting bolts, and fired the tire from the cannon at the wall assembly at just the right moment to bring it down." What "cannon of sorts" would achieve what logically you should be claiming if your beliefs were true, and not you being either (a) stupid or (b) an agent? No, fool, you can't be claiming "it wasn't mechanism X, yet I have no mechanism Y and have nothing to say about the many pieces of evidence -- like two sets of radar data -- that handily point to mechanism X.
<br>
<br>Before this reply could be completed, you added an incoherent and disingenuous comment that went partially as: "an see you're not going address the obviousness of impact studies..."
<br>
<br>Impact studies? You mean the very studies you didn't provide and haven't made coherent explanations for? Or do you mean the impact studies that I gave that describe the physical properties of both the towers and the planes properly and offer physics compliant explanations for anomalies of weaker wings shattering and stronger engines and landing gear plowing on through, caught on videos, found where they could be predicted to land [given measurable exit velocity, height, gravity, and vector]? I don't think it is the latter, because you've been too disingenuous to review.
<br>
<br>Sorry, Mr. Andy Christensen, but "stupid, disingenuous, and incoherent" are now validated character traits for you, and not libel or slander coming from me.
<br>
<br>You've heard about cognitive dissonance, right? 9/11 Truthers say all the time that normal people suffer from cognitive dissonance, because it literally gives them headaches to learn how bad their elected government and its agencies and institutions acted on 9/11 and its aftermath.
<br>
<br>But did you know that sometimes 9/11 Truthers sometimes suffer from cognitive dissonance to a greater measure [thank you for outing yourself in this regard.] 9/11 Truthers know that what they're told is a lie from the authorities, but then drop their guard and don't question what "authorities in the 9/11 Truth Movement" tells them. Your reasoning has been captured by NPT falsehoods, because they were a convenient explanation to fill the void of blatant OCT lies. Except that you didn't keep questioning, and didn't question that.
<br>
<br>NT is another example of cognitive dissonance in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It can be really hard to get 9/11 Truthers to budge from this limited hang-out that does conveniently address some anomalies. Alas, NT doesn't address them all, and doesn't go the distance that high school math and chemistry calculate for it. They don't want to admit doubt in their NT stance, because that would make their efforts to champion it for (rounded up) two decades "a monumental waste of time" and disinformation [because 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components, which is why they've spun up so much crazy disinformation, spun up NT, ...]
<br>
<br>I've documented (just) seven Facebook rounds of trying to teach 9/11 Truthers about the errors in the NPT@WTC premise.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html</a>
<br>
<br>Round 7 with Mr. Michael Rose was one of the better ones, but if you, Mr. Andy Christensen, were not so proven "stupid, disingenuous, and incoherent", you would have gone and researched my performance, if for nothing else, to see how all of the pillars-of-NPT beliefs were knocked out from underneath those hapless debate opponents and their arguments destroyed. Think of it as opposition research that even sports teams perform to prepare for games against their competitors.
<br>
<br>If you were "smart" and not proven "stupid", you would have seen NPT points supposedly destroyed and would leap-frog into attacking the argument that destroyed the NPT point LEGITIMATELY. That's how debate and discussion is supposed to work. Back and forth. Many of those debate opponents were agents and very limited, and failed in countering what destroyed pillars of their beliefs.
<br>
<br>I'm a fair and square guy. Show some earnestness and intelligence in researching my points and acknowledging them as anomalies needing to be addressed [even if you can't], I'll recant my assessment of you and apologize for having hurt your feelings.
<br>
<br>//
<br>NPT and Internet Bots
<br>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 60 -->
<a name="x61"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x61" class="tiny">x62</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">it isn't slander or libel when it can be proven true</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_62" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, it isn't slander or libel when it can be proven true. I called you "stupid, disingenuous, and incoherent."
</p>
</div><!-- section 62 -->
<a name="x63"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x63" class="tiny">x64</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');">none of that explains....No Debris at Point of Impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_64" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges thanks but none of that explains.... No Debris at Point of Impact.
</p>
</div><!-- section 64 -->
<a name="x65"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x65" class="tiny">x66</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">you reek like "bot" (and Mossad.)</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_66" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Messaged to Andy Christensen.}
<br>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Oh dear me, oh myyy! It seems now two of my comments to you have been flagged as bullying and put me into the FB penalty box for a few days. They've been doing retro-things and accumulating things in their database about me.
<br>
<br>Normally, I guess I would apologize at this juncture.
<br>
<br>Except that I don't think an apology would do anything for you, or alleviate any negative feelings. Why? Because you reek like "bot" (and Mossad.)
<br>
<br>*Wah!* Now my feelings are hurt, because my comments got reported. Just kidding, no.
<br>
<br>*Wah!* My feelings got hurt, because your bot algorithms restart a spin on a carousel called "No Debris at Point of Impact".
<br>
<br>The physics of high velocities ought to remove any expectation of recognizable aircraft parts hanging out right at the plowed hole created by the fuselage and engines, not helped by all cameras being quite some distance away and examined well beyond their pixelation allows.
<br>
<br>[In the rocket sled and F4 Sandia videos, what debris was left hanging out right at the impact point and, to be fair, is recognizable as what they once were by cameras positioned some distance away?]
<br>
<br>Anything else I'd write to address your misconceptions and unrealistic expectations is already present in the thread, minus the bullying.
<br>
<br>With your GOTO statement to re-launch the "No Debris at Point of Impact" carousel into another spin, I step off. Been there, done that.
<br>
<br>With the censored pieces included, this all makes for a tidy end to a potential round 8 of "NPT and Internet Bots", when I get around to re-purposing it.
<br>
<br>You may have the last word in the thread. Make it convincing.
<br>
<brv>//
</brv></p>
</div><!-- section 66 -->
<a name="x67"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x67" class="tiny">x68</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">none of that explains....No Debris at Point of Impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_68" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges thanks but none of that explains.... No Debris at Point of Impact.
</p>
</div><!-- section 68 -->
<a name="x69"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x70</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">simulation does not leave debris at the point of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-02-09</p>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Nothing in this discussion screams "bot" louder than your witty attempt at re-spinning a merry-go-round than: <i>"none of that explains.... No Debris at Point of Impact."</i>
<br>
<br>I said that a proper explanation of the physics of the aircraft and towers gives insight. Wouldn't you know it, someone just posted this link elsewhere.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYJ1IePcgVU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYJ1IePcgVU</a>
<br>
<br>The simulation -- as far as it goes -- does not leave debris at the point of impact.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<a name="x71"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x72</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">bat-shit crazy speculation on Flat Earth</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_72" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/darris.mishler/posts/10160084762717089?notif_id=1652721494479407&notif_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/darris.mishler/posts/10160084762717089?notif_id=1652721494479407¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br><br>My bat-shit crazy speculation on Flat Earth is that this was a disinformation campaigned aimed at both 9/11 Truth and moon landing critics. I first saw it seeded by FB personas posting on 9/11 Truth themes. Yes, 9/11 Truthers are open to alternative explanations, and yes, sometimes we get duped by clever premises (like pods on planes, no planes @ WTC, video fakery, etc.). However, disinformation usually has more than one agenda, and none of the agendas even have to be swallowed whole or by a lot of people to be successful; success is measured by the amount of doubt, confusion, and internal conflict the disinfo inflicts.
<br><br>Unlike 9/11 Truthers, the Flat-Earthers are the most science challenged, whether legitimately a ding on their intellect, or a hallmark of the agenda they champion.
<br><br>I think FE is a Helgian Dialectic (action, reaction, pre-planned resolution), whereby they smear those who questioned the moon landings and our inability today to "repeat" the same challenge (because "the technology was lost").
<br><br>At any rate, when FEers can't and won't legitimately debate their premises and acknowledge counter-points, they prove that the Cass Sunstein infiltration of the internet was a success in controlling narratives even if it means riding unproductive disinfo carousels, because it means we aren't discussing things that matter.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 72 -->
<a name="x73"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x74</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">No planes, alright</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges No planes, alright
</p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x76</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">comment is so cryptic</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_76" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Your comment is so cryptic, it could be understood in more than one way. 9/11 had four events involving allegedly aircraft. The two at the towers have sufficient evidence to prove involvement of actual aircraft [and it is a completely separate argument to say/prove the actual aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft.] The Pentagon had many witnesses of an aircraft flying but zero witnesses and zero released CCTV footage of an aircraft impact. Shanksville is the only one that screams "no aircraft at all."
<br><br>But the fact that well-meaning people were duped by September Clues into thinking that 9/11 @ WTC had no aircraft at all and that it was entirely Hollywood video fakery, does not mean that this narrative -- even if opposed to the OCT -- is true.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 76 -->
<a name="x77"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x77" class="tiny">x78</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">No debris at any point of impact. Zippo. Period.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_78" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges your sufficient would be countering my proof however.
<br>No debris at any point of impact. Zippo. Period.
</p>
</div><!-- section 78 -->
<a name="x79"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x79" class="tiny">x80</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">had this conversation before, and you lost by default</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_80" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You and I have had this conversation before, and you lost by default because you were unable/unwilling to address logically and reasonably the copious amount of evidence to real aircraft at the WTC.
<br><br><a href="https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br><br>Here's where your losing discussion happened, under a top-level comment by Mr. David Tame.
<br><br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250&notif_id=1644182966593526&notif_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br><br>//
<br>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br>CRYPTOME.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 80 -->
<a name="x81"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x81" class="tiny">x82</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">NONE of you oinks gave ever addressed no debris at point of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_82" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges well, that's what you are expected. You keep saying, copious, tons, inarguably, and on and with a lot of "Here, watch this film or read this...." Line but never once address my one and only premise by which all of you arguments come to moot.
<br>I also notice NONE of you oinks gave ever addressed no debris at point of impact and always disregard it when brought by others.
<br>Until then good luck pointing out all the "shills".
</p>
</div><!-- section 82 -->
<a name="x83"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x83" class="tiny">x84</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">your alleged argument of <i>"no debris at point of impact"</i> is an argument *for* a more high-velocity physics compliant explanation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_84" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, stop projecting your weaknesses onto me. *You're* the doofus who isn't addressing the evidence given with the punch-out URL. Not only was it the URL provided, but evidence dragged back into the discussion from that URL... And all you can do is strap on your pogo-horse's seatbelts for another disinfo carousel spin on NPT@WTC.
<br>
<br>If you could read, the other FB link most certainly had me discussing that your alleged argument of <i>"no debris at point of impact"</i> is in fact not an argument *for* no planes but *for* a more physics compliant explanation about how damage is inflicted in high velocity impacts against buildings *specifically* designed for such event, whereby the building designer even said on camera that an impact would be like a pencil piercing a screen door.
<br>
<br>But thanks again for proving that your dubious agenda and you being a bot. Now go away.
<br>
<br>Here's me quoting myself from your earlier spins.
<br>
<br>+++ quote from me
<br>
<br>Nothing in this discussion screams "bot" louder than your witty attempt at re-spinning a merry-go-round than: "none of that explains.... No Debris at Point of Impact."
<br>
<br>I said that a proper explanation of the physics of the aircraft and towers gives insight. Wouldn't you know it, someone just posted this link elsewhere.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYJ1IePcgVU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYJ1IePcgVU</a>
<br>
<br>The simulation -- as far as it goes -- does not leave debris at the point of impact.
<br>//
<br>World Trade Center Tower 2 Litigation Animations
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 84 -->
<a name="x85"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x85" class="tiny">x86</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">you do see debris at point of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_86" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges oh so you do see debris at point of impact. Great. The next link you send place include it and a time reference if in a film. Thanks
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>But please, be my little grammar nazi, too, while you're at it. Always loved that diverse ad hominem.
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges nowhere was it proved. Quote it here for clarity...
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges nope, not a single reference to my whole premise....
<br>And you said it was all there....
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 86 -->
<a name="x87"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x87" class="tiny">x88</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">Living up to your bot expectations</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_88" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, three-comments in a row, and not a single one of them addresses the punch-out evidence! Living up to your bot expectations, I see, because you also skirted that same issue in our previous discussion! Worse, you didn't understand the proper explanation of impact physics last time, so your bot-ish ways gives no hope that you'll understand it now.
<br><br>Go away, Andy-bot. Your algorithms are no longer required here.
<br><br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250&notif_id=1644182966593526&notif_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 88 -->
<a name="x89"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x89" class="tiny">x90</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">You keep saying there is but it doesn't appear anywhere</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_90" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges but there is no description of that. You keep saying there is but it doesn't appear anywhere. Like i said cite the text...maybe there's a reason you can't do that. But please more personal attacks. That's a class shill MO.
</p>
</div><!-- section 90 -->
<a name="x91"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x91" class="tiny">x92</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">re-read how your ass was handed to you</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_92" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, A huge tell of a bot is an inability to follow links, read what is there, and incorporate that information into original thought (for or against.)
<br>
<br>Because you seem unable to go to that earlier discussion to re-read how your ass was handed to you, allow me to quote myself back at you.
<br>
<br>+++ Quoting Myself
<br>
<br>You are factually wrong regarding airplane debris at the towers.
<br>
<br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>The wall assembly is from the back-side of the WTC-1 (with respect to direction of impact) with a portion of an aircraft's wheel assembly stuck in it.
<br>
<br>This wall assembly in the street also destroys arguments about crash physics. The plane plowed through one wall and the core area, and it still had enough energy to several the bolts of a wall assembly on the back-side and knock it to the street.
<br>
<br>If nothing else, this should be saying how weak those connection bolts were.
<br>
<br>Therefore, any damage on the front-side that can be attributed to entire wall assemblies being pushed about reduces total energy requirement and leaves energy available to bend or break box columns of wall assemblies elsewhere.
<br>
<br>I also have it written up with images in the very last section of the re-purposed page [that documents some of my many discussions with no-planers.]
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html</a>
<br>
<br>+++ Quoting Myself yet Again
<br>
<br>You made the comment <i>"zero debris at any and all points of impact."</i> So? When the physics of both the towers and planes is described properly, why would there be aircraft debris left at the entrance hole?
<br>
<br>The wall assemblies had built in failure points: namely, the bolts that connected wall assemblies to one another. If these bolts fail because they were severed [which takes energy, but not massive amounts] the wall assembly could then be plowed out of the way.
<br>
<br>Once penetration happened, what structural content was there to resist the incoming plane? The concrete floors had 12 feet of air in between, and office content not fixed to anything would not necessarily have stopped heavy items from the plane, like wheel assemblies and engines, which both the WTC-1 backside punch out and the engine rocketing to Church and Murray (after bouncing off a roof) adequately prove.
<br>
<br>I was duped by NPT for a few years, but I kept both my eyes and mind open for alternative, more physics compliant explanations. I had to recant my NPT views particularly after I saw the pictures of the wheel assemblies.
<br>
<br>Only because I was duped by NPT@WTC did I ever step up to discuss the matter with other no-planers. As a friend in 9/11 Truth, I wanted to spare them the embarrassment for being wrong owing to being duped by a very crafty disinformation campaign. Because I'm lazy, I saved the discussions. I'll be happy to cut-and-paste from those discussions and disprove anything you'd want to bring up to support your NPT@WTC argument, but you can jump the gun and see what ammo I have diligently stored towards truth. Save ourselves some time and effort.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 92 -->
<a name="x93"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x93" class="tiny">x94</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">Points of Impact. !!! Zippo.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_94" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges And yey STILL.not one reference to the Points of Impact. !!! Zippo.
<br>It's time to say Shalom, my friend ...
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Cut and paste away ...or haven't I been saying that since the beginning?
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 94 -->
<a name="x95"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x95" class="tiny">x96</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">points of impact described in a physics-compliant manner</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_96" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, I quoted myself twice from our earlier discussion where I most certainly referenced the points of impact and described it in a physics-compliant manner. You didn't read it the first time, or the second time posted here just a few minutes ago.
<br>
<br>Your bot algorithms are too shallow to understand, so you spin out Mossad nonsense.
<br>
<br>Fail!
<br>
<br>You're done. You've lost. You're exposed as an Israeli agent/bot, programmed to spout nonsense and engage in stupid conflict. Go back to your Israeli Kabutz. Your "talents" here are no longer required. And when you see me posting something, just stay away, because you don't have the intellect or research to back it up.
<br>
<br>Go away, Andy-bot. You're only hurting your own reputation.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 96 -->
<a name="x97"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x97" class="tiny">x98</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">nothing to do Point of impact having no debris</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_98" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges oh tge part you ssid the "back wall" was on the sidewalk.
<br>That's has nothing to do Point of impact having no debris.
<br>Or " would not unnecessarily have stopped any heavy objects...." That's an opinion, not fact and what about the other 2million small light parts?
<br>These are not answers, they're imaginations and suppositions. There is no debris of ANY TYPE WHATSOEVER... of any aircraft at any Point of Impact. Not one single, isolated, lone, individual identifiable piece if any part of the aircraft large small it otherwise.
<br>But please keep coming back with the personal attacks .... it's quite revealing
</p>
</div><!-- section 98 -->
<a name="x99"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x99" class="tiny">x100</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">Explain why you expect airplane debris to be hanging out at the entrance hole?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_100" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, In a physics compliant way, please explain how a massive airplane traveling at 500 mph and sufficient energy to push impact wall assemblies out of the way and rip backside wall assemblies off of the towers would leave debris at the impact point?
<br>
<br>Go ahead, Mr. Physics. Explain why you expect airplane debris to be hanging out at the entrance hole? And just what kind of airplane debris exactly do you expect to see there and why? And were the cameras accurate enough to capture the debris that you expect?
<br>
<br>Further, keep in mind that the energy equation has a velocity squared term in that becomes excessively large at large velocities, sufficient to shatter weaker materials rather than expecting them to linger "as cohesive wholes."
<br>
<br>You're making the claim, you defend it: with rational, intelligent, research physics.
<br>
<br>Take your time, all evening if you have you.
<br>
<br>You make the claim as if it is important, you back it up. And know that you already have my counter argument. You had best study it so that you'll have a target to refute. And if you can't refute it, admit defeat, apologize, and change your thinking.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 100 -->
<a name="x101"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x101" class="tiny">x102</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">accusing of being a Israeli agent...!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_102" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Aweee...you're concerned with my reputation, how faking sweet!!?
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Ha ha i bid you Shalom and immediately, like an insecure shithead, you come back accusing of being a Israeli agent...!
<br>Precious.
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>If I see you posting shit....wait for the shovel.....no way staying away...
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 102 -->
<a name="x103"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x103" class="tiny">x104</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">make claims you can't defend in your bot-prompt replies</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_104" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, the promptness with which you do <b>~not~</b> defend your claim with anything even resembling a logical, rational, researched physics argument... Ah, sweetie! You're not very cute wallowing in your ignorance.
<br>
<br>You make claims you can't defend in your bot-prompt replies. Already before I can finish this, you've got three-in-a-row that give new deeper meaning to "posting shit".
<br>
<br>Physics. Use your physics, or STFU, Mr. Mossad-bot.
<br>
<br>P.S. And don't forget to edit your recent lame comments to remove your typos.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 104 -->
<a name="x105"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x105" class="tiny">x106</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">no plane made the hole...but no debris at points of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_106" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges no plane made the hole....and it couldn't fly that fast anyways...but no debris at points of impact. Proof in every picture....
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges evrry claim i make is defended by every picture of the points of impact in existence. Bingo
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Nah, you'll just have to decipher my typos....seems to he working just fine
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges i thought you said good bye to me....what are you still doing here?
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 106 -->
<a name="x107"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x107" class="tiny">x108</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">spam this thread</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_108" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, stop being a liar. You've made a claim, you defend it. It is that simple. Chop, chop.
<br>
<br>Or is physics too tough for you, so you have to spam this thread... four in a row now, how quaint!
<br>
<br>Go away, agent Andy-bot. You've lost and can't get it up.
<br>
<br>P.S. The top-level comment is mine. I've told you to go away. Please do so.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 108 -->
<a name="x109"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x109" class="tiny">x110</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">proof 8s in every picture ever taken of the points of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_110" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges proof 8s in every picture ever taken of the points of impact. Show me one the proves me wrong.
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges I'm the 'bot' and you're the one with a fake profile pic...twice!!!
<br>That's what a bot does, no?
</p>
</div><!-- section 110 -->
<a name="x111"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x111" class="tiny">x112</a>
Darris Mishler : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">trotted the black boxes out into the light of day</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_112" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Please keep it cool: no personal attacks.
<br>I'll have to take a closer look at 9/11: it's been about ten years since I've looked into it.
<br>From a quick glance the plane parts don't look that big: they could have been planted?
<br>I don't think they ever officially trotted the black boxes out into the light of day?
<br>I don't know. It's been a long time since I've really looked it over.
<br>There are a lot of rabbit holes around 9/11.
</p>
</div><!-- section 112 -->
<a name="x113"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x113" class="tiny">x114</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">second round on his NPT carousel</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_114" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Darris Mishler, The defense against claims of defamation is when the statements against another are true.
<br>
<br>In this particular instance with Mr. Andy Christensen, this is at least my second round on his NPT carousel -- I posted the FB URL above. Based on my lengthy experiences trying to get him to defend appropriately his claims and/or to acknowledge the aircraft evidence appropriately, Mr. Christensen comes across like a Mossad agent, if not bot, for how he reacts, can't follow links, can't integrate new information from those links into his discussion.
<br>
<br>When I told him to stop being a liar, it was to his bellocose statement: <i>"evrry claim i make is defended by every picture of the points of impact in existence." </i>
<br>
<br>Let the record also show, that while you, Mr. Darris Mishler, control all discussions under your posting, Maxwell Bridges has the top-level comment to this thread and thus owns that. Mr. Andy Christensen has been spamming this thread, hasn't defended his claim, and is insincere.
<br>
<br>FTR, "debunking the NPT@WTC" isn't really even my hobby-horse, because FGNW is my niche take on the WTC destruction. I used to be duped by NPT@WTC, so I have a soft-spot for those who still are and would like to guide them to the truth that my continued research turned me to, and exposed the disinformation in the NPT@WTC premise.
<br>
<br>The most anomalous thing about the many large aircraft parts is that they were never serial-numbered matched and reconstructed to the alleged commercial planes. Owing to added radar blips in the dozen war games that Osama bin Laden was able to plan for that day, the deviation from standard FAA practice when researching an aviation disaster allows one to speculate that the impacting WTC aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br>
<br>The partial wheel assembly buried between two box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped off the backside of WTC-1 would not be easy to fake, nor the engine that rocketed towards Church and Murray and bounced off a roof [leaving damage in its wake] before being found on the street near a scaffolding. And if they were going to fake it, they could at least use the proper make-and-model for the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br>
<br>The black boxes weren't found -- nor were significant body remains -- owing in part to my FGNW hobby-horse dustifying them with targeted beams of highly energetic neutrons from the multiple FGNW per detonation level.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 114 -->
<a name="x115"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x115" class="tiny">x116</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">my profile picture of meth-making-kingpin Heisenberg</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_116" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You seem to have an issue with my profile picture, which is of meth-making-kingpin Heisenberg, the alter-ego of high school chemistry teacher Walter White, a character played by actor Bryon Cranston in the series "Breaking Bad." Wait until you find out that "Maxwell C. Bridges" is the Heisenberg to the Walter White me, who is a human skin that my soul inhabits in this lifetime. The parallelism there is uncanny!
<br>
<br>Your database responses need more depth. Your algorithms are incapable of a detailed, reasoned, researched, pondered, discussion. This is my thread, and you have been spamming it, distracting it, pushing buttons on it without any real depth, because that is all that agents / bots can do to keep with their agenda and their programming.
<br>
<br>Fine. Just do it in your own top-level comment (your own thread), and bugger out of this thread.
<br>
<br>You aren't at my level and aren't worthy of wasting more of my time.
<br>
<br>Do, please, bugger off. [I've already got enough material from you for the next round/part/chapter of my series on "NPT and Internet Bots".]
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 116 -->
<a name="x117"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x117" class="tiny">x118</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">animation cartoon shows no debris at point of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_118" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250&notif_id=1644182966593526&notif_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>{mcb: The following two comments came to the old thread eleven (11) weeks later and after a repeat of the same discussion on Mr. Darris Mishler's posting that suddenly went missing along with Darris Missler's Facebook profile 2022-05-16.}
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>
<br>Oh my. None if the artist's conception animation cartoon shows no debris at point of impact but never once can explain how that is possible, which 8s impossible. This film is the perfect official story line. So the greatest you can claim is that you agree with the official narrative. Brilliant
</p>
</div><!-- section 118 -->
<a name="x119"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x119" class="tiny">x120</a>
Winston Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">can't see many of them in the shitty videos and photos</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_120" style="display: none;">
<p>Andy Christensen Stanley Primnath saw wing parts in his WTC2 office. Yes there are plane parts to be found. No you can't see many of them in the shitty videos and photos.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 120 -->
<a name="x121"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x121" class="tiny">x122</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">me issuing you a GOTO statement to return to comment 1 in this thread</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_122" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, I'm so glad to have you rejoined in this discussion eleven (11) weeks after my last comment to this thread started by Mr. David Tame. It would serve you well to go back to the beginning and read our 43 comments in sequence again, but armed with any revelations we might have learned within that eleven weeks.
<br>
<br>The discussion that Mr. Tame introduced at the top of this thread was <i>"a pre-planted incendiary substance"</i>. My reply (the first comment) offered my speculation into FGNW as the true primary mechanisms of destruction.
<br>
<br>And then by the third comment, you Andy-bot, are tossing out the seeds for an NPT carousel spin, tagging me, and proclaiming: <i>"...and no planes...?"</i> [Distracting from FGNW, anyone?]
<br>
<br>Here's what funny. The Facebook profile of Darris Mishler may not exist anymore, and with it went missing postings that were his. So the re-spin of the above NPT carousel in a thread under Mishler's posting suffered a brutal setback with its sudden demise. Gone are all of those worthy words. [Except for what we saved off-line, right? For re-purposing later, right?]
<br>
<br>But given that I was providing links back to this very FB discussion in a bot-friendly GOTO manner to definitely prove: <i>"yes, I have already discussed this exact detail X, Y, and Z, and you defaulted and deflected on both Facebook threads at both time points in a very Mossad bot-like manner."</i>
<br>
<br>So, YES, Andy-bot, this is me issuing you a GOTO statement to return to comment 1 in this thread, sequentially read through our combined participation, and only respond to the purposeful gaps in your answers, such as a physics and logistics compliant explanation for the "Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of the WTC" link. Your analysis of that web page's content is woefully underdone, and this is a flaw that you GOSUB repeat.
<br>
<br>Let's see if your disinfo agenda will let you speculate outside of this downward karmic spiral and into a more enlightened realm!
<br>
<br>My hobby-horse in this thread is FGNW. But look at how much of this thread was consumed by you arguing poorly for a completely off-topic tangent into NPT@WTC. Worse, when this distraction is allowed to progress, NPT@WTC gets completely debunked, and your participation certainly did little credit in defense or articulation of NPT@WTC.
<br>
<br>And let us not forget, that your participation also included some button-pushing, resulting in two of my comments being deemed a personal attack, flagged, and censored. The joke is on that FB algorithm, because if Andy-bot isn't a real person, then there is no person for the personal attack to impune. However, as I wrote them and in a belief that Andy-bot was a real boy, I knew my direct words weren't defamation, because they were substantiated and truthful. [Let this be a teaser that those censored words and this discussion will eventually get re-purposed into my publishing venues, so lurker readers can see for themselves whether my words should be censored.]
<br>
<br>Thus, Mr. Andy Christensen, I believe we're coming to the end of the second NPT@WTC carousel spin and capping that endeavor properly.
<br>
<br>The subject of this thread was actually "a pre-planted incendiary substance" that legitimately forked into related "FGNW." If you have original thoughts or impressions on this topic from having read my researched and reasoned efforts, you are welcome to comment on that FGNW topic.
<br>
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>In case the Darris Mishler profile re-animates itself, here is the GOTO link (and proof it really did once exist.)
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/darris.mishler/posts/10160084762717089?notif_id=1652721494479407&notif_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/darris.mishler/posts/10160084762717089?notif_id=1652721494479407¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br>Don't worry. My web venues will eventually publish that masterful bot-spin on a NPT@WTC carousel.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 122 -->
<a name="x123"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x123" class="tiny">x124</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">no you can't see ANY of them</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_124" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Winston Smith
<br>"can't see many of them"....well that imply you can see some and tgat simply isn't true so, no you can't see ANY of them.
<br>And who the fuck is Stanley? Lie witness testimony!!!
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges no debris at any point of impact...period
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Winston Smith What a crock of shit.....only a fool, sheeple or shill would promote this nonsense ...
<br>" The left wing sliced through his office and became lodged in a door 20 feet (6 m) from him.[3] Praimnath was bruised and exhausted, and covered in debris after the crash, which left him stuck and unable to escape on his own"
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>{mcb: Through messenger.}
<br>Yeah okay, but that doesn't explain zero debris a6 Points of Impact, does it?
<br>
<br>So go ahead and call me all kinds of adolescent names and avoid the premise at every stage....that makes it even more convincing you have never presented an argument because you are unable to.
<br>
<br>You're the one with the fact profile picture and NOTHING on your page that shows anything if your personal life... ain't like a jew to accuse others of what he is most guilty of. Shalom.
</p>
</div><!-- section 124 -->
<a name="x125"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x125" class="tiny">x126</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">For shame, Andy-bot. You aren't even trying.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_126" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You were encouraged to start at comment 1 above and re-read our exchange, because answers to your later questions and concerns were already addressed.
<br>
<br>According to your bot ways, you keep repeat posting various entries from your database: <i>"no debris at any point of impact...period"</i> and <i>"... but that doesn't explain zero debris a6 Points of Impact, does it?" </i>
<br>
<br>GOTO the 9th (or so) comment of this thread to read the physics compliant explanation for the seeming anomaly [that your disinformation wants readers to believe means "no aircraft were involved."] And when you GOSUB 26 (or so comments), the links to the Sandia F4 crash and the Mythbuster rocket-sled videos are provided. They also exhibit the feature of "no debris at any point of impact".
<br>
<br>Consider these gaps in your responses that you missed the first time around, and are now missing on your second pass through this discussion to see what transpired.
<br>
<br>For shame, Andy-bot. You aren't even trying.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 126 -->
<a name="x127"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x127" class="tiny">x128</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">how a plane crash produces no debris at point if impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_128" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges i read it. There us no explanation as to how a plane crash produces no debris at point if impact...let alone four times in the same day.
<br>Even you admitted there is no debris at the point of impact.....
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 128 -->
<a name="x129"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x129" class="tiny">x130</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_130');">How much firetruck debris do you expect to see "at the impact point"?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_130" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, For the sake of discussion, let's assume there is a fire station with empty firetruck bays and its garage doors closed. Now let's say you drive a firetruck at 50+ mph directly into one of those closed garage doors. How much firetruck debris do you expect to see "at the impact point"?
<br>
<br>According to your miserable understanding of physics, if no part of the firetruck is visible at the plane where the garage door used to be, then there was no firetruck period; it was all CGI. Doesn't matter that the firetruck drove through the closed front garage doors and right out through the closed rear garage doors. Even if you say that the fire station bays were not empty, it would still easily pierce the front garage doors, meet with non-fixed resistance, and launch pieces of its former self, like a partial wheel assembly maybe, through the back garage doors.
<br>
<br>This analogy applies to the towers except for a couple of finer points already discussed that you are purposely not attempting to understand in your bot repetition.
<br>
<br>Just like the front side firetruck garage door got plowed in, so did the WTC wall assembly where the 9/11 aircraft impacted, severing its connecting bolts making it easier to push out of the way and then not be a hindrance to further penetrating fuselage. This concept applies to the fuselage and the wings to where the engines were. And like the firetruck example, heavy pieces of the aircraft (landing gear, engines) were not significantly impeded by the content inside the towers allowing (as one example) a partial wheel assembly to sever the connecting bolts of the backside wall assembly, sending it to the parking lot nearby (just like pieces of the speeding firetruck were able to do.)
<br>
<br>Beyond the engines on the wings is where a finer distinction is made, necessitated by the high velocity plugged into the velocity-squared term of the energy equation. Why, because that energy calculates to be sufficient to shatter and shred weaker wing material. Remember, 50% of the wall assembly face were empty window slits that provided near zero resistance to shredded wings penetrating the towers. Again, a physics compliant explanation of this event would say "there is no expectation that high velocity pieces of aircraft remain hanging out at the impact point." What wasn't shredded into the building was shattered and bounced off, the latter being caught on everyone's videos if you look closely at those far-away camera shots.
<br>
<br>Your mantra "no debris at any point of impact" (at the towers) is nothing more than you not understanding properly the physics at play and allowing yourself to be duped by the clever disinformation of September Clues with your conclusions that "only CGI can account for it; there were no real planes."
<br>
<br>Prove your objectivity. Nothing wrong with admitting defeat on this point and moving your 9/11 understanding closer to the truth... Unless you have a disinformation agenda that you're promoting in a very bot-repetitious manner. Bots and agents can never admit they are wrong, but objective and sincere real people do.
<br>
<br>You wrote in messenger: "You're the one with the fact profile picture and NOTHING on your page that shows anything if your personal life." I assume that "fact profile picture" is a typo for "fake profile picture."
<br>
<br>So what? Are you implying that my online Batman activities somehow defeats my salient points just because I'm not revealing my Bruce Wayne to you?!! The whole tenor of that argument reeks of an "ad hominem" attack on the messenger and not reasoned debate on the message. I have a Batman blog and Batman website, too, which as Bat caves go, is far superior to your sole online presence in Facebook.
<br>
<br>Here are your choices the way I see them. You can use your next comment (1) to debunk my evidence [e.g., the punch out hole] and proper physics analysis, (2) to explain with physics why you think "no debris at entrance point" is even meaningful and important, or (3) to acknowledge the errors in your understanding and apologize.
<br>
<br>If you do any of the three, I might find it in my heart to engage you further.
<br>
<br>If you choose option (4) to do none of the above and repeat meaningless bot database entries like "no debris at entrance point", then (a) this will be my final engagement with you on this thread [and forever if at all possible] and (b) whatever you write can capstone this discussion allowing you graciously the final comments and words in this thread. Make them good ones.
<br>
<br>I suspect you'll go with option 4 and not options 1-3, because I've been prodding you relentlessly in February and now in May to do an option 1 to 3, only to observe you continue to monumentally fail. I'll not let your lies and insincerity trigger me further. Prove me wrong or prove me right.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 130 -->
<a name="x131"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x131" class="tiny">x132</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">under No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_132" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell C. Bridges
<br>Differnt old posting of mine under No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/posts/757047848068843/?comment_id=757201728053455&reply_comment_id=1434477756992512&notif_id=1652991480260741&notif_t=group_comment&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/posts/757047848068843/?comment_id=757201728053455&reply_comment_id=1434477756992512¬if_id=1652991480260741¬if_t=group_comment&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 132 -->
<a name="x133"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x133" class="tiny">x134</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">No plane parts at the point of impact and you conclude no plane hit!!!!!</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_134" style="display: none;">
<p>What!? No plane parts at the point of impact and you conclude no plane hit!!!!!
<br>Wow! Imagine that! Whoda thunk?
</p>
</div><!-- section 134 -->
<a name="x135"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x135" class="tiny">x136</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">jokester with an agenda item to associate this Pentagon event with the events at the WTC</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_136" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Actually, the conclusion that the alleged commercial aircraft did not hit the Pentagon does not rely on plane parts at the entrance hole. Instead moving to the top of the list are 90-some FBI confiscated CCTV camera videos that could/would/should decisively depict to the doubting public the alleged commercial aircraft impacting the building [and not in truth, an impacting missile and a distracting fly-over plane that missed] which after 20 years they still have not made public.
<br>
<br>But because you are being a jokester and have an agenda item to associate this Pentagon event with the events at the WTC, the entrance hole at the Pentagon wasn't 90 stories overhead, nor was the entirety of the area around the impact location decimated with 110 stories of content within a couple hours of impact to stymie later analysis. At the Pentagon, they could have dragged out and re-assembled from fragments a whole god-damn plane in a hanger -- like they do in all other aviation disasters... except those on 9/11. They didn't do that at the Pentagon or Shanksville because of them lacking a plane.
<br>
<br>However, speaking of debris at the WTC entrance holes, if you were objective, you'd know that 90 stories below those holes was a slew of recorded evidence of plane debris. Surviving first responders reported seeing (and recorded) precisely the sliced and shattered airplane evidence that I keep telling you was compliant with the physics of a high velocity airplane impact, only instead of cluttering the entrance hole, it bounced outside but then had 90 stories to free-fall flutter to the ground. This was before either tower came down.
<br>
<br>There is that evidence and more at the following URL. Prove you aren't a bot. Go to the URL, copy something [like maybe an image's URL, or a paragraph], and paste that information here into your next comment.
<br>
<br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>+++++++
<br>
<br>For the benefit of lurker readers. In February 2022, Mr. Andy Christensen performed a thread-jacking of an explosives-vs.-FGNW discussion by cranking a carousel spin through "no planes at the WTC." Then in May 2022 on a different FB thread, Mr. Andy Christensen did another thread-jacking into NPT@WTC.
<br>
<br>Spoiler: I'm a real person who gets sick of repeated spins on such disinformation carousels. When Mr. Andy Christensen wasn't being sincere and when he was bot-ishly spamming the thread(s) with incoherent fake NPT discussion points, I reverted to being my lazy-ass self by providing into the May discussion quotations and GOTO Facebook URLs to the February discussion to prove: "yes, indeed, we attempted to discuss details X, Y, and Z, but Mr. Andy Christensen evaded convincing rebuttal in stellar agent/bot fashion."
<br>
<br>As fate would have it, the owner of the Facebook posting from May, under which the thread-jacking spin into NPT@WTC transpired, abruptly departed Facebook entirely, and now gone & inaccessible are all his postings and all discussion threads underneath them. 2nd carousel spin gone from Facebook.
<br>
<br>Let this be a lesson for sincere Facebook participants to SAVE their worthy words off-line!
<br>
<br>Whew, that I learned this lesson early this century. Alas until I get off my lazy-ass and re-publish my efforts to my new website (woefully procrastinated in its development), you'll just have to take my word that it transpired. [A URL to the departed FB content from May available upon request.]
<br>
<br>As a consolation, here's a link to the first (February) carousel spin that Mr. Andy Christensen went back to in May, after the second one was decommissioned.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250&notif_id=1644182966593526&notif_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br>At any rate for the lurker readers, if I am short and unflattering to Mr. Andy Christensen here, it is because of our discussion history giving me doubts as to his sincerity beyond an agent/bot agenda. The links (while they survive in Facebook) substantiate my opinion and justify my demeanor.
<br>
<br>It is so little that I ask for Mr. Andy Christensen to prove he isn't bot: a quotation and/or image URL from the Punch Out web page.
<br>
<br>I predict at least three-comments-in-a-row from Mr. Andy Christensen, and none of them will allow him to pass the "I'm not a bot" test.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 136 -->
<a name="x137"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x137" class="tiny">x138</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');">Having no debris at the point of impact is the proof</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_138" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges oh, so camera footage that was never seen is proof. Having no debris at the point of impact is the proof
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 138 -->
<a name="x139"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x139" class="tiny">x140</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_140');">Bots don't jump into "See more..." content any more than they follow links and provide original thought on the content at those links</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_140" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, I commend you on both your patience and holding back another rapid-fire spamming (3-4 short comments in-a-row), but must at the same time unfortunately chide you for your poor reading comprehension. What does this mean to you: "moving to the top of the list"?
<br>
<br>To me when I wrote it, I was saying that there is a long list of analysis, research, and evidence to suggest that no airplane impacted the Pentagon, but that over time the ordering of the list changes. The never-released CCTV footage has moved many slots in its placement of importance on that list. Emphasis is on "list" and not any single item.
<br>
<br>If you want to talk Pentagon aircraft debris, the lack of debris at the entrance hole isn't the damning issue suggesting a ruse.
<br>
<br>No, the damning issue is the lack of aircraft debris starting just after the first downed light pole and trickling into the lawn. In other words -- as at the WTC but in this case talking a theoretical alleged aircraft --, if you are calculating from radar data a very high velocity in the aircraft, the velocity-squared term in the energy equation means that even a breakaway light pole can cause crippling structural wing damage and early flight termination, such that debris would be all over the lawn, into the construction trailers, against the wall...
<br>
<br>The Pentagon damage is just too precise, and too little effort was spent by FAA officials in grabbing all fragments and re-building the aircraft in some hangar, even if just out of morbid curiousity and rote habit as they did it for space shuttles and all other aircraft crashes.
<br>
<br>Given that my comment had many points to it and Andy-bot only addressed a partial point of what he could read before the "See more..." expansion link, this becomes another data point in the treadline of Andy-bot.
<br>
<br>Why? Bots don't jump into "See more..." content any more than they follow links and provide original thought on the content at those links, let alone drag back a quotation or imagine URL. But damn if that wasn't the bot-test that was in the "See more..." region!
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br>{mcb: For some reason, Andy-bot must have been searching me out. His interest in this old posting of mine -- as a place to continue is NPT@WTC -- somehow triggered others to look at this posting and "like" and/or comment under other threads, such as this,
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 140 -->
<a name="x141"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x141" class="tiny">x142</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_142');">not an "exit hole."</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_142" style="display: none;">
<p>Michael W. Lurie: Maxwell Bridges, it was not an "exit hole."
<br>
<br>Michael W. Lurie: Maxwell Bridges, but once you know...you know.
<br>
<br>And Daniel Coble liking: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/?multi_permalinks=757047848068843&comment_id=757648324675462&notif_id=1653013902914015&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/?multi_permalinks=757047848068843&comment_id=757648324675462¬if_id=1653013902914015¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 142 -->
<a name="x143"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x143" class="tiny">x144</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_144');">you admit again, no debris at ANY POINT OF IMPACT on 9/11</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_144" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges so you admit again, no debris at point of impact?
<br>Nope. Absolurnot one single piece of any aircraft can be seen at ANY POINT OF IMPACT on 9/11. The 'list' stops right there. No need to extend it any further.
<br>Someone needs to make something out of the impossible when that simply CANNOT happen.
<br>Every single photo if the towers shows exactly that. But, shill away.... shalom.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 144 -->
<a name="x145"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x145" class="tiny">x146</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_146');">Your defense amounts to repeating a expectation that isn't physics compliant minus any explanation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_146" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, You remain as ever a Mossad-bot steadfast in your inability to follow links, read their content, copy quotations (or an image URL) from thence, and paste that newfound information into your comment with relevant additional insight from you.
<br>
<br>Instead of tackling that small task presented to you multiple times to dispell your bot-ness, you double-down on your bot-database entry <i>"no debris at entry point"</i> with nary a physics-compliant high-velocity crash explanation on why you even think that tidbit might even be "a thing", nor an acknowledgement of the physical evidence and eye-witness accounts (at the WTC) that directly counter your "no debris at entry point", albeit 90 stories below at street level.
<br>
<br>At the Pentagon where I believe no aircraft impact, I most certainly admit no debris at point of impact with building, nor at or near any of the six allegedly impacted light poles. At the WTC where I believe real aircraft were involved, (a) I've explained the high-velocity crash physics whereby no science-literate rational thinker would expect there to be recognizable aircraft debris caught by distant cameras lingering at the plowed through entrance hole (b) while also providing the ground-level pictorial evidence close enough (minus 90 stories) to the impact point to prove your assertion irrelevant.
<br>
<br>All things that you have performed Mossad-bot gymnastics to avoid as much as a simple acknowledgement or words of contrition that your premise needs to be re-thought and amended to account for.
<br>
<br>Your comment <i>"No need to extend it any further"</i> is science-challenged ignorance of the highest order coupled with an agent/bot agenda, and wrong.
<br>
<br>Imagine a race car hitting an orange, plastic, water-filled course barrier barrel at very high speed (but still less than the aircraft velocity by half.) How much of the race car or the plastic barrel would you expect to find right at the point where the barrel used to stand for the course barrier?
<br>
<br>Without substantiation or physics-compliant analysis, your illogical premise is that pieces of both the car and the orange barrel should be found exactly where the barrel once stood and was impacted, "velocity, momentum, and inelastic crash physics be damned!"
<br>
<br>Your defense of your premise amounts to repeating a bullshit and irrelevant statement minus any explanation that could convince anyone, while at the same time blatantly ignoring (with zeal across multiple postings and threads) evidence and analysis adhering to physics that counters your disinformation.
<br>
<br>You as a person are less than sincere, and can't even pass a repeatedly administered test that you aren't a bot.
<br>
<br>Until you at least attempt to rectify these deficiencies in your character and actions, you have my permission to make one final "farewell" comment to my posting/thread before going away and staying away for good.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 146 -->
<a name="x147"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x147" class="tiny">x148</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_148');">how all debris simply vanished from all Points of Impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_148" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges i keep following your links and not one of them even remotely mentions how all debris simply vanished from all Points of Impact.... At least you're consistent.
<br>Again, i wish yoy a shalom and immediately you come back accusing me of being Mossad, which is exactly how a Mossad would respond...you know their creed about deception, et al. So easy to read....
<br>No debris @ Point of Impact....100% impossible...go ahead and deny it.
</p>
</div><!-- section 148 -->
<a name="x149"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x149" class="tiny">x150</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_150');">I thought you were the one leaving</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_150" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>High speed race car hitting a plastic barrel...ha ha. God, that is precious.
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Why would i want to bid you farethewell? I thought you were the one leaving. I already told I ain't goin no where.
</p>
</div><!-- section 150 -->
<a name="x151"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x151" class="tiny">x152</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_152');">just hid three-in-a-row short spamming comments</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_152" style="display: none;">
<p>For the benefit of lurker-readers, I just hid three-in-a-row short spamming comments from Mr. Andy Christensen (Andy-bot) that said nothing of importance, had no substantiating links, had no analysis, had nothing to convince anyone of anything except "button-pushing."
<br>
<br>I think what set me over the edge was his lie in the first comment "i keep following your links..." Nope, never happened, and here's how I know. If Andy-bot ever visited and read the content at those links:
<br>
<br>- He would have noticed that I've posted the same Punch-Out link several times over the course of at least three threads under three different postings. He made no complaints about duplication or repetition, because he never went there, never read it, and never registered in his mind "Hey, I've seen this before!"
<br>
<br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>- He could have copied a paragraph or image URL from that Punch-Out source, pasted it into his comment, and proven with that simple act that Andy-bot wasn't a bot.
<br>
<br>- He would have discovered at that link very convincing evidence of aircraft involvement.
<br>
<br>The Andy-bot has been asked ~many~ times to explain in a physics-compliant manner why "(lack of) debris at the point of impact" might be significant, and he was/is even encouraged to locate substantiation for his assertions of it being somehow meaningful to support/debunk certain premises. Challenges that were beyond his bot-algorithms.
<br>
<br>It becomes clear that Andy-bot plays dizzying game of "debris at entrance hole" because his agenda won't let him objectively consider "debris that is the exit hole" and its cause being the partial wheel assembly lodged between two of its box columns.
<br>
<br>Andy-bot complained of that link: "not one of them even remotely mentions how all debris simply vanished from all Points of Impact...."
<br>
<br>(1) That is Andy-bot's crippled hobby-horse, so it wasn't any job of a link of mine to mention it. (2) The debris did not vanish; most of it had momentum to continue penetrating the towers once the entrance hole was plowed, and the wings clearly shattered and shredded and much bounced off the wall to flutter to the ground as seen in videos.
<br>
<br>Andy-bot doesn't understand physics, which is why he ignores what the F4 Sandia crash and the MythBuster rocket-sled video teach. They also have "No debris @ Point of Impact", and proves it to be "100% possible...go ahead and deny it."
<br>
<br>Andy-bot gave the seemingly witty rebuttal with zero analysis: "High speed race car hitting a plastic barrel...ha ha. God, that is precious."
<br>
<br>Andy-bot asked: <i>"Why would i want to bid you farethewell?"</i>
<br>
<br>Because I own this posting and get to moderate its comments.
<br>
<br>Andy-bot tries to intimidate: <i>"I thought you were the one leaving. I already told I ain't goin no where."</i>
<br>
<br>My future engagement of you will be on a strictly shits-and-giggles basis and if I feel like it, and if your comments are worthy of me not hiding them.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 152 -->
<a name="x153"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x153" class="tiny">x154</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_154');">some remained behind</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_154" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges "most of it gad momentum.." that means some remained behind.... Where is it?
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>A "wheel punch out" didn't happen because punched into the building or there would be debris left behind.
<br>No, I didn't mention your repeated posts as I went through them the first time (as well as years ago) and nothing ever explains how it is possible to have No Debris At Point Of Impact.... not one word
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 154 -->
<a name="x155"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x155" class="tiny">x156</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_156');">no depiction after their high-velocity events of debris just hanging out there at the impact point</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_156" style="display: none;">
<p>Andy-bot seems confused that a fuselage would have momentum to enter the towers after plowing an entrance hole, while the wings being lighter and flimsier shattered and shredded, some going through window slits and some fluttering to the ground. So he asks, "that means some remained behind... where is it?" So I repeat, "shattered and shredded and fluttered to the ground."
<br>
<br>Andy-bot laments: <i>"nothing ever explains how it is possible to have No Debris At Point Of Impact.... not one word"</i>
<br>
<br>Too bad that the F4 Sandia crash and the MythBuster rocket-sled video also don't have an explanation for <i>"No Debris At Point Of Impact.... not one word"</i>, nor do they have depiction after their high-velocity events of debris just hanging out there at the impact point.
<br>
<br>By rights, "no entry point debris" Andy-bot has lots of physics-compliant instances where this is the case, but he's too science-challenged to know, too reading-challenged to study a physics book, too researched-challenged to look up anything that would substantiate his misguided expectation of "entry point debris" after a high-velocity impact.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 156 -->
<a name="x157"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x157" class="tiny">x158</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_158');">Flumsier shattered and shtedded</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_158" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges haha... Flumsier shattered and shtedded.....complete bullshit. Where the hell did you come up with those verbs...sirry you are tequired to use verbage like disintegrate, vaporize and gone poof to describe debris.
<br>Going through window slits???? Complete fantasy.
<br>"And some fluttering to the ground" without any evidence of that whatsoever....nada! Repeat 6 million times dies mean the story is true.
<br>F4 crash has no bearing on alleged 9/11 impacts. Completely different environment, and impact point made of 18 feet of solid concrete. Jesus man, you are reaching.
</p>
</div><!-- section 158 -->
<a name="x159"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x159" class="tiny">x160</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_160');">brief assertions without substantiation and analysis are sufficient hypnosis</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_160" style="display: none;">
<p>The Andy-bot thinks that brief assertions without substantiation and analysis are sufficient hypnosis to prove his disinformation case and refute that which was presented with substantiation and analysis compliant with high-velocity physics, which do change dynamics and legitimately add the verbiage "shattered", "shredded," and "sliced" to the crash physics description in reference to, say, the lighter material of wings.
<br>
<br>[Changed dynamics to the crash physics was the most important takeaway from the F4-Sandia and MythBuster rocket-sled videos of high-velocity crashes, how the velocity-squared term in the energy equation is sufficient to act to tear apart the materials. "No aircraft debris at impact point" ends up being a very funny side-effect to clog Andy-bot's gears.]
<br>
<br>But who am I kidding? Andy-bot can't even prove he isn't a bot by pasting a quotation or an image URL from a source reference, mostly because just going to that reference, let alone a mere acknowledgement of any of the factoids presented there, shoots torpedoes through both his disinformation "no planes theory" (@WTC) and his integrity. Whether or not the aircraft was the alleged commercial aircraft, the source provides irrefutable proof of real aircraft involvement.
<br>
<br>Not that I care about Andy-bot's integrity, but that Andy-bot doesn't care about his integrity either, which is why it is perfectly acceptable for all lurker readers to peg him as a Mossad agent-bot.
<br>
<br>You see, a sincere and genuine seeker & preserver of Truth in the presence of new information and analysis that knocks out pillars of their understanding of events would be able to admit to this, to this shaking of their previous beliefs, and to the necessity of re-thinking their previous position.
<br>
<br>Doesn't mean that they would be all in immediately, but that they would be able to entertain a bit of doubt that what they understood may not have been complete or true. They would be able to humbly pull at the threads of the "clever disinformation" that duped them and unravel the nuggets of truth from the web of "narrative control" and lies. At the very least, a sincere person would shut up until they worked through the pain of this cognitive dissonance.
<br>
<br>So, lurker-reading boys and girls! Let this be a lesson. Only agent-bots double-down on their shallow bullshit when handily defeated, and pop up on other threads to crank the same disinfo carousel in their shallow manner.
<br>
<br>Emphasis is on "shallow". Don't be expecting multi-paragraph rebuttals made point-by-point to arguments that refute their disinformation. Like the GOP used to sing over-and-over [even years later], "Oh, but ~her~ emails!" [in reference to Sec. H. Clinton], good old Andy-bot sings, "Oh, but the no aircraft debris at the impact point!" and runs out of breath before a physics compliant explanation for why such a dubious expectation would even be important in the first place.
<br>
<br>U2 used to sing in the chorus of one of their 1980's songs: "Shadows! Shadows! And tall trees...", gets paraphrased around Andy-bot as "Shallow! Shallow! And tall lies.".
<br>
<br>I doubt that Mr. Andy Christensen can even read this far into my comment, for: "Shallow! Shallow! And tall lies." But if he does, this rebuttal was performed for two reasons: (1) for the benefit of lurker-readers; (2) for my own shits-and-giggles.
<br>
<br>It was not done for the Andy-bot's benefit, because his algorithms are not in learning/adapting mode, so I'd be the fool if I thought my detailed analysis to his shallow disinformation would ever change his mind, or get him to admit a mistake, admit being in error, admit having to evolve his understanding. Nope. Ain't none of that expected to happen in Andy-bot's memory circuits, because his disinformation agenda is fixed, and he is paid not to change his mind publicly. The exposure of the existence of an Andy-bot... simply provides validation to other conspiracy theories on "narrative control" and "cognitive infiltration of the internet."
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 160 -->
<a name="x161"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x161" class="tiny">x162</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_162');">SAVE your work</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_162" style="display: none;">
<p>Andy-bot: make sure you SAVE your work from this thread off-line. I just unhid the lame comments from you that I had previously hid, just to be fair to you and give you a chance to preserve your words.
<br>
<br>Make any subsequent comments to this thread WORTHY and meaningful, and above and beyond all of your effort in this thread combined to-date.
<br>
<br>OTHERWISE, I'm gonna hide your top-level comment and all that transpired there under. [I have my own off-line copy for re-publication later already.] If you don't put out the effort requisite, I don't need to give you a time-sucking platform to dull the senses of innocent lurker-readers under my posting.
<br>
<br>Nope, I'll be happy to deep-six you here, and then resurrect your lame-ass loop-de-doo disinfo spins as a new future chapter in my saga of "NPT and Internet Bots" on my (heavily procrastinated re-designed) website and blog that I control (and Facebook and you do not, BWAHAHAHA!)
<br>
<br>And if you decide to beat me to the punch by killing your own top-level comment and subsequently removing all that transpired in this wonderful thread: BWAHAHAHA! I'll make mention of your actions in a post-script to my re-purposing of this... when I get around to it. But when I do, BWAHAHAHA on you.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 162 -->
<a name="x163"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x163" class="tiny">x164</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_164');">much like the holycost discussions</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_164" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges ahh censorship.much like the holycost discussions. Classic zionist method...
<br>"Since i don't like what you say, and i can't argue your points, I'll just delete you ..... " What a surprise!
</p>
</div><!-- section 164 -->
<a name="x165"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x165" class="tiny">x166</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">not "censorship" but "inspiration" to write worthy rebuttals that aren't so purge-worthy in their stupidity</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_166" style="display: none;">
<p>If you take the steps to preserve your words because they are worthy and need to exist beyond these corporate-speech realms of Facebook, then it isn't "censorship" but "inspiration" to write worthy rebuttals that aren't so stupid, lurker readers are asking why you wrote and posted such nonsense, and why you didn't step-up your game to meet the higher standard?
<br>
<br>You aren't sincere, Andy-bot. I am, even though I have a borrowed Heisenberg image for my profile, woo-hoo!
<br>
<br>When you drop foul seeds that you don't have the depth to water into fruition, when the sunlight of substantiation doesn't burst forth from your finger tips when you dribble your time-sucking bait into your keyboard, then Andy-bot I would be doing you an immense favor to disappear their stupidness from gracing these hallowed discussions threads in corporate Facebook while preserving them for my internet journals: "Carousel Spins of Mossad Agent/bots".
<br>
<br>I crave an exchange on the order of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Sad how you disappoint. Not a surprise.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 166 -->
<a name="x167"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x167" class="tiny">x168</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">yeah YOU'RE the sincere one</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-16</p>
<div id="sect_168" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Bit, was that a ton of bullshit..yeah YOU'RE the sincere one.
<br>There is no debris at any point if 8mpact. You being a 'no planer' yourself already made that assessment.
<br>I don't ned to preserve my words from your censorship.... I say them all the time. Br a coward if you wish. Shalom .
</p>
</div><!-- section 168 -->
<a name="x169"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x169" class="tiny">x170</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_170');">how much stopping power</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_170" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/posts/1513992492374371/?comment_id=1514201435686810&reply_comment_id=1514309652342655&notif_id=1663350103334608&notif_t=group_comment_mention">https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/posts/1513992492374371/?comment_id=1514201435686810&reply_comment_id=1514309652342655¬if_id=1663350103334608¬if_t=group_comment_mention</a>
<br>Question: how much stopping power does a slatted fence like structure with more open space to travel through than steel face to hit, have against a 200,000 pound mass slamming into it at 350 mph?"
<br>
<br>350? Uhm, us that the official rate if speed or did someone make it up?
<br>
<br>More open space? You mean like in the photograph, or is that meant to be misleading, deceptive and false? Shouldn't you just take the dimensions of the actual POINT OF IMPACT (something you often ignore). That's what a truther would do, no? I'll expect those official dimensions forthright.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 170 -->
<a name="x171"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x171" class="tiny">x172</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_172');">a useless analogy</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_172" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, <i>"If you can get them to ask the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."</i> ~Thomas Pynchon.
<br>
<br>The stopping power of a slatted fence is the wrong question, and provides a useless analogy.
<br>
<br>A more correct question is: how much energy is required to sever the steel bolts that connect together wall assemblies? If this energy is less than the energy to physically slice through the hollow box columnS of wall assemblieS, then the question becomes: what would be observed if those bolts failed? The answer: the impacted wall assemblies would get pushed out of the way along with the concrete floors, because there was, say, a good 10 feet of literal air above and below the impact level which would provide adequate space for material to get pushed into. [Stated another way, once the impact walls were breached, structure and content that would significantly resist further penetration was much less.]
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 172 -->
<a name="x173"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x173" class="tiny">x174</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_174');">more crazy than the one trying to defend the official narrative?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_174" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges what conspiracy theorist is more crazy than the one trying to defend the official narrative?
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 174 -->
<a name="x175"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x175" class="tiny">x176</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_176');">nothing that I have written supports the official narrative.</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_176" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Whereas all "information" about 9/11 -- particularly from government agencies -- is literally "disinformation", the requirement of the disinfo vehicle is to have nuggets of truth in order to con the public into its more dubious agenda.
<br>
<br>All sincere seekers of truth are required to rescue nuggets of truth from all sources, even the official narrative. Rescuing nuggets does not necessarily validate the (disinfo) vehicle they were found in, nor does their occupancy in that vehicle damn them as not being truths.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, whereas I have rescued nuggets of truth from the official narrative, nothing that I have written supports the official narrative.
<br>
<br>In fact, here are some more rescued nuggets of truth, to remind you that you have unfinished business in your learning.
<br>
<br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br>CRYPTOME.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 176 -->
<a name="x177"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x177" class="tiny">x178</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_178');">planted evidence</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_178" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges planted evidence
></p>
</div><!-- section 178 -->
<a name="x179"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x179" class="tiny">x180</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">no debris of any aircraft at all alleged impact sites</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_180" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges no debris of any aircraft at all alleged impact sites....no matter how much was planted away from it.
</p>
</div><!-- section 180 -->
<a name="x181"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x181" class="tiny">x182</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_182');">four different aircraft events you are deceitfully trying to conflate together as one</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_182" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, oh that's right! You're a bot; I forgot. I mean, I go posting a link to photographic evidence of aircraft debris at the WTC, and the first words typed into the keyboard from you is the obvious lie "no debris of any aircraft."
<br>
<br>It was four different aircraft events. You are deceitfully trying to conflate them all together as one, rather than picking them apart one-by-one.
<br>
<br>At issue here is the towers. Focus on that, because on that premise I have supplied the link with images that refutes your "lie" because this isn't the first spin I've taken on your carousel; you've had enough time to research my posting. But a clue to your bot-ness, you can't even copy-and-paste a quote from the URL that I posted to prove that you even went there, if only to skim through the images.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 182 -->
<a name="x183"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x183" class="tiny">x184</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_184');">I said at point of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_184" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I said at point of impact, didn't I. Nice strawman argument
</p>
</div><!-- section 184 -->
<a name="x185"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x185" class="tiny">x186</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_186');">none of those photos shows any at points of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_186" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges and none of those photos shows any at points of impact. Ooops
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 186 -->
<a name="x187"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x187" class="tiny">x188</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_188');">an algorithm bug over representing the assumed factoid of "no aircraft debris at point of impact"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_188" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andy Christensen, Sad for you and your participation here is that you continually fail the bot-test. The Facebook link is provided below to an earlier FB discussion between you and I on this very same "planes at the WTC" subject with the very same link provided with the very same injunction to "copy a quote from the destination URL and paste it into your next comment" to prove you visited the website and maybe skimmed it and are human enough to "copy and paste" a quotation from it that might further the discussion in a positive manner.
<br>
<br>Didn't happen then. Didn't happen now... Means the Andy-bot algorithms are functioning within parameters for the agenda.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250&notif_id=1644182966593526&notif_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br>Here is a secondary test for Andy-bot. In your bot-ish curt reply, you exclaimed "Nice strawman argument." You make the claim; you defend the claim. Please explain from something in my comment the "error in its ways" that turns it into an alleged "strawman argument." Curious minds want to know. Or was the Andy-bot bluffing and just filling the thread with flame-baiting canned database entries, knee-trigger-like?
<br>
<br>The Andy-bot -- over many FB threads not just this one -- has an algorithm bug in the form of over representing the assumed factoid of "no aircraft debris at point of impact". Would Andy-bot even recognize aircraft debris in the long-distance photos of the impact point? How far could the photos peer into the impact points? After the high-velocity impact, what form did Andy-bot expect the debris to take? Specifically, if shattering, shredding, and deformation is the expectation from a high-velocity collision, why is the Andy-bot expecting the long-distance camera work to depict this in detail? (Is Andy-bot expecting an in-tact wing or tail section to just sit there at the plowed opening? If so, why, and how would that be compliant with high-velocity physics?) Why does the Andy-bot ignore the evidence visible on the ground before either towers came down?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 188 -->
<a name="x189"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x189" class="tiny">x190</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_190');">none of the photos ... at the point of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_190" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges Yeah, I hear ya but none of the photos you showed were at the point of impact, we they... Oh well, here we go again....
<br>
<br><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>"assumed factoid of "no aircraft debris at point of impact"." Except you are unable to debunk it....are you. Nope, not one piece of debris at any point of impact.....ZIPPO. Oh well.....same old, same old.
</p>
</div><!-- section 190 -->
<a name="x191"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x191" class="tiny">x192</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_192');">Your participation is insincere</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_192" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Andy-bot, Your brief database entry is insufficient to address the several challenges put forth. You keep failing the bot-test, fail to answer questions, fail to defend your claims. Your participation is insincere, and as much as OCD makes me a bot, I'll run myself a subroutine to remind lurker readers.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Yeah, I hear ya."</i>
<br>
<br>Nope. You don't. Let's ignore that you factually <i>"might have read my words"</i> and that you didn't "hear" them. If you were (non-agenda-toting) human, nothing in your demeanor suggests "comprehension" (aka "hearing") about discussion points or needed changes in behavior to give everyone -- your discussion opponent, forum participants, (latter-day) lurker readers -- some peace of mind that you were and are sincere. Too quickly, your bot-limits are reached, devolving the discussion into just another carousel spin.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 192 -->
<a name="x193"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x193" class="tiny">x194</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_194');">Yu still haven't disproven anything I have said</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_194" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br>Maxwell Bridges There you go...done! or you need mor again, like last time? Yu still haven't disproven anything I have said or claimed.
<br>
<br>{mcb:May be an image of outdoors
</p>
</div><!-- section 194 -->
<a name="x195"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x195" class="tiny">x196</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_196');">insufficient database entry to address the several challenges</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_196" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Andy-bot, Your brief database entry is insufficient to address the several challenges put forth. Fail. Only insanity or subroutine algorithms explain your weak, two-liner, database entries for their shear repetition and purposeful miss at furthering any positive exchange.
<br><br>I'm guessing that Israeli agents are running the bots for the FB personas like this one. Jew (or rather "Zionist") hiding behind the "Christensen" name is exactly what one could expect from Mossad. Shalom.
<br><br>Andy-bot, have you ever made a referenced and detailed comment longer than one paragraph that automatically had FB create a "... See more" insertion for you?
<br><br>When your discussion opponent regularly has "... See more" breaks in his comments, because they are more than two lines of well researched and articulated words, then you'll have a hard time besting his arguments below the "... See more" fold, that I suspect as Andy-bot you don't even have the abilities to click and expand, just like you can't follow links in content, much less discuss rationally what is presented.
<br><br>For shame, for shame.
<br><br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 196 -->
<a name="x197"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x197" class="tiny">x198</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_198');">the problem with my repeating mantra</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_198" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Yeah,but the problem with my repeating mantra is is that you never addressed it .... can't even deny it. Amazing
<br>No Debris at any alleged Point of Impact. Period.
<br>I like your shill reversal premise too except it doesn't work in that direction
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 198 -->
<a name="x199"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x199" class="tiny">x200</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_200');">played the exact same games then as you do now</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_200" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Andy-bot, Your brief entry is insufficient to address the several challenges put forth. Fail.
<br>
<br>Your lies & projection are easy to spot and defeat. Watch this! You wrote: <i>"you never addressed it"</i>, where "it" refers to the stupid repeated mantra of <i>"no aircraft debris at the impact point."</i>
<br>
<br>Are you watching?... Okay, here it is: a Facebook link from 32 weeks ago (under the top-level comment from Mr. David Tame).
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250&notif_id=1644182966593526&notif_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br>You played the same games then as you do now: the exact same games. Bot. You've learned nothing, improved your argument not in the slightest, and ignored the questions that you'd need to answer in order to support your claim.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, from the aspect of high velocity physics and proper mechanical characteristics of the fuselage, wings, and tower structure, you have yet to prove why you expect "aircraft debris right at the entrance point"? What form would that debris take? Are you talking [A] whole wings, engines, and tails? Or [B] fragments of wings as physics-compliant left-overs from the high velocity impact, and if "B", then what makes you believe the resolution of the long-distance lens of the cameras would pick up such clear images of fragments that can be pegged to an aircraft?
<br>
<br>Further, what makes you think that heavy objects -- engines and landing gear --, having severed wall assembly connecting bolts, pushed assemblies out of the way, and bent hollow box columns, wouldn't still have momentum that would carry them away from the point of impact? Geez, in one case, a partial wheel assembly passed into the towers, went through the office furnishings, smacked into the rear wall, severed its connecting bolts, and ripped it right off the backside of WTC-1 to be found and photographed before either tower came down in a neighboring parking lot. In another case, video evidence shows an engine coming out of the corner office of the impact floor (e.g., no beam in the middle of the window), traveled over 2 football fields, damaged and bounced off of a roof, and was found near scaffolding on Church and Murray. Physics compliant: exit velocity of only 122 mph (down from 500 mph) would allow it to go the distance.
<br>
<br>You somehow expect that "large", "recognizable-as-coming-from-an-aircraft" pieces of debris would be visible within x feet of the entrance hole and captured on camera. You ignore the fact that within -x feet of those same entrance hole is indeed the debris you seek, except that such fragments are at z = -1000 feet from the hole and only got there because they fell to the ground.
<br>
<br>Your repeated inability to acknowledge and address these challenges pegs you as an agent/bot. Your limited responses peg you as a non-native english speaker, unable to defend your so-called "argument" with anything more than slogans. Yep, you are Mossad, Andy-bot, who like any good agent had the weekend off from his agency duties. Monday morning, like the job it is, you come back and stir the pot.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 200 -->
<a name="x201"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x201" class="tiny">x202</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_202');">none of which remained at he alleged point of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_202" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges 3052sqft aluminum sheeting in wings alone, none of which remained at he alleged point of impact.. Zippo.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 202 -->
<a name="x203"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x203" class="tiny">x204</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_204');">never stated the significant physics correlation for <i>"no debris at entry point"</i> importance</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_204" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Andy-bot, Thank you for proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are an insincere Mossad agent/bot. Too difficult to answer questions about your premise, so you don't. Way too easy to paste in meaningless slogans "no debris at entry point" , so that's what you do.
<br>
<br>You have never stated the significance, much less the physics correlation, that supposedly in you feeble mind makes "no debris at entry point" important, while at the same time avoided repeatedly pointed questions that, if you were sincere in your efforts to defend your premise, you'd would endeavor to answer, one by one.
<br>
<br>Failure to do this signifies that you don't care. You don't care about your own premise, don't care to defend it, don't care that a few unanswered questions so easily destroys it, don't care how this lame-ass effort is reflected on your intelligence and integrity. You are insincere.
<br>
<br>The only thing that you, Andy-bot, is sincere about is posting bullshit that might somehow continue to poison the well of 9/11 truth while also being a time-suck for others. Not even like the joker of early internet, do you wind up the participants, because you have neither humor nor earnestness; all you get is cold hard cash for your minimal minutes' posting efforts.
<br>
<br>Please carry on WITHOUT ME.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 204 -->
<a name="x205"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x205" class="tiny">x206</a>
Malcolm Sturrock : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_206');">how much damage to the fly swatter do you think that thin fly ass would make?</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_206" style="display: none;">
<p>Within the laws of physics it doesn't make a difference if the plane slammed into the building or the building was travelling and slammed into a stationary plane. It would be the same outcome exactly...So imagine if you will a huge fly swatter made of really thick beams of solid steel and masses of concrete pylons smacking a fly made of the thinnest layer of soft aluminium, plastic and mostly air, clothing and flesh inside...how much damage to the fly swatter do you think that thin ass fly would make? A: zero
</p>
</div><!-- section 206 -->
<a name="x207"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x207" class="tiny">x208</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_208');">three HOLLOW box columns about 30 feet tall and connected together with three spandrels</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_208" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Malcolm Sturrock, your analogy has several flaws. You make the comment <i>"really thick beams of solid steel"</i> supposedly in reference to the towers. ERROR! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!
<br>
<br>The wall assemblies were composed of three HOLLOW box columns about 30 feet tall and connected together with three spandrels. The thickness of the sides of the HOLLOW box columns depended on elevation of where the assembly was positioned in the towers, whereby the thickness of the sides of a HOLLOW box column were thinner the higher they were in the towers, because they didn't need to support as much weight.
<br>
<br>So, right out of the gate, your description of "really thick beams of solid steel" is factually WRONG.
<br>
<br>More importantly, the fuselage and engines did not slice through the HOLLOW box columns of the wall assemblies (with only a handful of individual exceptions, some of which might actually be "bent" rather than "cut.") Why? Because the connecting bolts between wall assemblies were built-in failure points and were easily severed by the energy present at impact allowing those assemblies to be pushed out of the way like doors. This is observable in many images right after the impact.
<br>
<br>To the premise of connecting bolts being built-in-failure points, a partial wheel assembly from the first aircraft had so much energy after impact and penetration that it lodged itself between two hollow box columns of a wall assembly that got ripped off the backside of WTC-1 and fell to a parking lot (and was photographed from several angles before either tower came down). In other words, not only did it help plow an entrance path but went ahead and knocked out an exit path from the backside as well.
<br>
<br>The concrete floors were, say, 10-12 feet apart, which is plenty of literal air above and below to get push into, even if accordion-style. The concrete floors were not "masses of concrete pylons". They were were a few inches thick resting on metal pans supported by metal trusses attached to the wall assemblies.
<br>
<br>As for the wings, they DID slice through (or knocked off) the aluminum cladding wing tip to wing tip giving the illusion (spun by deceitful NPT disinfo) that the walls had a neat cartoon cutout image of the plane. However, the steel wall assemblies behind the aluminum cladding remained in tact for most of the wing span except at the engines and fuselage. In other words, penetration of the wall assemblies was not a full wing-span slice, but more engines and fuselage centric with the exception of what was sliced and traveled through near zero-resistance window slits.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, we're not talking parking lot velocities or autobahn/fly-swatter velocities; the 9/11 aircraft were flying high velocities (500 mph) where the physics changes owing to the energy present in the impact (stemming from the velocity squared term in the energy equation).
<br>
<br>Specifically, the energy of high velocities impacts (as demonstrated by the Sandia F10 crashes and the Mythbuster's Rocket Sled videos) is sufficient to shatter materials locally. Meaning, the expectation for the light materials of the wings is that they would shatter and slice themselves upon impact with the steel box columns of the wall assembly, which would have deformation and damage at impact. And they did. High velocity impacts, there is no expectation that whole wing assemblies or tail assemblies would bounce off the wall and remain as cohesive wholes (a deceit of NPT). What wing fragments didn't progress through window slits did bounce off the wall; the distance of all cameras from the event misconstrues the size and nature of those fragments visible at impact and falling to the ground.
<br>
<br>By the way, the image is from a wall assembly placed in the corners. Every other floor or so did not have a center beam to allow for a larger window and uninterrupted view (for the CEO's in the corner office). This is an important factoid, because one of the engines of the 2nd plane went through such a window and flew a couple football fields before hitting a roof and falling to the street at Church and Murray. If that engine would have impacted at any other floor or angle, it likely would have hit a hollow box column and not have flown its path outside the building. [I once did the math; an exit velocity as low as 122 mph -- down from 500 mph impact velocity as per radar -- would have been sufficient to go the distance.]
<br>
<br>Say what you will about the make and model of that engine maybe not matching that of the alleged commercial aircraft or that larger pieces of aircraft debris were not serial number matched to maintenance records of the alleged commercial aircraft. That is a different argument and probably valid.
<br>
<br>Real aircraft (whether or not the alleged commercial aircraft) were involved at the WTC. The damage and observations were all physics compliant when the structure of the towers, the structure of the planes, and the high-velocity physics were properly described.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 208 -->
<a name="x209"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x209" class="tiny">x210</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_210');">Thanks for taking so much time and many words to explain nothing</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_210" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Yeah, but no debris at my point of impact, Thanks for taking so much time and many words to explain nothing that I am talking about.... Oh well....
<br>Try to stick with the topic, ok?
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 210 -->
<a name="x211"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x211" class="tiny">x212</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_212');">bot-ish repetition of an insignificant factoid</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_212" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Andy-bot, My comment was addressed to Mr. Malcolm Sturrock. If he wants to engage me, he is welcome. You are not.
<br>
<br>Andy-bot, there is another thread under this same posting where you've been making claims of <i>"no debris at my point of impact"</i> as if it were significant. (With high-velocity physics and being 1,000 feet in the air, this factoid is NOT significant. Given the shattering and slicing of wings, would the long-distance camera shots even be able to pick out recognizable pieces? And why does Andy-bot ignore the aircraft evidence literally surrounding the towers almost right at the point of impact, except minus 1000 feet?)
<br>
<br>To the Andy-bot's injuncture for me to <i>"try to stick with the topic, ok?"</i>
<br>
<br>Let the record show that Mr. Sturrock started this thread. The eleven paragraphs in my reply comment were directed at Mr. Sturrock's statements, so were on topic.
<br>
<br>That being said, did your "database snippet entry" of a comment address anything from my eleven paragraphs to prove wrong or to prove not-on-topic? Nope.
<br>
<br>Further, how did your bot-ish repetition of an insignificant factoid (that you can't even prove) of "no debris at my point of impact" stick to the topic of Mr. Sturrock's comment or the eleven paragraphs of my comment? It didn't.
<br>
<br>Thus, Andy-bot, you are now in violation of being grossly and bot-ishly off-topic.
<br>
<br>Go away from this thread, Andy-bot. Use the other thread to crank your "no debris @ impact" disinfo carousel. Maybe I'll engage you there.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 212 -->
<a name="x213"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x213" class="tiny">x214</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_214');">poison placed into the well of 9/11 Truth</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_214" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Tim Hussey, I agree. Embarrassing that I've been a 9/11 Truther for over two decades, and so little public revelation and acceptance.
<br>
<br>At issue in this discussion is poison placed into the well of 9/11 Truth, the whole "no planes at the WTC." It is an astroturf distraction from the real instances of insufficient plane debris (Pentagon, Shanksville). September Clues had duped me mightily on the topic for a few years, until further research & evidence combined with holes in the Clues crews defense led me to other conclusions about aircraft at the WTC.
<br>
<br>As a favor to others who are still duped by what I was duped by, I try to correct the record for them and show the deceit that convinced them to not only believe lies but actively promote them.
<br>
<br>The good news is that sincere humans see my rational and well-reasoned arguments, recognize where they might be wrong, and quietly disengage.
<br>
<br>The bad news is that insincere agents and bots don't tire. Easy to trigger. Easy to plop in a curt and meaningless database entries. Do not expect engagement on anything specific from a discussion opponents comment or URL references. And that's how they're outed.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 214 -->
<a name="x215"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x215" class="tiny">x216</a>
Tim Hussey : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_216');">the human condition is interesting once people realise they have been lied to</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_216" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges cheers , the human condition is interesting once people realise they have been lied to they oftern swing way into unsubstantiated Theory .
</p>
</div><!-- section 216 -->
<a name="x217"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x217" class="tiny">x218</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_218');">"The 48 Laws of Power" (2000)</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_218" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Tim Hussey, speaking of the human condition, it is an underlying theme in a book I've been reading: "The 48 Laws of Power" (2000).
<br>
<br>The book is disturbing, because it advocates taking deceitful advantage of the human condition. Wish I would have read it (had it existed) when I was still in college, not so much to exercise such deceit but more so to recognize when its techniques are being used against me / us.
<br>
<br>As I chug through this, I gotta say that the Republicans seem to have been early students of this book, because what they've been doing this century alone is many tricks from this book. Can't imagine Trump reading any book, let alone this one (864 pages), but someone put a couple of the laws into his ear early on to get what we got.
<br>
<br>https://www.amazon.com/48-Laws-Power-Robert-Greene-ebook/dp/B0024CEZR6/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1348JZMN6X4NO&keywords=48+laws+of+power+by+robert+greene&qid=1663359619&sprefix=48+la%2Caps%2C166&sr=8-1
<br>
<br>All the best.
<br>
<br>//
<br>The 48 Laws of Power
<br>AMAZON.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 218 -->
<a name="x219"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x219" class="tiny">x220</a>
Andy Christensen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_220');">Nothing unsubstantiated about no debris at every point of impact</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_220" style="display: none;">
<p>Tim Hussey Nothing unsubstantiated about no debris at every point of impact....
</p>
</div><!-- section 220 -->
<a name="x221"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x221" class="tiny">x222</a>
Tim Hussey : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_222');">yep some stange stuff allright</a></b></p>
<p>2022-09-16</p>
<div id="sect_222" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges yep some stange stuff allright
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250&notif_id=1644182966593526&notif_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3122315598045151&id=100008002243250¬if_id=1644182966593526¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>Moon Landing Hoax
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=369131758227338&ref=sharing">https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=369131758227338&ref=sharing</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 222 -->
<!-- ***** 202202_mcb_npt_andyChristensen.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_1 -->
<a name="p2"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_2');">Part 2: Round 9: NPT Discussions with Max Pruss</a></h2>
<div id="part_2" style="display: none;">
<!-- ***** 202205_mcb_npt_howard.htm -->
<a name="x223"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x223" class="tiny">x224</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_224');">wrong on all counts</a></b></p>
<p>2022-05-26</p>
<div id="sect_224" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Meme"CNN Closeup - Self Healing Building -Half in, half out - no break in building between fuselage and left engine. A real plane would crash against the building, its tail snap off, & fuel-filled wings explode on impact.}
</p>
<p>The meme is disinformation. The statement is wrong on all counts: <i>"A real plane would crash against the building, its tail snap off, & fuel-filled wings explode on impact."</i>
<br>
<br>The deceit in the meme is (a) to project low-velocity expectations of damage onto a high-velocity event, (b) to misuse camera technology limitations.
<br>
<br>The high-velocity physics and the physics-complaint explanations of the materials, the building, the damage, and the limitations of the video technology used in the screen grab for the meme expose that deceit
<br>
<br>The wall assemblies had built-in failure mechanisms with the bolts that connected them to neighboring assemblies. Didn't take as much energy to sever and push the assemblies out of the way (fuselage, engines). Once an entry path was plowed, the small amount of building content compared to more spaces of empty air would not significantly resist further penetration. And wouldn't you know it, wheel assemblies had sufficient mass and momentum that one such piece was able to rip a wall assembly off of the back side of WTC-1 to land in a lot.
<br>
<br>Once the fuselage had plowed an entrance hole, the tail would not necessarily have snapped off, nor the wings. (And that thinking is just "SO-ooo low-velocity physics."
<br>
<br>The (high) velocity squared term in the energy equation created energy that exceeded the structural strength of lighter materials, like the wings from the engines to the tips. Meaning, they shattered locally and would not have been expected to bounce off as cohesive wholes.
<br>
<br>The fuel in the wings would not have ignited immediately upon having their containing wings shattered and shredded along the wall assemblies. They required an ignition source, which they didn't get until the exhaust from the plane could set upon it, after deposit in the towers. 50% of the buildings face were allocated for window slits, easily penetrated by fragments, shards, and spilled fuel. An explosion did happen.
<br>
<br>The above image is not real (but close), and this is because of (a) camera distance from the event, (b) limits in resolution of the camera, (c) video tape limitations, (d) transmission under-sampling. In other words, this didn't start as a high resolution film-based image using a super camera lens. In making the NPT disinformation, they purposely went for grainy and messed up through multiple translations.
<br>
<br>The hoax is foisting this up as anything but exposing the limitations of the news gathering technology of the day (e.g., video tapes), and blowing it up beyond what is truthful or real. Further, both video and more modern day digital camera technology use previous-current-and-next-images to error correct and fill data gaps in the recorded image. Remember, this is a high-velocity event and the camera far away. Data gaps in its error correction are literally being blown out of proportion in the bogus "plane half in and seemingly no wall damage." I'll bet the very next video frames caught up and show the hole.
<br>
<br>Talking like an OG: "Why in my day, the television rabbit-ear snow was so strong when watching 1970's televison in remote Idaho, we had just enough image data to help with a picture, but it was better to close our eyes and listen as if a radio program."
<br>
<br>The point is, imagery technogy has always been fuzzy, particularly when zoomed in from a great distance, recorded on video tape, extracted from a single frame, and blown-up some more, yet here the meme is talking as if it were an exact science depicting exactly events without glitches or errors -- "self healing building... no break in building between fuselage and left engine."
<br>
<br>[As a deviant side-topic, glitches in camera technology in the face of radiation is why FEMA/NIST videos were suppressed and cameras/geiger counters outlawed at ground zero by the first responders in the clean-up. Recorded proof of radiation leeching off the debris pile and debril at the scrapyard.]
<br>
<br>If memory serves me, Dr. Fetzer used to brag that the plane flew its entire length (155') through thin air in the same number of frames as it entered the building. True, and I think the number of frames was rounded up to 5. Five frames (at 24 frames a second) to depict traveling 155'. Yet those same five frames can represent a range of velocities (e.g., deceleration). The deceit attempted was to say because the number of rounded up frames was the same "thin air vs. penetrating building", the velocity was (wrong) unchanged indicating supposedly no resistance to planes,, thus no real planes. It was a faulty argument that the math on the frame rate easily debunks. Not to mention, the faulty expectation that resistance to deeper penetration would be constant (and large) even after an entrance hole was plowed.
<br>
<br>Evidence of real aircraft at WTC, very hard to fake.
<br>
<br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>Been for more than one spin on this disnformation carousel.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 224 -->
<!-- ***** 202205_mcb_npt_howard.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202206_mcb_NPT_MaxPruss.htm -->
<a name="x225"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x225" class="tiny">x226</a>
Max Pruss : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_226');">throw an empty pop can against a car door</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-</p>
<div id="sect_226" style="display: none;">
<p>The day I throw an empty pop can against a car door and it goes right through it... That's the day I'll believe the official 9/11 story...
</p>
</div><!-- section 226 -->
<a name="x227"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x227" class="tiny">x228</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_228');">analogy is off-base and meaningless</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-</p>
<div id="sect_228" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Max Pruss, your analogy is off-base and meaningless. It would have more meaning if your throwing arm could accelerate that pop-can to 500 mph. But even then, you are launching it at a door that has built-in failure points (e.g., hinges, latches) even without talking windows, which means your rocket pop-can could have sufficient energy to severe those failure points and simply push the door out of the way: no hole in the door required because the door is already covering a hole.
<br><br>In the case of the towers, the wall assemblies had connecting bolts that did fail (as designed) and allowed those assemblies to be pushed out of the way (without actually boring holes in those assemblies.) Once a path was plowed into the buildings by severing those bolts, very little structure or content would resist further penetration. (A deceit of NPT is assuming "resistance to penetrating fuselage" would be constant and high after an impact path was plowed.)
<br><br>The velocity squared term in the energy equation changes things when velocities are high, because the energy exhibited is enough to shatter materials (like of the wings). The outline of the wings against the towers was on the aluminum cladding, not on the steel wall assemblies behind that cladding. Plus, the wall assemblies had 50% of their face being zero-resistance window slits, plenty of space for sliced and shattered wing material to keep their forward momentum into the building.
<br><br>I suggest you watch the Sandia F4 crash or the MythBuster Rocket-Sled videos, or even slow-motion videos of bullets hitting things.
<br><br>By the way, to describe the aircraft as a pop-can is just another disinfo deceit that you've been duped by. For example, the deck of a plan (where seats are mounted) is very solid, as are the wheel assemblies and engines. Solid enough to plow aside wall assemblies from the impact side and then rip a wall assembly off of the back-side.
<br><br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 228 -->
<a name="x229"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x229" class="tiny">x230</a>
Max Pruss : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_230');">appreciate the time you are taking to spread this misinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-</p>
<div id="sect_230" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I appreciate the time you are taking to spread this misinformation here but I'm quite certain that the majority of people here are awake and aware enough of simple physics, math and the way this event was planned and executed by people that had / have very much other interests... In regards of velocity and impact, it doesn't make a difference if the plane (that wasn't there) flew fast into the tower or the tower would have hit the plane. The result would be the same. The fact is, that an aluminum construction like a plane won't penetrate a steel building like this. Parts of the plane (especially wings, fuselage parts and definitely the tail section would have fallen to the ground. Planes are grounded and checked over before allowed to fly again, if they hit a bird... A bird! Because it CAN cause major damage to the fuselage/wings. If you have to much time, go to one of the border crossings or to New York City or Jersey City... There are a lot of memorials and they all got a piece of the steel beams from the WTC. Look at them and tell me again, that a wing can cut through them. Planes don't disappear into a building. Like at the Pentagon... Bunker buster rockets can do that... And have you ever been at the place in Pennsylvania... There had never been a plane either... Also the towers collapsed in free fall speed... No resistance... All your bolts failed? And the entire structure fall into small pieces and dust... 1. and last time in history that something like that happened... Next the pilots must have been VERY experienced to fly such a maneuver, because bigger planes need up to 7 seconds to respond to movements of the stick/rudder. So a bad Cessna trainee wouldn't be able to fly this plane / maneuvers and hit dead on into a small object like a tower... When you can hadle a sportboot, you can't steer a super tanker. Anyways, there is so much actual PROOF out there by now, that this whole story was a false flag operation to cash in and make the US a police state plus... So your misinformation is well appreciated and I really enjoyed reading it but it won't change THE FACT that there were no planes and if... They couldn't have cause any of what they say they did... How did WTC7 collapsed? After a reporter already reported the collapse... And please... Don't come with this structure failure story. It's obvious that it was a controlled demolition. Compare videos... Also a fire couldn't have done this. Not a fire like this smoking nothing... Check Greenfell Towers...
</p>
</div><!-- section 230 -->
<a name="x231"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x231" class="tiny">x232</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_232');">"a solid immovable steel block with constant resistance to penetration across its entire length, breadth, and thickness."</a></b></p>
<p>2022-06-</p>
<div id="sect_232" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Max Pruss, You wrote: <i>"I'm quite certain that the majority of people here are awake and aware enough of simple physics, math..."</i>
<br>
<br>Your certainty is misplaced, and the majority of the people here -- including and especially you -- do not have a good grasp of math or physics.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"The fact is, that an aluminum construction like a plane won't penetrate a steel building like this."</i>
<br>
<br>That is not a fact by any shape or form. Your first fallacy is in conflating the phrase "a steel building" to falsely mean <i>"a solid immovable steel block with constant resistance to penetration across its entire length, breadth, and thickness."</i> The towers were not solid blocks. Even the three box columns of a wall assembly were not solid steel; they were hollow whose box wall thickness decreased as elevation in the towers increased.
<br>
<br>The wall assemblies had built-in failure points with the bolts that connected them to one another. The energy required to sever connecting bolts is much less than required to cut the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly.
<br>
<br>The analogy is that when police break down your solid front door, the wood frame for the latches and hinges fail allowing entry long before a battering ram puts a physical hole in your solid door. If they can knock your door off its hinges or destroy the latch, they won't need a lot of additional effort to push the door open and penetrate your dwelling.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Parts of the plane (especially wings, fuselage parts and definitely the tail section) would have fallen to the ground."</i>
<br>
<br>Your fallacy here is in conflating low-velocity physics expectations with a high-velocity event. You confuse the damage inflicted at "parking lot velocities" with velocities that are two orders of magnitude greater. You've learned nothing from the Sandia F4 crash videos or the MythBuster rocket-sled videos.
<br>
<br>So how does the velocity-squared term in the energy equation change the observed damage when the velocity is, say, 500 mph? The energy involved is sufficient to shatter materials locally. Your fallacy is in thinking that wings would remain as cohesive wholes just bouncing off the building. For the record when you study videos of the impact, the wings shattered locally and THEN many of those shards did bounce off and fall to the ground.
<br>
<br>When the energy of the high velocity impact (of the fuselage, engines) severed the connecting bolts attaching one wall assembly with its neighbors, your continued physics fallacy is in discounting that it doesn't take much additional energy to push the disconnected and now unattached assembly out of the way. Once out of the way and a path plowed, your continued fallacy is in thinking that somehow the tail would hit something and fall as a cohesive whole to the ground. No, if a path had been plowed, momentum would carry the tail into the structure.
<br>
<br>[When you mention the damage birds can do, what you are really doing is proving that the Pentagon plane did not impact the building, because clipping those six light poles would have crippled the plane and had its pieces spread all over the lawn; it certainly does not bode well for a surgical strike on the Office of Naval Intelligence, their investigators, and their records into the missing $2.3 trillion.]
<br>
<br>You charged: <i>"If you have to much time, go to one of the border crossings or to New York City or Jersey City... There are a lot of memorials and they all got a piece of the steel beams from the WTC. Look at them and tell me again, that a wing can cut through them."</i>
<br>
<br>There you go again with your physics fallacies. You keep implying that <i>"the wings cut through those steel beams."</i>
<br>
<br>First of all, you need to clarify what steel beams you are referencing, because the hollow box columns of a wall assembly are a different beast than the steel beams of the inner core.
<br>
<br>Secondly, the wings cut the aluminum cladding affixed to the wall assemblies; the wings did ~not~ cut any of the hollow box columns of any wall assembly.
<br>
<br>Thirdly, the engines and fuselage also didn't physically cut much of anything in terms of steel beams or even hollow box columns. What they cut were connecting bolts and then easily had energy to spare to push wall assemblies out of the way (and in cases bend certain hollow box columns.)
<br>
<br>Your inaccurate description of the physical damage -- what was severed, what was bent, what was pushed around -- is contributing to your fallacies and leading you (by disinfo design) to false conclusions.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Planes don't disappear into a building."</i>
<br>
<br>Why not? If a path has been plowed through the impacted surface, what great structure, content, or resistance would be allegedly present to prevent the rest of the fuselage from entering the building? The designer of the towers described an impacting plane as "a pencil piercing a bug screen." And so it was.
<br>
<br>The rest of your comment does not support an accurate description of physics at the towers. 9/11 had four separate events, and you do no one any favors by conflating them all together.
<br>
<br>FTR, I believe that the Pentagon plane flew over the building, and that a missile (possibly launched from a construction trailer) did the damage, and that Shanksville probably had no plane crash at all. Insufficient evidence. And this is precisely why they spun up the blatant disinformation of allegedly no planes at the WTC. You fell for it. (So did I, for a few years over a decade ago, until I persisted in my research and found the many areas where they were being deceitful.)
<br>
<br>Also FTR, I'm a sincere seeker of Truth. Just because I'm calling out blatant disinformation of NPT@WTC does ~not~ mean that I'm not a 9/11 Truther.
<br>
<br>You asked: <i>"How did WTC7 collapsed?"</i>
<br>
<br>Whereas I know the dangers of conflating the evidence of one event of that day with any of the other events, this is one case where I believe the mechanisms of destruction on the towers were also used on WTC-4 (leveling the main edifice at a clean line with its North Annex while preserving the gold vaults underneath), WTC-6 (putting a crater in it while sparing enough of its vaults for a FEMA photographer to claim it was emptied beforehand), WTC-5, and WTC-7.
<br>
<br>The mechanisms were late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear devices: conventional kick-starter charge for the fission stage, whose sole purpose was to generate the heat requisite for the fusion stage, which released 80% of its nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion (e.g., DEW) cone-shape, upwards. I estimate 4 FGNW per detonation level, and 6-12 detonation levels per tower.
<br>
<br>I've done my homework. Here's my write-up.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br>
<br>At any rate, your faulty WTC physics had been debunked. Real planes were involved at the WTC. Here's ample physical evidence of that, which is something you have yet to acknowledge, let alone address. For shame, for shame.
<br>
<br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 232 -->
<!-- ***** 202206_mcb_NPT_MaxPruss.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_2 -->
<a name="p3"></a>
<hr>
<h2 class="part"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_3');">Part 3: Round 10: NPT Discussions with Daniel M. Plesse, Mike Johnson, Lisa Brooks, Jerome Grogan, Edward Irwin, Cole Anderson, Noel Kreutzmann</a></h2>
<div id="part_3" style="display: none;">
<!-- ***** 202208_mcb_npt_rareFacts.htm -->
<a name="x233"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x233" class="tiny">x234</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_234');">meme is deceitful disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_234" style="display: none;">
<p>2022-08-23
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/911disclosureproject/posts/655205745560536/?comment_id=655322448882199&reply_comment_id=655523298862114&notif_id=1661258620809494&notif_t=group_comment_mention">https://www.facebook.com/groups/911disclosureproject/posts/655205745560536/?comment_id=655322448882199&reply_comment_id=655523298862114¬if_id=1661258620809494¬if_t=group_comment_mention</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>The meme is flawed because it tries to equate the narrow width of the actual plowed open hole on the side of the towers with the wide width of the wingspan, while ignoring the fact that the wings near their tips did leave impressions on the side of the building (e.g., on the aluminum cladding) even if not possessing the energy/mass to plow a hole through the steel hollow box columns of the wall assemblies at those locations.
<br>
<br>The fuselage and engines plowed a path through the wall assemblies, but it was a path made by pushing things out of the way, severing the connecting bolts between wall assemblies, but not necessarily cutting and severing the box columns of those assemblies.
<br>
<br>The wings left their impressions on the tower for their full wingspan.
<br>
<br>So this meme is deceitful disinformation meant to confuse the weak minded. Don't be weak minded.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 234 -->
<a name="x235"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x235" class="tiny">x236</a>
Daniel M. Plesse : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_236');">no evil [deceitful disinformation] intent</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_236" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I don't think there is evil [deceitful disinformation] intent here Max.
<br>
<br>So even with the impressions what do we get? Are we still short? I think NIST said it was short by 30 feet. Photo below
</p>
</div><!-- section 236 -->
<a name="x237"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x237" class="tiny">x238</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_238');">where this genre is heading</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_238" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, For the sake of discussion, let's say the wing-tip to wing-tip impressions on the aluminum cladding was 30 feet short of the alleged commercial aircraft. The most you can deduce from this is that the impacting plane was not the alleged commercial aircraft, and that premise is supported by them not serial-number identifying the larger parts (e.g., landing gear, engine found outside the tower footprints) to the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br>
<br>It is still deceit and a ruse. Probably many reasons why the alleged commercial aircraft was swapped out, and for the lying.
<br>
<br>However, 30 feet short in wingspan does not equate to the faulty premise of <i>"no planes impacting the towers"</i>, which is where this genre is heading. THAT is the falsehood that I am cutting off.
<br>
<br>Real aircraft were involved at the towers; and if CGI were involved at all, it was to mask the actual aircraft into appearing on video as the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br>
<br>Here's the evidence of real aircraft that no NPTer has ever bothered to rationally address, because they knew NPT is a lie and this truth defeats it.
<br>
<br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 238 -->
<a name="x239"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x239" class="tiny">x240</a>
Daniel M. Plesse : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_240');">witnesses of a switch</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_240" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I have tons of video evidence and photo evidence, witnesses of a switch.. This photo shows the cell tower was being pinged for far too long for a plane flying in a straight line directly into the towers. This could mean each plane had a function and job to do on 9/11!!!..
<br>
<br>[mcb: Meme with cellphone tower pings.]
</p>
</div><!-- section 240 -->
<a name="x241"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x241" class="tiny">x242</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_242');">a plane swap is different from "no planes at all"</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_242" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, You have "tons of video evidence and photo evidence"... of what? You hint "witnesses of a switch." So be it, and I'm not debating that point. In fact, I've even alluded to other instances where the significant pieces of the wreckage (landing gear, engines) were not serial numbered identified to match the alleged commercial aircraft. The wing span impression on the aluminum cladding being 30 feet short is possibly another.
<br>
<br>The salient point is that a plane swap is different from "no planes at all", which, if you look at other discussion threads under this posting, is the deceitful direction that a bunch of duped useful idiots want to understand things.
<br>
<br>My point is that there is evidence of real aircraft at the WTC, and some of it is posted (and not discussed by you) above.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 242 -->
<a name="x243"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x243" class="tiny">x244</a>
Mike Johnson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_244');">slicing completely through the building</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_244" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges The video shows the plane, including the fragile wing tips slicing completely through the building. No debris falling off. NIST has shown themselves to be completely incompetent or completely complicit.
</p>
</div><!-- section 244 -->
<a name="x245"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x245" class="tiny">x246</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_246');">does not mean that that no aircraft were involved</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_246" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Mike Johnson, You claim the videos shows the plane's wing tips slicing completely through the building, so you defend that claim. URL to the video and elapsed time into the video when you say that this happened.
<br>
<br>Because I'm a fair and and reasonable fellow, for the sake of your argument, let us assume that somehow your video substantiation does show the plane's wing tips slicing through both the aluminum cladding as well as the hollow box columns of the wall assemblies, which is your premise, right?
<br>
<br>Under this assumption, lots of pictorial evidence after the event show conclusively that the wing tips damaged only the aluminum cladding and did not slash a slice through the wall assemblies. The most you could conclude from that is that the Naudet video was altered in post production, CGI, and all that and they screwed up.
<br>
<br>It does not mean that that no aircraft were involved. Real aircraft were involved at the towers, with tons of evidence that CGI faking can't explain without expanding the conspiracy unreasonably and illogically to "those landing gear pieces were planted; the ejection of the engine out the corner, its flying a considerable distance to bounce off the roof of a building, and its tumbling to the street below to be found near (or even under) scaffolding were faked." Doesn't matter that the engine's flight after leaving the corner of a tower is completely physics compliant. [I've done the math; an exit velocity as low as 122 mph could send it that distance, as observed and videoed from multiple perspectives.]
<br>
<br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>At any rate, I am interested in seeing the video with a time stamp that proves your contention of the wing tips slicing through the wall assemblies. Meanwhile, consider the link also landing in your court to reasonably explain.
<br>
<br>BTW. For three years over a decade ago, I was totally duped by September Clues and their CGI premise. Alas, the owners and participants of the Clues forum were less than genuine, causing me to re-evaluate the NPT premise as outlined by them and to me finding it deceitful. Furthermore, then I found further evidence like the above punch-out material. And then in a rather funny and ironic way, discussions about (disinfo) Dr. Wood ended up exposing the Clues forum and their NPT hobby-horse as disinformation.
<br>
<br>How so? Those on the (September) Clues Forum held the premise that "~all~ 9/11 imagery was faked; none of it was real." High school sophomore English class taught us that "over-generalizations are bad, because it only takes one exception to disprove." They were the ones saying that every image was faked. At the time, I was also an active champion of Dr. Wood's work that I wanted assistance in vetting or debunking it. [Later, I debunked her work on my own, but I digress.] Those Clues disinfo agents said "we don't need to debunk Dr. Wood's work, because it is based entirely on fake imagery." Being open-minded, I replied: "It would be a great service to the 9/11 truth community if you would point out the fakeness of these images -- came from Dr. Wood's website and were published in her book." Because if the images are legitimately faked and Dr. Wood didn't now this, she could apologize, but also, she wasn't the only one using those images, so many others were deceived as well. "Please help me finding what is wrong with the images." Because CGI and digital editing were these guys only "super-power."
<br>
<br>Long story short, they did not even attempt the assigned task of debunking the images, which in turn could have debunked Dr. Wood's work. [I was banned before the assignment could play out, and as you can see, I'm a respectful participant who takes the high road, a tactic that can only be hard to combat.]
<br>
<br>What I learned from that episode (which has been repeated), is that an agent assigned to promote disinfo premise A will never expend the effort to debunk another disinfo premise B, even if the premises A and B were totally different (e.g., no planes versus Woodsian DEW).
<br>
<br>If they were honest seekers of truth but were simply not-yet-learned on why their premise A might be disinfo, they should have had no problems following truth and debunking premise B [which they were already calling disinfo without proof.] In fact, were they sincere, they would have relished the task of debunking falsehoods, most certainly in premises that weren't their own and that could help their own premise.
<br>
<br>But if they were agent actors assigned to prevent revelation of Truth by championing "bat-shit-crazy premises" -- one group for disinfo premise A and another for B --, they might have ultimately the same boss (several rungs up the chain of command) or the same agenda: poison the 9/11 Truth Well. In which case, the agent of premise A would be ordered not to pursue seriously the debunking of premise B (or intellectually grappling with agents of premise B), because it would undermine the coordinated disinfo efforts.
<br>
<br>Don't believe me? AE9/11Truth (of which I am a vetted member) peddles at least a couple of disinfo premises (NT, Pentagon plane, Shanksville plane) that I'll just label A. Dr. Wood's peddles DEW poorly that I'll label B. When AE9/11Truth was given the opportunity to legitimately debunk the B's book, they screwed up; they gave no indication that they even smelled the ink from Wood's book's crack in their short word count, and spent a third of that promoting NT. [And they repeated a similar folly in trying to debunk 9/11 nuclear involvement, which is my hobby-horse.]
<br>
<br>Summary, I was looking for my re-purposing of those Clues discussions; I didn't find them on my blog, because I might not have promoted them from my website, today dying and figuratively on its last breaths. [A story of itself. I saved my source and, when I overcome my procrastination, will one day revive it hosted somewhere else. Just a pity that free speech was attacked and undermined in the way it was.] I'm not finding them on my website, but if you request, I'll renew my search and maybe you can view them in that venue before it dies a papercut death. Only if you are a glutton for punishment.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, though, your interest seems to be in NPT. So let me give a goto-URL to my blog where I've re-purposed discussions on that theme. With blog in hand, you don't need my website to prove that I've been around the 9/11 block, been duped by several later-proven disinfo premises, and persisted in my search for Truth.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html</a>
<br>
<br>My detractors have sometimes labeled me OCD. The blog ought to leave no doubt for what my dying website captured but don't yet point you to.
<br>
<br>Helps to know with whom you are have discussions. (And that I come prepared.)
<br>
<br>//
<br>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br>CRYPTOME.ORG
</p>
</div><!-- section 246 -->
<a name="x247"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x247" class="tiny">x248</a>
Mike Johnson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_248');">not going to read all that</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_248" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I'm not going to read all that. The video I refer to is imho CGI. It was splattered all over the news. I believe no planes crashed on 9-11.
</p>
</div><!-- section 248 -->
<a name="x249"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x249" class="tiny">x250</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_250');">reconcile the contradiction between the evidence and your beliefs</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_250" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Dear Mr. Mike Johnson, A great counter-argument to a reasoned position IS NOT <i>"I'm not going to read all that."</i>
<br>
<br>And when you make a claim and are asked to substantiate it with a URL to the video in question, you hurt your position & your integrity by not putting forth the effort. I'm trying to get on the same page as you and let you convince me of your points, but can't do that without a URL and time stamp. FAIL.
<br>
<br>Worst of all, even if you stay steadfast with your statement <i>"I'm not going to read all that"</i>, the destination of the URL that I posted to substantiate my views is still clearly visible even in a rolled-up "... See more" state.
<br>
<br>That URL has evidence of real aircraft involvement at the WTC. You say that you believe no planes crashed on 9/11. I'm asking you to reconcile the contradiction between the evidence my URL presented and your beliefs.
<br>
<br>BTW, the discussion is limited to NPT@WTC, because I don't believe planes impacted the Pentagon or Shanksville. So on those fronts, we're on the same page. The disinfo is NPT@WTC.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 250 -->
<a name="x251"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x251" class="tiny">x252</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_252');">Failure to attempt such even lamely pegs you as a bot</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_252" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Mike Johnson, My apologies for a second comment quick on the heels of my last. In my 9/11 journies, a tell of an agent-bot was an inability to follow links. Another tell is an inability and/or unwillingness to read what their discussion opponent brought forth, let alone to comment on it meaningfully.
<br>
<br>Being naive and trusting are two of my super-powers. Right now, I trust that you are sincere albeit misguided in your WTC NPT beliefs. However, I won't know for sure until you follow the link to the Punch-Out page and then discuss how the information there relates or doesn't to your premise of NPT. [Hint: Failure to attempt such even lamely pegs you as a bot. Prove you aren't a bot and copy a quote (or image URL) from that URL and paste it in your comment as a starting point for our discussion.]
<br>
<br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>P.S. In an earlier posting, you wrote: "No debris falling off." Factually wrong. Your confuse your understanding of low-velocity physics where maybe things as cohesive wholes (like wings or tails) bounce off. High-velocities physics tends to shatter materials, which was observed even by far-away cameras as seemingly "dust" and "scraps" at the impact point.
<br>
<br>Also you wrote: "NIST has shown themselves to be completely incompetent or completely complicit."
<br>
<br>The latter.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 252 -->
<a name="x253"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x253" class="tiny">x254</a>
Mike Johnson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_254');">I don't care what you think</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_254" style="display: none;">
<p>You talk too much. And you value your opinion way more than I do. I don't care what you think.
</p>
</div><!-- section 254 -->
<a name="x255"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x255" class="tiny">x256</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_256');">you don't value YOUR OWN OPINION, which is why you FAIL to defend it</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_256" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Mike Johnson, I haven't uttered a single word to you in this FB forum; it's all been by keyboard, so your comment -- <i>"You talk too much"</i> -- FAILS in its intended agent-bot snow-job purposes right out of the gate.
<br>
<br>The issue is not about any perceived value that you might have in my opinion. Clearly you don't, and weren't expected to, because your task was to prove it wrong anyway.
<br>
<br>No, the issue is that you don't value YOUR OWN OPINION at all, which is why you FAIL to defend it in any reasonably way that even lurker-readers can't help but conclude is very agent-bot-ish of you.
<br>
<br>You don't care what I think; nor do you care what YOU THINK. Because you're an agent-bot and neither care nor think.
<br>
<br>You chimed into the discussion with next to nothing in content, and defend that nothingness with again next to nothing in content.
<br>
<br>Go way, Mr. Mike Johnson. Your bot-icism isn't needed here anymore. Thank you for participating and validating the continued agency poisoning of the 9/11 well with agent-bot drivel and proven disinformation.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 256 -->
<a name="x257"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x257" class="tiny">x258</a>
Daniel M. Plesse : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_258');">plane wing was in the room with him</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_258" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Stanley Praimnath said the plane wing was in the room with him.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcdpMt38ip8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcdpMt38ip8</a>
I am not sure if the statement is in this video however.
<br>Stanley Praimnath: Remembering 9/11
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
</p>
</div><!-- section 258 -->
<a name="x259"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x259" class="tiny">x260</a>
Daniel M. Plesse : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_260');">the dust and scraps</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_260" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges "dust and scraps" I would be interested in seeing that. So far the only photo during impact shows NONE of this. Max please circle the dust and scraps, maybe I missed it, thanks ..
<br>May be an image of sky
</p>
</div><!-- section 260 -->
<a name="x261"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x261" class="tiny">x262</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_262');">from the distance and the camera resolution & frame rate, they appear as dust flakes</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_262" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, the frame you chose to highlight only shows the fuselage has having already impacted and penetrated the towers. Advance a few frames for when the lighter wings impact and "seem to pass" into the towers in a "dust cloud", you'll see them getting shattered and their scraps falling to the ground.
<br><br>But from the distance and the camera resolution & frame rate, they appear as dust flakes.
<br><br>From the distance, you'd have a hard time even seeing individual pieces the size head or smaller falling unless there were a group of them.
<br><br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 262 -->
<a name="x263"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x263" class="tiny">x264</a>
Daniel M. Plesse : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_264');">not a frame of a video</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_264" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Maxwell Bridges this is not a frame of a video but the only known photo of the aircraft hitting the building as it hits. No video exists at this location. Is it the first time you have seen this photo ? There should be more activity and no one reported seeing any activity like a crash. It has always been "pass right through". I have not seen any "dust cloud" maybe that video would be helpful. Also new video has been located. Are you up-to-date?
</p>
</div><!-- section 264 -->
<a name="x265"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x265" class="tiny">x266</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_266');">Refer to 6:44 in the following Evan Fairbanks' video of the 2nd plane</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_266" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, Refer to 6:44 in the following Evan Fairbanks' video of the 2nd plane.
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz6_8WAIGb4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz6_8WAIGb4</a>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 266 -->
<a name="x267"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x267" class="tiny">x268</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_268');">gross misunderstanding of the physics of the towers, the planes, and high-velocities</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_268" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jerome Grogan, You would do well to review what I've been posting to others in this discussion thread. And certainly the links that I post, because I've been around the NPT@WTC merry-go-round too many times.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Planes disappearing without parts crumbling."</i>
<br>
<br>That is factually wrong and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the physics of the towers, the planes, and high-velocities.
<br>
<br>The towers had built-in failure points in the form of connecting bolts that attached the wall assemblies to one another. The energy to sever these is orders of magnitudes less than required to "slice the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly." The point here is that the entrance hole shows assemblies pushed and plowed out of the way by the fuselage and engines.
<br>
<br>As for the wings which were of lighter material, the energy of high velocity physics is sufficiently great to locally shatter materials, which is observed in all videos of the wings. To expect the wings to remain as cohesive holes as if it were a parking lot fender bender is to grossly not understand physics.
<br>
<br>As for the "nose-in/nose-out" spiel, that's nonsense. Sure, the gas cloud may briefly look in a frame or two like the nose of the aircraft, what you are really experiencing is hypnosis and not proof of anything.
<br>
<br>Don't get me wrong. CGI may have been involved, if nothing else to paste an image of a commercial airline over the aircraft actually used. There are four different versions of the "helicopter shot": (1) shows the approaching second plane and then backside of impact; (2) shows nothing approaching and then the same backside of impact; (3) shows an orb approaching and then the backside of the impact; (4) shows same perspective of building with background sky masked and a different plane path and then the same backside of impact.
<br>
<br>YES. Digital manipulation of imagery did happen. But not to the extent that would rule out actual physical aircraft (at the towers).
<br>
<br>Here is the counter-argument to "no planes at WTC". Explain the evidence.
<br>
<br>http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
<br>
<br>BTW, I was a NPTer for a few years over a decade ago. The above, plus a 3D overlay analysis of NYC with a few dozen amateur videos of flight path all being co-linear, is what forced me to recant and apologize.
<br>
<br>I believe NPT@WTC was spun up to caste a shadow on the real instances of no plane impacts at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 268 -->
<a name="x269"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x269" class="tiny">x270</a>
Lisa Brooks : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_270');">So interesting. Agree</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_270" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges So interesting. Agree, I believe no plane hit the pentagon on shanksville...
</p>
</div><!-- section 270 -->
<a name="x271"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x271" class="tiny">x272</a>
Jerome Grogan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_272');">built in failure points</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_272" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br>"planes disappearing without parts crumbling". You state that is factually wrong. I am referring to the videos. Some of them show no impact whatsoever. This is undeniable. You state that this demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the physics of the towers, the planes, and high velocities. I'm stating what some of the videos show and make no commentary on the aforementioned matters.
<br>You state the towers had built in failure points. Do you have any source for this assertion? If so provide it.
<br>Your statement about the plane's wings is incoherent. As is your allegation of hypnosis.
</p>
</div><!-- section 272 -->
<a name="x273"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x273" class="tiny">x274</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_274');">what looks like "dust" in the smoke is really shattered fragments</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_274" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jerome Grogan, You wrote <i>"planes disappearing without parts crumbling"</i>, and now you say you were referring to the videos. What videos? Provide a link and a time stamp to what you were referring. You made the claim; you defend the claim.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, <i>"parts crumbling"</i> isn't very specific. I pointed out that the wings shattered. There is video proof of this.
<br>
<br><a href="">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hApRZ_7v2A</a>
<br>
<br>A good one is at 6:26. The camera is quite some distance away, so what looks like "dust" in the smoke is really shattered fragments (of the wings and aluminum cladding) falling to the ground (at 6:38). Pay attention, because the distance can deceive you on the size of the "particles".
<br>
<br>The gross misunderstaning of physics is the expectation of many NPTer's that (a) the wings would bounce off as cohesive whole pieces [as opposed to shattered fragments], (c) the fuselage somehow crumpling on impact [when pushing wall assemblies out of the way and penetrating the structure would mask that].
<br>
<br>Are you contesting that bolts were used to connect the wall assemblies to one another? If so, starting at 1:04 (through 1:18) in the following video is that proof. The square holes at the top and bottom of each hollow box column of an assembly had a purpose to allow access to get at the bolts.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_otwjGvSPxA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_otwjGvSPxA</a>
<br>
<br>If you agree that massive bolts were used but not that they were "built-in failure points', then how would it be achieved that a plane impacting the tower, according to its designer, would be like a pen piercing a screen door?
<br>
<br>Whether or not those bolts were "designed-in failure points", that is what they served as, because the energy to sever those bolts was less than required to cut through the three hollow box columns. And when you study the pictures of the damage of both towers, it shows wall assemblies pushed out of the way and only in rare cases were individual box columns cut/broken.
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMzEMFkW6i8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMzEMFkW6i8</a>
<br>
<br>1:29 shows a worker standing on top of a wall assembly. The square holes in the side were for access to the bolts that connected them together.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Your statement about the plane's wings is incoherent. As is your allegation of hypnosis."
<br>
<br>You're just saying that. Is it because you've never had a physics class? What part of "shatter" do you not understand? What gives your little noggin trouble in understanding it?
<br>
<br>I wrote (or should have correctly written): "the energy of high velocity physics is sufficiently great to locally shatter materials, which is observed in all videos of the wings. To expect the wings to remain as cohesive wholes as if it were a parking lot fender bender is to grossly not understand physics." [My bad: I originally wrote "cohesive holes" instead of "cohesive wholes." Sorry.]
<br>
<br>Assuming constant mass, when velocities are low, energy involved is, say, low. Materials might not even be affected. As velocity increases, maybe deformation appears (like a bent car bumper). But as velocities increase and subsequently energies exponentially increase. Instead of bending, materials break. Still you might recognize pieces from their original purpose. At really large velocities, materials can shatter locally; they don't bend or break leaving cohesive wholes; they are shattered into pieces. Consider this lessons learned from the Sandia F4 crash and the MythBusters Rocket Sled videos that it is your homework assignment to find, watch, and study.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 274 -->
<a name="x275"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x275" class="tiny">x276</a>
Cole Anderson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_276');">Throw a beer can through a brick wall</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_276" style="display: none;">
<p>Throw a beer can through a brick wall. Physics folks it didn't exist on 9/11
</p>
</div><!-- section 276 -->
<a name="x277"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x277" class="tiny">x278</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_278');">Don't confuse low-velocity physics with high-velocity physics</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_278" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Cole Anderson, Don't confuse low-velocity physics (arm throwing a beer can, 90+mph only if you were a major league pitcher) with high-velocity physics (500+ mph). If we assume the beer can had beer in it, the brick wall would suffer a damaging hole.
<br>
<br>Whether or not the beer can went through the created hole is a different matter. Chances are, like high-speed videos of lead bullets impacting steel plates, the can/bullet shatters itself on the impact side while transferring energy into the impacted surface that causes a "plug" of that surface to separate from the rest of the material leaving a hole the shape of can/bullet.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 278 -->
<a name="x279"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x279" class="tiny">x280</a>
Edward Irwin : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_280');">maximum speed at 1,000 feet is 414 mph</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_280" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Boeing maximum speed at 1,000 feet is 414 mph. At 35,000 cruising height it's 528 mph. Pilots' for 9/11 Truth have published all of this for decades.
<br>No photo description available.
</p>
</div><!-- section 280 -->
<a name="x281"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x281" class="tiny">x282</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_282');">not a hard and fast limit, but a safety limit</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_282" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Edward Irwin, First of all, that is a maximum speed of 414 mph at level flight at elevation 1000 ft. That is not a hard and fast limit, but a safety limit. Secondly, the plane was descending.
<br>
<br>Thirdly and most importantly, I'm not arguing that the aircraft was the alleged commercial aircraft, and neither was the original posting.
<br>
<br>What the posting pointed out was that the impression of the wing span on the aluminum cladding was 30 ft short of the alleged commercial aircraft. The FAA made no (public) attempts to match serial numbers of discovered pieces of wreckage with the alleged aircraft. I recall discussions many years ago that the engine found at Church and Murray wasn't of the make and model of the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br>
<br>If the planes weren't the alleged commercial aircraft, all bets are off regarding what maximum safe velocity it could travel. A hardened military aircraft of similar size might have a higher velocity.
<br>
<br>What I am trying to head off at the pass is the disinfo that no aircraft were involved at all at the WTC. They were. In fact, for the multiple events going on, the WTC aircraft were required and needed to be seen and recorded by lots of witnesses, else the destruction of the towers would not be so easy to explain away. The disinfo of NPT@WTC was spun up to distract the public with the real instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
<br>
<br>Hope we're on the same page.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 282 -->
<a name="x283"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x283" class="tiny">x284</a>
Cole Anderson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_284');">cannot do 500 mph in low altitude</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_284" style="display: none;">
<p>Planes are made of aluminum not steel and cannot do 500 mph in low altitude
</p>
</div><!-- section 284 -->
<a name="x285"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x285" class="tiny">x286</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_286');">500 mph at impact is indeed plausible</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_286" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Cole Anderson, factually wrong again. Planes have titanium engines and sheet metal wings. What is the landing gear made of? Doesn't really matter what the aircraft were made of, because the velocity squared term in the energy equation doesn't lie. High velocity impacts have literally exponentially larger energy than low velocity.
<br>
<br>If the plane is descending -- as these were -- then 500 mph at impact is indeed plausible. And because you are being all loosey-goosey with your language by not adding qualifiers, military planes can do 500+ mph at low altitude level flying. That is the exception that debunks your bot-logic. DEBUNKED.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 286 -->
<a name="x287"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x287" class="tiny">x288</a>
Noel Kreutzmann : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_288');">all sizes and velocity can not DO NOT pass through steel & concrete</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_288" style="display: none;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Wrong again. what metal used in Boeing 767 > Alloy 7050 is an aluminum alloy similar in composi- tion to 7150, the improved aluminum alloy used on the 767 upper wing surface. Alloy 7050-T73 is resistant.. link here: http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1982/ICAS-82-2.2.1.pdf Who is paying you? You obviously are not nor never have been a pilot flying a Boeing 767 passenger plane. ALL experienced pilots disagree with you and have published their experiences proving the narrative you describe is preposterous. BIRD DAMAGE TO NOSE OF BOEING here:
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges Planes of all sizes and velocity can not DO NOT pass through steel & concrete.
</p>
</div><!-- section 288 -->
<a name="x289"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x289" class="tiny">x290</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_290');">the case that the alleged commercial aircraft were not involved</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_290" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Noel Kreutzmann, You seem to be doing a good job of making the case that the alleged commercial aircraft were not involved. I'm on board with that, for lots of other data points in the ruse. However, I am not on board with the premise that no aircraft were involved at the WTC.
<br>
<br>If you want to tally a point from me not knowing the exact metals used to construct the fuselage and wings, please do. My bad.
<br>
<br>However, I'll tally a point from you for pointing to bird damage to the (weak and hollow) nose cone of a Boeing and implying that the entire rest of the plane structure were just as flimsy, and for posting pictures of Cesna lodged in a building. The latter was probably taking off and would have had a velocity easily 1/10 of the radar velocity of the WTC aircraft.
<br>
<br>You wrote a completely physics-ignorant comment: <i>"Planes of all sizes and velocity can not DO NOT pass through steel & concrete."</i>
<br>
<br>You imply that the towers were solid steel and concrete blocks throughout their entire length, breadth, and thickness, meaning that the resistance to penetration would have been constant and there was no empty air beyond and inside the wall assemblies and between the concrete floor slabs (where otherwise we'd say offices and cubicles were and humans worked.)
<br>
<br>For the record, even the wall assemblies were NOT SOLID STEEL, lest you forget the window slits. More importantly, the box columns of the wall assemblies were hollow. The thickness of the sides of those box columns varied depending on the height they were positioned in the towers.
<br>
<br>If you study the damage, where the fuselage and engines hit, the wall assemblies were PUSHED out of the way. The metal that failed was not the composition of the wall assemblies, but the bolts that connected them together allowing them to be pushed in like a door. Yes, a few hollow box columns got cut and several others got bent, but by in large the plane DID NOT PASS THROUGH SOLID STEEL as much as it severed bolts and created a door that it pushed through.
<br>
<br>Once the towers' face was breached, what resistance was there from the inside to prevent further pentration of the fuselage (including front landing gear)? The concrete floors were 12+ feet apart and allowed plenty of room for them to get pushed up or down but out of the way of the penetrating fuselage.
<br>
<br>Beyond the engines on the wings, the towers' wall assemblies (other than through the window slits) were not passed through. The aluminum cladding got damaged and knocked off leaving an outline of the plane (and to disinfo agents the false impression of penetration), but the steel wall assemblies behind that cladding were in tact; no penetration. The wings, on the other hand, were shattered, which is to be expected with high velocity impacts.
<br>
<br>So, when you describe the physics of the towers improperly, you come to wrong conclusions.
<br>
<br>What metal were used in the landing gear and engines? Doesn't really matter. They were solid enough to not just help push the impacted wall assembly out of the way, pass through office furnishings, and hit the back wall. In one case (see images at link below), a tire and fragments of a wheel assembly from an aircraft was lodged between two of the hollow box columns of a wall assembly that it tore off the back side and fell to the street.
<br>
<br><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br>
<br>There is plenty of physical evidence of real aircraft involvment at the WTC (and hardly any at the Pentagon and Shanksville, giving rise to the strawman disinfo NPT@WTC as a distraction.)
<br>
<br>By the way, the YouTube videos for the Sandia F4 crash into a solid concrete block and the Mythbuster Rocket Sled provide the needed insight (a) to explain the damage at the WTC and (b) to debunk the Pentagon plane's alleged flight path and clipping light poles.
<br>
<br>Energy equation: E=m*(v^2)
<br>
<br>At really high velocities, the energy is sufficient to shatter materials (like wings), as shown at the towers. Clipping even break-away light poles at that high velocity would have crippeled the Pentagon plane and make it unable to make a precision strike at ground floor where the ONI was investigating missing $2.3 trillion. The poles would have had to been staged for a real Pentagon aircraft, or to allow for a missile; too bad that the spotted Pentagon plane flew over the Pentagon.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 290 -->
<!-- ***** 202208_mcb_npt_rareFacts.htm -->
<!-- ***** 202208_mcb_fgnw_rareFacts.htm -->
<a name="x291"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x291" class="tiny">x292</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_292');">the towers did need planes to hit them as the starting point for the ruse</a></b></p>
<p>2022-08-23</p>
<div id="sect_292" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Rare 9/11 Facts, you wrote:
</p><blockquote><p>"These building demolitions remind us something about 9/11. They didn't need any plane to hit them."</p></blockquote>
<p>However, the towers did need planes to hit them as the starting point for the ruse. It needed to have lots of witnesses and cameras observing the planes, although the planes did not destroy the towers. All the more so WTC needed observable planes, because the Pentagon was not hit by a plane and neither was the crater in Shanksville.
<br>
<br>Stated another way, the implosion of the entire WTC complex would have been even more suspicious than it was (to the non-science-challenged) if actually observed planes didn't account for "the initiation of the collapse" somehow. Without help, buildings don't just go to dust.
<br>
<br>The Pentagon surroundings had some 90 surveillance videos confiscated by the FBI, but none of them except 7 inclusive FRAMES from a parking camera were released. Why? Because they needed a precise strike on the Office of Naval Intelligence (investigating the missing $2.3 billion), and a real plane flying the alleged course clipping the light poles introduced a huge amount of risk of the plane being crippled, coming apart, and not achieving that surgical strike needed. [The actual plane flew over, and it was more like a missile-launch from a construction trailer and/or planted explosives.] Thus this ruse needed to be covered for by footage of the WTC (2nd) plane broadcast over and over and over again to hypnotize the message.
<br>
<br>IMPORTANT TIDBIT FROM VIDEOS. Although you can configure conventional explosives to do amazing things, (a) that requires lots of preparation time, and (b) the results of chemical-based devices exploding is very loud. Although NIST's Dr. Shyam Sunder was deceitful in his scope-limited research and presentation, the one nugget of truth that he uttered when debunking chemical-based explosives achieving the observed pulverization was that it would have been deafeningly loud within 1/2 mile. Hearing loss was not one of 9/11 ailments of survivors and witnesses.
<br>
<br>Here's the black hole: what government agencies failed to investigate; what the alleged "9/11 Truther" Dr. Steven Jones failed to do a literature review on when he attempted to debunk all 9/11 nuclear devices; what Dr. Judy Wood missed with her (correct) DEW aspirations; what the traditional 9/11 nukers didn't investigate (proposing instead ludicrous single deep under ground nuclear detonations for each tower) because they were disinfo...
<br>
<br>Dr. Andre Gsponer wrote about Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) in the decade leading up to 9/11. Here's something he wrote (before either Dr. Jones or Dr. Woods made their disinfo attempts), peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
<br>
<br>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>
<br>DISCLAIMER: To my knowledge, Dr. Gsponer has not written a single word about 9/11. Moreover, the work above is a "direction headed" and not a "goal achieved", because he is speculating about pure fusion devices with his FGNW speculation. The actual 9/11 FGNW were late-3rd/early-4th generation devices, meaning they were hybrid fission-fusion and took the old "neutron bomb" that was fear-mongered in the 1980's to its appropriate next levels.
<br>
<br>Based on the observed destruction, I speculate per detonation level 4 devices planted on the outer four sides of the inner core, their cone-shaped output aimed upwards and away from the core (to keep the core stable for both the duration of their ignition and for lower devices); 6-12 detonation levels.
<br>
<br>As hybrid devices, a conventional chemical based charge kick started the fission stage. What many say were "squibs" along the face of the towers ahead of the pulverizing destructive wave was kick-back from this ignition. The fission stage was small and its sole purpose was to generate sufficient heat for the fusion stage. Evidence of fission exists in the dust, but it was not in the quantities expected from large fission devices (which is the strawmen would-be nuke-debunkers used.)
<br>
<br>Options for the fusion stage were: (1) Contain the highly energetic neutrons, let them bounce around the core and chain react into a huge explosion like the movies of nuclear tests; ruled out because wasn't observed as such. (2) Let the highly energetic neutrons just go in a spherical or semi-spherical fashion -- the very premise of the old neutron bomb. Would have resulted in casualties well outside the WTC towers. (3) Let the highly energetic neutrons out in a targeted fashion, cone-shaped aimed upwards; was observed.
<br>
<br>The kick-starter charge was audible, but the fission and fusion stages would not necessarily have been loud as they ignited; the crumbling structures made noise. The salient point is that conventional chemical-based explosives use the medium of air -- sudden and violent changes in air pressure -- as a chief part of its destruction and would have been very loud.
<br>
<br>These late-3rd/early-4th generation hybrid devices? Only the kick-starter charge makes a sound, but because it isn't used for destruction and isn't planted "everywhere" (as a conventional controlled demolition would require), it is not a deafening ordeal to survivors and witnesses.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 292 -->
<!-- ***** 202208_mcb_fgnw_rareFacts.htm -->
</div> <!-- part_3 -->
<!-- End the page here -->
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-89178050975404979302023-10-01T00:11:00.013-07:002023-11-08T19:16:10.957-08:00Raw Nuclear DEW Research
<!-- Text below inserted from bridges_common.php -->
<title>Raw Nuclear DEW Research | Maxwell Bridges</title>
<meta name="Author" content="Maxwell C. Bridges">
<meta name="Date" content="2015-07-11">
<p>Raw Nuclear DEW Research</p>
<p>Maxwell C. Bridges
<br>2015-07-11</p>
<!-- mcb bridges_css.php -->
<!-- mcb bridges_script.php -->
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 1000;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
// window.location.hash = id;
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function getURLParam(strParamName){
var strReturn = "";
var strHref = window.location.href;
if ( strHref.indexOf("?") > -1 ){
var strQueryString = strHref.substr(strHref.indexOf("?")).toLowerCase();
var aQueryString = strQueryString.split("&");
for ( var iParam = 0; iParam < aQueryString.length; iParam++ ){
if (aQueryString[iParam].indexOf(strParamName.toLowerCase() + "=") > -1 ){
var aParam = aQueryString[iParam].split("=");
strReturn = aParam[1];
// alert(strReturn);
break;
}
}
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
// alert(strReturn);
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
// alert(myTarget);
if (myTarget == "-false-") {
areaHideAll("part_");
areaHideAll("sect_");
} else {
areaHideAll("sect_");
areaShowAll("part_");
sectionShow(myTarget);
// location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script></head>
<body>
<!-- Start the page here -->
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Part</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Part</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
<p>During a period of unemployment in 2015, I obtained a library card to my institution of higher education. This gave me access to not only their public bookstacks, but also to online repositories of information to which the library subscribed.</p>
<p>The goal of the research was to learn the approximate state of DEW and nuclear technology at the turn of the century (2000) from the public record. Literature searches were limited by date and topic. Much could be learned of the revelance of material from its abstract, which is generally easily accessible from repository search results and doesn't require going behind pay-walls (via a personally paid subsciption).</p>
<p>Online make it easy to simply create a list of everything coming from the search results. If interesting, copy what is relevant from its abstract. Deep-dive into the publication if the scent-of-the-information from the abstract deemed it worthy, and put those citations also into the list.</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p> The list (Part 1) ended up being pretty big, so only the most important and relevant research items were copied into the much shorter list (Part 2).</p>
<p>The articles are reproduced in accordance with <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107">Section 107 of title 17</a> of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of <b>criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research</b>.</p>
<p>{Author's post-notes are inserted in curly braces. This is unfinished. }</p>
<hr>
<h1 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_1');">Part 1: Literature Review</a></h1>
<div id="part_1" style="display: block;">
<a name="x1"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x1" class="tiny">x1</a>
Michael A. Aquino, Ph.D. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_1');"><i>The Neutron Bomb</i></a></h1>
<h2>1980</h2>
<div id="sect_1" style="display: block;">
<p><br><i>The Neutron Bomb</i> by Michael A. Aquino, Ph.D., 1980.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_1');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 1 -->
<a name="x2"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x2" class="tiny">x2</a>
Taylor, Theodore B. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">THIRD-GENERATION NUCLEAR WEAPONS</a></h1>
<h2>1987</h2>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>Accession number:1987100153734
<br>Title:THIRD-GENERATION NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
<br>Authors:Taylor, Theodore B. (0)
<br>Corresponding author:Taylor, Theodore B.
<br>Source title:Scientific American
<br>Abbreviated source title:Sci Am
<br>Volume:256
<br>Issue:4
<br>Issue date:Apr 1987
<br>Publication year:1987
<br>Pages:30-39
<br>Language:English
<br>ISSN:00368733
<br>CODEN:SCAMAC
<br>Document type:Journal article (JA)
<br>Abstract:<br />
<blockquote><p>Unlike deployed nuclear weapons, which unleash their explosive energy indiscriminately, future nuclear weapons may selectively produce certain types of energy and concentrate them on targets. By altering the shape of the nuclear explosive and manipulating other design features, weapons could be built that generate and direct beams of radiation or streams of metallic pellets or droplets at such targets as missile-launch facilities on the ground, missiles in the air and satellites in space. These weapons would be as removed from current nuclear weapons in terms of military effectiveness as a rifle is technologically distant from gunpowder.</p></blockquote>
<br>Main heading:MILITARY EQUIPMENT
<br>Controlled terms:NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS
<br>Uncontrolled terms:NUCLEAR WEAPONS
<br>Classification code:404 Civil Defense and Military Engineering - 621 Nuclear Reactors - 932 High Energy Physics; Nuclear Physics; Plasma Physics
<br>Treatment:General review (GEN)
<br>Database:Compendex
<br>Compilation and indexing terms, Copyright 2015 Elsevier Inc.
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name="x3"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x3" class="tiny">x3</a>
Klass, P : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_3');">Defense, Energy Departments to initiate new space power development.</a></h1>
<h2>1985</h2>
<div id="sect_3" style="display: block;">
<p><br>Defense, Energy Departments to initiate new space power development.
<br>
<br>Author: Klass, P J11 Aviat. Week Space Technol., 1221 Ave. Americas, New York, NY 10020, USA
<br>
<br>Abstract:<br />
<blockquote><p> A new program to develop space power systems capable of supplying 5-10 megawatts, or as much as 100 megawatts in brief bursts, for directed and kinetic energy weapons, will be launched this summer to complement the SP-100 program to develop nuclear space power systems capable of generating 100 kw. or more. Although the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Defense Dept. and Energy Dept. are joint sponsors of SP-100, the space agency is not expected to participate in the multimegawatt effort because it has no foreseeable near-term requirement for such high powers. Discussions to define the multi-megawatt program are under way between the Pentagon and Enegy Dept., and a memorandum of agreement is expected around midyear.</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>Links: http://condor.library.colostate.edu/sfx_local?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&atitle=Defense%2C+Energy+Departments+to+initiate+new+space+power+development.&title=Aviation+Week+and+Space+Technology&issn=00052175&date=1985-01-01&volume=122&issue=5&spage=89&au=Klass%2C+P+J&isbn=&jtitle=Aviation+Week+and+Space+Technology&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/
<p>
<br>Subject: weapons; electric power generation; nuclear energy
<br>
<br>Classification: H SA2.11: SAFETY ENGINEERING; H SI11.11: SAFETY ENGINEERING
<br>
<br>Identifier / keyword: aerospace engineering, aerospace engineering
<br>
<br>Title: Defense, Energy Departments to initiate new space power development.
<br>
<br>Correspondence author: Klass, P J �
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week and Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 122
<br>
<br>Issue: 5
<br>
<br>Pages: 89-91
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 3
<br>
<br>Publication year: 1985
<br>
<br>Year: 1985
<br>
<br>ISSN: 0005-2175
<br>
<br>Source type: Scholarly Journals
<br>
<br>Language of publication: English
<br>
<br>Document type: Journal Article
<br>
<br>Subfile: Health & Safety Science Abstracts
<br>
<br>Update: 2006-11-01</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_3');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 3 -->
<a name="x4"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x4" class="tiny">x4</a>
Norman, C : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">Doubt Cast on Laser Weapons: An American Physical Society report says major technical advances and at least another decade of research will be required to determine whether directed energy weapons will work.</a></h1>
<h2>1987</h2>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: block;">
<p>
<blockquote><p>Doubt Cast on Laser Weapons: An American Physical Society report says major technical advances and at least another decade of research will be required to determine whether directed energy weapons will work.</blockquote>
<p>Author: Norman, C
<br>
<br>http://search.proquest.com/docview/733193622?accountid=10223
<br>
<br>Abstract: None available.
<br>
<br>Title: Doubt Cast on Laser Weapons: An American Physical Society report says major technical advances and at least another decade of research will be required to determine whether directed energy weapons will work.
<br>
<br>Correspondence author: Norman, C �
<br>
<br>Publication title: Science (New York, N.Y.)
<br>
<br>Journal abbreviation: Science
<br>
<br>Volume: 236
<br>
<br>Issue: 4801
<br>
<br>Pages: 509-510
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 2
<br>
<br>Publication year: 1987
<br>
<br>Year: 1987
<br>
<br>ISSN: 0036-8075
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 4 -->
<a name="x5"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x5</a>
John R. Huizenga : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_5');">Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century</a></h1>
<h2>1992</h2>
<div id="sect_5" style="display: block;">
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_5');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 5 -->
<a name="x6"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x6" class="tiny">x6</a>
Andrew Holmes-Siedle & Len Adams : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">Handbook of Radiation Effects</a></h1>
<h2>1993</h2>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: block;">
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x7" class="tiny">x7</a>
George W. Ullrich : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_7');">Summary of the DNA SMES Development Program</a></h1>
<h2>1995</h2>
<div id="sect_7" style="display: block;">
<p>IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Vol. 5, No. 2, June 1995
<br />
<br />Abstract
<br />
<blockquote><p>
In 1987 the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) initiated a program at the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) to develop Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) as a short-duration, highpower source for a Free-Electron LaseyDirected Energy Weapon. SMES was also recognized as being able to fulfill the important civilian electric utility application of diurnal storage. In 1986 the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) had proposed an Engineering Test Model (ETM) as the logical next step in SMES development. Since the military and civilian requirements for energy storage were similar, the SMES ETM development was proposed as a dual-use program from the outset. DNA was selected to manage the program because of its experience managing the development of hih-power nuclear-effects simulators. This paper kimmarizes the management results and conclusions of the two-phase SMES-ETM development program.</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
<br />
I. Introduction
<br />
<br />
In 1987, the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) was tasked by the Department of Defense's @OD) Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDI0)-recently renamed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization-to undertake management of a dual-use (military-electric utilities) program to design, construct, and demonstrate a 20 MWh Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) Engineering Test Model (ETM). This SMES-ETM was to demonstrate a dual-use technology that could be scaled to full-size SMES plants storing 1000 to 5000 MWh. At this capacity, the SMES plants were to provide power for the military ground-based, free-electron laser (GBFEL) directed-energy weapon under development by the SDIO. For electric utilities, these large SMES plants were to provide diurnal storage of electric energy to level the daynight cycle of electricity usage. The 20 MWh SMES-ETM was to demonstrate, among other things, the technology required for earth support to withstand the large radial Lorentz bursting forces in the charged magnet. Earth support, sometimes referred to as warm support, was thought to be necessary for large SMES plants to be economically competitive for electric utility use.
<br>
<br>SDIO asked DNA to manage the SMES-ETM program owing to a cadre of management and technical expertise which DNA had developed as a consequence of more than a decade of expeiience in developing large, one-of-a-kind, high-power bremsstrahlung machines whose x-ray spectra provided simulations of those emitted in the detonation of a nuclear weapon. DNA had a responsibility to the DoD to provide such simulations to test and ensure the survivability and operational capability of equipment used by U.S. military forces. DNA had no prior experience with either superconductivity or with large magnets.
<br>
<br>DNA began its SMES-ETM program with perceptions formed from the contemporary views of, and writings on, this emerging technology. Here we review this history, describe DNA's SMES-ETM program, and relate its results.
<br>Viewed most simply, a SMES plant consists of a currentcarrying superconducting coil held at temperatures low enough to maintain its superconductivity, together with an associated power conditioning system (PCS) necessary to establish an appropriate interface with a power source and with the system being served.
<br>...
<br />
V. Conclusions
<br />
<br />
<br>DNA has conducted successfully what we believe to be the largest, most complex, designated dual-use program yet undertaken by the U.S. Government.
<br>For the military, we have now introduced, in a program with the U.S. Air Force, the off-the-shelf very small SMES (so-called micro-SMES; about 1 MJ in storage capacity) for local power quality enhancement.
<br>For the electric utility industry, we have delivered a SMES design that is now ready for commercial exploitation. We have, thereby, provided to the U.S. an important technical edge in what is certain to be an expanding, international marketplace.
</p>
</blockquote><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_7');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 7 -->
<a name="x8"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x8" class="tiny">x8</a>
: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">New World Vistas Air and Space Power for the 21st Century: Directed Energy Volume</a></h1>
<h2>1996?</h2>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: block;">
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x9" class="tiny">x9</a>
Frank L. Goldstein, Col, USAF : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_9');">Psychological Operations: Principles and Case Studies</a></h1>
<h2>1996</h2>
<div id="sect_9" style="display: block;">
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_9');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 9 -->
<a name="x10"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x10" class="tiny">x10</a>
Robert M. Mayo : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">Nuclear Concepts for Engineers</a></h1>
<h2>1998</h2>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: block;">
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x11" class="tiny">x11</a>
Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_11');">Advance Technology To Protect High- and Low-Risk Facilities</a></h1>
<h2>1998-08</h2>
<div id="sect_11" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:</p>
<blockquote><p>The nation's top soldier says that improving the defenses of high risk overseas US facilities has driven terrorists to attack more poorly defended, low-threat sites. US researchers are trying to quickly develop advanced equipment to lessen vulnerabilities at high- and low-risk facilities. The US Air Force is conducting demonstrations of new technology such as unmanned aerial vehicles and explosives detectors as part of an overall Pentagon effort to strengthen the defenses of forward operating bases.</p></blockquote>
<p>Full Text:</p>
<blockquote><p>The nation's top soldier says that improving the defenses of high risk overseas U.S. facilities has driven terrorists to attack more poorly defended, low-threat sites.
<br>
<br>U.S. researchers are trying to quickly develop advanced equipment to lessen vulnerabilities at high- and low-risk facilities. The U.S. Air Force, for example, is conducting demonstrations of new technology such as unmanned aerial vehicles and explosives detectors as part of an overall Pentagon effort to strengthen the defenses of forward operating bases.
<br>
<br>SHAKEN BY THE 1996 BOMBING of the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. military personnel, USAF officials made force protection a high priority. However, evidence of continuing weakness of U.S. facilities was reinforced Aug. 7 when terrorists exploded bombs at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Those events ``serve to focus all of us that somewhere in the world someone is sitting out there planning the demise and destruction of our people,'' said Brig. Gen. Richard A. Coleman, USAF's director for force protection.
<br>
<br>After Khobar, USAF made force protection an integral part of its operations plans, moved bases to remote locations where they could be more easily defended, strengthened and expanded perimeter defenses, and improved training and equipment for security force personnel. ``We don't move people unless we're prepared to protect them,'' Coleman said.
<br>
<br>Now, in response to the two East Africa attacks, Army Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has ordered all the warfighting commanders-in-chief to review security yet again. Shelton wrote,``We have made great progress in force protection efforts since the bombing of Khobar Towers. Ironically, however, the strength of our efforts in medium- and high-threat areas may be driving terrorists to attack where the threat to our personnel is judged as low.'' Coleman said procedures are being constantly evaluated and will receive renewed scrutiny in light of the latest bombings.
<br>
<br>There are several initiatives under consideration within USAF to strengthen force protection. Gen. John Jumper, USAF commander in Europe (USAFE), is considering establishing a multi-disciplinary force protection organization that would specifically serve his command and could be deployed to any USAFE location. The unit would be modeled after the 820th Security Force Group at Lackland AFB, Tex., which is a rapid-reaction force that can be deployed worldwide. It includes all elements of security forces, including intelligence and operations analysts.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, preliminary thought is being given to equipping short-range UAVs with both non-lethal and lethal weapons, a USAF official said. A UAV with an air-to-ground capability could destroy or slow an attack on an air base. Non-lethal technologies that may be UAV-mounted or ground-based include high-power microwave systems and directed energy weapons. However, acoustics, which the Pentagon has looked at, aren't regarded as effective as blasts of microwaves and directed energy. The high power microwave and directed energy systems could also be used in urban environments because there is no associated collateral damage.
<br>
<br>MOST OF USAF'S FORCE protection initiatives are being developed in the Force Protection Battlelab that was established last year at Lackland. It recently conducted a demonstration in conjunction with the UAV Battlelab, Eglin AFB, Fla., to determine if unmanned aircraft carrying electro-optical/infrared payloads could increase the effectiveness of force protection units. Air Force planners wanted to see if UAVs could scout an area better than regular patrols. The early assessment is that ``there does in fact appear to be some benefit to using a UAV,'' USAF Capt. Joel Dickinson, project leader for the Airborne Force Protection Surveillance System, said.
<br>
<br>The battlelabs were going to experiment with both a vertical take-off and landing UAV--the Camcopter built by Austrian Schiebel Technology, and a conventional take-off and landing system, the TS1000 built by Mesa, Ariz.-based Thorpe See-Op Corp. However, the TS1000 didn't participate in the scheduled demonstration because it couldn't meet USAF requirements. Air Force researchers believe the fixed-wing UAV would have had an advantage in flat terrain where it can cover ground faster than a VTOL system. However, for more rugged terrain a vertical take-off UAV's ability to hover would give it an advantage, Dickinson said.
<br>
<br>CAMCOPTER WAS TESTED in five scenarios at Ft. Sumner, N.M. For comparison, force protection troops played through the same scenarios. The missions included reconnaissance of a 3-sq.-km. area to determine where a base could be most effectively attacked, as well as determining how well the air vehicle can respond to perimeter alerts--both false alarms and actual incursions, USAF Maj. Tim Spaeth, project manager at the UAV Battlelab, said.
<br>
<br>Observers said the benefits of using a UAV include getting to locations faster and being able to avoid sending troops into an unknown and possibly dangerous situation. Dickinson added that the UAV can provide detailed information about the capabilities of an aggressor before force protection troops are deployed. That allows the force protection unit to be appropriately tailored to respond to the threat. With enough air vehicles, a 24-hr. watch-post could be established over an air base.
<br>
<br>THE GREATEST CHALLENGE in using the unmanned aircraft is teaching force protection troops to properly exploit the provided imagery. ``There's going to be a training curve to get security forces used to looking at things from a helicopter viewpoint,'' Dickinson said. USAF plans to conduct more demos with VTOL and CTOL systems. Those could involve camouflaged targets and heavier terrain.
<br>
<br>Additionally, the battlelab is putting together a system that can detect explosives or chemical or biological agents that are hidden on a vehicle, Col. Donald Collins, director of the Force Protection Battlelab, said. That effort grew directly out of a Central Command tasking after Khobar. USAF plans a proof of concept experiment in November in which various detection systems are tied together to discover dangerous substances. A notional operational scenario calls for a truck to be X-rayed, and once something unusual is detected other sensors will be used to try to isolate the substance.
<br>
<br>Collins said the hope is for technology to mature so the explosives and agents can be detected by unattended, forward deployed sensors long before the vehicle reaches base perimeters. That would avoid endangering even security forces who are most at risk from bombs on vehicles. However, ``the technology isn't there yet,'' he said.
<br>
<br>Other battlelab initiatives include a risk management tool for base commanders. This computer system would allow commanders to assess base vulnerabilities and model possible outcomes if an attack takes place. The lab also wants to pursue a program to mitigate blast damages of an explosion. Furthermore, the lab is pursuing an effort to protect food and water supplied to U.S. forces. The multipath effort will look at trying to track the food and water supply overseas until it reaches the base. It will also use technology to detect pathogens that may have been placed in food and water. Collins noted that food and water are still vulnerability points for U.S. forces--both overseas and in the U.S. Active denial technologies, such as HPM and DEW systems, is another area the battlelab wants to focus on in the future.
<br>
<br>THE RECONNAISSANCE UAV and standoff detection system ``we need quickly,'' Coleman said. He held out hope they'll be available in 24 months. However, he cautioned against putting too much importance on hardware. ``Technology can do a lot; it's a force saver,'' he said, ``but sensors and alarms don't respond. That takes a person with a rifle in their hands.''
</p></blockquote>
<p>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 149
<br>
<br>Issue: 7
<br>
<br>Pages: 72
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 1998
<br>
<br>Publication date: August 17, 1998</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_11');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 11 -->
<a name="x12"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x12" class="tiny">x12</a>
Fulghum, David A : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">Airborne Laser Aimed At New Defense Roles</a></h1>
<h2>1998-10</h2>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<blockquote><p>The successful test of a TRW-designed laser recently has opened the door for a valid demonstration of the device's usefulness as a weapon against ballistic missiles. Less obviously, this test will allow the airborne laser to begin taking on crucial new missions. A study and cost analysis of collateral missions for the airborne laser will not be ready for presentation to senior Air Force Combat Command officials until spring 1999. The airborne laser aircraft is to begin a test program in 2001.</p></blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The successful test of a TRW-designed laser recently has opened the door for a valid demonstration of the device's usefulness as a weapon against ballistic missiles.
<br>
<br>Less obviously, this test will allow the airborne laser to begin taking on crucial new missions.
<br>
<br>At the top of the list of potential missions is the airborne laser's use as a defense against cruise missiles and as a passive, long-range optical reconnaissance platform.
<br>
<br>``The technology is ready,'' said Paul Shennum, Boeing's vice president for the ABL joint program office. ``We're getting to the point now where quite a few of these things appear really feasible,'' agreed Air Force Col. Michael Booen, the airborne laser program director. ``We're still looking at cruise missile defense. That looks promising. [Moreover, some of the adjunct missions] are relatively cheap.''
<br>
<br>The ability to produce the power they need from a laser module almost six years before the YAL-1A is to become operational has let program officials begin to look more seriously at missions for the airborne laser other than intercepting theater ballistic missiles (AW&ST Sept. 14, p. 22).
<br>
<br>A study and cost analysis of collateral missions for the airborne laser will not be ready for presentation to senior Air Combat Command officials until spring 1999, program officials said.
<br>
<br>``This [laser's success] is going to break the door down for directed energy weapons,'' Booen said. ``In general, there are no radical changes we have to make [to conduct adjunct missions]. None of them are very expensive. Sometimes it involves more software or more optics. That could mean more optical elements so we can use the sensors in different ways, [or] possibly some small additions to the optics [additional sensors]. That's what we've got to talk to Air Combat Command about. If we needed the additional optics, would they be willing to put those on the jet?''
<br>
<br>Initial indications are that five areas identified last year are still valid and may cost less than had earlier been thought. These are:
<br>
<br>-- Imaging and reconnaissance using the 1.5-meter optical telescope to find and identify air and ground targets and formations, observe traffic and conduct battle damage assessment at ranges of several hundred miles.
<br>
<br>-- Protection of high-value aircraft such as AWACS, Joint-STARS and itself by destroying anti-aircraft missiles launched from the ground or other aircraft.
<br>
<br>-- Suppression of air defenses by combining target data from various intelligence sources to attack enemy missiles while they are still on the ground as well as the radars that control them.
<br>
<br>-- Command and control through searching the battlefield for infrared signatures to cue other weapons and to provide a command with a first look at theater threats.
<br>
<br>-- Defense against low-flying cruise missiles even a year ago was thought too difficult a task for the YAL-1A, but indications are that the Air Force is reassessing the flying laser's capabilities against those small, sometimes stealthy, targets.
<br>
<br>Cruise missile defense has looked more promising as ``we've gotten into more of the details,'' Booen said. ``Obviously we can shoot the high fliers a little bit further than we can shoot the low fliers because they look more like the missiles we were designed to [attack],'' he said. ``[But, now] we're looking at the whole envelope.''
<br>
<br>Booen said program officials look at ABL as part of the family of systems designed for theater missile defense which encompasses both cruise and ballistic weapons.
<br>
<br>``We've tried to design in the connectivity between us and Joint-STARS and AWACS,'' Booen said. ``We have infrared and optical sensors on board so that data is what we'll be sending down JTIDS and Link 16 [which are the primary digital communications links].''
<br>
<br>Program officials refused to comment on whether the YAL-1A's infrared sensors would be sensitive enough to pick up the small exhaust signatures of cruise missiles, many of which are expected to have stealthy designs or radar absorbing coatings.
<br>
<br>Among these potential missions, cruise missile defense could move to a fast track. The YAL-1A may take its place as one of the pillars of the classified cruise missile defense plan that includes the E-3 AWACS, E-8 Joint-STARS and an upgraded version of the AIM-120 Amraam air-to-air missile (AW&ST Aug. 24, p. 22).
<br>
<br>The cruise missile defense system is scheduled to be demonstrated in 2004-05 and operational by 2010 which fits well with the YAL-1A's expected operational debut around 2005. Stealthy cruise missiles are expected to be on the world market about the same time.
<br>
<br>As the basic plan now stands, the AWACS' long-range S-band radar would spot the incoming cruise missile and cue an Amraam-carrying fighter to shoot its missile into a certain point in the sky, referred to as a basket.
<br>
<br>The AWACS would also digitally tell the Joint-STARS' big, high-definition X-band radar where to look to better target and identify the cruise missile. The Joint-STARS also would direct the air-to-air weapon until its own sensors could see the cruise missile and complete the intercept.
<br>
<br>The TRW-designed laser is to be built as a module that can be stacked in the Air Force's YAL-1A airborne laser, a specialized Boeing 747-400F. The initial test of the multihundred-kw. chemical oxygen iodine laser was conducted on June 3. The test program for the flight-weighted laser module was completed in late August at TRW's Capistrano Test Site near San Clemente, Calif.
<br>
<br>The ability of the Boeing, TRW, Lockheed Martin team to go from ``first light'' with the laser through completion of a 26-test program in less than three months is an indicator of the overall technical health of the project, Booen said. The system's critical design review is scheduled for July 1999.
<br>
<br>THE AIRBORNE LASER aircraft is to begin a test program in 2001 at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., involving the launch of a variety of missiles to verify the surveillance and command and control system, Booen said.
<br>
<br>The YAL-1A's first attempt to destroy a missile in flight with a laser is to be made in 2002 with the target to be a surrogate theater ballistic missile fired over the Pacific from Vandenberg AFB, Calif. As currently planned, the program is to produce seven laser-armed aircraft.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Photograph: The successful test of the ABL's laser opens many new possibilities for employment of the airborne weapon such as the destruction of cruise missiles and suppression of enemy air defenses.
<br>
<br>Subject: Lasers; Military weapons; Missiles; Product testing; Defense
<br>
<br>Location: US
<br>
<br>Classification: 9190: US; 8650: Electrical, electronics, instrumentation industries; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 7500: Product planning & development
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 149
<br>
<br>Issue: 14
<br>
<br>Pages: 111
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 1998
<br>
<br>Publication date: October 5, 1998</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x13" class="tiny">x13</a>
Marvin J. Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_13');">Handbook of Laser Wavelengths</a></h1>
<h2>1999</h2>
<div id="sect_13" style="display: block;">
<p>Weber, M. J. �Frontmatter�
Handbook of Laser Wavelengths.
Ed. Marvin J. Weber
Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC, 1999
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
SECTION 2: SOLID STATE LASERS
2.1 Crystalline Paramagnetic Ion Lasers
2.2 Glass Lasers
2.3 Solid State Dye Lasers
2.4 Color Center Lasers
2.5 Semiconductor Lasers
2.6 Polymer Lasers
SECTION 3: LIQUID LASERS
3.1 Organic Dye Lasers
3.2 Rare Earth Liquid Lasers
SECTION 4: GAS LASERS
4.1 Neutral Atom, Ionized, and Molecular Gas Lasers
4.2 Optically Pumped Far Infrared and Millimeter Wave Lasers
4.3 References
SECTION 5: OTHER LASERS
5.1 Extreme Ultraviolet and Soft X-Ray Lasers
<br>5.2 Free Electron Lasers
<br>5.3 Nuclear Pumped Lasers
<br>5.4 Natural Lasers
<br>5.5 Inversionless Lasers
<br>SECTION 6: COMMERCIAL LASERS
<br>6.1 Solid State Lasers
<br>6.2 Semiconductor Lasers
<br>6.3 Dye Lasers
<br>6.4 Gas Lasers</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_13');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 13 -->
<a name="x14"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x14" class="tiny">x14</a>
North, David M : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">The Next Century of Flight</a></h1>
<h2>1999-01</h2>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>An editorial businesses how Aviation Week & Space Technology will begin a new series of Viewpoints. This series will examine what might be expected in The Next Century of Flight.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>As editor-in-chief of a magazine that has closely followed--and even tried to foretell--the amazing advances of aviation and aerospace in the first century of flight, I have the privilege of introducing a new series of Viewpoints. This series will examine what we might expect in The Next Century of Flight. Each month, through December 2003, we will offer Viewpoints that are thought-provoking, insightful and not afraid to topple icons of the past, present and future.
<br>
<br>In our reporting, Aviation Week & Space Technology started looking ahead to the oncoming century with a 32-page special report on 21st Century Fighters in the Aug. 3, 1998, issue. This week, we turn to satellites, and what we found may surprise you (see p. 56). As the year goes on, we will apply the same approach to different subjects--transports, business aviation and space launch vehicles in the 21st century.
<br>
<br>On this page, we want to go beyond the vehicles and technologies that will shape the world of flight. We want to raise the provocative issues and ask the basic questions that will--or could--shape flight and the industries that make it possible. We will ask not just What? and How?, but Why? and perhaps most important, Why Not?
<br>
<br>Sometimes it seems like we were there on the sands of Kitty Hawk with Orville and Wilbur Wright. The magazine doesn't go back quite that far. We've only been at it 83 years. We certainly wouldn't pretend to have all of the answers, or even all of the good questions. We will be turning to far-thinking people who can look into the next century and tell us what changes to expect in specific areas. These Viewpoints will cover all aspects of our industry, including commercial transport, military, space, business aviation, avionics, aeronautical engineering and aerospace business issues. Naturally, the Viewpoints will be international in coverage.
<br>
<br>My own involvement in aviation began more than 40 years ago. In fact, I received my U.S. Navy wings almost exactly 40 years ago next week following my last flight in a Grumman F9F-5 Panther. When I look at the most recent aircraft I have flown, which include the Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet and Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, I can see the advances during the past 40 years in aerodynamics, engine reliability, manufacturing techniques and especially avionics. Aerospace technology and space exploration are advancing on an exponential scale, and even the first 20 years of the next century should provide us with some truly remarkable changes for the better.
<br>
<br>And yet I wonder:
<br>
<br>-- What is the future for pilots in combat aircraft? Will UAVs fight future wars?
<br>
<br>-- Will Airbus become the dominant supplier of civil transports? Will Airbus and Boeing maintain their duopoly, or will a third player emerge? Whose view of envelope protection will prevail? How far will aviation go in automating cockpits?
<br>
<br>-- Where will aerospace consolidation lead? Will the industry giants become transnational behemoths, or will security considerations prevent that?
<br>
<br>-- Will the space shuttle still be flying in 2050? What will it take to make reusable launchers a reality? How about space tourism? Will humans reach Mars in the next century?
<br>
<br>-- Will we ever see a true renaissance in general aviation? How small a gas turbine engine will the market accept? Will it accept radical new designs, or does it want ``classic'' designs forever updated?
<br>
<br>-- Will combat forces ever be in space? What is the future of directed energy weapons? Will there ever be an effective defense against ballistic missiles? What are the limits of stealth technology?
<br>
<br>-- What is the future of civil supersonic aircraft? Will there be a supersonic business jet? If the world begins to run out of oil, how will that affect aviation?
<br>
<br>When you let your mind go, the questions are limitless. I am asking you, our readers, to help identify issues we should address. I would like you to think of subjects, and even the best two or three people to write about them.
<br>
<br>What are the remarkable changes likely to take place in the next century, and who are those people you believe are best qualified to explain them and wrestle with the big issues? You may e-mail me at north@mh.com or Washington Bureau Chief Jim Asker at asker@mh.com. Our fax number is +1 (202) 383-2347.
</blockquote>
<p>Subject: Editorials; Millennium; Predictions; Aviation; R & D; Research & development
<br>
<br>Location: US
<br>
<br>Classification: 8350: Transportation industry; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9000: Short article; 9190: US; 5400: Research & development
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 150
<br>
<br>Issue: 4
<br>
<br>Pages: 86
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 1999
<br>
<br>Publication date: January 25, 1999</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x15" class="tiny">x15</a>
Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_15');">AFSOC Prefers EC-767 to EC-130J</a></h1>
<h2>1999-02</h2>
<div id="sect_15" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>US Air Force Special Operations Command planners want to replace AFSOC's aging EC-130E Commando Solo II radio and television broadcast aircraft with larger Boeing 767-300s, rather than with Lockheed Martin C-130-Js that are now being bought. As the 6 existing Commando Solos are replaced, AFSOC would like to greatly expand the capability of the system.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command planners want to replace AFSOC's aging EC-130E Commando Solo II radio and television broadcast aircraft with larger Boeing 767-300s, rather than with Lockheed Martin C-130Js that are now being bought.
<br>
<br>As the six existing Commando Solos are replaced, AFSOC would like to greatly expand the capability of the system. The future system, labeled EC-X and not expected to be fielded until 2015, would broaden the Air Force's information operations capability, said USAF Lt. Col. Dan Baradon, AFSOC's chief of long-range planning.
<br>
<br>New missions that would likely be incorporated into the new aircraft include controlling unmanned aircraft that could rebroadcast transmissions from the EC-767 mothership. That remote broadcast capability would allow operators to place transmitters very close to receivers in hostile territory without exposing the aircrew to enemy air defenses. As future information warfare tools are developed, they would be integrated into the system.
<br>
<br>The old EC-130Es are equipped with analog broadcast systems operating in AM, FM, high-frequency, TV and military communication bands. The new aircraft would provide growth for emerging broadcast requirements, such as high-definition television. It would also provide an opportunity to replace the analogue systems with more capable, digital equipment.
<br>
<br>CONGRESS HAS ALREADY provided funding for the first C-130J to be modified into an EC-130J by stripping an EC-130E and rehosting the equipment on the new aircraft. All the Commando Solos are operated by the Air National Guard's 193rd Special Operations Wing. While the C-130J overcomes aging aircraft problems that exist with the EC-130E, it doesn't provide the growth potential or range AFSOC would like, Baradon said. The EC-130Js being brought on-line now, he said, could serve as a bridge until EC-X.
<br>
<br>An EC-767 would have more than double the space for mission equipment compared with an EC-130J, Baradon said. Furthermore, as the Air Force transitions to an expeditionary force, the long-range 767 is seen as a better fit to emerging deployment needs. It would allow them to reach most trouble spots in hours from the U.S. Baradon noted that the EC-767 could also stay on-station much longer than the EC-130J.
<br>
<br>AFSOC also was examining the Boeing 757 as a candidate, largely because it is cheaper than the 767. But the space and range attributed to the 767 caused it to prevail in mission analyses. Using a commercial aircraft appeals to the special operations planners because it would allow them to repair the system using commercial facilities available virtually worldwide. Furthermore, for pilot training, commercial simulators could be used rather than having to set up a unique infrastructure.
<br>
<br>In the future, the Air Force will consider moving some of the Commando Solo missions to unmanned aircraft and to space. However, building a system in space that has enough broadcast power to do the special operations mission isn't expected to be technically feasible until at least the next generation after EC-X.
<br>
<br>Getting funding for the new aircraft will be a major hurdle for AFSOC. To mitigate the problem, the command has moved EC-X purchases beyond 2010 because, before then, most Air Force money will be tied up in buying F-22s and Joint Strike Fighters. The funding hurdle also affects AFSOC's other long-term modernization needs, which include:
<br>
<br>-- The stealthy MC-X transport. It notionally would carry a 20,000-lb. package on a 1,000-mi. combat radius (AW&ST May 11, 1998, p. 72). Its fielding, which has slipped repeatedly, is not expected until at least 2015. Signature control and reduction are top MC-X priorities. AFSOC would like to leverage the Air Force's still-undefined Advanced Tactical Transport program. That strategy would have the Air Force develop a stealthy transport, leaving AFSOC having to fund only special operations-unique features.
<br>
<br>-- The stealthy AC-X gunship. AFSOC believes that at least one more generation of manned system is required before the mission can be transitioned to unmanned aircraft. AC-X would have a high degree of airframe commonality with MC-X. It would be armed with nonlethal and lethal weapons, including directed-energy weapons. The goal is a system that is more precise and lethal than existing gunships, yet has a lower signature.
</blockquote>
<p>Subject: Military aircraft; Equipment acquisition planning
<br>
<br>Location: US
<br>
<br>Company / organization: Name: Boeing Co; Ticker: BA; DUNS: 00-925-6819
<br>
<br>Classification: 5120: Purchasing; 9000: Short article; 9550: Public sector organizations; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9190: US
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 150
<br>
<br>Issue: 8
<br>
<br>Pages: 28
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 1999
<br>
<br>Publication date: February 22, 1999</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_15');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 15 -->
<a name="x16"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x16" class="tiny">x16</a>
Scott, William B : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">Space Ops Threatened By Launch Failures</a></h1>
<h2>1999-05</h2>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The loss of three military satellites to launch failures since August 1998 could have significant repercussions on future US space-based operations, although near-term capabilities are not in jeopardy, according to the nation's top milspace official. Satellites now in orbit can handle current and projected warfighter demands for communications, navigation, missile warning, weather and intelligence support. The current string of launch failures has raised concerns about the US position as a true space power.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The loss of three military satellites to launch failures since August 1998 could have significant repercussions on future U.S. space-based operations, although near-term capabilities are not in jeopardy, according to the nation's top milspace official. In particular, U.S. Space Command's future space control options will be severely constrained until reliable spacelift is assured.
<br>
<br>Satellites now in orbit can handle current and projected warfighter demands for communications, navigation, missile warning, weather and intelligence support. However, ``the three satellites lost were designed to carry their respective constellations into the 21st century. We must ensure that those constellations remain robust,'' said Gen. Richard B. Myers, U.S. Space Command's (USSC) commander-in-chief (Cincspace). ``Because these failures have cost us a great deal, both in financial terms and in future mission capability, we are working hard to identify their causes.''
<br>
<br>A trio of Titan IVA/B launches failed to place three key spacecraft--a National Reconnaissance Office sigint vehicle, a Defense Support Program missile warning platform and a next-generation Milstar communications satellite--in their proper orbits. As of last week, investigations of the most-recent failed launches were still focusing primarily on upper-stage problems (AW&ST May 10, p. 28).
<br>
<br>AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND AND THE NRO have begun a formal Broad Area Review (BAR) to ``analyze the causes of the recent launch failures; recommend changes in practices, procedures and operations that might prevent such failures, and assure continued access to space for the [Defense Dept.],'' Myers said. Results and recommendations produced by the BAR will be forwarded to the USAF chief-of-staff and secretary.
<br>
<br>The current string of launch failures--which also included the loss of several commercial payloads--has raised concerns about the U.S.' position as a true ``space power.'' According to Space Power Theory, a recently released book commissioned by USSC and written by James E. Oberg, having assured access to space is absolutely basic to being a national ``space power.'' Unless the U.S. can reliably put payloads into desired orbits, when it needs to, there is no way it can carry out key missions now assigned to Cincspace--space control and space force application. At the moment, USSC and its service components have limited ``space control'' options, and no acknowledged ``space force application'' capabilities (AW&ST Mar. 29, p. 36).
<br>
<br>The U.S. is probably 10-20 years away from having a viable military capability to strike enemy targets in orbit or in the atmosphere with space-based weapons, Myers said. Of course, that capability is based on having a consistently reliable means of on-demand spacelift, which has seemed to elude the U.S. over the long-term.
<br>
<br>There are issues other than assured payload launch that need to be addressed, too. Even though the ``space force application'' mission was assigned to USSC by the President, national leaders have been slow to build an associated policy and legal framework. ``There's been no national action on this, other than to assign responsibility for it,'' Myers said. He made it clear, though, that ``there is no national policy to `weaponize' space. So, our focus now is looking at the concepts [of operation] and some of the basic technologies that would enable us to do that someday--if we're tasked by the national command authority to go do that.'' In any event, ``we're a decade or two away'' from having a significant space force application capability, he said.
<br>
<br>A draft of a new Pentagon space policy--which is expected to evolve into a national space policy--apparently has little to say about applying military force from and to space, although it will probably address the critical need for reliable launch capabilities.
<br>
<br>The first subset of space force application will probably be in the missile defense arena, but other threats are evolving.
<br>
<br>``Today, there is relative harmony in space, but there have been instances of jamming. We know that. And we know there are countries developing directed-energy weapons--dazzler-type weapons,'' Myers said. He was not aware of any attacks on satellites with these weapons, ``but we know people are working on the technology.''
<br>
<br>EVENTUALLY, THE NEED TO COUNTER AN ATTACK will arise. As the global community launches more spacecraft, several elements of ``space control'' will become increasingly important. That doesn't necessarily mean blasting satellites, though. For the near-term, the U.S. has opted for a package of ``tactical'' space control methods that focus on nonlethal, reversible effects.
<br>
<br>Space control also encompasses tasks other than force application, such as space surveillance, a function the U.S. military now does quite well. However, better tools and procedures will be needed to ensure expensive spacecraft do not run into each other and the myriad debris accumulating in some orbits.
<br>
<br>``We have to do a better job of space control,'' Myers said, noting that most U.S. resources available for launch and on-orbit ``deconfliction,'' as well as anomaly resolution, are resident in USSC and its Air Force, Navy and Army space components. A new organization or mechanism is needed to provide military-acquired data and analyses to civil and commercial space operators, perhaps under a fee-for-service arrangement, he said. The Aerospace Corp. has taken a first step in this direction, establishing a Space Operations Support Office here to assist commercial satellite operators with anomaly resolution (AW&ST Apr. 26, p. 19).
<br>
<br>Another growing need that, technically, falls under space control, is for ``rules-of-the-road. Right now, there are very few,'' Myers said. ``In the future, we have to be pointed toward some sort of rules that everybody abides by.'' There are procedures in place to govern the use of geostationary slots, but none for other orbits. Similarly, space operators tend to honor certain debris-mitigation measures, but their actions are voluntary, not required. Increased space activity by more players will soon dictate all operate to a common set of regulations.
<br>
<br>``In my opinion, sooner or later we're going to have to get to that point [on an international basis],'' he said.
<br>
<br>Even as USSC grapples with the near-term crisis of launch failures--as well as the uncharted territory of space control and space force application--the Colorado Springs-based headquarters is preparing to assume a new national responsibility in October: computer network defense. The command also is slated to pick up the computer network attack mission in October 2000.
<br>
<br>``Of all the unified commands, this looks like the most logical place to put [computer network defense or CND],'' Myers said. ``We think globally and operate globally in a virtual environment--and we are in a supporting role to the other unified commands. But we don't see ourselves `inventing' anything. It's more of an integration function, because most of the pieces and parts are already out there in the services, agencies and other unified commands. We're facilitating the integration.''
<br>
<br>USSC will absorb the Defense Dept.'s Joint Task Force on Computer Network Defense, which was activated on Dec. 30, 1998, to counter ``hackers'' and sophisticated attacks against Pentagon computers (AW&ST Feb. 1, p. 64). The unit will remain in the Washington area, where it coordinates Defense activities with other federal agencies.
<br>
<br>U.S. Space Command's current information operations (IO) priority is to complete a CND implementation plan and submit it to the joint staff this month, Myers said. ``We understand that we're not the experts in this. We'll rely on a lot of outside help,'' such as contractors and ``gray beards'' who have experience with computer network protection. ``We won't have a final solution by October '99, but we'll continue to develop [the plan]. I'm really pleased with our efforts, so far, but we still have a long way to go.''
<br>
<br>MULTIPLE AGENCIES HAVE PORTIONS OF THE U.S.' information operations responsibility. USSC ultimately will focus on computer network defense and attack elements as they apply to national security, Myers noted.
<br>
<br>``The command and control arrangements are absolutely critical,'' he stressed. ``We have to be able to pull it all together--not just process data, but manage the operations. Fundamental to taking on computer network defense, then attack, is to [also make sure] we don't take our eye off the space ball. It's imperative we stay focused on the space mission, too,'' which includes fixing current launch problems.
<br>
<br>Legal and policy issues also have yet to be resolved in the IO arena, which complicates development of a CND implementation plan. Now, questions are being handled on a case-by-case basis, but that time-consuming approach will have to give way to solid policies governing how network attack, in particular, can be done. ``We do need a more-robust legal staff [at USSC], because we get into some very interesting legal questions when we start talking about attack,'' Myers said.
<br>
<br>He acknowledged that his primary concerns about taking on CND and carrying out the various space missions center on resources. Skilled enlisted spacecraft operators are being recruited by commercial space firms, for example. Retaining these and other key personnel dictates better pay, more-reasonable operations tempos and improved quality-of-life measures be quickly implemented by Congress and the Pentagon.
<br>
<br>``The top [personnel] priority on my watch is to make sure we get and retain the type of skills we need in the space business,'' Myers declared. Modernization of milspace capabilities through acquisition of the Space-Based Infrared System, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles and an upgraded GPS infrastructure, plus organizing correctly for both space and information operation missions, round out Cincspace's key near-term objectives.
<br>
<br>``We have an opportunity now to get it right,'' Myers said. ``If there's a book on space [being written], we may be past the preface--maybe in the first chapter--but that's all. And there are 10 or 15 chapters yet to write. We can help write a few lines or paragraphs during the next few years.''
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Gen. Richard B. Myers, commander and chief of U.S. Space Command, is worried about the effects of recent launch failures on future space operations.
<br>
<br>Subject: Space surveillance; Satellites; Rocket launches; Problems
<br>
<br>Location: US
<br>
<br>Classification: 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9190: US
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 150
<br>
<br>Issue: 20
<br>
<br>Pages: 25
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 1999
<br>
<br>Publication date: May 17 1999</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x17" class="tiny">x17</a>
Fulghum, David A : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_17');">New U.S. Navy Anechoic Chamber Tests Two Aircraft Together</a></h1>
<h2>1999-06</h2>
<div id="sect_17" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The largest anechoic chamber on the US East Coast - a crucial tool for fine-tuning stealth designs and electronic warfare tactics - just opened at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Patuxent River, Maryland, and already has a full slate of commercial and military customers through the end of the year. The interior of the $49-million, 180 X 180 X 60-ft. chamber is insulated from all outside electronic signals. IT is covered by polyurethane foam pyramids impregnated with carbon that absorbs electronic signals created within the chamber. Officials claim the research can be accomplished at 1/15th the cost of conducting the same test while the aircraft are in flight.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The largest anechoic chamber on the U.S. East Coast--a crucial tool for fine-tuning stealth designs and electronic warfare tactics--opened here last week and already has a full slate of commercial and military customers through the end of the year.
<br>
<br>The interior of the $49-million, 180 X 180 X 60-ft. chamber is insulated from all outside electronic signals. It is covered by polyurethane foam pyramids impregnated with carbon that absorb electronic signals created within the chamber. By eliminating all exterior noise and interior echoes, researchers can precisely calculate the output and effects of electronic devices. This is important when testing new or modified equipment.
<br>
<br>Officials here make the tantalizing claim that research can be accomplished at 1/15th the cost of conducting the same test while the aircraft are in flight. Moreover, no open-air testing can be done without threat of electronic monitoring by outsiders or satellite observation or without outside electronic interference. They also contend that commercial aerospace companies can save overhead by using the Navy's chamber instead of building their own or taking the risk of using a competitor's facility.
<br>
<br>BECAUSE TWO AIRCRAFT can be suspended in the facility at once, test engineers can quickly determine how the electronic signals--perhaps the powerful jamming from an EA-6B aircraft--might affect the sensors, computers or flight controls of a strike aircraft, such as the F/A-18. Both were hanging in the chamber for the ribbon cutting.
<br>
<br>One aircraft can be moved along a track set diagonally across the chamber's ceiling. The second can be moved from side-to-side of the chamber on another track. Either can be easily rotated on their horizontal axis to create new angles between the aircraft. When required, the crews can mount the aircraft, and the aircraft can then be suspended at heights up to 65 ft. with wheels retracted to simulate flight.
<br>
<br>Researchers are also exploring such phenomenon as how the sensors or data streams from two strike aircraft--each launching missiles or standoff weapons--might affect each other, said John Dawson, head of the center's electronic environmental effects (E3) division. They are concerned, for example, that data coming from a missile might be received by the wrong aircraft or that instructions from an aircraft might misdirect another aircraft's missile.
<br>
<br>There also are basic questions about unexpected electromagnetic signals interfering with the fly-by-wire systems used by most modern aircraft, particularly airliners with their hundreds of passengers. By using customized GPS-navigation signals and the ability to analyze and duplicate the electronic environment of any place on Earth, such as the approach to some suspect airport, researchers can test how a particular aircraft will respond to a given set of stimuli.
<br>
<br>Perhaps the most important military work that may be conducted in the anechoic chamber is the development and fine-tuning of integrated multispectral suites for U.S. warplanes. As the demands increase for precision bombardment, accompanied by no allied casualties and few enemy deaths, researchers are turning to building systems that can blend the picture from several sensors--multiband radars, multifrequency infrared, laser, acoustic, electronic intercept or electro-optical--to produce detailed images and precise identifications at great distances or through camouflage and bad weather.
<br>
<br>Virtually all of these conditions likely will be duplicated in the Patuxent River facility. In fact, officials claim they can accurately reproduce the electronic signals put off by an entire allied or adversary fleet at any range. Panels in the walls, roof and floor can be removed to provide ports for the use of a wide range of equipment including lasers, Dawson said.
<br>
<br>Other bookings in the new facility, dubbed the Advanced Systems Integration Laboratory, stretch into 2003, he said. The first customer was scheduled to begin using the facility in mid-June. The first project was to have begun in May, but construction officials required the fire extinguisher system be modified at the last minute.
<br>
<br>OTHER LARGE ANECHOIC chambers are already located on the West Coast, including the world's largest such facility at Edwards AFB, Calif., that was built for B-1 testing. By locating more than 3,000-mi. closer to Europe, Navy officials hope to parlay Patuxent River's location into a draw for foreign aerospace companies. There is no large anechoic facility in Europe although there is some preliminary planning regarding construction of a chamber in Italy. Meanwhile, discussions are underway about conducting tests here of the Eurofighter 2000 and Canada's CE-144 Challenger electronic warfare training aircraft. Other potential early customers are the competitors for Australia's Wedgetail airborne early warning and surveillance aircraft, slated in 2003, and Britain's Nimrod 2000 in 2001-2. However, first in the queue are U.S. military aircraft including the F/A-18C, F-14, E-2 AWACS and some classified projects.
<br>
<br>FROM THE CHAMBER'S CEILING, researchers can simultaneously hang two strike aircraft weighing up to 40 tons each. Much larger aircraft, like the Air Force's B-2 heavy bomber or the Navy's large E-6 Tacamo submarine communications aircraft, would be placed on stands.
<br>
<br>Two crucial areas of research the chamber is expected to focus on are electro-magnetic pulses (EMP is generated by lightning storms and atmospheric nuclear explosions.) and bursts of high-power microwaves (HPM could come from radars located close to airports or new types of directed energy weapons).
<br>
<br>The anechoic chamber's support facilities include a 34 X 74-ft. operations control center, a trailer mezzanine, two basement test pits and seven outside power distribution units for trailer-mounted equipment. Patuxent River also is developing a secure, wide-band, fiber-optic loop to link all the computer, test, training and laboratory facilities on the base plus satellite and other communications links to anywhere in the world.
<br>
<br>Another selling point for the Advanced System Integrated Laboratory is its links to the Air Combat Environment Test and Evaluation Facility. The whole complex has the primary mission of reducing risks and cost for Navy aircraft through the use of simulation. It provides the resources for research, development, test and evaluation, and training. The current investment in the complex is $425 million and the new chamber allows larger aircraft or several smaller aircraft to join in the integrated testing.
<br>
<br>In addition, Pax River permits facilities around the world to tie into tests in the new chamber. The integration of anechoic chambers is unique in the Defense Dept. By combining tests in several anechoic chambers, test and fleet pilots can evaluate systems--both real and proposed--and train in combat environments not easily produced in flight.
<br>
<br>The exterior walls of the chamber are made of steel plates that provide the electrical continuity to keep out extraneous signals. The 428,000-lb. door to the facility has interlocking fingers to ensure the electronic shield is intact. There is an 8-ft. gap between the outer wall and the inner wall that supports the radar-absorbing material. Catwalks between the two provide space for researchers to mount electronic stimulators and other equipment virtually anywhere in the structure.
<br>
<br>UMBILICAL CORDS PROVIDE power, cooling, hydraulics, communications and simulated sensor data to the aircraft. The volume of data provided can be raised or lowered to duplicate greater or smaller distances between the aircraft or the aircraft and their targets. The target data provided is good enough that the aircrews can lock on to their targets and conduct simulated firings. In turn, the ground targets will fight back with communications spoofing, electronic distractions or jamming. The crews can be connected via Pax River's secure fiber-optics link or by satellite communications to other facilities around the world. A crew in the chamber can be involved in a tank battle in Germany or a Marine Corps landing in California.
<br>
<br>Even satellites can be mounted in the facility, and the electronic environment of the space shuttle can be duplicated.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Navy researchers can now isolate two aircraft (F/A-18C foreground and EA-6B rear) from outside signals to see how they electronically affect one another.
<br>
<br>ROGER LE JEUNE
<br>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: As electronic warfare grows more esoteric and important, aircraft like this EA-6B Prowler must be regularly tested.
<br>
<br>ROGER LE JEUNE
<br>
<br>Subject: Military aircraft; Product testing; Avionics; Electronic warfare; Facilities
<br>
<br>Location: US
<br>
<br>Company: Naval Air Warfare Center
<br>
<br>Classification: 9190: US; 9550: Public sector organizations; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 7500: Product planning & development; 8650: Electrical, electronics, instrumentation industries
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 150
<br>
<br>Issue: 25
<br>
<br>Pages: 56
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 1999
<br>
<br>Publication date: June 21, 1999</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_17');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 17 -->
<a name="x18"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x18" class="tiny">x18</a>
Asker, James R : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">Second Wave</a></h1>
<h2>1999-07</h2>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<blockquote><p>Already facing the virtual certainty of F-22 cuts, the Pentagon is apt to face more congressional attacks. Air Force leaders in particular are in for harsh criticism about their stewardship of directed energy weapons.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Already facing the virtual certainty of F-22 cuts, the Pentagon is apt to face more congressional attacks. Air Force leaders in particular are in for harsh criticism about their stewardship of directed energy weapons, UAVs and satellite programs. ``They've been extremely disingenuous about the whole [Space-Based Infrared Satellite] effort,'' a House staffer said. ``The Air Force is dragging its feet on UAVs generally and Global Hawk specifically. They're also an obstacle in the development of directed energy weapons. They have two large chemical [space and airborne] laser programs, so they are going out of their way to frustrate progress on solid state lasers, which are far more practical,'' he said. ``Many in Congress feel they need to get a grip on humility.'' A House Appropriations Committee report accused the Pentagon of spending on projects that lawmakers didn't approve--including a C-5 airlifter upgrade, Mil-Star satellite work, MEADS air defense and unspecified classified programs. ``I read the report, but I don't take it at face value,'' a Senate staffer said. Many are still puzzled why Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) initially chose to zero the F-22 program. ``It may be a ploy to get Senate appropriators to put more money into defense,'' the Senate staffer said. House staffers say Lewis researched the F-22 for six months before springing his surprise cut. They contend that the F/A-18E/F program escaped reductions only because it is already in production. ``It got away from us, but there's still two [fighter programs] out there,'' a House staffer said. ``Also there is considerably more cost growth being projected [for the F-22], although the Air Force isn't admitting to it yet.''
</blockquote>
<p>Subject: Military weapons; Product development; Federal budget; Military aircraft; Defense spending
<br>
<br>Location: US
<br>
<br>Company: Department of Defense, Air Force-US
<br>
<br>Classification: 9190: US; 9000: Short article; 1120: Economic policy & planning; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 7500: Product planning & development
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 151
<br>
<br>Issue: 4
<br>
<br>Pages: 27
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 1999
<br>
<br>Publication date: July 26, 1999</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x19</a>
Fulghum, David A : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_19');">LockMart Expands JSF Range, Payload</a></h1>
<h2>1999-11</h2>
<div id="sect_19" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Lockheed Martin expects its short takeoff and vertical landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter to have two unique advantages in the competition for a next-generation, ground-attack aircraft - an extra 100 mile radius in range, and a huge potential supply of electrical power to run sensor payloads or a laser weapon.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Lockheed Martin expects its short takeoff and vertical landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter to have two unique advantages in the competition for a next-generation, ground-attack aircraft--an extra 100-mi. radius in range, and a huge potential supply of electrical power to run sensor payloads or a laser weapon.
<br>
<br>The extra range will come from a Pratt & Whitney F119-derivative engine that operates more efficiently in conventional flight than engine designs specialized for STOVL operations, said Lockheed Martin engineers. They contend that the propulsion package of a lift fan driven by a shaft from the main engine permits the system to operate at its most efficient settings in ``up and away flight.''
<br>
<br>By comparison, a direct thrust arrangement like that used for the AV-8 Harrier requires the engine to be sized to operate most efficiently during vertical flight and the transition to and from horizontal flight. To provide enough direct thrust to land vertically, an engine needs a bigger core and a larger fan, a Lockheed Martin official said. Since the Boeing JSF design relies on direct thrust to generate all the aircraft's lift, it has to be sized for that small part of the flight envelope, he said. The extra size, weight and reduced conventional flight efficiency come at the cost of up to a 20% penalty in range due to increased fuel consumption. Translated to a hypothetical operational mission by a JSF, that could mean up to a 100-mi. smaller radius in range.
<br>
<br>Lockheed Martin tests at NASA's Ames Research Center verified that sufficient low-pressure, turbine horsepower could be extracted to propel a shaft-driven lift fan while concurrently operating the engine low pressure rotor at high power conditions. In fact, Lockheed Martin designers selected the shaft-driven lift fan for the very reason that STOVL performance can be decoupled from cruise performance. The design has the added advantage that exhaust temperatures and pressures are far less and therefore won't damage taxiways, roads or parking lots that might have to be the bases for forward operations in wartime. Critics say the heat from Boeing's engine is better distributed and not concentrated at the tail like Lockheed Martin's design.
<br>
<br>``The critical parameter is thrust specific fuel consumption plotted against the engine's power setting,'' the Lockheed Martin official said. He admitted that the lift fan adds weight to the propulsion system, but he said the penalty ``still allows a thrust-to-weight ratio of more than 3-1.'' Company engineers claim the JSF119-611 engine with lift fan produces 60% greater thrust than using the same engine operated in the direct lift mode. Moreover, the official said, the engine design is advanced enough that Lockheed Martin plans to use it as a prototype during the JSF demonstration phase in order to ready it for production sooner.
<br>
<br>THE SECOND ADVANTAGE claimed by Lockheed Martin for its JSF design is the potential for extra electrical power production that could come from harnessing the energy available from the shaft that links the main engine and lift fan. The shaft is engaged to turn the lift fan during vertical and transitional flight, but during most of the mission a clutch disengages the shaft that nonetheless continues to turn at the same speed as the main engine fan. By using the turning shaft to run electrical generators, Lockheed Martin analyses estimate that up to 8,000 kVA could be provided to power additional avionics or directed energy weapons such as lasers. Boeing designers are critical, saying that converting the engine shaft's rotation to electricity would be complex and expensive.
<br>
<br>Lockheed Martin program officials earlier this year said that the option of having more available power would allow them to offer at least three early derivatives of the basic JSF design. ``There are ongoing advanced design studies,'' confirmed an official. First in line would be an Air Force-specific EF-111 radar and communications jamming replacement. Second would be an electronic intelligence gathering variant that could plot the type and location of enemy radar, data and communication signals. A third variant could be a JSF equipped with a laser weapon. Critics contend that it will be a long time before lasers are efficient enough that one sized for a JSF would be lethal enough to destroy an aircraft or missile.
</blockquote>
<p>Subject: Military aircraft; Advantages; Design
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Company / organization: Name: Lockheed Martin Corp; Ticker: LMT; NAICS: 334290, 212319, 336411, 336413, 336414
<br>
<br>Classification: 9190: United States; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9000: Short article
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 151
<br>
<br>Issue: 19
<br>
<br>Pages: 56-57
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 1999
<br>
<br>Publication date: November 8, 1999</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_19');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 19 -->
<a name="x20"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x20" class="tiny">x20</a>
William J. McCarthy : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">Directed Energy and Fleet Defense: Implications for Naval Warfare</a></h1>
<h2>2000</h2>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: block;">
<p><i>Directed Energy and Fleet Defense: Implications for Naval Warfare</i>
<br>By William J. McCarthy, Captain, USN, May 2000
<br>Occasional Paper No. 10, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x21</a>
Holdstock, Douglas; Waterston, Lis : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_21');">Nuclear weapons, a continuing threat to health</a></h1>
<h2>2000-04</h2>
<div id="sect_21" style="display: block;">
<p>The Lancet; Apr 29, 2000; 355, 9214; ProQuest Science Journals pg. 1544</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_21');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 21 -->
<a name="x22"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x22" class="tiny">x22</a>
Smith, Bruce a; Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">Thel Laser Kills Short-Range Missile</a></h1>
<h2>2000-06</h2>
<div id="sect_22" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Destruction of a rocket in-flight by a high-energy laser system has demonstrated that an operational-type directed energy weapon can defeat a short-range ballistic rocket attack, according to program officials.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Destruction of a rocket in flight by a high-energy laser system has demonstrated that an operational-type directed energy weapon can defeat a short-range ballistic rocket attack, according to program officials.
<br>
<br>The Katyusha rocket was destroyed on June 6 at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., when the U.S. Army's Tactical High Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator (Thel/Actd) detonated the vehicle's high-explosive warhead.
<br>
<br>THE INTERCEPT was the first kill of a Katyusha rocket by a deployable-type high-energy laser weapon, and the first attempt by the Thel system to destroy a rocket, according to program officials.
<br>
<br>The test could serve as a first step in bolstering air defense against attacks by rockets such as the Katyusha, with Mach 3 velocity and a flight time of only 15-40 sec.
<br>
<br>The test could also boost interest in development of laser weapon systems which are smaller and more mobile than Thel, which includes several transportable, cargo container-sized structures mounted on concrete pads.
<br>
<br>In the near-term, the successful demonstration will lead to more complex and aggressive testing of the Thel system, officials said.
<br>
<br>The rocket was fired on a 15-km. trajectory and destroyed by Thel at a range of a few kilometers. ``It was the very first time we tried to put the high [laser] power on a Katyusha for long-enough duration to kill it, and we blew it up,'' said Richard Bradshaw, directed energy program manager for the Army Space and Missile Defense Command.
<br>
<br>How long the laser has to be focused on the Katyusha to explode it is classified, but Bradshaw said the engagement took place ``within the tactical timelines we need to meet our requirements.''
<br>
<br>The Thel system was developed by a TRW-led team of U.S. and Israeli contractors for the U.S. Army and the Israel Ministry of Defense. The design of the deuterium fluoride chemical laser weapon was driven in part by Israel's requirements for an air defense system to protect communities located along the country's northern border from terrorist rocket attacks. The Katyusha rocket for the test was supplied by the Israeli government.
<br>
<br>The rocket was launched at 3:48 p.m. EDT in desert terrain near the Army's High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility. The launcher was located 10-15 km. south of the position of the Thel system.
<br>
<br>The integrated fire control radar acquired the incoming Katyusha shortly after launch, determined the trajectory and automatically fed data to the command and control system. Command and control identified the target and directed the optical pointer/tracker subsystem to search with sensors mounted on the beam director. A forward looking infrared (Flir) system is used for coarse-tracking.
<br>
<br>THE SYSTEM THEN TRANSITIONED to a fine-tracking mode using a lower-power level solid state laser to illuminate the target. The system uses full aperture of the beam director for precision tracking on the vehicle's warhead, ultimately sending the laser beam out through the pointer-tracker. The warhead of the 10-ft. long rocket was heated by the laser beam and detonated.
<br>
<br>Tom Romesser, TRW vice president and deputy general manager of laser programs, said the Katyusha's solid rocket motor provides 2-3 sec. of thrust enabling the vehicle to typically achieve an initial launch velocity of about a kilometer per second.
<br>
<br>PROGRAM OFFICIALS have aimed at concentrating the energy of the laser beam on the warhead of the rocket. ``The Katyushas are a 122-mm.-dia. rocket,'' Romesser said. ``Our objective is to focus our energy so that it impacts the rocket and we deposit all of our energy on the rocket.''
<br>
<br>The next step in the program is preparing for a multiple rocket shoot-down in about 6-8 weeks. Between now and then, the Army and TRW will analyze data from about 80 sensors that observed last week's test.
<br>
<br>Bradshaw said some configuration changes are possible, but that no obvious adjustments are required as a result of last week's test. Initially, the Army plans to launch multiple rockets on a similar trajectory, which should ease the ability to detect and engage the targets.
<br>
<br>Eventually, Thel was supposed to be deployed to Israel to protect the country's northern border against Hezbollah Katyusha attacks from southern Lebanon. But there is some discussion within the Pentagon about whether that move will take place. The Pentagon's director for research and development, Hans Mark, is interested in keeping the system in the U.S. for testing. In the meantime, Israel and the U.S. are working on an agreement to jointly develop a smaller, mobile, more tactically useful version of the laser-system.
<br>
<br>The successful intercept has been slow in coming. The Army and Israel signed an agreement in 1996 to develop the system as a quick response capability. However, along the way the development slowed several times because of technical difficulties.
<br>
<br>Bradshaw acknowledged that integrating the different Thel components at times took longer than first expected. However, he added, the development could have been even slower if TRW hadn't given its engineers at lower levels a lot of authority to explore problems and come up with fixes.
<br>
<br>Army officials also are eager to point out that the Thel success has broader implications for directed energy weapons. ``This compelling demonstration of Thel's defensive capability proves that directed energy weapon systems have the potential to play a significant role in defending U.S. national security interests worldwide.''
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Ten-ft.-long Katyusha ballistic rocket was destroyed at White Sands Missile Range when Thel high-energy laser beam detonated the high-explosive warhead.
<br>
<br>Subject: Lasers; Missiles; Research & development; R & D; National security
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Classification: 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9190: United States; 5400: Research & development; 9000: Short article
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 152
<br>
<br>Issue: 24
<br>
<br>Pages: 33
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: June 12, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x23</a>
Fulghum, David a : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_23');">STOVL Program Slows JSF</a></h1>
<h2>2000-06</h2>
<div id="sect_23" style="display: block;">
<blockquote><p>The propulsion system of Lockheed Martin's vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is suffering from a new problem, this time an overheating bearing where power from the engine is transferred to the lift fan.
<br>
<br>The current problem involves the clutch and gearbox that connects the driveshaft from the engine to the vertical lift fan, according to senior Lockheed Martin officials. The clutch/gearbox system allows the driveshaft to engage for takeoff and vertical flight and then disengage for conventional forward flight. Planners hope they can eventually harness power from the shaft to run other devices such as lasers and other directed energy weapons.
<br>
<br>But right now, due to a string of teething problems, program officials are having trouble conducting the necessary number of test engagements and disengagements to prove the system's ruggedness. While hundreds of clutch engagements were conducted in ground test, they've not been duplicated in large numbers in the test rig where the total system is involved.
<br>
<br>``We know the clutch can take the power and the force,'' said Frank Cappuccio, Lockheed Martin vice president and JSF program manager. ``What we're having problems with is getting enough total system engagements while the engine is driving the shaft to prove the system is robust.''
<br>
<br>THE FIRST ASTOVL DELAY came after the failure of a chipped gear halted testing for a month. Then the introduction of a different engine revealed a vibration in the low-power turbine, so the program was again delayed.
<br>
<br>``Right now, there is a bearing that for some reason is running hot,'' Cappuccio said. ``We're trying to understand it. We're ready for CTOL [conventional takeoff aircraft] testing, but with ASTOVL we're still fighting this bearing. The problem is I don't have enough test data for Pratt & Whitney to finish their software associated with the flight controls. And I don't have enough software to finish my STOVL control laws.'' Even with the delays, he predicted the ASTOVL aircraft would fly soon after the Christmas holidays.
<br>
<br>The ASTOVL propulsion system has accumulated about 200 hr. of hover testing. There also have been about 100 engagements of the vertical lift fan in the laboratory. But Lockheed Martin has only completed about 20 full-up engagements--out of a required 75-100--of the total system in the Pratt & Whitney test rig.
<br>
<br>``The software for ASTOVL is done,'' Cappuccio said. ``What I need to do is regression testing on [it]. Will the software work in all the crazy modes? Pratt & Whitney needs verification.''
<br>
<br>Lockheed Martin officials had anticipated a standing-wave-vibration problem where the drive shaft comes out of the engine, but the anomaly never materialized. Instead, difficulties cropped up at the opposite end of the drive shaft where a bearing in a beveled gear transfers power from the shaft to the lift fan. If this were a true X-plane program, testing would go ahead, he said. But since it's really the start of a production program, additional safety issues come into play.
<br>
<br>``The worst case scenario is that you have to do a limited hover test,'' Cappuccio said. ``This is the concept stage. You want to understand the phenomenology before you commit the big money,'' an estimated $16-18 billion for engineering and manufacturing development.
<br>
<br>Overall, Lockheed Martin officials remain optimistic about their lift-fan-powered ASTOVL system. Jet-powered ASTOVL designs have traditionally had problems because the ingestion of the hot air that surrounds the aircraft during landing reduces thrust. Lockheed Martin circumvented the problem by using a shaft-driven lift fan that provides 57% of the JSF's lift from cool air. Cool air is a relative term, however. Cool air is 200-250F compared with 350F from direct thrust engines. However, it is enough to make the ``environment of the deck significantly better'' for flight deck personnel on aircraft carriers and to cause less damage to tarmac surfaces, Cappuccio said. Boeing officials said their JSF ASTOVL direct thrust design is no hotter than exhaust from the AV-8 Harrier currently in use with the Marine Corps.
<br>
<br>A BIGGER PROBLEM FOR BOTH Lockheed Martin and competitor Boeing is a congressional move to cut JSF funding to compensate for anticipated delays and some Pentagon indecision on how to conduct the JSF acquisition.
<br>
<br>``I don't see Congress right now willing to abandon `winner take all','' Cappuccio said. ``We'd like to know [how to bid the EMD contract] before the end of the month.'' The Pentagon announced late last week that it would retain the winner-take-all acquisition strategy (see following story).
<br>
<br>The real threat would come from a congressionally mandated or budgetary delay because it would force the competing companies to begin laying off engineers from the design teams after they complete flying tests in March 2001. The alternative is for the company to absorb the cost, an estimated $10 million per month, for 500 engineers who would otherwise be transferred, put on new projects or laid off.
<br>
<br>``We anticipate the government not making a down select until June,'' Cappuccio said. ``Then we would not have authorization to proceed until October of next year--the beginning of fiscal year 2002.'' The presidential election in 2000 and inauguration of the new Administration in 2001 makes additional delay even more likely.
<br>
<br>``I have to disband the design team depending on how much money is available,'' he said. So far, projected funding is down by $460 million for the year. ``That's why the [JSF program] model is breaking down. Then I have to reconstitute my team later on. That's hard to do.''
</blockquote><br>
<p>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 152
<br>
<br>Issue: 26
<br>
<br>Pages: 44
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: June 26, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_23');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 23 -->
<a name="x24"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x24" class="tiny">x24</a>
Fulghum, David a : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">USAF Chief Signals Key Funding Priorities</a></h1>
<h2>2000-07</h2>
<div id="sect_24" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The US Air Force will ask for increased funding for additional intelligence-gathering resources, airlifters and satellites but not new bombers. Chief of Staff Gen. Mike Ryan said that high on the immediate list of priorities is to get Congress to restore funding for the Discoverer II satellite, a radar-carrying constellation of spacecraft that can track moving targets on the ground. Congress has zeroed funding for the system.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The U.S. Air Force will ask for increased funding for additional intelligence-gathering resources, airlifters and satellites but not new bombers.
<br>
<br>Chief of Staff Gen. Mike Ryan said that high on the immediate list of priorities is to get Congress to restore funding for the Discoverer II satellite, a radar-carrying constellation of spacecraft that can track moving targets on the ground. Congress has zeroed funding for the system.
<br>
<br>``The way to handle a crisis is to first know that it's going on and then to characterize it in a way to put the appropriate force forward,'' Ryan said. The Air Force already has the E-8 Joint-STARS aircraft to find moving targets, but they are few in number. But more pervasive, strategic coverage is critical to supplement the airborne force, he said.
<br>
<br>``Now we want to put that same capability in space,'' Ryan said. ``That's why we're going after Discoverer II. You could get intermittent strategic coverage that could alert long-dwell aircraft and UAVs to look at specific targets. We will argue strenuously that we need to move forward on Discoverer II. [Despite attempts to kill congressional funding,] the game isn't over yet,'' he said.
<br>
<br>While weaponization of space is still decades off, he said, ``there is some inevitability that it will occur if just to protect extensive communications and navigation systems already there.
<br>
<br>``I don't see that in the next 25 years that we'll break from Earth-centric space requirements,'' Ryan said. ``Focus will stay within the aerospace domain . . . that will help us do weather, reconnaissance, intelligence, navigation, etc. But I think there will be attacks--challenges to our space capability. We will have to protect our assets in space because we're becoming much more dependent on them. So I see defense as a primary emphasis.''
<br>
<br>Offensive weapons would be a separate category requiring a substantial change in policy or some breakthrough in technology before the U.S. would consider using space as a platform for offensive operations.
<br>
<br>``[However,] we need to be able to operate with offensive capabilities, one of which is space-based laser,'' Ryan said. ``We're working this very hard on the ABL [airborne laser], which has a lot of technology with direct transfer to space-based laser.''
<br>
<br>While Ryan is an advocate for Air Force space operations, there is some support for a plan to separate air and space operations because the service can't afford to pay for both. For example, the Air Force isn't the heaviest user of some space capabilities like GPS navigation and communications, yet it pays 90% of the cost. By splitting off space, the financial burden on the Air Force would be reduced. Nevertheless, Ryan shuns the idea.
<br>
<br>``We think it's critical to integrate what happens in space with what happens in the air and on the ground,'' he said. For example, during the Kosovo air campaign, B-2 missions required data from space from the start of planning through guidance of the bomb as it fell to its target to post-raid analysis. ``To say that we ought to pull apart the integration of those capabilities . . . and separate the vertical medium because it is a place and not a mission'' is a flawed concept, he said.
<br>
<br>Ryan also is worried about new, congressionally imposed spending priorities like national missile defense that would push aside current needs like buying additional airlifters.
<br>
<br>``We all agree that the missile defense is feasible . . . but the system ought to be above and beyond what we currently have [to spend]. We're [already] underfunded. Last year we needed $3.5 billion [extra] just to turn around readiness. I worried about the level of defense funding in general.
<br>
<br>Ryan said the Air Force is reconciling its new 10-air-expeditionary-force (AEF) concept with its shrinking airlift fleet. Service planners say an AEF can be deployed in 48 hr., and five AEFs can be fielded in 15 days. Once in the theater, an AEF could find and strike 200 targets per day across a battlefield about half the size of Texas. Five would increase the strike potential to 1,000 targets. ``We could do that today,'' Ryan said. But success would rely on having two bases available for each AEF, some of which would have to be prepared for operations and stockpiled munitions and spares in advance.
<br>
<br>However, not all the kinks have been worked out of the plan. Such rapid response would depend on adequate lift, which might also be claimed by other services. ``It would not take all the available airlift [to deploy the AEFs], but it would be a substantial part of it,'' he said.
<br>
<br>Planning for future airlift is still in flux. One long-awaited document is a newest version of a mobility requirement study (MRS-05) being conducted by U.S. Transportation Command.
<br>
<br>``MRS-05 will probably come out this summer or fall,'' Ryan said. ``I don't think it's going to call for less airlift. [The Air Force and Joint Chiefs of Staff] are considering how much higher we need to go. You can almost use the formula that every 100,000-ton-miles-per-day increase [that the Air Force is required to move] equals one C-17 equivalent. We will never have enough airlift to conduct two simultaneous major regional conflicts. We can't afford to go there. We have a one theater war force.''
<br>
<br>While Ryan is calling for new satellites and airlifters, he is asking that new bomber plans be put on hold until 2020-25. In particular, he rejects the premise of a recent study that caught the attention of Congress that says the Air Force needs a new bomber by 2015.
<br>
<br>AIR FORCE ANALYSTS can see the solutions to technology breakthroughs needed for the necessary quantum leap in capability that would justify a new bomber or ``future attack aircraft.''
<br>
<br>``The new technologies will have to do with the signature of the aircraft-infrared, radar and visual,'' Ryan said. ``We don't know if the aircraft is orbital or suborbital. It may not be manned. It could have [directed] energy weapons on it.''
<br>
<br>Instead of developing a new bomber, for the next 10-15 years, the Air Force needs to spend its money on improving the current force with new avionics, communications and command and control systems, he said. Also needed are more-accurate, long-range cruise missiles and improved accuracy, situational awareness and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. The B-2's replacement needs to fly during the day, operate autonomously and perhaps fly at hypersonic speeds.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, the Air Force is looking at ways to better use its small force of stealthy B-2s. Planners want to deploy the aircraft near any potential battlefield in order to generate more sorties than if they were operated from the U.S.
<br>
<br>``We're looking at places around the world where we can bed the aircraft down and making sure we have the infrastructure there--[such as] Guam, Fairford [Britain], Diego Garcia [Indian Ocean],'' Ryan said. ``We're buying enough--about 12 [climate-controlled B-2 hangars where the stealth coating can be repaired]--to give us an expeditionary capability as well as pre-positioning some of them.'' The portable B-2 hangar is in operational test and evaluation now and the first production version will be delivered next year.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: USAF budgeteers expect to pay for the F-22 themselves, but they want the other services to kick in on space systems such as GPS navigation and satellite communications.
<br>
<br>Subject: Defense spending; Federal funding; Intelligence gathering; Space surveillance; Satellites; Radar
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Company / organization: Name: Air Force-US; NAICS: 928110; SIC: 9700
<br>
<br>Classification: 1120: Economic policy & planning; 9550: Public sector; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9190: United States
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 1
<br>
<br>Pages: 56-58
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: July 3, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 24 -->
<a name="x25"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x25" class="tiny">x25</a>
Phillips, Edward H; Fulghum, David a : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_25');">JSF Studied As Potential Jamming, Laser Platform</a></h1>
<h2>2000-07</h2>
<div id="sect_25" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Lockheed Martin is studying special derivatives of its Joint Strike Fighter candidate for special mission applications that center on electronic attack and the use of directive-energy weapons. These initiatives are drawing serious interest from the U.S. Defense Department and the UK's Ministry of Defense, according to Lockheed Martin officials. A key tactical advantage of a joint strike fighter configured for electronic attack would be its ability to accompany a strike force, jamming enemy radars and communications.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Lockheed Martin is studying special derivatives of its Joint Strike Fighter candidate for special mission applications that center on electronic attack and the use of directed-energy weapons.
<br>
<br>These initiatives are drawing serious interest from the U.S. Defense Dept. and the U.K.'s Ministry of Defense, according to Lockheed Martin officials. If the company's JSF team wins the engineering and manufacturing development contract scheduled to be awarded in 2001, these programs would accelerate to meet JSF deployment tentatively set for 2008. Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems are also members of the team.
<br>
<br>A key tactical advantage of a JSF configured for electronic attack would be its ability to accompany a strike force, jamming enemy radars and communications as the flight sweeps through an area at high speed and at high or low altitudes, said Harold W. Blot. He is vice president and deputy program manager for Lockheed Martin's JSF initiative. The JSF's electronic warfare suite would be able to locate, identify, prioritize and jam a variety of ground-based electronic threats, according to Blot.
<br>
<br>David L. Jeffreys, acting manager of growth and derivatives for the company's JSF program, said the airplane is ``a natural fit'' for the electronic attack mission because of its long range, reduced radar signature, and the capability to produce a significant amount of electrical energy to power an array of specialized equipment. These include an airborne laser or packages designed to jam enemy radars and communications.
<br>
<br>The 181-cu.-ft. cavity used to house the lift fan for the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version could accommodate electronics, reconnaissance cameras or fuel. For example, an additional 3,800 lb. of fuel could be carried in the compartment that would increase the airplane's combat radius of 700 naut. mi. by another 190 naut. mi., Jeffreys said.
<br>
<br>THE INPUT SHAFT from the Pratt & Whitney engine used to propel the JSF and operate the lift fan could be modified to drive a generator producing megawatts of energy to power a directed-energy weapon, he said. Lockheed Martin has consulted with various manufacturers of lasers to determine if the 50-in.-dia. cavity and 35,000 shp. available from the engine would be adequate to operate a laser. The answer was ``yes, but only if the airplane flies at altitudes above 50,000 ft. and engaged air-to-air or air-to-space targets,'' the analysts said. Operating a laser at lower altitudes would significantly weaken the weapon's energy, requiring the aircraft to get too close to its target to achieve destruction. Such missions probably would be assigned to cruise missiles carrying high-powered microwave weapons, Blot said.
<br>
<br>Potential targets for an airborne laser include aircraft, cruise missiles, artillery rockets and possibly spacecraft. Disabling communications or surveillance satellites in low-Earth orbit, however, would require changes to existing international treaties. ``Installing a laser on a tactical airplane is very challenging, especially from a systems integration standpoint, but our studies indicate that it can be done,'' Jeffreys said. Although engineers still have many details to work out for a laser-equipped JSF, ``we have received substantial interest from the customer community'' for such an aircraft, he said.
<br>
<br>In addition, the U.S. Marine Corps is ``very interested in JSF as an electronic attack platform'' because STOVL versions for the Marines could replace the AV-8B Harrier II, EA-6B Prowler and F/A-18 Hornet with one airplane, said Don A. Beaufait, manager of Marine Corps JSF business development for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. The U.S. Air Force views a modified version of the conventional takeoff and landing version (CTOL) JSF as a way to regain jamming capability lost with retirement of the EF-111 Raven.
<br>
<br>The JSF's stealth characteristics, coupled with its Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar/antenna technologies and internal jamming packages, would make the airplane an effective electronic attack platform, according to Beaufait. Unlike the Prowler, it could penetrate much closer to the target, jamming it more effectively. The JSF's software would analyze the acquisition cycle of an antiaircraft radar and jam it occasionally to force the target-acquisition cycle to start again.
<br>
<br>Standoff was a factor in the loss of an F-117A near Belgrade during the Kosovo campaign when an EA-6B was forced to remain nearly 100 mi. away to avoid antiaircraft missiles. As a result, enemy radar was not jammed effectively. Although the JSF's AESA will have limited jamming capability against another aircraft's radar and communications systems, an additional antenna could be mounted in a conformal radome and emit powerful, narrow beams that would be difficult to detect, Jeffreys said. The JSF's ASEA comprises several hundred transmitter/receiver elements that can each be simultaneously assigned a different task such as communications, jamming or target search.
<br>
<br>The company also is studying a two-seat JSF version. Mission radius would be reduced by 75 mi. Although modifying the Air Force CTOL and Navy CV versions to accept a second cockpit would not be difficult, stretching the STOVL airplane would present more problems because of the lift fan bay. Although analysis by Lockheed Martin JSF team member BAE Systems indicates a two-seat STOVL aircraft is feasible, ``there are important considerations, including aerodynamics and weight and balance issues,'' Beaufait said.
<br>
<br>Weapons bays for Air Force and Navy aircraft feature 175 cu. ft. that could accept mission pallets such as electronics or reconnaissance packages. Lockheed Martin also is designing a conformal, centerline-mounted pod for the Marine Corps' JSF to house the Boeing Advanced 27-mm. Aircraft Cannon. The installation would increase drag slightly compared with the standard JSF.
<br>
<br>Another study centers on using optional, interchangeable weapons bay doors to allow the JSF to carry a wide array of bombs and other weapons. Larger doors would allow carriage of 2,000-lb.-class weapons and would be designed to operate at supersonic speeds, Jeffreys said. Engineers also are studying the use of smaller weapons such as 100-250-lb. bombs, and multimode, radar-killing missiles that are more effective than existing Harm weapons.
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Illustration: Graph: Two-Seat JSF Versions
<br>
<br>Straightforward Adaptation for Two-Seat CTOL and CV Versions
<br>
<br>-- Second Seat Occupies Part of Lift Fan Bay
<br>
<br>-- Additional Fuel/Avionics Volume Still Available
<br>
<br>Side-Looking EA Apertures Could Be Mounted Internally,
<br>
<br>Carried in Weapons Bay Packages or in Centerline Pod
<br>
<br>Subject: Military aircraft; Research & development; R & D; Electronic warfare; Radar systems
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Company / organization: Name: Lockheed Martin Corp; Ticker: LMT; NAICS: 334290, 212319, 336411, 336413, 336414
<br>
<br>Classification: 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9190: United States; 5400: Research & development
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 2
<br>
<br>Pages: 33-34
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: July 10, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_25');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 25 -->
<a name="x26"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x26" class="tiny">x26</a>
Fulghum, David a : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">Clutch Failure Disrupts LockMart JSF Lift Fan Tests</a></h1>
<h2>2000-07</h2>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The lift fan for the vertical-landing version of Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter has suffered another breakdown, but company officials say they were aware of a weakness in the system and had a redesigned part ready for replacement.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The lift fan for the vertical-landing version of Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter has suffered another breakdown, but company officials say they were aware of a weakness in the system and had a redesigned part ready for replacement.
<p>Despite industry rumors of pressures on Lockheed Martin to redesign the systems, program officials resumed testing on the lift fan design on July 18 with only about 1 hr. of formal testing lost to the incident. Other recent lift fan problems have involved a misalignment in the gearbox and an overheating bearing.
<br>
<br>The clutch system locking mechanism failed on July 12 after the system had completed 24 dynamic clutch engagements, said Harold W. Blot, vice president and deputy program manager for Lockheed Martin's JSF program. During the test, the Pratt & Whitney JSF119-611 engine, which drives the lift fan through a shaft and clutch assembly, was operating at speeds required for conversion of the aircraft from horizontal to vertical flight. The thrust needed for conversion is pegged at 82% of rated engine power. At the time of clutch failure, the engine was running at 87% power or 110% of what is needed for conversion.
<br>
<br>LOCKHEED MARTIN OFFICIALS said that a redesigned part has already been shipped to the West Palm Beach, Fla., facility. The lift fan is a product of Rolls-Royce, which provided both the failed and redesigned parts. Lockheed Martin's goal is 160-plus engagements before the government clears the system for the start of flight testing, scheduled for March 2001. The government will require about half that number of clutch engagements during the flight tests, Blot said.
<br>
<br>The lift fan is faulted by critics for being too complicated. But Lockheed Martin officials point to a number of benefits from the system. The lift fan allows the main engine to be tuned for conventional flight. It also circulates cooler air which increases lift, improves the heat environment for ground crews and doesn't damage runway and taxiway surfaces. Moreover, the shaft that transfers power from the main engine to the lift fan can be used to power other devices, such as electronic warfare equipment and directed energy weapons--primarily lasers--for air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks.
<br>
<br>During tests last August, researchers proved they could harness and transfer the horsepower, said Blot. But they also realized the positioning of the clutch pack was not adequate. Once in operation, it produced vibration, took too much time to engage and the engagements were sometimes uneven.
<br>
<br>AS A RESULT, THE COMPANY CHANGED the clutch software control mechanism design ``to a closed loop, where we physically position it, instead of just putting a force against it,'' Blot said. The installed feedback loop positions the clutch more accurately and with a predictable amount of force.
<br>
<br>In testing the new system, engineers determined that there was an arm on the outside of the clutch that was attached to a potentiometer that could bind when the clutch was engaged at its maximum extension, he said. At full extension, the arm would not be strong enough, so they had redesigned it. However, the redesigned piece was not in this test clutch unit. Everything worked, but after 24 clutch engagements, the part hit the critical circumstance, and it snapped, ending the test.
<br>
<br>``We knew what the problem was,'' Blot said. ``We already had the [replacement] part in hand. We were just trying to get the maximum amount of data, hoping it wouldn't happen to us.'' The test delays resulted because the broken item ``is a tiny little part, but it was right in the middle of things so we had to disassemble it, pull the clutch back, replace it, put it back together [and] check the alignment.''
</blockquote>
<p>Subject: Product design; Problems; Military aircraft
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Company / organization: Name: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co; NAICS: 334511
<br>
<br>Classification: 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 7500: Product planning & development; 9000: Short article; 9190: United States
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 4
<br>
<br>Pages: 66
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: July 24, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x27</a>
Fulghum, David a : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_27');">New Weapons, Tactics Explored for JSF</a></h1>
<h2>2000-08</h2>
<div id="sect_27" style="display: block;">
<blockquote><p>Taking advantage of weapons bay locations on its Joint Strike Fighter design, Boeing engineers have developed a new way to foil enemy antiaircraft.
<br>
<br>The JSF has two large, triangular weapons bays that open to the side rather than straight down, a design innovation that permits both tactical sleight-of-hand and growth room to carry larger weapons or specialized equipment for additional combat roles. (The Boeing X-32A demonstrator is scheduled to make its first flight on Aug. 15. It was delayed to fix software problems prior to high-speed taxi tests.)
<br>
<br>Opening a weapons bay on a stealthy aircraft has always posed a problem because its radar reflectivity blossoms during the seconds the doors are open, exposing the flat-sided interior and offering enemy antiaircraft gunners a target. Boeing's design finesses the problem by letting pilots offer one side of the aircraft, with stealth surfaces intact, to the enemy radar. Meanwhile, the pilot opens the bay doors on the opposite side to fire or drop a weapon that then crosses over the aircraft's path to strike a target or threat radar.
<br>
<br>Moreover, Boeing officials said their weapons bays offer growth potential for a wide range of oversized weapons. The likely candidates are improved, heavier bombs for penetrating underground or hardened bunkers, command-and-control sites and communications nodes. Destroying such targets will be critical in the first days of any air campaign when antiaircraft defenses may still be intact and stealth aircraft must maintain a small signature by carrying all weapons internally.
<br>
<br>ANOTHER CRITICAL need for the JSF, F-22 and F-117 stealth fighters is an anti-radar missile that is smaller and more sophisticated than the current High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (Harm). Aerospace industry and Air Force officials say Raytheon has such a weapon under development in a classified program. The Air Force also wants a longer-range air-to-air missile that matches the increased range (90-125 naut. mi.) of the new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar being installed on several types of fighter aircraft.
<br>
<br>Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin JSF designs will have AESA radar. These arrays have considerably more than 1,000 transmitter/receiver elements (about 2,000 on an F-22 radar), which also can be used to jam enemy radar.
<br>
<br>Jamming tactics being developed by the Pentagon use a buddy system in which one or two JSFs electronically disrupt enemy radar from above and behind an attacking pair of strike aircraft. Such tactics were developed because JSF's radar antenna array has only a limited field of view to the front. The jamming aircraft would have to be positioned to keep any threatening radar in sight for the duration of his partner's attack. Or two jamming aircraft could establish a racetrack orbit. The bombing and jamming aircraft would then reverse roles to continue the attack.
<br>
<br>At the other end of the weapons scale, Boeing officials said they are making provisions for carrying larger numbers of 250-lb. or smaller weapons that are being developed by the Air Force. Of primary focus are the small smart bomb (SSB) and small smart bomb extended-range (SSB-ER) programs, they said.
<br>
<br>The bays could be extended downward or to the side by adding new, bulged weapons-bay doors. This option is not possible in a weapons bay that opens downward because of the clearance needed for ordnance specialists operating loading equipment. Extension of the bay to the front of the Boeing design is unlikely unless the services want to sacrifice the cannon. Another option is to widen the aircraft's thickness slightly. Minor changes in the weapons bay are not expected to affect the aircraft's signature significantly.
<br>
<br>ENLARGED WEAPONS bays would also answer the challenge from Lockheed Martin's design, which has a large (51-in.-dia.) space for weapons and specialized equipment when the lift fan needed for vertical flight is removed. Boeing officials have suggested the space could be used for directed-energy weapons, such as combat lasers, or electronic warfare devices such as jammers, both of which would be powered by a shaft transferring power from the main engine.
<br>
<br>Boeing's design uses direct thrust and doesn't employ a lift fan. However, company officials say they have more than 100 cubic ft. of growth space distributed evenly around the aircraft and the weapons bays offer another, large area for electronic warfare or other specialized equipment. However, Boeing has not spent a great deal of effort studying derivatives yet, they said.
<br>
<br>Boeing officials here say the vertical landing X-32B JSF demonstrator is slated to fly before the end of the year. Boeing's short takeoff and vertical landing flight tests are to be completed by March, about the time Lockheed Martin expects to start flying its STOVL aircraft.
<br>
<br>To quash criticism that the direct lift design would be less efficient in top-end performance than a conventional aircraft, Boeing officials say test data show the penalty is less than 5%.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Boeing officials are examining ways to enlarge side-mounted weapons bays to carry more and larger weapons including bunker-buster, cruise and antiradar missiles.
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 6
<br>
<br>Pages: 44
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: August 7, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_27');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 27 -->
<a name="x28"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x28" class="tiny">x28</a>
Asker, James R : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">. . . And More Zappers</a></h1>
<h2>2000-08</h2>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: block;">
<blockquote><p>Russia might develop a new laser weapon too, intelligence officials warn in a national intelligence estimate on directed-energy weapons. ``It could be a very significant threat if this is a program they pursue,'' says Ken Knight, who watches global trends at the Defense Intelligence Agency. Russia still has a large directed-energy weapons program, but it is unclear whether Moscow has the funds or the interest to pursue the technology. Additional countries are believed to be actively pursuing laser weapons. China is seen as undertaking substantial directed-energy research and development efforts. Indeed, its activities are considered to be almost as advanced as Russia's.</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 9
<br>
<br>Pages: 25
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: August 28, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<a name="x29"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x29</a>
ROBERT WALL and DAVID A. FULGHUM : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_29');">New Munitions Mandate: More Focused Firepower</a></h1>
<h2>2000-09</h2>
<div id="sect_29" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>To maintain political support for the use of military force, US war planners are trying to ensure almost casualty-free wars. Doing so will demand tailored munitions for manned, stealthy, supersonic aircraft and unmanned aircraft and hypersonic weapons capable of attacking from great distances. The new generation of smart weapons must be small enough to carry inside stealth vehicles, withstand supersonic launch, quickly search out the correct targets, strike with precision, but with only the minimum required firepower. These weapons will be pitted against improving air defenses now on the international market and increasingly complex targets that may be hard to distinguish or separate from civilian facilities. The US Air Force Research Laboratory is pursuing a diverse approach to address the broadening target set war planners have projected. Among the recurring themes are smaller weapons, smarter, increasingly accurate seekers, and novel warheads.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>To maintain political support for the use of military force, U.S. war planners are trying to ensure almost casualty-free wars. But doing so will demand tailored munitions for manned, stealthy, supersonic aircraft and unmanned aircraft and hypersonic weapons capable of attacking from great distances.
<br>
<br>The new generation of smart weapons must be small enough to carry inside stealth vehicles, withstand supersonic launch, quickly search out the correct targets, strike with precision, but with only the minimum required firepower. These weapons will be pitted against improving air defenses now on the international market and increasingly complex targets that may be hard to distinguish or separate from civilian facilities.
<br>
<br>Political leaders are placing increasing constraints on military planners, who in turn are asking weapons experts to design the tools to carry out their missions in the politically charged environment. ``We are going to live with these small-scale conflicts for a number of years and need armaments that can effectively deal [with them],'' says Les McFawn, director of plans for the Air Armaments Center.
<br>
<br>The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory is pursuing a diverse approach to address the broadening target set war planners have projected. But among the recurring themes are smaller weapons; smarter, increasingly accurate seekers, and novel warheads.
<br>
<br>THE SEARCH FOR SMALLER packaging has led to technology used by the Soviets for decades on supersonic air-to-air and ballistic missiles. Lattice fins are attracting particular interest because they embrace many of the munition concepts the Air Force wants to field. A lattice fin looks something like a waffle except that the holes go completely through the surface, leaving only a grid. Each part of the grid acts as a lifting surface, thus producing the same amount of control over flight as a conventional fin that is many times larger. The smaller fins require less electrical power and smaller actuators, enabling smaller, lighter and cheaper weapons.
<br>
<br>Besides wanting to pack more arms into its stealthy manned and unmanned aircraft, USAF officials are turning to small weapons to minimize the area affected by a strike and reduce the chance of unintended damage. Munitions as small as 90 lb. are being studied that would produce far less collateral damage than the more traditional 500-, 1,000- and 2,000-lb. bombs.
<br>
<br>Another approach drawing interest is to use penetrator warheads for soft targets. Their effect is more contained than one using a blast-fragmentation warhead, noted Frank Robbins, program director for precision strike weapons. Other technologies the Air Force is exploring are directional warheads that would focus their effect at a specific area, or adjustable warheads, on which a pilot or mission planner could ``tune'' the explosive effect of a weapon to match the target.
<br>
<br>But there are limits to how far explosive power can be constrained, notes Bruce Simpson, deputy director of the armaments products. ``We don't have perfect intelligence [about the target], so at some point you have to generate overpressure'' to destroy it, he added. Another problem researchers hope technology can solve is gathering effective bomb damage assessment. Intelligence analysts and mission planners in almost every conflict are frustrated by an inability to tell whether or not an air raid successfully destroyed a target. ``That's a major concern for Air Combat Command,'' McFawn says.
<br>
<br>USAF officials are considering a number of strategies. One idea is to equip some low-flying Locaas antiarmor weapons with cameras instead of warheads. The weapon would gather imagery as other Locaas attack their targets. Another idea is a munition that trails a battle damage assessment sensor, which could image a strike and relay the data to a command post in the seconds before impact.
<br>
<br>BUT DEVELOPING A SYSTEM to provide such information highlights another issue for researchers--finding a low-cost solution to every problem. For example, attaching a terminal guidance sensor to the $18,000 Joint Direct Attack Munition would substantially increase the munition's cost and, therefore, isn't attractive, says Michael Hatcher, USAF JDAM program manager. The result is usually a compromise.
<br>
<br>For example, USAF officials are considering such a subsystem for the $300,000 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, because adding the sensor would be cheaper than firing a second missile. The operational concept is expected to involve transmitting data about the health and location of the missile just before impact, either via a line-of-sight datalink to an RC-135 Rivet Joint or a U-2 flying overhead, said program manager Terry Little. Another approach would be to transmit the information through satellite communications.
<br>
<br>Directed-energy weapons are another area researchers continue to explore with ambitions to build laser and high-power microwave (HPM) weapons. But progress has been slow, and developers struggle with making the technology fit into tactically applicable weapons. With HPM, ``generating enough power in a weapon is extremely hard to do,'' says Simpson. Fielding the weapon ``is still a long way off,'' he added. However, other researchers believe such weapons could be ready for delivery in several years (AW&ST July 5, 1999, p. 53).
<br>
<br>The problem for laser weapons is finding enough room and power in relatively small tactical aircraft, said USAF Col. Rosanne Bailey, director of the Armament Product Group. The solution for tactical aircraft is expected to be solid-state lasers and not the chemical laser used on the much larger, Boeing 747-based YAL-1A Airborne Laser. But the development of these smaller lasers isn't far advanced yet, officials noted.
<br>
<br>Because of budget squeezing throughout the munition programs, Air Force officials also are striving to find multiple applications for each weapon. Locaas, for example, may be used for missions other than hunting ballistic missile launchers, armor and mobile air defense systems. The relatively small and clandestine loitering munition could also dispense ground sensors for long-term surveillance in critical rear areas. Using skeet submunitions to attack several vehicles with each missile is another option, said program manager James M. Moore.
<br>
<br>Far-term Air Force plans call for developing an Advanced Expeditionary Force weapon that could be employed in a variety of missions with a warhead whose effects could be selected in flight. The goal would be to reduce the logistics burden for the expeditionary units without losing the effectiveness of specialized weapons.
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Illustration: Graph: The Pentagon wants to increase the firepower of stealth aircraft, unmanned vehicles and hypersonic missiles. This scheme has a tactical munitions dispenser releasing a spread of four small cruise missiles to search the battlefield.
<br>
<br>Subject: Military weapons; Defense industry; Military policy; Product development
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Classification: 9190: United States; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 1210: Politics & political behavior; 7500: Product planning & development
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 13
<br>
<br>Pages: 78-79
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: September 25, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_29');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 29 -->
<a name="x30"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x30" class="tiny">x30</a>
DAVID A. FULGHUM and ROBERT WALL : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">UAV Weapons Focus of Debate</a></h1>
<h2>2000-09</h2>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Both US and British war planners see unmanned aircraft as an attractive option to carry both conventional and directed energy weapons. This new role for unmanned aircraft is being advocated by an increasing number of senior US Air Force officials who believe UAVs should be used from the outset to carry futuristic payloads such as directed energy and microwave weapons.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Both U.S. and British war planners see unmanned aircraft as an attractive option to carry both conventional and directed energy weapons beginning some time during the next two decades.
<br>
<br>In the early 1990s, the U.S. Air Force was experimenting with microwave weapons mounted on modified air-launched cruise missiles. The effort continues using newer technology and airframes. Since 1998, Britain has been working on integrating a high-powered microwave weapon into a medium-range unmanned aircraft. The combination is seen as an information warfare weapon for scrambling the memories of battlefield computers.
<br>
<br>This new role for unmanned aircraft is being advocated by an increasing number of senior U.S. Air Force officials who believe UAVs should be used from the outset to carry futuristic payloads such as directed energy and microwave weapons.
<br>
<br>Others want a more graduated process that refines the use of unmanned aircraft in the reconnaissance role and later incorporates small, conventional weapons. Only much later would unmanned vehicles work into the more exotic combat roles.
<br>
<br>``One camp says these are intelligence-gathering and reconnaissance platforms, so why try to weaponize them?'' an Air Force munitions specialist said. ``The other side says let's experiment.'' Either way, senior Pentagon leaders are interested in a substantial shift to unmanned air and ground combat vehicles by 2010-20, he said.
<br>
<br>But the experiments with weapons continue. By November the U.S. is going to fire the 100-lb. Hellfire missile from a Predator UAV. Since both items are already in the U.S. inventory, that means the Pentagon will have an on-the-shelf combat capability. A specialized unmanned combat aircraft (Boeing's UCAV) will be rolled out soon and will first fly early in 2001.
<br>
<br>Gen. John Jumper, the chief of Air Combat Command, has pushed the concept by choosing the Army's helicopter-launched Hellfire missile to make the initial demonstration, because of the matchup between the Predator UAV's laser designator and the missile's laser guidance. The Air Force was handicapped because it currently doesn't have any air-to-ground weapons in the under-500-lb. range.
<br>
<br>``The Army has a 100-lb. weapon, so that's why it was chosen,'' an Air Force official said. ``Jumper said, `Let's go demonstrate that as a near-term capability.' They have to beef up the hard point on each wing, and you have to sacrifice fuel.'' But even with two Hellfires, the Predator could stay aloft for 12 hr. or more.
<br>
<br>The project began with the desire to match miniature munitions with unmanned aircraft. The Air Force is already developing the small smart bomb (SSB) in sizes down to 100 lb., but they won't be in production for a few years. Neither will the UCAV be operational for years, so the services are looking at interim, temporary solutions, and they are trying to answer some of the problems that might crop up.
<br>
<br>Can UAVs drop only one weapon and still fly and land with an asymmetrical load? When Hellfire pulls itself off the UAV's wing, will the forces involved make the Predator unstable? Or will the exhaust burn the control surfaces or will the debris damage the aircraft? In fact, to avoid such problems in the long term, the Air Force is looking at gravity-launched weapons like SSB. Moreover, UCAVs will be stealthy like modern fighters and will therefore need small weapons that can be carried internally.
<br>
<br>Among the small weapons being eyed for UCAV use are the 500-lb. JDAM, 250-lb. SSB, four-packs of smaller SSBs, miniature air-launched decoys (used for air defense suppression and cruise missile defense), a compressed carriage advanced antiradiation missile for killing antiaircraft radars and two packs of the Locaas antiarmor weapon. The latter is like a small cruise missile that can roam the battlefield looking for specific types of targets. Air Force officials also are looking at a 250-lb. laser-guided training round that could be fitted with a small warhead.
<br>
<br>With an off-board intelligence, precise targeting, a precision weapon and a payload of 6-12 small weapons, Air Force planners believe the UCAV will prove itself an operationally effective weapon capable of dealing with mobile, pop-up threats, the Air Force official said.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: USAF plans to demonstrate arming unmanned aircraft using a Predator UAV and two Hellfire missiles (illustrated here).
<br>
<br>Subject: Military weapons; Military aircraft; Military policy; Technological change
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US, United Kingdom, UK
<br>
<br>Classification: 9175: Western Europe; 9190: United States; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 1210: Politics & political behavior; 9000: Short article
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 13
<br>
<br>Pages: 29-30
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: September 25, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 30 -->
<a name="x31"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x31" class="tiny">x31</a>
Fulghum, David a : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_31');">JSF Competitors Planning Weapons Payload Expansion</a></h1>
<h2>2000-09</h2>
<div id="sect_31" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Boeing and Lockheed Martin, opponents in the Joint Strike Fighter competition but likely collaborators once a prime contractor is selected, are mapping out their strategies for expanding the weapons payload of the next-generation stealth strike aircraft. Dennis Muilenburg, director of Boeing's weapons systems, said they are refining their overall growth plan for JSF, and are making sure they can integrate advanced and future weapons. They would like to avoid designing a weapons bay or other system that only meets the near-term requirements. The task facing JSF researchers is formidable. They must keep aircraft survivable - which means maintaining radar, infrared and visual stealth even as the world's surface-to-air antiaircraft weapons are improving - and they must increase the number of targets an aircraft can attack during a single sortie.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Boeing and Lockheed Martin, opponents in the Joint Strike Fighter competition but likely collaborators once a prime contractor is selected, are mapping out their strategies for expanding the weapons payload of the next- generation stealth strike aircraft.
<br>
<br>``We want a lot of downstream growth capability,'' said Dennis Muilenburg, director of Boeing's weapon systems. ``We're refining our overall growth plan for JSF, and we're making sure we can integrate advanced and future weapons. We'd like to avoid designing a weapons bay or other system that only meets the near-term requirements.
<br>
<br>``This is a hot topic for us right now,'' he said. ``We have to keep the total ownership cost down and at the same time maintain an open architecture for easy, affordable upgrades.''
<br>
<br>The task facing JSF researchers is formidable. They must keep aircraft survivable--which means maintaining radar, infrared and visual stealth even as the world's surface-to-air antiaircraft weapons are improving--and they must increase the number of targets an aircraft can attack during a single sortie. Such demands will force contractors to make a number of near-term decisions.
<br>
<br>Aircraft signature can be maintained if all weapons are carried internally. But this restriction will limit payloads if bays aren't expanded. Weapons that attach to the outside of the aircraft with flat, vertical pylons are the major sources of radar reflections on the current generation of strike aircraft.
<br>
<br>If carried externally, weapons must be long-range enough to be launched outside air defense weapons' lethal zone--a radius that is expected to grow to around 250 mi. when the Russian-built S-400 surface-to-air missile family goes into service.
<br>
<br>Or U.S. contractors will have to make another attempt at developing conformal weapons that attach to an aircraft's exterior but are designed to blend into the skin and offer far less radar reflectivity than a standard weapon mounted to an exterior pylon.
<br>
<br>Boeing executives say they are going to use all three approaches to increase the offensive punch of the JSF which so far has a baseline internal weapons load of the 1,000-lb. and 2,000-lb. Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and the AIM-120 medium-range air-to-air missile (Amraam).
<br>
<br>``There is heavy interest right now in the miniature munitions arena,'' Muilenburg said. ``That covers a wide variety of size ranges. We're working with our advanced weapons teams on packaging those weapons as well as working on carriage concepts'' for ease of integration in an internal weapons bay.
<br>
<br>``THE UNDERLYING DESIRE, from a concept of operations standpoint, is that by carrying more of these highly accurate miniature munitions internally, we can increase the number of targets we can go after on each sortie,'' Muilenburg said. ``By increasing the number of kills per sortie, it improves our ability to prosecute the war by effectively increasing sortie generation rate. It also enhances overall survivability because it reduces the amount of exposure in the threat area by accomplishing more with each mission,'' he said.
<br>
<br>Near-term initiatives involve:
<br>
<br>-- Building 500-lb., 250-lb. and 100-lb. JDAM-type, GPS-guided bombs as part of the U.S. Air Force's small smart bomb (SSB) programs.
<br>
<br>-- Improving weapon accuracy so that targets don't have to be hit repeatedly. Also, smaller warheads require more accuracy to be as effective as larger weapons.
<br>
<br>-- Repackaging some larger weapons like the radar-killing Harm missile to make them fit into the JSF and improving launcher concepts.
<br>
<br>Two Boeing-USAF projects are looking at launcher designs that integrate into today's aircraft yet can be adjusted to carry new weapons as they appear, thus eliminating the need to continuously modify the aircraft. The new launchers (called small munition dispensers) carry four- and eight-packs of miniature weapons that could fit into the bays of JSF and other stealth aircraft, Muilenburg said.
<br>
<br>Another Boeing effort would fit two 500-lb. bombs with compressed-carriage designs (in this case new grid or lattice-type fins which shorten the length) in tandem into the space taken up by a single 2,000-lb. JDAM.
<br>
<br>In order to ensure JSF survivability, Pentagon tacticians and planners have built in a requirement that the aircraft be able to launch weapons during supersonic flight. The lattice-type fins have been identified as offering more compact storage, better response to the shock of deployment during high-speed launches and comparable control once the weapon is in flight.
<br>
<br>``It's a very clean packaging concept,'' Muilenburg said. The supersonic launch option is ``primarily a survivability benefit by minimizing the pilot's time over the threat area.''
<br>
<br>A future step is to adapt the lattice fin to submunitions that would be launched from hypersonic weapons. Hypersonic weapons can travel long distances quickly, but many submunitions must be slowed quickly near the end of the flight to give them time to fan out and locate small, mobile targets. An alternative is to develop weapons with thrust vectoring that entirely avoids the need for fins and allows for even greater reductions in weapons size and drag.
<br>
<br>There's some synergy there for the future which includes transferring the technology to high-speed missiles and unmanned combat aircraft.
<br>
<br>Other types of weapons under development for the JSF include directed energy weapons like lasers, high-power microwave or magnetic pulse generators that can scramble the electronics of computers.
<br>
<br>``We fully expect to have directed energy growth capability designed into JSF,'' Muilenburg said. ``We're actively working in that arena.''
<br>
<br>Also under development are advanced versions of carbon-fiber/wire weapons. Carbon wires were dropped from Tomahawk missiles on electrical grids in Iraq and from tactical munitions dispensers (TMDs) launched from dive-bombing F-117s in Yugoslavia to shut off power during critical periods of the air offensives. Another version of the weapon uses a finely powdered version of the carbon fibers that dispenses into a cloud. But the residue has proven so hard to clean up that the material hasn't been used operationally.
<br>
<br>Air Force officials say that since the Kosovo air campaign, carbon wire/fiber warheads have been installed on a GPS-guided version of the TMD called the Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) and will be a warhead option on the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (Jassm). The WCMD can be launched from 30,000-40,000 ft. above the effective range of antiaircraft artillery and infrared surface-to-air missiles. JSF is already designed to carry the WCMD internally, which would eliminate the need for riskier low-level, dive bombing tactics. Jassm can be fired from outside the lethal zone of even the longest range, modern antiaircraft weapons.
<br>
<br>``Jassm is an interesting weapon and it is on the list of JSF weapons to be integrated on the airplane,'' Muilenburg said. ``It is called out as an external carriage weapon.''
<br>
<br>However, making smaller weapons isn't the only initiative to increase the JSF's payload. Both Lockheed Martin and Boeing have plans to add weaponry. Lockheed Martin officials have pointed to the 51-in.-dia. space that runs through their design that is vacant when the lift-fan is not needed for short-takeoff and vertical-landing (STOVL) operations. Program officials have suggested the space and power available from the driveshaft could be used for a combat laser weapon or electronic jamming equipment.
<br>
<br>``Redesigning the weapons bays is not a smart move,'' said Harold Blot, Lockheed Martin vice president and JSF deputy program manager, although they intend to find more efficient ways to use the existing volume. The more attractive possibility is to use the lift-fan space for other tasks. Company officials envision mounting the lift-fan on slides so that it can be easily removed and replaced with electronic jamming payloads or a futuristic laser weapon. The space offers access to both the top and the bottom of the aircraft which could allow the weapon to be used in air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-satellite combat. Blot said Lockheed Martin is in conversation with several companies about the power and dimensions of laser suitable for the aircraft.
<br>
<br>Boeing researchers say they purposely designed the weapons bays to keep them away from engine inlets and other critical components in the aircraft. The result is the ability to expand these spaces by perhaps 6 in. or more in length at either end and a similar amount in width. The latter involves changing the aircraft's mold line slightly, probably with bulged weapons bay doors.
<br>
<br>The result could be a 20-30% expansion in the Boeing JSF's weapons bay volume, Muilenburg said. The weapons bays were side mounted precisely to keep them modular, away from other critical components and thus receptive to change.
<br>
<br>The aircraft's exterior also is considered a flexible medium. This could involve the attachment of conformal weapons mounted on wings or fuselage. Or weapons could be mounted on the inside of weapons bay doors. Perhaps most interesting is the conformal mold-line technology that offers a flexible exterior surface on the JSF. That would permit the forming of conformal bulges (probably through the installation of modified panels) in the aircraft's skin at critical points. Weapons bay doors are the easiest application of that technology.
<br>
<br>IN ORDER TO ENSURE that JSF's stealthiness is maintained, engineers will continue to work on reducing the aircraft's signature in the RF (radar), infrared (heat) and visual frequencies, Pentagon officials said. In separate programs, the Pentagon is known to be developing aircraft coatings that can diffuse hot spots on an aircraft's skin or change its hue and brightness.
<br>
<br>Despite the emphasis on internal carriage of weapons, Boeing is also looking at how best to carry external weapons.
<br>
<br>Hard points on the JSF's wings can carry conventional weapons, but advanced weaponry may offer conformal designs and families of reduced signature devices. ``There are a lot of options with external carriage,'' Muilenburg said. ``And some of the concepts being worked on to look at reduced signature concepts open up even more operational flexibility.''
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: JSF weapons bays are designed for one 2,000-lb. bomb and an Amraam air-to-air missile, but there are plans to greatly increase firepower.
<br>Illustration
<br>
<br>Illustration: Graph: Boeing Tandem Compressed Mk-82 JDAM For JSF Internal Bay
<br>
<br>Boeing can put two 500-lb. weapons in the space designed for a 2,000-lb. bomb.
<br>
<br>Subject: Military weapons; Defense industry; Military aircraft; Product development; Competition
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Company / organization: Name: Lockheed Martin Corp; Ticker: LMT; NAICS: 334290, 212319, 336411, 336413, 336414; Name: Boeing Aerospace Co; NAICS: 336414
<br>
<br>Classification: 9190: United States; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 7500: Product planning & development
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 13
<br>
<br>Pages: 82-83
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: September 25, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_31');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 31 -->
<a name="x32"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x32" class="tiny">x32</a>
Scott, William B : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">Experimental Center Nails Time-Critical Targets</a></h1>
<h2>2000-10</h2>
<div id="sect_32" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>A recent joint-service experiment demonstrated that the US Air Force can now consistently detect, geolocate and strike time-critical targets in the air or on the ground in a matter of minutes. Preliminary data from a key initiative of the latest Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment (JEFX 2000) that ended Sept. 14 proved that an efficient process and new technology can translate to target kills. In essence, sharing existing sensors, feeding their information through a time-critical targeting (TCT) cell within the Air Operations Center (AOC), and matching on-call weapon systems to specific objectives greatly reduced the time needed to eliminate pop-up targets.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>A recent joint-service experiment demonstrated that the U.S. Air Force can now consistently detect, geolocate and strike time-critical targets in the air or on the ground in a matter of minutes.
<br>
<br>Preliminary data from a key initiative of the latest Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment (JEFX 2000) that ended Sept. 14 proved that an efficient process and new technology can translate to target ``kills.'' In essence, sharing existing sensors, feeding their information through a time-critical targeting (TCT) cell within the Air Operations Center (AOC), and matching on-call weapon systems to specific objectives greatly reduced the time needed to eliminate ``pop-up'' targets.
<br>
<br>``This [TCT] system proved very lethal to the `red' forces,'' said Col. Joe Reyne, 53rd Test Group commander, summarizing results of the JEFX ``live-fly'' period on the Nellis range complex. ``We had a 32-to-0 kill ratio (air-to-air) on the first day. On the second, by being more aggressive with our strikers, we had a 28-to-3 split, and two of the losses were air-to-ground strikers. [On the last day], we had another 32-to-0 air-to-air score. That's what you get when you have a good
<br>
<br>system for finding and attacking fleeting targets.''
<br>
<br>Although weeks of poring over assessors' data are still necessary before conclusions can be drawn, it appears the same level of success was achieved in the air-to-ground category. In short, the problem of finding and destroying ``shoot-and-scoot'' mobile missiles--which frustrated the U.S. and its coalition partners during the 1991 gulf war--appears to be solved. The question now is whether adequate funding will be made available to field a system similar to the prototype TCT center demonstrated here.
<br>
<br>AS IT STANDS NOW, the Air Force plans to invest $10 million of Fiscal 2001 money in top-priority concepts identified during the last three JEFX events. Under the Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Program, these funds--plus another $25 million in Fiscal 2002--are dedicated to underwriting emerging high-leverage concepts and technologies in order to get them into the field quickly, according to Col. Steven Pennington, chief of wargaming and experimentation at Air Force headquarters.
<br>
<br>Time-critical targeting was only one of 45 process and technology initiatives explored during JEFX 2000, an annual joint-service, USAF-led experiment combining live forces, models and simulations, and new technologies. It was established as a vehicle for exploring new operational concepts and nascent technology that could enhance warfighting capabilities. This year, 35 different computer models and simulations were involved at 11 sites across the U.S. The approximately three-week event concluded with 78 aircraft flying simulated combat missions over the Nellis ranges.
<br>
<br>Key nodes for the experiment were the Combined Air Operations Center at Hurlburt Field, Fla., simulating an AOC deployed to an overseas location. A forward-based extension of the CAOC here at Nellis AFB, was the focus for prosecuting time-critical targets. An Operations Support Center at Langley AFB, Va., served as the primary reach-back node, providing support functions for deployed elements. These and several other entities focused on a simulated combat situation in which one nation invaded a neighbor, requiring the deployment of U.S. forces to the region.
<br>
<br>Senior officers said JEFX ``hit its stride'' this year, with significant progress being made in several areas. That may have been stimulated by the interest and involvement of top USAF leadership. For example, Gen. Michael Ryan, USAF chief of staff, and several members of the Senate Appropriations Committee visited the AOC at Hurlburt Field for a firsthand look at JEFX initiatives. During the Sept. 8 visit, Ryan underscored the growing importance of command and control functions in today's expeditionary force organization by declaring AOCs as ``official weapons systems.'' That means AOCs will have the same clout as the B-2 or F-22 weapons systems when it comes to allocating resources to acquisition, training and support.
<br>
<br>The profile of JEFX 2000 was further elevated by Gen. John P. Jumper, Air Combat Command chief, serving as the combined forces air component commander during the experiment. Based on his experience as USAF's European commander in Kosovo last year, Jumper declared command and control as ``number-one on that list'' of priority items to be explored, and dealing with time-critical situations was a key element of C2. Dealing with TCTs is a ``hot issue in the Pentagon and Congress these days,'' an officer said.
<br>
<br>``Quite simply, what we're trying to do is get that horizontal integration of our shooters, our intelligence, our reconnaissance and our surveillance assets to decrease the timeline from target discovery to target destruction,'' Jumper said. ``The way we do this is . . . marry our processes with the technology.''
<br>
<br>The secret to consistently finding and destroying time-critical targets--such as mobile ground-to-ground missiles, enemy fighters and weapons of mass destruction--was a smart combination of timely sensor information, new processes and advanced information technology. This year's JEFX built on multiple efforts underway for up to a decade, but the unifying piece was a concept of operations or ``conops'' co-written by Maj. Gen. John A. Corder (USAF, Ret.) and others. Corder was the officer in charge of executing air operations in the gulf war and served as a JEFX ``mentor'' this year.
<br>
<br>``WE'VE BEEN WORKING on time-critical targeting for [almost a decade], but we hit a plateau,'' Corder said. ``The hard part is getting at targets that aren't on the air tasking order, that pop-up. We need to get down to hitting them in single-digit minutes . . . and that [requires] a near-real-time, staring and dwelling, constantly refreshed picture of the ground.''
<br>
<br>The conops developed by Corder, Hugh Smith and other ex-officers called for sharing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets, such as AWACS, Joint-STARS, Predator and Global Hawk unmanned air vehicles, U-2 aircraft and spy satellites. These sensor platforms already probe the ``battlespace,'' but the data produced aren't used efficiently, they noted. Through centralized management and control of these assets, both command and TCT objectives could be accomplished with the same resources.
<br>
<br>``This process gets us out of the TCT idea and into `dynamic battle control.' But the whole operation depends on sensor control,'' Corder said. ``If you don't give me the sensors, I can't build the [comprehensive ground] picture, and we can't do TCT.'' Using ISR sensors in this manner ``attacks many sacred cows,'' Corder admitted, because commanders want dedicated control of those assets.
<br>
<br>During JEFX 2000, though, a broad family of sensors was shared with the TCT cell here, and their data ``mined'' to detect, locate and prosecute fleeting targets. The TCT cell comprised dozens of fighter and bomber pilots, ISR sensor experts, weapons directors and information specialists housed in a single room within the JEFX forward-AOC ``compound'' at Nellis. The room was arranged in a horseshoe shape, with double rows of workstations on each ``wing'' flanking a team that included the TCT director. All players could view three wall-size screens that displayed a variety of information, such as an image from a Predator UAV, a map showing the locations of friendly and enemy forces, and a listing of detected ``objects.'' After going through a structured evaluation process, some of these would be designated time-critical targets, complete with track information and a data block. Both airborne and ground targets could be included on the priority list.
<br>
<br>``THIS [ROOM] IS LIKE an airplane cockpit,'' said Col. Marc H. Lindsley, the TCT director for JEFX. ``Everybody's on headsets, using common intercom channels. Having flown F-111s, I would equate the workload in this center to [that of] a target run. You're listening to several [communication] networks, and it sounds just like you're on an AWACS or Joint-STARS or an RJ [Rivet Joint]. This TCT center is truly becoming a weapon system.''
<br>
<br>TCT ``Hunters'' are positioned on the left side of the cell, collecting ISR information and looking for possible pop-up enemy targets. In the middle are what one officer called the ``Deciders'' who determine whether an object should be declared a time-critical target and what its priority should be. On the right are ``Killers'' who match available weapons systems--which ranged from Army AH-64 Apache helicopters and surface-to-surface missiles to Navy land-attack Tomahawk cruise missiles and Air Force fighters and bombers.
<br>
<br>Although TCT participants here wouldn't discuss them, a number of classified and developmental weapons also were considered available. These probably included simulations of high-power microwave systems, space-based and airborne directed-energy weapons, and various information warfare tools capable of rendering a target ineffective.
<br>
<br>Several experimental sensors also were employed for JEFX evaluation. The USAF Space Warfare Center had a team on-site using hyperspectral imaging systems to locate hidden and camouflaged targets. A simulated space-based radar consisted of a radar with moving-target-indicator capability mounted in a T-39 Sabreliner that searched the ranges for potential targets. All these data were fed to the TCT's ``Hunters,'' helping them identify potential targets.
<br>
<br>Once a target was listed and a weapons system matched to it, key information--including imagery--was relayed to the attackers, either by data link or as a voice message. The value of broadband data links quickly became evident. Aircrews in F-15C and F-15E fighters equipped with Fighter Data Links or JTIDS systems were particularly effective in killing both air and ground targets, simply because they received critical information quickly.
<br>
<br>``The big story of the week was data links. That old adage of a picture is worth a thousand words becomes real when you're traveling 1,000 ft./sec. at 25,000 ft.,'' Reyne said. ``One picture can define the whole air-to-air war, and it worked the same way for air-to-ground.''
<br>
<br>Data link-equipped fighters assigned to TCT duty received information about ``red-air'' fighters (U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18s) 120-200 miles away, thanks to AWACS information relayed through the TCT. F/A-18s could be monitored while they air-refueled, then formed attack cells.
<br>
<br>``WE JUST WATCHED them and didn't have to radiate [with our radars], because the data links kept everybody in the loop,'' Reyne said. ``That worked wonders. Several times our F-15Es had information about Scud launchers passed to them via data link tracks, and they were on top of the [launchers] inside of 15 min. We know we have the capability now to detect, locate and destroy [mobile missiles] in real-time. We proved it several times--and it was very impressive.''
<br>
<br>The experimental TCT center also handled a simulated combat search and rescue (CSAR) scenario as a time-critical task. As soon as the shot-down pilot's ``Mayday'' call was received, the center focused its sensors on the proper area and started preparing for a rescue, using the same process it would in going after an enemy target. Decisions were made, properly equipped and armed aircraft were selected and the mission launched within minutes. A force of F-16s, A-10s and an HH-60 helicopter, all fitted with Situational Awareness Datalinks, was directed to the survivor's location.
<br>
<br>THE FIGHTERS suppressed enemy aircraft and ground patrols while the helicopter popped over a ridge, then dropped into a hover at the designated location. ``The survivor stood up about 8 meters away, at the HH-60's one-o'clock. No smoke, no mirrors. Just radios and the ability to data link all the right information got us within meters of that guy,'' Reyne said. ``From the time he called `Mayday!' until he was picked up was 55 min.''
<br>
<br>The TCT demonstrated through JEFX 2000 is not perfect, but for once the ``process'' seems to be ready before the technology to support it is.
<br>
<br>``The concept and the process are ready for fielding. The systems are another issue. There are definitely some systems here that are mature, and some that are not,'' Lindsley said after the experiment ended. ``Some systems will just go away because they don't work. How we did it here is probably not exactly the way the Air Force will decide to do time-critical targeting--but we've made some real progress.''
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Equipped with Fighter Data Link pods, F-15Es ``killed'' many airborne and ground-based time-critical targets identified by a TCT center at Nellis AFB, Nev., during JEFX 2000.
<br>
<br>JIM HASELTINE
<br>Illustration
<br>
<br>Illustration: Graph: TIME CRITICAL TARGETING
<br>
<br>Subject: Defense industry; Military weapons; Radar systems; Sensors
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Classification: 9190: United States; 9550: Public sector; 8650: Electrical & electronics industries
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 14
<br>
<br>Pages: 70-72
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: October 2, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 32 -->
<a name="x33"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x33" class="tiny">x33</a>
Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_33');">Directed-Energy Threat Inches Forward</a></h1>
<h2>2000-10</h2>
<div id="sect_33" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The U.S. military is increasingly likely to confront directed-energy weapons in combat situations, but Pentagon officials believe truly tactically relevant weapons of this type are still far from being fielded.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The U.S. military is increasingly likely to confront directed-energy (DE) weapons in combat situations, but Pentagon officials believe truly tactically relevant weapons of this type are still far from being fielded.
<br>
<br>The effects of radio-frequency weapons, a class of DE systems which generate high-power electro-magnetic pulses to disrupt or destroy the electronics of an enemy's hardware, have repeatedly drawn high-level interest. Congress, in the Fiscal 2001 Defense authorization bill, is requiring the Pentagon to establish a commission to assess the threat of an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the U.S.
<br>
<br>WHILE EMP EFFECTS are generally associated with a nuclear detonation, some radio-frequency weapons act in a similar way, even if at different frequencies and lesser intensity. Particularly ultra-wideband RF weapons try to emulate the effects of a nuclear blast. The threat of directed energy weapons has gotten a lot of attention in the intelligence community and again in a recent National Intelligence Council assessment.
<br>
<br>But aside from the actual use of a nuclear weapon ``the magnitude of the problem is grossly overstated,'' said a Defense Dept. official closely monitoring such developments. ``Much of what you hear is overblown'' in terms of RF weapons.
<br>
<br>While advances are being registered in the building of both RF weapons and lasers, Defense Dept. officials believe battlefield use is not likely for at least another decade. An enemy would ``have to do some amount of work prior to deploying'' a system, a second official added.
<br>
<br>One problem, in particular, is packaging the systems. While a number of countries are experimenting with RF weapons technology, the devices are very large and not operationally suitable. Furthermore, the experts add, just because a system can be made to work in a laboratory doesn't mean it will function in combat.
<br>
<br>The RF weapons threat can't be entirely dismissed, though. The Pentagon officials note there are relatively small devices already available and being marketed that have some operational utility. ``Terrorists or special forces may be able to use small RF devices and get fairly close to the target and disrupt electronics,'' one of them said. But the problem with existing systems is that they are very short-range, making them suitable for special operations but not useful for combat. Nevertheless, ``there is some concern'' about them.
<br>
<br>A similar split between the maturity of different classes of systems exists with laser weapons. Devices to blind electro-optical sensors already exist. For instance, Russian motorized rifle regiments deploy with such equipment. Similarly, China has been marketing a dazzler, a relatively low-power laser that temporarily disrupts sensors, although no overseas sales have been registered so far.
<br>
<br>But, U.S. officials note, ``high-energy lasers are farther in the future.'' For instance, Russia's Almaz design bureau, which specializes in air-defense weapons, has plans for a laser-based surface-to-air missile system, but the organization itself doesn't expect to have an operational system until around 2010, according to Defense Dept. officials. Laser-based antisatellite systems also have attracted much interest.
<br>
<br>DESPITE BUDGETARY cutbacks, Russia is still seen as the leader in foreign RF and laser weapons development. ``The Russians are strong in this area,'' one official said. Although ``how much money they really have is hard to tell,'' he added.
<br>
<br>China, for example, has spent considerable time analyzing the usefulness of these types of weapons and expressed strong interest in fielding them. But while the country is developing directed energy technology ``a lot of it they are getting from other places,'' the official said. Furthermore, he noted, China is unlikely to overtake Russia in directed energy development in the next few years.
<br>
<br>One of the big questions still surrounding many of the ongoing directed energy weapons projects is their effectiveness. The Defense Dept. officials note that conventional weapons are still more useful than trying to achieve the same effect with a laser or RF weapon. Another problem is that not every target is affected by RF weapons operating at the same frequency. Developing a system that can attack a sufficiently broad spectrum of targets may be difficult, the officials said.
</blockquote>
<p>Subject: Military weapons; Radio frequency; Research & development; R & D
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Classification: 9190: United States; 9000: Short article; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 5400: Research & development
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 18
<br>
<br>Pages: 70
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: October 30, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_33');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 33 -->
<a name="x34"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x34" class="tiny">x34</a>
Fulghum, David a : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">U.S. Navy Eyes Full Range Of Unmanned Aircraft</a></h1>
<h2>2000-11</h2>
<div id="sect_34" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The U.S. Navy is juggling many technical and operational options for unmanned aircraft, but it contends that this reflects a broad interest in such aircraft that is tempered by slim budgets. However, there is no confusion about the basic need for such vehicles.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The U.S. Navy is juggling many technical and operational options for unmanned aircraft, but it contends that this reflects a broad interest in such aircraft that is tempered by slim budgets. However, there is no confusion about the basic need for such vehicles.
<br>
<br>The service wants, in this order:
<br>
<br>-- A shorter range tactical UAV for reconnaissance of the battlefield and designating targets. Currently, the Navy is developing the vertical takeoff UAV (VTUAV), based on a helicopter airframe, for that mission.
<br>
<br>-- A medium-range, long-endurance UAV for surveillance of a foe with all-weather video, electronic and radar sensors.
<br>
<br>-- Access to the intelligence products gathered by Air Force unmanned aircraft, particularly the very long-range, high-altitude Global Hawk UAV.
<br>
<br>-- An unmanned (or uninhabited) combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) that can carry both lethal weapons like the small smart bomb and information warfare weapons. The latter could include electronic jammers and directed energy devices such as lasers and high-power microwave weapons to disable electronic battlefield devices and computers.
<br>
<br>Unofficial statements that the VTUAV program has delayed its operational debut by two years until 2005, they say, are untrue.
<br>
<br>``As of today, the initial operational capability for VTUAV is late 2003 or early 2004,'' a Navy official close to the program said. ``We're sticking to that because it relates to when we phase out Pioneer.'' Navy and Marine Corps units have used Pioneer in combat since 1991, but now they want a more versatile aircraft that carries larger payloads. ``It depends in part on what the final budget is,'' he said.
<br>
<br>Air Force veterans of the Predator UAV program say the Navy's plans are too optimistic. Predator has been flying for six years and is still not officially operational, they said. For the Navy's VTUAV program to be operational by 2003, the aircraft should already be in production. The Navy believes the faster schedule is possible because the airframe is basically that of a helicopter made by Schweizer, and the payload is commercial off-the-shelf equipment.
<br>
<br>Therefore, the pressure on the Navy to produce a platform quickly will grow. ``This is the solution to a lot of things that the Navy needs,'' the official said. ``People are going to get excited about it and are already queuing up to put payloads on the aircraft. The VTUAV solidly answers the Navy's requirement,'' he said. ``The question being asked is, `Is the requirement good enough?' Every year there are more and different needs. It carries a 200-lb. payload, maybe more if I sacrifice some fuel. I can probably build a synthetic aperture radar and moving target indicator small enough to fit. I can probably get an electro-optical/infrared payload to do precision targeting at low cost.''
<br>
<br>Critics of the Navy say the concurrent planning for a medium-range, long-endurance (MRE) UAV indicates the Navy already recognizes that its requirements for VTUAV are too modest. Not so, reply Navy planners. [Critics say,] ``What's this MRE thing and doesn't it look like we're looking ahead to the next thing?'' the official said. ``But the definition of MRE is an aircraft to fill the gap between VTUAV and [the Air Force's] high-altitude, 32-hr.-endurance Global Hawk UAV. We think there is a realm between them'' that requires a specialized aircraft.
<br>
<br>The answer could be the Predator UAV which is currently being flown by two Air Force reconnaissance squadrons. The Navy might buy its own aircraft, or to save money may choose to draw data from deployed USAF aircraft. ``Let's not spend so much money doing individual projects,'' the Navy official said. ``We're not doing the same missions [as the Air Force], which may require specialized aircraft, but we can share payloads and save money by developing them jointly. There are also savings in developing the tactical common data link and tactical control station for dissemination of the data and controlling the air vehicles.''
<br>
<br>On the other hand, ``We have found that the Predator cannot be economically marinized,'' the Navy official said. Also, does the Navy aircraft need to be vertical takeoff, short takeoff and vertical landing or land-based? ``We want to see some options,'' he said. ``What we're doing is pretty much a paper-based study on what it should look like, do we need it, is it organic and what are the tradeoffs?''
<br>
<br>Air Force planners describe dealings involving Predator as adversarial to this point and say that despite Navy interest, they have more involvement with NATO. ``They may be thinking, but they're not talking to us,'' an Air Force official said. Navy officials, however, say their relationship with the Air Force has been excellent, especially in the development of the Defense Dept.'s UAV master plan.
<br>
<br>The Navy and Air Force agree that a primary role for the tactical UAV is locating moving targets on the battlefield. They know that high-flying, long-endurance UAVs like the Global Hawk can find fixed sites with their more capable sensors.
<br>
<br>``Tactical really comes into play in finding moving targets and keeping an eye on them,'' the Navy official said. ``That's going to be the tool that everyone's going to want. When you find a moving target, you can anchor a UAV over it and key an eye on it until you deliver ordnance.''
<br>
<br>A new technology that may help the process is the use of high-definition digital television instead of standard video, which is too blurry for accurate analysis (see p. 57).
<br>
<br>In development at the Naval Research Laboratory is a system that uses individual digital frames from a high-definition digital television that is anchored to a geographic spot. Even recording a scene at a relatively slow rate, it can catch movement, decide where the object is going and predict where it's going to be when the precision munitions arrive.
<br>
<br>Another influence on UAV programs will be Europe's participation.
<br>
<br>``The U.K., Canada, France and Germany are doing some exciting work,'' the Navy official said. ``The U.K. is really looking forward to this technology answering a lot of their [tactical aviation] needs.'' (Other sources have revealed that Britain is putting a directed energy weapon on a high-speed UAV for information warfare.) For countries with small defense budgets and without a constellation of reconnaissance satellites, ``This is an answer.
<br>
<br>``ALSO, I THINK EVERYONE OVERSEAS has embraced the tactical control system concept which offers a single software architecture that allows you to control access to other people's UAVs and to disseminate data through your own [communications and intelligence] nodes,'' he said. ``We finally worked a pure software solution. It's going to be open architecture software that is easily scalable and upgradeable, flexible and interoperable'' even for older computer systems, he said.
<br>
<br>Perhaps the most closely held technologies associated with UAVs, and arguably the most important for future conflicts, is information operations (IO) and information warfare (IW). That includes attacking enemy information--most likely computers--to destroy their capabilities through such activity as erasing memory, or penetrating the system to read files and monitor e-mail. ``The IO/IW, intelligence and cryptography folks are involved daily,'' the Navy official said. ``They are helping us build the requirement for both [computer] defense and attack.''
<br>
<br>The Navy is also looking at how they might use the data that can be pulled in by a Global Hawk-size UAV that can carry a large payload and sit over a faraway trouble spot for 32 hr. or more at a time.
<br>
<br>``We are looking at the Global Hawk, which we don't think we have to reinvent,'' the Navy official said. ``Can we use Global Hawk or can we just take advantage of the existing [Air Force] capabilities? I think the Navy is leaning toward the latter using its tactical control system which allows us to download data and images to users of the [command and control, intelligence and communications] nodes.''
<br>
<br>Finally, the Navy has plans for the use of uninhabited combat air vehicles (UCAVs). Right now, UCAVs are defined as unmanned aircraft that can strike with bombs, missiles and other lethal payloads including directed energy weapons.
<br>
<br>However, Pentagon legal advisors continue to wrestle with how to differentiate between cruise missiles that are limited by treaties and UCAVs which the U.S. contends do not break any international agreements.
<br>
<br>Navy officials believe they can see a way through the maze of potential treaty concerns. They ensure that there is a man in control of weapons-carrying UCAVs (hence the reference to uninhabited instead of unmanned) and that the aircraft are built to survive several missions during their operational lives and thereby can't be considered expendable like cruise missiles.
<br>
<br>``When does this thing with weapons become a bomber or a cruise missile?'' the Navy official said. ``That's the treaty issue we're dealing with. I think that with a person in the loop, it becomes an unmanned bomber instead of a cruise missile. UCAV is a capability we want to develop. Uninhabited implies there will always be a man in the loop because there are lethal capabilities involved. We're looking at UAVs to be autonomous. Push one button to go out and come back. [By contrast] there will be lots of human intervention with UCAV. You are going to have to understand and apply the rules of engagement.''
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Northrop Grumman's Firescout is expected to be the first in a new generation of unmanned reconnaissance and strike aircraft for the U.S. Navy. However, service officials still have unresolved funding and requirement problems. Their needs for now far outstrip their ability to pay.
<br>
<br>Subject: Military aircraft; Intelligence gathering; Research & development; R & D; Defense spending; Military policy
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Company / organization: Name: Navy-US; NAICS: 928110; SIC: 9700
<br>
<br>Classification: 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9190: United States; 1120: Economic policy & planning
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 19
<br>
<br>Pages: 59-60
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: November 6, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 34 -->
<a name="x35"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x35" class="tiny">x35</a>
Michael R. Frater and Michael Ryan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_35');">Electronic warfare for the digitized battlefield.</a></h1>
<h2>2001</h2>
<div id="sect_35" style="display: block;">
<p>Scitech Book News 25.4 (Dec 2001): n/a.
<br>
<br>ISBN: 1580532713
<br>
<br>PUBLISHER: Artech House
<br>
<br>PUBLISH DATE: 2001
<br>
<br>PAGES: 262
<br>
<br>PRICE: $95.00
<br>
<br>SERIES: Artech House information warfare library
<br>
<br>LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CLASSIFICATION: UG485
<br>
<br>REVIEW: Frater and Ryan (both electrical engineering, Australian Defence Force Academy) examine the issues related to the effect of electronic warfare on the business of command and control on the modern digitized battlefield. Their focus is on the components and techniques employed at the tactical level of ground warfare. Coverage includes, for example, network- centric warfare, tactical trunk communications, electronic protection, and directed-energy weapons. (�2001 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR)
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_35');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 35 -->
<a name="x36"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x36" class="tiny">x36</a>
Michael R. Frater and Michael Ryan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_36');">Electronic Warfare for the Digitized Battlefield</a></h1>
<h2>2001</h2>
<div id="sect_36" style="display: block;">
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_36');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 36 -->
<a name="x37"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x37" class="tiny">x37</a>
<a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_37');">Russian Federation</a></h1>
<h2>2001-01</h2>
<div id="sect_37" style="display: block;">
<p>Russian Aerospace Industry Organization
<br>
<br>The Russian aerospace industrial base is set up in a different fashion than European or American practice, though it is now in the process of transitioning from the highly stratified Soviet model to a more Western style of organization. Basic research and advanced development is generally undertaken by Scientific-Research Institutes, better known by their Russian acronym, NII (Nauchno-issledovatelskiy Institut). Although some NII were military organizations staffed primarily by uniformed personnel, most were civilian research organizations staffed by civilian scientists and engineers. Each industrial ministry generally has a central NII (often called a TsNII, or Central NII, in Russian) which acts as a super-NII, overseeing the development effort in an entire segment of the industry. Some examples of this include TsAGI for the aircraft industry, TsIAM for propulsion systems, TsNIIMash for ballistic missiles and space boosters, NIIBT and NIITransMash for armored vehicles and the Krylov NII for ship design.
<br>
<br>The next step in the chain is the Experimental Design Bureau, or OKB (Opytnoe konstruktorskoye biuro). Engineering development of a concept pioneered in a NII is generally transferred to an OKB. Some industrial ministries use terms other than OKB; sometimes it is shortened as KB, Machine Design Bureau: MKB, Special Design Bureau (SKB), or Central Design Bureau (TsKB), and all these acronyms can be preceded by the prefix Gos- which means ``State.'' The OKB is responsible for the engineering development of a new weapon system, based on advanced research that might have been undertaken by a NII or other research organization. The OKB frequently has an experimental production factory attached to it which is used to produce prototypes of a new system. In the past, once the prototype was completed and the system accepted for service in the Soviet armed forces, the production was shifted to a factory (zavod) under control of one of the defense industrial ministries. The OKB had no formal control over the factories, though it often had extensive interchange with the factory during the course of a system`s production and modernization.
<br>
<br>By the 1970s, the Soviet Ministry of Defense came to realize that the stratification of the R&D-production process had serious drawbacks, particularly the separation of the OKBs and the production facilities. A new organization was created, called the Research-Production Association (NPO, Nauchno-proizvodstvennoe obedinenie). The NPO is patterned on Western corporations. It usually consists of an OKB and one or more production facilities, and manages a weapon system's development from the engineering development stage through production and system modernization. Although the NPO concept was first authorized in 1968, by 1975 there were only 97 NPOs in the entire USSR including both civilian and defense firms. This had doubled by 1985, but the biggest jump came in the late 1980s by which time over 500 NPOs had been formed. The NPO organization is increasingly common in the missile and satellite field, but is still less common in the aircraft industry. Another version of the NPO is the PO, or production association, which lacks the NPO's RDT&E features.
<br>
<br>In recent years, there has been considerable turmoil in the aerospace industry due to attempts at privatization and consolidation. A number of different types of consortia and partnerships have been formed in the hopes of boosting sales and streamlining the organizations. For example, the MiG design bureau is now linked with the MAPO plant; several of the surface-to-air missile bureaus have formed a Defense Systems sales consortium. To further confuse issues, there is now a controversy going on over subordination of the industry to the Russian Aerospace and Aviation Agency or to the new Ministry of Industry and Science.
<br>
<br>Russian facilities may have a bewildering variety of names due to traditional Soviet secrecy and recent industrial reorganization. The most common names are listed although alternate spellings, acronyms, and translations are sometimes used.
<br>
<br>Fixed-Wing and Rotary-Wing Aircraft
<br>
<br>Russian Aviation Research Institutes--Since the 1920s, Russia's aircraft development has traditionally been guided by TsAGI (Central Aero/Hydrodynamic Research Institute, named after Professor N.E. Zhukovskiy) which is located in the formerly closed city of Zhukovskiy outside Moscow. The former Ministry of Aviation Production also has several specialized bureaus, mainly in the Moscow area, which develop key aviation technologies. These include GosNIIAS (State Research Scientific Institute of Aviation Systems) in Moscow which develops avionics; VIAM (All-Russian Institute of Aviation Materials) for advanced materials, alloys and composites; the Flight Research Institute (LII named after M.M. Gromov) which is Russia's main flight test center at Zhukovskiy/Ramenskoye; and TsIAM (Central Institute of Aviation Motors named after P.I. Baranov), the main aircraft engine center along with its associated test facilities in Lytkarino.
<br>
<br>The majority of the Soviet Union's aircraft design bureaus were located in the Moscow area. One of the key exceptions was the Antonov Design Bureau, which is located in Kiev, Ukraine, and hence cut off from Russia since the dissolution of the USSR.
<br>
<br>R.E. Alekseyev NPO (Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau)--The R. E. Alekseyev design bureau, located near the Krasnoye Sormovo Shipyard in Nizhni Novgorod, has been primarily involved with the design of wing-in-ground effect aircraft (WIG). These include the Orlenok (project 904), Lun (project 902), Strizh and Utka. The production facility is located at the shipyard.
<br>
<br>Beriev Design Bureau (TANTK named after G.M. Berieva)--Since World War 2, the Beriev design bureau has been responsible for the design and manufacture of most of the USSR's flying boats. These have included the Be-12 Tchaika and Be-42 Albatross amphibians. It has also been involved in other aircraft technology efforts, including the incorporation of the Shmel radar system (developed by Vega-M NPO) into the IL-76 transport aircraft as the A-50 (Mainstay) AWACS. Beriev is currently attempting to interest the Russian government and foreign customers in its Be-40 Albatross (NATO: Mermaid) flying boat. Its Be-200 (scaled down A-40 Albatross) is being manufactured at the Irkutsk plant, usually associated with the Sukhoi Su-27 program.
<br>
<br>Ilyushin Design Bureau--The Ilyushin design bureau has been involved in the manufacture of light bombers and civil transport aircraft since World War 2. Ilyushin is no longer heavily involved in combat aircraft design, but is now developing mainly airliners and transport aircraft. Its current products include the IL-76 Candid military transport and its derivatives such as the IL-78 Midas aerial tanker and the A-50 Mainstay AWACS. Airliner programs include the IL-86 Camber, the IL-96 wide-body airliner and the IL-114 transport. Associated production facilities include Kazan and Voronezh in Russia and Tashkent in Uzbekistan.
<br>
<br>Kamov Design Bureau (Vertoletniy NTK named after N.I. Kamova)--The Kamov bureau in Lyubertsy, formed in 1948, is the second largest Russian helicopter design bureau. Kamov has been responsible for many of Russia's naval helicopters such as the Ka-25 Hormone, and Ka-27 Helix. It is hoping to expand its role in helicopter development following the selection of its Ka-50 (V-80) Hokum attack helicopter for a Russian army requirement. It has also designed civil helicopters such as the Ka-26, Ka-128 and the Ka-32 derivative of the Ka-27 naval helicopter.
<br>
<br>A.I. Mikoyan Aviation NPO--The Mikoyan KB is the most famous Soviet fighter design bureau, responsible for the MiG-3, MiG-9, Mig-15 Fagot, Mig-17 Fresco, MiG-19 Farmer, MiG-21 Fishbed, MiG-23 Flogger, MiG-25 Foxbat, MiG-27 Flogger, MiG-29 Fulcrum, MiG-31 Foxhound and other aircraft. Its current efforts focus on the MiG-29SMT, MiG-31M and their derivatives. The bureau is still developing the first Russian stealth fighter, the Project 1-42/1-44, and the MiG-AT trainer. The bureau has three associated production facilities: the Moscow Aviation Production Association named after P.V. Dementyev (MAPO), Znamya Truda in Moscow (MiG-29), and the Sokol State Aviation Plant in Nizhniy Novgorod (MiG-29 and MiG-31).
<br>
<br>Mil Design Bureau--Mil, Russia's main helicopter developer, has been responsible for the design of 95% of the former Soviet Union's helicopters including the Mi-1, Mi-2, Mi-4, Mi-8/-17 Hip, Mi-24 Hind, Mi-26 Halo and Mi-28 Havoc. The bureau is developing follow-ons to the Mi-8 Hip, the Mi-38 and Mi-40, a follow-on to the Mi-24 Hind, the Mi-28 Havoc attack helicopter, and a light utility helicopter, the Mi-34. Mil is associated with helicopter manufacturing plants at Rostov (Rosvertol: Rostov Helicopter Manufacturing Enterprise/RVPP: Mi-26, Mi-24/Mi-35), the Kazan Helicopter Production Association (KVPO: Mi-8 and Mi-17 helicopters), as well as the Moscow Helicopter Plant (MVZ named after M.L. Mil).
<br>
<br>Myasishchev Experimental Design Bureau (OKB-1457)--The bureau was founded in 1952 to develop strategic bombers (3M Bison) but was closed in 1959 following the failure of its M-50 Bounder design. The bureau was allowed to reopen later under the auspices of the Molniya NPO and now develops specialized aircraft such as the M-55 Geofysika high altitude aircraft as well as working on space systems.
<br>
<br>Sukhoi Design Bureau (ANPK OKB Sukhoi)--Sukhoi is the other major Russian fighter and strike aircraft design firm and is headed by Mikhail Simonov. The Sukhoi design bureau was formed in 1940. After the war, Sukhoi developed the Su-7b strike aircraft, Su-9/ Su-11 Fishpot interceptor, Su-15 Flagon interceptor, and the Su-17/Su-22 Fitter strike aircraft. Recent aircraft include the Su-24 Fencer strike aircraft, Su-25 Frogfoot strike aircraft and Su-27/ Su-35 Flanker fighter-interceptor. It is currently working on the Su-27 and its derivatives such as the Su-32FN/Su-34 strike variant, Su-33 carrier fighter, and the multirole Su-35. The S-37 forward-swept wing demonstrator, the Su-37 lightweight strike fighter, and the S-60 medium bomber are also in the early development phase. Sukhoi has been associated with production plants at Kosomolsk-na-Amur (Su-27), Ulan Ude, Tbilisi (Su-25), Novosibirsk and the Irkutsk Aviation PO (Su-27, Su-30).
<br>
<br>Tupolev Design Bureau, OKB-116--The Tupolev design bureau is Russia's oldest aviation design bureau, having been involved in aircraft design since 1922. In the post-war years, the Tupolev design bureau has been primarily involved in strategic bomber and jet passenger aircraft design, such as the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear, Tu-22M Backfire and Tu-160 Blackjack, and the recent Tu-204 airliner. Its current efforts are aimed mainly at airliner design. Associated production facilities are at Ulyanovsk, Samara (Kuibyshev), Taganrog and Kazan.
<br>
<br>Yakovlev Design Bureau--Yakovlev has fallen from being the largest producer of Soviet fighters in World War 2 to a relatively small development agency. It is now known primarily for specialized military aircraft including the Yak-38 Forger VTOL naval fighter and the Yak-41 Freestyle. Recent programs include the Shmel RPV, the canceled Yak-44 carrier AWACS, and Yak-130 UTS jet trainer. Associated production facilities are in Smolensk and Saratov. The Irkutsk plant is working on the Yak-112. Yakovlev's hopes are currently pinned on its new Yak-130 jet trainer design for the Russian air force requirement which was in competition with a Mikoyan design. Yakovlev has also developed a range of business jets such as the Yak-40 and light transport aircraft.
<br>
<br>Russian Aviation Plants
<br>
<br>Irkutsk State Aviation Plant (Nr. 39)--This plant produces the Su-27UB training aircraft and is working on the long-range Su-30 bomber. Plans to manufacture the Be-200 amphibian have also been discussed.
<br>
<br>Kazan State Aviation Plant im. S.P.Gorbunova (Nr. 22)--This bomber plant has manufactured the Tu-22M Backfire, Tu-160 Blackjack and the Tu-204 airliner.
<br>
<br>Kazan State Aviation Plant (Nr. 387)--The Kazan helicopter plant produces the Mi-8 and Mi-17 helicopters and is planning to produce the Mi-38.
<br>
<br>Komsomolsk-na-Amure State Aviation Plant im. Yuri Gagarin (Nr. 126)--This plant produces the Su-27, Su-33 carrier fighter and Su-35 advanced Flanker.
<br>
<br>Kuibyshev State Aviation Plant (Nr. 18)--Until recently, this plant manufactured the Tu-95MS strategic bomber. It now produces the Tu-154M airliner.
<br>
<br>Kumertau State Aviation Plant--This plant in Bashkiria produces the Ka-27 and Ka-29 naval helicopters.
<br>
<br>Moscow Aviation Production Association (MAPO) named after P.V. Dementyev (Nr. 1)--This plant produces the MiG-29, the IL-114 airliner and light aircraft.
<br>
<br>Nizhni Novgorod Sokol State Aviation Plant (Nr. 21)--The Sokol plant is now the main Mikoyan facility and has produced the MiG-31M and MiG-29UB trainer.
<br>
<br>Novorossisk State Aviation Plant im. Chkalova (Nr. 153)--This plant has produced the Su-24 Fencer strike aircraft and is scheduled to make the Su-34 Flanker strike aircraft and the An-38 transport.
<br>
<br>Progress Factory im. N.I. Sazykina (Nr. 116)--Located in Arseniev, this plant produced the Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter until 1989 when it began to switch to the Kamov Ka-50. It manufactures the BM80 Moskit anti-ship missile and is also planning to produce the An-74T.
<br>
<br>Rostov on the Don State Aviation Plant (Nr. 168)--This plant, commonly known as Rosvertol, produced the Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter until recently and is now slated to produce the Mi-28. It also produces the Mi-26 transport helicopter.
<br>
<br>Saratov State Aviation Plant (Nr. 292)--This plant is associated with Yakovlev and has produced the Yak-38 VTOL naval fighter and now the Yak-42 business jet. It no longer produces cruise missiles.
<br>
<br>Smolensk State Aviation Plant (Nr. 475)--This is a specialized facility and has produced the M-17 and M-55 reconnaissance aircraft as well as the Pchela UAV.
<br>
<br>Taganrog State Aviation Plant (Nr. 86)--This plant has produced the Tu-142 Bear naval patrol bomber and the Tu-334 passenger aircraft.
<br>
<br>Ulan Ude State Aviation Plant (Nr. 99)--This plant was the main producer of the Mi-8 helicopter and until recently produced the Su-25UB Frogfoot trainer. Current programs are the Su-25T strike aircraft and the Ka-62 helicopter.
<br>
<br>Ulyanovsk State Aviation Plant--This plant, now called the Aviastar Joint Stock Company, was created in the early 1970s to build strategic bombers. It has manufactured the An-124 heavy transport and now manufactures the Tu-204 airliner.
<br>
<br>Voronezh State Aviation Plant (Nr. 64)--This plant was the main manufacturer of the Tu-16 medium bomber and also manufactures unmanned aerial vehicles such as the Yastreb, Strizh and Rys. It is now working on the IL-86 and IL-96 airliners.
<br>
<br>Propulsion
<br>
<br>Russian Propulsion Design Institutes--The Baranov Central Institute of Aviation Engine Building (TsIAM) in Moscow is the primary Russian organization for the development of aircraft powerplants. Established in 1930, it is today involved mainly in jet engine design and testing as well as advanced powerplants, such as the current scramjet effort. Development of rocket engines is generally managed by the TsNIIMash. Some of the major jet and rocket engine design bureaus are listed below.
<br>
<br>Energomash NPO im. V. P. Glushko; GDL-OKB; OKB-456--Located in Khimki, this bureau is derived from the pre-war Leningrad GDL-OKB (Gas Dynamics Lab-Special Design Bureau). The GDL-OKB eventually became the most successful of Soviet rocket engine design bureaus, specializing in liquid fuel rocket engines. Since the 1950s, it has been involved in rocket engine manufacture totaling some 52 different types. GDL-OKB remains in existence as the primary Russian rocket engine design facility, under the new Energomash name. Among its associated production facilities is the NII Mashinostroyenia in Nizhnaya Salda which has manufactured the RD-120 Energia rocket engine.
<br>
<br>Isayev OKB, KB Khimmash named after A.M. Isayeva--The Design Bureau for Chemical Engineering was first established in 1943 under Aleksei M. Isayev and was closely associated with early development efforts on tactical missile rocket engines. The bureau continues to develop ramjets and rocket engines for Russian missile programs.
<br>
<br>Khimavtomatika (Kosberg) KB--The Kosberg OKB in Voronezh has been primarily involved in the development of second and third stage engines for ballistic missiles and space boosters. Recently, it has been responsible for work on rocket engine design, including the hydrogen engine on the Energia space booster. It is associated with the Voronezh Machine Building Plant.
<br>
<br>Klimov Design Bureau (Leningrad NPO)--The Klimov Design Bureau designs jet and gas turbine engines. It was long known as the Isotov KB, but reverted to the Klimov name in 1983. The Klimov KB has been responsible for the RD-33 on the MiG-29, and the GTD-1250 in the T-80U tank. Series production of its engines is undertaken at the Krasny Oktiabr Plant in Leningrad, the Baranov Motor PO in Omsk, and the Kaluga Motor Building PO. Kaluga is responsible for T-80 turbine engine production, as well as some aircraft engines, such as those for the IL-114 airliner. The associated Kaluga Turbine Plant PO is responsible for naval turbines and submarine propulsion.
<br>
<br>N. Kuznetsov OKB; Trud NPO, Kuibyshev NPO--Located in Samara, the Nikolai Kuznetsov OKB has been involved in the development of jet aircraft engines and liquid fuel rocket engines for ballistic missiles. The design bureau controls the neighboring Frunze Motor Building Plant, which serves as an experimental production facility for initial series production of the missile engines. In many cases, series production takes place at the Metallist plant, also in Samara. Recent military propulsion programs include the NK-321 for the Tu-160 Blackjack bomber.
<br>
<br>Omsk Aviation Engine Design Bureau (MKB)--This bureau was formed in 1956 to design small turbine engines for aviation applications. Its products include the GTD-1, GTD-3, GTD-5 (Kamov Ka-25 helicopter), TVD-10 (Be-30 transport), TVD-10 (Polish W-3 Sokol helicopter), TV-0-100 (Ka-126 helicopter), VGTD-43 (Tu-204).
<br>
<br>Perm Aviadvigatel NPO (Perm Motor Building Plant im. Ya. M. Sverdlova)--This is the engine design bureau formerly called the Soloviev OKB and Shvetsov OKB. It has designed a wide range of aircraft and helicopter engines. The associated production plant also manufactures Proton first stage rocket engines as well as their aviation propulsion systems. Its current military powerplants include the D-30F6 on the MiG-31.
<br>
<br>Polet NPO--This facility, formerly called the Omsk Aviation Plant, was previously involved in the manufacture of military and civil aircraft. It manufactured the Tu-2 bomber and Yak-9 fighters during World War 2, and the Tu-104 airliner in the postwar years. It was subsequently assigned to missile and space production, specializing in missile engines. The facility was involved in the production of the R-5 and R-12 missiles. Other products have included the RD-170, RD-211 and RD-216 rocket engines. Among its recent products have been engines used on the Energiya space booster and Buran space shuttle. It also manufactures satellites, and in 1993 began manufacturing the An-74 transport aircraft.
<br>
<br>Rybinsk Motor-Building Design Bureau--Rybinsk has been most closely associated with VTOL-related engines such as the RD-38 on the Yak-38 Forger. Its RD-41 is currently used on the Yak-141 Freestyle. It has also developed commerical jet engines, including those for the Tu-144 Soviet SST.
<br>
<br>Saturn Design Bureau--The Saturn design bureau, formerly known as the Lyulka KB, develops turbojet and turbofan engines for military and civil aircraft. Recent military types include the AL-21F for the Su-24 Fencer and the AL-31F for the Su-27 Flanker. Production is undertaken at a plant co-located with the the design facility.
<br>
<br>Soyuz MKB--This bureau in Tushino traces itself back to the wartime Mikulin design bureau and the postwar NII-125. Its current efforts include the R-79V-300 vectored thrust turbofan for the Yak-41 Freestyle and RDK-300 turbofan for RPV and missile use, the R-11-300 on the MiG-21, and others. Many of its aircraft engines were built at Ufa. It has also been involved in the development of solid-fuel rocket engines for tactical missiles since 1951.
<br>
<br>Missiles
<br>
<br>Russian Missile Design Institutes--Missile development is more diversified in Russia than in the aircraft industry, and was split between at least three ministries mainly due to historical anomalies. The TsNIIMash (Central Scientific Research Institute of Machine Building), formerly NII-88, is the primary advanced research institute for the missile and space booster industry and serves a similar function to the TsAGI in the aviation industry; TsAGI is still heavily involved in tactical missile research (such as AAM and ASMs) manufactured by the plants of the former Ministry of Aviation Production. TsNII Tochmash is responsible for tactical Army missiles including ATGMs and tactical ballistic missiles. There are several other NIIs heavily involved in missile sub-component development including the Agat NII (radar seekers).
<br>
<br>Two major missile design centers were lost to Russia with the dissolution of the USSR: the Yuzhmash complex (and associated Yangel design bureau) in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, which was the USSR's principal ICBM manufacturer and developer, and the AiP NPO/NII-885 (now called Kharton) in Kharkov, Ukraine, which was one of the two Soviet ICBM inertial guidance development/production facilities.
<br>
<br>Almaz NPO--Almaz, based in Moscow, is an electronics firm specializing in air defense missile system integration. It has been primarily involved in strategic air defense systems, starting with the S-75 (SA-2) and including the recent S-300P (SA-10).
<br>
<br>Altair GosNPO--Altair is not a missile design bureau but an integrator for naval missile systems, especially air defense systems. It has been responsible for nearly every Soviet ship-mounted SAM system, and has become involved in some anti-ship missile systems as well. Its fire control radars are often manufactured at the Znamaya Truda plant in Saratov.
<br>
<br>Antey NPO--Antey, like Almaz and Altair, is an air defense missile system integrator rather than a missile designer and is based in Moscow. Antey developed the first mobile tactical SAM, the Krug (SA-4), and its recent efforts have included the Tor (SA-15) and S-300V (SA-12).
<br>
<br>Bazalt NPO--This development and production center is responsible for the design of Russian aircraft bombs, including cluster bombs with guided submunitions. It is also responsible for the development and manufacture of rocket propelled grenades and similar weapons. Production facilities include the Sibselmach PO in Novosibirsk.
<br>
<br>Fakel Machine Building Design Bureau named after P.D. Grushin--Fakel in Khimki has traditionally been Russia's main developer of strategic air defense missiles since the S-75 (SA-2 Guideline), as well as exo-atmospheric ABM systems. It has often worked with Almaz, which provided the associated radars and fire control systems. Its recent designs include the S-300P (SA-10) and Tor (SA-15). Many of its missiles were produced at the Avangard MMPO in Moscow and the Leningrad Severniy Plant in St. Petersburg.
<br>
<br>Instrument Machine Building Design Bureau (KB Priborstroyeniya/KBP)--This bureau was formed in 1962 at Tula to develop advanced weapons; Arkadiy G. Shipunov was appointed general designer in 1982. The bureau has been involved in anti-tank missiles, aircraft gun systems, laser-guided projectiles, and naval and army air defense systems. The bureau was also responsible for the development of the Drozd active tank defense system in the 1970s and 1980s. The Kovrovskiy Zavod im. V. A. Degtaryeva in Kovrov manufactures many of its designs including the 125mm Refleks guided tank projectiles, and AT-5 missiles. The AT-4 and AT-5 are also manufactured at Zlatoust. Its aircraft guns are manufactured at the neighboring Tula Machine Building Plant PO (Tulamashzavod im. V. M. Ryabikova).
<br>
<br>KBSM Design Bureau for Special Machine Building--Located in St. Petersburg, this design bureau began the development of submarine ballistic missile launch silos in 1955, and later became Russia's primary center for the development of hardened ICBM launch silos, rail launchers for ICBMs and other specialized launch systems.
<br>
<br>Machine Building Design Bureau (KBM)--The Machine Building Design Bureau in Kolomna, formerly headed by S.P. Nepobidimy, develops a wide range of missiles including tactical ballistic missiles (Tochka: SS-21); manportable air defense missiles (Strela-2M/SA-7; Igla/SA-16); and anti-tank missiles (Malyutka/AT-3; Shturm/AT-6; Ataka/AT-9). The Ataka missile is manufactured in Zlatoust; anti-tank and manportable SAMs at Izhevsk and Kovrov, the SS-21 is manufactured at Pavlograd in Kazakhstan. Its latest ballistic missile program is the Iskander (SS-X-26), intended to replace the obsolete Scud tactical ballistic missile.
<br>
<br>Machine Building Design Bureau named after V.P. Makeyev--Located in Miass, the Makayev bureau is Russia's primary developer of submarine-launched ballistic missiles. It was formerly involved in the development of tactical ballistic missiles such as the Elbrus (Scud), but has largely abandoned this field to the KB Mashinostroyenie in Kolomna. The associated SLBM manufacturing plants are at Zlatoust and Krasnoyarsk.
<br>
<br>Machine Building Scientific Production Assn. named after V.N. Chelomey (NPO Mashinstroyenie ; OKB-52)--The V.N. Chelomey design bureau in Reutov has been involved in a wide range of missile systems including anti-satellite, ICBM, ASW and anti-ship missiles, as well as reconnaissance satellite design. Past space programs included the Polet and Proton satellites, Salyut-2, -3 and -5 space stations and the Almaz remote sensing satellites. Its primary missile development efforts at the moment are oriented toward anti-ship missile design including the Bastion/Yakhont. It developed the Proton space booster, but many of its former space efforts were split off with the formation of the Khrunichev NPO in 1993.
<br>
<br>Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology (MITT)--The Nadiradze design bureau is a spin-off from Korolev's OKB-1 in Kaliningrad specializing in solid-fuel ballistic missiles. Its most recent efforts have centered around the Topol-M (SS-27) mobile ICBM and its derivatives. Its solid fuel rocket designs have often been associated with the Biysk Chemical Plant where much of its testing is conducted. The associated missile manufacturing plant is at Votkinsk.
<br>
<br>Novator Design Bureau--Located in Ekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk), Novator has its origins in L. Lyulev's anti-aircraft design bureau. The firm has developed naval anti-ship cruise missiles (SS-N-21 for the Alfa-class nuclear attack submarine); anti-submarine warfare missiles (SS-N-15, etc.); air defense missiles (SA-4, SA-12); and air-to-air missiles (KS-172). Its main production center is the Kalinin Machine Building Plant, which is also in Ekaterinburg.
<br>
<br>Precision Engineering Design Bureau (kB Tochmash Nudelman OKB-16)--This Moscow design bureau is publicly known for its aircraft cannon design, but since the 1960s has been involved in missile design--including anti-tank guided missiles and air defense missiles. Its designs include the Strela-1 (SA-9) and the Strela-10 (SA-13).
<br>
<br>Raduga Machine Building Design Bureau--Located in Dubna, Raduga is Russia's main developer of large air-to-surface missiles and large anti-ship missiles. Under Berezniak, it developed the widely used P-15 (SS-N-2 Styx). Among its recent designs is the 3M80 Moskit (SS-N-22) anti-ship missile. Its civil products include the new Burlak air-launched space booster. Many of its missiles are produced at the nearby Dubna Machine Building Plant.
<br>
<br>Region GNPP--Region is an ordnance firm that in recent years has been involved in the development of precision guided weapons including aircraft-launched torpedoes and laser-guided bombs.
<br>
<br>Transport Machine Building KB named after V.P. Barmin (GSKB)--Located at the former Kompressor Plant in Moscow, the former Barmin KB is the main design bureau for ICBM and space booster launch facilities and developed the launch systems for the R-7/Vostok/Soyuz and UR-500 Proton space boosters.
<br>
<br>Uran NPO--Uran NPO is Russia's primary torpedo design bureau. It is an amalgamation of elements of TsNII Gidropribor and the Dvigatel Zavod in 1976. As in the past, the Gidropribor Institute was primarily responsible for design, while the Dvigatel Plant remains the production facility. The NPO's main test facility was located at Feodosiya on the Black Sea, but deep water tests are conducted at Kakhadka on the Pacific coast. NPO Uran works with the Lyulev and Raduga bureaus for the development of torpedo-carrying missiles.
<br>
<br>VNIIEF (Vse-soyuzniy Nauchno-Issledovatelniy Institut Eksperimentalnoi Fiziki); (KB-11, Arzamas-16)--VNIIEF is the current name for the Soviet Union's first nuclear bomb development center. Headed by Chief Designer Yuli Khariton, the KB-11 developed the first Soviet atomic bombs, and its first thermonuclear bombs. It also developed the first nuclear warheads for missiles including the R-5M, R-7 and R-11 warheads. It is still heavily involved in nuclear weapons research.
<br>
<br>VNIITF (Vse-soyuzniy Nauchno-Issledovatelniy Institut Tekhnicheskoi Fiziki); Chelyabinsk-70--The Chelyabinsk-70 design bureau in Kasli was set up in 1954 as the Soviet Union's second nuclear weapons development lab. Since 1954, it has been heavily involved in missile warhead development, and has been responsible for the many Soviet nuclear warhead designs.
<br>
<br>Vympel Central Scientific Production Association--Located in Dubna, Vympel is a consolidation of several firms involved in the development of strategic defense systems including both conventional ABMs and directed energy weapons.
<br>
<br>Vympel State Design Bureau--Located in Moscow, Vympel is Russia's primary design bureau for air-to-air missiles and has been responsible for nearly all designs since the KS-1 (AA-1 Alkali) in the 1950s. Its missiles have been produced at the Kommunar MMPP in Moscow and the Artem MMPP in Kiev, Ukraine.
<br>
<br>Zvezda Design Bureau--Located in Kaliningrad-B near Moscow, Zvezda is Russia's primary developer of tactical air-to-surface missiles starting with the Grom (AS-7 Kerry). Its associated production facility is the Strela Production Association and their missiles are marketed by the Spetstekhnika Joint Stock Company.
<br>
<br>Spacecraft and Launchers
<br>
<br>Arsenal NPO--Arsenal, located in St. Petersburg, has descended from the cannon foundries created by Peter the Great in 1711. In the missile field, the design bureau developed the R-31 (SS-N-17), the first Soviet solid-fuel SLBM, and has been extensively involved in the development and manufacture of ship- and submarine-based missile launch systems. In the space field, Arsenal was involved in the development of radar and electro-optical naval surveillance satellites (RORSAT, EORSAT) as well as many satellite components used in both military and civilian applications.
<br>
<br>Energia NPO named after S.P. Korolev--Formerly OKB-1 located in the Moscow suburb of Kaliningrad renamed Korolev in 1996, Energia is Russia's primary space booster and space systems developer. The bureau was heavily involved in early missile development, but largely turned to space products by the end of the 1960s after spinning off several missile design bureaus. It has been responsible for the R-7 booster spin-offs such as the Soyuz and Vostok, many of Russia's manned spacecraft, the Buran space shuttle and the Mir space station.
<br>
<br>Foton Central Specialized Design Bureau (TsSKB)--The Foton design bureau was established in 1958 in Kuibyshev (Samara), and is part of the larger TsSKB in the Progress Machine Building Plant. The TsSKB was established in 1958 under the direction of M.V. Kozlov to support the OKB-1 in the manufacture of R-7 space boosters and subsequently took responsibility for their further development. The Progress Machine building plant was formerly called Aviation Plant No. 1, and it has been associated with the manufacture of R-7-derived space boosters. Today, the Foton KB is primarily involved in satellite development, including the original Zenit military reconnaissance satellites as well as current generations of spy satellites. The facility is one of the largest developers and manufacturers of military and civilian satellites, being responsible for about a third (870+) of those launched. The Progress plant has produced over 1500 R-7/Vostok/Soyuz space boosters and is now developing the Rus space booster.
<br>
<br>Khrunichev State Space NPO--The Salyut design bureau was primarily involved in spacecraft development. Among its programs is the Kristall portion of the Mir space station. The Khrunichev plant in Fili was formerly associated with the Chelomey design bureau and was responsible for Proton space booster manufacture. In June 1993, these two Fili-based facilities were combined into a new NPO which is now developing the Angara space booster and a host of other space systems. It is currently manufacturing the Proton-KM booster.
<br>
<br>Kometa OKB--Located in Moscow, Kometa is the primary Russian firm for the development of anti-satellite systems. It has also been involved in the development of ocean surveillance RORSATs, space-based early warning satellites, and ballistic missile launch detection satellites.
<br>
<br>Krasnaya Zvezda NPO--This facility in Moscow has been the main contractor for nuclear space powerplants (such as the Topaz) in cooperation with the Institute of Physics and Power Engineering in Obninsk where the systems are designed.
<br>
<br>Lavochkin NPO; OKB-577, (Babakin Research Institute)--Although best known for its WW2 fighter designs, the Lavochkin OKB at Aviation Plant No. 301 in Khmiki was switched to air defense missile development in 1948-49. Lavochkin moved into the space satellite field in the late 1950s; air defense missile programs were largely taken over by Petr Grushin (MKB Fakel). After Lavochkin's death, the bureau was taken over by Georgii N. Babakin, and was involved primarily in the development of satellites. The Babakin team was responsible for the Luna, Venera, Mars and Zond families of interplanetary satellites. In the military realm, it was involved in the development of the Oko series of early warning satellites.
<br>
<br>Molniya NPO--Molniya NPO is an off-shoot of the Mikoyan design bureau. Although involved for a short time in air-to-air missile design (R-60/AA-8 Aphid), the bureau has been involved mainly in manned spacecraft design including the Buran space shuttle; it is associated with the Tushino Machine Building Plant.
<br>
<br>NPO Prikladnoi Mekhaniki; NPO-PM, Reshetnev OKB--This design bureau and plant is the primary military and civilian communications satellite facility and is located in Zelenogorsk in the closed city of Krasnoyarsk-26. It has designed and manufactured a wide range of satellites including various military communication satellites, data relay, navsats, early warning, Molniya 1 and 3, Ekran, Gorizont, Glonass, Luch, and Raduga satellites. It has also developed navigation satellites (Tsikada and Glosnass) and geodesy satellites (Geoik and Etalon).
<br>
<br>Progress OKB--This design bureau in Samara and its associated plant have been involved in the development of spacecraft, notably the Progress-type cargo spacecraft.
<br>
<br>Military Electronics
<br>
<br>Argon NII--Located in Moscow, the Argon NII develops on-board computers and electronic systems for aircraft, missile and spacecraft applications.
<br>
<br>Astrofizika NPO--Astrofizika, based in Moscow, is one of Russia's largest development centers for tactical and strategic directed energy weapons, mainly lasers.
<br>
<br>Nll Avtomatika--Nll Avtomatika and the associated NPO Avtomatika in Moscow are Russia's primary developers and manufacturers of strategic C3I equipment. These include encryption equipment for the national command authority, and strategic weapons command and control system. Avtomatika develops and produces encrypted telephones comparable to the US STU-3 system.
<br>
<br>Briansk Elektromechanical Plant--The Briansk Electromechanical Plant manufactures a variety of vehicle-mounted electronic warfare equipment, electronics and electronics shelters, including the SPN-4 electronic jamming system mounted on the KAMAZ-4310 truck.
<br>
<br>Elektropribor Zavod--This plant is primarily involved in the manufacture of Army and aircraft radio and communication equipment. Its radios are used on Russian strategic bombers.
<br>
<br>Fazotron NPO--Fazotron (formerly NII Radiostroyeniya) is Russia's principal radar design bureau for fighter radars. It develops systems for both aviation and ground-based applications. Recent programs include the Zhuk radar for the MiG-29M, the Kopyo radar for the MiG-21I upgrade, and the radar on the 2S6 Tunguska air defense vehicle.
<br>
<br>Gidropribor--Located in St. Petersburg, Gidropribor is Russia's primary development center for sonars and other anti-submarine warfare sensors. It has also been involved in the development of a variety of ASW weapons including mines.
<br>
<br>Istok Electronics Plant--Located in Fryasino, the Istok NPO is one of Russia's largest radar and electronics development centers and is an outgrowth of NII-160. In recent years, it has also been involved in laser development. The Zaslon phased array radar on the MiG-31 was developed by Istok.
<br>
<br>Leninets NPO--Leninets, in St. Petersburg, produces airborne radars and other radio-electronics equipment, and aircraft computers. It has been Russia's main developer of bomber radars including the Rubin on the Tu-16 and the Orion on the Su-24. It has an associated experimental plant in Gatchina.
<br>
<br>LOMO Leningrad Optical Mechanical Enterprise--This electro-optical research center has been responsible for a wide range of surveillance devices, IR missile seekers, space cameras, electro-optical sensors and laser systems; the design center is linked to several electro-optical plants in the St. Petersburg area.
<br>
<br>Nitel NPO--The Nizhni Novgorod Television Plant is one of Russia's main air surveillance radar development centers and production facilities and one of the largest radar plants in the world. It developed and manufactured the P-12, P-14, and P-18 radars and is now manufacturing the 55Zh6 mobile 3-D ``anti-Stealth'' air surveillance radar.
<br>
<br>Penza Simulator Design Bureau (Era PKBM)--Penza is Russia's largest development center for civil aviation and helicopter simulator applications.
<br>
<br>NPP Polyot --Polyot in Nizhni Novgorod is the primary Russian manufacturer of aircraft radio communications equipment including antennas, transmitters, receivers and data processing equipment. It also manufactures air traffic control centers.
<br>
<br>Popov Plant (ZiP ANPO: Zavod named after Popova Arednoe NPO)--The Popov Plant in Nizhni Novgorod is Russia's largest aviation radio communications facility, specializing in fixed and mobile radio ground stations. Among its Army radio systems are the Kristall, Yadro-1, Yadro-2, Kashtan, R-864.
<br>
<br>NII Priborostroeniya (NIIP)--Located in Zhukovskiy, this is one of the original Russian radar development centers. In the 1960s, it was involved in the development of the Liana radar system for the Tu-126 AWACS, and the Periskop surveillance radar system. Production work has been undertaken by the Elektromash plant, and modification work by the Gorizont KB. NIIP has also been the integrating design bureau in the development of medium range air defense missiles such as the 2K12 Kub (SA-6 Gainful), Buk-1M/Gang (SA-11 Gadfly), primarily in connection with the radar systems and guidance seekers. It is also involved in the development of aircraft weapons systems for the MiG-31 and Su-27.
<br>
<br>Radio NPO--Established in 1953 under the Ministry of Communication, it has been involved in radio development, including space communications such as the Gorizont program.
<br>
<br>Radiopribor NPO--This association of electronics firms (centered in Kazan, Tatarstan) includes the Sviyaga plant, Radiopribor factory and Radio Electronics Research and Scientific Institute. It develops and manufactures much of Russia's air force, ground forces and naval IFF systems, including the current 60P series.
<br>
<br>Salyut MPO--This is the former Soviet Union's primary naval radar design bureau. It designed the early Gyuys-2 naval radar as well as most subsequent types including the current Polyma, Fregat-MA and Podberezovik types.
<br>
<br>Skala VNIIT (All-Russian Radio Engineering Scientific Research Institute)--Located in Moscow, this is one of Russia's main radar development centers and was an outgrowth of NII-17. Among its products are the Kasta-2E2 (39N6) and Kasta-2E1 (51U6) air defense surveillance radars. This institute also develops major SAM radars, including the radars associated with the S-300 air defense system.
<br>
<br>Urals Optical Mechanical Plant--Located in Ekaterinburg, the UOMZ is Russia's main developer and manufacturer of aircraft-based laser target designators and electro-optical sighting equipment such as the OEPS-29 and OEPS-27 IRST systems on the MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters.
<br>
<br>Utes NPO--This design bureau and the associated Lianzovo Electromechanical Plant near Moscow have combined to form one of Russia's major developers and producers of air defense (P-37, 76N6, etc.) and air traffic control radars as well as air traffic control systems.
<br>
<br>NPO Vega-M MNIIP (Scientific and Research Institute of Instrument Engineering)--Located in Moscow, NPO Vega-M has been involved in the development of advanced radars, including the Shmel radar system on the A-50 Mainstay AWACS, and the Sabla and Shompol radars on the MiG-25R. This NPO is affiliated with the NII-Priborstroyenie.
<br>
<br>Vektor NPO--Located in Ekaterinburg, this amalgamation of the Ekaterinburg Elektroavtomatiki Plant and the Peleng Design Bureau develops C3I systems, military tactical computers and other advanced military electronics such as the Zoopark artillery reconnaissance system and Ulybka meteorological radar. It has developed and manufactured many of the major mobile air defense C3I systems including Senezh and Rubezh.
<br>
<br>Zenit NPO--Located in Moscow, Zenit specializes in the development of electronic warfare countermeasures. These include ``Hot Brick'' systems such as the L-166 Ispanka on the Mi-24 and Mi-28 helicopters, as well as the Shtora-1 ATGM guidance jammer for tanks.
<br>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Testing a MiG-29 model in TsAGI's T-101 subsonic wind tunnel.
<br>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Lyulka AL-55 gas turbine engine.
<br>
<br>JOHN FRICKER
<br>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Surface-to-air missiles (from top) Favorit, 9M96E2 and 9M96E.
<br>
<br>HOWARD GETHIN
<br>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Leninets NPO's Khishnik phased-array radar antenna.
<br>
<br>JOHN FRICKER
<br>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Krunichev's Angara core launch vehicle.
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 154
<br>
<br>Issue: 3
<br>
<br>Pages: 339
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2001
<br>
<br>Publication date: January 15, 2001</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_37');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 37 -->
<a name="x38"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x38" class="tiny">x38</a>
Fulghum, David a; Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_38');">Navy's Hairy Buffalo Aims for Quick Kill</a></h1>
<h2>2001-02</h2>
<div id="sect_38" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>A three-aircraft unit is the Navy's first full-fledged attempt to building "smart planes" capable of sophisticated fusion of sensor data. The goal of the program, part of which has been dubbed Hairy Buffalo, is to create a system that can quickly find moving targets on land, water or under the sea. All the services are wrestling with the need to find, identify and destroy mobile targets in less than 10 minutes. The main obstacles to meeting that timeline are delays in the decision cycle-the time needed to identify the target, to decide if it should be destroyed and to pass the target coordinates to a weapon.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>A three-aircraft unit here is the Navy's first full-fledged attempt at building ``smart planes'' capable of sophisticated fusion of sensor data. The goal of the program, part of which has been dubbed Hairy Buffalo, is to create a system that can quickly find moving targets on land, water or under the sea.
<br>
<br>All the services are wrestling with the need to find, identify and destroy mobile targets in less than 10 min. The main obstacles to meeting that time line are delays in the decision cycle--the time needed to identify the target, to decide if it should be destroyed and to pass the target coordinates to a weapon. Focusing those capabilities in a single aircraft--that would operate autonomously but take advantage of off-board sensors--could slash the time needed to strike a target, Navy officials believe.
<br>
<br>``We're looking at how much of that decision you can move forward [to an aircraft near the battlefield],'' said Lt. Cdr. Ronald M. Carvalho, Jr., the director of the program named Hairy Buffalo and military deputy at Naval Air Systems Command's mission sensors and systems division. ``What kind of tools and training do you have to give an individual to make him a targeteer? And once you have that data, who do you send it to and what do you send? Those are the two major issues we tackle with this aircraft. We have a lot of bandwidth and compatibility issues to solve in the Navy. [But] horizontal integration between platforms isn't necessarily there.''
<br>
<br>Two flying testbeds have been designed and built that incorporate a common fiber-optic backbone that acts as two of the aircraft's ``central nervous systems.'' The architecture, built in collaboration with the Office of Naval Research (ONR), is designed to be easily altered by the integration of new sensors, computers, software and communications and targeting technologies--key components of next-generation airborne intelligence-gathering and targeting systems.
<br>
<br>But fielding new combat capability quickly isn't the project's only objective. ``This aircraft is really about saving cost,'' Carvalho said. ``It's the first smart plane we've built in the U.S. Navy. It works so well that we installed a SAR/MTI [synthetic aperature radar/moving target indicator] radar in six weeks from the word `go' to actually flying it.''
<br>
<br>For now, the focus of the three-aircraft unit is the Hairy Buffalo program. It uses an NP-3 testbed aircraft to tackle the problems of identifying and locating moving targets on the ocean's surface and ground as part of the littoral battlefield. The aircraft is designed to offer onboard fusing of sensors, communications and targeting.
<br>
<br>The Navy's Hairy Buffalo aircraft roughly parallels the Air Force's C-135 Speckled Trout advanced-technology testbed aircraft that focuses on advanced command and control, long-range communications and futuristic sensors. A key element of both Speckled Trout and the Navy projects is the ability to move large amounts of data provided by space-based communications and other sensor systems.
<br>
<br>Of the Navy unit's other aircraft, one is involved in antisubmarine warfare research while the other pursues additional time-critical-targeting initiatives. The three aircraft support different areas of research for the Multirole Maritime Aircraft (MMA) program. MMA is the generic term for the Navy's plan to replace the long-serving P-3 (some critics say the new program will be nothing more than new or refurbished P-3s).
<br>
<br>ALTHOUGH HAIRY BUFFALO USES a P-3 airframe, its potential customers aren't limited to the maritime patrol fleet. Sensors demonstrated in the project are expected to feed other systems such as the Navy's E-2C airborne early warning aircraft or a replacement for the S-3 carrier-based support aircraft.
<br>
<br>Hairy Buffalo has a number of long-term goals. It may offer a way to cheaply update the Navy's fleet of P-3 patrol aircraft and other aging airframes to lower their operating costs. Part of that effort addresses future requirements for greater data bandwidth, new types of sensors and information integration.
<br>
<br>The project also focuses on reducing the time needed to move a project from its initial proposal to field operations. And the program has been structured to support multiple research and development projects at the same time by functioning as an airborne battle laboratory during fleet battle experiments and joint exercises. By simultaneously carrying and operating a number of projects, it can cut the cost to customers through fewer flight hours charges, cost sharing and reduced integration and support costs. To reduce redundancy, the aircraft has the ability to collect and archive multispectral data from the same target set.
<br>
<br>FOR DOUBTERS, Hairy Buffalo modifications offer a tangible ``vision of how aircraft of tomorrow may be designed as true roll on-roll off [easy to replace]'' reconnaissance and patrol aircraft through development of an ``Information Technology Management backbone,'' said Carvalho. The open architecture system is designed to ``provide all the available data, everywhere, all the time'' from the start of a mission, he said.
<br>
<br>Ultimately, however, Hairy Buffalo's mission is to support research in attacking moving targets--now referred to as time-critical strike--and how to rapidly transfer target data via information distribution networks. As the system matures, it is being tested as part of the Maritime Battle Center's fleet battle experiment series.
<br>
<br>The focus on attacking relocatable targets has put Hairy Buffalo at the forefront of Navy efforts to field a ground moving target indicator (GMTI) capability. Senior Navy aviators have struggled for some time to decide where that capability should reside. Assigning the project to Hairy Buffalo has caused some consternation among other Navy project officials. For example, the P-3 and E-2C programs had their own goals of becoming the spearhead for the Navy's efforts to capture elusive targets.
<br>
<br>The critical technology at the heart of the specialized aircraft's versatility is Lockheed Martin Aeronautics' fiber-optic bus with wavelength division multiplexing (FOBWDM). Navy officials describe the system as providing extremely high bandwidth (perhaps an upper limit of 1 terabit/sec.), at low cost, while offering a reliable and secure way to transmit light at a single wavelength. ``The growth margins are huge,'' Carvalho said. The off-the-shelf components provide an avionics backbone that allows simultaneous, non-interfering data transfers among sensors, transmitters, receivers, displays, controls, memories and processors.
<br>
<br>Of equal interest is the fiber-optic system's ability to simultaneously transfer discrete, analog and digital transmissions that are compatible with commercial, military, FAA and special-purpose interfaces. Project members describe the system as ``future-proofed'' and scalable from a few plug-and-play nodes to several hundred using two standard 10-micron optical fibers.
<br>
<br>AS A BENEFIT TO older aircraft, the fiber-optic system replaces two tons of very expensive wiring. That translates into greater range, speed, payload or altitude. In anticipation of the next-generation battlefield where directed energy weapons or electronic attack is likely, researchers contend that fiber optics are immune to electromagnetic interference, radio frequency interference, lightning-generated current surges, sparks, fire hazards, short circuits and cross talk between channels.
<br>
<br>Another unique element of Hairy Buffalo is its ONR-sponsored, Northrop-Grumman-built, X-band APY-6 radar with simultaneous SAR (for picture-like images) and MTI (to locate and track low-flying and moving ground targets) capability. ``Right now we're looking at all-weather strike, and the only systems that work are SAR/MTI and ESM [electronic support measures],'' Carvalho said.
<br>
<br>OTHER EQUIPMENT INCLUDES a real-time sensor data link, a moving target exploitation system and moving map software. A recent, highly classified Defense Science Board report has called for development of a family of modular X-band radar that can easily share data and be modified on a continuing basis.
<br>
<br>``If you can combine the three major grids of targeting, sensors and command and control on board a single aircraft, you reduce the amount of data you have to send over communications. This is important because in over-the-horizon targeting you are going to rely on low-bandwidth communications. You send back only the data you need'' to conduct weapon launches, control a weapon, UAV or unmanned combat air vehicle in flight, or pass target data to a strike aircraft.
<br>
<br>In a recent fleet battle experiment, the Hairy Buffalo aircraft was able to detect a possible convoy of Scud missile launchers in bad weather that thwarted electro-optical sensor-equipped aircraft and UAVs. By using SAR, Hairy Buffalo identified T-72 tanks, armored personnel carriers and antiaircraft guns and missiles moving in a convoy and plotted their hiding sites. MTI reports and SAR images were passed to a ground station.
<br>
<br>The low-cost, four-aperture radar also used its SAR to image a P-3 on the ground after being cued to the aircraft by a rotating antenna detection mode on the radar that was able to pick up the turning props. The radar has up to 1-ft. resolution at 70 naut. mi. with a growth potential that would allow it to detect submarine periscopes. Hairy Buffalo has the capability to provide targeting data to weapon-carrying aircraft or ships. Soon, Hairy Buffalo will be able to target its own weapons systems, which could include Slam-er, Harpoon, Tomahawk cruise missile or the Harm antiradar missile. In the most recent exercise, the target identified by Hairy Buffalo was confirmed visually using a UAV, and ground forces launched a Hellfire missile to destroy it.
<br>
<br>The exercises pointed out a number of strengths and weakness in the system, Carvalho said:
<br>
<br>-- The current 200-deg. coverage of the radar needs to increase to 360 deg. in both SAR and MTI modes to maintain target tracks and identification. The team wants to explore antenna innovations and configurations that can be mounted in pods beneath the aircraft.
<br>
<br>-- Automated Target Recognition algorithms need to be employed if other sensors are unavailable for target corroboration in bad weather.
<br>
<br>-- The Moving Target Exploitation system allowed the aircraft to do its own targeting and passing of targeting messages via secure networks to other strike platforms, thereby eliminating the need for high bandwidth line of sight communications.
<br>
<br>-- Much work is needed in validating SAR and MTI files and analyzing imagery for exploitation. Streaming of SAR imagery is impractical because it requires great bandwidth and a high degree of analysis. Onboard analysis with selected imagery and notes made by the mission commander on Hairy Buffalo was found to be more effective than by ground operators.
<br>
<br>Scheduled next for installation on Hairy Buffalo is an ESM system to locate and identify electronic emitters on the battlefield, an over-the-horizon communications package and a passive millimeter-wave-imaging system (for precise target identification) for demonstration in the next fleet battle experiment. Data from the ESM system would be fused with the SAR/MTI data to make earlier and more accurate identifications of targets.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Two NP-3s are being fitted with fiber-optic backbones to permit quick-change installation of computers and sensors for finding moving objects.
<br>
<br>DAVID A. FULGHAM/AW&ST PHOTO
<br>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Hairy Buffalo offers simultaneous synthetic aperture radar images and moving target indicator dots to speed target location and identification.
<br>
<br>Subject: Research & development; R & D; Military aircraft; Design engineering; Sensors; Product testing; Avionics
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Company / organization: Name: Navy-US; NAICS: 928110; SIC: 9700
<br>
<br>Classification: 5400: Research & development; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9190: United States; 7500: Product planning & development
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 154
<br>
<br>Issue: 8
<br>
<br>Pages: 56-57
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2001
<br>
<br>Publication date: February 19, 2001</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_38');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 38 -->
<a name="x39"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x39" class="tiny">x39</a>
Barry Watts : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_39');">The Military Use of Space: A Diagnoistic Assessment</a></h1>
<h2>2001-02</h2>
<div id="sect_39" style="display: block;">
<p>Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (<a href="http://www.csbaonline.org">http://www.csbaonline.org</a>), 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 912, Washington, D.C. 20036, 2001, 130 pages.</p>
<blockquote><p>Directed-energy or energy-to-target weapons, by comparison, use particle or electromagnetic beams to transfer destructive energy directly to their targets.<sup>333</sup>
<br />
<br>The amount of energy that directed-energy weapons need to deliver at the target depends on the coupling between the weapon�s energy and the target.350 Factors affecting the efficiency of this coupling include the target�s materials, configuration and orientation to the beam, as well as the type of energy transmitted. Laser energy interacts with the surface of the target, whereas highenergy particles are able to penetrate somewhat deeper.351 The material used for the target�s skin (aluminum or steel in the case of most ballistic missiles), skin thickness, coatings, any target rotation, the precise aim-point on the target (and, in the case of a missiles, whether it is under thrust or not) can all yield different effects.<sup>352</sup> Applying laser energy to a non-burning stage of a multistage, solid-propellant missile, for instance, may be more like trying to puncture an uninflated tire, whereas the same incident energy might cause catastrophic destruction if applied to a burning stage.<sup>353</sup> In addition, the intensity of directed-energy weapons decreases in proportion to the reciprocal of the square of the range from weapon to target. This rapid decrease in incident energy as range to the target increases tends to drive up the requirements for laser power and constellation size. The directed-energy application that has received the most funding and research has been the possibility of using laser weapons for ballistic-missile defense. According to most sources, the ability of an individual laser to concentrate energy on a target depends primarily on the size of optics.<sup>354</sup>
<br>
<br><sup>333</sup> Bob Preston, May/June 2000
<br>
<br><sup>352</sup> Lieutenant Colonel William H. Possel, �Lasers and Missile Defense: New Concepts for Space-based and Ground-based Laser Weapons,� Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, July 1998, Occasional Paper No. 5, pp. 12-13. In 1995, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board estimated that effective engagement of a boost-phase ballistic missile would require about a megajoule of energy from a laser weapon�<i>New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century</i>, Major General Donald L. Lamberson (chair, Directed Energy Panel), <i>Directed Energy Volume</i> (Washington, DC: USAF SAB, 1995), p. 34.
<br>
<br><sup>353</sup> Preston, May/June 2000.
<br>
<br><sup>354</sup> <i>New World Vistas</i>, Lamberson, Directed Energy Volume, p. 26; also, Preston, May/June 2000.
<br>
<br><sup>355</sup> Preston, May/June 2000.
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_39');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 39 -->
<a name="x40"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x40" class="tiny">x40</a>
Fulghum, David a : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">New Northrop Grumman Unit Focuses on Unmanned Aircraft</a></h1>
<h2>2001-04</h2>
<div id="sect_40" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract: <br />
<blockquote><p>Northrop Grumman is aggressively moving to win a pole position in the race for development of unmanned aircraft. One of the company's unmanned reconnaissance aircraft just last week completed the first transpacific flight to Adelaide, Australia, where it will be used in military roles and to monitor illegal immigration and smuggling operations in that country's sparsely populated north. Northrop Grumman's interest has been fanned by the Pentagon's operational use of unmanned reconnaissance aircraft in the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war, Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999 and to conduct the battle damage assessment during the most recent attacks on Iraq's air defense system.</p></blockquote>
<br>
<p>Full text:<br />
<blockquote><p>With the prospect for new manned combat aircraft programs disappearing until about mid-century, Northrop Grumman is aggressively moving to win a pole position in the race for development of unmanned aircraft.
<br>One of the company's unmanned reconnaissance aircraft just last week completed the first transpacific flight to Adelaide, Australia, where it will be used in military roles and to monitor illegal immigration and smuggling operations in that country's sparsely populated north.
<br>The company has created the Unmanned Systems Strategy and Capture Team, headed by Bob Mitchell, vice president for the unmanned system business. Mitchell was a key official in Teledyne Ryan's development of the long-endurance, high-altitude Global Hawk UAV that is now a Northrop Grumman product. Through other recent acquisitions, the company has established a technology base in almost every key area associated with UAVs and the even newer area of unmanned combat aircraft.
<br>Northrop Grumman's interest has been fanned by the Pentagon's operational use of unmanned reconnaissance aircraft in the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war, Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999 and to conduct battle damage assessment during the most recent attacks on Iraq's air defense system. The company also has been encouraged by the Navy's renewed interest in unmanned reconnaissance and strike aircraft that can operate from aircraft carriers. Moreover, the major aerospace contractors have, in addition, been scrapping over some classified programs, at least one of which involves unmanned combat air vehicles small enough to be launched from fighter-size aircraft.
<br>``Now everybody wants part of the action,'' Mitchell said. ``It's a good growth business, and Ralph Crosby, [president of the Integrated Systems Sector], has put together a team from across Northrop Grumman. Its members are looking at the entire range of possibilities.''
<br>But company planners are also aware that it's easy to waste money, so they are looking hard at where to invest. To rationalize the process, they've developed a matrix of verified requirements and cross-referenced them with the degree to which they are funded. ``Global Hawk, for example, is in the top right corner [because it's nearing operational status] and wild ideas in the bottom left,'' Mitchell said.
<br>One other factor will drive their efforts. Company officials have decided that there is no longer any public tolerance of failure. Trial and error, while effective, won't let a program survive the politically charged, image-critical budget process. ``We're changing our thought process'' and allotting more time for the periods before flight tests. The miniature air-launched decoy program (Mald), for example, will go through a new, 3-4 month risk-reduction program before its next flight to ensure a basic, robust platform and to nail down a key ``silver-bullet requirement'' for the first 100 vehicles. In addition, the company has built what it claims is the first unmanned tactical aircraft with dual redundant, high-reliability architecture--the Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical UAV (VTUAV). If an actuator fails, for example, another takes over.
<br>``Given the limited [defense] budget and cost of today's systems, we can't afford to lose them because of reliability problems,'' Mitchell said. ``We want them to offer the same reliability as manned commercial and military aircraft. We believe we've done that on Global Hawk, but across the integrated [military] service sector, we need to go to higher levels of redundancy.''
<br>The Pentagon is currently looking for new sensor capabilities that are small and low-cost. So Northrop Grumman is evaluating at signals intelligence payloads, decoys that can improve UAV survival and low-cost sensors to prepare for an anticipated growth in demand for UAVs. ``We're doing a lot of studies, and there are a lot of programs on the horizon,'' Mitchell said. Unmentioned, but a palpable presence, is the need for a stealthy, long-range, long-endurance UAV--a larger, more robust version of the now-canceled Lockheed-Martin/Boeing Dark Star. Other opportunities might be presented by the cancellation of the new extended-range cruise missile and delays in the replacement for the aging conventional air-launched cruise missile. Finally, Northrop Grumman and other UAV competitors are looking at putting weapons on unmanned aircraft. Planners see weaponization as a ``clear and logical step'' and predict it may offer the right platform for directed energy weapons, such as lasers.
<br>``It takes a long time to get platforms into service, so we're looking for derivatives of existing [UAV platforms],'' Mitchell said
<br>Northrop Grumman's current programs include Global Hawk, VTUAV and Mald.
<br>The Global Hawk carries a synthetic aperture radar, but is being readied for the addition of a moving target indicator. To test its long-range capabilities in anticipation of a deployment to Australia, the aircraft have been flown to the Equator in the Pacific Ocean and back to Edwards AFB, Calif. Europeans, in particular the Germans, are interested in something being referred to as the Eurohawk which would use some Global Hawk capabilities with a European-built sensor.
<br>Northrop Grumman also is looking at UAVs for the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (Bams) program. The plan is to use unmanned reconnaissance aircraft--possibly employing major components of Global Hawk--to increase the capability of a relatively small number of manned patrol aircraft.
<br>The helicopter-based VTUAV offers an operational capability at a speed of 150 kt. and at altitudes up to 20,000 ft. The program went through final design review last week, a critical step before low-rate production. The program suffered a crash of the first unmanned demonstrator and is currently about a month behind, but on track for initial operational capability. The manned P-2 demonstrator is flying daily (a total of about 60 flights so far) to complete fatigue certification.
<br>The next unmanned demonstrator, P-3, will fly late in the program after continued risk-reduction efforts. It is being built at the same time as the first two development UAVs for the Navy. First flight could come as early as December. It will then fly in full operational configuration with the Tactical Control System in February, which marks the start of developmental flights.
<br>THE SMALLER, far cheaper Mald is not dual redundant to keep down cost. So to improve reliability, researchers are going back through every element of the system to confirm and refine its operation. Moreover, the company tests the vehicle and confirms performance parameters by keeping the missile on the launch aircraft for the whole mission. It provides all the test data, but avoids the damage and losses involved with parachute recovery.
<br>Free flight begins in May-June. Both jamming and cruise missile interceptor versions of the missile are planned. And a bit further afield, planners are toying with the idea of putting brilliant antitank (BAT) submunition warheads and sensors on a Mald airframe for precision strike missions.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph Photograph: Reconnaissance and intelligence gathering are the first big roles for unmanned aircraft, but soon weapon-firing variants (Pegasus demonstrator left) will be added to the U.S. military arsenal.
<br>
<br>Subject: Military aircraft; Remote control; Weapons; Market strategy
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Company / organization: Name: Northrop Grumman Corp; Ticker: NOC; NAICS: 336411
<br>
<br>Classification: 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9190: United States; 7000: Marketing
<br>
<br>Title: New Northrop Grumman Unit Focuses on Unmanned Aircraft
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 154
<br>
<br>Issue: 18
<br>
<br>Pages: 76-77
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2001
<br>
<br>Publication date: April 30, 2001</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 40 -->
<a name="x41"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x41" class="tiny">x41</a>
Fulghum, David a : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_41');">Pentagon Reveals Mobile Pain Ray</a></h1>
<h2>2001-05</h2>
<div id="sect_41" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract
<blockquote><p>Directed-energy weapons, including lasers and high-power microwave devices, continue to trickle out of the Pentagon's classified research and development programs, and the latest, a joint project by the Marine Corps and Air Force, is a nonlethal, millimeter-wave, antipersonnel ray. The 10-year, $40-million program was developed to this point with no obvious funding in the defense budget nor with any reference in Pentagon literature about nonlethal weapons development.</blockquote>
<br>Full Text
<br>
<blockquote><p>Directed-energy weapons, including lasers and high-power microwave devices, continue to trickle out of the Pentagon's classified research and development programs, and the latest, a joint project by the Marine Corps and Air Force, is a nonlethal, millimeter-wave, antipersonnel ray.
<br>The 10-year, $40-million program was developed to this point with no obvious funding in the defense budget nor with any reference in Pentagon literature about nonlethal weapons development. Critics of such weapons, who worry about health effects, say the program was purposefully kept ``black or nicely hidden'' to escape public scrutiny for a decade.
<br>With antimissile, antiaircraft and computer-frying directed-energy emitters already being turned into weapons by the U.S., officials in the joint program say they intend this Raytheon-built, millimeter-wave (MMW) energy projector to be used for controlling crowds or perhaps driving off an approaching infantry force with bursts of intensely painful rays. A likely tactical scenario would be to swivel rays of short-pulse, 95-GHz. energy like a fire hose across a group of people to inflict sharp stings on the skin, even through clothing.
<br>Many of the technical details are classified, but the Marine Corps admittedly wants the device to work at ranges of more than half a mile, beyond the effective range of small arms. The beam would be defocused to reduce power and the possibility of permanent damage. Contractors include Raytheon, Communications and Power Industries and Veridian Engineering.
<br>Any effects, researchers contend, are harmless and immediately reversible. They predict at least two factors will help ensure there are no lasting effects. To keep the beam from inflicting burns or damaging eyes, it is limited in power and endurance. They also are convinced that a human's natural inclination--``the repel effect''--will be to escape the pain by running away or closing the eyes.
<br>The directed-energy ray at the point of exposure causes moisture in the outer layer of skin to heat to a temperature high enough that it stings the surrounding tissue like a drop of scalding water. The ray penetrates less than 1/64 in. However, as was demonstrated on those attending the device's first public display, the sting immediately stops when bare skin is moved out of the ray.
<br>Only one person was injured during tests of the millimeter-wave-frequency demonstrator. The test system was once accidentally programmed for an exposure far too long, and the subject suffered a small burn that healed normally, said Kirk Hackett, who leads the high-energy research facility which develops and tests high-power microwave weapons technology for the Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, N.M. Most of the 6,500 test exposures for the ray ranged from 3-10 sec. These tests were the first to expose a person's full body to the energy beam.
<br>Such a weapon would be useful in urban conflicts and where collateral damage is a primary concern, said Marine Corps Col. George Fenton, director of the joint nonlethal weapons office. The Marine's vehicle-mounted active denial system is to be mounted on a Humvee light truck, if the Pentagon gives approval for weaponization of the program. Power would be provided by a turbo-alternator and battery system, Hackett said. Acquisition of the technology is to be taken over by USAF's electronic systems center this summer.
<br>Air Force researchers are openly working on the long-range airborne laser as an antimissile weapon and, in a series of classified programs, are working on an array of high-power microwave and laser weapons and sensors. Laser sensors are in particular demand because they can produce detailed images of targets, even to the point of determining the materials they are made from. HPM weapons are valued because they can be used to scramble computer memories and otherwise disable computers that control key battlefield command and communications capabilities.
<br>The Air Force, cosponsor of the project, has other targets in mind for high-power microwave weapons. Researchers want to put such directed-energy weapons on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and perhaps the Joint Strike Fighter to burn up the electronics of key devices, including vehicle ignitions, as part of a combination computer attack and information warfare campaign. The British also are developing HPM weapons for use on UAVs and to be fired by artillery.
<br>However, to shift from an antipersonnel weapon to a device that damages electronic circuitry requires far different applications of the technology. The frequency of the weapon would have to shift much lower, from 95 GHz. to around 1 GHz., the peak power of the beam would have to increase dramatically and it would have to be powerful enough for use at longer ranges. For example, to survive ground fire, even unmanned aircraft have to operate at an altitude of at least 15,000 ft.
<br>Researchers say they have made technological breakthroughs on power supplies to run such weapons even when mounted on vehicles or aircraft. Batteries, generators and devices driven by shafts attached to the aircraft's engine would be expected to supply the necessary power. Operational planners say the UAV is the most likely candidate for HPM weapons since it can get closer to targets without endangering air crews.
</blockquote>
<p>Word count: 839
<br />Aviation Week & Space Technology 154.19 (May 7, 2001): 82-83.
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_41');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 41 -->
<a name="x42"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x42" class="tiny">x42</a>
Fulghum, David a. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">Laser Can Foil SAMs, Air-to-Air Missiles</a></h1>
<h2>2001-05</h2>
<div id="sect_42" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>A new infrared countermeasures system, designed to protect large aircraft like the C-17 from heat-seeking missiles, has for the first time successfully used a laser to scan the inner workings and outer shape of an attacking weapon, precisely identify it and, finally, provide the correct jamming signal to lead it off course. This breakthrough gives visibility to a larger trend, say senior aerospace planners. They believe air-to-air and antiaircraft missiles are a mature technology, about to be left in the dust by rapidly advancing directed energy weapons. The first successful live-fire test of the Laser Infrared countermeasures Flyout Experiment, a $30-million cooperative effort by the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, and Lockheed Martin in Akron, Ohio, was completed earlier this year at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>A new infrared countermeasures system, designed to protect large aircraft like the C-17 from heat-seeking missiles, has for the first time successfully used a laser to scan the inner workings and outer shape of an attacking weapon, precisely identify it and, finally, provide the correct jamming signal to lead it off course.
<br>This breakthrough gives visibility to a larger trend, say senior aerospace planners. They believe air-to-air and antiaircraft missiles are a mature technology, about to be left in the dust by rapidly advancing directed energy weapons (DEW). Greater profitability will come from directed energy weapons, as missile development flattens. ``The major companies already realize that the future belongs to DEW,'' an aerospace official said. To reflect this conviction, they have been quietly forming divisions dedicated to directed-energy work.
<br>The first successful live-fire test of the Laser Infrared countermeasures Flyout Experiment (Life), a $30-million cooperative effort by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, and Lockheed Martin in Akron, Ohio, was completed earlier this year at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. In its mature form, the system will use a multiband laser to identify an approaching weapon by the sensor it carries and other characteristics. A closed-loop infrared countermeasures (CLIRCM) capability enables the system to assess the characteristics of an incoming missile and then return a complex synchronized jam code. That causes the missile to make a high-g turn away from the aircraft (to chase a cluster of false targets), break lock and miss by a great distance. The system phases the generation of false targets so that the incoming missile tracks away in one direction.
<br>Older open-loop, laser-based self-defense systems produce random false targets that make the missile wobble in flight, but not necessarily break lock on the target.
<br>``The missile's guidance loop is degraded, but not destroyed,'' said an Air Force researcher. ``The result of [such] suboptimal jamming is that [the threat missile] is wandering around still trying to reacquire the target. It doesn't result in large miss distances. But if [CLIRCM] can drive the missile off efficiently in one direction, the total time to jam is a lot less [as little as 3-4 sec.].'' Total engagement time is reduced, and the defensive system is free to move quickly to the next antiaircraft missile.
<br>The Life tests employed shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) fired at a specially designed carrier suspended from a cable between two mountaintops, said John Wojnar, Lockheed Martin's director of advanced programs business development.
<br>The Life advanced technology demonstration is to conduct a second set of live missile firing tests this summer, using both air-to-air missiles and SAMs. These will be followed by captive carry tests on a C-17 in 2002. The technology will then be shifted to Wright-Patterson AFB as a potential upgrade to the Large Aircraft IRCM system.
<br>The Pentagon has the immediate problem of proliferating infrared antiaircraft and air-to-air weapons. While its researchers have produced effective defenses against radar-guided missiles, the ability to defeat infrared missiles has not been as effective. Aircraft like the C-17 produce huge heat signatures. As a result, they are threatened by the hundreds of thousands of cheap, very mobile SA-14/-16/-18-type missiles on the world market that could be operated clandestinely within a few miles of an airfield. About half of the aircraft lost in combat over the last two decades have been to heat-seeking missiles, said James Eichorn, Lockheed Martin's Life program manager. Because the U.S. has been so effective in foiling radar-guided missiles, foreign manufacturers are modifying their radar missiles with electro-optical and infrared sensors to avoid detection.
<br>The new technology is expected to aid in the development of future self-defense systems for both manned and unmanned aircraft. While the AFRL/Lockheed Martin Life system is designed to react only to missiles already in the air, more futuristic systems will try to find threats, and damage or destroy them before they are launched.
<br>WHILE NOT PART of the Life program, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has launched several programs to design and test key laser-based IR countermeasures (IRCM) components. Two--named Medusa and Steered Agile Beam--focus on conformal optical arrays for high-performance aircraft that neither disturb aerodynamic flow, which creates drag, nor increase the aircraft's radar signature. It would shift infrared countermeasures systems away from ponderous, electro-optical turrets, thereby reducing cost, weight, space and reaction time. Both programs explore the utility of these arrays for the Joint Strike Fighter, F-22 or even the visionary unmanned air combat vehicle (UCAV). The latter is to rely heavily on autonomous, closed-loop systems to identify the target.
<br>Earlier this month, in associated work, AFRL's directed energy directorate at Kirtland AFB, N.M., awarded $23 million for a five-year Aircraft Directed-Energy Laser Applications (Adela) program to develop and test an antiaircraft missile defense system by 2004. Textron received $13 million to design, develop and test lasers and laser beam controls. Raytheon was given $4.5 million to integrate plans for field testing at its Tucson, Ariz., facility. ITT Industries was awarded $4.5 million to conduct laser effects experiments against advanced antiaircraft missiles. Applied Research Corp. of Atlanta received $1 million to develop and revise missile computer models.
<br>The Life testbed now being demonstrated is made up of five basic components, parts of which will be upgraded as testing progresses:
<br>-- A two-color IR missile warning sensor and processor for wide-area (90 X 90 deg.) missile detection that cues the system that the aircraft is under attack. ``They went to two color to ensure the wide-field-of-view warning sensor could detect missile launches in a cluttered environment and not be plagued by large numbers of false alarms,'' said Bill Taylor, technical adviser for the AFRL's electro-optical warfare branch. The two-color system allows the missile plume to be distinguished spectrally from the solar glints and clutter. The Life system also has a reduced detection threshold which makes it better able to see faint, fleeting targets.
<br>-- A fine-track, narrow field-of-view camera that uses a very sensitive, cooled 512 X 512-pixel infrared focal plane array to track the missile after cueing by the missile warning sensor. After tracking the missile passively, the system shifts to an active laser mode performing functions somewhat like a laser radar.
<br>-- A laser-specific gimbal that provides very precise pointing of the laser while tracking the incoming missile to keep the beam consistently on the target. Laser energy is transmitted in a very narrow beam allowing a finer focus of jamming power. High-power lasers are usually associated with heavy weight, so lower power, narrow-beam lasers are preferred. The smaller the gimbal, the less mass there is to move, therefore the system responds quicker.
<br>-- The current multiwatt mid-IR laser will be replaced with a more capable device built by BAE Systems for jamming bands 1, 2 and 4. It is expected to be available for tests during the next year. It will operate in multiple wavelengths to ensure it won't be fooled by countermeasures. Earlier laser systems keyed on a missile's engine plume and used a laser beam wide enough to encompass the plume and the missile's sensor. But a wider beam width means there is less total jamming power applied to the sensor aperture.
<br>-- And a closed-loop IRCM signal processor with a countermeasure effectiveness assessment capability. Today, all the IR countermeasure systems are open loop, which means they only transmit. A closed-loop system like Lockheed Martin's both transmits and receives laser signals. It uses the laser in a radar-like function as the heart of a closed-loop operation capable of defending against a variety of missiles.
<br>Like many other new weapons and sensors, a key technology for Life is an on-board processor capable of performing billions of operations per second. Such speed is critical given a SAM's flight time of a few seconds when aircraft are at low altitude. Life's processors hold detailed algorithms for threat identification ``that allows us to point out the exact jam code instead of a generic [jamming signal that may not work in time],'' an Air Force official said. Earlier defensive systems would simply run through a series of jam codes, hoping to get to the right one before the missile struck. It is important that the complex scan patterns of modern infrared missiles be synchronized with the jam code. Gathering such data is difficult since a number of countries have made their own unique changes to SAM weaponry, making them hard to jam.
<br>THERE ARE FUTURE antiaircraft weapons that will be even tougher to defeat. For example, new missiles like Israel's Python 4 air-to-air missile and Japan's Keiko SAM have sensor components that don't spin or roll. These movements within the seeker heads made it possible to identify older sensors and figure out appropriate defensive measures.
<br>``Imaging seekers on next-generation SAMs could make everyone's life hard,'' said Eichorn. ``There's no unique characteristics to work on.'' Life's modestly powered laser confuses, but doesn't damage the enemy seeker. In 10-15 years, when SAMs are further improved, more powerful lasers will be introduced in follow-on systems that can damage or destroy a seeker head.
<br>The massive computing power of the new Lockheed Martin Life defensive system allows it to prioritize missiles that have targeted the aircraft. Often shoulder-fired SAMs are launched in pairs to improve the possibility of a kill. The system judges which missile will reach it first, directs the laser to the most immediate threat, modulates it correctly for a quick break lock, fires, notifies the pilot that the threat is gone and then shifts to the next most-pressing concern. The system works autonomously, leaving the aircrew to focus on its primary missions.
<br>``These initial tests demonstrated a major breakthrough . . . and paves the way toward incorporation of the techniques and technologies . . . into next-generation aircraft,'' said Mark Wunderlich, the AFRL Life program manager.
<br>In the future, analysts envision a three-layered self-protection system for aircraft against IR missiles. The first layer would keep enemy missiles on the launch rail by using lasers to damage or destroy the IR trackers at a SAM site. The second layer would be a system similar to Life that jams missiles in flight. The third layer of defense may involve use of antimissile missiles small enough to be fired from flare dispensers. The weapons would be designed to kill even antiaircraft missiles with multimode seekers that operate outside the IR portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>Photograph: Detailed CLIRCM algorithms analyze laser returns and select the precise jamming code that will put the missile into a high-g turn.
<br>Word count: 1752
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br />Aviation Week & Space Technology 154.21 (May 21, 2001): 43-44.
<br>Publication date
<br>May 21, 2001
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 42 -->
<a name="x43"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x43" class="tiny">x43</a>
Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_43');">DSTO Eyes Lead Role In Niche R&D Areas</a></h1>
<h2>2001-05</h2>
<div id="sect_43" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Operating with limited funding, Australia's military research organization has opted to concentrate on a few areas of expertise, rather than pursuing projects across a broad technology spectrum. Aerospace-related research work is one of the largest funding areas, receiving about 22% of the money. Another high-priority mission area is command, control, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, which receives about 23% of DSTO's money. To help stretch its research dollars, DSTO often looks for cooperative programs.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Operating with limited funding, Australia's military research organization has opted to concentrate on a few areas of expertise, rather than pursuing projects across a broad technology spectrum.
<br>The Defense Science and Technology Organization has an annual budget of about $110 million. While that level may increase in the near future as a result of last year's defense white paper, it is not expected to drastically shift the scope of work DSTO undertakes.
<br>``Science and technology features quite strongly in the white paper,'' said Norbert Burman, research leader at DSTO's energetic materials and terminal effects weapons systems division. The overriding goal is staying consistent, though, trying to be ``world leaders in some niche areas.''
<br>Aerospace-related work is one of the largest funding areas, receiving about 22% of the money. Another high-priority mission area is command, control, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, which receives about 23% of DSTO's money. A lot of the funding goes into research projects associated with maintaining and improving existing weapon systems. Truly long-term, enabling research draws about 11% of R&D funding. DSTO's budget is supplemented occasionally by the military services, which may pay for work that particularly interests them.
<br>IN MANY AREAS where Australia can't afford massive research efforts, it is trying to keep scientists involved to maintain at least a knowledge base of what capabilities may exist. One example is the growing field of directed-energy weapons. Pursuing that kind of work would require ``huge amounts of money'' that Australia doesn't have, said David Graham, the air force scientific adviser who acts as a liaison between the Royal Australian Air Force and DSTO. ``We're just keeping a watch on technology'' with an eye toward protecting against those threats, he said.
<br>Similarly, military space research is seen as largely unaffordable. ``We are just starting small,'' Graham said.
<br>But that doesn't mean that all emerging fields are being shunted aside. Information warfare, for instance, has attracted substantial interest here, and not just the defensive side. The RAAF has established an information attack squadron that will work with DSTO to support the entire Australian Defense Force. Members of the unit will be dispersed throughout the force, Graham said.
<br>To help stretch its research dollars, DSTO often looks for cooperative programs. France is one of the countries most actively involved--both Thales and EADS' French arm are working in Australia. French firms are much more active than U.S. or U.K. entities, noted William H. Schofield, director of DSTO's aeronautical and maritime research laboratory.
<br>Nevertheless, there are some high-profile efforts undertaken cooperatively with both the U.S. and U.K, in many cases using Australia's massive Woomera test range. For instance, the U.K. brought a Tornado to Australia to test its Alarm antiradiation missile, said officials at the RAAF's Aircraft R&D Unit (ARDU). Talks are now underway to do something similar with the Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missile. Moreover, the U.S. Air Force is considering testing its Jassm cruise missile in Australia--a weapon the RAAF itself is planning to buy.
<br>To limit the amount of work the ARDU has to do, engineers here try to exploit flight test information conducted in other countries. For instance, U.S. tests of the Amraam air-to-air missile off the F/A-18 allowed Australia to proceed immediately into its operational evaluation of the system rather than duplicate test activities.
<br>One of the largest cooperative efforts is being undertaken with Canada, to conduct in-depth structural testing of the F/A-18. The goal of the International Follow-on Structural Testing Project (Ifost) is to determine what the true life of the airframe is, rather than the design life advertised by Boeing, said Schofield. Aft fuselage testing by DSTO is aimed mainly at determining the structural impact of the F/A-18's severe buffet at high angle of attack. DSTO instrumented a flying F/A-18 to determine exactly what loads are being experienced, and now is duplicating them to within 5% in the test rig, said project manager Loris Molent.
<br>According to DSTO estimates, research so far has revealed that the aircraft fatigue life is 25% greater than expected, which amounts to a savings of about $700 million. The test itself cost $50 million, Schofield said.
<br>An area where Australia has long been at the forefront is composite patch repair. The use of these patches has now proliferated to other countries, but researchers are still looking for improvements. The latest development, ``smart'' patches, feature embedded electronics to monitor the difference in the strains experienced by the patch and the underlying structure, to provide data on whether a hidden crack is growing. That information would be retrieved using a wireless computer interrogation system, said project manager Alan Baker. The goal is to conduct an inflight demonstration using an F/A-18 soon.
<br>HUMAN FACTORS RESEARCH also attracts substantial DSTO attention. For instance, the organization is working on a three-dimensional audio cueing system to signal pilots where threats are located. Using information from on-board sensors, such as the radar warning receiver, the sound of a missile launching or flying by is projected into the pilot's headset in a way that represents spatially where the event occurred.
<br>Tests comparing a simple audio signal with a three-dimensional one showed that the time it took a pilot to find the threat was reduced to about 4 sec. from an average of 16 sec., said Ken McAnally, a researcher on the project. Also, because cockpits are relatively voice-dense environments, engineers opted for sounds that represent the type of threat being experienced, rather than adding another voice. For instance, antiaircraft artillery is depicted using a gun sound, while a missile launch is represented by the sound of an arrow being fired.
<br>In addition to its R&D activity, DSTO plays a significant role in Australia's operational concept development, acquisition activities and strategic planning. Schofield noted that the organization supported the defense white paper process. On the acquisition support side, it acts as ``the technology watchdog'' to ensure the systems are delivered as promised.
<br>The Wedgetail airborne early warning system is one of the largest undertakings in that arena. It represents one of the rare cases in which Australia is the lead customer for a system. To monitor progress, DSTO has dispatched engineers to systems integrator and 737 supplier Boeing and radar manufacturer Northrop Grumman. Furthermore, Wedgetail employment tactics also will be devised with significant DSTO help.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>Photograph: DSTO is providing extensive technical and acquisition support and oversight for the acquisition of the Wedgetail airborne early warning system.
<br>Word count: 1068
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>Volume 154
<br>Issue 22
<br>Pages 51-52
<br>Publication year
<br>2001
<br>Publication date
<br>May 28, 2001</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_43');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 43 -->
<a name="x44"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x44" class="tiny">x44</a>
<a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_44');">Israeli Air Force will continue to add UAVs to its arsenal</a></h1>
<h2>2001-06</h2>
<div id="sect_44" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>MAKEOVER: Responding to the demands of limited conflict scenarios, the Israeli Air Force will continue to add more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to its aircraft arsenal, Israeli ambassador to the U.S. David Ivry says.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>MAKEOVER: Responding to the demands of limited conflict scenarios, the Israeli Air Force will continue to add more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to its aircraft arsenal, Israeli ambassador to the U.S. David Ivry says. The UAVs could be used in a variety of ways, including for reconnaissance, carrying weapons, and using directed energy weapons against opponents. "Directed energy is one of the issues I think should be looked at very seriously because in a limited conflict ... - because you'll be judged by how many civilian casualties you'll have - directed energy and non-lethal weapon system are going to have major (importance)," Ivry says. "There is a change of ratio, no doubt about it," he says, referring to the increase of unmanned aircraft in relation to manned aircraft.
</blockquote>
<p>People: Ivry, David
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aerospace Daily
<br>
<br>Volume: 198
<br>
<br>Issue: 50
<br>
<br>Pages: 2
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2001
<br>
<br>Publication date: Jun 11, 2001</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_44');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 44 -->
<a name="x45"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x45" class="tiny">x45</a>
Mann, Paul : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_45');">Aldridge Puts Infotech At Top of Priority List</a></h1>
<h2>2001-06</h2>
<div id="sect_45" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>The Pentagon's new leadership intends to seek incremental spending increases for defense science and technology programs that combined would receive about $8 billion a year versus the current $7 billion plus, backed by a special fund to speed the transition of new weapons technologies into the field. Information technology, space systems anddirected energy weapons, particularly lasers, will be the top priorities of the Pentagon's new acquisition and technology czar, Edward C. Aldridge.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The Pentagon's new leadership intends to seek incremental spending increases for defense science and technology programs that combined would receive about $8 billion a year versus the current $7 billion plus, backed by a special fund to speed the transition of new weapons technologies into the field.
<br>Information technology, space systems and directed energy weapons, particularly lasers, will be the top priorities of the Pentagon's new acquisition and technology czar, Edward C. Aldridge, who took over his post in late May. In addition, a Pentagon working group is formulating a Hypersonics Technology Plan, intended to result in a whole new range of hypersonic airbreathing aircraft, engines and weapons.
<br>Other technologies high on the list of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's civilian lieutenants include radiation-
<br>hardened electronics (in support of fuller U.S. dominance of space), detection and destruction of deeply buried targets, nanoscience, embedded computing, novel composites and cognitive engineering to improve psychological warfare operations.
<br>TESTIFYING BEFORE a Senate panel last week, Aldridge recommended that Pentagon dollars for science and technology (S&T) programs receive 2.5-3% of the total annual defense budget, which is just over $300 billion.
<br>That percentage is consistent with private sector industries that conduct long-range research, like pharmaceuticals, according to Aldridge and Delores M. Etter, acting director of defense research and engineering and deputy undersecretary of Defense for science and technology. They appeared jointly before the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, whose new chairwoman, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.), succeeded Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) last week when Democrats took over majority control of the Senate.
<br>Aldridge declined to specify projected dollar amounts for defense S&T until the Pentagon completes its strategic review. Based on current figures, the 2.5-3% level he proffered would result in an annual S&T budget in the neighborhood of $8 billion, some $800 million above current levels. The Pentagon is spending around $1 billion this year for basic research, about $3 billion for applied research and roughly $3 billion for advanced technology development. They total just over $7 billion. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) gets about $90 million for basic research in the broad areas Aldridge favors, like the Next Generation Internet and computing/communications systems.
<br>Etter's office is studying the best way to administer a ``transition opportunity fund,'' backed by Landrieu and Roberts, to rank order those technologies that should be made available the soonest to the services. Senators want to insulate the fund from the vagaries of the annual budget process, to encourage faster insertion of new technologies into weapons procurement, and thence to the field. Landrieu said concepts like the transition fund are essential if Congress and the Pentagon are ``to stop robbing'' the S&T budget to pay for readiness expenses, a deeply entrenched budgetary habit.
<br>In effect, the technology transition fund would build on the existing Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD) program. Kicked off in 1994, it brings theater commander influence directly to bear on the acquisition process. The program is an integral part of Darpa.
<br>Etter admonished, however, that the technology opportunity fund is by no means ``a silver bullet''--nor is there one, she stated. The transitioning of technologies into procurement has to be judged from revolving perspectives among a host of programs. ``We also think there are ways to change the funding process for ACTD,'' to accelerate the transition of demonstrated technologies into procurement.
<br>Aldridge endorsed the concept of ``spiral development'' or ``spiral acquisition,'' a catchphrase for bringing emerging technologies onstream more efficiently in prolonged acquisitions, which sometimes stretch out to 10 or 15 years or more for major programs. Spiral development is aimed particularly at software. ``Problems attributed to software remain a significant contributor to program cost, schedule and performance shortfalls,'' Aldridge and Etter told the subcommittee.
<br>Etter also had cautionary words about the system of ``technology readiness levels'' the Pentagon is adopting, to give weapons program managers a clearer understanding of how much risk they will assume if they adopt a given technology. This too is part of the Pentagon's effort to accelerate technology transition.
<br>The difficulty is resources, Etter said: first, the time and effort involved in making the technology readiness evaluations themselves; second, the uncertainty of whether additional funding would be available to finance greater risk reduction in the S&T phase of acquisition.
<br>Aldridge agreed the Pentagon would have to boost money spent on a ``trail'' of demonstrations to assure weapons program managers of the reliability and usefulness of technological capabilities coming from defense laboratories and universities. ``We could do a better job'' of funding, he conceded, saying the 2.5-3% S&T level he recommends would be enough.
<br>Etter emphasized the importance of applying the technology readiness ratings consistently across the services, and of keeping tabs on software as well as hardware.
<br>Turning to electronics, Etter said that although the private sector can meet many of the military's needs, it cannot meet them all. She cited the particular importance of Pentagon funding of radiation-hardened electronics ``as we make the move into space, [because] this is an area where there is not a commercial market.''
<br>The Defense Dept. has two fabrication lines for ``radhard'' electronics, but they are about two-and-a-half generations behind the private sector and the gap should be shortened to one generation, Etter said.
<br>The Defense Science Board urged last year that the Pentagon boost and reorganize S&T funding (AW&ST Oct. 16, 2000, p. 28). Numerous studies have deplored the shrinkage of defense S&T, including the S&T workforce. The 28,500 scientists and engineers employed today at the Pentagon's 84 laboratories and research and development centers represent a 42% drop in manpower since 1990, according to Etter's figures. Aldridge gave priority to revitalizing the acquisition workforce, a cause also topping the agenda of a House government reform panel (AW&ST May 28, p. 33).
<br>Asked what he would do if the basic research budget were doubled, Aldridge immediately cited infotech, both information assurance and information warfare. Assurance means ``we can operate in ways that an adversary cannot disrupt.'' Info-warfare superiority is essential ``because in a conflict, the ability to deny information is something that adds more to deterrence that anything [else] on my list.'' He ranked space systems second, on grounds they are instrumental in every form of targeting.
<br>The new acquisition czar affirmed he had directed procurement chiefs and research directors to stop relying on the independent research and development (IR&D) funds of defense contractors when the Pentagon underfunds given programs. The crackdown is intended to encourage industry to do more research of its own.
<br>There are exceptions to the rule, Aldridge said, pointing to the evolving expendable launch vehicle as a good example of the kind of undertaking the Pentagon and the private sector could justifiably cofinance. But he declared flatly that the Defense Dept. engaged in ``an unhealthy practice'' when it pressured defense companies to use their own IR&D funds or even their profits ``to help us through transition periods at'' the Pentagon.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>Photograph: Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.), head of Senate emerging threats panel.
<br>Photograph
<br>Photograph: Edward C. Aldridge, new Pentagon acquisition and technology czar.
<br>Word count: 1177
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>Aviation Week & Space Technology 154.24 (June 11, 2001): 46-47.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_45');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 45 -->
<a name="x46"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x46" class="tiny">x46</a>
Mann, Paul : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">Defense Reform Stresses Speed, Agility, Jointness</a></h1>
<h2>2001-06</h2>
<div id="sect_46" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Embracing Clausewitz's precept that no conquest can be carried out too quickly, the Bush team's national military transformation plan hinges on a global joint response force whose essences if obliterative speed, agility, precision strike and logistical economy. If the transformation blueprint becomes policy, the joint response force would be schooled, armed and trained to fight conflicts of all kinds and sizes.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Embracing Clausewitz's precept that no conquest can be carried out too quickly, the Bush team's notional military transformation plan hinges on a global joint response force whose essence is obliterative speed, agility, precision strike and logistical economy.
<br>In a breaking crisis, the all-purpose, joint rapid-reaction force, patterned after Air Force and Marine expeditionary units, would be ready to commence operations within 24 hr., able to establish control within 96 hr. and equipped to secure ``decisive resolution'' within 30 days (AW&ST Feb. 26, p. 24).
<br>IF THE TRANSFORMATION blueprint becomes policy, the joint response force would be schooled, armed and trained to fight conflicts of all kinds and sizes, endowed with an ambidextrous capability the Pentagon calls ``full-spectrum dominance.''
<br>The desire for compressed action reflects not only classical precepts of speed, shock and precision, but also the political assumption that the American public will not accept prolonged conflict and high casualties.
<br>No new forces would be involved in setting up the joint response force. The object is to reorganize, retrain and reequip existing forces so that they can operate far more jointly than they have up to now. Jointness would be institutionalized, so that it is reflexive in the military services.
<br>What would be novel is a standing joint command and control system to encourage such institutionalization. It would be deployable in as little as 24 hr., designed to assure that all elements of the joint response force share all situational knowledge. It is intended to provide more parallel, continuous and seamless operations.
<br>No technological breakthroughs are needed to equip the joint response force, according to the transformation study, released by the Pentagon last week and conducted by a federal research center, the Institute for Defense Analysis. Air Force Gen. (ret.) James P. McCarthy led the project.
<br>Steering clear of Buck Rogers-style concepts, the plan puts a premium on faster application of existing technologies, on a shorter logistics tail and on lower operations and support costs.
<br>Faster technology application would be encouraged by a ``Transformation Discretionary Fund'' of up to $500 million at the disposal of the secretary of Defense, starting in Fiscal 2002. This is analogous to a ``transition opportunity fund,'' under study by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, that would encourage faster insertion of new technologies into the stream of weapons procurement (AW&ST June 11, p. 46).
<br>The McCarthy study endorses an array of weapons in support of the proposed joint response force, although any go-ahead awaits the nod of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in concert with the White House. The wish list includes:
<br>-- Accelerating Navy fielding of the Joint Strike Fighter. No deadline was specified, but McCarthy urged that fielding take place as rapidly as possible, perhaps two or three years earlier than the currently planned 2010-12. The study made no recommendation on taking money from the F/A-18 or any other program to speed JSF.
<br>-- Enlarging the carriage capacity of the existing 21 B-2s (to deploy up to 324 small-diameter bombs each) and B-52 bombers.
<br>-- Speeding Global Hawk deployment.
<br>-- Funding the evolving expendable launch vehicle.
<br>-- Bolstering research and development for microsatellites, directed-energy weapons, stealth and counterstealth technologies, space maneuvering vehicles, robotics, offensive and defensive information warfare and chemical and biological warfare defenses.
<br>-- Shoring up information network security, sensor integration and information management.
<br>-- Merging the communications links for intelligence and operations, ensuring that all sensor inputs reach operational commanders rapidly.
<br>-- Conversion of four Trident submarines to cruise missile carriers.
<br>-- Conversion of nuclear-tipped air-launched cruise missiles to conventional ALCMs.
<br>-- Developing a stealthy, joint long-range cruise missile and a new long-range precision strike capability. The latter would be a B-2 follow-on, available well before 2017, either manned or unmanned, possibly a space vehicle or a cruise missile carrier.
<br>The McCarthy plan drew high praise from a senior Reagan-era defense official, Lawrence Korb, who said, ``It makes a great deal of sense and it moves exactly in the right direction. I'm a big fan of the Joint Strike Fighter, and jointness is something we've been doing, but on an ad hoc basis. It's time to institutionalize it'' (AW&ST Apr. 10, 2000, p. 27).
<br>But it is going to be hard for President Bush to find enough money to carry out the program in full, Korb predicted. Given what the President advocated during the campaign, the military should have been a much higher priority than the Administration's $1.3-trillion tax cut, in Korb's view. Fiscally, Bush ``has no wiggle room at all. The great irony is that for 2002 he can put up an extra $20 billion [for defense] without eating into the surplus, but after that, in 2003 and 2004, it goes away. If the economy doesn't snap out of it, the surplus will be going away even more.''
<br>European defense ministries may not react well either, says Kori Schake, an authority on NATO affairs with the Institute for National Security Studies at National Defense University. ``I don't think there will be much reaction from European political leaders, but European defense establishments will probably be alarmed, for two reasons. First, [the plan] demonstrates the growing divergence of the U.S. and European militaries, because the Europeans are not spending the kind of money that will allow them to continue to adapt in the way the U.S. military plans to. Second, they will be concerned about the diminishing American interest in Europe and the kinds of lower-end problems in the military spectrum [as in the Balkans] that are dominating the thinking and planning'' in Europe.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>Photograph: If the military transformation blueprint becomes policy, the B-2 bomber would be equipped with hundreds of small-diameter bombs.
<br>RANDY JOLLY
<br>Word count: 944
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>Indexing (details)
<br>Cite
<br>Subject
<br>Armed forces;
<br>Military policy
<br>Location
<br>United States, US
<br>Classification
<br>9190: United States
<br>9550: Public sector
<br>Title
<br>Defense Reform Stresses Speed, Agility, Jointness
<br>Author
<br>Mann, Paul
<br>Publication title
<br>Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>Volume
<br>154
<br>Issue
<br>25
<br>Pages
<br>72-77
<br>Number of pages
<br>0
<br>Publication year
<br>2001
<br>Publication date
<br>June 18, 2001
<br>Aviation Week & Space Technology 154.25 (June 18, 2001): 72-77.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 46 -->
<a name="x47"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x47" class="tiny">x47</a>
<a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_47');">Army ramping up directed energy weapons for land, air, and space</a></h1>
<h2>2001-07</h2>
<div id="sect_47" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>THEL is a deuterium fluoride chemical laser operating at a power level of hundreds of kilowatts. The complete system involves a beam director, a command and control shelter, and a radar. THEL is an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD).
<br />When completed, the ABL aircraft will carry COIL (chemical oxygen iodine laser) on its nose. COIL is a megawatt-class laser equivalent to 100,000 100-watt light bulbs, and is capable of destroying boost- phase missiles by targeting their fuel tanks. COIL was first developed by Philips Lab at Kirtland Air Force Base in the mid- 1970s.
<br>"Once we have that, we have three lasers that actually operate through the main optical system," explained [James Forrest]. These lasers include two solid state lasers, a track-illuminating laser, and a beacon-illuminating laser.
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Several new directed energy systems are being developed by the services, in conjunction with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), that will use powerful laser energy to destroy missile targets from land, air, and even space.
<br>To address the threat of short-range missiles on the ground, the Army is currently working jointly with Israel on the THEL (Tactical High-Energy Laser) program.
<br>Israel is interested in eventually using THEL to protect its northern border against potential rocket attacks by terrorists.
<br>THEL is a deuterium fluoride chemical laser operating at a power level of hundreds of kilowatts. The complete system involves a beam director, a command and control shelter, and a radar. THEL is an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD).
<br>The most recent test of THEL was a limited operational capability test in which the crew, consisting of two people, didn't know where the launch was going to originate.
<br>The system is largely automated and doesn't require a tremendous amount of technical expertise to operate, according to Richard Bradshaw, program manager for the Directed Energy Technology Program Office at the Army's Space and Missile Defense Technical Center.
<br>"You could almost take anybody in here, and probably in an hour, teach them how to operate the system," Bradshaw said at a missile defense conference here.
<br>So far, THEL has shot down 23 rockets. More tests are scheduled for this summer, according to Bradshaw.
<br>THEL has been tested against Katyusha rockets, which are approximately 3.5 meters long and 122 millimeters in diameter. Katyusha rockets did considerable damage to American bases during the Vietnam War, according to Bradshaw.
<br>For the time being, Israel has elected not to employ THEL because it is not mobile. However, the current system is being used as a test bed for a future mobile THEL system.
<br>"The Israelis would be happy with a [system that fit in] a tractor- trailer," said Bradshaw. He said the goal of the mobile THEL development program is to eventually build a system capable of being transported in a C-130 cargo aircraft.
<br>The Airborne Laser
<br>Later this year, the Boeing Company will roll out an extensively modified 747-400 cargo aircraft that will serve as the platform for the Airborne Laser (ABL) program.
<br>ABL is the air component of BMDO's boost-phase missile defense program, and is intended to address the proliferation of short-range missiles, according to Deputy Program Director Col. James Forrest.
<br>The system would be the first layer of defense in BMDO's planned "multi-layered" missile defense system.
<br>"If we can't attack the missile, we can pass that information on and be backed up," said Forrest.
<br>When completed, the ABL aircraft will carry COIL (chemical oxygen iodine laser) on its nose. COIL is a megawatt-class laser equivalent to 100,000 100-watt light bulbs, and is capable of destroying boost- phase missiles by targeting their fuel tanks. COIL was first developed by Philips Lab at Kirtland Air Force Base in the mid- 1970s.
<br>Infrared sensors placed around the outside of the ABL aircraft provide 360-degree coverage to detect missile launches. A modified LANTIRN pod on the top of the aircraft provides the range to the target, as well as cueing to the battle management system.
<br>"Once we have that, we have three lasers that actually operate through the main optical system," explained Forrest. These lasers include two solid state lasers, a track-illuminating laser, and a beacon-illuminating laser.
<br>The track-illuminating laser finds the nose of the target, while other sensors locate the plume of the missile, thus allowing the system to calculate the missile's total length. This calculation then allows the system to determine precisely where to hit the missile.
<br>The beacon-illuminating laser helps allow for atmospheric compensation. "We actually condition the beam to compensate for the optical turbulence in the atmosphere," he said.
<br>Boeing's modifications to the basic 747 airframe constitute the most extensive modification to an aircraft the company has ever carried out, Forrest said.
<br>Flight testing of the first aircraft, without the laser aboard, is scheduled to begin next February.
<br>The first lethal test of the ABL system is currently scheduled for 2003. It will involve "putting six laser modules on a 747, and that'll be sufficient power for us to shoot down a SCUD-like missile in 2003," Forrest said.
<br>The eventual operational configuration will involve 14 laser modules on each of a fleet of seven aircraft.
<br>Since the laser cannot operate through clouds, the plane will loiter in a figure-eight pattern, at 38,500 feet, waiting for missiles to appear.
<br>Each aircraft will carry enough laser fuel to destroy 20 short- range missiles at distances of more than 200 miles.
<br>Lockheed Martin is providing the beam control/fire control system.
<br>TRW is developing the laser module itself.
<br>Space-based laser
<br>Further in the future, another solution to intercepting missiles in their boost phase could be the Space-based Laser program - a system of orbiting satellites capable of destroying ballistic missile- class targets from space.
<br>The seed for this future system is the Integrated Flight Experiment (IFX), which is scheduled to culminate in a launch in 2012. Based on data from IFX, a potential operational space-based laser system could be in operation by 2020, according to Program Director Col. William McCasland.
<br>However, McCasland emphasized, "we're in a concept exploration phase.
<br>There just isn't a firm plan at all." By 2007, the completed IFX hardware will undergo integrated testing in a new facility at Stennis Space Center. The facility will be capable of simulating a vacuum environment in which to test the unit. This vacuum environment must be preserved even when nine or 10 pounds of laser reactant are being expelled into it every second.
<br>The centerpiece of the system is the Alpha laser - a megawatt- class hydrogen fluoride laser.
<br>Since IFX will not result in a system actually capable of destroying non-cooperative targets, it can be developed in compliance with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, McCasland said.
<br>The requirement to comply with ABM represents "guidance that we inherited from the last Administration, and so far this Administration hasn't changed that at all," McCasland said.
<br>The Air Force is currently the executing agent for the program. By 2002, the funding for the program will be shifted entirely to BMDO.
<br>- Jefferson Morris (jeff_morris@AviationNow.com) Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>6 7/19/2001 Article:185210 Missile defense push won't mean
<br>nuclear arms cut, Gen. Welch says The nation's nuclear arsenal can
<br>shrink further while still remaining a deterrent, but the Bush Administration's push for a missile defense system won't accelerate that process anytime soon, retired Air Force Gen.
<br>Larry Welch said July 18.
<br>The missile defense system being proposed would initally be able to handle only a few incoming warheads by hitting each one with multiple kill vehicles, he said, which he described as a high "exchange ratio." "To give up offensive missiles for this capability ... we may have to address that trade-off" in the future, he said, but not for at least a decade.
<br>Welch, the former Air Force chief of staff, helmed a review panel that concluded in 1998 that the National Missile Defense program was being rushed and did not include enough testing.
<br>Missile defense officials have now requested a 57 percent increase for their programs and have mapped out a much more rigorous testing schedule. Welch said the program now is in line with what his panel recommended.
<br>"I think the Administration has become very much more realistic in terms of expectations," Welch said.
</blockquote>
<p>Word count: 1237
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>Publication title
<br>Aerospace Daily
<br>Volume
<br>199
<br>Issue
<br>77
<br>Pages
<br>3
<br>Number of pages
<br>0
<br>Publication year
<br>2001
<br>Publication date
<br>Jul 19, 2001
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_47');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 47 -->
<a name="x48"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x48" class="tiny">x48</a>
Mann, Paul : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_48');">Strategy Called Crucial To Missile Defense Plans</a></h1>
<h2>2001-07</h2>
<div id="sect_48" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>A calculated strategy should govern the structure and components of a US missile defense, including a reformulation of the relationship between offense and defense and a fresh understanding of the meaning of deterrence, security experts say. They urge the Pentagon to steer clear of easy assumptions about intercepting a handful of enemy warheads with 100 or so ballistic missile defense interceptors. Instead, planners should pinpoint which missile-wielding countries to attempt to deter, how to deter them and over what period of time. Under the Bush Administration's notional framework, offensive forces would be reduced, even as missile defenses are deployed. Intrinsic to the Administration's formulation is an inverse relationship between offense and defense; numerically, one goes down as the other goes up. But military experts say the issue is capabilities, not numbers.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>A calculated strategy should govern the structure and components of a U.S. missile defense, including a reformulation of the relationship between offense and defense and a fresh understanding of the meaning of deterrence, security experts say.
<br>They urge the Pentagon to steer clear of easy assumptions about intercepting a handful of enemy warheads with 100 or so ballistic missile defense interceptors. Instead, planners should pinpoint which missile-wielding countries to attempt to deter, how to deter them and over what period of time.
<br>Under the Bush Administration's notional framework, offensive forces would be reduced, even as missile defenses are deployed. Intrinsic to the Administration's formulation is an inverse relationship between offense and defense; numerically, one goes down as the other goes up.
<br>But military experts say the issue is capabilities, not numbers. ``There is a naive and mistaken belief that the `nuclear danger' is directly proportional to the number of nuclear weapons and, accordingly, lower is inevitably better,'' observes Adm. Richard W. Mies, commander-in-chief of U.S. Strategic Command. But as strategic forces have shrunk in the post-Cold War period, numbers alone and numerical parity with other countries matter less and less, in his view.
<br>The deterrence issues that are coming to the fore are openness about a given nation's forces, the irreversibility of offensive reductions, production capacity (that would permit an offensive surge), aggregate warhead inventories and verifiability (catching cheaters).
<br>In other words, Mies says, the character and posture of U.S. forces--command and control, survivability and reliability--are becoming more important than sheer numbers to maintaining deterrence, and hence strategic stability.
<br>He posits, for example, that in the information age, the U.S. triad is a de facto ``quadrad,'' the fourth leg comprising intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance functions (ISR) carried out by strategic command, control, communications and computer systems (C4). Thus, deterrence starts, not with missile forces, but with intelligence. ``This `fourth leg' provides the enablers that make the other three legs an effective deterrent and warfighting force.''
<br>As the offensive/defensive balance is rethought in technological terms, so it must be reinterpreted in geostrategic ones, says M. Elaine Bunn of National Defense University. A strategy designed to build partnerships with Russia and China will produce a different combination of U.S. offensive and defensive forces than a strategy focused mainly on threats to the U.S. homeland posed by the terrorist use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction (WMD). A strategy that assumes the rise of a peer competitor as the main threat would contour U.S. forces differently than one based on WMD.
<br>Writing in a National Defense University analysis of strategic options for the Pentagon's quadrennial defense review, Bunn says the two sides of the deterrence equation must account not only for pariah states--the threat emphasized the most by the Clinton and Bush Pentagons in advocating first-stage, limited missile defenses--but also for the alternative courses of the great powers.
<br>Will Russia and China be allies, associates or antagonists of the U.S.? What will Moscow and Beijing be to each other, strategically, and for how long? How will their relationship affect Washington's defense posture? What are the strategic implications of each outcome?
<br>Also relevant are the intentions of third-party nuclear states like India, Pakistan and Israel. What tributary effects might their actions have on a new U.S. offensive/defensive equation?
<br>That equation should take account of a host of variables. ``The potential interconnections must be understood in order to develop a comprehensive approach to nuclear deterrence and missile defenses,'' said Bunn, who was previously principal director for nuclear forces and missile defense policy within the office of the assistant secretary of Defense for strategy and threat reduction.
<br>Strategic choices antecedent to an antimissile system should reconcile or at least rationalize the divergent goals of U.S. deterrence, in Bunn's view. At the moment, pariah states are the driver of U.S. ballistic missile defense. The driver of America's nuclear forces remains Russia and its offensive missiles, inherited from the ex-Soviet Union.
<br>The nature and potency of these drivers will change over time. Anticipating that, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has embraced a multipurpose ``layered deterrence'' and layered missile defense that could deal with multidimensional threats.
<br>For the time being, the Bush Administration is keeping its strategic and missile defense options open. The White House and the Kremlin agreed at the recent Genoa summit to conduct strategic arms talks that address offense and defense together.
<br>Uncertainty surrounds what kind of missile defense to deploy. ``We are not sure we know what the answer is,'' said the Pentagon's acquisition chief, Edward C. Aldridge, Jr. (AW&ST July 2, p. 37).
<br>Imponderables include the hard task of predicting how soon any missile defense scheme adopted now, and fielded across a decade or more, will become outmoded. Technological development usually speeds ahead of weapons deployment.
<br>If current assessments are close to correct, the proliferation threat of tomorrow will throw missiles into eclipse. Lasers and other directed energy weapons (DEW) will be the next proliferation challenge, predicts Strategic Paradigms 2025, a detailed estimate of future security developments by the Institute for Foreign Policy analysis, a Tufts University think tank. Conceivably, DEW may someday render missiles and missile defenses obsolete.
<br>At least a few states are likely to have ground-based lasers with antisatellite capabilities by 2025, the Tufts study forecasts, although by that time the U.S. probably will have airborne and seaborne lasers that few other nations will possess, except as prototypes.
<br>By 2050, however, ``directed energy weapons will likely have proliferated to additional powers and possibly even to some non-state actors.'' Toward the end of this century, 2070-80, DEW ``could be regular fixtures in the arsenals of most regional militaries,'' the Tufts report stated.
<br>``I do believe you're only going to have effective missile defense with DEW, but we're decades away from that,'' agreed Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ``We've advanced somewhat in the past 15 years in adaptive optics, power supply and beam propagation, but I think we're decades away from weaponization.''
<br>Interactions among states and among their strategic forces can be seen as a set of interconnected gears, says Bunn. How the U.S. deals with one country or set of countries on nuclear issues and missile defense affects perceptions of, and relationships with, other nations. Unintended consequences can result. These need to be anticipated in weighing alternative missile defense schemes.
<br>In itself, the system of ``gears''--offensive and defensive missile arsenals, deployed by multiple nation states--is patently obvious. But it is less clear how far and in which direction the ``gears'' will turn, as Bunn puts it.
<br>One variable is the impact of U.S. missile defense deployment on the pace of Chinese
<br>nuclear force modernization. In response, China might multiply its long-range missiles or warheads or both. It could build more survivable missile bases, in the form of hardened silos and mobile platforms.
<br>How far might Beijing go in response to U.S. missile defense deployment, and how far would it go in any event? Bunn asks. Would China wind up with about the same net nuclear capability with or without U.S. missile defense? Does that matter?
<br>How might India and Pakistan respond to the U.S., and how would their reactions affect U.S. (and Chinese and Russian) interests and strategic forces?
<br>Even more fundamental than this system of ``gears'' are assumptions about how offensive and defensive forces affect each other. One common belief is that the relationship between them is direct. Therefore, deployment of missile defenses will necessarily trigger offensive warhead buildups by other nations.
<br>But strategic forces could just as easily be based on the opposite assumption: that offense and defense are driven by different factors and that there is no ineluctable relationship between them. A missile defense force could be custom tailored to the rogue threat, while strategic nuclear forces would be sized independently to a potentially friendly or hostile Russia or China.
<br>Alternatively, Bunn points out, strategic weapons could be regarded as a unitary force that combines offensive and defensive components. Their combined number in a single, but mixed force could be capped at a certain level by treaty, which would require states to cut their offensive component automatically if they chose to increase the defensive one, or vice versa. Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir V. Putin may have had something like this in mind during their talks in Genoa.
<br>Bunn's gear metaphor assumes that interaction between offense and defense is a given, but that it is nonlinear and unpredictable. According to this school of thought, no single logic can define the mix of, or tradeoffs between, offense and defense because the reputed cause-and-effect dynamic between them is indeterminate.
<br>Thus, it is commonly assumed that U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defense will trigger offensive warhead buildups by other nations. But it might not. Other governments could choose to accentuate their focus on U.S. weaknesses. They might build up their capacity for diplomatic blackmail--another form of deterrence--with the threat of covert WMD assaults, employing chemical or biological agents to wreak mass urban terror.
<br>It is that kind of uncertainty that underpins Rumsfeld's ``layered deterrence.'' In a recent Wall Street Journal guest editorial, he stated, ``Just as we intend to build `layered defenses' to deal with missile threats at different stages, we also need a strategy of `layered deterrence' that can deal with a variety of emerging threats at different stages.''
<br>Outside analysts see Rumsfeld's idea as a variation on a past concept, ``selective retaliation.'' In Cold War times, it was a step back from the theoretical all-out, preemptive nuclear first strike that some strategists considered indispensable if the U.S. were to deter a full-scale Soviet first strike.
<br>More discriminating than an all-out attack, selective retaliation might be used if an adversary fired unconventional (chemical or biological) weapons at U.S. targets. Instead of responding with total nuclear annihilation or with the leveling of the enemy's capital city, the U.S. could use highly lethal, but nonnuclear weapons to destroy the other side's chemical and biological stockpiles, research capabilities, missile stores or nuclear assets, if any.
<br>``WHEN WE TALK of deterrence today, it no longer means just nuclear deterrence, because precision bombing gives us the option of destroying very important assets without resorting to nuclear weapons,'' said the veteran strategic analyst, Edward Luttwak. In the post-Cold War world, potential U.S adversaries have far less capability than the Soviet Union did in its heyday. At the same time, conventional weapons have become much more accurate and deadly.
<br>Luttwak said the inevitable operational logic of layered, nonnuclear deterrence is the purchase of many thousands more precision-guided munitions, which the Pentagon ran short of in the 1999 Kosovo air war. ``We've been moving into the post-nuclear era for many years now, nuclear weapons are receding in their useful purpose and we badly need layered deterrence, which means spending less on platforms and bases. I believe that one thrust of the Rumsfeld effort is to shift money from other things to [precision-guided] weapons, because pre-Rumsfeld, service plans for replenishments were pretty modest.''
<br>LIKE CIRINCIONE, Luttwak regards effective missile defense as a relatively distant prospect, and therefore unlikely to drain funds from the budget for precision arms.
<br>Major weapons that take a long time to deploy require persistent advocacy across many administrations, by a military service for whom the capability is a core mission, Luttwak points out. ``That's the real reason we've never had ballistic missile defense before. Service advocacy didn't exist then, and it doesn't exist now. I see no sign of serious spending on missile defense for some years to come. Left to themselves, the services will spend all the money on platforms, not weapons. But I believe Rumsfeld is determined to avoid that.''
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>Illustration: Map: Because missile threats vary in range and exist all over the globe, the Pentagon advocates ``layered deterrence'' and layered defenses to deal with divergent risks.
<br>Word count: 1971
<br>Aviation Week & Space Technology 155.5 (July 30, 2001): 56-58.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_48');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 48 -->
<a name="x49"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x49" class="tiny">x49</a>
Mann, Paul : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_49');">House Raps Wolfowitz On Military Budgeting</a></h1>
<h2>2001-07</h2>
<div id="sect_49" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>In a bipartisan rebuff, the Republican and Democrat leaders of the House Budget Committee admonished Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz last week that the Pentagon is being less than forthcoming about the magnitude of the spending increases it will request in January for Fiscal 2003 and succeeding years. Lawmakers doubt that the Pentagon and federal revenues, diminished by a $1.3-trillion tax cut and a listless economy, will sustain the kind of $18.4-billion defense add-on the Administration seeks for Fiscal 2002 alone. Lawmakers are also displeased with the pace of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's highly publicized strategic review, which was supposed to be finished this month, but will slip into the fourth quarter</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The Republican-controlled House has forewarned the Pentagon against budget-busting in Fiscal 2003-07, declaring that Social Security and Medicare are absolutely untouchable and will not be raided to pay for major defense hikes.
<br>In a bipartisan rebuff, the Republican and Democrat leaders of the House Budget Committee admonished Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz last week that the Pentagon is being less than forthcoming about the magnitude of the spending increases it will request in January for Fiscal 2003 and succeeding years.
<br>Lawmakers doubt that the Pentagon and federal revenues, diminished by a $1.3-trillion tax cut and a listless economy, will sustain the kind of $18.4-billion defense add-on the Administration seeks for Fiscal 2002 alone, beginning Oct. 1. That level is almost $4 billion higher than the $14.5-billion defense boost sanctioned in the 2002 budget resolution that Congress passed in May.
<br>The committee also questions whether the $18.4-billion add-on, even if approved by Congress in full, will actually provide a down payment on military transformation, as the Pentagon claims. Most of the money is earmarked for pay increases, housing and readiness, not the brisk modernization that military transformation would require, lawmakers say.
<br>Wolfowitz parried that the problems inherited from the Clinton Administration were far larger than expected. Hence the need for the pending $5.5-billion defense supplemental and an $18.4-billion add-on next year.
<br>But the committee chairman, Rep. James A. Nussle (R-Iowa), was not persuaded. It is difficult to believe the ``defense mess'' in health care, spare parts and infrastructure was not known ``until you walked in the front door or Mr. Rumsfeld walked in the front door,'' he retorted. ``These are things that are constantly under review by the colonels and others throughout the ranks. If it's taken this long to find out what the problem is, it's going to be very difficult to fix it in the so-called second stage of the [Pentagon's] strategic review.''
<br>Despite Wolfowitz's firm pledge to stop underfunding spares and flying hours, and to call a halt to supplemental budget bills, the committee doubts that $18.4 billion will be enough to avoid another supplemental next year, like the one being wrapped up in Congress now (see p. 25). ``We've added roughly $2 billion to the readiness and training accounts so that we won't be coming up here next year asking for more in the middle of the year,'' Wolfowitz insisted.
<br>LAWMAKERS ARE ALSO DISPLEASED with the pace of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's highly publicized strategic review, which was supposed to be finished this month, but will slip into the fourth quarter. The findings are now to be folded into the congressionally mandated and coincidental Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Pentagon leaders drew criticism for failing to keep legislators abreast of the review timetable.
<br>Above all, however, House budgeteers are emphatic about the exceedingly tough defense choices that lie ahead, not just in 2003, but throughout the President's first term. If the U.S. economy lurches into recession, the budget pinch might grow tighter still in the wake of the recent 10-year, $1.3-trillion federal tax cut, they caution. The White House contends the tax cut will stimulate new economic growth, and shore up federal tax revenues.
<br>``Based on what we've seen so far,'' Nussle demurred, it is an open question whether the Fiscal 2003 defense request, due early next year, will be on time and accurate enough to finance transformation.
<br>Regarding the $18.4 billion sought for 2002, Nussle complained that the bulk of it would defray backlogs and immediate expenses. To his mind, the request leaves the impression that the Pentagon has retreated again into ``its culture of funding the defense of the past.''
<br>Citing the proposal to slash 30 aircraft from the B-1 bomber fleet as a perfect example, the Republican chairman charged that the Defense Dept. has spent the first six months of the Bush Administration looking backward instead of forward. With little regard for the merits, Congress shoots down such proposals almost immediately, Nussle admonished, because the Pentagon fails to consult with lawmakers beforehand about rationale, strategy and savings. The B-1 drawdown option should have flowed from, not preceded, the strategic review and QDR.
<br>The committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr., (S.C.), is equally skeptical of where the Administration is headed on defense. ``We thought transformation was going to be digitization, new stealthy technologies and leap-ahead technologies'' like directed energy weapons, Spratt told Wolfowitz. ``When I look for transformation, I go straight to the science and technology account; that's where your really fundamental leap-ahead technology gets funded. This year we're spending $9 billion on science and technology, and your budget asks for $8.8 billion. It cuts it $200 million.''
<br>Wolfowitz responded that some of the funds had been added by Congress ``in its wisdom,'' and were not aimed precisely at military needs. He admitted, however, that ``we'd like to do better on the science and technology budget, there's no argument about that. Our research and development overall is up $7 billion.''
<br>It is up $6.4 billion, Spratt corrected, and although that is a substantial improvement it puts no weapons in the field. ``While you increase the R&D accounts by $6.4 billion, you cut the procurement account by $500 million. Now, if you don't have the money in the procurement account proportional to the increase in the R&D account, you can't [deploy] these new weapons that you're researching and developing. And you've got some significant procurement commitments coming down the pike--the F-22, Joint Strike Fighter, more C-17s.''
<br>There is a little more money for digitization and a little more money for directed energy technology under the Bush plan, Spratt acknowledged. But the $18.4-billion add-on is ``mostly meat and potatoes,'' he said, and it cannot possibly fund the kind of top-to-bottom transformation the White House seeks to begin.
<br>WOLFOWITZ SUGGESTED the Administration may shrink the size of the armed forces and close more bases. Spratt rejected that assumption, noting that base shutdowns produce only a few billion dollars in savings.
<br>``I can't tell you with precision, [but] we need more; I think that's clear,'' Wolfowitz replied. ``We'll have to find some ways to pay for it, and some of that has to come from efficiencies in what we're doing. If we could find 5% savings in our overall budget, that would pay for a heck of a lot of transformation.''
<br>Spratt was unmoved. ``You said in your testimony that you thought 3.5% of GDP [gross domestic product) was not an unreasonable amount of money to expect for defense. That would be $380 billion. The secretary [Rumsfeld] indicated in his testimony that he would need $347 billion in '03, as a follow-up to the $330 billion he's asking for '02.''
<br>Wolfowitz affirmed that $347 billion was ``in the ballpark'' for Fiscal 2003. He added: ``We really frankly do have ambitious hopes that with our new management structure, [and] our new service secretaries, with their searching look in the QDR process, we will come up with some significant ways to pay for transformation out of places where we are spending money today that we don't need to.''
<br>Nevertheless, Spratt and Nussle sought to impress upon Wolfowitz in the strongest terms that Congress would not start ``down the slippery slope'' of dipping into federal trust funds to pay for a major peacetime military buildup.
<br>``Number one,'' Nussle snapped smartly, ``this Congress will protect 100% of Social Security and Medicare, period--no speculation, no supposition, no projections.''
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>Photograph: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz
<br>Word count: 1245
<br>Aviation Week & Space Technology 155.3 (July 16, 2001): 28-30+.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_49');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 49 -->
<a name="x50"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x50" class="tiny">x50</a>
Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">Killing Missiles At the Speed of Light</a></h1>
<h2>2001-08</h2>
<div id="sect_50" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>After more than 20 years of research, US military officials believe they are on the verge of demonstrating the ability to destroy a boosting ballistic missile using a high-power laser. The Pentagon is betting heavily on directed-energy weapons because the timelines for a boost-phase intercept kill are extremely short. With less than 5 min. of boost time of the target, using a missile to catch it is a daunting problem. The Airborne Laser (ABL), the largest program among all boost-phase intercept efforts next fiscal year, is also the one with the most research and development behind it. The Air Force plans to begin flight tests of the laser on a modified 747-400 freighter early next year. Pentagon officials are particularly drawn to a space-based system because a large enough constellation would provide permanent global coverage, while ABL or most of the Pentagon's other boost-phase intercept systems would have to be deployed and positioned precisely to carry out their mission.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Translate [unavailable for this document]
<br>After more than 20 years of research, U.S. military officials believe they are on the verge of demonstrating the ability to destroy a boosting ballistic missile using a high-power laser.
<br>The Pentagon is betting heavily on directed-energy weapons because the timelines for a boost-phase intercept kill are extremely short. With less than 5 min. of boost time of the target, using a missile to catch it is a daunting problem.
<br>``The speed of light cuts down that [time] rather tremendously, so that's why we like laser energy for that type of a system,'' said Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
<br>The Airborne Laser, the largest program among all boost-phase intercept efforts next fiscal year, is also the one with the most research and development behind it. Initially, ABL is being designed to defeat short-range ballistic missiles. But Kadish said ``we are taking deliberate steps to prepare ABL for a strategic defense role as well.''
<br>System designers currently are focusing on defeating about 30 types of threats, such as liquid and solid-fueled, single- and multi-stage missiles. Destroying longer range missiles may not require a redesign, a senior defense official said. Since ABL is intended to destroy missiles by shooting through the atmosphere
<br>(using a deformable mirror to compensate for turbulence), targeting an ICBM that would be boosting at higher altitudes in less turbulent atmosphere should be possible with the same system. However, that capability must be demonstrated, he said.
<br>THE ABL CONCEPT hasn't been without its critics. For instance, the Pentagon's internal operational test community has suggested that ``producing a system that is operationally suitable will be a challenge.'' Furthermore, in a report to Congress earlier this year, test officials raised concerns that a missile warhead could still cause damage because ABL won't necessarily destroy the rocket but could only shorten its flight time by damaging the booster.
<br>Confidence in the emerging field of laser weapons technology was bolstered last year when the U.S. Army destroyed a short-range Katyusha rocket with its Tactical High-Energy Laser. Although Thel is aimed against a different set of targets than the ABL or Space-Based Laser (SBL)--operating at much shorter ranges--in many respects, the Katyusha is a more difficult target to destroy. The repeated success against short-range rockets gives laser experts confidence that they can certainly knock down boosting ballistic missiles.
<br>But Pentagon officials acknowledge that directed-energy programs have ``a lot of proving to do.'' For ABL, that event will come relatively soon, in about 26 months, when it is slated to attempt to destroy a boosting Scud-like ballistic missile. In the run-up, the ABL will be tested against target boards and mock missiles that are air-dropped.
<br>If the lethal demonstration is successful, the Pentagon would consider using the system in emergencies. However, the prototype ABL will have only six of 14 laser modules and therefore not the full range of an operational system. Additionally, the first shoot-down will not be conducted at the maximum range of even the interim system's capability, said Col. James Forrest, ABL deputy program director.
<br>The Air Force plans to begin flight tests of the laser on a modified 747-400 freighter early next year. First flight at Boeing's Wichita, Kan., facility, where the aircraft is being reconfigured and the battle management system installed, is expected in February. Work on the aircraft is about 80% complete, Forrest said.
<br>Two months later, the aircraft will move to Edwards AFB, Calif., for testing and installation of the optics and laser elements. One of the most recent milestones was delivery of the first two of six infrared sensors to Boeing last month.
<br>The sensors, derivatives of the F-14 infrared search and track system, will be used by ABL to spot the boosting missile and provide 360-deg. coverage. The sensors are being used to refine missile-tracking software. The optics will be added first, tested alone and then in conjunction with the battle management package. The laser will be added and also tested by itself and then with other components.
<br>There will be differences in the way the Pentagon plans to put together later versions of ABL from the prototype, designated YAL-1A.
<br>``We already learned things for the [engineering and manufacturing development] design,'' Forrest noted. But that is causing some heartache in the Pentagon test office. The group complains that given the growing differences, a 24-month EMD phase is likely to be too short. In total, the Air Force expects to field seven aircraft.
<br>Program engineers recently completed a key event by testing a redesigned laser turbopump that's used to pump the hydrogen peroxide fuel through the megawatt-power chemical oxygen iodine laser (Coil). Design problems delayed delivery of the critical element, which was tested successfully for the first time last month at TRW's Capistrano, Calif., test site. The next step is trying to get ``first light''--or laser energy--out of the first of six laser modules to be installed on the prototype aircraft. USAF officials hope to achieve the milestone this month.
<br>Besides its own work, ABL is serving as a trailblazer for SBL technologies. Pentagon officials are particularly drawn to a space-based system because a large enough constellation would provide permanent global coverage, while ABL or most of the Pentagon's other boost-phase intercept systems would have to be deployed and positioned precisely to carry out their mission. A Russian SS-18-like intercontinental ballistic missile is the baseline threat against which SBL is being designed.
<br>But there also are important differences between the two directed-energy systems. While ABL uses a Coil, its space-based counterpart will employ a hydrogen fluoride system. Coil is not suitable for space operations because its chemicals won't mix properly in a zero-g environment, according to Air Force Col. William N. McCasland, SBL program director.
<br>An area in which SBL engineers are directly leveraging ABL work involves the components that will guide the laser. ``The beam control is remarkably similar,'' McCasland said. But because of the close affinities of technologies, some of the problems affecting ABL also are encountered by its space-based counterpart. For instance, ABL officials have seen cost growth because of an industry-wide shortage of some optical coatings. The same bottleneck affects SBL, McCasland said.
<br>AT THIS POINT, SBL work is focused on an integrated flight experiment (IFX) planned for around 2012, with a major ground test of the flight-ready hardware that's supposed to go into space starting about five years earlier. IFX should provide about 110 sec. of in-orbit power using the hydrogen fluoride laser. However, it is serving only as a technology demonstrator, not a limited operational system, program managers stress.
<br>Requirements for an operational system haven't been defined yet, and officials are still debating whether they can augment a constellation of lasers with relay mirrors, or whether an all-laser system is needed. An operational system wouldn't be ready until 2018-20. While industry officials have indicated an acceleration is possible, program managers are not pushing for a faster pace at this point.
<br>The range requirement for the experiment, while not spelled out in detail, will be far more than 100 naut. mi. An operational system would have to have much greater capability.
<br>A baseline requirements review for IFX was recently completed that assigned notional weight goals for different parts of the satellite design. Work has started on defining interfaces and lower level system design elements. Another review is slated for the fall.
<br>To fit into the constraints of a heavy-lift Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, the total spacecraft is being limited to 53 ft. in height and 43,400 lb. By far the largest element will be the laser payload, which has been allotted 25,265 lb. The beam control is being designed to 5,681 lb., while the beam director--the mirror through which the laser will be pointed--is assigned 3,420 lb. The mirror will measure 2.8 meters in diameter, although it would have to be 8-10 meters in an operational version.
<br>The weight allocation may shift as the program progresses. Because flight weight is such a critical element of the engineering task, managers have established a control group to monitor progress in this area.
<br>IN THE NEAR TERM, engineers will pursue two major risk-reduction paths. One activity centers on demonstrating the ability to control the laser's wavefront. Wavefront manipulation is needed on a multi-line laser such as the one to be used in SBL to achieve defraction-limited performance, which in turn allows the system to project enough power onto a focused spot on the target.
<br>The second major engineering activity will involve the laser itself. While the Alpha laser at Capistrano has validated the basic design of the type of laser SBL will use, it doesn't meet the efficiency requirements and power-level demands for a space-based system. A subscale SBL, also known as the Short Stack that would consist of 10 of 92 rings that produce the laser energy, will be built at Capistrano with the hope of achieving first light in 2003. It will also serve to generate much more laser time.
<br>Alpha has lased for a little more than 100 sec., which isn't enough to start building a flight-ready system. ``We can't go through a process of discovery about the degree to which the laser works on orbit,'' McCasland stressed.
<br>The full flight prototype will be assembled to undergo extensive ground testing at a new facility being built at Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. The prototype will include all elements of weapons-relevant components of an SBL, the laser and optics, but not the spacecraft itself. Once testing of the hardware is completed, it will be refurbished and packaged for flight.
<br>USAF officials hope both directed-energy projects will do more for them than just missile defense work. ABL is being envisioned for potential use in destroying cruise missiles, aircraft or even surface-to-air missiles. SBL, for instance, is seen as potentially having a space-to-ground application, although that would require a laser using an atmosphere-penetrating wavelength that currently isn't being pursued.
<br>SBL also may be able to destroy air-breathing targets or satellites. In both cases, military planners believe they can use the laser system's extensive surveillance tools to provide vital battlefield information to other operators.
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>Illustration: Chart: Boeing has completed about 80% of the modifications it is making to the 747-400F at its Wichita, Kan., facility. The aircraft is slated for first flight early next year and will move to Edwards AFB, Calif., a few weeks later.
<br>Photograph
<br>Photograph: The Pentagon hasn't defined the size of an operational constellation of space-based lasers, but it could range from 18-48 spacecraft and include some relay mirrors.
<br>Illustration
<br>Illustration: Map: This planned test facility at the Stennis Space Center will be where the space-based laser experimental hardware is to undergo intense ground testing before being readied for launch.
<br>Word count: 1785
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>Aviation Week & Space Technology 155.7 (August 13, 2001): 55.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 50 -->
<a name="x51"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x51" class="tiny">x51</a>
Terino, John : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_51');">Design, directed-energy weapons among OT&E challenges</a></h1>
<h2>2001-10</h2>
<div id="sect_51" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Streamlined acquisition methods also are creating OT&E problems, he said. Some requirements can be met by using modeling and simulation to augment field testing, but too often there is an over- reliance on modeling and simulation, he said. In 1999 and 2000, the tests of half of the systems entering dedicated OT&E were stopped because of design deficiencies.
<br>In addition, new-technology weapons are creating common problems for all the military services, he said. These include directed energy weapons such as lasers and weapons employing high-power microwaves. In many cases, the testers "don't know how to test" the new technology weapons, [Marion L. Williams] said.
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The military services need help in raising the level of effectiveness of operational test and evaluation (OT&E) to ensure new weapons systems are ready when they are brought into the inventory, a defense official said.
<br>Marion L. Williams, chief scientist of the Air Force's Operational Test and Evaluation Center, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., said OT&E is system-centric when it should have a broader system-of-sytems approach to support integrated, joint service operations.
<br>Williams delivered the keynote address to the 39th Annual NDIA Air Targets, UAVs and Range Operations Symposium here.
<br>That system-of-systems approach would not be limited to conducting evaluations in the environment of the service that is developing a weapon system, but would go across service lines to ensure the weapon system is effectively and properly integrated into joint warfighting, Williams said Oct. 3.
<br>While the problem is recognized, the current OT&E focus is still on individual systems, he said. The use of joint distributed engineering plans (JDEPs), testing in exercises, and other ways to address the problem are still not well defined or not implemented, he said.
<br>Streamlined acquisition methods also are creating OT&E problems, he said. Some requirements can be met by using modeling and simulation to augment field testing, but too often there is an over- reliance on modeling and simulation, he said. In 1999 and 2000, the tests of half of the systems entering dedicated OT&E were stopped because of design deficiencies.
<br>'Don't know how to test'
<br>In addition, new-technology weapons are creating common problems for all the military services, he said. These include directed energy weapons such as lasers and weapons employing high-power microwaves. In many cases, the testers "don't know how to test" the new technology weapons, Williams said.
<br>On the positive side, he said a National Directed Energy Alliance that will bring together the services and agencies that are involved to develop effective and comprehensive testing methodologies is underway. The goal is to ensuredirected energy weapons are not just tested in the laboratory, but in training, exercises, and operations.
<br>Williams said he believes the military should find a new way to combine development testing and operational testing that will ensure a focus on employment evaluation.
</blockquote>
<p>Word count: 365
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>Aerospace Daily 200.5 (Oct 5, 2001): 7.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_51');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 51 -->
<a name="x52"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x52" class="tiny">x52</a>
Terino, John : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_52');">Design, directed-energy weapons among OT&E challenges</a></h1>
<h2>2001-10</h2>
<div id="sect_52" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Streamlined acquisition methods also are creating OT&E problems, he said. Some requirements can be met by using modeling and simulation to augment field testing, but too often there is an over- reliance on modeling and simulation, he said. In 1999 and 2000, the tests of half of the systems entering dedicated OT&E were stopped because of design deficiencies.
<br>
<br>In addition, new-technology weapons are creating common problems for all the military services, he said. These include directed energy weapons such as lasers and weapons employing high-power microwaves. In many cases, the testers "don't know how to test" the new technology weapons, [Marion L. Williams] said.
</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The military services need help in raising the level of effectiveness of operational test and evaluation (OT&E) to ensure new weapons systems are ready when they are brought into the inventory, a defense official said.
<br>
<br>Marion L. Williams, chief scientist of the Air Force's Operational Test and Evaluation Center, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., said OT&E is system-centric when it should have a broader system-of-sytems approach to support integrated, joint service operations.
<br>
<br>Williams delivered the keynote address to the 39th Annual NDIA Air Targets, UAVs and Range Operations Symposium here.
<br>
<br>That system-of-systems approach would not be limited to conducting evaluations in the environment of the service that is developing a weapon system, but would go across service lines to ensure the weapon system is effectively and properly integrated into joint warfighting, Williams said Oct. 3.
<br>
<br>While the problem is recognized, the current OT&E focus is still on individual systems, he said. The use of joint distributed engineering plans (JDEPs), testing in exercises, and other ways to address the problem are still not well defined or not implemented, he said.
<br>
<br>Streamlined acquisition methods also are creating OT&E problems, he said. Some requirements can be met by using modeling and simulation to augment field testing, but too often there is an over- reliance on modeling and simulation, he said. In 1999 and 2000, the tests of half of the systems entering dedicated OT&E were stopped because of design deficiencies.
<br>
<br>'Don't know how to test'
<br>
<br>In addition, new-technology weapons are creating common problems for all the military services, he said. These include directed energy weapons such as lasers and weapons employing high-power microwaves. In many cases, the testers "don't know how to test" the new technology weapons, Williams said.
<br>
<br>On the positive side, he said a National Directed Energy Alliance that will bring together the services and agencies that are involved to develop effective and comprehensive testing methodologies is underway. The goal is to ensure directed energy weapons are not just tested in the laboratory, but in training, exercises, and operations.
<br>
<br>Williams said he believes the military should find a new way to combine development testing and operational testing that will ensure a focus on employment evaluation.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>People: Williams, Marion
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aerospace Daily
<br>
<br>Volume: 200
<br>
<br>Issue: 5
<br>
<br>Pages: 7
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2001
<br>
<br>Publication date: Oct 5, 2001</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_52');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 52 -->
<a name="x53"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x53" class="tiny">x53</a>
Nielsen, Paul D; Noor, Ahmed K; Venneri, Samuel L : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_53');">The next century of air power</a></h1>
<h2>2001-11</h2>
<div id="sect_53" style="display: block;">
<p><i>The next century of air power</i>
<br>Nielsen, Paul D;Noor, Ahmed K;Venneri, Samuel L
<br><i>Mechanical Engineering</i>; Nov 2003; 125, 11; ProQuest Science Journals
<br>pg. 34
<blockquote><p>The U.S. Air Force has been pursuing the transformation of air and space power through development of technologies that yield new capabilities and by adopting novel operational concepts that enhance our ability to achieve desired military effects. Maturing a comprehensive set of technologies is the mission of the Air Force Research Laboratory.
<br>
<br>The transformation includes migrating military capabilities to unmanned platforms for a wide range of air applications and developing new directed energy capabilities, which produce effects on the battlefield ranging from the traditional destruction of enemy equipment to the revolutionary non-lethal, non-destructive stopping of advancing enemy troops.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>Directed Energy
<br>
<br>Precision weapons have provent heir value over the last 20 years and have been a deciding factor in all of our recent large-scale military operations. However, the precision weapons of the second century of aerospace may not always carry traditional kinetic warheads like those today.
<br>
<br>Directed energy weapons, both laser and high-power microwave, are beginning to emerge as future options for military commanders. These new concepts will provide both the traditional destructive capability of today with a new capability to temporarily or permanently disable an enemy target rather than to destroy it.
<br>
<br>The best-known current application of high-power directed energy is the Airborne Laser, or ABL, program now in developmental testing. With roots stretching back to the Airborne Laser Laboratory of the 1970s, the system places a weapons-class chemical laser aboard a modified Boeing 745-400 freighter. Its mission is to destroy enemy ballistic missiles shortly after launch while they are still in the boost phase of flight.
<br>
<br>There are actually four lasers onboard this aircraft, as well as advanced optical systems, a sensor suite, and a state-of-the-art computer system. These individual elements function as a system of systems to find, track, and destroy enemy missiles.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>High-power microwaves, a second directed energy technology, can producte innovative soft-kill, or non-lethal, effects. It has huge potential in command and control warefare, in supporessing enemy air defenses, against tactical aircraft or unmanned aierial vehicles, including missiles, and in airbase defense. When high-power microwaves encounter present-day microelectronic systems, the results can be disastrous to the electronics. Microwaves can cause systems to burn out and fail, or to function improperly.
<br>
<br>A short burst of high-power microwave energy, while being lethal to the electronics, will have basically no effect on humans operating the equipment. The low collateral damage aspect of this technology and the heavy reliance on electronic components in today's weaponry make microwave weapons attractive in a wide variety of missions, especially where avoiding civilian casualties is a major concern.
<br>
<br>At lower power levels, beam microwaves can also be used to prevent intrusion by unauthorized individuals without hurting them. If the proper frequency and wavelength are selected, millimeter wave energy will penetrate less that 1/64 of an inch into an individual's skin, stimulating the pain sensors and causing an experience of severe pain without physical damage.
<br></p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_53');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 53 -->
<a name="x54"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x54" class="tiny">x54</a>
Tuttle, Rich : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">USAF readies RFP for next phase of Have Gold effort</a></h1>
<h2>2001-11</h2>
<div id="sect_54" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>"Specifically," the Air Force said, "this effort will support NAIC in conducting all or any part of flight test programs which will include: the design, manufacture and testing of the launch vehicle, ground support equipment, and maneuvering payload module bus; the design, manufacture and testing of instrumented payloads/decoys and their deployment mechanisms; mission planning, including a data collection plan to optimize the payload deployment and sensor orientation for collection from multiple platforms, fabrication or modification of data collection sensors; and analysis of the collected data to provide vehicle and payload performance reports, discrimination of targets, and fusion of multi-sensor data."</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The Air Force plans to release a request for proposals this month for Have Gold 3A, a program to help the Air Force intelligence community validate potential threats.
<br>The service's National Air Intelligence Center (NAIC) plans to award a five-year, $95 million contract to support its own efforts and those of missile defense programs in the collection and analysis of data on ballistic missile threats.
<br>A series of tasks would be conducted at the Poker Flats Research Range in Alaska. One hypothetical task outlined in the statement of work for the program involves upgrades of radars, optical sensors and infrastructure to support missile defense flight tests; another calls for use of an unmanned aerial vehicle for tracking exercises and signal characterization; another involves building and launching a rocket that would fly a certain trajectory and release re-entry vehicles and penetration aids.
<br>"Specifically," the Air Force said, "this effort will support NAIC in conducting all or any part of flight test programs which will include: the design, manufacture and testing of the launch vehicle, ground support equipment, and maneuvering payload module bus; the design, manufacture and testing of instrumented payloads/decoys and their deployment mechanisms; mission planning, including a data collection plan to optimize the payload deployment and sensor orientation for collection from multiple platforms, fabrication or modification of data collection sensors; and analysis of the collected data to provide vehicle and payload performance reports, discrimination of targets, and fusion of multi-sensor data."
<br>Have Gold - described by NAIC in response to a question as "a vehicle for fast-track responses to support the research and development of defense-related programs/projects and threat validation" - has been underway since 1991. It is involved in a range of activities, including aircraft and associated weapons, electronic systems, military space, materials, structures, manufacturing, directed energy weapons, propulsion, sensors, C4I (command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence), human factors, and chemical and biological warfare.
<br>The scope of Have Gold 3, a follow-on to Have Gold 1 and 2, "has been expanded to include additional functional areas of research and development," NAIC said in response to a question.
<br>Each Have Gold task "is funded by various sponsoring agencies, including funding from the General Defense Intelligence Production Program (GDIPP)," NAIC said. "Fiscal '02 total funding is undetermined at this time."
<br>Asked how many companies will be involved in Have Gold 3, NAIC said the "contract is a small business set aside. It is estimated that the prime contractor will possibly have as many as 50 subcontractors."
<br>A request for proposals for Have Gold 3, NAIC said, is slated to be released Nov. 19.
<br>NAIC, based at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the Defense Department's main producer of intelligence on foreign aerospace systems. The information it gathers supports operational Air Force units and R&D activities.
</blockquote>
<p>Word count: 465
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>Aerospace Daily 200.28 (Nov 7, 2001): 5.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 54 -->
<a name="x55"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x55" class="tiny">x55</a>
Asker, James R : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_55');">Dual Use</a></h1>
<h2>2001-11</h2>
<div id="sect_55" style="display: block;">
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_55');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 55 -->
<a name="x56"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x56" class="tiny">x56</a>
<a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">Aviation Week & Space Technology</a></h1>
<h2>2001-11</h2>
<div id="sect_56" style="display: block;">
<blockquote><p>The Navy is seeking proposals for a family of ships with new technology ``across the full spectrum of naval warfare.'' Technologists within the service say the DD(X) ship family, which supersedes the DD21 effort, would have electric drives, which could also power directed-energy weapons for defense against aircraft and missiles. This spring, the Navy will select a single industry team to design the ships and develop the technology.</blockquote>
<br>Word count: 69
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>Aviation Week & Space Technology 155.19 (November 5, 2001): 25.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 56 -->
<a name="x57"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x57" class="tiny">x57</a>
Rivers, Brendan P : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_57');">USAF, Navy seek new threat emitter</a></h1>
<h2>2001-12</h2>
<div id="sect_57" style="display: block;">
<p>Journal of Electronic Defense; Dec 2001; 24, 12; ProQuest Science Journals pg. 36</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_57');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 57 -->
<a name="x58"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x58" class="tiny">x58</a>
Brice N. Cassenti1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">A Review of Pulse Fusion Propulsion</a></h1>
<h2>2002</h2>
<div id="sect_58" style="display: block;">
<p>A Review of Pulse Fusion Propulsion
<br>Brice N. Cassenti1
<br>AIP Conference Proceedings 608, 780 (2002); doi: 10.1063/1.1449801
<br>CP608, Space Technology and Applications International Forum-STAIF 2002, edited by M.S. El-Genk
<br>
<br>Abstract.<br />
<blockquote><p>During the last forty years there has been considerable interest in both internal and external pulse propulsion systems. Over this time the nuclear devices being considered have grown considerably smaller than those initially examined. Now pellets are normally in the range form 15cm down to 2cm in diameter, and fusion devices are generally preferred. High energy density triggers (such as lasers, particle beams or antiprotons) have been considered for detonating the fusion fuel. When antiprotons are considered it is more efficient to annihilate the antiprotons in a fissionable material, and then use the energy from the fission reaction to drive the fusion reaction in the pellet, than to use the annihilation energy directly. Finally, fissionable material can be used to boost the performance of a fusion system. The early concepts, which used critical mass devices, do not satisfy the ban on nuclear weapons in space, and are only rarely considered today. Concepts based on inertial confinement fusion are heavier than those that use antiprotons for the trigger since the mass associated with the lasers, or particle beams and their power supplies are considerably heavier than the traps used for antiprotons. Hence, from a performance, and even a political, point of view the antiproton-triggered approach is the most desirable, but it also requires more development. Not only is the trigger lighter but an external pulse propulsion rocket does not necessarily need radiators to reject excess heat and, hence, can be even lighter. Propulsion systems based on critical mass devices are clearly feasible, so the primary problem is to reduce the size of the explosive devices so that a critical mass is not required. If pulse nuclear fusion propulsion can become a reality then the performance is enough to complete manned missions to the inner planets in weeks and the outer planets in months.</blockquote>
<p>Introduction
<blockquote><p>Pulse nuclear propulsion has been the subject of extensive research since the 1950's (Nance, 1965). Early concepts examined external pulse propulsion where small critical mass fission devices are ejected from the rear of the rocket. A pusher plate absorbs some of the energy from the detonation. The absorbed energy ablates the pusher plate and provides thrust for the rocket. Devices that are detonated in an enclosed chamber (i.e., internal pulse propulsion) were also considered (Nance, 1965). Again, in this case, ablation was an important process for applying the thrust.
<br>
<br>Recently, there has been renewed interest in both internal and external pulse propulsion systems. For examples of current proposals, see the work of G. A. Smith and his colleagues (Chwieroth, 1995, Lewis, 1990 and Gaidos, 1998). In these later proposals, the nuclear devices being considered are considerably smaller than the earlier porposals. Pellets are normally considered in the range from 15 cm down to 2 cm in diameter. Detonation can occur using inertial confinement fusion concepts (Kammash, 1992a, Williams, 1997, Martin 1978a and 1978b) or a high energy density trigger, such as antiprotons (Lewis, 1990). In inertial confinement fusion systems the compression can be provided using laser beams (Kammash, 1992a) or particle beams (Martin, 1978a and 178b). Smith (Lewis, 1990), has proposed that it is more efficient to annihilate antiprotons in a fissionable material, and then use the energy from the fission reaction to drive the fusion reaction in the pellet. Combining antiprotons and transient magnetic fields, generated during the annihilation, may lead to a system that requires no compression or heating at all (Cassenti, 1997). Finally, it is also possible to include fissionable material that can boost the performance of a fusion propulsion system (Cassenti, 1998).
<br>
<br>Antiproton Triggered Systems
<br>In 1990 Gerry Smith and his colleagues at Pennsylvania State University (Lewis, 1990) proposed using antiprotons to first initiate a fission reaction. The antiprotons are injected into a pellet containing plutonium. Each annihilation in a plutonium nucleus would fission one nucleus. The products of the fission reaction would be used drive a fusion reaction. The mass associated with storing and transporting the antiprotons will be significantly less than the relativistic electron beams in the Daedalus vehicle and also much less than the laser in an MICF vehicle.
<br>
<br>Analyses of the pellet dynamics indicated that the fusion reaction was just short of ignition, and some compression was still required. The investigators proposed that compression could be achieved using light ion beams (Lewis, 1990). Again the mass associated with the ion driver (100 metric tons) is a significant fraction of the mass of the spacecraft.
<br>
<br>Combining the concept of MICF with the antiprotons to trigger a sub-critical mass fission reaction may remove any need to compress the pellets (Cassenti, 1997) and result in a significant decrease in mass.
<br>
<br>Hybrid Concepts
<br>
<br>Rather than depending on fusion alone, it would be beneficial to add fissionable material to use the neutrons given off in the fusion of deuterium and tritium (Cassenti, 1998 and 1999). If uranium-238 is added to the pellet, then the neutrons generated from the fusion of deuterium and tritium are released at an energy that is sufficient to split the uranium. The high density of uranium will also help to contain the explosion. Finally, it may be possible to use lithium-6 to generate the tritium. Such changes could significantly increase the design space for pellet configurations.
<br>
<br>The fusion of tritium and deuterium will be the basic fusion reaction considered, where
<br>
<br><sub>1</sub>H<sup>2</sup>+<sub>1</sub>H<sup>3</sup>-><sub>2</sub>He<sup>4</sup>+<sub>0</sub>n<sup>1</sup> (1)
<br>
<br>The helium nucleus carries off 3.5MeV in kinetic energy, and since it is charged it can be used for propulsion, by either directing it with electromagnetic fields or by using it to heat a propellant. The neutron carries off 14MeV in kinetic energy and can neither be readily directed by electromagnetic fields, nor can its energy be easily absorbed.
<br>One possibility for removing the neutron energy is to use it in a further nuclear reaction. The most promising is
<br>
<br><sub>0</sub>n<sup>1</sup>+<sub>3</sub>Li<sup>6</sup>-><sub>2</sub>He<sup>4</sup>+<sub>1</sub>H<sup>3</sup> (2)
<br>
<br>Not only does reaction (2) remove a neutron but it also creates the tritium needed for reaction (1). Combing reactions (1) and (2)
<br>
<br><sub>1</sub>H<sup>2</sup>+<sub>1</sub>H<sup>3</sup>-><sub>2</sub>He<sup>4</sup>+<sub>2</sub>He<sup>4</sup> (3)
<br>
<br>and no neutrons remain as reaction products.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 58 -->
<a name="x59"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x59" class="tiny">x59</a>
C.M. Braams & P.E. Stott : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_59');">Nuclear Fusion: Half a Centuery of Magnetic Confinement Fusion Research</a></h1>
<h2>2002</h2>
<div id="sect_59" style="display: block;">
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_59');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 59 -->
<a name="x60"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x60" class="tiny">x60</a>
Kenneth D. Bergeron : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">Tritium on Ice: The Dangerous New Alliance of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power</a></h1>
<h2>2002</h2>
<div id="sect_60" style="display: block;">
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 60 -->
<a name="x61"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x61" class="tiny">x61</a>
Anonymous : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_61');">Proceedings 15th conference on Military Medicine Uniformed Services University of the Health Science
</a></h1>
<h2>2002-01</h2>
<div id="sect_61" style="display: block;">
<p>Military Medicine; Apr 2002; 167, 4; ProQuest Science Journals pg. 1</p>
<blockquote><p>Although it is not possible to know exactly what new weapons may be developed over the next twenty to thirty years, it is possible to teach military health care providers to recognize new injury patterns that may indicate the use of new, atypical, or unusual weapons on a future battlefield. The emphasis in this working group, as it relates to conventional weapons, was on the potential medical implications of new, or substantially modified, weapons, and on how military medical educators might best prepare future military health care providers to diagnose and treat the new or atypical injury patterns such weapons might create. Some of the specific weapons types discussed included: enhanced fragmentation weapons, fuel-air and thermobaric-enhanced blast weapons, lasers and other directed energy weapons, and modern anti-armor weapons containing depleted uranium or other heavy metals. Many of these weapons are not new or "unusual," but they are likely to be used with increasing frequency over the next twenty to thirty years, and each presents unique medical management challenges. Additionally, a number of emergying weapons systems, not individually listed here, are designed to incpacitate rather than physically injure or kill. This incapacitation may involve physical or psychological incapacitation -- or a combination of both.[2]
<br />
<br />[2] Galbraith KA: Combat Casualties in the First Decade of the 21st Century - New and Emerging Weapons Systems. J R. Army Med Corps; 147: 7-14.
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_61');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 61 -->
<a name="x62"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x62" class="tiny">x62</a>
Bob Preston et al. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">Space Weapons Earth Wars</a></h1>
<h2>2002-01</h2>
<div id="sect_62" style="display: block;">
<p>by Bob Preston; Dana J. Johnson; Sean J.A. Edwards; Michael Miller; Calvin Shipbaugh
<br><a href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1209/">http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1209/</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>
During the Reagan administration in the 1980s, vigorous public debate surfaced with the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a sustained, significant investment in technologies for defense against ballistic missiles. The initiative explored space-based defenses�interceptors, directed-energy weapons, and even nuclear weapons (x-ray lasers). All these space-based missile defenses would require renegotiation or abrogation of the ABM Treaty and presumably also of related arms control treaties. The last item would also violate the Outer Space Treaty�s ban on nuclear weapons in space.
<br>
<br>[*] Directed-energy weapons include lasers, high-energy particle beams, and highpower
microwave beams.
<br>[**] To avoid the issue of nuclear weapons in space, proponents of the x-ray laser offered to base it on the earth or in the oceans on missiles that would lift the weapon above
the atmosphere where its x-rays could propagate to the target.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>The most significant characteristic of this class of weapon is propagation of destructive energy at very high speeds. ... However, while the speed of propagation may be dazzling, the speed of effect will be more pedestrian. Because useful effects take time to accumulate or sustain and time to redirect from target to target, the capacity of directed-energy weapons is inherently limited. The specific limits depend on the scale and duration of effect necessary
for the military purpose at hand. Useful levels of disruptive or destructive energy at the target range from gentle to extreme; the class of weapons we discuss here includes the range from electronic jammers to laser cutting torches. At the level of jamming, a weapon consists of a radio transmitter tuned to cover a target range of frequencies and focused on target receivers to achieve a power level high enough to compete with the receivers� intended signals. At the level of destruction, a weapon supplies enough power to heat some
critical component of the target beyond its ability to survive.
<br>
<br>The challenge in achieving destructive levels of directed energy from space is scaling up to the power levels and component sizes needed to focus a lethal energy level over the much greater distances inherent in space basing. For example, a laser welding machine in a factory
typically uses a laser with a few hundred to a few thousand watts of power directed by optics with a diameter less than 0.1 m. A spacebased laser intended for targets on or near the earth requires millions of watts of power and optics with a diameter of about 10 m. The ability to create effects at the level of interference or disruption (e.g., jamming) is readily available worldwide; generating and directing the more destructive effects from or through space is a stretch for everyone.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>The amount of energy needed <i>at</i> the target to produce the desired effect depends on how the weapon�s energy couples with the target. Factors that influence the degree or efficiency of coupling include the target�s materials, configuration, and orientation and how these interact with the particular characteristics of the energy the weapon transmits. Laser energy interacts with the surface of the target. High-energy particles penetrate further into the target... The weapon�s budget for energy needed at the target must include an assumption about the efficiency of coupling (or, equivalently, of the hardness of the target) and some degree of uncertainty about the assumption.
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 62 -->
<a name="x63"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x63" class="tiny">x63</a>
<a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_63');">Conference to attract new blood to defense research</a></h1>
<h2>2002-01-29</h2>
<div id="sect_63" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 201.19 (Jan 29, 2002): 7.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) plan to host a conference in March aimed at bringing innovative new technological ideas to the table to help fight America's 21st century conflicts.
<br>
<br>The conference is primarily intended for researchers and inventors who have not been principals on Department of Defense contracts before. Selectees will have the opportunity to network and interact with DARPA personnel, as well as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and Army Green Berets.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) plan to host a conference in March aimed at bringing innovative new technological ideas to the table to help fight America's 21st century conflicts.
<br>
<br>The application deadline is Jan. 30 for scientists and researchers interested in attending the first annual "Scientists Helping America" conference, which will be held March 11-13 at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. Two hundred applicants will be chosen and notified by mail no later than Feb. 19.
<br>
<br>The conference is primarily intended for researchers and inventors who have not been principals on Department of Defense contracts before. Selectees will have the opportunity to network and interact with DARPA personnel, as well as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and Army Green Berets.
<br>
<br>DOD is particularly interested in innovative ideas in nine key technical areas, including advanced training systems; batteries and fuel cells; bioengineering and chemical/biological defense; directed- energy weapons; wide-bandwidth reach-back communications; remote sensing; signature reduction; underwater communications; and unmanned systems.
<br>
<br>The conference will also include workshops to allow the scientists to network directly with military personnel, as well as special tutorial sessions on working with the government, obtaining security clearances, and understanding the broad agency announcement (BAA) process.
<br>
<br>"We want to tap new resources to help us in our fight against terrorism," Jane A. Alexander, deputy director of DARPA, said in a statement. "These scientists can ... take us in directions that we might not have thought of in the past."
<br>
<br>Scientists and researchers can find more information at the conference website: http://safe.sysplan.com/scihelpamerica.
<br>
<br></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_63');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 63 -->
<a name="x64"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x64" class="tiny">x64</a>
Selinger, Marc : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');">Air Force reassessing bomber replacement plans</a></h1>
<h2>2002-02</h2>
<div id="sect_64" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 201.35 (Feb 21, 2002): 4.
<br>
<br>Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers by selecting the Enter button
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>A November 2001 unclassified report, "Long-Range Strike Aircraft White Paper," notes that a 1999 Air Force white paper called for starting the replacement process by 2013 and achieving an initial operational capability for the new bomber in 2037. The 2001 paper says the 1999 conclusions may now be outdated and that the Air Force is starting to re-examine them.
<br>
<br>Since reaching its earlier analysis, the Air Force has announced its intention to shrink its B-1 bomber fleet by about a third. It has also decided to scale back the B-52's use in low-level flying to reduce strain on the aging aircraft, according to Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group.
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The U.S. Air Force has begun to reassess its plans for fielding a next-generation bomber, according to a service document.
<br>
<br>A November 2001 unclassified report, "Long-Range Strike Aircraft White Paper," notes that a 1999 Air Force white paper called for starting the replacement process by 2013 and achieving an initial operational capability for the new bomber in 2037. The 2001 paper says the 1999 conclusions may now be outdated and that the Air Force is starting to re-examine them.
<br>
<br>Since reaching its earlier analysis, the Air Force has announced its intention to shrink its B-1 bomber fleet by about a third. It has also decided to scale back the B-52's use in low-level flying to reduce strain on the aging aircraft, according to Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group.
<br>
<br>The 2001 white paper suggests the Air Force will be taking a broad look at its future bomber needs. Atmospheric, sub-orbital and orbital approaches will all be examined.
<br>
<br>"This could be an air-breathing system like the current bombers or it might be something else," Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified at a Feb. 6 House Armed Services Committee hearing. Unlike rocket engines, which carry their own oxygen, jet engines breathe air as they fly.
<br>
<br>'Pressures' could affect timeline
<br>
<br>Although all three existing bombers - the B-1, B-2 and B-52 - are expected to remain structurally sound for the next four or five decades based on current projections, the 2001 white paper says several "pressures" could eventually force the Air Force to move up or delay the replacement of the fleet. Among these factors are "future threats" and "conflict."
<br>
<br>"Significant developments in counter-stealth technologies, directed energy weapons or proliferation of and advances in surface- to-air missiles and fifth-generation fighters could force radical changes in the use of our current forces and have the potential to render much of it obsolete," according to the paper. "Any conflict occurring prior to the retirement of the current bomber aircraft could result in a force structure reduction due to combat attrition."
<br>
<br>The bomber replacement schedule also could be affected by "unforeseen increases in sustainment costs," which "can occur from a variety of areas, including parts obsolescence or diminishing manufacturing sources for parts and systems unique to the platforms," the paper says.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 64 -->
<a name="x65"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x65" class="tiny">x65</a>
Nick Jonson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_65');">Analysts divided on significance of Northrop Grumman-TRW merger</a></h1>
<h2>2002-02</h2>
<div id="sect_65" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 201.38 (Feb 26, 2002): 4.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>James McAleese, principal of McAleese & Associates, a law firm specializing in aerospace and defense matters, said Northrop Grumman's proposed acquisition of TRW represents an entry into the emerging market area of offensive, leap-ahead technologies.
<br>
<br>Rich Pettibone, a companies analyst for Forecast International, said that aside from the merger of the Northrop and Grumman corporations in early 1994, Northrop Grumman was largely left out of the first phase of defense consolidations that started in the early 1990s.
<br>
<br>Northrop Grumman's acquisition of TRW would build upon its earlier acquisition of Litton Industries and bolster the company's position in electronics, systems integration and especially in space systems, Pettibone said (see related story on Page 5).
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Aerospace and defense industry analysts are divided over whether Northrop Grumman's proposed acquisition of TRW Inc. represents the beginning or the end of a new wave of consolidation in the industry.
<br>
<br>DFI International Vice President William Lynn, who served in the Clinton Administration as undersecretary of defense and comptroller, said Northrop Grumman's bid to acquire TRW (DAILY, Feb. 25) represents the first in a series of vertical and horizontal mergers that will begin this year.
<br>
<br>"Because of the run-up in defense spending, a lot of people are looking around for different combinations. Each of the primes has tried to position itself to acquire complementary businesses," he said.
<br>
<br>Though some acquisitions, like the proposed Northrop Grumman-TRW merger, will be vertical, lower-level subcontractors manufacturing similar products also will merge, he predicted. The motivation for the lower-tiered companies, Lynn said, won't be to compete against the prime contractors but to gain strength.
<br>
<br>As long as defense spending continues to increase, the number of mergers and acquisitions is likely to continue, Lynn said.
<br>
<br>"I don't see any reason Congress will try to rein in defense spending, and I don't see the president backing off with his defense spending proposals," he added.
<br>
<br>James McAleese, principal of McAleese & Associates, a law firm specializing in aerospace and defense matters, said Northrop Grumman's proposed acquisition of TRW represents an entry into the emerging market area of offensive, leap-ahead technologies.
<br>
<br>McAleese said TRW has a footing in several emerging market areas, including battle management command-and-control communications (BMC3), space-based communications and surveillance, directed-energy weapons and advanced software architecture and integration expertise.
<br>
<br>But some analysts believe the proposed Northrop Grumman-TRW merger represents the final chapter in a wave of consolidations that began in the early 90s.
<br>
<br>Rich Pettibone, a companies analyst for Forecast International, said that aside from the merger of the Northrop and Grumman corporations in early 1994, Northrop Grumman was largely left out of the first phase of defense consolidations that started in the early 1990s.
<br>
<br>That worked to the company's benefit, Pettibone said, because senior managers were later able to target their acquisitions with greater precision.
<br>
<br>Several companies, such as Lockheed Martin, "quickly gained a lot of critical mass and then shed it," he said. Examples include the L- 3 Communications spin-off in 1997 and the sale of the Sanders unit in 2000, he added.
<br>
<br>Northrop Grumman's acquisition of TRW would build upon its earlier acquisition of Litton Industries and bolster the company's position in electronics, systems integration and especially in space systems, Pettibone said (see related story on Page 5).
<br>
<br>But that acquisition represents the "tail-end" of the consolidation wave, he said. In fact, there may now be a wave of divestitures as companies seek to narrow their focus.
<br>
<br>Marco Caceres, a space analyst with the Teal Group, said he found Northrop's bid for TRW puzzling.
<br>
<br>"I can't believe someone in corporate said 'there is money to be made in military space, and in particular, missile defense,' " he said. "I just can't believe they would make such a large acquisition for missile defense."
<br>
<br>Acquiring the space and electronics group guarantees that Northrop Grumman will have a role in the SBIRS-Low program, Caceres said. That program could generate more than $10 billion for the company over the next 10 to 15 years, he added.
<br>
<br>But Northrop Grumman executives probably saw the acquisition of TRW's space and electronics group as a way to compete more aggressively with Boeing and Lockheed Martin for satellite programs down the road, he said.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_65');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 65 -->
<a name="x66"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x66" class="tiny">x66</a>
Fulghum, David a. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">Directed-Energy Weapons To Arm Unmanned Craft: War planners anticipate benefits from unmanned vehicles and weapons that may produce no collateral damage</a></h1>
<h2>2002-02</h2>
<div id="sect_66" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 156.8 (February 25, 2002): 28-29.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>The US Air Force intends to put a high-power microwave (HPM) weapon on an advanced version of its unmanned strike aircraft by 2012. Barring long-term health effects, HPM produces little physical damage except to electronic devices. The pulse from a high-power microwave weapon is designed to follow virtually any conduit - electrical lines, antennas, water lines - deep into any hardened or underground structure and still be powerful enough to upset electronics inside with a large spike of energy.
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The U.S. Air Force intends to put a high-power microwave weapon on an advanced version of its unmanned strike aircraft by 2012.
<br>
<br>This reflects a keen new interest by Congress and the Pentagon in the increasingly attractive combination of unmanned aircraft--which means fewer U.S. aircrew casualties in the most dangerous missions--and new weaponry pulled from long-classified programs.
<br>
<br>Moreover, it points to what senior aerospace officials and specialists in directed energy say is a happy intersection in maturation between directed-energy weapons technology and the unmanned air combat vehicle (UCAV), which Congress says should make up one-third of the strike aircraft inventory by 2010. Even though Pentagon officials say they will not be able to meet the congressional deadline, the future is still considered so promising that major corporations are rushing to establish new companies to capture the expanding business. For corporate planners, missiles and bombs represent mature technologies, while directed energy holds the key to large future profits.
<br>
<br>Previously, attention had been focused on large devices like the airborne chemical laser, designed to knock out ballistic missiles. The Navy's DD-X ship design is to have an electric drive that can provide the power for directed-energy weapons that can quickly destroy supersonic anti-ship missiles. But in the near- term, interest is quickly turning to smaller, cheaper solid-state high-energy laser (HEL) and high-power microwave (HPM) weapons that use finesse rather than brute force to disable targets. Raytheon, TRW and Lockheed Martin, among others, are producing concepts for a wide range of such devices.
<br>
<br>Aerospace officials envision an HPM weapon for the Air Force's UCAV that is palletized and sized to fit into its newly enlarged weapons bay. ``It will be self contained with a thermal-rejection [cooling] apparatus, and it will load up like ordnance,'' said a senior aerospace official. UCAVs with early model directed-energy weapons would target air defense missiles and radar sites. One benefit of such weapons would be that collateral damage to people and structures ``goes to zero,'' he said. Such ``infinite precision'' would avoid many of the restrictions imposed by current rules of engagement.
<br>
<br>Some question the claim for infinite precision and lack of collateral damage. However, barring long-term health effects, HPM produces little physical damage except to electronic devices. Lasers, if aimed correctly, would likely limit damage to the width of their beams.
<br>
<br>STILL TO BE DETERMINED is the relative advantage of a payload that returns with the UCAV, or a disposable, one-shot, directed-energy weapon. The latter resembles standoff missiles that could be fired into a high-risk area to disable key components of a headquarters, communications or air defense complex to open the target for further attack. Officials say that both concepts are under development. The damaging effects of HPM, for example, are magnified at a geometric rate as the emitter gets closer to the target. Specialists also say that moving the generation of a burst of microwaves from the UCAV to a standoff weapon could avoid damaging the aircraft through electronic fratricide.
<br>
<br>The largely hidden promise of HPM weapon variants is that they can be used to attack a previously impervious new set of targets. Examples include command and control centers or communications nodes buried in mountainsides or deep underground. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and Libya have all invested heavily in large underground structures that also can hide chemical and biological production facilities, aircraft and missiles,
<br>
<br>The pulse from a high-power microwave weapon is designed to follow virtually any conduit--electrical lines, antennas, water lines--deep into any hardened or underground structure and still be powerful enough to upset electronics inside with a large spike of energy. The Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland AFB, N.M., is working on at least five such projects.
<br>
<br>A solid-state laser, by contrast, generates pulsed power that creates an energy buildup that damages targets made of relatively soft, easy-to-melt metals such as aluminum and other lightweight materials used extensively in missiles. Missiles are designed close to their heat margins, so they are vulnerable to thermal stress.
<br>
<br>USAF officials admit that lethality studies have not yet been conducted on high-energy lasers and high-power microwave devices; therefore, weapons effects are not precisely known. However, advocates of the technology predict both will be useful ``anti-electronics'' weapons. They will be able to scramble the memories of battlefield computers, disable vehicle ignitions and confuse the guidance of infrared and radar-guided missiles.
<br>
<br>SPECIALISTS PREDICT that the power generation of solid-state lasers, for example, will increase rapidly from the current range of up to 3,000 watts to 15 kw. by 2004 and to 100 kw. by 2006-07. A directed-energy weapon with the power to ``kill a main battle tank is a decade away,'' said one aerospace industry expert. He also notes that the problems of HEL or HPM are common--power conditioning, heat and flux--so that solving the problems of one will speed development of the other.
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 66 -->
<a name="x67"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x67" class="tiny">x67</a>
Robert Wall : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_67');">Air Force UCAV Design Reworked</a></h1>
<h2>2002-02</h2>
<div id="sect_67" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 156.8 (February 25, 2002): 28-30.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>The Air Force's unmanned combat air vehicle will be much larger and heavier than first thought, following a redesign intended to narrow the gap between initial prototypes and an operational system. The first prototype, the X-45A, is slated to fly this spring, while a second is nearly completed. Both are of the original, smaller design. To improve aerodynamic performance, the aircraft's wing area and fuselage length have increased.
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The Air Force's unmanned combat air vehicle will be much larger and heavier than first thought, following a redesign intended to narrow the gap between initial prototypes and an operational system.
<br>
<br>The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Boeing matured the existing design over several months. The new look comes at a time when the Pentagon has opted to field the system as soon as possible. The Fiscal 2003 defense budget request puts the project on the fast track, with the goal of fielding 14 aircraft by 2003.
<br>
<br>The first prototype, the X-45A, is slated to fly this spring, while a second is nearly completed. Both are of the original, smaller design. Boeing and Darpa updated the design to prepare for production of the more operationally representative system, the X-45B. ``We are trying to make this more of a `fieldable' prototype,'' said Darpa program manager USAF Col. Michael Leahy. ``The basic vision, although refined, has not changed drastically,'' he added.
<br>
<br>To improve aerodynamic performance, the aircraft's wing area and fuselage length have increased. The wing area grew by 63% and the fuselage, 11%. The total vehicle is now 24% larger and, as a result, empty weight has ballooned 31%.
<br>
<br>In addition, the redesign ups the length of the UCAV's internal weapons bay by 21 in. to 168 in. This should allow the aircraft to carry six small-diameter bombs internally and give the UCAV the same-size bay as the Joint Strike Fighter's, Leahy said. The bay's width also has grown by 5.25 in. to 26.6 in., but height has shrunk 4 in. to 17 in.
<br>
<br>Changes also will be made to the propulsion system. The airframe has been expanded to accept a turbofan with a 26-in.-dia. fan, versus the 24-in. version now used. The increase should boost thrust by 7% and elevate the UCAV into the 7,000-lb.-thrust class. The engine that will be used in the larger cavity hasn't been selected. Boeing and the Air Force Research Laboratory will undertake an engine study this summer to make that selection. Leahy said several options exist. Moreover, the exhaust nozzle length has been increased 25 in. For the time being, the X-45 will continue to use Honeywell's F124 turbofan.
<br>
<br>The design changes affect the logistics footprint for the UCAV. While six of the X-45As would fit in a C-17, only four of the larger UCAVs would fit.
<br>
<br>The X-45B also will feature enhancements over the first two prototypes, including the addition of low-observable features. First flight of the X-45B is slated to occur in late 2004.
<br>
<br>To help ensure the UCAV will be operationally useful around 2008, Darpa has expanded two demonstrations. In the main one--the so-called Block 5 Graduation Exercise--the UCAV is supposed to participate in a major, joint drill. Multiple UCAVs are to be used to demonstrate the ability to pinpoint and attack air defense radars. At that point, in mid-2004, the system's anti-jam, beyond-line-of-sight communications system also should be ready. Additionally, UCAVs will be flown alongside manned aircraft and reconnaissance UAVs to show that the different systems can operate in parallel.
<br>
<br>Under the accelerated schedule the Pentagon has laid out, development of the Block 10 aircraft would begin at the end of 2004. Basic suppression of enemy air defense and strike capabilities would be featured. Block 20 work would begin a year later and add reactive air defense suppression. The most sophisticated version--Block 30 with directed-energy weapons carriage--would begin its development in 2008. After years of funding uncertainty, the program is now fully funded through 2007, Leahy said.
<br>
<br>ALTHOUGH THE AIR FORCE is farthest along with its UCAV concept, the other services are making inroads. Army efforts are still relatively immature, but the service hopes to gain experience later this year when it will arm a Hunter UAV. The Army wants to put a BAT anti-armor munition under each Hunter wing. The operator would then simply drop the unpowered, smart submunition. BAT uses a combination of acoustic and infrared sensors to find its target.
<br>
<br>The armed Hunter would represent only a small step toward what the Army eventually wants to field. In a long-range plan, officials hope to develop an unmanned combat rotorcraft, or UCAR, that would be analogous to the Air Force's fixed-wing UCAV, said John C. Sundberg, the Army's deputy program manager for tactical UAVs.
<br>
<br>Boeing, which has a hand in the Air Force's and Navy's UCAV programs, also plans to compete for UCAR, said Mike Heinz, Boeing's director of unmanned aircraft. ``We are going to bid it,'' he said, although no decision has been made on what vehicle might be offered. One option would be to draw on Boeing's work on the Canard Rotor Wing--a rotorcraft featuring a large canard and horizontal tail as lifting surfaces, two large rotor blades and a turbofan engine. However, Heinz said, another option might be teaming with Frontier Systems and offering the A160 Hummingbird.
<br>
<br>More refined than the Army's vision for an unmanned combat system are emerging plans for extended-range tactical UAVs and small or micro UAVs. The small systems should have a range of 5-10 km. (3-6 mi.) and be able to stay aloft for ``a couple of hours,'' Sundberg said. The Army expects to piggyback a Darpa effort that would help mature technologies needed for an operational system. The Army doesn't expect to start an acquisition program until 2005 or 2006.
<br>
<br>On the larger end, the Army has asked industry for ideas for an extended-range UAV to replace Hunter, and provide a more capable system than the Shadow-200 the Army is buying for brigade commanders. Service officials are interested in two systems--a rotary UAV and a fixed-wing system. However, those two could be combined. The Army envisions a fairly aggressive program that would start this year, lead to testing of existing systems and a competition in 2003 and 2004, and an initial operational capability around 2006.
<br>
<br>The future UAV would have to have a range of at least 200 km. with a goal of 300 km. and be able to loiter on-station 8-12 hr. while carrying a 200-lb. payload. The fixed-wing system would most likely be armed, Sundberg indicated.
<br>
<br>Among the systems the Army will consider are the Predator used by the Air Force, and the A160 Hummingbird that's being developed under a Darpa contract. The latter, a long-endurance rotorcraft, may allow the Army to meet the fixed-wing and rotorcraft UAV requirements in one system, Sundberg noted.
<br>
<br>THE NAVY, TOO, is moving ahead on its UCAV. Darpa, which is leading the development, is slated to award contracts to either Boeing or Northrop Grumman for the next phase. Northrop Grumman is considered the front runner. However, John Kinzer, the deputy program manager, said two contracts may be awarded. The first would be to fund a company to build prototypes. The second, which would have much less value, would allow the losing bidder to remain in the program doing design work in case problems develop with the primary contractor. Both companies have shown a lot of innovation, Kinzer said, and the government wants to preserve their ideas.
<br>
<br>Whether a small study contract will be enough to keep a second company as a viable competitor is unclear, however. ``It would be difficult,'' Heinz noted.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: The X-45A prototype has completed medium-speed taxi tests in preparation for its first flight, scheduled for the spring.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_67');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 67 -->
<a name="x68"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x68" class="tiny">x68</a>
<a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">Directed-energy weapons for Navy is dependent on electric-drive vessels</a></h1>
<h2>2002-03</h2>
<div id="sect_68" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 201.42 (Mar 4, 2002): 2.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<br>
<blockquote><p>DIRECTED ENERGY: Navy deployment of directed-energy weapons will require the development of advanced vessels with electric-drive propulsion systems, according to Adm. Robert Natter, commander-in- chief of the Atlantic Fleet.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>DIRECTED ENERGY: Navy deployment of directed-energy weapons will require the development of advanced vessels with electric-drive propulsion systems, according to Adm. Robert Natter, commander-in- chief of the Atlantic Fleet. "It is very dependent upon an electric power source," Natter says, because electric-drive ships are needed to provide sufficient power to the weapons. The deployment of electric-drive ships with directed-energy weapons could occur within a decade if the project receives enough funding, he says. When directed-energy weapons are developed, Natter says he would prefer a weapon that could be fired against incoming cruise missile from a ship, as opposed to a system that would be dropped from an airplane and fired on targets from above. "I know that if I have something like that on a ship, I could sustain it for months. An airplane, you've got to land," he says. The Navy is moving toward electric propulsion with its new family of destroyers, called DD(X).
<br>
<br></p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 68 -->
<a name="x69"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x69</a>
Nick Jonson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_69');">Boeing and SAIC soon to release broad industry announcements for FCS work</a></h1>
<h2>2002-03</h2>
<div id="sect_69" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 201.48 (Mar 12, 2002): 1.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Bob Mitchell, director of strategic development for the FCS, said senior Army officials are reviewing the team's draft announcements to be distributed to other defense contractors. The announcements, which will be sent out simultaneously within the next month, will seek proposals for platforms, components and command, control, communications, computers, & intelligence systems (C4I) to be included in the FCS.
<br>
<br>Mitchell said the team's plan for developing the FCS is divided into four-year blocks. Systems to be developed for the first block in 2010 include a command-and-control platform, a carrier for unmanned aerial vehicles, beyond-the-line-of-sight/line-of-sight vehicle, an infantry carrier, and robotic scout vehicles of different sizes. That could change depending upon what the Army wants to incorporate, and when, he added.
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Full Text
<p>Pending approval by the Army, the Boeing Co. immediately will begin issuing broad industry announcements for platform and system architecture proposals for the Army's Future Combat Systems, senior Boeing officials said March 11.
<br>
<br>Late last week, Boeing and its partner, Science Applications International Corp., were awarded a 16-month, $154 million contract to be the lead systems integrator for the concept and technology development phase of the Army's Future Combat Systems (DAILY, March 8).
<br>
<br>Bob Mitchell, director of strategic development for the FCS, said senior Army officials are reviewing the team's draft announcements to be distributed to other defense contractors. The announcements, which will be sent out simultaneously within the next month, will seek proposals for platforms, components and command, control, communications, computers, & intelligence systems (C4I) to be included in the FCS.
<br>
<br>"The 'when' is all related to when the Army says 'Yes, you can go,' " he said during a news media briefing.
<br>
<br>Mitchell added that he expects "all the traditional players" to take part in developing the FCS, the first version of which must be deployed in 2010.
<br>
<br>"I don't anticipate [Boeing and SAIC] building any armored vehicles," he said. "We're going to go to General Dynamics, United Defense, General Motors, wherever we find the best fit for the Army."
<br>
<br>Ron Prosser, vice president of advanced space and communications in Boeing's Space and Communications division, said the team was required to submit, as part of its LSI proposal, a detailed plan showing which technologies and weapon systems would be developed and when. Such platforms and systems include lightweight armored vehicles, a command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) system, and unmanned air and ground vehicles.
<br>
<br>"This is a system of systems endeavor that is really complex, and you have to get C4ISR right in order to do this," Prosser said.
<br>
<br>Mitchell said the team's plan for developing the FCS is divided into four-year blocks. Systems to be developed for the first block in 2010 include a command-and-control platform, a carrier for unmanned aerial vehicles, beyond-the-line-of-sight/line-of-sight vehicle, an infantry carrier, and robotic scout vehicles of different sizes. That could change depending upon what the Army wants to incorporate, and when, he added.
<br>
<br>Although most of the weapon systems and robotic vehicles probably will be developed by the end of Block 1, their capabilities will not be as advanced as they will be in later blocks, he said. The plan also calls for the deployment ofdirected energy weapons, Mitchell said.
<br>
<br>"But they're not ready yet, and they're not ready yet in the size where we could put them in a platform," he said. "But maybe by Block 2, you could have a chemical laser, for example, that will fit into a platform. By Block 3, you might have a solid-state laser that would replace that chemical laser."
<br>
<br>Prosser said the total contract value for producing and deploying the initial FCS system by 2010 is estimated at $60 billion. The total market value in developing similar integrated system-of- systems for all the services over the next decade is estimated at $200 billion, he said.
<br>
<br>Those systems include not only the Army's FCS but also Navy projects, as well as plans to develop cyber-warfare and space- warfare systems for the DOD, he added.
<br>
<br>Muellner said developing such systems as the lead systems integrator "tends to be a high-margin, low capital [area] to work in. So you do get good earnings from the revenue you do win."
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_69');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 69 -->
<a name="x70"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x70" class="tiny">x70</a>
Anthony L Velocci, Jr. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">TRW Bides Time Following Northrop Bid</a></h1>
<h2>2002-03</h2>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 156.9 (March 4, 2002): 50-51.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>With TRW Inc. in play and financial markets anticipating competing offers for the company, the aerospace/defense industry last week appeared poised for a bidding war. Leading the charge will be Northrop Grumman Corp., which recently made an unsolicited offer of $47 in Northrop common stock for every one of TRW's. Its interest in TRW dates back at least several years. The transaction would be valued at about $11 billion, including the assumption of about $5 billion in TRW debt.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>With TRW Inc. in play and financial markets anticipating competing offers for the company, the aerospace/defense industry last week appeared poised for a bidding war.
<br>
<br>Leading the charge will be Northrop Grumman Corp., which recently made an unsolicited offer of $47 in Northrop common stock for every one of TRW's. Its interest in TRW dates back at least several years. The transaction would be valued at about $11 billion, including the assumption of about $5 billion in TRW debt.
<br>
<br>That's provided, of course, Northrop's offer prevails. This latest development in the aerospace/defense industry's on-going consolidation remains fluid. BAE Systems, Boeing Co., General Dynamics Corp. and Lockheed Martin are all considered potential bidders. Others also could emerge.
<br>
<br>NORTHROP'S BID CAME just two days after TRW Chairman and CEO David Cote announced he would be leaving the company to join Honeywell International--causing TRW to lose substantial market valuation. ``It was classic Northrop Grumman,'' said Jon Kutler, president of Quarterdeck Investment Partners. ``Cote's departure effectively put TRW in play, and Northrop made its long-awaited move.''
<br>
<br>Northrop Chairman and CEO Kent Kresa told Aviation Week & Space Technology that while the company considers TRW a ``very important asset,'' Northrop won't overpay. J.P. Morgan analyst Joseph B. Nadol, 3rd, thinks that's probably true. ``Should the terms of a potential deal become too onerous, I believe Northrop would back away.'' That's what the company did when it found itself competing for Hughes' defense operation, for which Raytheon Co. wound up paying the higher amount.
<br>
<br>Word of Northrop Grumman's offer on Feb. 22 drove TRW's stock up by $10.50, to $50.30 a share. Before a winner is decided, investors and analysts alike believe the winning bid will be closer to $60 a share. Predicted a key industry observer, ``Whoever emerges as the winner will overpay.'' Perhaps. On the other hand, bidders may decide TRW justifies a sizable premium based on its long-term strategic value. (Northrop Grumman's bid was a premium of 22% over the average trading price of TRW's stock for the last 12 months and 4% over the highest closing price during the same period. One analyst called TRW's stock price ``dead money for the last 15 years.'')
<br>
<br>``The logic of wanting to acquire TRW is unassailable,'' an industry observer said. ``The company probably has the best concentration of advanced technology in the aerospace/defense marketplace. Kresa is trying to build a defense company for the 21st century, and if he pulls this off, he will have achieved his goal. He also will have made Northrop Grumman the best-positioned of all the defense contractors--by a long shot--to take advantage of the Pentagon's shift toward smart warfare.'' A large investor called TRW ``a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity'' for Northrop.
<br>
<br>TRW is heavily involved in the development of next-generation directed energy weapons (lasers and high-power microwave), advanced aircraft electronics, space-based communications and surveillance systems, and digital battlefield monitors. Directed energy is a component of future air defense, communications, air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons, suppression and destruction of air defenses, and computer attack. Moreover, TRW's military space and information technology businesses have key roles in the Bush Administration's ballistic missile defense initiative.
<br>
<br>TRW has an aeronautical systems unit (6% of sales) that manufactures missile actuators, flight and engine controls, cargo handling equipment and auxiliary power units. Industry observers believe that operation would be divested by Northrop Grumman, since it wouldn't fit smoothly into Northrop's core businesses encompassing systems integration, defense electronics and IT. Its value may be impaired, however, because of the weak outlook for the commercial aircraft business.
<br>
<br>``TRW'S SPACE BUSINESS is what drove us,'' Kresa said. Space systems and missile defense are two major gaps in Northrop's portfolio.
<br>
<br>Of TRW's $16 billion in sales in 2001, $6.1 billion, or 38%, came from aerospace and information systems. Space and electronics accounted for 31% of the $6.1 billion; aeronautical systems, 18%, and systems (including information technology-related businesses), 51%.
<br>
<br>TRW's IT business is expected to generate sales of about $3.5 billion in 2002, according to Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown analyst Christopher Mecray. Its addition would nearly double the core of Northrop's IT operation. The business is split between defense (44%), intelligence (23%), civil/federal (19%) and commercial (14%).
<br>
<br>Most of TRW is focused on the automotive industry (59% of sales), and that could be a problem for the company's new owner.
<br>
<br>If that turns out to be Northrop Grumman, it expects to sell the huge automotive business or spin it off to shareholders. Excluding automotive, Northrop Grumman projects combined 2003 sales of $26-27 billion--again, assuming Northrop prevails in a bidding war. (As recently as 1999, Northrop Grumman was a $6.2-billion contractor.)
<br>
<br>That might be easier said than done. Clearly, Wall Street is skeptical. Buyers for automotive [properties] are scarce, according to Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown analyst Ken Blaschke.
<br>
<br>Despite such challenges, JSA Research analyst Paul Nisbet said any other potential bidder should assume Northrop has a well-conceived game plan in mind--given that President and Chief Operating Officer Ronald Sugar recently was vice chairman of TRW.
<br>
<br>BESIDES AUTOMOTIVE, the only other two areas might cause problems for Northrop are regulatory approvals and integration of the TRW businesses. Not surprisingly, Kresa has no misgivings about either. ``Our antitrust counsel has advised us that delays in connection with the antitrust review process should be minimal, and we believe a transaction realistically could be completed in the third quarter of this year,'' he advised TRW CEO Philip A. Odeen.
<br>
<br>Analysts and other industry observers tend to agree. ``I see no vertical integration issues,'' Washington-based defense contracts attorney James McAleese said. ``The IT field is still too fragmented to raise any concerns, and on the space side of the business, the customer purchases architectures and sensors independently of each other.''
<br>
<br>Another well-placed industry observer said, ``There are no screaming antitrust issues, but it's a case that is apt to receive a second request for information.''
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Illustration: Graph: Value of U.S. Aerospace/Defence Merger & Acquisition Activity (1992 Through Oct. 31, 2001)
<br>
<br>Illustration
<br>
<br>Illustration: Graph: Sales Contribution of Different TRW Aerospace and Information Systems Businesses.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<a name="x71"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x71</a>
Marc Selinger : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_71');">U.S. space dominance faces growing threats, officials say</a></h1>
<h2>2002-03</h2>
<div id="sect_71" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 201.54 (Mar 20, 2002): 3.
<br>
<br>Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers by selecting the Enter button
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<br>
<blockquote><p>By 2010, possible enemies are expected to have more means at their disposal to impede U.S. space support systems, Navy Vice Adm. Thomas Wilson, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. China and Russia have the most counter-space capabilities now, but other countries, as well as non-state entities, also are pursuing them in hopes of turning U.S. reliance on space into a weakness that could be exploited in a conflict.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The U.S. faces growing threats to its space dominance, as potential adversaries are making significant progress in fielding their own space assets and developing tools to disrupt American space systems, U.S. intelligence officials said March 19.
<br>
<br>By 2010, possible enemies are expected to have more means at their disposal to impede U.S. space support systems, Navy Vice Adm. Thomas Wilson, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. China and Russia have the most counter-space capabilities now, but other countries, as well as non-state entities, also are pursuing them in hopes of turning U.S. reliance on space into a weakness that could be exploited in a conflict.
<br>
<br>Potential adversaries are exploring such capabilities as directed energy weapons, space object tracking systems, physical attacks on satellite ground stations, signals jamming, and information attacks against computer and communication systems. They are also improving their ability to perform denial and deception, which involves hiding plans, activities, facilities and capabilities from U.S. intelligence.
<br>
<br>The least sophisticated options are the ones most likely to become available to a "broader array of actors," Wilson said. An attack on a ground station, for example, is "obviously the larger threat" than a direct assault on satellites.
<br>
<br>Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), whose state is home to U.S. Space Command, called the growing threat to U.S. space systems "disturbing."
<br>
<br>Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told the committee that the advantage the U.S. has enjoyed in space for the past few decades is "eroding" as China, India and other countries field increasingly sophisticated reconnaissance satellites.
<br>
<br>The private sector is contributing to that erosion, Tenet added. Foreign military, intelligence and terrorist organizations are exploiting an expanding commercial supply of communications and navigation services and high-resolution satellite imagery.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_71');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 71 -->
<a name="x72"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x72" class="tiny">x72</a>
Tuttle, Rich : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">DOD initiative weaves technologies to boost aerospace capabilities</a></h1>
<h2>2002-05</h2>
<div id="sect_72" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 202.27 (May 7, 2002): 7.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Each service has priorities that can be addressed by the NAI. An Army goal in national missile defense, for instance, might be to use a fast-flying missile to engage a cruise missile at greater distances "so that [if] there's a chemical or biological weapon onboard, it is intercepted farther away," [Ron Sega] said. The Navy might want to have ships standing farther off a hostile shore "and still get to [a land] target in the same time." Similarly, the Air Force might want to "engage targets at a faster speed and therefore reduced time."
<br>
<br>Stressing a different kind of speed, and indicating how a coordinated government effort can quickly benefit warfighters, Sega described the rapid development of the thermobaric bomb that was used in Afghanistan. Approval to proceed was granted 10 days after the Sept. 11 terror attacks; small quantity lab testing was carried out in October; a full-up static test took place Nov. 17, and a flight test was conducted in Nevada on Dec. 14. First combat use followed shortly thereafter.
<br>
<br>The other is Power and Energy Technologies, aimed at enabling an "electric air force." The emphasis here is on power generation, including nuclear, diesel, jet, solar array and fuel cell technologies; energy storage, focusing on batteries, flywheels and capacitors; power management and control, emphasizing energy conversion and catapults; anddirected energy weapons, overseeing laser, microwave and similar technologies.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The Department of Defense's National Aerospace Initiative is aimed at expanding and interweaving a current base of technologies to go in stepping-stone fashion from hypersonic vehicles, to regular and easy access to space, and finally to advanced space technologies such as multifunction satellites, according to a top Pentagon official.
<br>
<br>Ron Sega, director of defense research and engineering, said if the technologies are viewed in a coordinated way, and supported in the near-, mid- and long-term, "you get some synergies, particularly for the longer term, because you know where you're going."
<br>
<br>Speaking at the recent National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Sega gave the most detailed account to date of the initiative.
<br>
<br>He stressed linkages among technologies, saying, for instance, that while hypersonic vehicles flying at ever greater Mach numbers steadily increase the chances of knocking out fleeting targets, they also help in terms of access to space.
<br>
<br>"If we can do this efficiently - going from hypersonics to space access to space technology - we may even view the way we do the space piece a different way, because you have helped yourself out in terms of access and how you would maneuver between the interface of higher density atmosphere and lower density atmosphere," he said.
<br>
<br>"The idea," he said, "is one-plus-one plus-one would be greater than three."
<br>
<br>The approach over the last several months has been to bring relevant portions of the government aerospace community together through a series of workshops to define challenges, goals, investment plans and roadmaps, Sega said.
<br>
<br>Each service has priorities that can be addressed by the NAI. An Army goal in national missile defense, for instance, might be to use a fast-flying missile to engage a cruise missile at greater distances "so that [if] there's a chemical or biological weapon onboard, it is intercepted farther away," Sega said. The Navy might want to have ships standing farther off a hostile shore "and still get to [a land] target in the same time." Similarly, the Air Force might want to "engage targets at a faster speed and therefore reduced time."
<br>
<br>Thermobaric bomb
<br>
<br>Stressing a different kind of speed, and indicating how a coordinated government effort can quickly benefit warfighters, Sega described the rapid development of the thermobaric bomb that was used in Afghanistan. Approval to proceed was granted 10 days after the Sept. 11 terror attacks; small quantity lab testing was carried out in October; a full-up static test took place Nov. 17, and a flight test was conducted in Nevada on Dec. 14. First combat use followed shortly thereafter.
<br>
<br>"The system by which we did that - bringing people together and accelerating a technical development from a strong science and technology base to a fielded system - is something that's probably more important and more enduring than" the weapon itself, Sega said.
<br>
<br>For now, he said, the emphasis in NAI is on gathering information "and focusing on what we currently have in technology and where we should be going in the future that makes sense from a technological point of view. ..." Industry will be involved in the "next stage," he said.
<br>
<br>Two other "strategic initiatives" in addition to NAI are being supported by executives running the Defense Department's science and technology programs.
<br>
<br>One is Surveillance and Knowledge Systems, which focuses on sensors and unmanned aerial vehicles; high bandwidth communications and information assurance; management of information, and cyber warfare.
<br>
<br>The other is Power and Energy Technologies, aimed at enabling an "electric air force." The emphasis here is on power generation, including nuclear, diesel, jet, solar array and fuel cell technologies; energy storage, focusing on batteries, flywheels and capacitors; power management and control, emphasizing energy conversion and catapults; anddirected energy weapons, overseeing laser, microwave and similar technologies.
<br>
<br>Underlying all three initiatives is a philosophy outlined in the Pentagon's recent Quadrennial Defense Review - that, in Sega's words, "this century is different than the last century. It's characterized by an in increasing dynamic, more uncertainty, a rapid rate of change."
<br>
<br>Thus, he said, "It's important to have more options available for the warfighter, and "we look for ... increased knowledge, speed, agility, lethality that would contribute to a wider option space and [yield] greater capabilities to address an uncertain future."
<br>
<br></p>
</blockquote><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 72 -->
<a name="x73"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x73</a>
Fulghum, David a; Barrie, Douglas : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_73');">U.K. Developing, Testing Directed Energy Weapon</a></h1>
<h2>2002-07</h2>
<div id="sect_73" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Britain has developed and successfully tested a prototype directed energy weapon package applicable for use on unmanned air vehicles or standoff cruise missiles, with some of the weapon tests carried out in the U.S. The defense ministry program to develop the high-power microwave (HPM) payload was underway by the mid-1990s. The payload is intended as a weapon for use against a target set including command and control, communications, and air defense assets. The intent of an HPM weapon is to create an intense power surge in electrical systems, ideally causing permanent, irreparable damage. A potential candidate platform, were the U.K. to operationally deploy an HPM weapon, would be the Storm Shadow cruise missile, which will enter service with the British Royal Air Force before the end of 2002.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Britain has developed and successfully tested a prototype directed energy weapon package applicable for use on unmanned air vehicles or standoff cruise missiles, with some of the weapon tests carried out in the U.S.
<br>
<br>The defense ministry program to develop the high-power microwave (HPM) payload was underway by the mid-1990s. The payload is intended as a weapon for use against a target set including: command and control, communications, and air defense assets. It is conceivable a prototype HPM weapon could be fielded, if required, within the coming months.
<br>
<br>Trials of the HPM payload have been carried out, with the directed energy weapon package flown in a test delivery vehicle. At least some of the trials were carried out on U.S. ranges, reflecting U.S. interest in the weapon.
<br>
<br>Development of the HPM payload is believed to have involved U.K. government research laboratories and British industry. The payload was sized for Ryan Aeronautical's (now Northrop Grumman) BQM-145A medium-range UAV. The high-speed low-flying UAVs used could either be ground launched or dropped from an F/A-18-size aircraft.
<br>
<br>One U.S. source suggested there was U.S. Navy interest in pursuing a joint program, but it remains uncertain as to the extent, if any, of continuing U.K.-U.S. collaboration.
<br>
<br>The intent of an HPM weapon is to create an intense power surge in electrical systems, ideally causing permanent, irreparable damage.
<br>
<br>British industry leaders readily admit to an interest in directed energy weapons; however, they decline to discuss any specific aspects of work they might be pursuing.
<br>
<br>Five of the BQ-145A UAVs were turned over to the U.S. Air Force and are held by the UAV Battle Lab at Eglin AFB, Fla. Tests of the British payload were considered much more promising than an earlier test at Eglin that used modified air-launched cruise missiles. They were designed to produce a pulse of microwave energy when high explosives wrapped around a coil generating an electrical field were detonated.
<br>
<br>A potential candidate platform, were the U.K. to operationally deploy an HPM weapon, would be the Storm Shadow cruise missile, which will enter service with the British Royal Air Force before the end of 2002.
<br>
<br>``In the U.S., there has been a lot of research into DE [directed energy],'' a senior British industry official said. ``Fortunately, in the U.K. there has been some equivalent investment as well, so we are better placed than some of our [European] colleagues.''
<br>
<br>Germany has also been looking at HPM payloads for UAV applications. Manfred Lehnigk, an executive with Germany's STN Atlas Electronik, builder of the Taifun UAV, said that his company is looking at an HPM weapon for unmanned aircraft, but it will likely take a minimum of five years to turn the system into payload.
<br>
<br>``The UCAV programs are highly classified, but we have taken the cover off various other projects, like HPM artillery shells, just to demonstrate that we are actively involved in all sorts of active variants of [electronic]-kill mechanisms.''
<br>
<br>However, he warned, the need for miniaturization and large power requirements will continue to dog delivery of airborne DE systems.
<br>
<br>``I think increasingly you'll see the importance of being able to interrupt communications, be it command and control or straight communications processes,'' Lehnigk said.
<br>
<br>``You will see continued focus on the disruptive soft kill. We've already seen examples, like Kosovo, where various non-destructive weapons were deployed to knock out electric power on a temporary basis,'' he said.
<br>
<br>HPM also holds promise for attacking hardened and underground targets.
<br>
<br>``To get at a 100-meter-deep target, explosives may not be the answer,'' the British official said. ``If you want to get underground, you have to start from the surface to get there. So you look at power lines, antennas, water pipes and ingress and egress sites'' where metallic structures would conduct pulses of energy deep into the structure to damage sensitive electronics concealed there.
<br>
<br>The U.S. has largely decided to use lasers from manned aircraft and HPM from unmanned (the latter in case fly-by-wire flight controls are damaged by the energy pulse). British researchers say they think there is a useful role for HPM from manned aircraft, but demur from being more specific, citing security restraints.
<br>
<br>British timelines for having tactically representative directed energy weapons roughly parallel those of the U.S. with which there appear to be some collaborative efforts.
<br>
<br>``Reusable HPM will be demonstrated in a couple of years and laser weapons a few years beyond that,'' said one British official. But unlike the U.S., there's ``not the [single] concentration on disposable DE weapons'' that could be mounted in cruise missiles or some type of bomb, he said, adding ``we want reusable directed energy devices.''
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: The Storm Shadow cruise missile, shown carried by a Tornado, is shortly to enter service. It could provide a delivery vehicle for a directed energy payload.
<br>
<br>Subject: Military weapons; Prototypes; Microwaves; Defense industry
<br>
<br>Location: United Kingdom, UK
<br>
<br>Classification: 9175: Western Europe; 9550: Public sector; 8680: Transportation equipment industry
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 157
<br>
<br>Issue: 5
<br>
<br>Pages: 26
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2002
<br>
<br>Publication date: July 29, 2002</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_73');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 73 -->
<a name="x74"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x74" class="tiny">x74</a>
Fulghum, David a. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">Lasers Being Developed For F-35 and AC-130: Directed-energy devices are emerging from the `black' world as weapons for manned and unmanned aircraft</a></h1>
<h2>2002-07</h2>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.2 (July 8, 2002): 32-33.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Lockheed Martin is tailoring a laser for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that could be ready as early as 2010 for demonstration and the start of a full-scale development program. An advantage of a directed-energy weapon is that it can shoot indefinitely and is limited only by the ability to cool it, and it is covert. There is no huge explosion associated with its employment. The damage is very localized, and it is hard to tell where it came from and when it happened. Planners envision scenarios where fires are set, electronic components are damaged and computer memories are erased with no collateral damage or injury to those near the target.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Lockheed Martin is tailoring a laser for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that could be ready as early as 2010 for demonstration and the start of a full-scale development program.
<br>
<br>Variants of the solid-state laser, powered by a drive shaft from an aircraft's engine instead of batteries, also are being considered for use on AC-130 gunships and Lockheed Martin-designed unmanned aircraft. The high-energy laser system is being designed in a joint project with Raytheon.
<br>
<br>An advantage of a directed-energy weapon is that it can shoot indefinitely and is limited only by the ability to cool it, and it's covert. ``There's no huge explosion associated with its employment,'' a Lockheed Martin official said. ``There are no pieces and parts left behind that someone can analyze to say, `This came from the U.S.' The damage is very localized, and it's hard to tell where it came from and when it happened. It's all pretty mysterious.''
<br>
<br>A foe would be left largely clueless trying to analyze what happened and why. Planners envision scenarios where fires are set, electronic components are damaged and computer memories are erased with no collateral damage or injury to those near the target.
<br>
<br>A Defense Science Board study last year said that several technology breakthroughs have moved high-energy lasers on fighters into the realm of the possible. Among them was increased electrical power-generation capability achieved under the ``More-Electric Aircraft Project.'' The DSB contends that aircraft systems will be able to provide one megawatt of power in less than five years. Other rapidly developing technologies allow smaller packaging of systems. These include advanced solid-state lasers, chemical lasers with electro-regeneration of chemicals and fiber lasers.
<br>
<br>The technical hurdles include compensating for vibrations and high g-forces that can punish the laser and beam-control system and turbulence around the aircraft. ``The beam control system must be extremely dynamic to account for these fast transient processes occurring at kilohertz rates,'' the report said.
<br>
<br>Lockheed Martin looked at laser concepts from TRW, Boeing and Textron, but Raytheon's appeared to be the most advanced, a company official said. Raytheon's solid-state design is ``particularly suitable for JSF because it's very compact and shows promise for achieving the necessary power levels and beam quality,'' the Lockheed Martin official said. ``The other companies don't appear to feel as confident in their ability to buy or develop a suitable laser.'' Company officials are also hoping that the Air Force Research Laboratory's directed-energy directorate at Kirtland AFB, N.M., or the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency would fund some of the solid-state laser development.
<br>
<br>A first-generation laser weapon would be able to engage aerial targets such as cruise missiles and enemy aircraft, as well as ground targets such as antiaircraft missile sites and ground vehicles. These capabilities would likely require laser power of 100 kw., analysts predict.
<br>
<br>``That's about the minimum threshold to be a weapon,'' the Lockheed Martin official said. ``Less than that and it's only useful against soft targets. One hundred kilowatts would also let targets be engaged at tactically significant ranges.''
<br>
<br>Except for self-defense, laser weapon designers think the minimum effective range is about 6 mi. for a fighter aircraft. As the power of solid-state lasers improves with the maturation of new technology, the range of directed-energy weapons would increase. Ideally, the laser-equipped aircraft would also carry conventional munitions. The F-35, for example, won't give up any weapon-carriage capability when the laser is installed, and it will allow a combination of effects. Lasers can provide low collateral damage and covert attack. Conventional weapons would provide longer range strike.
<br>
<br>``Laser and HPM [high-power microwave] weapons are more like an avionics system,'' a company official said. ``You don't go out, drop three and go home. It's always on the air vehicle, you use it when you want and, at least with solid-state technology, you're not going to run out of power.''
<br>
<br>The concept for F-35 is to have a turret, centered on the lift-fan cavity, which would extend when needed from the bottom of the aircraft. The system would be installed in the space just aft of the cockpit that was carved out to hold the vertical lift fan. With a single turret, the directed-energy weapon would be most effective against ground targets, low-flying airborne targets and for self-defense.
<br>
<br>While conceptually the one-turret aircraft could be maneuvered to fire at other aircraft or air-to-air missiles, planners are dubious. ``There's not always time to maneuver, especially in close-in self-defense situations, so you want multiple apertures,'' a Lockheed Martin official said. Therefore, company designers are considering a second turret that would extend from the top of the lift-fan space to cover the upper hemisphere around the aircraft. They don't yet know if they can make both turrets fit into the space that they must share with target trackers, laser, optics, power and cooling. ``It will be a trade of coverage versus internal volume,'' he said. There also would be the option of flying a mix of aircraft, some specialized for air-to-air and others for ground attack. For demonstration purposes, the laser system would likely be installed first on a pod and later on an early model JSF airframe.
<br>
<br>Lockheed Martin believes it has a distinct advantage in getting directed-energy weapons into the field because the F-35's unique design will allow it to supply a great deal of electrical power. Instead of having to rely on heavy, short-lived batteries to run the laser, it will be fed electrical power generated by a drive shaft run from the main engine. In the Marine Corps' short-takeoff, vertical-landing version of the F-35, the drive shaft will power the vertical lift fan. But for the Air Force and Navy versions, the empty spaces designed for the lift fan and cannon could be used for the laser weapon.
<br>
<br>``The drive shaft has the [potential] of producing multi-megawatts of power in real time without hurting the aircraft's performance,'' the Lockheed Martin official said. The shaft from the engine can produce more than 27,000 shp. to drive a generator. But the rate of fire and recycle time for a laser weapon, particularly against targets at long range, may be limited by the need for thermal cooling. ``You can't fire forever,'' he said. ``The challenge is doing the cooling in near real time.'' What the duty cycle will be has still to be determined, but some specialists suggest that at least initially it might be a 4-sec. burst, followed by 4 sec. of cooling, then another 4-sec. burst and finally a 30-sec. cool-down before engaging two more targets.
<br>
<br>Directed-energy, self-defense weapons with a fast recycle time for multiple shots (since two or more antiaircraft missiles are usually fired together) is considered a key concept for future warfare. By 2025, many U.S. Air Force planners believe multispectral sensor technology will overtake the ability of stealth designs to protect aircraft from air defenses.
<br>
<br>Directed-energy weapons fall into two categories so far: high-energy lasers and HPM. Farther in the future is a plasma of ionized gas molecules that might resemble a bolt of lightning.
<br>
<br>Lasers use thermal effects to quickly blow holes in targets, and they are being designed for use in manned aircraft, say Air Force and aerospace industry officials. A laser beam can be focused on a fuel tank to produce catastrophic damage, or it can be focused on a vehicle's engine to simply disable it. Generally, however, it is a lethal, longer range weapon.
<br>
<br>HPM is most effective in attacking electronics, particularly computers where spikes of high power can damage components and erase computer memories. This kind of technology is seen as the weapon of choice for unmanned aircraft because spurious emissions might affect safety of flight.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Lockheed Martin produced this artist's rendering of a laser-weapon-equipped F-35. Lasers will be put on manned aircraft, while the tougher to control high-power microwave weapons are slated for unmanned combat vehicles.
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x75</a>
Fulghum, David A. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_75');">UCAVs Also Tagged To Carry Energy Weapons</a></h1>
<h2>2002-07</h2>
<div id="sect_75" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.2 (July 8, 2002): 33.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>With an eye to carving its niche in a new market, Lockheed Martin plans to put directed-energy weapons on its own unmanned air vehicle concepts. The concept competes with Northrop Grumman's, the Navy-backed X-47 unmanned combat air vehicle that can be flown from aircraft carriers, and Boeing's, the Air Force's X-45, which has been test-flown.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>With an eye to carving its niche in a new market, Lockheed Martin plans to put directed-energy weapons on ``our own unmanned air vehicle concepts,'' a company official said.
<br>
<br>The concept competes with Northrop Grumman's, the Navy-backed X-47 unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) that can be flown from aircraft carriers, and Boeing's, the Air Force's X-45, which has been test-flown. The Boeing aircraft is already being designed to carry a high-power microwave (HPM) device as an ``anti-electronics'' weapon.
<br>
<br>The company's unique twist is to use a drive shaft from the UCAV's propulsion engine for electrical power generation instead of using heavy, limited power batteries. The concept has been deemed successful on the F-35, so now Lockheed Martin is designing it into UCAVs (programs that are closely held) to power directed-energy weapons. With batteries, the weapon would put out only ``a squirt or two'' of microwave pulses before the on-board power source is depleted, said a senior Air Force official. Moreover, the expensive batteries would have to be replaced often, perhaps monthly. With a shaft-driven power source, more targets could be struck.
<br>
<br>High-power microwaves (spikes of power much like the energy generated by radars) are primarily thought of as an anti-electronics weapon. While a laser is a low-frequency weapon that requires a few seconds to inflict the necessary damage, HPM consists of high-frequency energy pulses that require only milliseconds to create the needed effect.
<br>
<br>HPM comes in several variants for producing a range of effects. It is a short-range device for disabling equipment. Because the weapon is designed to produce the equivalent of electromagnetic interference (EMI) to upset and damage enemy electronics, officials are concerned that it might occasionally produce similar effects in the host aircraft.
<br>
<br>``With existing aircraft, you might commit suicide because of the skin currents and EMI produced by firing an HPM weapon,'' a Lockheed Martin official said. ``It's more prudent to use purpose-built unmanned aircraft, although you still can't afford to lose very many.''
<br>
<br>This worry about unintended effects on the host aircraft has relegated HPM to UCAVs and a series of expendable weapons being developed in classified programs. HPM is considered effective against enemy computers and other electronic systems if fired at short range--another reason to fit them into unmanned aircraft and standoff missiles.
<br>
<br>HPM also can be used as active denial or antipersonnel weapons. A Marine Corps program is developing a truck-mounted system that heats water in the skin to painful levels to make crowds flee or disperse.
<br>
<br>The Air Force is exploring HPM as a weapon to attack underground and deeply buried targets that are immune to high explosives. Pulses of microwave energy can be transmitted deep into a facility through antennas, fresh-air conduits and water pipes. Once inside, the pulses move into electronic equipment or erase and scramble computer memories and damage components.
<br>
<br></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_75');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 75 -->
<a name="x76"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x76" class="tiny">x76</a>
Fulghum, David a; Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">Raytheon Links Future To Network Prowess: </a></h1>
<h2>2002-07</h2>
<div id="sect_76" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.4 (July 22, 2002): 167-169.
<br>
<br />
<p>
In the two years since the last Farnborough air show, European defense companies have made great strides toward integrating operations, and governments are beginning to seriously recognize the capabilities gap between their military forces and those of the U.S. Western military planners also have broadly embraced the need to more tightly integrate systems. Raytheon provides one example of a U.S. defense company that is coming to grips with new technical challenges posed by integrated, network-centric operations and the evolving transatlantic business climate.
<br />
<br />
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Faced with increasingly effective competition at home and in Europe, Raytheon strategists are fine-tuning their company's focus on delivering networked systems in addition to production of components that others can integrate. Raytheon, like other large, defense-oriented aerospace companies, knows the future is inextricably tied to what is often called network- or information-centric warfare, and that any large corporation's long-term success will depend less and less on new missiles or aircraft designs. Instead, the company has made a major commitment to growth through developing and linking new technologies such as laser and microwave weapons, multispectral sensors and clever algorithms that can sift the crucial crumbs of intelligence from masses of surveillance data. During its consolidation period, the company suffered several programmatic setbacks including cancellation of the Navy area-wide missile defense project. Being able to deliver on the promise of improved performance by exploiting the potential growth area of networked solutions will be crucial for Raytheon's corporate leadership goal of placating skeptics on Wall Street.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Faced with increasingly effective competition at home and in Europe, Raytheon strategists are fine-tuning their company's focus on delivering networked systems in addition to production of components that others can integrate.
<br>
<br>Raytheon, like other large, defense-oriented aerospace companies, knows the future is inextricably tied to what is often called network- or information-centric warfare, and that any large corporation's long-term success will depend less and less on new missiles or aircraft designs.
<br>
<br>Instead, the company has made a major commitment to growth through developing and linking new technologies such as laser and microwave weapons, multispectral sensors and clever algorithms that can sift the crucial crumbs of intelligence from masses of surveillance data. They've decided to treat platforms as interchangeable pieces for carrying various parts of an integrated ``kill chain.''
<br>
<br>During its consolidation period, the company suffered several programmatic setbacks including cancellation of the Navy area-wide missile defense project, a loss in the U.S. Air Force's small-diameter bomb competition and being dropped from the Pentagon's unmanned combat aircraft contest at the prime contractor level. Moreover, the company's overall performance has lagged compared with its some of its competitors (AW&ST July 1, p. 48).
<br>
<br>Being able to deliver on the promise of improved performance by exploiting the potential growth area of ``networked solutions'' will be crucial for Raytheon's corporate leadership goal of placating skeptics on Wall Street. Some analysts have been frustrated by the company's perceived financial underperformance, particularly after Raytheon acquired defense units from Hughes and Texas Instruments. Debt continues to hover at the $8-billion mark with a dept-to-capital ratio of almost 40%. If emphasis on the ``kill chain'' doesn't improve Raytheon's bottom line, it could raise the question of what will.
<br>
<br>A cornerstone of Raytheon's new approach is ``precision strike'' which is a critical growth area for the company.
<br>
<br>At its Tucson facility, the company touts its ability to do everything in a weapons program from design through development, manufacturing, integration, testing and shipment directly to a combat theater, said Louise Francesconi, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems business unit. That should be an advantage over its European competitors, company officials indicated, since they still operate with multiple sites. Another company official contended that Raytheon's emphasis on development of all elements of the kill chain in a single company is also an advantage that can't be matched overseas.
<br>
<br>At its facilities in El Segundo and Dallas, the company also does cradle-to-grave work, including some groundbreaking efforts on fusing data from electro-optical and infrared sensors with imagery from synthetic aperture radar and flash ladar to increase the intelligence yield for time-critical targeting. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems like the sensor suite for Global Hawk and the multispectral target system for Predator are developed at both sites along with advanced, jam-resistant GPS technologies for precision-guided munitions.
<br>
<br>Partnering is another element of Raytheon's European strategy. That approach proved successful in winning the Astor program, designed to provide Britain an airborne ground surveillance radar capability. The company is also in the competition for Britain's precision-guided bomb program.
<br>
<br>``In regard to Europe, sometimes we cooperate, sometimes we compete,'' Francesconi said. ``You have to understand each scenario, each weapon requirement and the dynamic each partnership offers to really compete in the European environment.''
<br>
<br>A critical advantage for the U.S. company over its European rivals is the number of research and development activities it can participate in. ``The striking difference between us and our European counterparts is largely our partnership with the government [through] Darpa, AFRL, NRL [Air Force Research Laboratory, Naval Research Laboratory] where technologies integral to every one of these aspects are worked in the near- and long-term at every level,'' said Frank Fleischer, director of business development for Raytheon Electronic Systems. ``That's hard to duplicate beyond the U.S. Our position in the world market is fundamental to working with the government at the research level because they are poking at things 20 years out, so it helps us to find technology issues and information problems. That's a leadership technology area you can't duplicate.''
<br>
<br>Raytheon officials also insist that the pains from consolidation in the past few years are behind them and that the new organization is bearing fruit. ``Now we can designate a business unit to lead, but draw resources from everywhere there is expertise,'' Francesconi said. ``The precision strike initiative is a classic example. It involves very broad-scope capabilities that now have a focal point. That wouldn't have been possible 2.5 years ago.''
<br>
<br>Directed energy weapons, both high-power microwaves (HPM) and lasers, are at the forefront of the company's planning for future investments. ``We believe they are a critical element of how ultimately wars will be fought,'' Francesconi said. ``HPM is the most mature right now. We're exploring platforms, uses, system concepts and concept of operations for [battlefield use]. On the laser side, the work is more involved in packaging and thermal management, [and refining] optics and lasers.''
<br>
<br>Raytheon also plans to move aggressively into development of avionics technologies for UCAVs such as airborne radars, electronic warfare systems, electro-optical and infrared sensors and laser designators. It is already a partner on Boeing's X-45 and one of four bidders for the U.S. Army/Darpa unmanned combat rotorcraft.
<br>
<br>Like its effort to take a dominant position in the directed energy field, Raytheon has also picked UCAVs as a focal point. ``We're going to treat it much the same, and it's going to have an executive focus so we really understand the market and where the technology's going,'' Francesconi said. ``The question now is the size of the platform and its use. A key difference is that they will base their designs on smaller size, less-expensive UCAVs. The approach mirrors recent statements by Air Force Secretary James G. Roche about wanting to move away from buying additional large UAV and UCAVs. The escalating price of the Global Hawk has been a particularly contentious issue for the Air Force. ``Because there may be more focus on small [vehicles], I think we have a reentry point [for UCAV development],'' Francesconi said.
<br>
<br>Raytheon is so committed to the next generation of systems for unmanned vehicles that it has established the Unmanned Combat Vehicle organization to serve as a single focal point. It will pull together future systems including weapons, communications and sensors. The UCV organization is already at work on a UCAV line as well as the Army's Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft program.
<br>
<br>In addition, UCAV could provide the springboard to fielding new directed energy weapons. ``We see UCAV as the first, most viable opportunity for a directed energy weapon,'' Francesconi said. Researchers contend that HPMs are particularly effective against radar components and have the ability to erase or scramble computer memories. ``That's still being sorted out. We're very interested in whether it goes on a UCAV or a Tomahawk.''
<br>
<br>But Raytheon's planners also point out that no one product should dominate the company's portfolio. They also will strike for a balance between production and development of new products.
<br>
<br>``We're trying to leverage our technology developments to bring products quickly to the marketplace,'' said Jack Pearson, vice president of Raytheon's air combat and strike systems. ``We're focusing our technology roadmaps around standard product architecture--such as common processors, focal plane arrays and GPS guidance--so we can take advantage of our large portfolio.''
<br>
<br>To optimize the effects of a weapon, or to decide if it should even be dropped, the entire precision engagement chain must be addressed, but without incurring huge new costs, Pearson said. By focusing attention on all elements of the end-to-end process, the planners believe they can ``invest once and apply [the results] to two or three programs.''
<br>
<br>Missile Systems at Raytheon's Tucson facility, for example, identified 13 technology investments it has leveraged to other users in the company. These include lasers, laser radar, infrared detectors, advanced materials, RF components, transmitters, amplifiers, transmit and receive modules, uncooled infrared, molecular beam steering and focusing technology, low-cost transceivers, composite radomes and low-cost packaging.
<br>
<br>The 21st century technologies that Raytheon believes will spell corporate success include tools for gathering, sorting and moving information and fielding energy weapons that will disable--at the speed of light--missiles, spacecraft, or even computers hidden in underground facilities at ranges from a few hundred yards (high-power microwaves against computers) to a few hundred miles (lasers against space boost vehicles).
<br>
<br>The issue riveting everyone's attention is how to link all the current and future components into an affordable network that will allow a small, modern military force to win its battles. Over the next few years, a survivable military force will have to move from its current focus on ``platform-centric'' operations to what's being called ``interconnected-centric'' where the potential of gathering and moving information quickly is understood and at least partially in place, said Jim Wolf, manager of advanced programs for Raytheon Electronic Systems.
<br>
<br>Laser radar is one of the key technologies mentioned for leveraging across the company. ``You get reams of information from ladar,'' Wolf said. ``That's the beauty of it. There's a mountain of data. The problem is that I have to figure out how to process it fast enough to use it in real time. I'm not loitering. I've got to prosecute the target. That requires a systems-level trade,'' he said.
<br>
<br>The ultimate goal, perhaps within the next decade or two, is an ``information-centric'' force that can continuously monitor large areas, comb them for targets or intelligence, speed key data to shooters and immediately tally the result of strikes.
<br>
<br>Despite a common vision, there is still debate in the industry about ``what is the right technology, the right vision, the right network . . . and what are the trades,'' Wolf said. ``We need a vision of what the battle space is going to look like in 5, 10 or 20 years.''
<br>
<br>The central problem facing planners is balancing the expense of building a gigantic network, refining its links and then fielding a family of small, simple, low-cost precision weapons to attack the targets.
<br>
<br>As a background to such calculations, planners must, all the while, be realistic about the handicaps under which an allied force will operate. Its political mandate will largely prohibit allied casualties and strictly limit the damage that is deemed fair to inflict on a foe. Collateral damage will be a crucial consideration in any war plan, and all this must be done with an eye to the whimsy of year-to-year, administration-to-administration funding priorities.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Precision targeting made enormous strides in the last decade. Labs and intelligence networking contribute to designing enhanced accuracy for advanced weapons.
<br>
<br>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Intelligence networking and a kill chain that operates within 15 min. is considered essential to combat the lethal lineup of air defense weapons on the world market.
<br>
<br>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Companies see their future tied to integrated products ranging from sensors that first detect an object to a post-strike analysis of a weapon's effectiveness.
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 76 -->
<a name="x77"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x77" class="tiny">x77</a>
Fulghum, David a. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_77');">Lasers, HPM Weapons Near Operational Status</a></h1>
<h2>2002-07</h2>
<div id="sect_77" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.4 (July 22, 2002): 173-174.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<br>
<blockquote><p>Directed energy weapons - lasers and high-power microwaves - are emerging from the black world of classified projects as the time nears for their debut on aircraft, vehicles, ships and eventually even spacecraft. The first combat applications, probably involving high-power microwaves (HPM) used as antielectronics weapons, will appear within the next 4-5 years, say top Raytheon officials. A short, intense energy surge can scramble computer memories and damage electronic components. Raytheon is already involved in most of the major directed energy programs. The company is two years into a project that would put a laser weapon on Lockheed Martin's multiservice, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It also is one of the contractors asked to study the design of a high-power microwave weapon for Boeing's X-45 unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV).
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Directed energy weapons--lasers and high-power microwaves--are emerging from the black world of classified projects as the time nears for their debut on aircraft, vehicles, ships and eventually even spacecraft.
<br>
<br>The first combat applications, probably involving high-power microwaves (HPM) used as antielectronics weapons, will appear within the next 4-5 years, say top Raytheon officials. A short, intense energy surge can scramble computer memories and damage electronic components.
<br>
<br>Raytheon is already involved in most of the major directed energy programs. The company is two years into a project that would put a laser weapon on Lockheed Martin's multiservice, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It also is one of the contractors asked to study the design of a high-power microwave weapon for Boeing's X-45 unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV). Moreover, it has won the DD-X contract for next-generation U.S. Navy ships. Its electric drive will one day power a laser-based air defense system.
<br>
<br>In the future, ``our strategy is simple,'' said Mike Booen, head of Raytheon Electronic System's directed energy programs. ``We want to replace high explosives with directed energy weapons [DEW]. Any munitions or platforms that carry high explosives, we want to replace with DEW. We want to enable new missions where . . . high explosives [are called for but can't be used] because of problems of collateral damage or the need for a facility after the conflict.''
<br>
<br>While Pentagon acquisition officials are cautious of the new technologies and want demonstrations of its capabilities, the trends are already in place. ``You only have to look at science and technology funding in the current budget planning,'' Booen said. ``If you plot what is being invested in traditional precision munitions, you see a down slope. If you look at how much the Defense Dept. is investing in directed energy, it's on an up slope. People are recognizing that directed energy will start going on all sorts of platforms as the next step in munitions. And technology is mature enough that it's now only a configuration change, not a leap in physics.''
<br>
<br>One of the significant problems is scaling up the output of directed energy weapons.
<br>
<br>``Power is king,'' Booen said. ``Distance is the trade space.'' Therefore, close-range missions will likely emerge first. They would include the self-defense of manned aircraft air- and ground-launched missiles and the use of unmanned aircraft that can fly close to anti-aircraft defenses. ``The bottom line is that there are mission areas where you do not have to wait until you have a megawatt of laser power on your aircraft to do militarily important things,'' he said.
<br>
<br>Laser weapons produce very small, precise beams of energy that can physically damage aircraft as well as cruise and ballistic missiles, set fire to ground structures or, with less power, befuddle missile guidance systems with false targets.
<br>
<br>HPM have broader beams that can be used, for example, to heat the water in a person's skin to unendurable levels as a crowd-dispersion device. At higher power, it becomes a weapon that can erase computer memories and damage communications and other battlefield electronic devices. Several HPM projects are underway to test their effectiveness against underground and deeply buried targets that are immune to conventional bombs.
<br>
<br>Designers, at least for the present, have chosen to put laser weapons on manned aircraft and HPM on unmanned aircraft because of the possibility that the latter's less-precisely-focused output or its electrical side lobes might affect the UCAV's flight systems and cause it to become uncontrollable. Currently the weapon is being designed for a later, Block 30 version of the Air Force UCAV.
<br>
<br>As directed energy weapons emerge, so too, will the rules of engagement which shape their use and design. Israel, a leader in military innovation, is largely putting off development of such weapons except in an antimissile role. One of the country's military technologists said they are concerned that using an HPM weapon, for example, could be mired in legal reviews since it might result in new, unanticipated types of collateral damage. While HPM targets electronics and humans, it could also disrupt electricity to a hospital or even affect individuals with pacemakers. None of these issues have been completely thought through, he said.
<br>
<br>Developers and the military are still loath to talk about these technologies but evidence about the technologies involved in directed energy weapons and platforms has emerged that are expected to carry them. The aerospace industry also is at work on simulating and modeling the effects of such weaponry. Raytheon, for example, has been developing advanced algorithms and computer tools for two years at its simulation facility in Tucson.
<br>
<br>There also appears to be a growing sophistication in how potential military customers are approaching DEW. Initially, customers were interested in individual pieces of hardware, said Louise Francesconi, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems' business unit. That is no longer the case. Interest now is focused on integrated solutions that include not just the laser or HPM weapon, but also sensor and battle management functions, she said.
<br>
<br>DEW technology has been gathering momentum with the construction of powerful solid-state lasers that can be used in the development of small weapons. Solid-state technology also offers fewer environmental concerns than chemical lasers like those in the U.S. Air Force's YAL-1A airborne laser aircraft which requires a Boeing 747 to carry the long-range laser device and huge amounts of toxic chemicals aloft.
<br>
<br>However, there is interest in larger, non-airborne directed energy weapons that can fire repeatedly in short periods of intense combat against, for example, a wave of low-flying, high-speed cruise missiles. The Navy's new ship design, DD-X, which was awarded to Raytheon, will have an electric drive capable of producing the massive power necessary to run a self-defense system that can shoot down aircraft, large numbers of very-high-speed surface-skimming cruise missiles and, eventually, ballistic missiles. Electric drive ships are the perfect platform for weapons that must fire quickly and repeatedly. But, for the aviation community, the necessity for small payload packages for both laser and HPM weapons that may only need to produce a few pulses of energy during each mission as it attacks other aircraft, missiles or ground targets, will remain.
<br>
<br>Boeing is working with U.S. Special Operations Command on the Advanced Tactical Laser to develop a medium-power laser using uncooled optics on a CV-22 tiltrotor, AC-130 gunship or MH-47 helicopter. The device is intended for attacking targets with lethal and non-lethal forces at ranges of up to 10 mi.
<br>
<br>Another near-term project is development of a laser weapon envisioned for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Some of the problems of a small payload are reduced because the aircraft already has a drive shaft from the engine to the bay just behind the cockpit that could be used to produce the electrical energy needed to power a directed energy device. When needed, the area holds a lift fan used for vertical flight. But for other versions of the manned aircraft, the space can be used for a laser weapon using shaft-generated electrical power.
<br>
<br>Raytheon has to complete the solutions to two technology problems as they create a powerful laser weapon for the F-35.
<br>
<br>First, they have to scale up the power output of their solid-state lasers from about 10 kw. to about 100 kw. in order to kill targets at a tactically significant range. Some analysts set the mark at about 10 km. (6.2 mi.). A solid-state laser is needed for the F-35 ``because its going to be sold in large numbers, it has to be easily maintainable and it must operate without a chemical farm going in and lots of toxic residue coming out,'' a Lockheed Martin official said. ``Right now solid-state lasers don't exist at the power level and beam quality [needed].''
<br>
<br>Second, they have to keep the laser beam focused over those long distances.
<br>
<br>``The air around a fighter is pretty disturbed because you're trying to operate at around Mach 1,'' he said. ``That, in turn, will disturb the laser beam as you fire it to the target. The air density and the shocks coming off the air vehicle will distort the beam. As part of our laser concept, we will employ adaptive optics to sense what the distortion is and use a conformal mirror. The mirror will predistort the beam so that as it goes through the disturbed air it corrects itself.'' Mirror technology is being developed in the airborne laser project which uses deformable mirrors to limit defraction of the laser over its 250-mi. range.
<br>
<br>HPM (which produce spikes of power much like energy generated by radars) is primarily thought of as an anti-electronics weapon. While a laser is a low-frequency weapon requiring perhaps 4 sec. to inflict the necessary damage, HPM consists of high-frequency energy pulses that need only milliseconds to create the needed effect.
<br>
<br>An advantage of HPM is that the technology is more mature than solid-state, high-energy lasers. ``HPM will proceed the solid-state lasers by a few years,'' a senior Raytheon official said. ``We have focused a lot of new people and dollars on the technology. But the race is between directed energy technologies and the platforms. If we had a DEW available today, we couldn't fly it because [the Air Force and Navy] don't have a UCAV.
<br>
<br>``But the intersection of DEW and UCAVs is a perfect marriage and a growth area. That's how you can prosecute the war in a heavily defended area. Look at the missions for UCAV. Suppression of air defense is number one. You don't want your pilots shot down. You can speculate on what an antielectronics weapon could do to electronics on a SAM battery or an air operations center.''
<br>
<br>The Air Force's UCAV that will evolve from Boeing's X-45 program will have the added problem of providing a large enough power supply to drive an HPM device. Part of the solution is achieved by putting the DE weapon on an unmanned aircraft that can fly very close to a well-defended target before loosing its pulse of microwaves, without endangering an aircrew. The effectiveness of an HPM weapon decreases by the square of its distance from the target.
<br>
<br>``Where we can pull power off the engine we will,'' Booen said. Lockheed Martin intends to use that strategy with its UCAV designs. ``But in many configurations, we do plan on using batteries. You will see HPM applications within the next 4-5 years.''
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: One concept for an aircraft with directed energy weapons shows a laser being fired from the aft position in a C-130 and a high-power microwave device from forward of the wing.
<br>
<br>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: An anti-personnel device using high-power microwaves to heat water in the skin can inflict enough pain to cause crowds to disperse.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_77');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 77 -->
<a name="x78"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x78" class="tiny">x78</a>
Robert Wall and David a. Fulghum : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">New, Shared Technology To Sustain Weapons Edge</a></h1>
<h2>2002-07</h2>
<div id="sect_78" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.4 (July 22, 2002): 191-192.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Faced with increasing competition in its munitions business domestically and abroad, Raytheon is looking for ways to leverage its existing precision-strike projects to win new customers and develop weapons that will secure the long-term financial health of the business. One of the large thrusts for Raytheon's munitions business will be to share components across products, such as focal plane arrays, processors, guidance and navigation subsystems. It is argued that the strategy reduces cycle time - the amount of time it takes to develop and field a weapon - and gives a cost advantage. Raytheon hopes this philosophy will bear fruit for the Army's Common Missile program. In the hope of gaining an edge, Raytheon wants to closely couple work on the missile with that on the Army's next-generation precision projectile</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Faced with increasing competition in its munitions business domestically and abroad, Raytheon is looking for ways to leverage its existing precision-strike projects to win new customers and develop weapons that will secure the long-term financial health of the business.
<br>
<br>One of the large thrusts for Raytheon's munitions business will be to share components across products, such as focal plane arrays, processors, guidance and navigation subsystems, says Louise Francesconi, who runs the business unit. She argues that the strategy ``reduces our cycle time''--the amount of time it takes to develop and field a weapon--and ``gives us a cost advantage.''
<br>
<br>Raytheon hopes this philosophy will bear fruit for the Army's Common Missile program, which is to replace Tow and Hellfire. The company is locked in battle with Boeing and Lockheed Martin for one of the largest missile programs on the horizon. The weapon is being designed for helicopter and ground-platform use, and is slated for fielding around 2008-09.
<br>
<br>In the hope of gaining an edge, Raytheon wants to closely couple work on the missile with that on the Army's next-generation precision projectile, says Bill Paterson, who oversees both efforts. For instance, multi-mode seeker development is one area where both efforts could benefit from the same technology, he says. Additionally, the Common Missile would probably use the same processor as a loitering munition Raytheon is designing for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's NetFires activity.
<br>
<br>A similar scenario is playing out in the naval and surface-launched weapons arena. Raytheon is developing the Navy's 5-in. Extended-Range Guided Munition and 155-mm. Long-Range Land-Attack Projectile, as well as the 155-mm. XM982 Excalibur artillery round for the Army. There are plenty of opportunities to use common components, says David G. Martin, Raytheon vice president for guided projectiles. For instance, ERGM and Excalibur could share safe-and-arm devices. Additionally, all three weapons could use a common GPS/INS navigation kit, power supply, canard controls and anti-jam electronics.
<br>
<br>In addition to the cost-focused initiatives, company officials are trying to stay in step with their customers and address growing requirements for low-collateral-damage munitions and smart, netted, persistent-loitering weapons, areas its competitors are eyeing with equal zeal.
<br>
<br>On the reduced-damage front, for instance, BAE Systems and Raytheon are squared off on a project to develop and build a low-cost guided 2.75-in. rocket for the Army. The weapon, a modified Hydra-70, would be equipped with a semi-active laser seeker to bring its accuracy to about 1 meter, compared with 20-120 meters for the unguided system. Both bidders say that adding the guidance section to the M151 warhead and Mk66 rocket motor would cost less than $10,000 per round. Besides reducing the area of immediate damage, industry officials note that firing the guided-Hydra will be effective against most targets, and cheaper than using a laser-guided Hellfire.
<br>
<br>As to addressing the more complex end of the spectrum of networked munitions, Raytheon is involved in the combined Army/Darpa NetFires program that is seen as one of the candidates to replace the Army's canceled Crusader artillery system. NetFires consists essentially of a container launch system and two weapons, the Loiter-Attack Missile (LAM) and the lower-end Precision-Attack Missile (PAM). Conceptually, the LAM would be launched, fly to a designated area using GPS/INS navigation, and look for targets using its ladar seeker. The TJ-30 turbojet-powered munition can loiter for about an hour and would be in constant contact via a two-way data link. Once the munition finds a target, aided by automatic target-recognition software, a PAM would be fired to attack it. LAM could also attack the target either if it is a high priority or if the LAM is almost out of fuel and will expire anyway. But PAM is designed to be less sophisticated and cheaper and therefore would be used in most cases. Raytheon engineers also are developing an air-launched version of LAM for helicopter use.
<br>
<br>For its long-term viability, the company also is spending heavily on seeker technologies and other components, both through internal dollars and government-funded efforts. Although directed-energy weapons are attracting a lot of attention, continued effort is going into sustaining the core munition product line.
<br>
<br>One of the key focal areas on the optical side is work on ladars. The goal is to develop a ``flash ladar'' that could image a target instantaneously rather than having to scan it to build the image, says Jim Wolf, who is involved in advanced programs for the group. Eventually, engineers hope to exploit other aspects of the data that could be used to discriminate between a target and a decoy. The company also is exploring different radiofrequency seeker options. Wolf said Ka-band seekers, for instance, have attractiveness. Because of the short wavelength, such seekers would have better resolution. The penalty is much shorter range in adverse weather.
<br>
<br>As technologists explore different seeker candidates and move to multi-mode seekers, Wolf said, it is important to closely integrate the different techniques. By fusing the information together, rather than merely operating the different modes in parallel, it becomes much harder for an adversary to employ effective countermeasures, he noted. Moreover, combining information from multiple seekers should allow each sub-element to employ simpler, cheaper technology and still achieve the desired effectiveness, he argued.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Illustration: Diagram: U.S. Army NetFires loitering munition will use the same processor as the Navy's Common Missile to cut the costs of precision-strike weapons.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 78 -->
<a name="x79"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x79" class="tiny">x79</a>
David a Fulghum; Douglas Barrie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_79');">U.K. Developing, Testing Directed Energy Weapon: The British Defense Ministry is working on a classified high-power microwave payload for air-launched weapons</a></h1>
<h2>2002-07</h2>
<div id="sect_79" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.5 (July 29, 2002): 26.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<br>
<blockquote><p>Britain has developed and successfully tested a prototype directed energy weapon package applicable for use on unmanned air vehicles or standoff cruise missiles, with some of the weapon tests carried out in the U.S. The defense ministry program to develop the high-power microwave (HPM) payload was underway by the mid-1990s. The payload is intended as a weapon for use against a target set including command and control, communications, and air defense assets. The intent of an HPM weapon is to create an intense power surge in electrical systems, ideally causing permanent, irreparable damage. A potential candidate platform, were the U.K. to operationally deploy an HPM weapon, would be the Storm Shadow cruise missile, which will enter service with the British Royal Air Force before the end of 2002.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Britain has developed and successfully tested a prototype directed energy weapon package applicable for use on unmanned air vehicles or standoff cruise missiles, with some of the weapon tests carried out in the U.S.
<br>
<br>The defense ministry program to develop the high-power microwave (HPM) payload was underway by the mid-1990s. The payload is intended as a weapon for use against a target set including: command and control, communications, and air defense assets. It is conceivable a prototype HPM weapon could be fielded, if required, within the coming months.
<br>
<br>Trials of the HPM payload have been carried out, with the directed energy weapon package flown in a test delivery vehicle. At least some of the trials were carried out on U.S. ranges, reflecting U.S. interest in the weapon.
<br>
<br>Development of the HPM payload is believed to have involved U.K. government research laboratories and British industry. The payload was sized for Ryan Aeronautical's (now Northrop Grumman) BQM-145A medium-range UAV. The high-speed low-flying UAVs used could either be ground launched or dropped from an F/A-18-size aircraft.
<br>
<br>One U.S. source suggested there was U.S. Navy interest in pursuing a joint program, but it remains uncertain as to the extent, if any, of continuing U.K.-U.S. collaboration.
<br>
<br>The intent of an HPM weapon is to create an intense power surge in electrical systems, ideally causing permanent, irreparable damage.
<br>
<br>British industry leaders readily admit to an interest in directed energy weapons; however, they decline to discuss any specific aspects of work they might be pursuing.
<br>
<br>Five of the BQ-145A UAVs were turned over to the U.S. Air Force and are held by the UAV Battle Lab at Eglin AFB, Fla. Tests of the British payload were considered much more promising than an earlier test at Eglin that used modified air-launched cruise missiles. They were designed to produce a pulse of microwave energy when high explosives wrapped around a coil generating an electrical field were detonated.
<br>
<br>A potential candidate platform, were the U.K. to operationally deploy an HPM weapon, would be the Storm Shadow cruise missile, which will enter service with the British Royal Air Force before the end of 2002.
<br>
<br>``In the U.S., there has been a lot of research into DE [directed energy],'' a senior British industry official said. ``Fortunately, in the U.K. there has been some equivalent investment as well, so we are better placed than some of our [European] colleagues.''
<br>
<br>Germany has also been looking at HPM payloads for UAV applications. Manfred Lehnigk, an executive with Germany's STN Atlas Electronik, builder of the Taifun UAV, said that his company is looking at an HPM weapon for unmanned aircraft, but it will likely take a minimum of five years to turn the system into payload.
<br>
<br>``The UCAV programs are highly classified, but we have taken the cover off various other projects, like HPM artillery shells, just to demonstrate that we are actively involved in all sorts of active variants of [electronic]-kill mechanisms.''
<br>
<br>However, he warned, the need for miniaturization and large power requirements will continue to dog delivery of airborne DE systems.
<br>
<br>``I think increasingly you'll see the importance of being able to interrupt communications, be it command and control or straight communications processes,'' Lehnigk said.
<br>
<br>``You will see continued focus on the disruptive soft kill. We've already seen examples, like Kosovo, where various non-destructive weapons were deployed to knock out electric power on a temporary basis,'' he said.
<br>
<br>HPM also holds promise for attacking hardened and underground targets.
<br>
<br>``To get at a 100-meter-deep target, explosives may not be the answer,'' the British official said. ``If you want to get underground, you have to start from the surface to get there. So you look at power lines, antennas, water pipes and ingress and egress sites'' where metallic structures would conduct pulses of energy deep into the structure to damage sensitive electronics concealed there.
<br>
<br>The U.S. has largely decided to use lasers from manned aircraft and HPM from unmanned (the latter in case fly-by-wire flight controls are damaged by the energy pulse). British researchers say they think there is a useful role for HPM from manned aircraft, but demur from being more specific, citing security restraints.
<br>
<br>British timelines for having tactically representative directed energy weapons roughly parallel those of the U.S. with which there appear to be some collaborative efforts.
<br>
<br>``Reusable HPM will be demonstrated in a couple of years and laser weapons a few years beyond that,'' said one British official. But unlike the U.S., there's ``not the [single] concentration on disposable DE weapons'' that could be mounted in cruise missiles or some type of bomb, he said, adding ``we want reusable directed energy devices.''
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: The Storm Shadow cruise missile, shown carried by a Tornado, is shortly to enter service. It could provide a delivery vehicle for a directed energy payload.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_79');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 79 -->
<a name="x80"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x80" class="tiny">x80</a>
David a. Fulghum : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">Microwave Weapons May Be Ready for Iraq</a></h1>
<h2>2002-08</h2>
<div id="sect_80" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.6 (August 5, 2002): 24.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>An attack on Iraq is expected to see the first use of high-power microwave (HPM) weapons that produce a split-second spike of energy powerful enough to damage electronic components and scramble computer memories. They are designed, at least initially, for use from cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft. HPM weapons now available to be used against Iraq are not talked about openly. They are built, like bombs, as expendable one-time-use weapons. Many of the payloads are designed for carriage by cruise missiles like the ALCM, Tomahawk, Jassm or Britain's Storm Shadow. However, there may be an alternative to one-way missions by these expensive cruise missiles.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>An attack on Iraq is expected to see the first use of high-power microwave weapons that produce a split-second spike of energy powerful enough to damage electronic components and scramble computer memories.
<br>
<br>They are designed, at least initially, for use from cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft. Adding a directed-energy weapon to an unmanned combat vehicle ``is the ideal mode,'' said a British aerospace official. Britain also is well advanced in the technology. ``There's no risk to a pilot, there's a greater degree of accuracy [in hitting the target], and it doesn't rely on scattering flechettes that murder half the population of the country you are attacking. Everybody wants that capability. There are those who say we could demonstrate it today,'' he said with a smile.
<br>
<br>The combination of unmanned vehicles and HPM (high-power microwave) weap-
<br>
<br>ons also provides a way to attack the toughest targets in any foe's arsenal, said Gen. John Jumper, U.S. Air Force chief of staff.
<br>
<br>``If you combine directed energy with the UCAVs of the type we have today, you have a combination that uses stealth to go into [heavily defended territory and HPM to] tell the SA-10 that it's a Maytag washer on the rinse cycle rather than a missile about to shoot somebody down,'' Jumper said. ``You can fly this thing in and debilitate in various ways the sophisticated communications and electronics that are going to cause you the greatest worry [and make the attack] with deniability. I don't think it will compete with F-15Es and the Joint Strike Fighter, but it would be valuable to commanders in an [air defense] suppression or information operations role.''
<br>
<br>Lt. Gen. Charles Wald, Air Force deputy chief of staff for air and space operations (and newly nominated for promotion to the rank of general and the post of deputy commander of U.S. European Command), also hinted at the use of new technologies in a recent Air Force Magazine interview.
<br>
<br>Electronic warfare in any new conflict will include information operations, which can involve the placing of false targets via computer penetration, according to another Air Force official. ``And perhaps some emerging technologies that are still classified,'' Wald said.
<br>
<br>In the longer term, perhaps in 3-5 years, the military expects to have reusable HPM weapons that can be installed on aircraft or unmanned combat aircraft. Because of HPM's limited range--now just getting beyond the 1,000-ft. mark--planners look at unmanned aircraft as the perfect platform to go into heavily defended areas to damage air defense radars, communications, command and control computers, and chemical/biological storage or production facilities.
<br>
<br>However, HPM weapons now available to be used against Iraq are not talked about openly. They are built, like bombs, as expendable one-time-use weapons. Many of the payloads are designed for carriage by cruise missiles like the ALCM, Tomahawk, Jassm or Britain's Storm Shadow. However, there may be an alternative to one-way missions by these expensive cruise missiles. At the recent Farnborough air show, Lockheed Martin's advanced development program produced concepts for returnable cruise missiles, which would help defray the cost of expensive airframes and HPM payloads.
<br>
<br>Two systems have been used to produce HPM. An older technology explodes high explosives wrapped around a coil with an electrical field to produce a blast of HPM. A version of this was tested by the U.S. Air Force using specially modified Air Launched Cruise Missiles but was supposedly abandoned for not being directional or long-range enough.
<br>
<br>A higher tech version uses a new generation of capacitors. These are discharged, and the pulse of energy focused in a relatively tight arc in front of the missile.
<br>
<br>Range of HPM is expected to continue increasing as apertures and electronically steered antennas are improved, said a senior U.S. aerospace official. This class of weapon is expected to be effective against command and control centers and weapons production sites buried deep underground as a defense against allied air attacks. CIA officials have noted for the last decade greatly increased purchases of Earth-boring equipment by Middle Eastern countries. While these buried sites may be immune to bombs, they have vulnerabilities to HPM. They must have access to the surface for water, ventilation, electricity and communications. All these provide conduits for bursts of energy into the underground structure.
<br>
<br>Current research emphasis has now shifted to ``reusable payloads, not on one-way, cruise missile-type missions,'' a U.S. Air Force official said. ``We want to send them back on mission after mission. TRW is conducting a number of projects at Kirtland [AFB, N.M., an Air Force Research Laboratory facility]. They're making good headway, but they can't squirt sufficient energy at long ranges. That's why we need UCAVs. With precision navigation, you can put a DE [directed-energy] payload within 50 ft. of a geographic point so that you can shoot a burst of HPM at the right time and right place.''
<br>
<br>HPM and lasers are the primary directed-energy weapons available to the military, but on the horizon is a third called a plasma weapon. A plasma packet has mass, moves through space and has been compared with a bolt of lightning. It is slower than a laser beam or HPM spike, but it can cause much more physical damage.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Expendable, high-power micro-wave weapons mounted in cruise missiles and other aerial weapons could be first used in combat in Iraq as the U.S. introduces new technological wrinkles to create confusion and surprise.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 80 -->
<a name="x81"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x81" class="tiny">x81</a>
Hays, Peter : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_81');">Review Essay: The Military Use of Space</a></h1>
<h2>2002-09</h2>
<div id="sect_81" style="display: block;">
<p>Air & Space Power Journal; Fall 2002; 16, 3; ProQuest Science Journals pg. 100</p>
<blockquote><p>
<br /><b>"The Military Use of Space: A Diagnoistic Assessment"</b> by Barry Watts. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (<a href="http://www.csbaonline.org">http://www.csbaonline.org</a>), 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 912, Washington, D.C. 20036, 2001, 130 pages.
<br />
<br /><b>"On the Edge of Earth: The Future of American Space Power"</b> by Steven Lambakis. University Press of Kentucky (http://uky.edu/UniversityPress). 663 South Limestone Street, Lexington, Kentucky 40508-4008, 2001, 365 pages.
<br />
<br /><b>"Astropolitik: Classical Geopolitics in the Space Age"</b> by Everett C. Dolman. Frank Cass Publishers (http://www.frankcass.com), 5824 NE Hassalo Street, Portland, Oregon 97213-3644, 2002, 208 pages.
<br />
<br /><b>"Space Weapons, Earth Wars"</b> by Bob Preston et al. RAND Corporation (http://www.rand.org), 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, California 900407-2138, 2002, 201 pages.
<br />
<br /><b>"Ten Propositions Regarding Spacepower"</b> by M.V. Smith. Forthcoming, Air University Press (http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aupress), 131 West Shumacher Ave, Maxwell AFB, Alabama 36112-6615, on-line, Internet, available from http://research.au.af.mil/papers/student/ay2001/saas/smith.pdf
<br />
<br />No doubt Arthur C. Clarke would appreciate the fact that 2001 saw the emergence of five major works on military-space issues... Coming on the heels of the congressionally mandated Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization (Space Commission) of 11 January 2001, chaired by the once and future secretary of defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, these publications afford a lofty vista from which to assess both narrow issues such as the implementation of the Space Commission's recommendations and many broader concerns...
<br />
<br />Barry Watt's <i>"The Military Use of Space"</i> is must reading for any serious student of military space...
<br />
<br />[A] considerable amount of ambiguity is associated with the concepts and definitions of space control and force application.
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_81');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 81 -->
<a name="x82"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x82" class="tiny">x82</a>
Jefferson Morris : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">LM: High-power microwave weapons on UAVs ready for ACTD</a></h1>
<h2>2002-09</h2>
<div id="sect_82" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 203.56 (Sep 19, 2002): 6.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>At a press briefing at the Air Force Association's 2002 conference in Washington Sept. 18, Neil Kacena, Lockheed Martin's deputy for advanced development programs, said given sufficient funding, an "ACTD potential" for HPM via unmanned aircraft exists today.
<br>
<br>The effectiveness of directed energy weapons such as HPM and high-energy lasers is dependent on the class of target, the level of shielding, and the range. Because of range limitations, deep-penetrating UCAVs and cruise missiles remain the best platforms for such operations, according to Kacena.
<br>
<br>To get around this problem, aircraft carrying HPM require changes in the way their electronics are housed. Lockheed Martin is taking a "clean-sheet" approach, designing new platforms rather than modifying existing ones, according to Kacena.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The technology is available to integrate high-power microwave weapons onto unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or cruise missiles, and would make a good candidate for the Defense Department's Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) program, according to Lockheed Martin.
<br>
<br>High-power microwave (HPM) is a form of directed energy that sends a signal powerful enough to damage electronic components, stall automobile ignitions, and scramble computer memories.
<br>
<br>At a press briefing at the Air Force Association's 2002 conference in Washington Sept. 18, Neil Kacena, Lockheed Martin's deputy for advanced development programs, said given sufficient funding, an "ACTD potential" for HPM via unmanned aircraft exists today.
<br>
<br>"I think the technology is at hand," he said.
<br>
<br>ACTDs are rapid demonstrations of relatively mature technologies that show promise for future military operations. The Defense Department selects a new batch of ACTDs for each fiscal year.
<br>
<br>Lockheed Martin is pursuing concepts in which new unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) or modified cruise missiles could be used to disrupt facilities such as chemical and biological weapons plants, or various storage facilities for weapons of mass destruction.
<br>
<br>After an HPM blast, "a truck with ... an electronic ignition is stopped in its tracks," Kacena said. "The defenses or the radar for that facility are taken down because their 'fuses are blown,' so to speak.
<br>
<br>"By using pulses of energy, not only can it stop or disrupt the transportation but the actual processing capability that is required to electronically develop that chemical or bio agent is functionally destroyed," he said. "So you really stop the process."
<br>
<br>HPM also offers the advantage of leaving facilities relatively intact, negating the need to rebuild the area and restore infrastructure, according to Kacena.
<br>
<br>"There's not a big hole in the ground, there's not a hole in the roof," he said. "The facility is dead, the car doesn't go anyplace, the truck is stranded in the road, but it's in one piece."
<br>
<br>Limitations
<br>
<br>The effectiveness of directed energy weapons such as HPM and high-energy lasers is dependent on the class of target, the level of shielding, and the range. Because of range limitations, deep-penetrating UCAVs and cruise missiles remain the best platforms for such operations, according to Kacena.
<br>
<br>Another reason why Lockheed Martin is pursuing HPM on unmanned systems rather than manned aircraft is to reduce risk when dealing with the challenge of protecting the aircraft from the effects of its own weapon.
<br>
<br>"At those kinds of ranges, if you're in a classic fighter and you've got this kind of device onboard, [it's] obviously very close to your radar" and avionics, Kacena said.
<br>
<br>To get around this problem, aircraft carrying HPM require changes in the way their electronics are housed. Lockheed Martin is taking a "clean-sheet" approach, designing new platforms rather than modifying existing ones, according to Kacena.
<br>
<br>For the moment, the company is focused on developing reusable platforms for HPM operations, although the initial deployments might take place on expendable vehicles, he said.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 82 -->
<a name="x83"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x83" class="tiny">x83</a>
FRANK MORRING, JR. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_83');">NON-LETHAL WAR</a></h1>
<h2>2002-09</h2>
<div id="sect_83" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.10 (Sep 2, 2002): 23.
<br>
<br>Full Text
<br>
<blockquote><p>The U.S. plans to use at least two nonlethal technologies if it goes to war with Iraq, information warfare (IW) and directed energy. IW includes mining a foe's computers for intelligence and implanting false targets in air defense systems. Directed energy would scramble battlefield computer memories, which is seen as particularly important in shutting down the production, storage and use of chemical and biological weapons. While noting that directed-energy weapons, including high-power microwaves, are in "varying early stages," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said "you reach in there and take something out that is still in a developmental stage and you might use it." Despite the technologies' promise, past disputes between the military and intelligence agencies over its use continue, in part because there are more IW capabilities than there were during the Gulf war. Decisions about when to use nonkinetic weapons are still "in the works," according to Gen. John P. Jumper, the Air Force chief of staff. "You have to coordinate the [weapons] effects, no matter what forms they take."</blockquote>
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_83');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 83 -->
<a name="x84"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x84" class="tiny">x84</a>
JAMES R. ASKER : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">USE IT BUT DON'T LOSE IT</a></h1>
<h2>2002-09</h2>
<div id="sect_84" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.11 (Sep 9, 2002): 29.
<br>
<br>Full Text
<br>
<blockquote><p>U.S. warfighters have a one-shot, one-way, high-power microwave payload available for use on cruise missiles to fry enemy battlefield electronics like radars and computers. However, the Pentagon is reluctant to use such weapons without great need. There's hand-wringing about the maturity of antenna technology, a concern because beams of microwaves are hard to direct accurately. The other worry is that in cruise missile attacks, frequently some are lost or go astray. A few have been recovered fairly intact. Speaking of directed-energy weapons, one defense official opined, "You don't want that technology to fall into someone else's hands."</blockquote>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 84 -->
<a name="x85"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x85" class="tiny">x85</a>
<a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_85');">War Planning for Iraq Continues on Target By DAVID A. FULGHUM Even with delays for a U.N. inspection program, an offensive campaign could still begin by February</a></h1>
<h2>2002-09</h2>
<div id="sect_85" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.13 (Sep 23, 2002): 22-23.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Pentagon and White House war plans appear on schedule for a post-November-election assault on Iraq, unless Saddam Hussein permits the unhindered resumption of inspections to search for illegal development, production or storage of weapons of mass destruction. Even though Iraq agreed to inspections, few in the US believe a thorough search will be carried out without considerable obstruction from Iraqi officials and attempts to conceal the nation's weapons-building efforts. The US will press for a tight deadline for starting the inspection. The US is continuing to build up its forces in the region. Shortages in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets are a concern. Unmanned aircraft developed to deliver chemical and biological weapons could be disabled by directed-energy weapons, conventional bombing, or interception by fighter aircraft.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Pentagon and White House war plans appear on schedule for a post-November-election assault on Iraq, unless Saddam Hussein permits the unhindered resumption of inspections to search for illegal development, production or storage of weapons of mass destruction.
<br>
<br>Even though Iraq last week agreed to inspections, few in the U.S. believe a thorough search will be carried out without considerable obstruction from Iraqi officials and attempts to conceal the nation's weapons-building efforts. The U.S. will press for a tight deadline for starting the inspection, probably within a month, said an Air Force official. There is little U.S. tolerance evident for predictions that it will take 3-4 months to get the process moving. A New Zealand team of military and civilian inspectors, part of the U.N. group ejected in 1998, has already announced its readiness and willingness to go.
<br>
<br>"There is evidence to support [Iraqi possession of] mobile production capabilities for chemical and biological weapons" mounted on tractor-trailer trucks, that can be quickly shifted from site to site, said Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
<br>
<br>"THE FACT YOU CAN PUT IT on wheels makes it a lot easier to hide," Myers said. "It does not take a lot of space for some of this work to go on. It can be done in a very, very small location." For example, the preparation of biological agents could be done using four cargo trailers for power and water, feed stock preparation, fermentation and agent purification. Earlier weapons inspection teams hunted mobile fermentation facilities, but were unable to find them, a senior defense official contends.
<br>
<br>U.S. officials have complained that large trucks bought in the oil-for-food program have been converted for this and other war-like purposes such as carrying missiles and transporting armored vehicles. Other food-for-oil money went for air defense and military communications components, he said.
<br>
<br>"Iraq's agreement on inspections will buy them no more than 30 days [from when inspections start]," another U.S. Air Force official said. "They will start interfering and when they do, the inspectors will be withdrawn immediately and the bombing will start the next day."
<br>
<br>"You'll see a lot of information warfare," he said. "There will be mining of databases and lots of false targets generated. And, if most of the computers in the country immediately go down, that's not a bad way to start the war." Among the new weaponry that could be demonstrated in the conflict are high power RF or high power microwave devices. They produce a sharp pulse of energy to damage fragile electronic components in radars, radios and computers. Tests of these types of weapons have also burned out vehicle ignitions and small electric motors.
<br>
<br>Such weapons are also expected to be effective against facilities that produce and store chemical and biological agents. The U.N. special commission on Iraq said those could include anthrax, botulism, aflatoxin and gas gangrene.
<br>
<br>Military planners indicate they are busy looking deep into their tool kit to come up with novel weapons they can put to use. "We always want to be able to exploit developmental systems," says Gen. Gregory S. Martin, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, which are already involved in Iraq in day-to-day northern no-fly zone operations. "We'll use all techniques possible," he added.
<br>
<br>THE U.S. IS CONTINUING to build up its forces in the region. A forward element of U.S. Central Command headquarters will move from Tampa, Fla., to recently expanded al Udeid AB, Qatar, where a new combined air operations center (CAOC) has been constructed. Myers noted that moving elements of the headquarters into the theater would ease some of the problems exposed during the Afghanistan conflict. CAOC personnel in theater had to work round the clock to keep up with operations and demands from Washington. "There has been a debate as long as Central Command has been around as to where it would be best positioned," Myers said. "If it had not been for modern technology, [conduct of the war in Afghanistan] it would have been impossible to keep it in Tampa."
<br>
<br>As recently as two weeks ago, the move was still being touted as a temporary three-week exercise, part of the November Internal Look 2003. But Myers said that it is "a likely outcome [that the Centcom personnel] may stay there permanently. My guess is that the secretary [Donald H. Rumsfeld] will make a decision to push a forward headquarters into the region. It makes sense. We've got to be ready for action." About 600 members of the Centcom staff will be affected along with 400 personnel from subordinate and allied commands, especially those from Britain. "It was always the plan for them to stay there," another USAF official said.
<br>
<br>AL UDEID WAS BEING BUILT UP and its CAOC expanded as an alternative to the command center at Prince Sultan AB, Saudi Arabia, which the U.S. would not be allowed to use if the attack was unilateral. However, Saudi officials said the U.S. could use the facility if attacks are authorized by the U.N. Security Council. "That's a big breakthrough," the Air Force official said. "I would anticipate that in any future operation we would have cooperation [from the Saudis]," Myers said.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, the Air Force is showing interest in deploying B-2 stealth bombers from Whiteman AFB, Mo., to Britain's Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper, while unwilling to confirm discussions on the topic, said that moving bombers forward would increase the number of sorties that can be generated.
<br>
<br>Attacks on Iraqi air defenses, part of the long-term Northern Watch and Southern Watch operations, have expanded from surface-to-air missile sites, particularly their radars, to included command and control nodes and other permanent structures associated with air defense systems, said Rumsfeld. "Whether they're going to be stronger or weaker in the event anything were to occur in the future is a function of how fast they're able to rebuild and replace and replenish that capability," he said.
<br>
<br>The command and control centers have fiber-optic data links that are impossible to block with conventional jamming. By destroying the links, Iraqi crews would have to communicate by radio--subject to interception, spoofing and jamming. But finding those nodes can be difficult, planners acknowledge.
<br>
<br>Martin wishes that, over the years of no-fly zone operations, more damage had been done to Iraqi air defenses. Although Iraq's anti-aircraft umbrella is much degraded from what the U.S. faced ten years ago, Martin said that "they also have learned techniques and procedures that may make them more difficult to deal with."
<br>
<br>Military planners also want to force Iraq to rely on microwave communications because those provide a gateway for introducing false targets into air defense systems and probing computer memories. Attacks are expected to move ever closer to the air defense centers at Talil in the south, Baghdad and Mosul in the north. The combined effects of these expanded attacks could "make it easier when [U.S. aircraft] have to take down the whole air defense system," the Air Force official said.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, the production of Joint Direct Attack Munition bomb guidance systems, Paveway II precision weapons and blast-fragmentation warheads for Hellfire missiles, among others, is escalating. Production for JDAM should peak next summer at 1,800 bomb kits per month. The Israelis learned in recent West Bank fighting that the Hellfire is crucial for fighting in built-up urban areas where heavy weapons can't be used for fear of collateral damage, and anti-armor weapons simply punch through buildings without exploding. Martin says weapons stocks have returned to adequate levels.
<br>
<br>HOWEVER, SHORTAGES IN INTELLIGENCE, surveillance and reconnaissance assets are a concern, Martin said. The loss of several Global Hawks and Predators wouldn't keep the U.S. from effectively attacking Iraq, he noted, but it is something planners worry about. The Pentagon is still trying to accelerate Global Hawk sensor production to regain an electro-optical/infrared capability on Global Hawk. All those sensors were lost in crashes, leaving only synthetic aperture radars for use on the endurance UAV.
<br>
<br>A key set of targets for the U.S. and its allies will be several underground complexes in and around Baghdad. After constructing the complexes, Iraqi officials deliberately built up dense civilian housing complexes over them. The official said, "We've got to figure out how to minimize the collateral damage.
<br>
<br>"U.S. forces are lean forward now. They're working up the force list and getting the designated [air expeditionary forces] ready to go."
<br>
<br>U.S. special operations forces are slated to play a major role in finding the underground facilities and providing target coordinates to aircraft to drop "bunker-busting" bombs. The U.S. dropped a large number of those penetrating munitions on caves during the Afghanistan campaign, which has provided special ops teams valuable lessons on how to more effectively employ the munitions, an Air Force SOF representative said.
<br>
<br>Myers said that Iraq's research, production and weaponization of chemical and biological weapons and "thirst for nuclear weapons" has increased in the last decade. But less worrisome for U.S. planners is the Iraqi army. Recent figures put its strength at about 400,000 troops, only about 100,000 of whom are considered well-trained. "They are much weaker than they were during Desert Storm," he said.
<br>
<br>A number of stories have surfaced about Iraq's development of unmanned aircraft to deliver chemical and biological weapons. U.S. intelligence officials said reports about MiG-21s and MiG-23s being adapted for the role are "bogus," but work on L-29 trainers, other light aircraft and UAVs is of concern. However, such aircraft could be disabled bydirected-energy weapons, conventional bombing or interception by fighter aircraft unless Iraq were to use them in a surprise attack.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Photo: Photograph: AGM-130s, shown under the wing of this F-15E, are among the weapons of choice for attacking entrances to underground structures. JIM HASELTINE; Photograph: Modified unmanned L-29 trainers are considered real threats for carrying biological and chemical weapons, say U.S. intelligence officials.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_85');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 85 -->
<a name="x86"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x86" class="tiny">x86</a>
Fulghum, David A. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">Pulse Weapons, Stealth Defenses Near Readiness</a></h1>
<h2>2002-09</h2>
<div id="sect_86" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.14 (Sep 30, 2002): 63-64.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Two relatively unheralded developments - defenses against stealthy cruise missiles and directed-energy weapons for aircraft - are objects of major interest for the Pentagon. After several years of obfuscation, a new radar being developed for the next-generation surveillance and intelligence-gathering aircraft is now being touted in senior Air Force and aerospace industry circles as a "three-dimensional, high-definition, cruise missile defense system." The radar will have many of the attributes now attributed to the new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars being developed for the F/A-22 and F-35 strike aircraft. Because they are made of many elements, such radars can do many tasks at once including passive and active search and jamming. I
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Two relatively unheralded developments--defenses against stealthy cruise missiles and directed-energy weapons for aircraft--are objects of major interest for the Pentagon.
<br>
<br>There were broad hints about emerging technologies from those who are working on these advanced concepts for military use and were able to show their wares at this month's Air Force Assn. convention here.
<br>
<br>After several years of obfuscation, a new radar being developed for the next-generation surveillance and intelligence-gathering aircraft is now being touted in senior Air Force and aerospace industry circles as a "three-dimensional, high-definition, cruise missile defense system." The Northrop Grumman/Raytheon MP-RTIP radar--a greatly upgraded version of the radar now on the E-8 Joint-STARS ground surveillance aircraft--is at the heart of the new capability and is the key sensor for the Multisensor Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A). A new generation of radar transmission/receiver modules has improved resolution to less than 1 ft. (from around 12 ft.) and increased the radar's effective range against low-observable cruise missiles to more than 200 mi.
<br>
<br>The radar will have many of the attributes now attributed to the new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars being developed for the F/A-22 and F-35 strike aircraft. Because they are made of many elements, such radars can do many tasks at once including passive and active search and jamming. In fact, developers contend that the reason for a lack of long-term upgrades for the EC-130 Compass Call is that AESA-type radar will offer the jamming capability in a very precise, hard-to-detect pattern instead of the less precise jamming patterns used today. Moreover, the big radar is migrating to other platforms as an air defense system.
<br>
<br>Global Hawk UAVs are being considered for homeland defense roles, said Paul K. Meyer, Northrop Grumman's vice president for business and strategy development. The unmanned aircraft would operate 1,000 naut. mi. off the U.S. coast looking for cruise missile launches, and track the small vehicles accurately enough to cue interception by U.S. fighters or air defense weapons. The UAVs will be upgraded with larger wings and fuselage extensions to increase payloads to 3,000 lb. With up to four wing pylons, the UAV also could carry signals intelligence payloads that concentrate on cell phone frequencies, and multispectral sensors for detection of chemical/biological weapons, Meyer said. A European version of the aircraft, dubbed Eurohawk and built in conjunction with aerospace giant EADS, is scheduled for first flight in 2006.
<br>
<br>"MP-RTIP redefines radar as a sensor," said an aerospace official with access to the program. The radar has become so crucial to future operations that the MC2A and Global Hawk aircraft that will carry it may be transferred from the Electronic Systems Center (ESC) to Air Combat Command (ACC), said Air Force and industry officials.
<br>
<br>Various reasons are given for the switch. One is that as the programs move from development to operations, it is a natural progression. Others contend it is a visceral reaction by ACC to ensure operational requirements are written by combatants and not by engineers. "ACC wants to make that when they start a trip across the desert, ESC doesn't deliver an elephant to them instead of a camel," said a senior aerospace industry official. ESC officials are currently in a crash program to produce a "cogent vision" or road map for development of MC2A.
<br>
<br>Once shifted to ACC, both Global Hawk and MC2A may be assigned to the 8th Air Force--now considered the heart of transformational air operations--for operational control and oversight of development, an Air Force official said.
<br>
<br>Some controversy still swirls around efforts to get funding for a 767-based MC2A testbed. Congressional staffers opined that a 707 modified as an MC2A-X Paul Revere advanced command-and-control demonstrator was enough for the time being (AW&ST Sept. 23, p. 48). They have been arguing against putting $500 million into the Fiscal 2003 budget for the 767-testbed that, unlike the MC2A-X, would carry developmental sensors. The reluctance to fund was attributed to a congressional misunderstanding, and the Air Force has just moved to switch the MC2A-X designation from Paul Revere to the 767 testbed.
<br>
<br>Nevertheless, few expect the testbed to be funded in 2003, and possibly not until after 2004. Those close to the project say putting off building the 767 testbed will delay integration of the aircraft and could slide its operational use--particularly as part of a defense against stealth cruise missiles--by years.
<br>
<br>LESS AFFECTED BY controversy, at least so far, is the development of directed-energy weapons, particularly for use by cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft. Maturing most rapidly are high-power radio-frequency (RF) and high-power microwave weapons. They produce a short spike of energy that can damage electronic devices, scramble computer memories or disable car ignitions. However, they are effective at relatively short ranges. That means they weren't viable weapons until combined with unmanned aircraft and precision navigation that allowed them to penetrate heavy air defenses and be fired at a precise location.
<br>
<br>When asked about reports of directed-energy weapons nearing operational use, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said there are emerging technologies that could be brought out of developmental status and used in combat if the situation required. This was done during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war with the E-8 Joint-STARS. Another product from the laboratory was carbon-fiber warheads. The weapons released spiderwebs of superconductive material that were used to disable electrical power grids during the gulf war and again in the Kosovo air campaign. After years of rumors, aerospace industry officials are now at least admitting they are working on such technologies.
<br>
<br>Lockheed Martin has unveiled a concept called the "high-power microwave cruise missile" that sports a V-tail, low-observable design and is shown, in animated simulations, as shutting down a factory that produces weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as well as the trucks that carry the products away to concealed operational sites. Variants of such weapons are also envisioned for unmanned combat aircraft and UAVs.
<br>
<br>In addition to disabling chemical, biological and nuclear WMD production sites, the cruise missile's directed-energy weapon is also targeted against air defense radars, said Neil G. Kacina, deputy for Lockheed Martin's advanced development programs. The advantage of directed energy delivered by UAVs and cruise missiles is that militarily dangerous processes could be stopped without the kind of destruction that would cause major rebuilding expenses at war's end.
<br>
<br>Directed-energy weapons are now effective at "more than a few hundred feet," Kacina said. However, their total impact on targets is difficult to predict. A critical factor is that any "commander wants to know with some confidence that he is going to cause the effects he desires," he said. "It is very much dependent on range and the target. Is it a laptop computer? How is it shielded? What kind of room is it in? What's the architecture of the building? Does it have windows? What's the geometry of the UCAV as it flies by? Is it directly overhead? Will I burn out his power supply? Will I force him to reboot? Will it destroy a component that will take him five days to replace?"
<br>
<br>A portable, biological agent production facility such as Iraq has developed would be an attractive target for such a weapon. Tougher would be WMD capabilities or storage in the tunnel complexes in and around Baghdad that have been built over with public buildings like hospitals and dense housing units, said U.S. Air Force officials. They suggested that the answer is a directed-energy warhead combined with a penetrating bomb that would carve its way into the underground space and only then produce its electronics-destroying pulse.
<br>
<br>BOTH HIGH-POWER RF and high-power microwave weapons are progressing rapidly and, if supported by a technology demonstration program, could be tested from a UAV or cruise missile and be ready for limited operational use in as little as 18-24 months, Kacina said. The technology would appear initially as a single-shot capability, but as it matured would evolve into a reusable weapon mounted on a returnable aircraft.
<br>
<br>For a reusable, returnable UCAV, "we believe we will have to have a different design for flight controls," he said, because back and side lobes from the pulse's generation will damage any conventional host aircraft's electronics and make it crash.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Photo: Photograph: Planners see cruise missiles as a threat, because they are hard to locate, and as a solution for carrying directed-energy devices to knock out a foe's weapons of mass destruction.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 86 -->
<a name="x87"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x87" class="tiny">x87</a>
<a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_87');">DOD ranges face encroachment, safety crisis, official says</a></h1>
<h2>2002-10</h2>
<div id="sect_87" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 204.5 (Oct 7, 2002): 4.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>"A JDAM [Joint Direct Attack Munition] footprint from a very specific condition at 50,000 feet and 1.5 Mach, is too big for Eglin's 724-square-mile range; it fits on a piece of Nellis, is too big for Edwards, fits on White Sands, is too big for UTTER [the Utah Test and Training Range], fits China Lake. A Joint Standoff Weapon [JSOW] at medium altitudes has safety circles bigger than anything we have. We aren't going to drop any weapons outside of safety footprints and incur the wrath of the private sector, anything like that would shut a range," he said. Over-water ranges? [Robert J. Arnold] said over-water ranges are a possible solution to the safety issue, but they will require better and more extensive instrumentation.
<br>
<br>"We are testing and training with 21st century weapons on World War II ranges in a post-cold war environment," Arnold said. "To my knowledge, there have not been any significant new ranges added to the inventory since World War II. In the last year, as we face a growing and more crowded world, protecting the ranges has been of high interest to DOD."
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The Defense Department faces a crisis in the ability of military test and training ranges to support advanced aircraft and munitions, said Robert J. Arnold, a technical adviser for the 46th Test Wing, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
<br>
<br>The crisis has multiple aspects - encroachment, an aging infrastructure, funding, and safety, Arnold told the 40th Annual NDIA Air Targets, UAVs and Range Operations Symposium here Oct. 2.
<br>
<br>"We are testing and training with 21st century weapons on World War II ranges in a post-cold war environment," Arnold said. "To my knowledge, there have not been any significant new ranges added to the inventory since World War II. In the last year, as we face a growing and more crowded world, protecting the ranges has been of high interest to DOD."
<br>
<br>DOD's interest was emphasized with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's signing of the Sustainable Test and Training Ranging Initiative, aimed at establishing a coordinating body for all ranges and providing legislation to support them.
<br>
<br>Arnold said encroachment is a problem, typified by the urban encirclement of test ranges such as at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., as well as installations overseas. However, encroachment is not limited to the area surrounding a base or range, he said.
<br>
<br>Modern weapons
<br>
<br>"The recent [Federal Communications Commission] approval of ultra-wideband use (DAILY, Feb. 1) is going to make hash of the spectrum and we have to consider its ramifications and how it will affect us," Arnold said. Other concerns on the ranges include endangered species and the cost of handling unexploded ordnance.
<br>
<br>"Aircraft are getting more complex and we are equipping them with a generation of modern weapons that are remarkable in terms of stand-off range, precision, and intelligence in their own right. That means that we must have an infrastructure that keeps up with them - the right instrumentation and the right sensors so we can effectively test them, he said.
<br>
<br>The ranges' capability to support testing and training of advanced munitions to accurately reflect combat conditions presents another issue, he said.
<br>
<br>"If we can't use the ranges the way we need to use them, it doesn't matter what instrumentation we have," he said.
<br>
<br>The safety footprint of advanced weapons is the concern, Arnold said.
<br>
<br>"Now ... there is not one range in this country that can contain what we believe is the next generation of weapons. Not Eglin or any other range," Arnold said.
<br>
<br>"A JDAM [Joint Direct Attack Munition] footprint from a very specific condition at 50,000 feet and 1.5 Mach, is too big for Eglin's 724-square-mile range; it fits on a piece of Nellis, is too big for Edwards, fits on White Sands, is too big for UTTER [the Utah Test and Training Range], fits China Lake. A Joint Standoff Weapon [JSOW] at medium altitudes has safety circles bigger than anything we have. We aren't going to drop any weapons outside of safety footprints and incur the wrath of the private sector, anything like that would shut a range," he said. Over-water ranges? Arnold said over-water ranges are a possible solution to the safety issue, but they will require better and more extensive instrumentation.
<br>
<br>"We need to do a better job of facilitizing our water ranges, we think there is a lot of opportunity of using many of the warning areas we have. JDAM and JSOW can be dropped over water on ranges such as Eglin's Gulf Range and the Naval Air Warfare Center's Range," he said.
<br>
<br>Directed energy weapons present a new set of challenges in the containment of propagated energy, Arnold said.
<br>
<br>"We have a great opportunity in directed energy because we can pretty much start with a clean slate and establish a range and infrastructure wherever it needs to be established to best benefit DOD," Arnold said. - John Terino
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_87');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 87 -->
<a name="x88"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x88" class="tiny">x88</a>
Jefferson Morris : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">Raytheon: Solid-state lasers now ready for prime time</a></h1>
<h2>2002-10</h2>
<div id="sect_88" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 204.19 (Oct 25, 2002): 4.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Solid-state lasers use electrically powered diodes or lamps to "pump" the laser by emitting light into a solid lasing medium - usually crystal or glass. As the technology matures, Raytheon hopes to produce solid-state laser systems for tactical aircraft, Navy ships, and ground vehicles being developed for the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.
<br>
<br>Michael Booen, vice president for directed energy weapons at Raytheon, compared the current state of solid-state laser technology to the state of chemical lasers when the Airborne Laser (ABL) program began in the early 1990s.
<br>
<br>Raytheon also is exploring methods for developing a fiber laser - another type of solid-state laser in which a synchronized bundle of fiber-optic cable is used as the lasing medium. AFRL hopes that fiber laser technology may one day allow fighters to carry laser beams in the megawatt class (DAILY, March 20).
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Solid-state laser technology is mature enough to begin moving out of the laboratory and into a variety of weapons systems for the services, according to officials with Raytheon's Directed Energy Weapons division.
<br>
<br>Solid-state lasers use electrically powered diodes or lamps to "pump" the laser by emitting light into a solid lasing medium - usually crystal or glass. As the technology matures, Raytheon hopes to produce solid-state laser systems for tactical aircraft, Navy ships, and ground vehicles being developed for the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.
<br>
<br>Michael Booen, vice president for directed energy weapons at Raytheon, compared the current state of solid-state laser technology to the state of chemical lasers when the Airborne Laser (ABL) program began in the early 1990s.
<br>
<br>"When the Air Force was just starting out with [ABL] ... chemical laser technology itself had been in the lab for a decade, and they were waiting for environmental factors to come together to make an operational concept," Booen said during a press briefing in Rosslyn, Va., Oct. 24.
<br>
<br>"Solid-state lasers are in that exact same spot," he said. "They've been in the lab for a while, [and] probably been underfunded. [But] this stuff is starting to come out of the lab, and you're going to start seeing it put into weapons concepts."
<br>
<br>Booen cited the Navy's recently established directed energy office (PMS 405), and the Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) $50 million 25-kilowatt solid-state laser program as evidence the services now are getting serious about directed energy.
<br>
<br>Although more mature chemical laser systems already have demonstrated power levels in the megawatt class, they are bulky and require the handling of toxic materials. Thus, the Air Force believes solid-state laser systems are the best bet for small tactical aircraft in the near term, once their power output reaches 100 kilowatts or more.
<br>
<br>"The magic of solid-state lasers is it requires the warfighter to take nothing to the front, other than the diesel or the nuclear power that he has," Booen said. "There are certainly strategic applications for chemical lasers ... but we are a company that supplies military hardware ... to the tactical arena, and that's what we're focused on."
<br>
<br>Raytheon is one of the companies in the running to build a 25-kilowatt solid-state laser for the Air Force by late 2004. AFRL is expected to announce one or more contractors before the end of the year, and the resulting laser would serve as a precursor to a 100-kilowatt system to be demonstrated on the Joint Strike Fighter by the end of the decade (DAILY, Oct. 10).
<br>
<br>So far, the power of solid-state laser systems has been limited by the difficulty and expense of creating the high-energy diodes required to pump them. However, the cost of diodes is dropping precipitously, according to Booen.
<br>
<br>As an example, he said the Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) now is in the process of converting its Solid State Heat Capacity Laser (SSHCL) from flash lamp power to diode power as a cost-saving measure. Over the course of the program, the price of diodes "came down in the cost curve so that they were cheaper than flash lamps, and they're on this cost curve that is going to make it really attractive for putting these on the future systems," he said.
<br>
<br>Raytheon also is exploring methods for developing a fiber laser - another type of solid-state laser in which a synchronized bundle of fiber-optic cable is used as the lasing medium. AFRL hopes that fiber laser technology may one day allow fighters to carry laser beams in the megawatt class (DAILY, March 20).
<br>
<br>"We are working on that," Chan McKearn, project manager for the company's high-energy laser program, said during the briefing. "It's a little farther out than what we're talking about here, but it has promise."
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 88 -->
<a name="x89"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x89" class="tiny">x89</a>
Fulghum, David A. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_89');">USAF Acknowledges Beam Weapon Readiness</a></h1>
<h2>2002-10</h2>
<div id="sect_89" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.15 (Oct 7, 2002): 27-28.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Directed-energy technology is ready to be used as weaponry and, in a mature state, one device carried by an unmanned aircraft could attack each of 100 targets with 1,000 pulses of energy in a single sortie. HPM (high-powered microwave) also affects a larger area than a bomb, but without harming physical structures or people. A 1-ton bomb creates damage in a radius of about 120 ft. The footprint of a microwave munition is at least 100 times greater than that of a conventional munition. US military research laboratories have demonstrated HPM effects ranging from upsetting to destroying the electronics within military and commercial systems.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Directed-energy technology is ready to be used as weaponry and, in a mature state, one device carried by an unmanned aircraft could attack each of 100 targets with 1,000 pulses of energy in a single sortie, says a former director of the U.S. Air Force's high-power microwave program.
<br>
<br>"Except for the standard rifle, gun, knife or grenade, virtually all military equipment contains some electronics" that are vulnerable to a large pulse of energy, wrote Air Force Col. Eileen M. Walling. "Military commanders are in a state of virtually total dependence on radios, telephones, satellite communications, computers and faxes for communication with military units." Other targets include artillery targeting devices, guidance and control on precision munitions, and even locomotive engines. She also suggests HPM could be used to protect U.S. satellites and attack those of a foe without creating clouds of debris that could damage other spacecraft.
<br>
<br>Having spent most of her career working on directed-energy technology issues, she wrote a research paper on what she considers an underrated weapons technology. Entitled "High Power Microwaves: Strategic and Operational Implications for Warfare," it was published by the Air University's center for strategy and technology in early 2000. Walling is now a division chief in Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
<br>
<br>"The projected maximum capability for a microwave [armed] UCAV is approximately 100,000 pulses of microwave energy (or shots) per mission," Walling wrote. "If one assumes 1,000 pulses per target, it is conceivable that a microwave UCAV could attack on the order of 100 targets per mission. In addition, a microwave system could be used to protect the UCAV from enemy missiles [even] if the enemy has the ability to detect low-observable aircraft."
<br>
<br>HPM also affects a larger area than a bomb, but without harming physical structures or people. A 1-ton bomb creates damage in a radius of about 120 ft. "The footprint of a microwave munition is at least 100 times greater than that of a conventional munition," the report states. That may be a bloated number if applied to developmental weapons currently available for use against Iraq, according to other U.S. officials. They usually describe effects in terms of a few thousand feet or less. In fact, the primary stumbling block for directed-energy weapons is achieving sufficient range and power levels to be effective.
<br>
<br>U.S. MILITARY RESEARCH laboratories have demonstrated HPM effects ranging from upsetting to destroying the electronics within military and commercial systems, Walling noted. The paper's conclusion, made more than two years ago, is that "high-power microwave technology is ready for the transition to active weapons in the U.S. military." Both Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the chief of U.S. Air Forces, Europe, Gen. Gregory Martin, have said publicly that unspecified new developmental weapons technology could be used in an attack on Iraq. Facilities that manufacture, store or dispense chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are a "target set" particularly earmarked for energy weapons, according to statements made this summer and fall by U.S. aerospace industry officials. Conventional attacks could leave plumes of lethal agents adrift.
<br>
<br>HPM devices have great potential both as offensive and defensive weapons, Walling said. She cited a 1998 Air Force survey--"Directed-Energy Applications for Tactical Airborne Combat"--that found the top four priorities were for microwave weapons (instead of lasers) in the areas of precision-guided munitions, large aircraft self-protection shields, small aircraft self-protection shields and as weapons for unmanned combat air vehicles. As a munition, some developmental systems are believed to be ready for combat in Iraq. Boeing plans to build an HPM weapon into the Block 30 version of its X-45 UCAV.
<br>
<br>These weapons also could be built into a pod for carriage on a helicopter or packaged as artillery shells, scatterable mines and 1-ton bombs, the report said. As a defensive system, it contends HPM devices could ward off infrared- and radar-guided missiles. A phased-array antenna allows for rapid retargeting.
<br>
<br>The report quickly ticks off the advantages of HPM weapons: They don't rely on exact knowledge of the enemy system. They leave persisting effects in enemy targets that may take weeks to find and repair. Even if enemy systems are turned off, they are still affected. And to counter HPM, the entire system must be hardened, which is a very expensive process.
<br>
<br>An energy pulse can get into an enemy system by the "front door," which means its own antenna, dome or other sensor opening; or through the "back door," which includes cracks, seams, trailing wires, metal conduits of seals. Once inside, the emissions can destroy or disrupt integrated circuits, circuit cards and relay switches. The system's own electronic circuitry transmits the pulse, and resulting damage, even deeper into the system.
<br>
<br>In the microwave technical community, the ability to scale or increase the effects is often described as "dial a hurt," Walling said. Results depend on the distance between the HPM weapon and the target, the vulnerability of the target, the power generated, and the characteristics of the microwave emission including frequency, burst rate and pulse duration. A rough scale describes four levels of effects:
<br>
<br>-- Deny, which involves electronic upset or jamming. It might cause malfunctions within relay and processing circuits.
<br>
<br>-- Degrade, which involves locking up a system or limiting its capabilities enough to require rebooting. It can include signal override or turning power on and off at irregular intervals.
<br>
<br>-- Damage, which includes permanent effects that "latch up" a system. This can mean damage to components, circuit cards or mother boards, as wells as weeks to diagnose and repair the problems. Because microwaves can enter through multiple entry points, it is likely numerous circuits and components will be damaged.
<br>
<br>-- Destroy, which means catastrophic and permanent injury to the system, requiring total replacement.
<br>
<br>ANTENNA TECHNOLOGY is crucial for HPM weapons. Field of view for the phased-array emitter is expected to vary from several to tens of degrees. The multi-element design allows it to be built conformally into a pod or UCAV. Because it doesn't require precise aiming, there are far fewer stringent pointing and tracking requirements, Walling said. The microwaves' cone could offer a means to attack multiple targets at once; for example, all of the equipment in an antiaircraft missile site.
<br>
<br>The range of HPM weapons has always been a concern. Tests have shown effects at tens to "more than" hundreds of feet. Walling seemed more optimistic. "With current technology, the range for a tactical microwave weapon could be in the tens of kilometers, and future advances . . . should permit the development of even longer ranges," the report said.
<br>
<br>Other advantages cited for HPM weapons are that they would be immune to the weather and could produce multiple shots on a single mission. However, the report also alludes to single-shot designs. These latter seem to address concerns that side and back lobes from the generation of an HPM pulse could affect the carrying aircraft's own electronics.
<br>
<br>Power levels for HPM weapons are increasing. The report said one microwave source weighing less that 45 lb. radiated 1 gigawatt of power within a few nanoseconds. A 400-lb. system radiated 20 gigawatts. The report noted that Hoover Dam generates 2 gigawatts per day. The HPM weapon would draw power from the air vehicle's engines, which would let it make a number of attacks during a mission.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Photo: Photograph: Instead of bombs, some X-45 UCAVs may carry a multi-shot high-power microwave weapon that could paralyze the electronics of 100 targets in one mission.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_89');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 89 -->
<a name="x90"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x90" class="tiny">x90</a>
FRANK MORRING, JR. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">World Space Congress: 'Vision' Meets Reality Tight money, new politics, 10 years of success and failure cause shift in focus at the second international conference</a></h1>
<h2>2002-10</h2>
<div id="sect_90" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.16 (Oct 14, 2002): 54-56.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>The environment for civil space activities has soured in the past decade. The Russian partnership on ISS turned out not to be a $2-billion savings on the total cost of the station, but a factor in the $4.8-billion shortfall in NASA accounts alone. In Russia, the government is hard pressed to supply Soyuz and Progress vehicles for ISS crew rescue and provisioning. The European Space Agency trimmed about $500 million from the space science accounts - the equivalent of a major planetary mission - in their last meeting. Certainly the space picture today is not all gloom and doom. The agenda for this year's congress is rich with papers and plenaries on future activities in deep space, on ISS and in engineering laboratories on the ground. The second World Space Congress should present plenty of options and techniques for exploration if financial and political conditions improve in the decade ahead.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. created a splash with its exhibit hall display at the first World Space Congress, held here at the beginning of September 1992. The fading ripples from that splash serve to illustrate just how different the world is as delegates to the second World Space Congress gather in Houston this week.
<br>
<br>Ten years ago the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based aerospace giant unveiled plans to draw on its experience building the Iridium low-Earth orbit (LEO) communications satellites to capture a chunk of the market for LEO constellations that the 66-satellite Iridium system was expected to spark. Some of those who admired the graphite-epoxy Iridium smallsat at the Lockheed booth had already reserved their Iridium phones in anticipation of being able to call anywhere, anytime from anywhere on the globe.
<br>
<br>Entire corporate business plans were built, or at least under construction, on the expectations for Iridium as delegates assembled in the Washington Convention Center. The Cold War was over, and contractors like Lockheed that had kept their stockholders happy for years on Pentagon profits were turning to space ventures in the hope that was where the "peace dividend" could be redeemed.
<br>
<br>"The United States remains deeply committed to our space program," Vice President Dan Quayle told the space congress. "With the Cold War behind us, we want to lead a global coalition in a cooperative effort in the peaceful use and exploration of space."
<br>
<br>As Quayle spoke in Washington, Russian cosmonauts Anatoly Solovyov and Sergei Avdeyev were in orbit preparing their spacesuits for three trips outside the Mir space station to install upgrades that would extend the service life of the 6.5-year-old facility. Although their colleagues in the Moscow suburbs already were working on a replacement station core designated Mir II, high-level talks were well underway that ultimately led to its use as the Zvezda service module in the follow-on design to Space Station Freedom.
<br>
<br>NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin, who brought Russia into what became the International Space Station (ISS) partnership, urged the 4,000 representatives of some 65 nations to take part in other international space efforts. He called for construction of an astronomical observatory on the Moon, and a "faster-better-cheaper" Pluto probe that could be launched early in the 21st century.
<br>
<br>"Let's be bold and not afraid," Goldin said. "It's okay to take risks when you're pushing the frontiers of the possible."
<br>
<br>At the White House the first President Bush was preparing to waive export restrictions and permit China to launch six satellites built with U.S. components. His trade representatives were negotiating rules that would eventually add big Soviet-era rockets like the Proton and Zenit to the world's stock of commercial space launch vehicles.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, across the Potomac River, acting Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe was endorsing the F/A-18E/F for the Navy's strike mission, declaring it the combat aircraft best suited in terms of range and weapons to meet "the kind of scenarios we think of as probable."
<br>
<br>Today O'Keefe has Goldin's old job at NASA, and is scheduled to represent the second President Bush at a World Space Congress backers hope will draw some 13,000 attendees from more than 100 countries. But the environment for civil space activities--epitomized by the fate of the Iridium venture--has soured in the past decade. The enthusiast's vision of the "possibilities" for the future Goldin espoused 10 years ago has given way to O'Keefe's cold-eyed assessment of grimmer "probabilities." Money is tight everywhere, and since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, many of the aerospace contractors who build space hardware for peace and war have refocused on the military dollar.
<br>
<br>"Now more than ever the future of our industry lies in the successful convergence of military and communications capabilities," Boeing's Jim Albaugh told the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs Apr. 9. At the time Albaugh was president and CEO of Boeing Space and Communications. He now heads a new Boeing unit called Integrated Defense Systems that combines the company's defense, space and communications activities.
<br>
<br>Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., since subsumed into the Lockheed Martin Corp. as part of the post-Cold War contraction of the U.S. defense industry, never realized the promise its executives saw in "Big LEO" constellations like Iridium. The original developers of the orbiting cell-phone system went bankrupt after spending about $6 billion, and their successors have yet to turn a profit with a modified business plan even after picking up the Iridium satellites and ground equipment for a mere $25 million.
<br>
<br>The Iridium bankruptcy was the first card to topple in a whole edifice of commercial space expectations that failed to give adequate recognition to competition from surface-based communications systems. Most consumers don't need to call anywhere, anytime from anywhere, and they don't want to pay a premium for the capability. Launch industry prospects followed the decline of the LEO constellations, which starved the rocket-makers of hundreds of payloads they had counted on to finance modernization of their vehicles and factories.
<br>
<br>Also caught in the shakeout was the prospect of a new reusable launch vehicle that could cut space transportation costs below that afforded by expendable rockets and, the theory went, enable a whole host of new space industries. Business plans for developing a multibillion-dollar reusable vehicle like Lockheed Martin's VentureStar wouldn't close when there was barely enough launch business to keep the expendable rockets in operation. Meanwhile the venture capital needed for commercial space development was scared off by the Big LEO collapse even before the dot.com bubble burst. Subsequent economic news has not improved the picture.
<br>
<br>Today government money for space is tight too. The Russian partnership on ISS turned out not to be a $2-billion savings on the total cost of the station, as Goldin promised, but a factor in the $4.8-billion shortfall in NASA accounts alone. In Russia the picture is even worse. The government there is hard pressed to supply Soyuz and Progress vehicles for ISS crew rescue and provisioning, and NASA is hampered by proliferation restrictions from spending money it doesn't really have anyway on the Russian hardware. The situation is so dire that senior U.S. astronauts were forced to bend international regulations on ISS "spaceflight participants" in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to help Russia sell a Soyuz ride to boy band singer Lance Bass for a badly needed $20 million.
<br>
<br>Efforts that were started under Goldin's tenure to stretch government funding for ISS and the space shuttle fleet with private investment in commercial activities have come to naught. Dreamtime, the Silicon Valley startup that promised to invest $100 million in high-definition television gear for ISS, defaulted when its seed money evaporated in the dot.com bust, while the lack of payloads has made talk of privatizing the space shuttle fleet academic.
<br>
<br>At the European Space Agency, national science ministers trimmed about $500 million from the space science accounts--the equivalent of a major planetary mission--in their last meeting. Europe's Arianespace launch consortium is running in the red for the second year in a row, and so far ESA hasn't been able to settle on a plan to help out. Japan has overcome a run of failures with its new H-IIA rocket to achieve three straight successes, but has "frozen" funding for its Hope-X unpiloted shuttle and stretched the program over another decade.
<br>
<br>Perhaps one bright spot is China, where the government in Beijing is pushing a spaceflight program that in the near future could make it the third nation to send humans into space. But the Chinese program's recent successes come after years of launch failures and a highly political U.S. effort to block the export of dual-use space technology to China that further damaged the health of the U.S. commercial satellite industry. And like a one-sided space race, the Chinese human spaceflight program seems to be more an attempt by party bureaucrats in Beijing to win legitimacy in the hinterlands than a true exploration program.
<br>
<br>Certainly the space picture today is not all gloom and doom, and many of the promises of 1992 have been spectacularly realized. The space station, and the integration of the Russians into it, has been a dazzling engineering and political accomplishment. It is certain to be studied by students in both disciplines for generations to come as an example of problem solving at the highest level.
<br>
<br>The Hubble Space Telescope was a joke in 1992, its vision clouded by a spherical aberration in its main light-gathering mirror that went undetected in a fog of government secrecy at the spy satellite factory where it was ground. But the grinding was perfect, and so was the aberration. NASA's brilliant engineers were able to devise a fix for the error that combined state-of-the-art optics and robotics, and it worked. The telescope continues to push ever deeper into the secrets of the Universe, raising as many questions as it answers as old theories crumble and the lay public is pulled into the adventure by the beauty of its imagery. NASA's Chandra X-ray telescope also had its problems at first, but once launched it gave science an entirely new view of the heavens that is delivering Hubble-quality discoveries.
<br>
<br>NASA would not have these accomplishments on its record without the space shuttle, which has flown safely about 60 times since the first World Space Congress. The dedication and hard work of its flight crews, engineers and technicians have kept the heavens open to humans from many nations. To date no challenge--missions to Mir, Hubble servicing, ISS assembly--has proved too difficult for those who make the shuttles fly. Nor can the dedication of the space experts and cosmonauts of the former Soviet Union be overlooked. They have played an invaluable role in building and operating ISS, somehow keeping their space facilities open and their workhorse Soyuz and Progress vehicles operating as the economic system that created them vanished.
<br>
<br>Europe overcame a disastrous failure on the first flight of its Ariane 5 to put the big new rocket on a path to replace the durable Ariane 4, which itself has flown successfully almost 70 times in a row. With Pentagon backing, the U.S. has built two big new expendable launchers--Boeing's Delta IV and Lockheed Martin's Atlas V--after getting very good service from its predecessors over the past decade. A host of commercial and scientific spacecraft missions have flown as a result, including spectacular Mars orbiters and--in 1997--a lander; the U.S./European Cassini-Huygens mission en route to Saturn and Titan, and a virtual armada of remote sensing satellites that are giving scientists a detailed new picture of Earth and its changing environment (see p. 58). NASA is going ahead with plans for its big infrared Next-Generation Space Telescope, which astronomers hope will push their view back to the time when the first galaxies lit up.
<br>
<br>In 1992, as Goldin called for an international push to Pluto, technicians in Florida were dusting off the Mars Observer spacecraft, accidentally contaminated at the pad, and setting a new date for its launch on a Titan III. The international Pluto effort never materialized, although the U.S. Congress may fund a flyby probe called New Horizons over the objections of the cost-conscious Bush administration. Mars Observer disappeared as it entered orbit around the Red Planet, and both probes NASA launched during the 1998 Mars planetary window failed as well.
<br>
<br>The mishaps and missed opportunities demonstrated, as if any further demonstration was needed, that space exploration is a risky and expensive business, with no guarantees even under the best circumstances. The agenda for the Houston congress is rich with papers and plenaries on future activities in deep space, on ISS and in engineering laboratories on the ground.
<br>
<br>Combining annual meetings of the International Astronautical Congress and the Scientific Assembly of the Committee on Space Research with an international trade exhibition, two United Nations space workshops and affiliated conferences on space operations and space policy, the World Space Congress should present plenty of options and techniques for exploration if financial and political conditions improve in the decade ahead.
<br>
<br>NASA has put its weight behind a five-year, $950-million effort to develop compact nuclear reactors and high-power electric propulsion as an enabler for future space exploration. That work, and the U.S. space agency's recent focus on developing reusable kerosene rocket engine technology, plays into Pentagon-veteran O'Keefe's interest in greater cooperation between NASA and U.S. military space forces. Space nuclear reactors can be just as useful on all-weather radar surveillance satellites or spaceborne directed-energy weapons as on a fast-track probe to Pluto, while the military's lower launch-weight requirements make hydrogen-fueled first stages unnecessary.
<br>
<br>The nuclear-power initiative has been on NASA's space-science wish list for years, and the agency will probably dust off some of its other long-range plans at the World Space Congress to answer criticism that it lacks a vision for the future. Even if it does, there will be no shortage of ideas for bold ventures like the one that made "Houston" the first word spoken from the Moon.
<br>
<br>But at the end of the day a comment from Quayle's Democratic opponent in his 1992 vice presidential reelection bid--Sen. Al Gore of Tennessee--defines the reality O'Keefe and his counterparts in other spacefaring nations seem to have accepted.
<br>
<br>"It is unrealistic and unwise to continue to plan more than we can pay for," Gore stated in a criticism of the first Bush administration's NASA budget that shaped Clinton administration space policy to some extent as well. "We must work to match program needs with available resources."
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Photo: Photograph: Lockheed Martin's VentureStar never got off the drawing board as investment capital dried up and the launch market stagnated.; Photograph: A promised Russian discount on the costly Space Station Freedom project (shown) didn't materialize, leaving the International Space Station underfunded as well.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 90 -->
<a name="x91"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x91" class="tiny">x91</a>
Robert Wall : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_91');">Emerging Weapons Aim To Foil Hardest Targets</a></h1>
<h2>2002-10</h2>
<div id="sect_91" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.17 (Oct 21, 2002): 28-29.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>A massive, 30,000-lb. Daisy Cutter replacement and other new weapon concepts are emerging to help U.S. forces defeat targets they have not been able to destroy with existing conventional munitions. Although many of these efforts are still embryonic, the Pentagon appears to be on the verge of a revolution in weapons technology on a scale not seen since the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Afghanistan has already heightened interest in these technologies and a new war with Iraq, in which the Pentagon could again find itself hunting Scud ballistic missile launchers and attacking underground structures, would add urgency.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>A massive, 30,000-lb. "Daisy Cutter" replacement and other new weapon concepts are emerging to help U.S. forces defeat targets they haven't been able to destroy with existing conventional munitions.
<br>
<br>Although many of these efforts are still embryonic, the Pentagon appears to be on the verge of a revolution in weapons technology on a scale not seen since the 1991 Persian Gulf war. At that time, the military embarked on a full-court press to field all-weather, near-precision weapons such as the GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition, Joint Standoff Weapon and Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, and the inertially guided Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser.
<br>
<br>But those weapons left some targets immune to attack, which developers hope to fix by introducing new systems--some huge, some small, others with extreme endurance and those that can act like a sleeper spy, remaining dormant for long periods in enemy territory only to be activated at the right time. Afghanistan has already heightened interest in these technologies and a new war with Iraq, in which the Pentagon could again find itself hunting Scud ballistic missile launchers and attacking underground structures, would add urgency.
<br>
<br>In recent years, the Pentagon has focused on defeating underground and hardened targets. Now, fleeting targets and neutralizing weapons of mass destruction facilities have been added to the mix. Moreover, the military is looking at more innovative ways to destroy the underground facilities than just building bigger and more effective penetrator bombs.
<br>
<br>Nevertheless, size still matters to the Air Force, which has been exploring a 30,000-lb. penetrator bomb (known as the "Big-BLU") to be dropped from the B-2. The added mass would give the weapon much greater penetration to hit targets deep underground. Currently, the Air Force uses 5,000-lb.-class GBU-28s and GBU-37s as its largest bunker busters.
<br>
<br>Additionally, USAF has begun investigating whether a similar size weapon could be used in a blast-only configuration, to replace the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter blast weapon dropped from MC-130s. The Pentagon has depleted its BLU-82 supply during the Afghanistan war. Initially, the service wanted to replace the bomb with a similarly sized 15,000-lb.-class weapon. But Steven F. Butler, director of engineering at the Air Armaments Center at Eglin AFB, Fla., says a 30,000-lb. version makes more sense, especially if the bombers are configured to drop such a penetrator. One advantage of putting the weapon on a bomber is that they would be able to operate at higher altitudes and be less vulnerable to air defenses than the low-flying MC-130s.
<br>
<br>To thwart underground targets containing weapons of mass destruction, the Pentagon also has tried to rush its Agent Defeat technology program. "We really have been pushing on accelerating this one," said Cindy M. Wilson, who oversees Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations. The program is currently in three phases and would involve a J-1000 penetrator warhead with two-stage, high-incendiary fills. At the end of the demo, the military would have 20 weapons remaining for operational use.
<br>
<br>Additionally, the Air Force is exploring whether it should add a booster to penetrator bombs to increase their impact velocity and thereby be able to defeat even harder targets or those farther underground. The most likely application would be the 2,000-lb. BLU-109, Butler said. With larger weapons, such as Big-BLU, there would be less payoff.
<br>
<br>A problem for penetrator weapons is that the military still hasn't fielded the type of fuzes it needs to make these bombs most effective, Butler said. The Air Force has been working on a multiple-event fuze to control when various elements of a warhead detonate, but the device isn't in service.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, the military is exploring different means to deny an adversary the use of underground structures if they can't be destroyed. One method drawing increased attention involves directed-energy weapons. The Air Force has been reluctant to talk about its highly classified radio-frequency pulse weapons efforts, but Butler said directed-energy (DE) applications are "viable now in niches. It is the new gun in town" that could be used today.
<br>
<br>The introduction of DE technology still faces hurdles, such as the need for proper models so planners can determine whether to employ a conventional warhead or a DE weapon, Butler said.
<br>
<br>Beyond traditional weapons, Butler believes there may be room to exploit robotics to attack underground facilities by dispersing bug-like devices over a target complex. Those bugs would then "infect" the target and try to cut off electricity or air-conditioning, or disable the facility through other means.
<br>
<br>The focus right now for senior military planners is less on the weapon than on the supporting elements needed to better utilize existing munitions. "The thing we're lacking is the ability to generate the target [information] we need to employ precision," said Rear Adm. James M. Zortman, commander of the Naval Air Force Atlantic fleet. Especially with fleeting targets, it takes too long to obtain weapon coordinates to attack them, planners frequently complain.
<br>
<br>The weapons community has been pursuing several initiatives to address that shortfall. Both the Air Force and Navy have separate hypersonic-speed missile developments underway that would put a weapon on target much faster, although a fielded system is still several years away.
<br>
<br>Moreover, to tackle the problem, the Office of Naval Research has made time-critical strike one of its areas of emphasis in the Future Naval Capabilities activity, a research area on which the Navy wants to spend at least $500 million annually to help modernize the service, says Mike B. Deitchman, director of strike technology at ONR. The time-critical strike element will focus on weapons, sensors and tools to more rapidly pass information to an aircraft or ship firing ordnance.
<br>
<br>The Air Force is investigating several other technologies, including ultralong-endurance loitering munitions. The service has been working with Lockheed Martin on the powered Low-Cost Autonomous Attack System (Locaas) that can find and attack a Scud launcher or similar target. But the service now is interested in a munition that could fly a lot longer, perhaps days, Butler said. The device would require highly efficient propulsion systems. To support such a development project, the service is investigating compact, high-lift-over-drag airframes, flash laser radar seekers and smaller antijam GPS receivers. By loitering over an area, the weapon could strike a target immediately if it emerges.
<br>
<br>Another concept under study is "sleeper weapons" that would be an evolution of unattended ground sensor technology. The armed tactical unattended ground (Atug) device would be air-dropped and remain in position until cued by an outside source, at which point it would eject a missile or warhead to attack a nearby target. Butler said a notional Atug would weigh 2,000 lb., including a 1,000-lb. weapon. The device would be engineered so it doesn't explode unless triggered from the outside, to avoid proliferating more mine-like equipment.
<br>
<br>One technology that could represent a major breakthrough if it were engineered well involves automatic target recognition algorithms, said Donald C. Baker, the Army's deputy program executive officer for tactical missiles. He told industry representatives at a Precision Strike Assn. conference that it would be ideal "if we could find some way to take the man out of the loop."
<br>
<br>But not everyone in the military agrees. Maj. Gen. Dan Leaf, the Air Force's requirements chief, thinks removing human intervention and moving to fully automatic operations is a mistake. Instead, the technology should be used to help cue operators and make their job easier, he said.
<br>
<br>While much of the Pentagon's focus has been on ground targets, some Air Force officials continue to advocate for a new air-to-air weapon to replace the AIM-120 Amraam and, eventually, the AIM-9X Sidewinder to attack lower radar-cross-section threats. Interest in a new dual-range weapon has fluctuated over time and recently was slated for a 2006-07 development start. But that has been pushed back, and interest at higher echelons of the service is ebbing. Butler noted that Amraam will likely undergo extensive upgrades to address more modern threats.
<br>
<br>The delay could derail the missile concept entirely. Butler indicated that the maturation of DE technology means a new missile may not be required.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Photo: Photograph: Development of a 30,000-lb. blast bomb to replace the BLU-82 would allow the Air Force to use B-2s rather than MC-130s to employ the weapon. DASH 2/RICK LLINARES
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_91');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 91 -->
<a name="x92"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x92" class="tiny">x92</a>
Fulghum, David A; Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">Small UAVs To Carry Disposable Pulse Weapons</a></h1>
<h2>2002-10</h2>
<div id="sect_92" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.18 (Oct 28, 2002): 60.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Radio-frequency-pulse energy weapons that emit short powerful bursts to damage electrical equipment and computer memories have so far been designed by US and British researchers as relatively large systems that require at least a cruise missile-size platform to carry them. BAE Systems designers are eyeing much smaller energy weapons for inexpensive UAVs with a wingspan of a few feet. One purported advantage of directed energy (DE) - in particular high-power radio frequency (HPRF) and high-power microwave (HPM) weapons - is that they do not harm physical structures such as public buildings, apartment houses or schools. However, the effective range of these pulse weapons is very short.
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text:
<blockquote><p>Radio-frequency-pulse energy weapons that emit short powerful bursts to damage electrical equipment and computer memories have so far been designed by U.S. and British researchers as relatively large systems that require at least a cruise missile-size platform to carry them. BAE Systems designers are eyeing much smaller energy weapons for inexpensive UAVs with a wingspan of a few feet.
<br>
<br>One purported advantage of directed energy (DE)--in particular high-power radio frequency (HPRF) and high-power microwave (HPM) weapons--is that they don't harm physical structures such as public buildings, apartment houses or schools. However, the effective range of these pulse weapons is very short.
<br>
<br>"What if you're trying to take out an air defense system that's on top of a hospital?" said Aaron J. Penkacik, vice president for advanced systems and technology. "A cruise missile-sized RF device is not always what you need. While it may disable the air defenses, it could also inflict major damage to a structure, even without a warhead. A smaller RF device may be more suitable."
<br>
<br>While BAE Systems personnel would not address the concept, U.S. Air Force officials indicated that the service has been looking at small UAVs that could fly within a few feet of an antenna, possibly even attaching itself, and then disable the site with an energy spike, jam the signal or insert false targets. By being that close, the jammer would require only relatively low power to achieve great effectiveness.
<br>
<br>A British-developed HPRF device has at least been tested on a cruise missile or UAV, Air Force officials said. And, as evidence of the Pentagon's long-term interest in the technology, U.S. industry is developing a reusable HPM weapon for the Block 30 version of Boeing's X-45 unmanned air combat vehicle.
<br>
<br>BAE Systems is looking at a lightweight, inexpensive segment of the market.
<br>
<br>"We have been pursuing some specialty, single large-pulse RF devices for homeland defense or special operations type applications," said Robert V. McDaniel, director of program operations for systems and technology. "The intent is to develop a disposable source to produce broad-band RF that is not focused on a single frequency. Our intention is to make one big RF pulse that is dirty enough that it can shut many [electronic devices] down."
<br>
<br>For the applications that BAE Systems is looking at--delivering a blast of energy from within hundreds of feet of an antenna--the payload would need to be very small. Developmental systems described by U.S. Air Force officials as an option for limited operational use are as much as several feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds (AW&ST Oct. 7, p. 27.)
<br>
<br>"It would need to fit on a UAV with about a 2-ft. wingspan," McDaniel said. "We have been developing small UAVs for a variety of applications over the past five years, and we think that carrying a small RF [weapon] payload may be a viable application. The power supply is a real challenge, but explosively pumped devices are attractive as a one-shot power supply."
<br>
<br>A simplified explanation is that an explosion within a chamber can produce a plasma that, in turn, can generate an RF pulse if vented through a nozzle properly designed to focus the explosive force through a very strong magnetic field.
<br>
<br>"It requires a carefully sized aperture so the explosion's gases can pass through at high velocity in the presence of a strong magnetic field," Penkacik said. The resulting plasma, we believe, can be converted into an RF pulse that is spectrally dirty--to affect a broad range of frequencies--and of sufficient intensity to disrupt or cause damage at short range."
<br>
<br>Antenna technology is a crucial element for DE weapons, but may not be as much of an issue with this approach. "We think the pulse can be made directional enough without an antenna," he said. "You don't need a pencil point if you do it right. The difficult task with the antenna for a conventional DE system is to be carried on small UAVs. The tighter you try to focus the beam, the bigger the antenna has to be. In our approach, you may not need any more antenna than that provided by the nozzle."
<br>
<br>As to future conflicts, "We're going to see scenarios that require that kind of capability," McDaniel said. "You will want to take out the front end of an air defense system without damaging anything else."
<br>
<br>Not everyone is expected to readily embrace this novel approach even if it proves to be successful. "There's an operational bias," said one electronics specialist. "People are used to having standoff-jammers that operate at very high power and long range that can block air defenses rather than something small that can get in close. Computer modeling and simulation will help demonstrate what they can do."
<br>
<br>BAE's initial concepts include air dropping small UAVs from larger ones or from manned aircraft. They can be gliders or carry electrically driven propellers for longer range. The latter is a likely option for ground-launched UAVs that could be hand or bungee-launched.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Photo: Photograph: Small UAVs with miniaturized directed energy weapons would fly close to enemy air defense radars to disable them.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 92 -->
<a name="x93"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x93" class="tiny">x93</a>
Tuttle, Rich : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_93');">Raytheon, TRW begin effort to develop solid state laser weapons</a></h1>
<h2>2002-12</h2>
<div id="sect_93" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 204.49 (Dec 10, 2002): 4.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>The $16.9 million contract to Raytheon and $21.4 million contract to TRW will support two phases of work, with an option for a third. Raytheon said the first phase is a 14-month laboratory demonstration of the feasibility of scaling the proposed technology to about 10 kilowatts with a high-quality beam. Ten months after Phase 1, Raytheon said, Phase 2 must demonstrate 25 kilowatts in the lab with a high-quality beam and show how it would achieve pre-production capability. Phase 3, according to Raytheon, is a separately funded option to deliver a 25-kilowatt brassboard, or laboratory mockup, to a government lab 12 months after Phase 2.
<br>
<br>Both companies are optimistic. Raytheon demonstrated a 2.6-kilowatt solid-state laser earlier this year. "It took a heck of a lot of work to get there," spokeswoman [Sabrina Steele] said, but "our belief is once you prove at 25 kilowatts, and you verify that that architecture and the setup and the materials get you there, that it would be much easier to scale it to 100 kilowatts. Technically, it's more difficult to go from 2.6 kilowatts to 25 kilowatts, than from 25 to 100."
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Air Force contracts to Raytheon Co. and TRW Inc. mark the first significant funding for research and development on solid-state laser weapons, putting this class of lasers on the road to someday catching their more mature chemical laser relatives, officials of both companies said.
<br>
<br>The companies on Dec. 6 received Air Force Research Laboratory awards to demonstrate 25-kilowatt lasers in 2004.
<br>
<br>"This contract is a big step on the path to a 100-kilowatt laser, which is truly weapons grade," Mike Booen, Raytheon's vice president of Directed Energy Weapons, said in a statement. "The 25-kilowatt laser will represent an initial laser capability with promising military utility."
<br>
<br>Jackie Gish, TRW's director of directed energy technology and products, said in a statement that the program "will open the door to many new military applications for high-energy lasers, ranging from electronic warfare tasks such as blinding or destruction of enemy sensors to air defense or ship self-defense."
<br>
<br>In a telephone interview, Gish said while solid-state lasers have been around for some time - the very first laser was an SSL - "they just haven't been at the powers, nor have they been funded at the levels of the chemical lasers."
<br>
<br>She said the chemical laser on the Boeing 747-based Airborne Laser aircraft, for instance, "is orders of magnitude more powerful than the solid-state lasers," even those envisioned by the end of this program.
<br>
<br>Applications for solid-state lasers include use on fighter aircraft and ships. Sabrina Steele, a spokeswoman for Raytheon's El Segundo, Calif., unit, said her company is working with Lockheed Martin on the idea of installing a solid-state laser on the Joint Strike Fighter (DAILY, Sept. 23). The Navy's DD(X) family of ships also might be candidates. "The sky's the limit," she said.
<br>
<br>One advantage of solid-state lasers, Gish said, is they don't have the logistics train of chemical lasers. Battlefield generators, for instance, could support them.
<br>
<br>The $16.9 million contract to Raytheon and $21.4 million contract to TRW will support two phases of work, with an option for a third. Raytheon said the first phase is a 14-month laboratory demonstration of the feasibility of scaling the proposed technology to about 10 kilowatts with a high-quality beam. Ten months after Phase 1, Raytheon said, Phase 2 must demonstrate 25 kilowatts in the lab with a high-quality beam and show how it would achieve pre-production capability. Phase 3, according to Raytheon, is a separately funded option to deliver a 25-kilowatt brassboard, or laboratory mockup, to a government lab 12 months after Phase 2.
<br>
<br>Both companies are optimistic. Raytheon demonstrated a 2.6-kilowatt solid-state laser earlier this year. "It took a heck of a lot of work to get there," spokeswoman Steele said, but "our belief is once you prove at 25 kilowatts, and you verify that that architecture and the setup and the materials get you there, that it would be much easier to scale it to 100 kilowatts. Technically, it's more difficult to go from 2.6 kilowatts to 25 kilowatts, than from 25 to 100."
<br>
<br>TRW's Gish said, "We think we have an approach that will work. We've done 5 [kilowatts] with good beam quality, so we're not starting at [very low] levels. Yes, it's challenging, and yes, it will be an exciting program, but we think we have an approach that will really work and get us there."
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_93');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 93 -->
<a name="x94"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x94" class="tiny">x94</a>
John P. Geis II : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS ON THE BATTLEFIELD: A NEW VISION FOR 2025</a></h1>
<h2>2003</h2>
<div id="sect_94" style="display: block;">
<p><i>DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS ON THE BATTLEFIELD: A NEW VISION FOR 2025</i> by John P. Geis II, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF, April 2003.
<br>Occasional Paper No. 32, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 94 -->
<a name="x95"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x95" class="tiny">x95</a>
Trimble, Stephen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_95');">U.S. Air Force already preparing for JSF stores challenge</a></h1>
<h2>2003-02</h2>
<div id="sect_95" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 205.34 (Feb 21, 2003): 5.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>An Air Force office here has tripled its staff working on the aircraft-stores compatibility project for JSF, said Lt. Col. Steve Hoernlein, chief of the technology integration division for the Air Force's Seek Eagle Office.
<br>
<br>Earlier this week, the JSF project was a key focus of the 2003 Aircraft-Stores Compatibility Symposium in nearby Destin, Fla., Hoernlein said. The meeting assembled representatives from the JSF office, each U.S. customer and 13 foreign militaries. The conference also focused on new challenges projected for future unmanned warplanes anddirected energy weapons.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The task of certifying the weapons store configurations for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter already is drawing major interest even though the fighter is years away from conducting its first live-fire tests.
<br>
<br>The issue is complicated by the multiple certification standards used by the U.S. armed services and at least one foreign military, the United Kingdom. It is among several compatibility hurdles confronting a program that is tailored for a community of widely different customers.
<br>
<br>An Air Force office here has tripled its staff working on the aircraft-stores compatibility project for JSF, said Lt. Col. Steve Hoernlein, chief of the technology integration division for the Air Force's Seek Eagle Office.
<br>
<br>Earlier this week, the JSF project was a key focus of the 2003 Aircraft-Stores Compatibility Symposium in nearby Destin, Fla., Hoernlein said. The meeting assembled representatives from the JSF office, each U.S. customer and 13 foreign militaries. The conference also focused on new challenges projected for future unmanned warplanes anddirected energy weapons.
<br>
<br>Aircraft stores compatibility plays a major role in aircraft design. Stores, or weapons such as bombs and missiles, must be configured on the airplane in a way that is safe during all ground and flight operations.
<br>
<br>But the U.S. Air Force and Navy have different standards for certifying weapons configurations, Hoernlein said. That means configurations approved by the Air Force are not always accepted by the Navy, and vice versa. The current effort is focused on developing a universal standard that can be applied between the services and perhaps the JSF's international partners.
<br>
<br>Another stores compatibility challenge is the unique stealth design of the F/A-22 and the JSF. Both carry bombs and missiles in closed weapons bays, a design previously used by the Air Force's retired F-111 fleet.
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_95');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 95 -->
<a name="x96"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x96" class="tiny">x96</a>
Jefferson Morris : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">SOCOM pursuing fusion technologies to improve target views</a></h1>
<h2>2003-02</h2>
<div id="sect_96" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 205.37 (Feb 26, 2003): 5.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) needs fusion technologies that will blend images from different sensors in real time to provide the most useful view of a target, according to Patrick Gardner, science adviser at SOCOM's Office of Advanced Technology.
<br>
<br>SOCOM is interested in developing the capability to fuse images from unmanned sensors in different locations, according to Gardner. However, as the number of sensors on a platform increases, the problem of signature reduction becomes more acute.
<br>
<br>To combine the best of both worlds, SOCOM is developing optical image fusion technologies for weapon boresight sensors that would allow users to toggle between sensors or blend them. For dismounted SOF, the key technology requirement is to keep these systems light, according to Gardner.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<br>
<blockquote><p>U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) needs fusion technologies that will blend images from different sensors in real time to provide the most useful view of a target, according to Patrick Gardner, science adviser at SOCOM's Office of Advanced Technology.
<br>
<br>"In my assessment, probably the richest field for fusion in distributed sensors is in the area of deeply buried targets," Gardner said at the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement's (IDGA) Image Fusion conference in Alexandria, Va., Feb. 25.
<br>
<br>"We still haven't found that 'magic sensor,' the one that will tell us where a facility is deep underground and what it's doing, how to defeat it, and how we know when we've defeated it," he said. "There just doesn't seem to be a single sensor out there that does that job."
<br>
<br>SOCOM is exploring a variety of sensors to place on distributed platforms, including electromagnetic, acoustic, and seismic, Gardner said.
<br>
<br>However, "we just always keep coming back to the same conclusion, that sensors are no silver bullet," he said. "We really are going to have to look at ways to fuse this information, and right now we're still not doing an adequate job in that area."
<br>
<br>SOCOM is interested in developing the capability to fuse images from unmanned sensors in different locations, according to Gardner. However, as the number of sensors on a platform increases, the problem of signature reduction becomes more acute.
<br>
<br>"If we're going to go to the paradigm of unmanned vehicles, throwing more and more sensor payloads on there, [the question is] are we also balancing the budget and maintaining a lower signature?" he said.
<br>
<br>Dismounted soldiers
<br>
<br>Because they usually operate under cover of darkness, most dismounted special operations forces (SOF) carry image intensification sensors and thermal sensors, both of which are effective in some circumstances, but not in others.
<br>
<br>For example, although intensified vision provides higher resolution and allows for the reading of signs and other features, thermal sensors are much better for detecting personnel. Thermal sensors have difficulty seeing through glass, however.
<br>
<br>To combine the best of both worlds, SOCOM is developing optical image fusion technologies for weapon boresight sensors that would allow users to toggle between sensors or blend them. For dismounted SOF, the key technology requirement is to keep these systems light, according to Gardner.
<br>
<br>"We're holding onto the promise that we heard years ago ... that the image fusion community is going to give us smaller systems that weigh less and perform better," he said. "When you get out of the platforms and you have the operators on the ground, the premium becomes the weight of the equipment."
<br>
<br>Tech thrust areas
<br>
<br>Key technology thrust areas for SOCOM include unmanned systems, remote sensing, underwater communications, high-reachback communications, battery fuel cells, advanced training systems, bioengineering, directed energy weapons, and psychological operations.
<br>
<br>SOCOM is interested in developing "SOF-peculiar" technologies, as opposed to technologies with broad applications across the services, Gardner said.
<br>
<br></p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 96 -->
<a name="x97"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x97" class="tiny">x97</a>
Marc Selinger : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_97');">House panel approves renewal of Defense Production Act</a></h1>
<h2>2003-03</h2>
<div id="sect_97" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 205.56 (Mar 25, 2003): 6.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>At a March 19 hearing of the House Financial Services subcommittee, Suzanne Patrick, deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial policy, urged Congress to reauthorize DPA, saying DOD has used Title I for such things as accelerating the delivery of an upgraded sensor package, the Multi-Spectral Targeting System (MTS), for Predator unmanned aerial vehicles armed with Hellfire missiles.
<br>
<br>Three MTS systems originally were scheduled for delivery in March 2003, but using DPA, DOD "jumped this order to the head of the production queue" and received the systems in December 2001 instead, Patrick said. Since then, DOD has used DPA to accelerate 40 more MTS systems.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>A House panel has approved legislation to reauthorize the Defense Production Act (DPA) for four years, kicking off congressional efforts to extend a law aimed at ensuring the Pentagon has adequate production of vital equipment and materials.
<br>
<br>The House Financial Services technology subcommittee approved the reauthorization bill March 20, and the full committee is expected to take up the measure within the next few weeks. The Senate Banking Committee has not yet announced its plans for renewing DPA.
<br>
<br>DPA, originally enacted in 1950, was renewed in 2001 for two more years. It expires Sept. 30.
<br>
<br>Title I of DPA allows the Defense Department to speed up industry delivery of equipment and materials that are crucial to national security. Title III authorizes financial incentives to create or maintain domestic production of vital defense items.
<br>
<br>At a March 19 hearing of the House Financial Services subcommittee, Suzanne Patrick, deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial policy, urged Congress to reauthorize DPA, saying DOD has used Title I for such things as accelerating the delivery of an upgraded sensor package, the Multi-Spectral Targeting System (MTS), for Predator unmanned aerial vehicles armed with Hellfire missiles.
<br>
<br>Three MTS systems originally were scheduled for delivery in March 2003, but using DPA, DOD "jumped this order to the head of the production queue" and received the systems in December 2001 instead, Patrick said. Since then, DOD has used DPA to accelerate 40 more MTS systems.
<br>
<br>"We all are aware of the dramatic impact armed Predators had in waging war in Afghanistan," Patrick said.
<br>
<br>Better weapons eyed
<br>
<br>Ronald Sega, DOD's director of defense research and engineering, testified before the House subcommittee that DOD has eight active Title III projects and is starting two new ones this year, including one that will establish production capacity for yttrium barium copper oxide, a high-temperature superconductor that could significantly enhance the development of directed energy weapons.
<br>
<br>Title III projects that DOD began in fiscal 2002 include maintaining production of radiation hardened microelectronics for strategic missile and space systems, and establishing a domestic production capacity for rigid-rod ultra-high strength polymeric materials, which could be used as metal substitutes for critical weapon systems.
<br>
<br>Credit: Marc Selinger (marc_selinger@AviationNow.com)
<br>
<br></p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_97');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 97 -->
<a name="x98"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x98" class="tiny">x98</a>
Levi, Michael A : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">The case against new nuclear weapons</a></h1>
<h2>2003-03</h2>
<div id="sect_98" style="display: block;">
<p>Issues in Science and Technology; Spring 2003; 19, 3; ProQuest Science Journals pg. 63
<br />
<br />
The case against new nuclear weapons
<br>Levi, Michael A
<br>Issues in Science and Technology; Spring 2003; 19, 3; ProQuest Science Journals pg. 63
<br>This article is adapted in part from Michael Levi's paper <i>"Fire in the HOle: Nuclear and Non-Cnuclear Options for Counterproliferation"</i> (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2002).
<br>
<br>{mcb: Disinfo.}
<br>
<br>Subsequently, however, international weapons inspectors, aided by Iraqi defectors, discovered that those targets had been the mere tip of a vast Iraqi system for producint and storing weapons of mass destruction. Had the military used nuclear weapons to bomb all known chemical facilities during the Gulf War, the United States would have made barely a dent in Iraq's deadly capability while incurring massive political backlash as people died from the accompanying nuclear fallout.
<br>
<br>...
<br>In Afghanistan, U.S. efforts to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda were hindered by the difficulty of tracking down their underground hideouts. Intelligence technology, which relied heavily on detecting mechanical equipment, power lines, and communications systems to identify hidden facilities, floundered in the face of a backward enemy who employed none of the technologies being searched for. Osama bin Laden is still alive not because the United States lacked powerful weaponry, but because the U.S. intelligence could not find him in the caves of Tora Bora.
<br>...
<br>
<br>Based on the intelligence community's knowledge..., it is apparent that a five-kiloton ground-penetrating nuclear weapon could destroy it. This attack would produce a moderate amount of nuclear fallout, the preceise nature of which would depend on whether the weapon was detonated inside the facility or in the surrounding earth... Such a blast would kill every human being within approximately 15 square kilometers, according to calculations by Robert Nelson of Princeton University... [C]oncerns about fallout would require medical monitoring for civilians as far as 20 kilometers downwind from the facility. U.S. troups in the zone would have to halt operations or risk being exposed to fallout.
<br>...
<br>If the facility were operating, then conventional electromagnetic pulse weapons -- recently added to the U.S. arsenal -- might be applied to destroy or disable equipment inside.
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br>More reading:
<br>Robert Nelson, "Low-Yield Earth Penetrating Nuclear Weapons," <i>Science and Global Security</i> 10, 2002.
<br>
<br>U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Defense, <i>"United States Nuclear Posture Review"</i>, 2002
<br>
<br>Stephen Younger, <i>"Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty-First Century"</i> (Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2000).</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 98 -->
<a name="x99"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x99" class="tiny">x99</a>
Lopez, Ramon; Sweetman, Bill. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_99');">The revolution will not be piloted</a></h1>
<h2>2003-06</h2>
<div id="sect_99" style="display: block;">
<p>Popular Science 262.6 (June 2003): 60.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<br>
<br>Abstract
<blockquote><p>For nearly 70 years, aeronautical visionaries have been touting the promise of robotic aircraft. Now, finally, that potential is being realized. From micro spies to stealthy bombers, here are the UAVs that are making it happen.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Unmanned aerial vehicles have lately been generating headlines as never before. When a Predator fired a Hellfire missile into a car full of suspected terrorists in Yemen last November, it seemed a watershed validation of the "hunt and destroy" role for UAVs. Days before the start of the Iraq war, Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that an Iraqi UAV program uncovered by weapons inspectors could be a means for delivering biological or chemical weapons--though the technology was reported by The New York Times to be painfully primitive. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of American UAVs would soon be demonstrated: When U.S. troops reached Baghdad's doorstep, 10 or more types of UAV were with them, ranging from backpackable, soldier-launched recon vehicles to the warhorse Global Hawk surveillance craft and the Predator, which knocked out an anti-aircraft gun.
<br>
<br>UAVs are here, more are coming, and they will ultimately transform aviation, military and civil. The concept is surprisingly old: In 1935, POPSCI described "thrilled crowds" in England watching an RAF demonstration of a radio-controlled biplane with a 10-mile range. "Spectacular wartime possibilities are forecast" for robot aircraft, the article noted. Virtually all WWII aircraft were piloted, of course, though a German UAV program called Mistel spooked the British.
<br>
<br>The Pentagon has spent more than $25 billion on UAV development since the 1950s, but has had trouble settling on missions and standards; programs have been repeatedly replaced or scrapped. Yet momentum is clearly on the side of UAV deployment because the relevant technologies are finally able to address the challenges of onboard intelligence, weight vs. power, and autonomy vs. remote control. New composite materials make it possible for UAVs to be durable yet lightweight. Sensors have shrunk and become more powerful. Satellite communications provide more of the broadband power that's required for complex, real-time operations.
<br>
<br>Dozens of UAVs are under development--from toylike ones with 1-hp engines to massive ones that rival fighter jets. Some will fly ultralong or ultra-high-altitude missions. And UAVs have potential uses far beyond the military: Robotic aircraft are already being used by researchers, fishermen, weather forecasters, even filmmakers (see "Civil Engineering," page 62). But engineers still must figure out how to prevent mid-air collisions: In 2001, there were already enough machines aloft--mostly military UAVs passing through controlled airspace on their way to Bosnia or Kosovo--to cause concern among European air-traffic controllers. Two months ago, NASA demonstrated a 35 GHz radar-based collision-avoidance system for UAVs (it was tested on Proteus, a research craft built by Scaled Composites in Mojave, California). This is a key development: Though UAVs have recently made a crucial leap forward in sophistication (some were rushed into service in Iraq before being fully tested), the infrastructure for a UAV-populated world doesn't yet exist. Here is a field guide to the major UAV families and species.
<br>
<br>CLASS 1 MICRO UAVs
<br>
<br>No military micros are yet in production. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is developing pint-size helicopter-like drones that weigh about five pounds and measure some nine inches in diameter. Designed to fit inside a soldier's backpack, they would conduct surveillance over short distances. Too small to carry much fuel or gear, early models will hold a 1-pound camera and wind down within an hour.
<br>
<br>DARPA is eager to integrate micro UAVs, as well as larger versions, into its Future Combat Systems program. This is an envisioned network of autonomous aircraft and ground vehicles that would handle a wide range of military missions. Micro UAVs might ride into the field on a robotic tank, for example, then fly up to a tree or building to "perch and stare." At DARPA's behest, D-Star Engineering in Shelton, Connecticut, has developed a hand-size engine for micro UAVs that weighs 22 ounces and produces 1.3 hp. The tiny engine, which runs on jet or diesel fuel, is quieter and more powerful and guzzles less fuel than a model airplane engine of comparable size.
<br>
<br>iStar
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Allied Aerospace, Newport News, Virginia
<br>
<br>DIAMETER 9 in. HEIGHT 12 in.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 5 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 5.5 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN DARPA is flight-testing the iStar, which would be fitted with a sensor suite (electro-optical, infrared, radar). iStar hovers like a helicopter but also flies forward by pitching to a near-horizontal attitude. The iStar's lifted, augmented, ducted fan is reminiscent of a "ring wing" UAV that General Dynamics' Convair division tested in the 1980s. The iStar flies as high as 16,000 feet and runs for up to an hour.
<br>
<br>STATUS In development
<br>
<br>HeliSpy
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Micro Autonomous Systems, Del Mar, California
<br>
<br>DIAMETER 11 in. HEIGHT 27 in.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 6 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 25 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN Originally developed for DARPA and now aimed primarily at the commercial marketplace, the HeliSpy II is fully autonomous; it can also be controlled by a computer-game-style joystick and reprogrammed in the air. Powered by an inexpensive model aircraft engine, the $25,000 craft switches from vertical to horizontal flight to gain speed. One potential use: Police SWAT teams could send them through a window to search a building where terrorists are suspected to be hiding.
<br>
<br>STATUS In limited production
<br>
<br>Wasp
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER AeroVironment, Monrovia, California
<br>
<br>LENGTH 8 in.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 6 oz.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 0.6 mile
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN This 13-inch "flying wing" recently set an endurance record, flying for 1 hour 47 minutes, more than three times the previous micro-UAV record, set two years ago. The radio-controlled Wasp has an ingenious design: Its wing is made of a novel synthetic "multifunctional" material--a hot research area for DARPA--that, in addition to serving as a wing, supplies electrical energy for propulsion. The next-gen Wasp will incorporate a simple autopilot and carry a color video camera.
<br>
<br>STATUS In early development
<br>
<br>CLASS 2 MINI UAVs
<br>
<br>This class of UAV--vehicles that are up to 6 feet long and weigh up to 90 pounds--emerged 20 years ago; some were used in the 1991 Gulf War. Their military mission: short-range, "over the hill" reconnaissance forays to detect nearby threats in the field.
<br>
<br>The early minis' relative bulkiness and lack of technological sophistication meant soldiers couldn't employ them on-the-fly during battle. Instead, captured images were beamed to operators based in a trailer located behind front lines. Those limitations, combined with the advent of lightweight composite materials and miniaturized sensors, inspired the development of micro UAVs. Meanwhile, newer minis, like Dragon Eye and ScanEagle, have resuscitated the category. Because mini UAVs have greater range and endurance than micros, they will continue to play a role in military missions even after their diminutive counterparts come into their own.
<br>
<br>Pointer
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER AeroVironment
<br>
<br>LENGTH 6 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 10 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 3.5 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN Prop-driven, with a 9-foot wingspan, the FQM-151 Pointer carries a 2-pound payload and is launched by hand. Six Pointer systems are employed at the urban warfare training center at Fort Benning, Georgia. Others serve as testbeds for miniaturized sensors at the Drug Enforcement Administration. Recently the Pointer was used to keep an eye on demonstrators at Puerto Rico's controversial Vieques bombing range. Equipped with an infrared video camera, the UAV was used to spot and observe trespassers.
<br>
<br>STATUS First deployed by the U.S. military in 1988; sent to Iraq for use by special forces
<br>
<br>Exdrone/Dragon Drone
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER BAI Aerosystems, Easton, Maryland
<br>
<br>LENGTH 5 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 90 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 30 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN Originally built as expendable communications jammers, BQM-147A Exdrones (the name stands for "expendable drone") were, with the addition of a gimbaled electro-optical sensor, reconfigured for reconnaissance work in the late 1990s. Forty-five Exdrones saw action in the 1991 Gulf War.
<br>
<br>STATUS In service with the Pentagon since the early 1980s; now used primarily for war games and other military exercises
<br>
<br>Dragon Eye
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Naval Research Laboratory and Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory
<br>
<br>LENGTH 2.5 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 5 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 2.9 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN This twin-prop airplane with a 4-foot wingspan breaks into five pieces to fit into a rucksack. No ground station is required; the person who's using it is simply equipped with a wearable laptop and communications control box. Hand-or bungee-launched, it carries daylight, low light and infrared imaging systems.
<br>
<br>STATUS Though still in development, Dragon Eye was pressed into combat in Iraq. AeroVironment and BAI Aerosystems are competing for the production contract.
<br>
<br>ScanEagle
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Insitu Group, Bingen, Washington Length 4 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 33 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 465 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN Launched from a catapult, ScanEagle is plucked from the air with a wire-and-hook mechanism dubbed SkyHook. With a 10-foot wingspan, ScanEagle can stay airborne for up to 15 hours; an engine under development will allow it to fly for 60 hours and about 5,000 miles.
<br>
<br>STATUS In limited production
<br>
<br>CLASS 3 TACTICAL UAVs
<br>
<br>Larger than minis, tactical UAVs perform similar intelligence-gathering and target-acquisition missions but have greater carrying capacity and endurance. Whereas minis typically have a 1,000-foot ceiling, a tactical UAV like the Shadow 200 can soar to 15,000 feet and fly for up to four hours.
<br>
<br>The downside: Deploying tactical UAVs can require a major investment of time and equipment. Take the Shadow 200 system. In addition to its four air vehicles (they're flown one at a time), the system includes two ground control stations, two ground data terminals, a portable ground control station, four remote video terminals, a hydraulic launcher, a landing system and arresting gear. Twenty-two operators and maintenance personnel are required to operate the system.
<br>
<br>Shadow 200
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER AAI Corp., Hunt Valley, Maryland
<br>
<br>LENGTH 11 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 325 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 78 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN The RQ-7A Shadow 200, which can carry up to 60 pounds, is fitted with electro-optical and infrared sensors. It has a 13-foot wingspan.
<br>
<br>STATUS Now in production, with 41 systems currently funded
<br>
<br>Pioneer
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER AAI Corp. and Israel Aircraft Industries
<br>
<br>LENGTH 14 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 452 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 115 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN Launched by rockets or a catapult or from a runway, the RQ-2 Pioneer recovers into a net or with arresting gear. During Operation Desert Storm, a detachment of Iraqi soldiers surrendered to an unarmed Pioneer operating from the battleship USS Wisconsin and were taken prisoner by Allied forces.
<br>
<br>STATUS Debuted in 1986; being upgraded to extend its operations until 2009
<br>
<br>Dragon Warrior
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Naval Research Laboratory and Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory
<br>
<br>LENGTH 7 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 230 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 58 miles (est.)
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN This fully autonomous vehicle is designed for recon and communications relay missions. Its motorcycle-inspired engine is fuel-injected and spark-assisted with a liquid-cooled, 3-cylinder in-line configuration.
<br>
<br>STATUS No flight trials yet
<br>
<br>GoldenEye
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Aurora Flight Sciences, Manassas, Virginia
<br>
<br>DIAMETER 3 ft. Height 5.5 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 150 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 500 miles (est.)
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN A stealthy small-package delivery system, it's meant to quietly deposit a 10-or 20-pound sensor behind enemy lines, then scoot. Wings enable it to transition to horizontal flight after getting airborne.
<br>
<br>STATUS At press time, first flight was set for May.
<br>
<br>Hummingbird
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Frontier Systems, Irvine, California
<br>
<br>LENGTH 35 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 5,000 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 1,500 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN The A160 Hummingbird flies up to 35,000 feet high. It sips fuel thanks to its flight-control system and a hingeless, variable-speed rotor system.
<br>
<br>STATUS In flight testing for DARPA
<br>
<br>Fire Scout
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Northrop Grumman, San Diego, California
<br>
<br>LENGTH 23 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 2,650 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 173 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN Based on a Schweizer civil helicopter, the RQ-8A Fire Scout is designed to operate from warships, finding targets for strike aircraft.
<br>
<br>STATUS In flight testing
<br>
<br>Eagle Eye
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Bell Helicopter, Hurst, Texas
<br>
<br>LENGTH 18 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 2,247 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION Unknown
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN With its rotors in vertical position, the TR911X Eagle Eye can take off, hover, and land like a traditional rotary-wing aircraft. By tilting its rotors to the horizontal position, it can fly with the speed and range of a turboprop fixed-wing airplane.
<br>
<br>STATUS Selected by U.S. Coast Guard as a shipboard item
<br>
<br>Dragonfly
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Boeing, Chicago
<br>
<br>LENGTH 17.7 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 1,785 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 108 miles (est.)
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN Aviation Week recently called the X-50A Dragonfly Canard Rotor/Wing "the first helicopter to deliberately stop its rotor in flight." The rotor becomes the aircraft's wings after a helicopter-like takeoff. Diverter valves direct the thrust to the rotor blade tips for rotary flight or to the aft jet nozzle for high-sub-sonic-speed fixed-wing cruising.
<br>
<br>STATUS: Two demonstrators to fly as early as this month
<br>
<br>CLASS 4 HALE UAVs
<br>
<br>High-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) UAVs are typically the size of business jets or 737s and carry powerful, sophisticated synthetic aperture radars and other sensors. Cruising at altitudes between 45,000 and 65,000 feet, they survey large geographic areas and provide near-real-time, high-resolution reconnaissance imagery. With their ability to provide the big picture, HALE UAVs fulfill much the same function as the manned Lockheed U-2 spy plane. HALE vehicles can stay aloft for 24 hours at a time. They are controlled remotely by pilots on the ground; thanks to satellite links that convey images and commands in real time, it's possible for an operator located in Nevada to fly a Predator or Global Hawk over Iraq.
<br>
<br>Ultra-LEAP
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Boeing
<br>
<br>LENGTH 45 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT Undetermined
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION Undetermined
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN This craft will run on electricity generated in a fuel cell by a chemical reaction involving hydrogen and oxygen. The engine would spit out water droplets instead of carbon dioxide and other pollutants generated by fuel-burning engines. Ultra-LEAP will have a 150-foot wingspan and carry a 250-pound payload. Its designers intend it to stay airborne for weeks at a time.
<br>
<br>STATUS On the drawing board; two prototypes are anticipated within two years.
<br>
<br>Predator B
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, San Diego, California
<br>
<br>LENGTH 36 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 10,000 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 460 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN The Predator B, or MQ-9A, is a beefed-up version of the reconnaissance drone that was armed with a pair of laser-guided Hellfire missiles during the Afghanistan conflict. The turboprop-powered B-model carries up to 10 missiles, compared to its predecessor's two. The B-model also operates 20,000 feet higher: at 45,000 to 60,000 feet.
<br>
<br>STATUS In production
<br>
<br>Global Hawk
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Northrop Grumman
<br>
<br>LENGTH 44 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 26,750 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 6,214 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN The RQ-4A Global Hawk takes off and lands on a conventional runway. Carrying a 2,000-pound payload of sensors, it gathers intelligence day and night and in adverse weather. It can stay aloft up to 32 hours.
<br>
<br>STATUS Still technically in engineering development, Global Hawks were used in Afghanistan and again this year in Iraq. The Air Force plans to field about 30 Global Hawks by the end of the decade and to purchase 51 in all.
<br>
<br>Proteus
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Scaled Composites, Mojave, California
<br>
<br>LENGTH 56 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 12,510 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION 2,300 miles
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN Though designed to fly autonomously, the Proteus has never fulfilled its original purpose and in every flight to date has been piloted. The craft was built to hover over cities at altitudes of 60,000 feet and function as a local broadband communications hub, but that plan fizzled when the telecommunications industry crashed. Now leased by NASA, the Proteus recently carried a prototype collision avoidance system for UAVs; one of its next tasks will be to hold a target to be shot at during a test of the military's new airborne laser.
<br>
<br>STATUS First flight in 1998; now used for atmospheric research and other high-altitude tests
<br>
<br>CLASS 5 UCAVs
<br>
<br>No unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) are yet in production, though the Predator, a reconnaissance drone, has been modified to serve this function. UCAVs will be about the size of the current generation of manned fighters, such as the F/A-18E Super Hornet that was sent to Iraq. Designed for dangerous deep-strike bombing missions, they could be preprogrammed with the GPS coordinates of a target, then let loose to take off, carry out the mission, and return home without human intervention. When desirable, they could also be piloted from the ground. Sending an unmanned plane into perilous territory keeps pilots out of danger. But UCAVS can't perform the fast-response missions a pilot can; they will not be equipped with air-to-air missiles or guns for dogfighting.
<br>
<br>X-47A Pegasus Naval UCAV Demonstrator
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Northrop Grumman
<br>
<br>LENGTH 28 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 4,000 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION Undetermined
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN Northrop Grumman's prototype for the U.S. Navy/DARPA UCAV, the Pegasus flying wing is a subscale model with a 28-foot wingspan. It was built in part to demonstrate that an unmanned combat air vehicle could make an autonomous takeoff and landing from an aircraft carrier.
<br>
<br>STATUS Made its maiden flight in February
<br>
<br>X-45
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Boeing
<br>
<br>LENGTH 26 ft.
<br>
<br>WEIGHT 12,000 lbs.
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION Undetermined
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN The X-45 is the first UAV designed from inception for combat. DARPA and the Air Force are currently flight-testing two X-45A prototypes. Next, Boeing will build two X-45Bs, which will be more capable and one-third larger than the X-45A. An X-45C is on the drawing board. It will more closely represent an operational UCAV.
<br>
<br>STATUS: Fielding of the X-45B or X-45C could occur by 2008.
<br>
<br>Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR)
<br>
<br>DEVELOPER Undetermined
<br>
<br>LENGTH Undetermined
<br>
<br>WEIGHT Undetermined
<br>
<br>RADIUS OF ACTION Undetermined
<br>
<br>THE LOWDOWN The UCAR is the Army's desired unmanned combat air vehicle. This futuristic, robotic vertical-takeoff-and-landing aircraft would perform armed recon and attack missions, alone or with piloted rotorcraft. It would extend the reach of manned helicopter gunships and take their place on risky missions. The UCAR, which could be controlled from the cockpit of Army helicopters, will be designed to carry rockets, missiles and guns, as well as nonlethal anddirected-energy weapons.
<br>
<br>STATUS Fielding might take place between 2013 and 2015.
<br>
<br>Ramon Lopez is an aerospace and defense writer based in Washington, D.C.
<br>
<br>Fun facts about Boeing's fuel-cell-powered Ultra-LEAP, collision avoidance systems and more at www.popsci.com/exclusive
<br>
<br>Illustration
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: AURORA FLIGHT SCIENCES
<br>
<br>[COVER]
<br>
<br>FUTURE OF UNMANNED AVIATION
<br>
<br>New Designs * Next Missions
<br>
<br>Stealthy VTOL Recon
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: NASA
<br>
<br>[COVER]
<br>
<br>[FUTURE OF UNMANNED AVIATION
<br>
<br>New Designs * Next Missions]
<br>
<br>Collision-Avoidance Testbed
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: BOB SAULS/FRASSANITO & ASSOCIATES
<br>
<br>[COVER]
<br>
<br>[FUTURE OF UNMANNED AVIATION
<br>
<br>New Designs * Next Missions]
<br>
<br>High-Speed Attack UCAV
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: NORTHROP GRUMMAN
<br>
<br>[COVER]
<br>
<br>[FUTURE OF UNMANNED AVIATION
<br>
<br>New Designs * Next Missions]
<br>
<br>Carrier-Launched Drone
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: JOHN B. CARNETT
<br>
<br>DRAGON EYE
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY ALLIED AEROSPACE
<br>
<br>ISTAR
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY D-STAR ENGINEERING
<br>
<br>MINI MOTOR D-Star Engineering built a thumb-size 0.1-hp engine.
<br>
<br>It didn't provide enough power for hovering, so D-Star made a
<br>
<br>1.3-hp version (below). The 0.1-hp one is now a battery charger.
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY MAS
<br>
<br>HELISPY
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY DARPA
<br>
<br>WASP
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY US NAVY
<br>
<br>DRAGON DRONE
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY US MARINE CORPS
<br>
<br>POINTER
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY US NAVY
<br>
<br>SCANEAGLE
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY BOEING
<br>
<br>DRAGON EYE
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY NORTHROP GRUMMAN
<br>
<br>FIRE SCOUT
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY US NAVY
<br>
<br>PIONEER
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY DARPA
<br>
<br>HUMMINGBIRD
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY AURORA FLIGHT SCIENCES/ATHENA TECHNOLOGIES
<br>
<br>GOLDENEYE
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY NASA
<br>
<br>PROTEUS
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY GENERAL ATOMICS AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS
<br>
<br>PREDATOR B
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY BOEING
<br>
<br>ULTRA-LEAP
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY NORTHROP GRUMMAN
<br>
<br>GLOBAL HAWK
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO: COURTESY BOEING
<br>
<br>X-45A
<br>
<br></p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_99');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 99 -->
<a name="x100"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x100" class="tiny">x100</a>
Marc Selinger : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">Navy office seeking more money for laser weapons</a></h1>
<h2>2003-07</h2>
<div id="sect_100" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 207.5 (Jul 8, 2003): 5.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Capt. Roger McGinnis told The DAILY in a recent interview that he is seeking about $150 million over four years to demonstrate a solid state laser (SSL) for ships, including DDG-51 destroyers. McGinnis' office now is spending a few million dollars a year to study solid state lasers, which use electrically powered lamps or diodes to pump light into a solid lasing medium, such as crystal or glass.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The head of the U.S. Navy's directed energy weapons programs said he hopes to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding in the coming years to develop ship-based laser weapons to counter cruise missiles and other threats.
<br>
<br>Capt. Roger McGinnis told The DAILY in a recent interview that he is seeking about $150 million over four years to demonstrate a solid state laser (SSL) for ships, including DDG-51 destroyers. McGinnis' office now is spending a few million dollars a year to study solid state lasers, which use electrically powered lamps or diodes to pump light into a solid lasing medium, such as crystal or glass.
<br>
<br>Ultimately, the Navy hopes to develop free electron lasers (FELs) for ships, partly because it is believed that FELs would be much more efficient than SSLs. In a FEL, electrons pass through a magnetic field, causing them to wiggle and release light.
<br>
<br>McGinnis' office currently receives some funding for FEL work, including about $10 million a year from the Office of Naval Research, but hundreds of millions would be needed to meet the goal of starting to place FELs on ships in about 2015.
<br>
<br>In a project the Navy has been involved with, the U.S. Energy Department's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility produced first light from its 10 kilowatt FEL in June. The device is an upgraded version of the Jefferson Lab's one kilowatt FEL.
<br>
<br>McGinnis also said that about $300 million is needed to build a maritime directed energy test center at Barking Sands, Hawaii. The dry environment at White Sands Test Center, N.M., the current test site for the military's directed energy programs, is significantly different than the one ships encounter at sea.
<br>
<br>Lasers are seen as appealing because they could strike targets more quickly than missiles or other weapons now used by the Navy.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>- Marc Selinger (marc_selinger@AviationNow.com)
<br>
<br>Credit: Marc Selinger
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 100 -->
<a name="x101"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x101" class="tiny">x101</a>
Dornheim, Michael A. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_101');">Navy Plans Precise Radars To Aim Beam Weapons</a></h1>
<h2>2003-08</h2>
<div id="sect_101" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 159.6 (Aug 11, 2003): 17.
<br>
<br>NAVY GEARING UP FOR BEAM WEAPONS U.S. Navy DD(X) next-generation destroyers will carry higher frequency S-band rather than L-band search radars. The move would sacrifice radar range in exchange for more precise targeting. However, as directed-energy weapons such as lasers are introduced to combat, the ability to accurately point a narrow-beam device will be at a premium. Long-range surveillance will be conducted by lower frequency radars on aircraft and larger ships. The S-band radar will "improve the ability of the destroyer to track aircraft and missiles and to counterattack shore-based gun or missile batteries that attempt to strike the ship," a Navy memorandum said. The new radar technology will also be installed on the CG(X) cruiser. In its scaled-up form, the cruiser's radar will be able to perform ballistic missile defense. The lead ship construction contract for DD(X) is to be awarded in Fiscal 2005 for delivery in 2011.
<br>
<br>Credit: Edited by Michael A. Dornheim
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_101');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 101 -->
<a name="x102"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x102" class="tiny">x102</a>
<a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">Navy well-suited for directed energy weapons, England says</a></h1>
<h2>2003-09</h2>
<div id="sect_102" style="display: block;">
<p>Aerospace Daily 207.61 (Sep 29, 2003): 1.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>DIRECTED ENERGY: Directed energy weapons could be a "primary weapon" in the U.S. Navy's arsenal, according to secretary-nominee Gordon England.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<br>
<br>DIRECTED ENERGY: Directed energy weapons could be a "primary weapon" in the U.S. Navy's arsenal, according to secretary-nominee Gordon England. "The Navy has unique platforms to utilize this technology," England says in a statement submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Specifically, many Navy ships have large power generation capability and sufficient space and volume to ease design constraints," he says. "That said, directed energy weapons still require large R&D efforts to field effective weapons for the Navy."
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 102 -->
<a name="x103"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x103" class="tiny">x103</a>
James M. Pethokoukis : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_103');">H-bomb baby boom?</a></h1>
<h2>2003-10</h2>
<div id="sect_103" style="display: block;">
<p>Title:
<br> H-bomb baby boom?
<br>Authors:
<br> Pethokoukis, James M.
<br>Source:
<br> U.S. News & World Report. 10/13/2003, Vol. 135 Issue 12, p48-48. 1p. 2 Color Photographs.
<br>Document Type:
<br> Article
<br>Subject Terms:
<br> *NUCLEAR weapons
<br> *NUCLEAR warfare
<br> *ARMED Forces
<br> *PROJECTILES, Aerial
<br> *NUCLEAR fission
<br> *NUCLEAR fusion
<br>Geographic Terms:
<br> UNITED States
<br>Company/Entity:
<br> UNITED States. Congress
<br>NAICS/Industry Codes:
<br> 921120 Legislative Bodies
<br>People:
<br> BETHE, Hans A. (Hans Albrecht), 1906-2005
<br>Abstract:
<blockquote><p> Reports that small nuclear mines and shells, once part of the United States military's Cold War arsenal, could be poised for a revival after Congress lifted a ban on researching nuclear weapons with an explosive force of less than five kilograms. Possible uses of small nuclear weapons, including vaporizing buried weapons labs; Speculation that reintroduction of small weapons could pave the way for the development of a pure-fusion bomb, which could be more compact than today's nukes and yield almost no fallout, allowing armies to continue to move troops into an area where the bomb was used; Details of the technology behind the small bombs; Possibility of developing nuclear "bullets"; Challenge to scientists of how to spark fusion without fission, a big bang that produces fallout; Resistance of some scientists, including physicist Hans Bethe, to developing mini-nukes.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text Word Count:
<br> 691
<br>ISSN:
<br> 0041-5537
<br>Accession Number:
<br> 10989385
<br>Persistent link to this record (Permalink):
<br> http://0-search.ebscohost.com.catalog.poudrelibraries.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10989385&site=ehost-live
<br>Cut and Paste:
<br> <A href="http://0-search.ebscohost.com.catalog.poudrelibraries.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10989385&site=ehost-live">H-bomb baby boom?</A>
<br>Database:
<br> Academic Search Premier
<br>
<br>Section:
<br> Science & Society
<br>
<br>Weapons
<blockquote><p>H-bomb baby boom?
<br>
<br>To most people, what makes nuclear weapons so frightening is their immense power. But many arms-control experts think the scariest nukes are small ones, which could conceivably be used on the battlefield. Once part of the Cold War arsenal, small nuclear mines and shells were scrapped in 1991. But mininukes may be poised for a revival. Last May Congress lifted a 1993 ban on researching nukes with an explosive force of less than 5 kilotons of TNT (compared with hundreds of kilotons for many warheads today). And the Senate version of an energy spending bill now includes $6 million for research on new low-yield nuclear weapons, although so far the House bill does not.
<br>
<br>If the House and Senate agree on funding, its first fruits will likely be smaller versions of existing devices. Planners see such baby bombs as a means of, for example, vaporizing buried weapons labs--although such uses would very likely release deadly radioactive fallout. But activists and researchers say that in the long run, the green light for research could also give a boost to an entirely new mininuke called a pure-fusion bomb. "By condoning mininukes, you are � opening the door to building even more advanced nukes such as pure-fusion weapons," says Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch of New Mexico.
<br>
<br>Clean sweep. Pure-fusion bombs could be more compact than today's nukes and yield almost no fallout. Current devices get most of their power from hydrogen atoms fusing together, but it takes a mighty match--a fission blast--to spark the process. And fission means fallout. A pure-fusion weapon would emit plenty of killing radiation, but as short-lived neutrons. "You could move your troops in 48 hours, because there would be no fallout," says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Md. That's a military advantage, but it could lower the threshold for using these weapons.
<br>
<br>Fission also requires a critical mass of plutonium or uranium; without it, pure-fusion weapons "can be as small as you like, virtually atomic bullets," says Andre Gsponer of the Independent Scientific Research Institute in Geneva, which studies arms control. He thinks, however, that they will make their debut as ultrapotent cruise-missile warheads.
<br>
<br>The technical hitch--a big one--is sparking fusion without fission. The $3.5 billion, stadium-size National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California will explore one approach. Starting in 2008, NIF will fire 192 laser beams at pea-size capsules of hydrogen isotopes, crushing and heating them to 100 million degrees to ignite fusion. NIF officials point out that they are not developing laser-powered bombs. "No, not from any aspect that you could possibly look at," says NIF chief George Miller. "It is not feasible, and we are not planning on doing it." NIF's mission is to study the possibility of civilian fusion power plants and do basic research to help assess the readiness of the existing nuclear arsenal. But what NIF reveals about triggering fusion without fission could prove useful to weapons designers, say some experts. Says Glen Wurden, a fusion physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory: "Laser fusion works in a way very similar to a weapon."
<br>
<br>Clues could also come from Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, where the "Z machine" runs an enormous jolt of electric current through a bundle of very thin wires. The result is an imploding plasma, which emits a burst of X-rays that might catalyze fusion. Some theorists even speculate that morsels of antimatter could serve as the trigger, although so far physicists have created no more than a few antiatoms.
<br>
<br>The hurdles could stretch the timetable to decades. But even in 1997, pure-fusion weapons seemed plausible enough for Hans Bethe, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and veteran of the A-bomb effort, to urge President Clinton not to fund research on them. These days, little bombs are starting to loom bigger.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>PHOTO (COLOR): LITTLE BANG. A 1960s "nuclear bazooka" and the National Ignition Facility. NIF's basic research on fusion might one day aid designers of new baby nukes.
<br>
<br>PHOTO (COLOR)
<br>
<br>~~~~~~~~
<br>
<br>By James M. Pethokoukis/p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_103');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 103 -->
<a name="x104"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x104" class="tiny">x104</a>
McKenna, Ted : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">FLASH IN THE PLAN</a></h1>
<h2>2003-12</h2>
<div id="sect_104" style="display: block;">
<p>FLASH IN THE PLAN: Directed-energy weapons remain more experimental than available
<br>McKenna, Ted
<br>Microwave Journal; Dec 2003; 46, 12; ProQuest Science Journals
<br>pg. 80
<blockquote><p>During Operation Allied Force in the Balkans in the late '90s, the Russian news agency Tass ran a story quoting the Russian defense minister at the time as saying the US had dropped an e-bomb from a B-2 stealth bomber over Kosovo for the purpose of destroying radio and electronic equipment. Pentagon officials denied this. Moreover, the US has quelled rumors that it employed e-bombs in the Iraq War.
<br>...
<br>The US views extremely precise weapons as useful for, among other things, taking out phone networks, power grids, and command-and-control centers, while avoiding harming civilians or civilian infrastructure as much as possible. Sometimes the line between civil and military infrastructure is blurry, as in the case of Iraq, for example. A June 2001 report from the US Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics on "High Energy Laser Weapons Systems Applications" found that "high power lasers have the potential to change future military operations in dramatic ways" and that the US can "exploit current high energy laser technology to take advantage of speed-of-light engagement, precisely controlled efforts, deep magazines, low cost per shot and reduced logistics footprint."
<br>...
<br>Of course, directed-energy devices like RF jammers are standard equipment for many aircraft these days, effective for interfering with enemy radar or communications systems. But the various types of directed-energy weapons under development, the closest to being fielded are those that use lasers. ... The US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Kirtland AFB, NM, for example, in conjunction with the Department of Defense's Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate, has developed a laser weapon that produces a burning sensation in people's skin. A project on which the US has spent about $40 millino over the last 10 years, the "active denial technology," as it is called is an alternative to tear gas or rubber bullts, beaming 95-GHz millimeter waves that penetrate just the first layer of skin to create a burning senation intended to encourage people to move away.
<br>...
<br>Figure 1 The Airborne Laser (ABL) program would use laser-equipped aircraft to shoot down ballistic missiles in the air but still over enemy territory. Two lasers do the job: a solid-state laser that measures and helps the ABL adjust for atmospheric conditions, and a chemical laser that does the actual damage. Boeing has successfully tested the mid-air refueling capabilities of the plane, which is a modified 747-100 freighter.
<br>...
<br>Meanwhile, in live-fire tests last fall of the joint US-Israeli Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL) -- a ground-based laser for shooting down incoming short-range rockets and artillery projectiles that the governments aim to have in the field by 2007 -- the system successfully shot down an artillery projectile in mid-air (Figure 2). Another project involving space-based lasers, which would mount lasers on orbiting satelites, has lately seen budget cuts by the US Congress and is at least decades away from deployment, according to a recent report from the Lexington Institute on directed-energy weapons.
<br />
<br>Thus, these and other efforts to develop laser weapons remain in the developmental phase. Meanwhile, even less information is being made available about development of weapons based on the invisible, lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Nuclear weapons feature as one of their attributes the emission of large EM waves, which are particularly devastating when released at high altitudes (Figure 3). Because nuclear detonations create such extreme effects, military research arencies of the US and other countries hope to create EM weapons of a non-nuclear variety.
<br>...
<br>Figure 2 The Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) is a ground-based system designed to shoot down airborne targets such as artillery shells, mortars and unmanned aerial vehicles. During tests in 2000 and 2001, it shot down a total of 25 Katyusha rockets. The US and Israel jointly funded development of the technology, and a compact, more transportable version is also being developed.
<br></p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 104 -->
<a name="x105"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x105" class="tiny">x105</a>
Muellner, George K. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_105');">Battlefield 2030 Interoperability of a myriad of emerging broadband capabilities will become key</a></h1>
<h2>2003-12</h2>
<div id="sect_105" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 159.24 (Dec 15, 2003): 76-78.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Traditional elements of combat power will still be relevant years from now, but their employment will be part of a significantly different concept of operations (Conops). This new Conops will rapidly and decisively exploit superior knowledge of the battlefield, the enemy and home forces to prosecute attacks against the enemy at the tactical, operational and strategic levels in near-simultaneous fashion. The primary determinant of the future battlefield is the ability of the military to reinvent or transform itself to adapt to the environment. True revolutions in military affairs only occur when militaries transform Conops, organizations, and cultures to exploit emergent technologies fully. Future warfare will be dominated by the control of information. Properly exploited, information produces knowledge. Thus, gaining and maintaining information superiority will be an imperative. This will be challenging as adversaries will have access to many of the same capabilities.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The determinants of success on the battlefield of 2030 will not be aircraft, ships or tanks, but rather, the exploitation of knowledge and speed of execution based on that knowledge. Clearly, traditional elements of combat power will still be relevant, but their employment will be part of a significantly different concept of operations (Conops). This new Conops will rapidly and decisively exploit superior knowledge of the battlefield, the enemy and "home" forces to prosecute attacks against the enemy at the tactical, operational and strategic levels in near-simultaneous fashion.
<br>
<br>Through the ages, warfare has changed dramatically with the emergence of new technologies. These advances are accelerating across many domains and many of the technologies that will enable military action in 2030 are already visible, enabling execution of existing operations or development of entirely new Conops.
<br>
<br>The primary determinant of the future battlefield is the ability of the military to reinvent or transform itself to adapt to the environment. True revolutions in military affairs (RMAs) only occur when militaries transform Conops, organizations and cultures to exploit emergent technologies fully. New technologies applied to existing Conops can improve effectiveness; however, new Conops enabled by new technologies can change the very nature of warfare.
<br>
<br>The Concept of Operations
<br>
<br>Future warfare will be dominated by the control of information. Properly exploited, information produces knowledge--of the environment, the enemy and home forces. Thus, gaining and maintaining information superiority will be an imperative. This will be challenging as adversaries will have access to many of the same capabilities. Even a niche adversary will have significant information ability through exploitation of commercial faculties.
<br>
<br>As with other forms of warfare, information warfare will have offensive and defensive elements. Unique to information warfare is the ability to easily and simultaneously conduct operations at the tactical, operational and strategic levels. Information warriors can stage operations at any location where they can access the supporting networks. In the globally connected world of 2030, that will be almost anywhere.
<br>
<br>To dominate the future battlefield, the information domain must also be dominated. Multiphenomenological information must be collected, processed into useful knowledge and rapidly disseminated to decision-makers who can utilize it to shape and influence the combat sphere. At the same time, adversaries must be denied this capability. Gaining and maintaining information superiority will require a robust intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability and seamless communications with every element of the force.
<br>
<br>By 2030, space will be the center of gravity for ISR activities, and these assets will clearly be threatened. Terrestrial, airborne and space ISR assets must be fully integrated to support knowledge creation and they must be protected against physical, electronic and information warfare attacks. The ability to reconstitute their capability rapidly must also be established.
<br>
<br>The second major determinant of success on the future battlefield will be the ability to produce decisive effects quickly. Speed of execution requires being able to project influence in all three dimensions on a battlefield rapidly. This influence might consist of a warhead on a target, infusion of ground forces or implanting a computer virus in a key network. Since specific effects are desired, timing, precision and weapons sizing will be critical.
<br>
<br>The technologies to enable this type of warfare are also becoming available. Knowledge creation will be aided by: improvements in information processing and storage; intelligent agents and decision-aiding software; digitally reprogrammable communication devices and broadband (including laser) communication links; persistent, survivable unmanned ISR vehicles, responsive, reusable launch vehicles that could deploy micro- or nano-satellites and stealthy interceptors to attack or defend high-value sensor systems.
<br>
<br>Technologies that will enable greater speed of execution include: ultra-precise weapons; highly survivable supersonic and hypersonic stand-off weapons; offensive information warfare tools; long-range, unmanned, survivable delivery platforms with large payloads that can provide persistency over the battlefield; long-range transports that can deploy ground forces rapidly; directed-energy weapons that provide speed-of-light closure and more deployable ground forces.
<br>
<br>These emergent technologies can be harnessed to create a new way of war--a concept of operations where superior knowledge is exploited with speed of execution inside an adversaries' decision/action cycle. This Conops will exploit the ability to conduct continuous engagement throughout the battlespace, seize and maintain initiative and shape outcome with minimum, precise application of force.
<br>
<br>Such a Conops would utilize speed of maneuver and precision strike to mass effects without the need to mass forces. When this speed of movement is coupled with a minimal in-theater logistics footprint, an adversaries' targeting options are minimal and fleeting. The simultaneity of operations across tactical, operational and strategic levels of conflict is designed to paralyze the enemy.
<br>
<br>The Battlefield
<br>
<br>On the battlefield, this Conops looks dramatically different. There are no defined lines of troops or forward or rear areas. Dispersed, knowledge-enabled entities conduct near-simultaneous, synchronized engagements across the battlespace. Each entity has common, shared battlespace awareness and seamless interoperability with the other systems. This network-enabled force can therefore collaborate to achieve a synchronization of force application and speed of command that maximizes its effect on the battlefield.
<br>
<br>Information and air and space superiority are essential to provide the freedom of action necessary to prosecute this type of campaign. Early engagements are likely to occur to protect networks or high-value knowledge-creating assets.
<br>
<br>Ground forces are inserted at the appropriate location, achieve their desired effects and are withdrawn quickly. Upon insertion, these forces are supported by a self-forming "task force" of resources. Knowledge and battlespace awareness are provided by the network. Fire support for these ground forces may come from an "arsenal aircraft" overhead, a ship offshore or a remote battery. Joint and coalition operations will require seamless interoperability between the land, sea and aerospace forces. This interoperability demands not only shared information and battlespace awareness but also interdependence in the application of maneuver and precision engagement on the battlefield.
<br>
<br>A COMMAND-AND-control and decision-making environment will need to exist to allow commanders to execute dynamic planning and maintain full battlespace awareness at very high levels of operational tempo. All entities will continually report their system health and logistics state. Resupply and other logistics support will be autonomic and largely supported from outside the theater to reduce theater footprint.
<br>
<br>Thus, the battles of 2030 will be fought on the ground and at sea as well as in air, space and information networks that support an adversary's way of life. Engagement in all of these domains will be necessary. It is this simultaneous, theater-wide engagement across the tactical, operational and strategic levels that will characterize warfare.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Biography:
<br>
<br>George K. Muellner has been senior vice president/general manager of Air Force Systems for the Integrated Defense Systems business unit of the Boeing Co. since July 2002. The sector is responsible for all air and space systems and system-of-systems programs the company is conducting for the U.S. Air Force. Previously, Muellner was president of Phantom Works, Boeing's advanced research and development unit. He joined Boeing in 1998 after serving 31 years in the U.S. Air Force, retiring as a lieutenant general. Muellner's last USAF position was principal deputy for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition in Washington.
<br>
<br>Illustration
<br>
<br>Photo: photograph: USAF Lt. Gen. (ret.) George K. Muellner
<br>
<br>Credit: George K. Muellner
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_105');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 105 -->
<a name="x106"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x106" class="tiny">x106</a>
Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">Advanced Radiation Sources and Applications</a></h1>
<h2>2004</h2>
<div id="sect_106" style="display: block;">
<p><i>Advanced Radiation Sources and Applications</i> edited by Helmut Wiedemann, Stanford University, Applied Physics Department and SSRL/SLAC, Stanford, CA, U.S.A.
<br>Published in cooperation with NATO Public Diplomacy Division
<br>
<br><i>Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Advanced Radiation Sources and Applications</i>
<br>Nor-Hamberd, Yerevan, Armenia; August 29-September 2, 2004.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 106 -->
<a name="x107"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x107" class="tiny">x107</a>
Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_107');">Strategic Shift; Services consider adjusting spending plans on bombers and other aircraft programs</a></h1>
<h2>2004-01</h2>
<div id="sect_107" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 160.4 (Jan 26, 2004): 31.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>The US military strategy is set to be revamped, with its focus changing from assigning forces and planning combat regionally to a more global approach that would include areas currently neglected. The adjustments are expected to have hardware implications, particularly as the Pentagon starts drafting its Fiscal 2006 budget in the coming months. Other issues are also under scrutiny. Air Force officials, for instance, are trying to determine whether their long-range strike plans should entail developing a new bomber or whether the mission could be accomplished better another way. Along with the broader focus on potential conflict zones, the Pentagon is transitioning to a global sourcing approach that would provide commanders more freedom to choose systems and units they need for a conflict.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>The U.S. military strategy is set to be revamped, with its focus changing from assigning forces and planning combat regionally to a more global approach that would include areas currently neglected.
<br>
<br>The adjustments are expected to have hardware implications, particularly as the Pentagon starts drafting its Fiscal 2006 budget in the coming months. Other issues are also under scrutiny. Air Force officials, for instance, are trying to determine whether their long-range strike plans should entail developing a new bomber or whether the mission could be accomplished better another way.
<br>
<br>Spotlighting an "arc of instability" is one of the main changes that planners will focus on, says Rear Adm. Richard W. Hunt, the Joint Staff's deputy director for strategy and policy. Four regions--Southwest Asia, Northeast Asia, the East Asian littorals and Europe--dominate the thinking in the current national security strategy. The "arc of instability" would include Latin and South America and encompass transnational threats not covered in the existing approach.
<br>
<br>The plans still need to be completed, Hunt says, but they could already be reflected in the next National Security Strategy, which the White House is required to unveil before mid-February. It would also provide the underpinning to next year's Quadrennial Defense Review. Top military officials are expected to discuss the implications of the changes this week during a meeting of regional four-star combatant commanders.
<br>
<br>Along with the broader focus on potential conflict zones, the Pentagon is transitioning to a "global sourcing" approach that would provide commanders more freedom to choose systems and units they need for a conflict. Currently, the military tailors its forces in a region based on a presumed scenario, which is not as flexible, Hunt suggested. The new outlook would reflect a prior Pentagon decision to appoint the Special Operations Command as its lead organization in fighting terrorism. Socom typically takes a more global approach to using its units than the rest of the military.
<br>
<br>As part of the "global sourcing" concept, U.S. military representatives in recent months have been reviewing basing requirements, with an eye on closing existing infrastructure that's seen as strategically less useful, for instance in Western Europe, and instead seeking new, perhaps less permanent, operating locations in Eastern Europe and Africa. Negotiations are now underway with potential host countries, which would be followed by site surveys. The realignment will be gradual and take several years, Hunt noted.
<br>
<br>In parallel, the Air Force has been reviewing its global strike needs, both near term and into the future. The service was conducting a range of separate studies in this field on a variety of topics, and decided to pool them as part of a long-range strike summit held last month, says Brig. Gen. Stephen Goldfein, USAF's director of operational capability requirements. Concrete recommendations are still being compiled, although industry officials note no major changes loom. Any near-term decisions would likely affect the Fiscal 2006 budget.
<br>
<br>For now, the Air Force will focus on enhancing its existing bombers, the B-1Bs, B-2As and B-52Hs, says Gen. Michael Moseley, USAF vice chief of staff. Goldfein noted that the service's bomber spending plan in the coming years will top $3.5 billion.
<br>
<br>One of the most politically sensitive questions concerns what course the service will take in the future. Bomber advocates in Congress have urged the Air Force to begin work on a new aircraft, rather than waiting to field a new system until 2037. The Pentagon wants to hold off on a new development project. But more than that, Moseley and Goldfein indicated the service is trying to determine if a new bomber is the way to go. Goldfein said the Air Force is assessing whether the road map developed several years ago, which calls for developing a new bomber, still makes sense, or whether emerging technology offers a different solution.
<br>
<br>A broad array of technology alternatives may emerge, he suggested. While being able to penetrate enemy air defenses is seen as critical, a weapon--such as a cruise missile--rather than an aircraft may be able to do that. Hypersonic vehicles, directed-energy weapons or an "arsenal vehicle"--a large, loitering aircraft that could launch weapons--could be options, Goldfein argued.
<br>
<br>But many of the more far-flung ideas already appear to be encountering skepticism at senior service levels. Moseley rejects pressure being put on the Air Force to more aggressively pursue development of a hypersonic exoatmospheric aircraft. Even if funding for the technology were boosted, Moseley doesn't believe it could be accelerated substantially. But he also suggested that firing long-range missiles isn't always an option because they take too long to reach a fleeting target.
<br>
<br>On a broader scale, the Air Force also is reviewing how much airframe life is left in its bombers and other aircraft, Goldfein said. The move appears to be driven, in part, by a drastic change in KC-135 airframe life estimates. Several years ago, USAF projected the tanker could be operated many more years. But more recently, as part of the debate about obtaining new KC-767 tankers, it argued that the KC-135s are in worse shape than thought.
<br>
<br>The Navy is reviewing some of its spending plans, too. It has assembled a task force to review all of its sensor programs and determine where to spend money in the realm of airborne surveillance and intelligence collection, says Capt. Joseph F. Kilkenny, who oversees the Navy's aircraft carrier, strike and expeditionary aviation programs. Moreover, a time-critical strike task force is evaluating where the service could spend a little money to greatly enhance its ability to attack fleeting targets.
<br>
<br>Kilkenny also is championing an effort to better integrate air-to-ground programs across the services, which could lead to more joint programs. Although the Navy and Air Force have often pursued different paths in this arena--most recently with a USAF decision to drop out of the Navy-led JSOW-B antiarmor glide bomb program in favor of an extended-range version of its own Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser--Goldfein says the services would be more collaborative on future munition efforts. Only in cases of a unique need, such as a huge weapon for its bombers, would the Air Force pursue an independent road, he maintains.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Photo: photograph: As part of its long-range strike review, USAF planners are trying to resolve what upgrades to make to their B-1Bs and other bombers to keep them operationally viable. <credit> THOMAS POWELL/USAF
<br>
<br>Credit: Robert Wall
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_107');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 107 -->
<a name="x108"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x108" class="tiny">x108</a>
Scott, William B : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">Army 'Ray Guns';</a></h1>
<h2>2004-02</h2>
<div id="sect_108" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 160.8 (Feb 23, 2004): 76.
<br>
<br>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Humvee-mounted tactical lasers designed to shield ground troops from air attacks
<br>
<br>Recent advancements in solid-state, high-energy pulsed lasers that dissipate heat rapidly will enable the deployment of mobile directed-energy weapon systems that heretofore have been limited to science fiction. When fielded, they are expected to revolutionize the battlefield, solving real-world tactical problems that range from small-unit air defense to clearing land mines.
<br>
<br>A government-industry team comprising the U.S. Army, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and several commercial companies is progressing rapidly toward demonstrating a 100-kw. solid-state heat-capacity laser (SSHCL) mounted on a hybrid gasoline-electric-powered Army Humvee. Air Force-funded researchers are competing with the Army/LLNL-led team to demonstrate a 25-kw.-class solid-state laser system by 2005. Last year, Army/LLNL researchers set a record for average power when a diode-pumped laser produced more than 16 kw. That unit is being upgraded, and is expected to exceed 25 kw. this spring (AW&ST Jan. 12, p. 43).
<br>
<br>In 2002, LLNL and its industrial partners demonstrated a refrigerator-size, flashlamp-pumped SSHCL that produced a high-quality 13,000-watt beam with 600-joule output pulses. A 6-sec. shot bored a 1-cm.-dia. hole through a 2-cm.-thick plate of steel. Until now, only large gas and chemical lasers could deliver that sort of fire power--but they aren't particularly mobile. For example, the chemical oxygen iodine laser flown on the Air Force's Airborne Laser system and designed to shoot-down theater ballistic missiles, consumes most of a Boeing 747 freighter's interior (AW&ST Jan. 5, p. 29).
<br>
<br>Today's nascent mobile, high-power SSHCLs offer soldiers unprecedented protection from airborne and air-delivered threats. For centuries, when a cannon, artillery or mortar shell was fired at an individual, that soldier had one option--find a hole or other cover and hope the munition landed somewhere else. The advent of air-to-ground rockets, missiles and bombs delivered from aircraft made the ground-pounder even more vulnerable. Only when air superiority over a battle zone was established by the air force could ground soldiers feel relatively safe from bombing, but artillery, surface-to-surface rockets and tactical missiles still sent them diving for a hole. Consequently, SSHCL-type laser systems will finally answer many a foxhole prayer by erecting an invisible shield over that battlefield and blasting incoming munitions of all types.
<br>
<br>When integrated with precision beam-control and active target acquisition systems, the SSHCL is expected to lock-on, track and destroy rockets, tactical missiles, mortar and artillery shells, and unmanned aerial vehicle threats. However, overall system response times probably won't be fast enough to defend troops against the rocket-propelled grenades that now plague U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Lloyd A. Hackel, program leader for LLNL's laser science and technology unit.
<br>
<br>A key "breakthrough" aspect of SSHCLs is the ability to produce high-energy pulses in a relatively small, mobile system. Hackel said fitting a practical solid-state laser weapon on a Humvee is definitely feasible. If researchers achieve their 100-kw. goal by 2007, as expected, solid-state lasers will become valuable air defense weapons that can travel with ground forces.
<br>
<br>To reach those power levels, flashlamp-pumped lasers in an SSHCL system will be replaced with new diode-pumped solid-state lasers. Light-producing diode array packages, though, experience rapid heat buildup when the laser is fired. An effective heat-control technique to increase the frequency of shots is to cycle a stack of crystalline slabs between a cooler and the laser weapon. A firing-heated slab is slid out of the laser and replaced with a slab pre-cooled by helium.
<br>
<br>The same Humvee-mounted SSHCL weapons that protect troops from incoming rockets, artillery and missiles also will be able to clear land mines, Hackel said. Mines located by a ground-penetrating radar or other sensor can either be detonated or disabled by the laser system.
<br>
<br>Whether intercepting a tactical missile or detonating a land mine, the SSHCL uses the same kill mechanism--imparting huge amounts of energy to a small area, which heats an explosive to its ignition point or disrupts firing-train components. That requires a few seconds of "dwell time"--keeping the laser focused on a target--which dictates precise beam control and target-tracking systems.
<br>
<br>Army officers predict solid-state directed-energy weapons will bring a number of subtle benefits beyond air defense and mine-clearing, such as:
<br>
<br>*Quick reaction. Transportable on a C-130, Humvee-mounted laser systems will be ready for action when they roll off an aircraft's loading ramp.
<br>
<br>*Rapid fire rates. High-energy lithium-ion batteries charged by the hybrid Humvee's generator will provide considerable power for repeated laser shots.
<br>
<br>*Stealthy operation. Solid-state laser weapons are quiet, produce no visible smoke and no detectable effluents, according to lab officials.
<br>
<br>*Cost-effectiveness. The primary logistics need is fuel for the Humvee, which provides power to its laser. The number of available shots--the SSHCL's "ammunition magazine"--is dictated by fuel tank capacity. About 1 liter (0.26 gal.) of fuel is consumed per laser shot.
<br>
<br>Considerable development is still required before SSHCL systems become viable weapons. Lab researchers admit that integration of many different components into a compact, minimum-weight, mobile system is "a critical engineering challenge," but insist the pace of development is dictated by funding. "We could build [a 100-kw. laser] sooner, if we had the money to buy more arrays and crystals," one said.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Caption: illustration: Equipped with a lethal, high-average-power, solid-state laser weapon system, a single Army Humvee will provide a short-range air defense capability to counter missiles, rockets and artillery (below).; illustration: Computational models and experiments are demonstrating the effectiveness of pulsed solid-state lasers against antitank missile fuses (right).
<br>
<br>Credit: Livermore, Calif.
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 108 -->
<a name="x109"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x109" class="tiny">x109</a>
Kelly, Michael F : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_109');">Powering the Future: Advances in Propulsion Technologies Provide a Capability Road Map for War-Fighter Operations</a></h1>
<h2>2004-03</h2>
<div id="sect_109" style="display: block;">
<p>Powering the Future: Advances in Propulsion Technologies Provide a Capability Road Map for War-Fighter Operations
<br>Kelly, Michael F
<br>Air & Space Power Journal; Spring 2004; 18, 1; ProQuest Science Journals
<br>pg. 51
<blockquote><p>Already, scientists and engineers can imagine exciting possible solutions as current technology matures -- from superconducting power generation that enables high-power, directed-energy weapons to supersonic and hypersonic engines that can power long-range strike aircraft and advanced rocket propulsion and air-breating hypersonic engines to enable easy access to space. Work is also well underway developing electric-, solar-, laser-, and plasma-propulsion systems for mini- and microsatellites of the future.
<br>...
<br>The directorate's work in advanced electrical power and thermal management technologies is also enabling concepts like high-power laser weapons on fighter aircraft, high-power microwave weapons for attacking electronics, and nonlethal millimeter wave technologies that use electromagnetic energy to repel advancing adversaries. Recent advancements have been made in serveral areas addressing the challenges of supporting these futuristic weapons.<sup>18</sup>
<br>One of the most critical poroblems facing the future implementation of these directed-energy weapon (DEW) systems is adequate electrical power. Adding DEWs to the war-fighter's arsenal would provide the Air Force with a significiant transformational capability. Scientists and engineers are aggressively working to mature the technologies needed to package and deliver multimegawatts of power in the confined space of a fighter aircraft or space platform. They are developing a new class of electrical components that operate at higher temperatures, such as switches and capacitors, along with super-conductivity and thermal-management technologies. All have shown tremendous progress in recent years. ... These improvements are crucial for airborne applications of DEW because they offer considerable savings in system weight, improved electrical performance, and the ability to withstand high-temperature operating environments.
<br>The next-generation high-temperature superconducting wire, dubbed YBCO for its molecular configuration of yttrium, barium, and copper oxide, is another key DEW-enabling technology. By using YBCO conductor technology, high-speed and high-temperature superconducting generators can produce megawatts of electrical power while weighing up to 80 percent less than traditional iron-core generators.
<br>Conceptually, one- to five-megawatt power generators would allow the electrical DEW to operate as long as jet fuel is available to turn the turbine engines, thereby providing a "deep ammunition magazine." Aerial refueling would elminate the requirment to land and rearm the aircraft in a conventional sense. In contrast, the Airborne Laser (ABL) program's platform uses a chemcially fueled laser to shoot down ballistic missiles... When all chemical reactants are expended, the aircraft must return to base for reloading.<sup>19</sup>
<br>
<br><sup>17</sup> Michael Kelly, "Power Technologies Create Revolution," <i>Leading Edge Magazine</i>, January 2003, 12, https://www.afmc-mil.wpafb.af.mil/organizations/HQ-AFMPC/PA/leading_edge/archvies/2003/Jan/JanWeb.pdf
<br>
<br><sup>18</sup> Michael Kelly, "Powering Transformation: Path to Tactical Directed-Energy Weapons Now Reality Thanks to New Power Technologies," <i>Leading Edge Magazine</i>, August 2003, 10, https://www.afmc-mil.wpafb.af.mil/organizations/HQ-AFMC/PA/leading_edge/archives/2003/Aug/Augweb03.pdf
<br>
<br><sup>19</sup> Ibid
<br>
<br></p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_109');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 109 -->
<a name="x110"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x110" class="tiny">x110</a>
Kelly, Michael F. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">Powering the Future: Advances in Propulsion Technologies Provide a Capability Road Map for War-Fighter Operations</a></h1>
<h2>2004-03</h2>
<div id="sect_110" style="display: block;">
<p>Air & Space Power Journal 18.1 (Spring 2004): 51-59.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Gen Hap Arnold's commitment to "preeminence in research," the belief that technology superiority leads to air and space superiority, remains the hallmark of Air Force culture. Air Force success in providing the nation with a rapid air and space response capability requires researchers to continue to provide advancements in a number of technologies. Propulsion and power solutions for aircraft, weapons, and space systems are especially important technologies and are recognized as critical enablers, also making the test facilities that support the research and development of those revolutionary and transformational technologies critical to our progress. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full text
<blockquote><p>Headnote
<br>
<br>Editorial Abstract:Gen Hap Arnold's commitment to "preeminence in research," the belief that technology superiority leads to air and space superiority, remains the hallmark of Air Force culture. Air Force success in providing the nation with a rapid air and space response capability requires researchers to continue to provide advancements in a number of technologies. Propulsion and power solutions for aircraft, weapons, and space systems are especially important technologies and are recognized as critical enablers, also making the test facilities that support the research and development of those revolutionary and transformational technologies critical to our progress.
<br>
<br>GEN HENRY H. "Hap" Arnold, architect of American airpower, said it plainly and persuasively nearly six decades ago, "The first essential of air power is preeminence in research." That simple, yet prescient statement in the early, heady days of flight revealed Arnold's vision for aeronautical research and development that went on to profoundly shape the future Air Force.1 By combining his vision, political savvy, piloting skills, and engineering knowledge, Arnold was able to forge a mission and place for the US Air Force. As one of the country's first to earn his military aviator wings from the Wright brothers, he was especially interested in the development of sophisticated air and space technology that could give the United States an edge in achieving air superiority. Arnold went on to foster the development of such transformational innovations as jet aircraft, rocketry, and supersonic flight.2
<br>
<br>In many ways Arnold institutionalized a commitment to research that remains evident today as the Air Force upholds a position of technological leadership-leadership that delivers a steady infusion of new technology to war fighters through high-risk, high-payoff research in the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). More importantly, his vision of building technological superiority laid the foundation for our capacity to achieve today's Air Force distinctive capabilities-air and space superiority, information superiority, global attack, precision engagement, rapid global mobility, and agile combat support. Arnold's commitment to technology superiority remains the hallmark of Air Force culture.
<br>
<br>For over 85 years, Propulsion Directorate scientists, engineers, support personnel, and contractors have been answering Arnold's call for world-class research that puts capabilities into the hands of Air Force war fighters to help them dominate air and space-now and in the future. Its 450 ongoing programs, over 1,000 people, and an annual budget of more than $300 million not only have provided a complete spectrum of advanced propulsion technologies for aircraft, rockets, and spacecraft but also have conducted leading-edge research and development in air and space fuels, propellants, and power systems.3 Their inventions have expanded the envelope of propulsion technologies and pushed air and space vehicles higher, faster, and farther-even into space-than Orville and Wilbur Wright ever could have imagined. Today, those technologies are flying in air and space on more than 130 military and commercial systems, including the F/A-22 Raptor, the newly christened F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and the twin Mars rovers-Spirit and Opportunity, which successfully landed and began their explorations on the red planet in January 2004.4 This article discusses mainly the directorate's efforts and their actual and potential impacts-efforts that have been accomplished, are in progress, and are planned for the future.
<br>
<br>Technological advancements in the early days of flight brought a whole new set of challenges, and history books confirm the key role that propulsion technologies played in meeting those challenges and in the nation's many air and space accomplishments. The late Melvin Kranzberg, professor of history at case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said the technical innovation in the Wright brothers' airplane quickly necessitated additional technical advances to make it more effective.5 Those advances in engines, cooling systems, propellers, power systems, and fuel were closely linked to the Power Plant Section at McCook Field in Dayton, Ohio-first home to the Army Air Corps's aircraft-engineering functions and great-grandfather to today's Propulsion Directorate. The innovations in propulsion and power that were inspired by the Wright brothers and accomplished through the years at McCook Field, Wright Field, and later, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and Edwards Air Force Base, California, dramatically changed the course of aviation and its applications.
<br>
<br>In the air and space age, propulsion research and development capabilities will continue to be of even greater and more urgent importance. F. Whitten Peters, former secretary of the Air Force and now vice-chairman of the Commission on the Future of the US Aerospace Industry, agreed with the judgment reached by that commission in 2002 that propulsion is the crucial enabler to the nation's future air and space capabilities. The commission reached that conclusion after meeting with over 100 companies, government organizations, and interest groups, having heard from more than 60 witnesses and spoken with the government and industry representatives from seven foreign countries.6
<br>
<br>With an eye on maintaining and strengthening future capabilities, the nation must build a rapid air and space response force enabling robust, distributed military operations across the service's core competencies.7 As has been true in past endeavors, the long-term challenge in building a rapid air and space response capability will be developing the technologies that enable quick reaction to war-fighter operations or crises wherever needed, much like those Arnold envisioned in the early days of flight.
<br>
<br>Meeting and overcoming this challenge will require significant innovation. Already, scientists and engineers can imagine exciting possible solutions as current technology matures-from superconducting power generation that enables high-power, directed-energy weapons to supersonic and hypersonic engines that can power long-range strike aircraft and advanced rocket propulsion and air-breathing hypersonic engines to enable easy access to space. Work is also well under way developing electric-, solar-, laser-, and plasma-propulsion systems for mini- and microsatellites of the future.
<br>
<br>While many of these technologies may seem like science fiction, so too were the jet engine, the airplane, and the rocket engine only 100 years ago. Fifty years from now, some of these new technologies may still seem like science fiction, but others will have moved into the realm of the possible. The task at hand for today's scientists and engineers is to perform research that identifies those breakthrough technologies and moves them from science fiction to science fact.8
<br>
<br>Propulsion and Power for Aircraft
<br>
<br>If the Air Force is to succeed in providing the nation with a rapid air and space response capability, researchers must provide a number of technologies including a focus on propulsion and power solutions for aircraft, weapons, and space systems.9 Although it is important to recognize propulsion as a critical enabler, so too are the test facilities that support the research and development of these revolutionary and transformational technologies.
<br>
<br>Revolutionary Propulsion and Power for Aircraft
<br>
<br>Propulsion researchers are already testing one of the most promising technologies supporting this capability: a supersonic combustion ramjet, or scramjet, engine that uses conventional jet fuels to reach hypersonic speeds-speeds over Mach 5. With technology of this type the Air Force could deliver a useful payload anywhere on Earth in a few hours, providing a force tailored to accomplish national objectives rapidly anywhere on the world's surface and in the near-Earth air and space domain.
<br>
<br>This new scramjet technology has the potential to power future hypersonic vehicles, such as cruise missiles and long-range strike and reconnaissance aircraft, at speeds up to eight times the speed of sound. While today's aircraft and missiles only fly up to the Mach 3 range, new hypersonic aircraft and weapons would offer a faster response to war fighters, giving them the ability to take out time-critical targets within a few hours, if not minutes.
<br>
<br>Dubbed "HyTech," for hypersonic technology, the program got its start in 1995 in the wake of the cancelled National Aero-Space Plane program-an effort aimed at developing a hydrogen-fueled, scramjet-powered, single-stage-to-orbit vehicle capable of aircraftlike horizontal takeoffs and landings. In contrast, the Air Force's version of the scramjet is designed to run on JP-7 fuel, a more logistically supportable fuel than hydrogen. While the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) continues to pursue the development of a hydrogen-fueled system with its "Hyper-X" program, the Air Force, by using hydrocarbon fuels like JP-7 instead of hydrogen, hopes to one day deploy these systems anywhere, anytime, and anyplace.
<br>
<br>Wind-tunnel tests on the engine, completed in June 2003, successfully demonstrated the operability, performance, and structural durability of the scramjet system. Building on more than 2,000 tests from components through an integrated, flight-weight engine, the directorate's scientists and engineers, as well as contractors from Pratt and Whitney and the United Technology Resource Center, have demonstrated that the engine works, and they are excited about extending this technology to systems that will give war fighters a distinct advantage over future enemies. With 25 runs at Mach 4.5 and Mach 6.5, the flight-weight engine reliably produced significant net positive thrust, which is important because it demonstrates the ability to efficiently burn fuel and accelerate a vehicle at these speeds. The thermal characteristics and structural durability of the engine were also validated at both speeds.
<br>
<br>Another propulsion team is exploring the pulsed detonation engine, or PDE-a new type of engine which may well be the first of its type to power an aircraft in flight. For years, propulsion researchers around the world have searched for a better, more efficient way to increase speed and improve the performance of aircraft. They believe that the PDE may one day fill that critical gap in America's ability to reach simple, low-cost, high-speed flight. Today, the PDE these researchers have developed creates thrust by using a series of controlled explosions of fuel and air in detonation tubes that look like long exhaust pipes. By designing a process in which the detonations of the fuel and air mixture are controlled, researchers were able to develop sufficient thrust to power future aircraft. The propulsion team is well on its way to proving the PDE concept as an inexpensive, simply constructed, and more efficient engine for tomorrow's war fighters. In fact, the PDE could bring a new level of efficiency and thrust capability to propulsion systems in the Mach 2 to Mach 4 range by improving fuel economy, demonstrating high thrust-to-weight ratios, and simplifying the engine's mechanical structure.
<br>
<br>Evolutionary Propulsion and Power for Aircraft
<br>
<br>The directorate is also pursuing improvements in more traditional turbine engine technologies to improve performance and reliability while reducing sustainment costs. Turbine engine research, development, acquisition, and sustainment are major Department of Defense (DOD) businesses with a collective annual investment of more than $5.7 billion, excluding fuel cost. Sustainment consumes 62 percent of that budget-more than $3.5 billion-which is why the Air Force's science and technology leaders place such great emphasis on reducing those costs.10 Keeping sustainment expenses in check is one of the goals of the air-breathing propulsion technology efforts in progress today, as well as those currently in the planning phases.
<br>
<br>The Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), NASA, and major US engine manufacturers have been jointly developing and demonstrating cutting-edge propulsion technologies for over a decade under the Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) program. That program has the goal of doubling propulsion-system capability and reducing acquisition and maintenance costs 35 percent by 2005. IHPTET technologies not only have successfully transitioned into many of the Air Force's legacy propulsion systems powering today's frontline military aircraft, but also are providing the enabling technologies for a wide range of new systems such as the JfSF.11
<br>
<br>Nearly every technology developed under the IHPTET program can, in some way, transition to the commercial sector to improve the performance, reliability, life, and operational cost characteristics of commercial turbine engines-in aircraft, marine, and industrial applications. These contributions help sustain the positive balance of air and space trade and maintain US market share in today's highly competitive, global economy. Without IHPTET program success, aggressive propulsion-technology development programs sponsored by world competitors would quickly challenge the US military and economic advantage in turbine propulsion.12
<br>
<br>Recent IHPTET successes are providing technologies that allow critical modernization of the F100, F110, and F404 families of engines-the backbone of Air Force frontline aircraft. Also, the knowledge necessary to fix problems currently encountered in the engines of the Air Force, Navy, and Army operational fleets is available because of IHPTET achievements. For example, IHPTET provided the key fan technology for the F118 engine powering the B-2 and demonstrated viability of the majority of technologies chosen for the F119 engine in the F/A-22. IHPTET is also the critical base for all JSF propulsion concepts and other new engines, such as the F414 powering the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.13 As a result of these recent accomplishments, turbofan and turbojet designs now being developed can achieve a 40 percent increase in thrust-to-weight and a 20 percent reduction in fuel burn over baseline engines; turboprop and turboshaft engines can attain similar results with a 40 percent gain in horsepower-to-weight and a 20 percent improvement in specific fuel consumption; and air-breathing missile engines can have a 35 percent increase in thrust-to-airflow, burn 20 percent less fuel, and cost 30 percent less.
<br>
<br>The performance improvements demonstrated in IHPTET efforts are also being traded to provide increased component lives or cost reductions in fielded systems. The third-phase goal of gaining a 100 percent increase in thrust-to-weight capability will enable specific system payoffs such as sustained Mach 3+ in an F-15-sized aircraft; greater range and payload in an F-18-sized, short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft; a 100 percent range and payload increase in a CH-47-sized helicopter; and intercontinental range in an air launched cruise missile (ALCM) sized missile.14
<br>
<br>Next-Generation Turbines
<br>
<br>Building on the IHPTET's successes, the Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine (VAATE) program is focused on achieving a tenfold improvement in turbine engine affordability by the year 2017 through a joint DOD, NASA, Department of Energy, and air and space industry effort. In parallel with increases in turbine-engine capability, the VAATE program places major emphasis on research and development, production, and maintenance costs. Its engines will contain numerous technology innovations, providing the war fighter the most versatile and affordable propulsion for legacy (F-16, F-15, and B-1), pipeline (F/A-22, F-35, unmanned combat aerial vehicle [UCAV]), and future military systems (long-range strike aircraft, global-reach transport, and supersonic UCAVs).15
<br>
<br>For the future, VAATE technologies will assure further dramatic improvements in turbine-engine affordability, not only for military applications such as aircraft, rotorcraft, missiles, and unmanned air vehicles (UAV), but also for America's domestic applications. VAATE attributes include an integrated inlet system; a low-emission combustion system; long-life, high-temperature turbines; high-temperature bearings and lubricants; and an automatic, adaptive-engine health-management system.
<br>
<br>The VAATE program is now an approved DOD technology objective and recently awarded its first major procurement activity to multiple defense contractors for approximately $350 million. Contracts are focused on material systems, advanced-fuel technology, and other system technologies required to enable a supersonic, long-range strike capability.16
<br>
<br>Electrical Power for Aircraft
<br>
<br>A revolutionary transformation in aircraft electrical-power technologies that promises greater aircraft reliability and a significantly smaller logistical tail to support tomorrow's air and space force is under way. The More Electric Aircraft (MEA) program is a reality that has been demonstrated in the newly christened F-35 JSF. By teaming with sister services, universities, and air and space industry partners, the directorate's power-technology researchers have translated three decades of technological progress into stunning advances that promise greater war-fighter capability and a 20 percent reduction of aerospace ground equipment (AGE).
<br>
<br>The fundamental transformation uses electrical power to drive aircraft subsystems currently powered by hydraulic, pneumatic, or mechanical means. It provides aircraft designers with more options to power gear-boxes, hydraulic pumps, electrical generators, flight-control actuators, and a host of other aircraft subsystems.17 New concepts like electric environmental control and electric fuel pumps, along with magnetic bearings for generators and eventually "more electric" turbine engines, are in the works. They promise dramatic simplifications in aircraft system design, while improving reliability and maintainability in the years to come.
<br>
<br>The MEA effort also promises to reduce the bulky and heavy AGE required at home and downrange during deployments and contingencies. Currently, the AGE that supports 24 F-16 Falcons includes electric generators, hydrazine servicing carts, air conditioners, high-pressure air carts, and hydraulic-fluid "mules"; 16 C-141 Starlifters are required for its transport. There could be a reduction of up to 20 percent in the size and weight of equipment required to support MEA units; the freed airlift could be used to transport other war-fighting assets.
<br>
<br>Other Propulsion and Power Applications
<br>
<br>To succeed in providing the full spectrum of rapid air and space response, Air Force researchers must provide a number of technologies that include a focus on propulsion and power solutions for weapons and space systems. As with other efforts, the directorate is collaborating with other government agencies, industry, and academia to develop, demonstrate, and transition propulsion and power technologies for use in these applications. Those efforts have the potential for evolutionary and revolutionary developments in a variety of air-breathing weapons, hypersonic and supersonic cruise missiles, airborne directed-energy weapons, rocket-powered missile systems, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), space launch, tactical missiles, and spacecraft propulsion.
<br>
<br>Propulsion and Power for Weapons
<br>
<br>The most strenuous near-term weapons application is for a scramjet-powered, fast-reaction, long-range, air-to-ground missile cruising at greater than Mach 6-more than 4,500 mph. That missile could be launched from a bomber or fighter, and its rocket booster would accelerate it to speeds of about Mach 4 where its scramjet would start and continue its acceleration to a cruising speed above Mach 6. Although its maximum flight duration is about 10 minutes, it flies seven times faster than a conventional cruise weapon to quickly cover hundreds of miles to reach time-critical targets. A single shooter employing this hypersonic weapon can cover 49 times the area reachable with a conventional cruise weapon.
<br>
<br>In the supersonic realm of weaponry, the VAATE program discussed earlier will enable a supersonic, long-range, modular cruise missile with a Mach 3.5+ cruise capability. This advanced weapon will also provide a rapid response time to target, coupled with a flexible mission profile, by using affordable, reliable, and high-performance turbine engines.
<br>
<br>The directorate's work in advanced electrical power and thermal management technologies is also enabling concepts like high-power laser weapons on fighter aircraft, high-power microwave weapons for attacking electronics, and nonlethal millimeter wave technologies that use electromagnetic energy to repel advancing adversaries. Recent advancements have been made in several areas addressing the challenges of supporting these futuristic weapons.18
<br>
<br>One of the most critical problems facing the future implementation of these directed-energy weapon (DEW) systems is adequate electrical power. Adding DEWs to the war-fighter's arsenal would provide the Air Force with a significant transformational capability. Scientists and engineers are aggressively working to mature the technologies needed to package and deliver multimegawatts of power in the confined space of a fighter aircraft or space platform. They are developing a new class of electrical components that operate at higher temperatures, such as switches and capacitors, along with superconductivity and thermal-management technologies. All have shown tremendous progress in recent years. For example, those involved in the developmental testing of diamond-like carbon capacitors say their progress is the most significant in decades. In fact, directorate researchers have enabled the production of capacitors with improved energy density and temperature capabilities that are more than two times better than today's state-of-the-art capacitors. These improvements are crucial for airborne applications of DEW because they offer considerable savings in system weight, improved electrical performance, and the ability to withstand high-temperature operating environments.
<br>
<br>The next-generation high-temperature superconducting wire, dubbed YBCO for its molecular configuration of yttrium, barium, and copper oxide, is another key DEW-enabling technology. By using YBCO conductor technology, high-speed and high-temperature superconducting generators can produce megawatts of electrical power while weighing up to 80 percent less than traditional iron-core generators.
<br>
<br>Conceptually, one- to five-megawatt power generators would allow the electrical DEW to operate as long as jet fuel is available to turn the turbine engines, thereby providing a "deep ammunition magazine." Aerial refueling would eliminate the requirement to land and rearm the aircraft in a conventional sense. In contrast, the Airborne Laser (ABL) program's platform uses a chemically fueled laser to shoot down ballistic missiles while they are still over an enemy's own territory. When all chemical reactants are expended, the aircraft must return to base for reloading.19
<br>
<br>Propulsion and Power for Missiles
<br>
<br>The ICBM is a more traditional weapon with propulsion and power requirements. Although many thought the end of the Cold War would mean the end of the ICBM with its nuclear warheads, this has not been the case. The proliferation of both nuclear and nonnuclear weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into nations and nonstate groups, including terrorists, presents serious challenges to the United States that necessitate the need for a continuednuclear force. However, this nuclear force must have global reach and the capability to be tailored to fit the target's unique requirements. Directorate scientists and engineers, having been involved in every ICBM development since the Atlas and Thor, foresaw this need and continued to pursue improvements in solid-rocket propulsion for next-generation ballistic and tactical missiles. Their $68 million missile research investments gave the Peacekeeper the ability to carry more than twice the payload of the Minuteman III, while fitting within the same silo, and saved the Peacekeeper program over $22 billion, a 32,000:1 return on research investment. Researchers continue to make important improvements in ICBM technologies, allowing the next ICBM to greatly exceed the range of the current Minuteman III.20
<br>
<br>Propulsion and Power for Space
<br>
<br>Scientists and engineers are also focused on the heavens with such collaborative efforts as the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) program, a national initiative to improve and double capabilities across the broad spectrum of our nation's rocket propulsion technology by 2010.21 This program addresses propulsion needs across space launch, ICBMs, tactical missiles, and spacecraft propulsion. It is also one of the few times since the development of the space shuttle main engine more than 30 years ago when the Air Force and NASA are jointly developing reusable rocket-engine boost technology for future DOD and NASA launch vehicles.
<br>
<br>IHPRPT teams with industry and focuses their research and development efforts in such areas as new propellants that break through the performance barrier of traditional chemical propellants. Their research and development (R&D) also includes new and more affordable propulsion subsystems for solid rocket motors and liquid-rocket engines; and electric propulsion for satellites; laser propulsion; and solar propulsion for orbit transfer.22
<br>
<br>A joint Air Force and NASA rocket-engine program called the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator (IPD) will demonstrate new designs and techniques for application in future liquid-rocket engines to enhance performance and save weight and costs. The program is a combination of research efforts and validation testing to provide new, more efficient portions of the rocket engine that precondition and pump liquid fuels and oxidizers into the main engine. The technology developed under the IPD program will provide the world's first hydrogen-fueled rocket engine with oxygen-rich staged combustion. The IPD test program expects to place a fully integrated engine on the NASA Stennis teststand facilities for testing in 2004.23
<br>
<br>While rocket engines have been around for decades, continued research like that being conducted through the IPD test program will lead to a very high return on this investment since propulsion remains a significant percentage of any vehicle's weight and cost. For instance, in space launch vehicles, propulsion accounts for 70 to 90 percent of the vehicle weight and 40 to 60 percent of the system costs. Satellite propulsion represents 50 to 70 percent of the weight and 25 to 40 percent of the costs. Also, a satellite's life span is limited to the lesser of either power or propulsion life, which is why researchers strive to develop smaller, lighter, more powerful, and more affordable propulsion and power systems to improve the capabilities in tomorrow's space vehicles.24
<br>
<br>These new launch vehicles could eventually meet an on-demand space-surge capability. It stands that if the Air Force could quickly provide joint force commanders with whatever space assets are required, then the Air Force could strategically respond to situations and minimize the need for ultrahigh-resolution worldwide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets in predictable orbits. Propulsion researchers are leading the way in arming the country's joint force commanders with the ability to respond rapidly in any given situation by supplying space assets in near real time. This can be accomplished by either launching and maneuvering new assets into place or by moving existing space platforms or weapons to wherever they are required within several hours.25
<br>
<br>Part of the HyTech program discussed earlier includes an effort to build a durable engine that provides affordable, reusable, on-demand space-access systems. The joint Air Force-NASA X43C program will demonstrate key technologies supporting this application. Conceivably, a two-stage-to-orbit vehicle could take off like a conventional aircraft powered by an advanced turbine engine like those being developed under VAATE and then reach Earth's upper atmosphere by combined scramjet-rocket power to put a payload into space. This concept would provide both ground basing and orbit flexibility at only half the cost of today's approaches, thereby giving the Air Force more affordable access to space.
<br>
<br>The nation currently has no truly reusable rocket engines for space launch. The space shuttle engines, based on research from the 1960s, are routinely pulled for maintenance and service after nearly every flight. If we are to achieve operationally responsive space lift by using truly reusable launch vehicles, the nation needs engines that can last a minimum of 50 flights between overhauls. So, while pursuing long-term, high-risk, high-payoff efforts like hypersonic engines for space access, researchers are also pursuing significant advances in liquid-rocket engines. Current and planned programs are developing the materials, components, fuels, and other technologies to enable truly reusable launch vehicles. In the future, hypersonics and rockets will come together in combined cycle engines providing further improvements in performance, cost, and responsiveness. Within 20 years, the nation will see the Wright brothers' vision being taken into space by operationally responsive launch vehicles, which will change the face of battle for many years to come.26
<br>
<br>In the nearer term, the Air Force has an increased requirement for propulsive microsatellites to support a range of future specialized missions. In conjunction with an operationally responsive space-lift capability, microsatellites could be used to rapidly reconstitute space assets that have failed, ensuring the war fighter uninterrupted service. Individual microsatellites can approach and inspect damaged satellites so the operator can then deploy specialized microsatellites to enact repairs, upgrade electronics, or refill propellant tanks.
<br>
<br>Scientists have invented the micropulsed plasma thruster, or microPPT. This miniaturized propulsion system weighs about 100 grams and provides precise impulse bits in the 10-micronewton range. These impulse bits provide attitude control on present 100-kilogram (kg) small satellites and station keeping, as well as primary propulsion on next-generation 25 kg microsatellites. The primary attractive features are the use of a solid, inert propellant (Teflon); expected high, specific impulse when combined with electromagnetic acceleration; and a simple, lightweight design based largely on commercial, flight-qualified electronic components. A comparatively simple version of the microPPT is undergoing flight engineering and qualification for demonstration aboard the US Air Force Academy Falcon-Sat III satellite scheduled to launch in 2006. Five microPPTs are manifested on the flight to increase attitude control for the vehicle.27
<br>
<br>Conclusion
<br>
<br>The intent in facing these technology challenges head-on is to seek out both linear and nonlinear solutions that provide significantly increased capabilities to America's war fighters. The linear challenges will be met with science and technology efforts maturing before 2020, which are continuations of today's current technology. These efforts offer lower risk and modest payoff, and they include reusable boost and orbit-transfer vehicles, solid and hybrid expendable launch vehicles, and satellite propulsion. The service's nonlinear challenges are efforts maturing after 2020 that are new technology breakthroughs involving higher risk but very high payoff. These include space ramjets, magnetohydrodynamics-enhanced propulsion, and directed-energy launches.28
<br>
<br>While these technology developments could lead to many strategic and force-structure implications, the Propulsion Directorate's goal remains focused on developing new propulsion and power technologies that support the Air Force vision of rapid air and space response. That focus is documented in a mutually supportive and coherent plan for air, space, and energy technologies that covers the next 20 to 50 years.
<br>
<br>Footnote
<br>
<br>Notes
<br>
<br>1. C. V. Glines, "Book review of Hap Arnold and the Evolution of American Air Power by Dik Man Daso," Aviation History Magazine, http://www.historybookworld.com/ reviews/hbwevolutionofamericanairpower.html.
<br>
<br>2. Pamela Feltus, "Henry 'Hap' Arnold," History of Flight Essays, US Centennial of Flight Web site, http:// www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/Hap_ Arnold/AP16.htm.
<br>
<br>3. Kristen Schario, "Powering the Future," Technology Horizons Magazine (PR-01-08), December 2001, http:// www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Dec01/PR0108.html.
<br>
<br>4. Ibid.
<br>
<br>5. Melvin Kranzberg and Carroll W. Pursell Jr., eds., Technology in Western Civilization: Technology in the Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
<br>
<br>6. F. Whitten Peters (keynote address, 2002 Turbine Engine Technology Symposium, Dayton, OH, September 9, 2002).
<br>
<br>7. Dr. Alan Garscadden and Michael Kelly, "Rapid Aerospace Response: Technological Capabilities Can Provide a Roadmap for War-Fighter Operations," Technical Horizons Magazine, December 2003, http://www.afrl horizons.com/Briefs/Dec03/PR0305.html.
<br>
<br>8. Ibid.
<br>
<br>9. Ibid.
<br>
<br>10. IHPTET brochure, http://www.pr.afrl.af.mil/ divisions/prt/ihptet/ihptet_brochure.pdf.
<br>
<br>11. Peters.
<br>
<br>12. S. Michael Gahn and Robert W. Morris Jr., eds., "Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) Program Brochure," 2002, http://www. pr.afrl.af.mil/divisions/prt/ihptet/ihptet_brochure.pdf.
<br>
<br>13. Ibid.
<br>
<br>14. Ibid.
<br>
<br>15. IHPTET brochure.
<br>
<br>16. Ibid.
<br>
<br>17. Michael Kelly, "Power Technologies Create Revolution," Leading Edge Magazine, January 2003, 12, https:// www/afmc-mil.wpafb.af.mil/organizations/HQ-AFMPC/ PA/leading_edge/archives/2003/Jan/JanWeb.pdf.
<br>
<br>18. Michael Kelly, "Powering Transformation: Path to Tactical Directed-Energy Weapons Now Reality Thanks to New Power Technologies," Leading Edge Magazine, August 2003, 10, https://www.afmc-mil.wpafb.af.mil/organizations /HQ-AFMC/PA/leading_edge/archives/2003/Aug/ Augweb03.pdf.
<br>
<br>19. Ibid.
<br>
<br>20. John Remen, Air Force Research Laboratory Propulsion Directorate, Space & Missile Propulsion Division's strategic development manager, interview by the author, September 2003.
<br>
<br>21. Schario, "Powering the Future."
<br>
<br>22. "Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) Program Background," http://www.pr. afrl.af.mil/technology/IHPRPT/ihprpt.html.
<br>
<br>23. Ranney Adams, "Air Force Research Laboratory Leading U.S. Rocket Engine Innovations," Aerotech News and Review, July 14, 2003, http://www.aerotechnews.com/ StoryArchive/2003/071403/afrl.html.
<br>
<br>24. Schario, "Powering the Future."
<br>
<br>25. Garscadden and Kelly, "Rapid Aerospace Response."
<br>
<br>26. Remen, interview.
<br>
<br>27. Dr. Greg Spanjers, "New Satellite Propulsion System Has Mass Below 100 Grams," Technology Horizons Magazine, December 2001.
<br>
<br>28. Garscadden and Kelly, "Rapid Aerospace Response."
<br>
<br>AuthorAffiliation
<br>
<br>MAJ MICHAEL F. KELLY, USAF, RETIRED
<br>
<br>Copyright U.S. Superintendent of Documents Spring 2004
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 110 -->
<a name="x111"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x111" class="tiny">x111</a>
Adams, Eric. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_111');">Is This What War Will Come To? Even as the Pentagon struggles with the low-tech reality of war in Iraq, it looks to increasingly bizarre-sounding technology for next-gen fighting systems. On the following pages, five chapters from the Pentagon's sci-fi future.;</a></h1>
<h2>2004-06</h2>
<div id="sect_111" style="display: block;">
<p>Popular Science 264.6 (Jun 2004): 62.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Even as the Pentagon struggles with the low-tech reality of war in Iraq, its defense engineers are looking to increasingly bizarre-sounding technology for the next generation of defense weaponry. Among the projects being researching and planned are a kinetic missile that flies at Mach 7 and a a gun that fires a million rounds a minute.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>See also additional image(s) in Cover Image file and Table ofContents of same issue
<br>
<br>If U.S. military weapons planners have learned anything from the varied conflicts of the past quarter century, it is that the challenges are not getting any more predictable. With the nature and capabilities of U.S. opponents changing on practically an engagement-by-engagement basis, deciding which new weapon technologies will best serve soldiers in the battle theaters of the future remains a high-stakes guessing game.
<br>
<br>The enemy is no longer necessarily a nation; it can be a terrorist cell. The enemy may not possess high-tech weaponry yet still pose a threat--by exploding truck bombs on suicide missions or by firing hand-launched missiles against F/A-22 fighter jets. Nor, despite the absolute technological supremacy of the U.S. military today, can strategists afford to ignore the possibility that a nation that has developed advanced weaponry might come to pose a threat in a nightmare future.
<br>
<br>The Joint Chiefs of Staff, which mulls responses to future conflict scenarios, is preparing for everything from ground invasions of North Korea to air strikes against terrorist camps. "The process is complicated by the fact that you are less certain than ever who you will be fighting and the circumstances under which you will be fighting them," says John Pike, a senior military analyst at GlobalSecurity.org, a think tank that specializes in evaluations of military technology and strategy. "When you don't know what problem you're trying to solve, it's hard to come to a solution."
<br>
<br>Efficiency is also a factor to a military that finds itself stretched from old bases in Europe to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to calls for intervention in Africa, Haiti and other hotspots. The scores of potential combat scenarios sketched out by the Joint Chiefs, as well as individual branches of the U.S. military, have convinced the Department of Defense that a fast-track modernization program is critical to national security. Many current weapons systems are fast becoming out-of-date, from aging attack helicopter fleets to the early-'60s-designed rifles troops carry on the ground. Key trends will be automation--unmanned land, air and underwater vehicles; communication networks that connect all the players in a battle theater, so that information flows freely between pilots, foot soldiers and commanders; and finding new ways to solve old problems--such as firing ballistics electrically rather than with explosives.
<br>
<br>But perhaps more in need of overhaul than the weapons systems themselves is the process that produces them. New weapons typically start out as ideas developed in one of the R&D labs belonging to the U.S. military or to private defense contractors such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin or hundreds of smaller companies around the country. As it progresses, though, a new technology may get bogged down by Byzantine red tape and excessive everything-but-the-kitchen-sink tinkering. Years may elapse--5, 10, 15 or more--while proposals and demonstrations are requested, Congressional approvals secured, contractors chosen, and the technology tested and fielded--and by then the weapon that emerges may be technologically obsolete, or designed for threats that no longer exist. The Defense Department has a history of continuing to fund needless programs because of political pressures and sheer momentum. A prime example: the Army's Comanche attack helicopter, which was canceled in February after a 21-year, $6.9 billion development program. One of its key missions, battlefield reconnaissance, is quickly being usurped by far less expensive unmanned aerial vehicles.
<br>
<br>Weapons procurement is also plagued by redundancy: More than one branch of the armed services may develop different systems that accomplish the same goal. This could range from small-caliber bullets being developed for each branch up to entire weapons platforms.
<br>
<br>Then there's the chicken-and-egg problem. New weapons usually address specific needs, but the reverse can occur. Military leaders can simply be dazzled by new technologies, and develop weapons to exploit them. "These are often solutions in search of problems," cautions analyst Loren Thompson of the Arlington, Virginia-based Lexington Institute, a Department of Defense watchdog organization. Meanwhile, U.S. military supremacy has made certain weapons systems seem like overkill--the submarine fleet, for example. In the case of the supercavitating torpedo described in this article, skeptics ask where the need is. "If we ever face a hostile navy again I'd like to take a look at it," says Thompson. "Obviously it's an improvement over what we have, but what's the enemy? It's not enough to have a weapon that can use new technology creatively. It needs to answer a valid military need or threat." It's also wise to recognize that the technological supremacy that drove U.S. forces into the heart of Baghdad in record time won't necessarily forestall the low-tech agony of the fight that has followed.
<br>
<br>To streamline weapons development, in the mid-1990s the Department of Defense implemented its advanced concept technology demonstration program, a sort of try-before-you-buy setup that helps bypass usual R&D hurdles. One result: In 1997 the Air Force, after only two-and-a-half years of development, put the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle into service. Then, in 2002, with only minimal testing, they equipped several of the drones with Hellfire missiles and used one to attack an al Qaeda vehicle in Yemen. "Someone came up with the idea and just did it," says Patrick Garrett, an associate analyst at GlobalSecurity.org. "It harkens back to the good old days of WWII."
<br>
<br>Another example of DoD-backed corner-cutting: the littoral combat ship, a versatile vessel with interchangeable modules that can be a minesweeper one day and a special forces troop lander the next. "It normally takes a decade or so for a new ship class to be decided," says Garrett, "but the Navy put out the bid in 2002, had five or six shipbuilders come up with designs, and they're hoping to start construction in 2005. That's a major feat."
<br>
<br>Officials hope new technologies will shorten combat, minimize casualties, and enable attacks to be carried out with greater precision. Many weapons in the pipeline, such as the space-launched darts and electromagnetic railgun, will use no explosives at all, relying instead on kinetic energy to destroy targets. Some, like Metal Storm, will use electricity rather than mechanical firing mechanisms. Laser weapons will disable enemy gear with heat rather than force, providing pinpoint accuracy and speed-of-light delivery.
<br>
<br>#1 A KINETIC MISSILE THAT FLIES AT MACH 7
<br>
<br>Picture this: A massive destroyer receives the location coordinates of an enemy headquarters more than 200 miles away. Instead of launching a million-dollar Tomahawk cruise missile, it points a gun barrel in the direction of the target, diverts electric power from the ship's engine to the gun turret, and launches a 3-foot-long, 40-pound projectile up a set of superconducting rails. The projectile leaves the barrel at hypersonic velocity--Mach 7-plus--exits the Earth's atmosphere, re-enters under satellite guidance, and lands on the building less than six minutes later; its incredible velocity vaporizes the target with kinetic energy alone.
<br>
<br>The U.S. Navy is developing an electromagnetic railgun that will turn destroyers into super-long-range machine guns--able to fire up to a dozen relatively inexpensive projectiles every minute. The Navy is collaborating with the British Ministry of Defence, which has a similar effort under way. In 2003, its facility in Kirkcudbright, Scotland, hosted a 1/8-scale test of an electromagnetic railgun that produced stable flight in a projectile fired out of the barrel at Mach 6. But Capt. Roger McGinnis, program manager for directed energy weapons at Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, D.C., estimates the U.S. version won't be "deliverable" until 2015 at the earliest.
<br>
<br>The technology behind the electromagnetic railgun has been around for more than 20 years, but early efforts wilted because of the huge power requirements: No ship could generate or store enough electricity to fire the gun. The concept was revived a few years ago when the Navy announced plans for its next-generation battleship, the all-electric DD(X). "In the past, destroyers had 90 percent of their power tied to propulsion," explains McGinnis. "But with DD(X), you can divert the power to whatever you need. We can stop the ship and fire the railgun as many times as we need, then divert the power back to the screws."
<br>
<br>The barrel of the electromagnetic railgun will contain two parallel conducting rails about 20 feet long, bridged by a sliding armature. In the current design, electric current travels up one rail, crosses the armature, and heads down the second rail. The loop induces a magnetic field that pushes the armature, and the projectile aboard it, up the rails.
<br>
<br>The challenges that remain include ensuring that the gun can target enemy sites with precision, and creating equipment that can withstand the gargantuan pressures the gun will create. "Right now, guns are only as accurate as the targeting of the bore, and now we're talking about 200-plus-mile ranges, so there has to be aerodynamic correction," says Fred Beach, the assistant program manager for the electromagnetic railgun at Naval Sea Systems Command. The projectile, he says, will receive course correction information from satellites and will steer itself with movable control surfaces. And because the projectile will be subjected to up to 45,000 Gs during firing, the onboard electronics must be strengthened to withstand the acceleration. Forces inside the gun itself--particularly getting the armature to move easily within the system--are also challenging the designers. "Getting two pieces of metal to slide past each other is pretty hard--we're getting a lot of damage to the rails," Beach says.
<br>
<br>The electromagnetic railgun's projectiles will cover 290 miles in six minutes--initially traveling 8,200 feet per second and hitting their target at 5,000 feet per second. Current Navy guns, which shoot powder-ignited explosive shells, have a maximum range of 12 miles and, because they are unguided, are difficult to aim. Though guided missiles, the current long-range alternative for destroyers, can achieve ranges comparable to that of the electromagnetic railgun, their cost and storage problems are what's driving the efforts to find an alternative. Ships can only carry up to 70 guided missiles and must return to port to restock because the missiles cannot be loaded at sea, whereas railgun projectiles can easily be loaded at sea, and by the hundreds. Also appealing is that the electromagnetic railgun's missiles do not contain volatile explosives; the weapon does its work with kinetic energy.
<br>
<br>#2 A ROCKET TORPEDO THAT SWIMS IN AN AIR BUBBLE
<br>
<br>Submarines peaked in power and relevance during the Cold War; there has since been a shift in focus to aircraft-based combat, and subs have become budget-cut victims. But subs are still prized for their ability to sneak about global waters undetected and to defend surface ships from attack. Many U.S. subs are being converted from missile launchers into delivery vehicles for special operations troops.
<br>
<br>But the supercavitating torpedo--a rocket-propelled weapon that speeds through the water enveloped in a nearly frictionless air bubble--may render obsolete the old submarine strategy of sly maneuvering and silent running to evade the enemy. The superfast torpedo could be outfitted with conventional explosive warheads, nuclear tips or nothing at all--a 5,000-pound, 230-mph missile could do enough damage on its own. The Russians invented the concept during the Cold War, and their version of this underwater killer--dubbed the Shkval ("Squall")--has recently been made available on the international weapons market; the United States, of course, wants a new, improved version of the original.
<br>
<br>The hard part about building a rocket-propelled torpedo isn't so much the propulsion as clearing a path through the ocean. Water creates speed-sapping drag; the best way to overcome that drag is to create a bubble that envelops the torpedo--a supercavity. A gas ejected uniformly and with enough force through a cavitator in the nose of the torpedo will provide such a bubble, permitting speeds of more than 200 mph and a range of up to 5 miles (traditional torpedoes have slightly longer ranges, but lumber at only 30 to 40 mph).
<br>
<br>Though submerged, the torpedo remains essentially dry, with a frictionless surface. "That sounds easy, but doing it is extremely difficult, especially if you're trying to steer," says Kam Ng, program manager for the torpedo at the Office of Naval Research, which has been developing the weapon since 1997. "If your torpedo moves in a straight line, you just aim and shoot," says Ng. "That capability already exists with Shkval. But the U.S. vehicle will be more capable--it will turn, identify objects, and home in on the target." (Improvements to the torpedo to make it steerable likely froze when the Soviet Union collapsed, says GlobalSecurity.org's Pike.)
<br>
<br>Among the greatest challenges for U.S. torpedo researchers is developing detection and homing technology that will enable the torpedo to distinguish an enemy sub from, say, a rock formation, says Ng. Also tricky is finding a way to control the gas bubble to permit those course changes. "When you turn, the bubble distorts because it is no longer symmetrical," he says. "So you have to compensate for that by putting more bubble to one side." This is done, Ng explains, by ejecting more gas toward the outside of the turn.
<br>
<br>Naval officials say the high-speed torpedo will enable submarines to attack enemy subs and surface ships without giving them time to respond. The U.S. military has tested a prototype, but combat-ready versions are not expected for at least 15 years.
<br>
<br>#3 A LASER CANNON THAT BLASTS FROM THE AIR
<br>
<br>Directed-energy weapon specialists at the Air Force Research Laboratory are close to overcoming the two main hurdles that have confined laser weapons to science fiction for the last half-century. Tests by lead contractor Boeing have demonstrated that the laser has enough power to function as a weapon, and that the chemical exhaust, which could pose a considerable threat to the weapon's operators and individuals on the ground, can be safely contained in a sealed system. If all goes according to the U.S. Special Operations Command's plan, within a decade or so the Advanced Tactical Laser may introduce a new class of weaponry to the battlefield.
<br>
<br>The weapon's first incarnation, expected by 2010 at the earliest, will be a megawatt-class chemical oxygen-iodine laser (COIL) fired from a rotating turret beneath the nose of a C-130 gunship. The beam could be up to 4 inches in diameter and have a 20-mile range--enabling it to burn through vehicles and machinery with a precision and millisecond timing that missiles and cannons can't achieve. (Cannons, in particular--now centuries old in concept--are tricky to aim. These "indirect fire" weapons must be pointed far from the target to factor in wind speed, humidity, firing force--even the rotation of the Earth.)
<br>
<br>Next on the agenda: developing targeting, tracking and firing hardware. Among the questions researchers must answer: how long must the beam linger on a target to have the desired effect. "There are some interesting things with the directed energy technologies that we just don't know about," says Lt. Col. Joseph Panetta Jr., program manager for the Advanced Tactical Laser at the U.S. Special Operations Command headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. "We need to determine exactly how it will perform on the battlefield."
<br>
<br>Laser weapons are a relative bargain compared with existing long-range weapons: They're expected to cost $8,000 per shot versus up to hundreds of thousands for missiles. Lasers are also tunable, which adds versatility: When less-than-lethal force is required, such as in urban areas or when hostages are present, the beam's duration can be reduced so that it disables technology but only injures people. "We want a system that can generate a variety of effects on the battlefield, from damaging something to totally destroying it, to just kind of harassing with it," Panetta says. "This seems to offer us that."
<br>
<br>Next-gen tactical lasers will likely be electrically-powered and diode-pumped, since chemical lasers require storage and transport of heavy ingredients. The greatest challenge with electric lasers, says Lt. Col. JoAnn Erno, head of the power division at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, is managing the heat that's generated--lasers are only 10 percent efficient, so 90 percent of the power is lost in heat. "Controlling the heat will require active cooling," she says, "such as spraying the laser's diodes to keep them from overheating." Solid-state lasers will be smaller than chemical ones, permitting their use on fighter jets and ground vehicles. The Joint Strike Fighter, due to enter service in 2009, is a well-suited potential platform, says Erno, because its engine includes a metal shaft that spins fast enough to easily power a laser.
<br>
<br>Lasers are an example of a weapon that should be developed for multiple uses, says Garrett. "If you can get several [military] branches to use it instead of four different devices that do the same thing, you can make it cheaper by cutting down logistics problems and easing training."
<br>
<br>#4 SPACE-LAUNCHED DARTS THAT STRIKE LIKE METEORS
<br>
<br>This technology is very far out--in miles and years. A pair of satellites orbiting several hundred miles above the Earth would serve as a weapons system. One functions as the targeting and communications platform while the other carries numerous tungsten rods--up to 20 feet in length and a foot in diameter--that it can drop on targets with less than 15 minutes' notice. When instructed from the ground, the targeting satellite commands its partner to drop one of its darts. The guided rods enter the atmosphere, protected by a thermal coating, traveling at 36,000 feet per second--comparable to the speed of a meteor. The result: complete devastation of the target, even if it's buried deep underground. (The two-platform configuration permits the weapon to be "reloaded" by just launching a new set of rods, rather than replacing the entire system.)
<br>
<br>The concept of kinetic-energy weapons has been around ever since the RAND Corporation proposed placing rods on the tips of ICBMs in the 1950s; the satellite twist was popularized by sci-fi writer Jerry Pournelle. Though the Pentagon won't say how far along the research is, or even confirm that any efforts are underway, the concept persists. The "U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan," published by the Air Force in November 2003, references "hypervelocity rod bundles" in its outline of future space-based weapons, and in 2002, another report from RAND, "Space Weapons, Earth Wars," dedicated entire sections to the technology's usefulness.
<br>
<br>If so-called "Rods from God"--an informal nickname of untraceable origin--ever do materialize, it won't be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the rods' speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the "absentee ratio"--the fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at any given time might be far from the desired target--would be prohibitive. A better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact. ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they're stationed on Earth, would take less time to reach their targets. "The space-basing people seem to understand the downside of space weapons," Pike says--among them, high costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. "But I'll still bet you there's a lot of classified work on this going on right now."
<br>
<br>#5 A GUN THAT FIRES A MILLION ROUNDS A MINUTE
<br>
<br>Firing a gun has always been an intensely mechanical process: Pull the trigger and a hammer strikes the back of a bullet--usually inserted into the chamber by a spring mechanism--causing explosive powder in the bullet to shoot out a slug. The slug exits the front of the barrel and another spring ejects the empty shell from the side of the gun.
<br>
<br>For centuries, gun manufacturers have only been able to finesse the firing process, and guns remain prone to jamming, misfiring due to deterioration of moving parts, and occasional explosive failure that can kill or severely injure the soldier firing the weapon. The Australian company Metal Storm has an answer: Bring digital technology to what has been one of the battlefield's last holdouts from the electronics revolution. Metal Storm's solution--now being examined by the Department of Defense--is to remove virtually every moving part from modern guns and replace them with electronic ballistic technology and computerized controls. Bullets stacked in the barrel fire at rates of up to 60,000 rounds per minute, even a million in certain multi-barrel configurations. Coded electric signals ignite propellant embedded within each specially designed bullet. The pressure created by the small explosion pushes out the bullet while at the same time enlarging the bullet behind it, sealing the barrel and preventing the other charges from igniting until commanded to do so.
<br>
<br>Though hand-carried versions won't fire at a million rounds per minute--no soldier would want to reload every three milliseconds--vehicle-mounted systems could. Art Schatz, the senior vice president of operations in Washington, D.C., says that if larger barrels were clustered on the back of a Humvee or in a helicopter, the result would be a powerful "area-denial" weapon. The system can be adjusted to meet various needs. "We're not talking about always firing at a million rounds per minute," Schatz says. "But if you've got one of these mounted in an aircraft and have a rocket-propelled grenade coming at you, you can in an instant have 200 little bullets intercepting it." Moreover, Metal Storm could fire nonlethal rounds such as rubber bullets--for, say, crowd dispersal. The system's key drawback: The guns require electrical power, making them yet another gadget soldiers will need to keep supplied with batteries.
<br>
<br>The Metal Storm system has been tested on rounds ranging from 9mm to 60mm, and in a variety of weapons, including the O'Dwyer VLe (a "smart gun" with electronic safety controls, named after company founder Mike O'Dwyer), and clustered pods of barrels that achieve the million-round-per-minute numbers. The U.S. military is helping fund Metal Storm. If the Pentagon decides to adopt the weapon, it will probably enter use in 5 to 10 years--that's how long it will take for the military to design new weapons around the system, test them, and distribute them to soldiers.
<br>
<br>Eric Adams is POPSCI's aviation and automotive editor.
<br>
<br>#1 ELECTRO-MAGNETIC RAILGUN
<br>
<br>Projectiles fired from an electromagnetic railgun will travel up to 290 miles in less than six minutes, exiting the atmosphere before hurling into their target at a velocity of 5,000 feet per second. The force of the impact will obliterate targets without an explosive aid.
<br>
<br>A railgun uses electric current to launch a projectile. The current--up to 15 million amps--travels up one rail and down the second (1). This current induces a magnetic field across an armature (2) that bridges the rails. This armature also carries a current; the interaction between this current and the magnetic field accelerates the armature, and the projectile aboard it, to Mach 7 (3). Adjusting the range of the weapon is as easy as reducing the electric current supplied to the rails--the lower the current, the slower the projectile leaves the barrel and the shorter the distance it travels.
<br>
<br>#2 SUPER-CAVITATING TORPEDO Several challenges remain for the supercavitating torpedo, including how it will be steered underwater. Water-tunnel tests have already proven that speed can be achieved: In 1997, the Navy tested a supercavitating projectile that reached 5,082 feet per second, becoming the first underwater projectile to exceed Mach 1.
<br>
<br>#3 ADVANCED TACTICAL LASER The Advanced Tactical Laser, fired from a Special Forces A/C-130 Gunship, will have a range of up to 20 miles, as well as pinpoint accuracy and speed-of-light responsiveness. The first generation will employ chemical lasers, which will later be replaced by diode-pumped solid-state lasers powered by electricity.
<br>
<br>#4 RODS FROM GOD Space-based weapons have exceptionally disparate advantages and disadvantages: They are extremely powerful and difficult to defend against, but they're also expensive to launch and maintain and they're in constant motion above the Earth.
<br>
<br>#5 METAL STORM Metal Storm weapons replace mechanical firing systems in conventional guns with coded electrical ignitions. These can be programmed to fire at any rate, from thousands of rounds per second to just one at a time. According to the manufacturer, the technique can be used with both lethal and nonlethal rounds (such as rubber bullets). The guns can also be electronically secured so only authorized users can fire them.
<br>
<br>Watch Metal Storm in action at popsci.com/exclusive
<br>
<br>Illustration
<br>
<br>COLOR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION
<br>
<br>TERMINAL VELOCITY
<br>
<br>This orbiting platform would rely on kinetic energy alone.
<br>
<br>Tungsten rods dropped on buildings or underground bunkers would
<br>
<br>strike at hypersonic velocities, vaporizing targets instantly.
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: JOHN MACNEILL
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: JOHN MACNEILL
<br>
<br>All-electric DD(X), the Navy's next-gen surface combat ship, will
<br>
<br>be able to divert power from the propellers to the railgun.
<br>
<br>A cradle-like device called a sabot supports projectile in gun
<br>
<br>barrel, then detaches after firing.
<br>
<br>Projectile's launch velocity is 8,200 feet per second.
<br>
<br>Since the projectiles have no explosives, storage aboard ship is
<br>
<br>much safer.
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: JOHN MACNEILL
<br>
<br>1
<br>
<br>2
<br>
<br>3
<br>
<br>Projectile
<br>
<br>Armature
<br>
<br>Electric current
<br>
<br>Rails
<br>
<br>Magnetic field
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: JOHN MACNEILL
<br>
<br>Cavitator ejects gas through the torpedo's nose.
<br>
<br>Detection and homing electronics keep torpedo on target.
<br>
<br>Cavity-piercing control fins steer the missile.
<br>
<br>Storage tanks for bubble-generating gas.
<br>
<br>Rocket motor accelerates weapon to 230 mph.
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: JOHN MACNEILL
<br>
<br>Rotating turret provides 360-degree targeting.
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: JOHN MACNEILL
<br>
<br>Sealed exhaust ensures safety of crew members and ground
<br>
<br>personnel.
<br>
<br>Chemicals processed in platform generate laser beam.
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: JOHN MACNEILL
<br>
<br>Communications and targeting platform receives instructions from
<br>
<br>the ground and identifies the target.
<br>
<br>Partnered rod "cartridge" ejects tungsten projectile.
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: JOHN MACNEILL
<br>
<br>Clustering barrels together can raise firing rates of individual
<br>
<br>weapons to a million rounds per minute.
<br>
<br>COLOR ILLUSTRATION: JOHN MACNEILL
<br>
<br>Electric charge ignites propellant embedded within slugs.
<br>
<br>Pressure from each shot expands the next round, sealing the
<br>
<br>barrel and preventing accidental firing.
<br>
<br></p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_111');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 111 -->
<a name="x112"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x112" class="tiny">x112</a>
Tuttle, Rich : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">Directed energy weapons could change war, analyst says</a></h1>
<h2>2004-11</h2>
<div id="sect_112" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Richard Dunn, a senior analyst at Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Analysis Center in Arlington, Va., said directed energy weapons promise to be far more effective than guns in shooting down missiles. A bomber armed with a laser could, in theory, easily defeat a missile aimed at it.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>"We may not be the people" who figure out how best to use such weapons, Dunn said. "A lot of other countries [are] looking at directed energy weapons because [they] will counter all these fancy, high-tech, super-duper missiles that the United States has."
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - Directed energy weapons could change the way wars are fought, an analyst said at a conference here, but they must have the backing of senior leaders.
<br>
<br>Richard Dunn, a senior analyst at Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Analysis Center in Arlington, Va., said directed energy weapons promise to be far more effective than guns in shooting down missiles. A bomber armed with a laser could, in theory, easily defeat a missile aimed at it.
<br>
<br>The implication, Dunn said, is that the Air Force would no longer need "to suppress all these SAMs [surface to air missiles] and so forth over tens of thousands of square miles - a big change in how quickly you can apply air power." But it's not clear that Air Force leaders would back such a change, he said.
<br>
<br>Similarly, Army leaders might not be enthusiastic about directed energy weapons even though they promise to easily shoot down incoming artillery shells. This might mean a drop in the need for heavily armored vehicles.
<br>
<br>Precision weapons
<br>
<br>"We may not be the people" who figure out how best to use such weapons, Dunn said. "A lot of other countries [are] looking at directed energy weapons because [they] will counter all these fancy, high-tech, super-duper missiles that the United States has."
<br>
<br>He said, "you really have to have a crisis, or almost a crisis, or a disaster, in order for leaders to make the really painful choices that you have to make. For example, the Air Force would have to cut the number of short-range strike aircraft to really take full advantage of capability of precision munitions."
<br>
<br>These munitions are 15 times more likely to hit a target than non-precision munitions, meaning the strike aircraft force would have to be only one-fifteenth as large as it is today, he said.
<br>
<br>Dunn spoke Nov. 15 at the two-day "Understanding Defense Transformation: Winning the War on Terrorism and Beyond" conference, sponsored by the Heritage Foundation of Washington and the El Pomar Foundation of Colorado Springs.
<br>
<br>- Rich Tuttle (richtut@aol.com)
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Subject: Aircraft; Armed forces; Missile defense; Lasers; Military strategy; Modernization; Effectiveness
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Company / organization: Name: Northrop Grumman Corp; Ticker: NOC; NAICS: 336411, 336611
<br>
<br>Classification: 9550: Public sector; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9190: United States
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
<br>
<br>Volume: 212
<br>
<br>Issue: 36
<br>
<br>Pages: 5
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2004
<br>
<br>Publication date: Nov 19, 2004</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 112 -->
<a name="x113"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x113" class="tiny">x113</a>
Doug Beason, Ph.D : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_113');">The E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy weapons Will Change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought</a></h1>
<h2>2005</h2>
<div id="sect_113" style="display: block;">
<p>
<i>"THE E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought",</i> Doug Beason, Ph.D., 2005
<blockquote><p>+++ page ix
<br>
<br>Directed Energy (DE) encompasses a wide, cross-disciplinary field of science and engineering. It is nearly impossible to enumerate the many academic and technical disciplines that make up DE, as it includes fields as diverse as physics and engineering to psychology (for studying the Active Denial effect). The people who have advanced the research and development of DE are just as numerous.
<br>...
<br>DE research and development has been shrouded in a veil of secrecy. there are national security reasons for not revealing certain applications or vulnerabilities. My reviewers and I have been careful to ensure that no classified or insider information has been disclosed. I relied on publicly released information as well as interviews to build the story of directed energy.
<br>
<br>~Doug Beason
<br>
<br>+++ page xii
<br>
<br>1973 The air force's classified Project Delta downs an aerial drone with a high-energy laser.
<br>
<br>1976 Army shoots down a drone and a helicopter at Redstone arsenal with an Avco electric discharge laser (EDL)
<br>
<br>1977 McDermott and his team invent the COIL (chemical oxygen-iodine laser)
<br>
<br>1978 Navy shoots down an army TOW missile with a TRW 400-kilowatt deuterium fluoride (DF) laser at San Juan Capistrano
<br>
<br>1983 Airborne Laser Lab downs an AIM-9B Sidewinder missile with a CO<sub>2</sub> laser
<br>
<br>1993 USAF establishes the Airborne Laser System Program Office at the Phillips Lab
<br>
<br>2001 Defense Department declassifies Active Denial, the first nonlethal DE antipersonnel weapon
<br>
<br>2002 Army's THEL laser destroys Katyshu rockets, artillery rounds, and mortar shells at White Sands Missile Range
<br>
<br>2003 ZEUS, the Army's anti-land mine laser, deployed to Afghanistan
<br>
<br>2006 NIRF, the navy's anti-IED (improvised explosive device) high-power microwave, scheduled for deployment in Iraq
<br>
<br>+++ page 9
<br>
<br>Directed Energy (DE) weapons -- lasers, high-power microwaves (HPMs), and particle beams -- have come of age. Over the past two decades, directed energy power has increased by nine orders of magnitude -- over a billion times -- from millwatt to megawatt.
<br>
<br>+++ page 10
<br>
<br>National leaders will soon ahve the abiliyt to instantly deter threats anywhere in the world with infinite precision at the speed of light. The dynamic changes this will make to international relations will reverberate throughout American society. It will transform our way of life.
<br>
<br>This is because directed energy is more than a new weapon in the warrior's arsenal. It's about a completely new way of thinking, a new way of employing both strategic and nonlethal force, and interacting in the international community.
<br>
<br>+++ page 11
<br>
<br>The date for this scenario? Summer 2001 -- months before the September 11 terorist attack on the World Trade Center.
<br>
<br>The place? White Sands, New Mexico, only miles from the Trinity site, birthplace of the world's first atomic blast, another revolution in military affairs.
<br>
<br>To date, over 30 Katyusha rockets have been shot down in realistic scenarios such as this by THEL -- tactical high-energy laser, the world's first high-energy laser weapon developed by the U.S. army and funded by the Israeli government for deployment along Israel's borders.
<br>
<br>+++ page 12
<br>
<br>Largely shrouded in highly classified environment, directed energy weapons research is conducted by a cadre of closed-mouthed technical wizards.
<br>
<br>+++ page 171
<br>
<br>On August 21, 2003, the U.S. army and Irsraeli Ministry of Defense announced the slection of NOrthrop Grumman Corporation's design for MTHEL, the mobile tactical high-energy laser, a protoypte laser weapon capable of shooting down short-range rockets and artillery. [Northrop Grumman, press release, August 21, 2003.] MTHEL is an advanced, mobile version of the THEL, an advanced concept technology demonstrator (ACTD) initiated in 1996 by the Defense Department and subsequently tested at the army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
<br>
<br>THEL was designed and built by an international team led by Northrop Grummand, including Ball Aerospace and Brashear LP, with several Israeli companies, including Electro-Optic Industries, Israel Aircraft Industries, Yehud Industrial Zone, RAFAEL, and Tadiran.
<br>
<br>+++ page 181
<br>
<br>The ABL (airborne laser) uses a weapons-class laser system, but it has to be carried in the most heavily modified 747 ever built. The present result is a platform that is loaded to the max, with little margin to add additional weight, say laser fuel, to lase longer, since adding weight cuts down on the time the ABL can stay in the air. Adding a refueling capability will extend the time the ABL can spend in combat, but the extra time also stresses the crew and airframe.
<br>
<br>+++ page 182
<br>
<br>Advance tactical laser (ATL), the shorter-range, tactical airborne COIL laser system, began as an engineering feat looking for an application.
<br>...
<br>High-power microwaves in the form of long-wavelength radars achieved weapons-class power levels decades ago. But reducing the size of the system to something smaller than a battleship has kept the technology off the battlefield for years -- until the Active Denial effect was discovered and exploited.
<br>
<br>+++ page 185
<br>
<br>Recall that lasers and microwves are just manifestations of the same thing, the electromagnetic spectrum. Lasers and HPM both consist of photons, or electromagnetic waves that have different wavelengths. Laser wavelengths run from ultraviolet to infrared -- from 0.4 to0.7 microns (or 0.16 millionths of an inch to 0.28 millionths of an inch), while high-power microwaves are generally defined as having wavelengths of anywhere from a meter to a cenimeter (or 3 feet to a third of an inch). That covers just a small part of th electromagnetic (EM) spectrum.
<br>
<br>+++ page 186
<br>
<br>The interaction of radio waves -- {long part of the EM spectrum the covers wavelengths from a tenth of a centimeter [EHF, or extremely high frequency wves) down to wves over 100 kilometers in length [VLF, or very low frequency]} -- with matter is well known and has been documented for years. ... [W]aves of the electromanetic spectrum generally have to be the same size of the target or object ot cause any damage. In a simplified view, lasers burrow into solid material quite well because their wavelengths are about the same size as molecultes. Lasers can thus deposit their energy and "resonate" with the size of the solid material they hit, including metals.
<br>
<br>On the other hand, although high-power microwaves can penetrate building walls and sirupt computers, they can't penetrate metals and don't do much damage to things like trucks or missiles. Instead, they interact with targets that are the same size of its wavelength (meters to millimeters), such as human skin and sires in electronics. This coupling, a measure of the amount of interaction, is greater for things that are the same size as an HPM wavelength.
<br>
<br>This means that radio waves don't interact efficiently with targets unless they are the same size. And since radio waves are hundreds of meters to hundreds of kilometers long, they pass through most material and aren't much of a threat.
<br>
<br>High-power microwave wavelengths are the longest part of the EM spectrum that can be used effectively as a weapon.
<br>
<br>+++ page 188
<br>
<br>Free electron lasers (FEL) represent a unique way of creating laser radiation without the use of chemicals, crystals, or any of the traditional means of generating beams. They are classed as electric lasers and can produce any wavelength, from extreme ultraviolet to microwaves.
<br>
<br>+++ page 190
<br>
<br>An FEL is essentially an electric laser; the laser light is created by an accelerating electron beam as it "wiggles" back and forth through a series of alternating magnets...
<br>
<br>+++ page 213
<br>
<br>Laser power has increased over a billion times in the past four decades, allowing laser weapons to soon be fielded in the air (ABL, ATL),on the ground (MTHEL, ZEUS), and within a decade or so on the sea (FEL).
<br>
<br>Research in millimeter wave technology, an extremely short-wave version of the radio frequency spectrum, produce ADS (Active Denial System), the world's first long-range, nonlethal antipersonnel weapon that no only gives war fighters the option for assessing the intent of the attackers but also proivides a clear option between two wildly disparate options of shouting at people and shooting them.
<br>
<br>+++ page 214-216
<br>
<br>Lasers and high-power microwaves are simply different manifestations of the electromagnetic spectrum. They both consist of photons -- bundles of electromagnetic energy -- and the only difference between the two is that they have different energy, a function of wavelength, or equivalent frequency.
<br>
<br>Because of this difference in energy, lasers and high-power microwaves have to be created in different ways. In addition, they propagate through the atmosphere and in space differently, and they interact with targets differently.
<br>
<br>Laser wvelengths are as much as 10,000 times smaller than microwaves. As such, they diffract up to 10,000 times less than microwaves, which allows lasers to propagate up to 10,000 times farther than a similarly generated microwave to deposit the same energy on a target. This allows lasers to use high-precision reflecting mirrors to redirect their devestation throughout the battlefield, and with the use of space-based relay mirrors, perhaps even around the globe.
<br>
<br>However, lasers scatter in the atmosphere more than microwaves do because the laser wavelength is about the same size as atmospheric gas molecules.
<br>
<br>Finally, when a laser hits a target, it tends to heat up the target material and burn away layer anfter layer, producing a copious plume of plasma. The ABL uses this heat-producing mechanism to weaken the skin of a ballistic missile around the missile's fuel tank, allowing the tank's internal pressure to explode; MTHEL uses its laser's heating mechanism to cause a rocket warheat to explode.
<br>
<br>On the other hand, because the wavelength of a high-power microwave is so much larger than that of a laser, the HPM interacts with the electronics and circuits of a weapon.
<br>...
<br>However, microwaves are not yet ready for prime time. Much work needs to be accomplished increating microwve power and shrinking the infrastructure that generates HPM...
<br>
<br>Active Denial uses a high-frequency version of HPM caled millimeter waves to heat up a minuscule depth of a person's skin to create a "flee" effect. It provides an ultraprecise, unique, nonlethal means of countering personnel actions.
<br>
<br>Despite the outward dissimilarities between lasers and HPM, their similarities far outweigh their perceived differences:
<br>
<br>- They both exploit parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
<br>
<br>- They are both impervious to the effects of gravity or ballistic motion.
<br>
<br>- They are both ultraprecise, allowing for enormous amounts of energy to be applied exactly wehre the war fighter wants. This is in contrast to kinetic energy precision weapons, which although relatively accurate ... may have devastating, unintended collateral effects -- such as death -- due to blast and fragments.
<br>
<br>And the most important apsect of directed energy weapons is the best feature of all: their speed. Kinetic energy weapons reach their target at the speed of sound, or in the case of ballistic missiles, at velocities up to Mach 20, or 20 times the speed of sound, enabling them to hit targets around the globe on the order of 45 minutes.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>[H]aving an ultraprecise wapon capable of striking around the globe almost instantaneously, in less than a second, provides the technological advantage needed to defeat the next generation of adversaries.
<br>
<br>And <i>that</i> advantage is only provided by directed energy weapons capable of engaging the enemy at the speed of light.
<br>
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_113');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 113 -->
<a name="x114"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x114" class="tiny">x114</a>
Hideo Kozima : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon: In Search of the Physics and Chemistry behind Complex Experimental Data Sets</a></h1>
<h2>2006</h2>
<div id="sect_114" style="display: block;">
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 114 -->
<a name="x115"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x115" class="tiny">x115</a>
Barrie, Douglas : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_115');">Focused Effort: Key Tests Loom for U.K. Directed-Energy Weapon</a></h1>
<h2>2007-08</h2>
<div id="sect_115" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br>
<br>Author: Barrie, Douglas
<p>Abstract:
<blockquote><p>Britain is ready to begin a final series of test firings of a directed-energy warhead that, if successful, could see a system fielded shortly after the turn of the decade. The weapon--believed to be a radio-frequency package--is suitable for delivery by a cruise missile, but could also be carried by an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV). This may be why at least part of the program is being run by the Defense Ministry's Strategic Unmanned Air Vehicle Experiment (Suave) project team. RF warheads potentially offer the ability to temporarily or permanently damage electronic components that are critical to the performance of modern weapons.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Britain is ready to begin a final series of test firings of a directed-energy warhead that, if successful, could see a system fielded shortly after the turn of the decade.
<br>
<br>The weapon--believed to be a radio-frequency package--is suitable for delivery by a cruise missile, but could also be carried by an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV). This may be why at least part of the program is being run by the Defense Ministry's Strategic Unmanned Air Vehicle Experiment (Suave) project team.
<br>
<br>The test program will run for around two years with the aim being to look at the performance of the directed-energy package against a number of targets. The trials also will likely help inform the ministry's concept of operations in the use of radio-frequency weapons.
<br>
<br>RF warheads potentially offer the ability to temporarily or permanently damage electronic components that are critical to the performance of modern weapons. Their development and application is being pursued by, at least, the U.S., Russia, France, Germany, China and Israel, along with the U.K. Design approaches include single-shot and multiple-pulse high-power microwave (HPM) systems.
<br>
<br>Directed-energy weaponry was identified as an important area within the government's Defense Technology Strategy. These covered both RF and laser damage and dazzle systems.
<br>
<br>The U.K. arm of European missile manufacturer MBDA is one industry focal point for British directed-energy weapons research and development. BAE Systems has carried out research into RF and laser weapons; Thales also has pursued directed-energy applications, as has Qinetiq.
<br>
<br>In the past, the Defense Ministry has identified the introduction of a "novel" guided-weapon capability by 2011. The ministry uses "novel" as a catch-all term for directed-energy systems. Development of the RF weapon is classified, but the program was previously associated with the name "Virus." This has likely changed, however.
<br>
<br>The MBDA Storm Shadow cruise missile is an initial candidate delivery vehicle for the RF payload. RF weapons are also in the longer term likely payloads for UCAVs. As part of its UCAV activities, the ministry is also funding work into propulsion systems capable of supporting the energy requirements of RF and laser weaponry.
<br>
<br>MBDA U.K. has a "novel systems" team that conducts the company's research into directed-energy weaponry. MBDA is also the industry prime on the Defense Ministry's High-Power Microwave Principal Program. This is a 36-month long effort aimed at examining pulsed-power technologies that have potential military applications.
<br>
<br>In 2005, MBDA executives visited Russia as part of a larger industry and academia group to look at Moscow's capabilities in HPM technologies. Russia has been carrying out R&D extensively into RF weapons for at least two decades.
<br>
<br>Broad study work into issues associated with directed-energy weaponry is also being conducted within one of the government's "Towers of Excellence." A special interest group within the electronic warfare tower (including MBDA and BAE) is considering areas that include concepts of operations for the use of directed-energy systems.
<br>
<br>Within the ministry, the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory is leading the directed-energy applications work. This has included collaborative research on HPM technology with the Netherlands and Sweden.
<br>
<br>MBDA work has covered research into the use of flux compressors and antenna subsystems for RF payloads, with both narrow and broad wave-band frequency-generation capabilities also examined. Weapons applications using the former have so far required that they be in the same frequency band as the target system. This is not the case with wide-band systems, but the power delivered to the target tends to be much lower.
<br>
<br>The RF weapon program was previously associated with the name "Virus," but this has likely changed
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>The U.K.'s Taranis UCAV demonstrator program could lead to development of a platform capable of carrying directed-energy weaponry.
<br>
<br>BAE SYSTEMS
<br>
<br>Subject: Radio frequency; Weapons testing; Military technology; Research & development; R & D; Energy
<br>
<br>Location: United Kingdom, UK
<br>
<br>Classification: 9175: Western Europe; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 5400: Research & development
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 167
<br>
<br>Issue: 8
<br>
<br>Pages: 39
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2007
<br>
<br>Publication date: Aug 20, 2007</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_115');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 115 -->
<a name="x116"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x116" class="tiny">x116</a>
Andre Gsponer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');"><i>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weaspons:</i> Military effectivenss and collateral effects.</a></h1>
<h2>2008</h2>
<div id="sect_116" style="display: block;">
<p><i>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weaspons:</i> Military effectivenss and collateral effects.
<br>Andre Gsponer
<br>
<br>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>
<br>Independent Scientific Research Institute
<br>Box 30, CH1211
<br>Geneva12, Switzerland
<br>
<br>Version ISRI0503.17
<br>February 2, 2008
<br>
<p>Abstract
<blockquote><p>The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previous generation nuclearexplosives and from conventional weapons based on chemicalexplosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shapedcharge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc.</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote><p>+++ page 3
<br>
<br>First generation: 6 kg <i>Pu</i> ~= 10 <i>kt</i> yield at 10% efficiency
<br>Fourth generation: 25 mg <i>DT</i> ~= 1 <i>ton</i> yield at 50% efficiency
<br>
<br>+++ page 8
<br>
<br>[A] two-stage H-bomb demonstrates that a powerful source of X-rays can be used to produce mechanical work, i.e., to strongly compress the material of the secondary. This leads to other possible applications, where the ablation pressure is used to accelerate a missile or a spacecraft (nuclear-driven rocket), or to squeeze a shape-dcharge liner (nuclear-driven plasma-jet).
<br>
<br>+++ page 9
<br>
<br>[T]hird generation nuclear weapons require a fission-explosive as trigger, which implies that their yield tends to be too high for battlefield uses, and that they necessarily produce large-scale radioactive pollution, etc.
<br>
<br>As will be seen in the sequel of this paper, most third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.
<br>
<br>+++ page 11
<br>
<br>There is no standard definition of fourth generation nuclear-weapons. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this paper, we may use either of the two definitions:
<br><i>- "Nuclear explosive devices based on atomic and nuclear processes that are not restricted by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)," or
<br>- "Nuclear explosive devices based on low-yield thermonuclear pellets triggered by compact non-fission
<br>primaries."</i>
<br>The second definition recognizes the technical fact that radically new, but <i>realistic</i>, types of nuclear weapons will most probably use highly-compressed deuterium-tritium pellets as the main source of their explosive energy. This means that while fission was the main source of yield in the first three generations, the main source of yield in the fourth generation will be the fusion reaction...
<br>
<br>+++ page 17-19
<br>
<br>To ignite the pellet after compression, a different method is required because ignition has to be achieved on a much shorter timescale than compression. For example, while a 1 MJ energy laser pulse of a few nanosecond duration is suitable for compression, ignition may require a pulse of only 1 kJ energy, but of a duration several thousand times shorter, i.e., less than one picosecond. Thus, while high-<i>energy</i> lasers are needed for compression, high-<i>power</i> lasers are required for ignition.
<br>
<br>+++ page 27-28
<br>[S]ince the kinetic energy of the expanding materials of a nuclear bomb generally corresponds to a small fraction of the radiated energy, the immediate vicinity of a nuclear explosive is that of an extremely-intense pulsed-source of radiations. Depending on the type of the bomb, the dominant kinds of emitted radiations are as follows:
<br>- <i>Hot fission bomb:</i> soft X-rays and some fission neutrons;
<br>- <i>H-bomb:</i> soft X-rays and some fission and fusion neutrons;
<br>- <i>Pure fusion bomb:</i> 14 MeV neutrons and soft X-rays;
<br>- <i>Pure isomer bomb:</i> 0.1 to 5 MeV gamma-rays;
<br>- <i>Pure positron bomb:</i> 0.511 MeV gamma-rays;
<br>- <i>Pure antiproton bomb:</i> ~= 200 MeV pions and gamma-rays.
<br>
<br>+++ page 28-30
<br>In the case of nuclear explosives the situation is more complicated because the different kinds of radiations can have a variety of effects, especially if they are very penetrating, as is the case for high-energy neutrons and gamma-rays. The most important of these effects are as follows:
<br>- <i>Generate a fireball (in air or a material)</i>. This is primarily the effect of the soft X-rays
<br>which have a relatively short mean-free path in any material, including air. The material will heat up and the resulting fireball will radiate longer wavelength electromagnetic energy, i.e., a heat wave leading
<br>to various thermal effects.
<br>- <i>Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).</i> This is primarily the result of the expansion of the soft X-rays generated fireball into the surroundings, which launches a shock wave leading to blast effects.
<br>- <i>Heat the surface of a material.</i> Hard X-rays and low-energy gamma-rays able to propagate over some distances in low-density intervening materials (e.g., air) will be absorbed at the surface of any high-density material.
<br>- <i>Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it.</i> If surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction (i.e., "rocket effect") a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
<br>- <i>Accelerate or compress a material.</i> If the ablation pressure is sufficiently strong, a material can be accelerated to high velocity by rocket-effect; and if the ablation pressure is simultaneously exerted on all sides, a material can be compressed to high-density as is the case of the secondary in a two-stage thermonuclear weapon.
<br>- <i>Transfer momentum to a material.</i> Either directly through the effect of radiations, or indirectly by means of shock waves propagating through an intervening medium, momentum can be transferred to a material which can be directly accelerated to high velocity without being ablated.
<br>- <i>Heat the volume of a material.</i> Penetrating high-energy radiations (neutrons, pions, or high-energy gamma-rays) will easily cross a low-density intervening medium such as air and deposit their energy deep into any high-density material. As a result, a substantial (i.e., centimeter to meter-thick) layer of a bomb-irradiated material can be brought to a temperature sufficiently high for it to melt, vaporize, or even explode.
<br>- <i>Energize a working material.</i> A special case of volume heating is that in which a "working material" is intentionally placed near a nuclear explosive in order to heat it to high-temperature so that it can do mechanical work on other materials. This is the nuclear analog of a steam machine, in which
<br>super-heated water (i.e., steam) is used to produce motion.
<br>- <i>Forge and project missiles.</i> A superheated working material can be used to forge a material into a missile and project it to a large distance.
<br>- <i>Form and send high-velocity jets.</i> A super-heated working material can be used to form and send high-velocity (plasma) jets to some distance.
<br>
<br>This list calls for three remarks:
<br>
<br>1. The above list includes only the primarily "mechanical" and "thermodynamical" effects of nuclear explosives. Important non-thermo-mechanical effects such as the production of an electromagnetic-pulse
<br>affecting electronic equipments, and the prompt or delayed radiations affecting living bodies (and electronic equipments to some extent), can be considered as collateral effects in that perspective.
<br>
<br>2. As was stressed in the introduction to this section, many physical processes (such as energy and momentum transfer, transformation of kinetic into internal energy, etc.) have to be simultaneous taken into account, so that none of the effects in the list are "pure effects" that would be fully independent
<br>from the other effects.
<br>
<br>3. Because they produce mainly blast and thermal effects, first and second generation nuclear weapons can basically be considered as gigantic conventional weapons � except of course for their radioactive fallout and other nuclearradiation effects.
<br>
<br>+++ page 39-31
<br>
<br><i>[C]onventional explosives, and first and second generation nuclear explosives</i>, primarily couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium: air, water, earth, rocks, etc. This means that the coupling of these weapons can be qualified as indirect, independently on whether the target is (relatively) close or distant from the point of
<br>explosion.
<br>
<br>In the case of <i>fourth generation nuclear explosives</i>, however, the coupling can be qualified as direct, unless the target is sufficiently far away from the point of explosion that the radiations are absorbed in the intervening medium before interactingwith the target. In otherwords, the fact that these weapons are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiations means that they can produce direct
<br>work on the target, and therefore induce a very different response than if the target was just hit by a shock wave.
<br>
<br>+++ page 31
<br>[W]hen a shock wave strikes a high-density material after propagating in a lower density medium (e.g., striking the ground after propagating through air) most of the energy in the shock wave is reflected, and only a small fraction of the energy of the initial shock wave is given to secondary shock waves propagating through the target material. Consequently, as is well known, indirect coupling by means of shock waves is very poor, because such waves are reflected at the boundaries between low and high-density materials. For example, for both conventional and current generation nuclear weapons, less than 10% of the energy striking a relatively heavy target (e.g., a main battletank, a bunker, or the ground) is actually coupled to it, even for explosions very close to the target, i.e., "surface bursts." As a matter of fact, for ideal (absolutely rigid) materials, incoming shock waves are fully reflected.
<br>
<br>+++ page 32
<br>
<br>Let us suppose that the yield froman idealized <i>DT</i>-based FGNWconsists of about
<br>20% in soft X-rays and 80% in 14 MeV neutrons. Let us also take into account that relative to a surface at some distance from the point of explosion, 50% of each of these radiations will flow forwards, and 50% backwards.
<br>
<br>If we suppose that this weapon has a yield in the range of a few tons, and is detonated in air at a relatively short distance from a target, say a few meters, most of the forwards going X-rays will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
<br>
<br>The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
<br>
<br>+++ page 32-35
<br>
<br>As an example, Fig. 5 shows the neutron heating effect of a 1 ton equivalent point source of 14 MeV neutrons detonated 1 meter away from a thick slab of polyethylene (CH2), taken as representative (from the neutron-heating point of view) of the light materials used in modern multi-layered tank armor. As can
<br>be seen, heating is maximum at about 2 cm below the surface, and then decays exponentially with a half-length of about 10 cm. Therefore, the energy deposited in the first 10 cm has a density of about 0.5 kJ/cm<sup>3</sup>, more than enough to vaporize thematerial. Moreover, if the point of explosion is put at 30 cm rather than 100 cm, or if the explosive yield is increased from 1 to 10 tons, the energy density would become comparable to that of the detonation products of a powerful chemical explosives.
<br>
<br>The same neutron heating calculation can be repeated with other materials: earth, concrete, aluminum, iron, uranium, etc. The result is that the magnitudes, as well as the distributions with depth, are generally rather similar to those of lightweight materials such as CH2, despite that in heavier materials the nuclear interactions of neutrons are very different from those in lightweight materials (i.e., much less elastic scattering, but more inelastic scattering instead). It is only for very heavy material, or in materials such as uranium where 14 MeV neutrons can induce fission, that the magnitude of energy deposition can be larger by a factor of two or more.
<br>
<br>To summarize, and to phrase the results in a simplified form because what matters here are orders of magnitude rather than high precision, one has found that:
<br>- Because most of the energy of a <i>DT</i>-based FGNW is in the form of highly penetrating neutrons, almost all of the forwards going energy is coupled into any target located less than a few meters away from the point of detonation. This implies a coupling coefficient of almost 50%, that is ten times higher than for any conventional or previous generation nuclear weapons;
<br>- The combined surface and volume heating effects of a 1 ton FGNW detonated 1 meter away from any solid target leads to an energy deposition of about 1 kJ/cm3 in the first 10 cm of any material.
<br>
<br>To make some further simplifications, this means that the energy deposition by 14 MeV neutrons is comparable to that of myriads of "femto" kinetic-energy or shaped-charge penetrators, and that while a 1 <i>ton</i> chemical explosion 1 m away from a 10 cm thick steel plate will barely damage it, a 1 <i>ton</i> FGNW explosion at the same 1 m distance will burn a 1 m<sup>2</sup> hole through it.
<br>
<br>+++ page 41
<br>
<br>The mechanical and thermal effects of conventional and nuclear weapons are
<br>well-known. For instance, their scaling laws with explosive yield are
<br>simple power laws: direct proportionally (�proportional Y <sup>-1</sup>) for thermal effects, and third-root dependence (�proportional Y <sup>-1/3</sup>) for blast overpressure. The factor of three difference in the exponent of these powerlaws makes that, in comparison to blast effects, thermal effects are generally negligible in conventional explosives, but dominant in<i>Mt</i>-yield nuclear explosives.which are in fact gigantic incendiary bombs [60]. This means that for <i>kt</i>-yield nuclear weapons, and FGNWs with yields between 1 and 100 tons, both effects should be taken into consideration.
<br>
<br>A first significant difference between <i>DT</i>-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor �{cubeRoot(5)} = 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
<br>
<br>+++ page 42
<br>
<br>However, direct-coupling to a finite-size target has a 1/(r<sup>2</sup>) dependence on the distance r between the point of explosion and the surface of the target, and this distance should be on the order of a few meters at most for a circa 1 <i>ton</i> FGNW to be effective. This requires truly high accuracy in delivery, and a corresponding accuracy in the knowledge of the target coordinates.
<br>
<br>Finally, as with all types of explosiveweapons, debris will be sent at random to large distances from the target. But since the kinetic energy available for sending these debris is directly related to blast energy, this collateral effect should be proportionally reduced in FGNWs.
<br>
<br>+++ page 42-43
<br>
<br>One can therefore find the distance below which the "instant permanent incapacitation" is close or equal to 100% :
<br>1 ton FGNW: more than 10�000 rad below 100 m,
<br>> 24 <sup>o</sup>C body temperature rise,
<br>> 99% lethal within 1 hour.
<br>
<br>And the distance beyond which the probability of survival is higher than 50% :
<br>1 ton FGNW: less than 300 rad beyond 300 m,
<br>1 <sup>o</sup>C body temperature rise,
<br>< 50% lethal within 1 month.
<br>
<br>In these two boxes, the instantaneous full-body temperature rise produced by the given dose is calculate in order to provide an intuitive explanation for the prompt biological effect of high-doses of radiations. As can easily be understood, an instantaneous full-body temperature rise from 37 to about 60<sup>o</sup>C will have a very big impact on physiology, which explains the immediate loss of consciousness and nearly instantaneous death. On the other hand, a 1<sup>o</sup>C temperature rise will not have such a strong physiological effect, and death will be due to radiation sickness, which can be medically treated to some extent.
<br>
<br>+++ page 44-45
<br>[T]he comparison is useful to highlight the considerably smaller radioactive burden induced by FGNWs relative to the previous generations of nuclear weapons. It can also be inferred that:
<br>- Tritium dispersal and induced ground-radioactivity will to a large extent not impair further military action;
<br>- Just as it was the case with the use of depleted-uranium weapons, it will be possible for the proponents of FGNWs to argue that the radiological burden due to their use could be in some way tolerable;
<br>- Many political leaders and large fractions of the public opinion may not object to the long term radiological impact of FGNWs;
<br>- In any case, with a tritium content of about 15 mg per <i>ton</i> explosive equivalent, there will be 15 kg of tritium in an arsenal equivalent to one million 1<i>-ton-</i>FGNWs, that is about the same tritium inventory as in one single full-size thermonuclear reactor. Acceptance of civilian fusion power will therefore be linked to that of FGNWS.</p>
</blockquote><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 116 -->
<a name="x117"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x117" class="tiny">x117</a>
Committee on a Scientific Assessment : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_117');">Scientific Assessment of High-Power Free-Electron Laser Technology</a></h1>
<h2>2009</h2>
<div id="sect_117" style="display: block;">
<p><i>Scientific Assessment of High-Power Free-Electron Laser Technology</i>, Committee on a Scientific Assessment of Free-Electron Laser Technology for Naval Applications, the Natinoal Academies Press, Washington, DC 20001, 2009.
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_117');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 117 -->
<a name="x118"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x118" class="tiny">x118</a>
Stephen O. Dean : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">Sear for the Ultimate Energy Source: A History of the U.S. Fusion Energy Program</a></h1>
<h2>2013</h2>
<div id="sect_118" style="display: block;">
<p><i>Sear for the Ultimate Energy Source: A History of the U.S. Fusion Energy Program</i> by Stephen O. Dean, 2013,
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 118 -->
<a name="x119"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x119" class="tiny">x119</a>
John forge : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_119');">Designed to Kill: The Case Against Weapons Research</a></h1>
<h2>2013</h2>
<div id="sect_119" style="display: block;">
<p><i>Designed to Kill: The Case Against Weapons Research</i>, John forge, 2013.
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_119');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 119 -->
<a name="x120"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x120" class="tiny">x120</a>
Peter Schm�ser : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">Free-Electron Lasers in the Ultraviolet and X-Ray Regime: Physical Principles, Experimental Results, Technical Realization</a></h1>
<h2>2014</h2>
<div id="sect_120" style="display: block;">
<p><i>Free-Electron Lasers in the Ultraviolet and X-Ray Regime: Physical Principles, Experimental Results,
<br>Technical Realization</i> by Peter Schm�ser, Martin Dohlus, J�rg Rossbach, Christopher Behrens. Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, Volume 258, 2014.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 120 -->
<a name="x121"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x121" class="tiny">x121</a>
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_121');">FUSION: THE WORLD�S MOST COMPLEX ENERGY PROJECT</a></h1>
<h2>2014</h2>
<div id="sect_121" style="display: block;">
<p>FUSION: THE WORLD�S MOST COMPLEX ENERGY PROJECT
<br>HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
<br>HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
<br>ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
<br>SECOND SESSION
<br>JULY 11, 2014
<br>Serial No. 113�85</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_121');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 121 -->
<a name="x122"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x122" class="tiny">x122</a>
Steven Lambakis : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">On the Edge of Earth: The Future of American Space Power</a></h1>
<h2>2014-04</h2>
<div id="sect_122" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb: This references an updated version of the book lauded in
09 by Peter Hays.}
<table><tbody>
<tr>
<td><span class="note">web pdf</span></td>
<td><span class="price">$42.00</span></td>
<td><a href="http://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/ecom/MasterServlet/AddToCartFromExternalHandler?item=9780813145778&domain=kentuckypress.com"><span class="isbn">978-0-8131-4577-8</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class="note">epub</span></td>
<td><span class="price">$42.00</span></td>
<td><a href="http://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/ecom/MasterServlet/AddToCartFromExternalHandler?item=9780813145785&domain=kentuckypress.com"><span class="isbn">978-0-8131-4578-5</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class="note">cloth</span></td>
<td><span class="price">$42.00</span></td>
<td><a href="http://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/ecom/MasterServlet/AddToCartFromExternalHandler?item=9780813121987&domain=kentuckypress.com"><span class="isbn">978-0-8131-2198-7</span></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<span class="note">384 pages Pubdate: 04/23/2014 6 x 9 x 1.125 illus</span>
<br>
<p>The United States has long exploited Earth�s orbits to enhance security, generate wealth, and solidify its position as a world leader. America�s ambivalence toward military activities in space, however, has the potential to undermine our future security. Many in Washington possess a peculiar regard for space and warfare. Some perceive space as a place to defend and fight for America�s vital interests. Others�whose voices are frequently dominant and manifested in public rhetoric, funded defense programs, international diplomacy, and treaty commitments�look upon space as a preserve not to be despoiled by earthly strife.
<br>
<br>After forty years of discussion, the debate over America�s role in space rages on. In light of the steady increase in international satellite activity for commercial and military purposes, American�s vacillation on this issue could begin to pose a real threat to our national security. Steven Lambakis argues that this policy dysfunction will eventually manifest itself in diminished international political leverage, the forfeiture of technological advances, and the squandering of valuable financial resources. Lambakis reviews key political, military, and business developments in space over the past four decades. Emphasizing that we should not take our unobstructed and unlimited access to space for granted, he identifies potential space threats and policy flaws and proposes steps to meet national security demands for the twenty-first century.</p>
<p>Provides a wealth of details on a wide range of factors that contribute to space power. -- <i>Air &amp; Space Power Journal</i></p>
<p>Ought to be read by anyone interested in understanding the coming debate over space weapons. . . . Hands down the best available resource for understanding that debate. -- <i>Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists</i></p>
<p>Interesting and provocative. . . . Recommended for anyone interested in space policy and national security affairs. -- <i>Choice</i></p>
<p>Provides a much needed strategic analysis that is refreshing, intelligent, and imaginative. . . .Successfully distills the essence of American space power into a manageable whole, blending sophisticated analysis with command of technical and scientific issues. -- <i>Comparative Strategy</i></p>
<p>Will trigger public debate, generate controversy and add creatively to the policy debate. An exceptionally good job of clarifying issues and meeting the hard questions head-on. -- <i>John D. Stempel</i></p>
<p>Offers not only skilful advocacy for the development of American space power, but also a substantial body of information upon which future strategic analyses can be built. -- <i>Survival</i></p>
<p>A guide to the current situation and a set of recommendations worth heeding. -- <i>Washington Times</i></p>
<p><i>On the Edge of Earth:The Future of American Space Power </i>. . . reflects on America�s accomplishments in space and its strategic importance to our national security. -- <i>CSAF Quarterly</i></p>
<p>It is one of the most important geopolitical books published in later years. -- <i>globalcivilwar.wordpress.com</i>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 122 -->
</div> <!-- part_1 -->
<hr>
<h1 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('part_2');">Part 2: Important Nuclear DEW References</a></h1>
<div id="part_2" style="display: block;">
<a name="x123"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x123" class="tiny">x123</a>
George W. Ullrich : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_123');">Summary of the DNA SMES Development Program</a></h1>
<h2>1995</h2>
<div id="sect_123" style="display: block;">
<p>IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, Vol. 5, No. 2, June 1995
<br />
<br />Abstract
<br />
<blockquote><p>
In 1987 the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) initiated a program at the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) to develop Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) as a short-duration, highpower source for a Free-Electron LaseyDirected Energy Weapon. SMES was also recognized as being able to fulfill the important civilian electric utility application of diurnal storage. In 1986 the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) had proposed an Engineering Test Model (ETM) as the logical next step in SMES development. Since the military and civilian requirements for energy storage were similar, the SMES ETM development was proposed as a dual-use program from the outset. DNA was selected to manage the program because of its experience managing the development of hih-power nuclear-effects simulators. This paper kimmarizes the management results and conclusions of the two-phase SMES-ETM development program.</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
<br />
I. Introduction
<br />
<br />
In 1987, the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) was tasked by the Department of Defense's @OD) Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDI0)-recently renamed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization-to undertake management of a dual-use (military-electric utilities) program to design, construct, and demonstrate a 20 MWh Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) Engineering Test Model (ETM). This SMES-ETM was to demonstrate a dual-use technology that could be scaled to full-size SMES plants storing 1000 to 5000 MWh. At this capacity, the SMES plants were to provide power for the military ground-based, free-electron laser (GBFEL) directed-energy weapon under development by the SDIO. For electric utilities, these large SMES plants were to provide diurnal storage of electric energy to level the daynight cycle of electricity usage. The 20 MWh SMES-ETM was to demonstrate, among other things, the technology required for earth support to withstand the large radial Lorentz bursting forces in the charged magnet. Earth support, sometimes referred to as warm support, was thought to be necessary for large SMES plants to be economically competitive for electric utility use.
<br>
<br>SDIO asked DNA to manage the SMES-ETM program owing to a cadre of management and technical expertise which DNA had developed as a consequence of more than a decade of expeiience in developing large, one-of-a-kind, high-power bremsstrahlung machines whose x-ray spectra provided simulations of those emitted in the detonation of a nuclear weapon. DNA had a responsibility to the DoD to provide such simulations to test and ensure the survivability and operational capability of equipment used by U.S. military forces. DNA had no prior experience with either superconductivity or with large magnets.
<br>
<br>DNA began its SMES-ETM program with perceptions formed from the contemporary views of, and writings on, this emerging technology. Here we review this history, describe DNA's SMES-ETM program, and relate its results.
<br>Viewed most simply, a SMES plant consists of a currentcarrying superconducting coil held at temperatures low enough to maintain its superconductivity, together with an associated power conditioning system (PCS) necessary to establish an appropriate interface with a power source and with the system being served.
<br>...
<br />
V. Conclusions
<br />
<br />
<br>DNA has conducted successfully what we believe to be the largest, most complex, designated dual-use program yet undertaken by the U.S. Government.
<br>For the military, we have now introduced, in a program with the U.S. Air Force, the off-the-shelf very small SMES (so-called micro-SMES; about 1 MJ in storage capacity) for local power quality enhancement.
<br>For the electric utility industry, we have delivered a SMES design that is now ready for commercial exploitation. We have, thereby, provided to the U.S. an important technical edge in what is certain to be an expanding, international marketplace.
</p>
</blockquote><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_123');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 123 -->
<a name="x124"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x124" class="tiny">x124</a>
Fulghum, David A : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">Airborne Laser Aimed At New Defense Roles</a></h1>
<h2>1998-10</h2>
<div id="sect_124" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<blockquote><p>The successful test of a TRW-designed laser recently has opened the door for a valid demonstration of the device's usefulness as a weapon against ballistic missiles. Less obviously, this test will allow the airborne laser to begin taking on crucial new missions. A study and cost analysis of collateral missions for the airborne laser will not be ready for presentation to senior Air Force Combat Command officials until spring 1999. The airborne laser aircraft is to begin a test program in 2001.</p></blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>The successful test of a TRW-designed laser recently has opened the door for a valid demonstration of the device's usefulness as a weapon against ballistic missiles.
<br>
<br>Less obviously, this test will allow the airborne laser to begin taking on crucial new missions.
<br>
<br>At the top of the list of potential missions is the airborne laser's use as a defense against cruise missiles and as a passive, long-range optical reconnaissance platform.
<br>
<br>``The technology is ready,'' said Paul Shennum, Boeing's vice president for the ABL joint program office. ``We're getting to the point now where quite a few of these things appear really feasible,'' agreed Air Force Col. Michael Booen, the airborne laser program director. ``We're still looking at cruise missile defense. That looks promising. [Moreover, some of the adjunct missions] are relatively cheap.''
<br>
<br>The ability to produce the power they need from a laser module almost six years before the YAL-1A is to become operational has let program officials begin to look more seriously at missions for the airborne laser other than intercepting theater ballistic missiles (AW&ST Sept. 14, p. 22).
<br>
<br>A study and cost analysis of collateral missions for the airborne laser will not be ready for presentation to senior Air Combat Command officials until spring 1999, program officials said.
<br>
<br>``This [laser's success] is going to break the door down for directed energy weapons,'' Booen said. ``In general, there are no radical changes we have to make [to conduct adjunct missions]. None of them are very expensive. Sometimes it involves more software or more optics. That could mean more optical elements so we can use the sensors in different ways, [or] possibly some small additions to the optics [additional sensors]. That's what we've got to talk to Air Combat Command about. If we needed the additional optics, would they be willing to put those on the jet?''
<br>
<br>Initial indications are that five areas identified last year are still valid and may cost less than had earlier been thought. These are:
<br>
<br>-- Imaging and reconnaissance using the 1.5-meter optical telescope to find and identify air and ground targets and formations, observe traffic and conduct battle damage assessment at ranges of several hundred miles.
<br>
<br>-- Protection of high-value aircraft such as AWACS, Joint-STARS and itself by destroying anti-aircraft missiles launched from the ground or other aircraft.
<br>
<br>-- Suppression of air defenses by combining target data from various intelligence sources to attack enemy missiles while they are still on the ground as well as the radars that control them.
<br>
<br>-- Command and control through searching the battlefield for infrared signatures to cue other weapons and to provide a command with a first look at theater threats.
<br>
<br>-- Defense against low-flying cruise missiles even a year ago was thought too difficult a task for the YAL-1A, but indications are that the Air Force is reassessing the flying laser's capabilities against those small, sometimes stealthy, targets.
<br>
<br>Cruise missile defense has looked more promising as ``we've gotten into more of the details,'' Booen said. ``Obviously we can shoot the high fliers a little bit further than we can shoot the low fliers because they look more like the missiles we were designed to [attack],'' he said. ``[But, now] we're looking at the whole envelope.''
<br>
<br>Booen said program officials look at ABL as part of the family of systems designed for theater missile defense which encompasses both cruise and ballistic weapons.
<br>
<br>``We've tried to design in the connectivity between us and Joint-STARS and AWACS,'' Booen said. ``We have infrared and optical sensors on board so that data is what we'll be sending down JTIDS and Link 16 [which are the primary digital communications links].''
<br>
<br>Program officials refused to comment on whether the YAL-1A's infrared sensors would be sensitive enough to pick up the small exhaust signatures of cruise missiles, many of which are expected to have stealthy designs or radar absorbing coatings.
<br>
<br>Among these potential missions, cruise missile defense could move to a fast track. The YAL-1A may take its place as one of the pillars of the classified cruise missile defense plan that includes the E-3 AWACS, E-8 Joint-STARS and an upgraded version of the AIM-120 Amraam air-to-air missile (AW&ST Aug. 24, p. 22).
<br>
<br>The cruise missile defense system is scheduled to be demonstrated in 2004-05 and operational by 2010 which fits well with the YAL-1A's expected operational debut around 2005. Stealthy cruise missiles are expected to be on the world market about the same time.
<br>
<br>As the basic plan now stands, the AWACS' long-range S-band radar would spot the incoming cruise missile and cue an Amraam-carrying fighter to shoot its missile into a certain point in the sky, referred to as a basket.
<br>
<br>The AWACS would also digitally tell the Joint-STARS' big, high-definition X-band radar where to look to better target and identify the cruise missile. The Joint-STARS also would direct the air-to-air weapon until its own sensors could see the cruise missile and complete the intercept.
<br>
<br>The TRW-designed laser is to be built as a module that can be stacked in the Air Force's YAL-1A airborne laser, a specialized Boeing 747-400F. The initial test of the multihundred-kw. chemical oxygen iodine laser was conducted on June 3. The test program for the flight-weighted laser module was completed in late August at TRW's Capistrano Test Site near San Clemente, Calif.
<br>
<br>The ability of the Boeing, TRW, Lockheed Martin team to go from ``first light'' with the laser through completion of a 26-test program in less than three months is an indicator of the overall technical health of the project, Booen said. The system's critical design review is scheduled for July 1999.
<br>
<br>THE AIRBORNE LASER aircraft is to begin a test program in 2001 at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., involving the launch of a variety of missiles to verify the surveillance and command and control system, Booen said.
<br>
<br>The YAL-1A's first attempt to destroy a missile in flight with a laser is to be made in 2002 with the target to be a surrogate theater ballistic missile fired over the Pacific from Vandenberg AFB, Calif. As currently planned, the program is to produce seven laser-armed aircraft.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Photograph: The successful test of the ABL's laser opens many new possibilities for employment of the airborne weapon such as the destruction of cruise missiles and suppression of enemy air defenses.
<br>
<br>Subject: Lasers; Military weapons; Missiles; Product testing; Defense
<br>
<br>Location: US
<br>
<br>Classification: 9190: US; 8650: Electrical, electronics, instrumentation industries; 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 7500: Product planning & development
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 149
<br>
<br>Issue: 14
<br>
<br>Pages: 111
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 1998
<br>
<br>Publication date: October 5, 1998</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 124 -->
<a name="x125"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x125" class="tiny">x125</a>
Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_125');">Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And The Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons
</a></h1>
<h2>1999</h2>
<div id="sect_125" style="display: block;">
<p>
<blockquote><p>
Fifth Edition: March 1999
<br>
<br>Review Comments:
<br>
<br>Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni provide an extremely valuable service by issuing this report. The report consists of two principal components
<br>
<br>- a very informative overview of first and second generation nuclear weapon technology (that is, pure fission devices, boosted fission devices, and staged thermonuclear designs);
<br>and
<br>
<br>- an excellent summary of current research directions in weapons-applicable physics, such as the U.S. Science-Based Stockpile Program, and the prospects of developing a new generation of fourth generation nuclear weapons.
<br>
<br>[It should be noted in passing that third generation nuclear weapons include such devices as hot X-ray and enhanced neutron emission ("neutron bomb") thermonuclear weapons, specialized devices that were never procured in large numbers, and have been largely abandoned as of little military interest.]
<br>Of special interest is their excellent and extensive bibliography that brings together many references regarding weapon history, basic weapon physics, and fourth generation weapon concepts. To people interested in these subjects the bibliography aloneis easily worth the modest cost of the publication.
<br>
<br>--- Carey Sublette
<br>
<br> The Physical Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And The Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons
<br>
<br>Executive Summary
<br>
<br>This report is an assessment of the prospect of developing new (i.e., fourth generation) nuclear weapons in the context of the recently agreed Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and of the current moratorium on nuclear testing in effect in all nuclear-weapon States.
<br>
<br>The first chapter is a primer on thermonuclear weapons based on a scientific understanding of the physical principles of existing nuclear weapons and on the results of ISRINEX, a simple thermonuclear explosion simulation program specially developed for independent disarmament experts. Using this insight, it is shown that the construction of hydrogen bombs is in fact much less difficult than is generally assumed. Using present-day nuclear and computer technology, almost any modern industrial country could, in principle, build such a weapon. Similarly, it is shown that "boosting," i.e., the technique of using a small amount of tritium to enhance the performance of a fission bomb, is also much easier than generally assumed. In particular, using this technique, building highly efficient and reliable atomic weapons using reactor-grade plutonium is straightforward. Moreover, independently of the type of fissile material used, the construction of "simple" and "deliverable" tritium-boosted nuclear weapons can be easier than the construction of primitive Hiroshima or Nagasaki type atomic bombs.
<br>
<br>The second chapter is a technical and legal analysis of the nuclear tests which are allowed by the CTBT: microexplosions and subcritical experiments. It is found that this treaty explicitly forbids only nuclear explosions in which a divergent fission chain reaction takes place. Therefore, it is possible to develop new types of fission explosives in which subcritical fission-burn is the yield generation mechanism. Similarly, new kinds of fusion explosives, in which the trigger is no longer a fission explosive, are legal under the CTBT. %\smallskip
<br>
<br>The third chapter is devoted to the military applications of inertial confinement fusion (ICF) and other pulsed-power technologies. The capabilities of modern laboratory simulation techniques for weapons physics research are shown to significantly overlap with those of underground nuclear testing. Moreover, these technologies are found to enable the study of a number of physical processes --- especially electromagnetic energy cumulation techniques and advanced nuclear processes that are not restricted by existing arms control treaties --- which are useful in refining existing nuclear weapons and essential in developing fourth generation nuclear weapons. %\smallskip
<br>
<br>The fourth chapter is devoted to fourth generation nuclear weapons. These new fission or fusion explosives could have yields in the range of 1 to 100 ton equivalents of TNT, i.e., in the gap which today separates conventional weapons from nuclear weapons. These relatively low-yield nuclear explosives would not qualify as weapons of \emph{mass} destruction. Seven physical processes which could be used to make such low-yield nuclear weapons, or to make compact non-fission triggers for large scale thermonuclear explosions, are investigated in detail: subcritical fission-burn, magnetic compression, superheavy elements, antimatter, nuclear isomers, metallic hydrogen and superlasers (i.e., ultrapowerful lasers with intensities higher than 1019 W/cm2).
<br>
<br>The conclusion stresses that considerable research is underway in all five nuclear-weapon States (as well as in several other major industrialized States such as Germany and Japan) on ICF and on many physical processes that provide the scientific basis necessary to develop fourth generation nuclear weapons. Substantial progress has been made in the past few years on all these processes, and the construction of large ICF microexplosion facilities in both nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon States is giving the arms race a fresh boost. The world runs the risk that certain countries will equip themselves directly with fourth generation nuclear weapons, bypassing the acquisition of previous generations of nuclear weapons.
<br>
<br>In this context, the invention of the superlaser, which enabled a factor of one million increase in the instantaneous power of tabletop lasers, is possibly the most significant advance in military technology of the past ten years. This increase is of the same magnitude as the factor of one million difference in energy density between chemical and nuclear energy.
<br>
<br>A major arms control problem of fourth generation nuclear weapons is that their development is very closely related to pure scientific research. The chief purpose of the CTBT is to freeze the technology of nuclear weapons as a first step toward general and complete nuclear disarmament. In order to achieve that, it is necessary to implement effective measures of preventive arms control, such as international legally binding restrictions in all relevant areas of research and development, whether they are claimed to be for military or civilian purposes.
</p></blockquote>
<p><br>
<br>ISBN: 3-933071-02-X. 183 pages, 25 figures, 4 tables, 528 references (Fifth corrected and expanded version of a report first distributed at the 1997 INESAP Conference, Shanghai, China, September 8--10, 1997.)
<br>
<br>To Order:
<br>
<br>Orders should be sent to: IANUS, ianus@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de, or by fax to No.\ (+49) 6151-16-6309. Price: $20 + postage.
<br>
<br>Copyright, 1997, 1998, 1999. INESAP, c/o IANUS, Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany. All rights reserved. ISBN: 3-933071-02-X.
</p>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_125');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 125 -->
<a name="x126"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x126" class="tiny">x126</a>
Smith, Bruce a; Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">Thel Laser Kills Short-Range Missile</a></h1>
<h2>2000-06</h2>
<div id="sect_126" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Destruction of a rocket in-flight by a high-energy laser system has demonstrated that an operational-type directed energy weapon can defeat a short-range ballistic rocket attack, according to program officials.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Destruction of a rocket in flight by a high-energy laser system has demonstrated that an operational-type directed energy weapon can defeat a short-range ballistic rocket attack, according to program officials.
<br>
<br>The Katyusha rocket was destroyed on June 6 at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., when the U.S. Army's Tactical High Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator (Thel/Actd) detonated the vehicle's high-explosive warhead.
<br>
<br>THE INTERCEPT was the first kill of a Katyusha rocket by a deployable-type high-energy laser weapon, and the first attempt by the Thel system to destroy a rocket, according to program officials.
<br>
<br>The test could serve as a first step in bolstering air defense against attacks by rockets such as the Katyusha, with Mach 3 velocity and a flight time of only 15-40 sec.
<br>
<br>The test could also boost interest in development of laser weapon systems which are smaller and more mobile than Thel, which includes several transportable, cargo container-sized structures mounted on concrete pads.
<br>
<br>In the near-term, the successful demonstration will lead to more complex and aggressive testing of the Thel system, officials said.
<br>
<br>The rocket was fired on a 15-km. trajectory and destroyed by Thel at a range of a few kilometers. ``It was the very first time we tried to put the high [laser] power on a Katyusha for long-enough duration to kill it, and we blew it up,'' said Richard Bradshaw, directed energy program manager for the Army Space and Missile Defense Command.
<br>
<br>How long the laser has to be focused on the Katyusha to explode it is classified, but Bradshaw said the engagement took place ``within the tactical timelines we need to meet our requirements.''
<br>
<br>The Thel system was developed by a TRW-led team of U.S. and Israeli contractors for the U.S. Army and the Israel Ministry of Defense. The design of the deuterium fluoride chemical laser weapon was driven in part by Israel's requirements for an air defense system to protect communities located along the country's northern border from terrorist rocket attacks. The Katyusha rocket for the test was supplied by the Israeli government.
<br>
<br>The rocket was launched at 3:48 p.m. EDT in desert terrain near the Army's High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility. The launcher was located 10-15 km. south of the position of the Thel system.
<br>
<br>The integrated fire control radar acquired the incoming Katyusha shortly after launch, determined the trajectory and automatically fed data to the command and control system. Command and control identified the target and directed the optical pointer/tracker subsystem to search with sensors mounted on the beam director. A forward looking infrared (Flir) system is used for coarse-tracking.
<br>
<br>THE SYSTEM THEN TRANSITIONED to a fine-tracking mode using a lower-power level solid state laser to illuminate the target. The system uses full aperture of the beam director for precision tracking on the vehicle's warhead, ultimately sending the laser beam out through the pointer-tracker. The warhead of the 10-ft. long rocket was heated by the laser beam and detonated.
<br>
<br>Tom Romesser, TRW vice president and deputy general manager of laser programs, said the Katyusha's solid rocket motor provides 2-3 sec. of thrust enabling the vehicle to typically achieve an initial launch velocity of about a kilometer per second.
<br>
<br>PROGRAM OFFICIALS have aimed at concentrating the energy of the laser beam on the warhead of the rocket. ``The Katyushas are a 122-mm.-dia. rocket,'' Romesser said. ``Our objective is to focus our energy so that it impacts the rocket and we deposit all of our energy on the rocket.''
<br>
<br>The next step in the program is preparing for a multiple rocket shoot-down in about 6-8 weeks. Between now and then, the Army and TRW will analyze data from about 80 sensors that observed last week's test.
<br>
<br>Bradshaw said some configuration changes are possible, but that no obvious adjustments are required as a result of last week's test. Initially, the Army plans to launch multiple rockets on a similar trajectory, which should ease the ability to detect and engage the targets.
<br>
<br>Eventually, Thel was supposed to be deployed to Israel to protect the country's northern border against Hezbollah Katyusha attacks from southern Lebanon. But there is some discussion within the Pentagon about whether that move will take place. The Pentagon's director for research and development, Hans Mark, is interested in keeping the system in the U.S. for testing. In the meantime, Israel and the U.S. are working on an agreement to jointly develop a smaller, mobile, more tactically useful version of the laser-system.
<br>
<br>The successful intercept has been slow in coming. The Army and Israel signed an agreement in 1996 to develop the system as a quick response capability. However, along the way the development slowed several times because of technical difficulties.
<br>
<br>Bradshaw acknowledged that integrating the different Thel components at times took longer than first expected. However, he added, the development could have been even slower if TRW hadn't given its engineers at lower levels a lot of authority to explore problems and come up with fixes.
<br>
<br>Army officials also are eager to point out that the Thel success has broader implications for directed energy weapons. ``This compelling demonstration of Thel's defensive capability proves that directed energy weapon systems have the potential to play a significant role in defending U.S. national security interests worldwide.''
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: Ten-ft.-long Katyusha ballistic rocket was destroyed at White Sands Missile Range when Thel high-energy laser beam detonated the high-explosive warhead.
<br>
<br>Subject: Lasers; Missiles; Research & development; R & D; National security
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Classification: 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9190: United States; 5400: Research & development; 9000: Short article
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 152
<br>
<br>Issue: 24
<br>
<br>Pages: 33
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: June 12, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 126 -->
<a name="x127"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x127" class="tiny">x127</a>
Phillips, Edward H; Fulghum, David a : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_127');">JSF Studied As Potential Jamming, Laser Platform</a></h1>
<h2>2000-07</h2>
<div id="sect_127" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Lockheed Martin is studying special derivatives of its Joint Strike Fighter candidate for special mission applications that center on electronic attack and the use of directive-energy weapons. These initiatives are drawing serious interest from the U.S. Defense Department and the UK's Ministry of Defense, according to Lockheed Martin officials. A key tactical advantage of a joint strike fighter configured for electronic attack would be its ability to accompany a strike force, jamming enemy radars and communications.</blockquote>
<p>Full text:
<br>
<blockquote><p>Lockheed Martin is studying special derivatives of its Joint Strike Fighter candidate for special mission applications that center on electronic attack and the use of directed-energy weapons.
<br>
<br>These initiatives are drawing serious interest from the U.S. Defense Dept. and the U.K.'s Ministry of Defense, according to Lockheed Martin officials. If the company's JSF team wins the engineering and manufacturing development contract scheduled to be awarded in 2001, these programs would accelerate to meet JSF deployment tentatively set for 2008. Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems are also members of the team.
<br>
<br>A key tactical advantage of a JSF configured for electronic attack would be its ability to accompany a strike force, jamming enemy radars and communications as the flight sweeps through an area at high speed and at high or low altitudes, said Harold W. Blot. He is vice president and deputy program manager for Lockheed Martin's JSF initiative. The JSF's electronic warfare suite would be able to locate, identify, prioritize and jam a variety of ground-based electronic threats, according to Blot.
<br>
<br>David L. Jeffreys, acting manager of growth and derivatives for the company's JSF program, said the airplane is ``a natural fit'' for the electronic attack mission because of its long range, reduced radar signature, and the capability to produce a significant amount of electrical energy to power an array of specialized equipment. These include an airborne laser or packages designed to jam enemy radars and communications.
<br>
<br>The 181-cu.-ft. cavity used to house the lift fan for the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version could accommodate electronics, reconnaissance cameras or fuel. For example, an additional 3,800 lb. of fuel could be carried in the compartment that would increase the airplane's combat radius of 700 naut. mi. by another 190 naut. mi., Jeffreys said.
<br>
<br>THE INPUT SHAFT from the Pratt & Whitney engine used to propel the JSF and operate the lift fan could be modified to drive a generator producing megawatts of energy to power a directed-energy weapon, he said. Lockheed Martin has consulted with various manufacturers of lasers to determine if the 50-in.-dia. cavity and 35,000 shp. available from the engine would be adequate to operate a laser. The answer was ``yes, but only if the airplane flies at altitudes above 50,000 ft. and engaged air-to-air or air-to-space targets,'' the analysts said. Operating a laser at lower altitudes would significantly weaken the weapon's energy, requiring the aircraft to get too close to its target to achieve destruction. Such missions probably would be assigned to cruise missiles carrying high-powered microwave weapons, Blot said.
<br>
<br>Potential targets for an airborne laser include aircraft, cruise missiles, artillery rockets and possibly spacecraft. Disabling communications or surveillance satellites in low-Earth orbit, however, would require changes to existing international treaties. ``Installing a laser on a tactical airplane is very challenging, especially from a systems integration standpoint, but our studies indicate that it can be done,'' Jeffreys said. Although engineers still have many details to work out for a laser-equipped JSF, ``we have received substantial interest from the customer community'' for such an aircraft, he said.
<br>
<br>In addition, the U.S. Marine Corps is ``very interested in JSF as an electronic attack platform'' because STOVL versions for the Marines could replace the AV-8B Harrier II, EA-6B Prowler and F/A-18 Hornet with one airplane, said Don A. Beaufait, manager of Marine Corps JSF business development for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. The U.S. Air Force views a modified version of the conventional takeoff and landing version (CTOL) JSF as a way to regain jamming capability lost with retirement of the EF-111 Raven.
<br>
<br>The JSF's stealth characteristics, coupled with its Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar/antenna technologies and internal jamming packages, would make the airplane an effective electronic attack platform, according to Beaufait. Unlike the Prowler, it could penetrate much closer to the target, jamming it more effectively. The JSF's software would analyze the acquisition cycle of an antiaircraft radar and jam it occasionally to force the target-acquisition cycle to start again.
<br>
<br>Standoff was a factor in the loss of an F-117A near Belgrade during the Kosovo campaign when an EA-6B was forced to remain nearly 100 mi. away to avoid antiaircraft missiles. As a result, enemy radar was not jammed effectively. Although the JSF's AESA will have limited jamming capability against another aircraft's radar and communications systems, an additional antenna could be mounted in a conformal radome and emit powerful, narrow beams that would be difficult to detect, Jeffreys said. The JSF's ASEA comprises several hundred transmitter/receiver elements that can each be simultaneously assigned a different task such as communications, jamming or target search.
<br>
<br>The company also is studying a two-seat JSF version. Mission radius would be reduced by 75 mi. Although modifying the Air Force CTOL and Navy CV versions to accept a second cockpit would not be difficult, stretching the STOVL airplane would present more problems because of the lift fan bay. Although analysis by Lockheed Martin JSF team member BAE Systems indicates a two-seat STOVL aircraft is feasible, ``there are important considerations, including aerodynamics and weight and balance issues,'' Beaufait said.
<br>
<br>Weapons bays for Air Force and Navy aircraft feature 175 cu. ft. that could accept mission pallets such as electronics or reconnaissance packages. Lockheed Martin also is designing a conformal, centerline-mounted pod for the Marine Corps' JSF to house the Boeing Advanced 27-mm. Aircraft Cannon. The installation would increase drag slightly compared with the standard JSF.
<br>
<br>Another study centers on using optional, interchangeable weapons bay doors to allow the JSF to carry a wide array of bombs and other weapons. Larger doors would allow carriage of 2,000-lb.-class weapons and would be designed to operate at supersonic speeds, Jeffreys said. Engineers also are studying the use of smaller weapons such as 100-250-lb. bombs, and multimode, radar-killing missiles that are more effective than existing Harm weapons.
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Illustration: Graph: Two-Seat JSF Versions
<br>
<br>Straightforward Adaptation for Two-Seat CTOL and CV Versions
<br>
<br>-- Second Seat Occupies Part of Lift Fan Bay
<br>
<br>-- Additional Fuel/Avionics Volume Still Available
<br>
<br>Side-Looking EA Apertures Could Be Mounted Internally,
<br>
<br>Carried in Weapons Bay Packages or in Centerline Pod
<br>
<br>Subject: Military aircraft; Research & development; R & D; Electronic warfare; Radar systems
<br>
<br>Location: United States, US
<br>
<br>Company / organization: Name: Lockheed Martin Corp; Ticker: LMT; NAICS: 334290, 212319, 336411, 336413, 336414
<br>
<br>Classification: 8680: Transportation equipment industry; 9190: United States; 5400: Research & development
<br>
<br>Publication title: Aviation Week & Space Technology
<br>
<br>Volume: 153
<br>
<br>Issue: 2
<br>
<br>Pages: 33-34
<br>
<br>Number of pages: 0
<br>
<br>Publication year: 2000
<br>
<br>Publication date: July 10, 2000</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_127');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 127 -->
<a name="x128"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x128" class="tiny">x128</a>
Barry Watts : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">The Military Use of Space: A Diagnoistic Assessment</a></h1>
<h2>2001-02</h2>
<div id="sect_128" style="display: block;">
<p>Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (<a href="http://www.csbaonline.org">http://www.csbaonline.org</a>), 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 912, Washington, D.C. 20036, 2001, 130 pages.</p>
<blockquote><p>Directed-energy or energy-to-target weapons, by comparison, use particle or electromagnetic beams to transfer destructive energy directly to their targets.<sup>333</sup>
<br />
<br>The amount of energy that directed-energy weapons need to deliver at the target depends on the coupling between the weapon�s energy and the target.350 Factors affecting the efficiency of this coupling include the target�s materials, configuration and orientation to the beam, as well as the type of energy transmitted. Laser energy interacts with the surface of the target, whereas highenergy particles are able to penetrate somewhat deeper.351 The material used for the target�s skin (aluminum or steel in the case of most ballistic missiles), skin thickness, coatings, any target rotation, the precise aim-point on the target (and, in the case of a missiles, whether it is under thrust or not) can all yield different effects.<sup>352</sup> Applying laser energy to a non-burning stage of a multistage, solid-propellant missile, for instance, may be more like trying to puncture an uninflated tire, whereas the same incident energy might cause catastrophic destruction if applied to a burning stage.<sup>353</sup> In addition, the intensity of directed-energy weapons decreases in proportion to the reciprocal of the square of the range from weapon to target. This rapid decrease in incident energy as range to the target increases tends to drive up the requirements for laser power and constellation size. The directed-energy application that has received the most funding and research has been the possibility of using laser weapons for ballistic-missile defense. According to most sources, the ability of an individual laser to concentrate energy on a target depends primarily on the size of optics.<sup>354</sup>
<br>
<br><sup>333</sup> Bob Preston, May/June 2000
<br>
<br><sup>352</sup> Lieutenant Colonel William H. Possel, �Lasers and Missile Defense: New Concepts for Space-based and Ground-based Laser Weapons,� Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, July 1998, Occasional Paper No. 5, pp. 12-13. In 1995, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board estimated that effective engagement of a boost-phase ballistic missile would require about a megajoule of energy from a laser weapon�<i>New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century</i>, Major General Donald L. Lamberson (chair, Directed Energy Panel), <i>Directed Energy Volume</i> (Washington, DC: USAF SAB, 1995), p. 34.
<br>
<br><sup>353</sup> Preston, May/June 2000.
<br>
<br><sup>354</sup> <i>New World Vistas</i>, Lamberson, Directed Energy Volume, p. 26; also, Preston, May/June 2000.
<br>
<br><sup>355</sup> Preston, May/June 2000.
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 128 -->
<a name="x129"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x129" class="tiny">x129</a>
Fulghum, David a : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_129');">Pentagon Reveals Mobile Pain Ray</a></h1>
<h2>2001-05</h2>
<div id="sect_129" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract
<blockquote><p>Directed-energy weapons, including lasers and high-power microwave devices, continue to trickle out of the Pentagon's classified research and development programs, and the latest, a joint project by the Marine Corps and Air Force, is a nonlethal, millimeter-wave, antipersonnel ray. The 10-year, $40-million program was developed to this point with no obvious funding in the defense budget nor with any reference in Pentagon literature about nonlethal weapons development.</blockquote>
<br>Full Text
<br>
<blockquote><p>Directed-energy weapons, including lasers and high-power microwave devices, continue to trickle out of the Pentagon's classified research and development programs, and the latest, a joint project by the Marine Corps and Air Force, is a nonlethal, millimeter-wave, antipersonnel ray.
<br>The 10-year, $40-million program was developed to this point with no obvious funding in the defense budget nor with any reference in Pentagon literature about nonlethal weapons development. Critics of such weapons, who worry about health effects, say the program was purposefully kept ``black or nicely hidden'' to escape public scrutiny for a decade.
<br>With antimissile, antiaircraft and computer-frying directed-energy emitters already being turned into weapons by the U.S., officials in the joint program say they intend this Raytheon-built, millimeter-wave (MMW) energy projector to be used for controlling crowds or perhaps driving off an approaching infantry force with bursts of intensely painful rays. A likely tactical scenario would be to swivel rays of short-pulse, 95-GHz. energy like a fire hose across a group of people to inflict sharp stings on the skin, even through clothing.
<br>Many of the technical details are classified, but the Marine Corps admittedly wants the device to work at ranges of more than half a mile, beyond the effective range of small arms. The beam would be defocused to reduce power and the possibility of permanent damage. Contractors include Raytheon, Communications and Power Industries and Veridian Engineering.
<br>Any effects, researchers contend, are harmless and immediately reversible. They predict at least two factors will help ensure there are no lasting effects. To keep the beam from inflicting burns or damaging eyes, it is limited in power and endurance. They also are convinced that a human's natural inclination--``the repel effect''--will be to escape the pain by running away or closing the eyes.
<br>The directed-energy ray at the point of exposure causes moisture in the outer layer of skin to heat to a temperature high enough that it stings the surrounding tissue like a drop of scalding water. The ray penetrates less than 1/64 in. However, as was demonstrated on those attending the device's first public display, the sting immediately stops when bare skin is moved out of the ray.
<br>Only one person was injured during tests of the millimeter-wave-frequency demonstrator. The test system was once accidentally programmed for an exposure far too long, and the subject suffered a small burn that healed normally, said Kirk Hackett, who leads the high-energy research facility which develops and tests high-power microwave weapons technology for the Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, N.M. Most of the 6,500 test exposures for the ray ranged from 3-10 sec. These tests were the first to expose a person's full body to the energy beam.
<br>Such a weapon would be useful in urban conflicts and where collateral damage is a primary concern, said Marine Corps Col. George Fenton, director of the joint nonlethal weapons office. The Marine's vehicle-mounted active denial system is to be mounted on a Humvee light truck, if the Pentagon gives approval for weaponization of the program. Power would be provided by a turbo-alternator and battery system, Hackett said. Acquisition of the technology is to be taken over by USAF's electronic systems center this summer.
<br>Air Force researchers are openly working on the long-range airborne laser as an antimissile weapon and, in a series of classified programs, are working on an array of high-power microwave and laser weapons and sensors. Laser sensors are in particular demand because they can produce detailed images of targets, even to the point of determining the materials they are made from. HPM weapons are valued because they can be used to scramble computer memories and otherwise disable computers that control key battlefield command and communications capabilities.
<br>The Air Force, cosponsor of the project, has other targets in mind for high-power microwave weapons. Researchers want to put such directed-energy weapons on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and perhaps the Joint Strike Fighter to burn up the electronics of key devices, including vehicle ignitions, as part of a combination computer attack and information warfare campaign. The British also are developing HPM weapons for use on UAVs and to be fired by artillery.
<br>However, to shift from an antipersonnel weapon to a device that damages electronic circuitry requires far different applications of the technology. The frequency of the weapon would have to shift much lower, from 95 GHz. to around 1 GHz., the peak power of the beam would have to increase dramatically and it would have to be powerful enough for use at longer ranges. For example, to survive ground fire, even unmanned aircraft have to operate at an altitude of at least 15,000 ft.
<br>Researchers say they have made technological breakthroughs on power supplies to run such weapons even when mounted on vehicles or aircraft. Batteries, generators and devices driven by shafts attached to the aircraft's engine would be expected to supply the necessary power. Operational planners say the UAV is the most likely candidate for HPM weapons since it can get closer to targets without endangering air crews.
</blockquote>
<p>Word count: 839
<br />Aviation Week & Space Technology 154.19 (May 7, 2001): 82-83.
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_129');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 129 -->
<a name="x130"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x130" class="tiny">x130</a>
Fulghum, David a. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_130');">Laser Can Foil SAMs, Air-to-Air Missiles</a></h1>
<h2>2001-05</h2>
<div id="sect_130" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>A new infrared countermeasures system, designed to protect large aircraft like the C-17 from heat-seeking missiles, has for the first time successfully used a laser to scan the inner workings and outer shape of an attacking weapon, precisely identify it and, finally, provide the correct jamming signal to lead it off course. This breakthrough gives visibility to a larger trend, say senior aerospace planners. They believe air-to-air and antiaircraft missiles are a mature technology, about to be left in the dust by rapidly advancing directed energy weapons. The first successful live-fire test of the Laser Infrared countermeasures Flyout Experiment, a $30-million cooperative effort by the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, and Lockheed Martin in Akron, Ohio, was completed earlier this year at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>A new infrared countermeasures system, designed to protect large aircraft like the C-17 from heat-seeking missiles, has for the first time successfully used a laser to scan the inner workings and outer shape of an attacking weapon, precisely identify it and, finally, provide the correct jamming signal to lead it off course.
<br>This breakthrough gives visibility to a larger trend, say senior aerospace planners. They believe air-to-air and antiaircraft missiles are a mature technology, about to be left in the dust by rapidly advancing directed energy weapons (DEW). Greater profitability will come from directed energy weapons, as missile development flattens. ``The major companies already realize that the future belongs to DEW,'' an aerospace official said. To reflect this conviction, they have been quietly forming divisions dedicated to directed-energy work.
<br>The first successful live-fire test of the Laser Infrared countermeasures Flyout Experiment (Life), a $30-million cooperative effort by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, and Lockheed Martin in Akron, Ohio, was completed earlier this year at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. In its mature form, the system will use a multiband laser to identify an approaching weapon by the sensor it carries and other characteristics. A closed-loop infrared countermeasures (CLIRCM) capability enables the system to assess the characteristics of an incoming missile and then return a complex synchronized jam code. That causes the missile to make a high-g turn away from the aircraft (to chase a cluster of false targets), break lock and miss by a great distance. The system phases the generation of false targets so that the incoming missile tracks away in one direction.
<br>Older open-loop, laser-based self-defense systems produce random false targets that make the missile wobble in flight, but not necessarily break lock on the target.
<br>``The missile's guidance loop is degraded, but not destroyed,'' said an Air Force researcher. ``The result of [such] suboptimal jamming is that [the threat missile] is wandering around still trying to reacquire the target. It doesn't result in large miss distances. But if [CLIRCM] can drive the missile off efficiently in one direction, the total time to jam is a lot less [as little as 3-4 sec.].'' Total engagement time is reduced, and the defensive system is free to move quickly to the next antiaircraft missile.
<br>The Life tests employed shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) fired at a specially designed carrier suspended from a cable between two mountaintops, said John Wojnar, Lockheed Martin's director of advanced programs business development.
<br>The Life advanced technology demonstration is to conduct a second set of live missile firing tests this summer, using both air-to-air missiles and SAMs. These will be followed by captive carry tests on a C-17 in 2002. The technology will then be shifted to Wright-Patterson AFB as a potential upgrade to the Large Aircraft IRCM system.
<br>The Pentagon has the immediate problem of proliferating infrared antiaircraft and air-to-air weapons. While its researchers have produced effective defenses against radar-guided missiles, the ability to defeat infrared missiles has not been as effective. Aircraft like the C-17 produce huge heat signatures. As a result, they are threatened by the hundreds of thousands of cheap, very mobile SA-14/-16/-18-type missiles on the world market that could be operated clandestinely within a few miles of an airfield. About half of the aircraft lost in combat over the last two decades have been to heat-seeking missiles, said James Eichorn, Lockheed Martin's Life program manager. Because the U.S. has been so effective in foiling radar-guided missiles, foreign manufacturers are modifying their radar missiles with electro-optical and infrared sensors to avoid detection.
<br>The new technology is expected to aid in the development of future self-defense systems for both manned and unmanned aircraft. While the AFRL/Lockheed Martin Life system is designed to react only to missiles already in the air, more futuristic systems will try to find threats, and damage or destroy them before they are launched.
<br>WHILE NOT PART of the Life program, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has launched several programs to design and test key laser-based IR countermeasures (IRCM) components. Two--named Medusa and Steered Agile Beam--focus on conformal optical arrays for high-performance aircraft that neither disturb aerodynamic flow, which creates drag, nor increase the aircraft's radar signature. It would shift infrared countermeasures systems away from ponderous, electro-optical turrets, thereby reducing cost, weight, space and reaction time. Both programs explore the utility of these arrays for the Joint Strike Fighter, F-22 or even the visionary unmanned air combat vehicle (UCAV). The latter is to rely heavily on autonomous, closed-loop systems to identify the target.
<br>Earlier this month, in associated work, AFRL's directed energy directorate at Kirtland AFB, N.M., awarded $23 million for a five-year Aircraft Directed-Energy Laser Applications (Adela) program to develop and test an antiaircraft missile defense system by 2004. Textron received $13 million to design, develop and test lasers and laser beam controls. Raytheon was given $4.5 million to integrate plans for field testing at its Tucson, Ariz., facility. ITT Industries was awarded $4.5 million to conduct laser effects experiments against advanced antiaircraft missiles. Applied Research Corp. of Atlanta received $1 million to develop and revise missile computer models.
<br>The Life testbed now being demonstrated is made up of five basic components, parts of which will be upgraded as testing progresses:
<br>-- A two-color IR missile warning sensor and processor for wide-area (90 X 90 deg.) missile detection that cues the system that the aircraft is under attack. ``They went to two color to ensure the wide-field-of-view warning sensor could detect missile launches in a cluttered environment and not be plagued by large numbers of false alarms,'' said Bill Taylor, technical adviser for the AFRL's electro-optical warfare branch. The two-color system allows the missile plume to be distinguished spectrally from the solar glints and clutter. The Life system also has a reduced detection threshold which makes it better able to see faint, fleeting targets.
<br>-- A fine-track, narrow field-of-view camera that uses a very sensitive, cooled 512 X 512-pixel infrared focal plane array to track the missile after cueing by the missile warning sensor. After tracking the missile passively, the system shifts to an active laser mode performing functions somewhat like a laser radar.
<br>-- A laser-specific gimbal that provides very precise pointing of the laser while tracking the incoming missile to keep the beam consistently on the target. Laser energy is transmitted in a very narrow beam allowing a finer focus of jamming power. High-power lasers are usually associated with heavy weight, so lower power, narrow-beam lasers are preferred. The smaller the gimbal, the less mass there is to move, therefore the system responds quicker.
<br>-- The current multiwatt mid-IR laser will be replaced with a more capable device built by BAE Systems for jamming bands 1, 2 and 4. It is expected to be available for tests during the next year. It will operate in multiple wavelengths to ensure it won't be fooled by countermeasures. Earlier laser systems keyed on a missile's engine plume and used a laser beam wide enough to encompass the plume and the missile's sensor. But a wider beam width means there is less total jamming power applied to the sensor aperture.
<br>-- And a closed-loop IRCM signal processor with a countermeasure effectiveness assessment capability. Today, all the IR countermeasure systems are open loop, which means they only transmit. A closed-loop system like Lockheed Martin's both transmits and receives laser signals. It uses the laser in a radar-like function as the heart of a closed-loop operation capable of defending against a variety of missiles.
<br>Like many other new weapons and sensors, a key technology for Life is an on-board processor capable of performing billions of operations per second. Such speed is critical given a SAM's flight time of a few seconds when aircraft are at low altitude. Life's processors hold detailed algorithms for threat identification ``that allows us to point out the exact jam code instead of a generic [jamming signal that may not work in time],'' an Air Force official said. Earlier defensive systems would simply run through a series of jam codes, hoping to get to the right one before the missile struck. It is important that the complex scan patterns of modern infrared missiles be synchronized with the jam code. Gathering such data is difficult since a number of countries have made their own unique changes to SAM weaponry, making them hard to jam.
<br>THERE ARE FUTURE antiaircraft weapons that will be even tougher to defeat. For example, new missiles like Israel's Python 4 air-to-air missile and Japan's Keiko SAM have sensor components that don't spin or roll. These movements within the seeker heads made it possible to identify older sensors and figure out appropriate defensive measures.
<br>``Imaging seekers on next-generation SAMs could make everyone's life hard,'' said Eichorn. ``There's no unique characteristics to work on.'' Life's modestly powered laser confuses, but doesn't damage the enemy seeker. In 10-15 years, when SAMs are further improved, more powerful lasers will be introduced in follow-on systems that can damage or destroy a seeker head.
<br>The massive computing power of the new Lockheed Martin Life defensive system allows it to prioritize missiles that have targeted the aircraft. Often shoulder-fired SAMs are launched in pairs to improve the possibility of a kill. The system judges which missile will reach it first, directs the laser to the most immediate threat, modulates it correctly for a quick break lock, fires, notifies the pilot that the threat is gone and then shifts to the next most-pressing concern. The system works autonomously, leaving the aircrew to focus on its primary missions.
<br>``These initial tests demonstrated a major breakthrough . . . and paves the way toward incorporation of the techniques and technologies . . . into next-generation aircraft,'' said Mark Wunderlich, the AFRL Life program manager.
<br>In the future, analysts envision a three-layered self-protection system for aircraft against IR missiles. The first layer would keep enemy missiles on the launch rail by using lasers to damage or destroy the IR trackers at a SAM site. The second layer would be a system similar to Life that jams missiles in flight. The third layer of defense may involve use of antimissile missiles small enough to be fired from flare dispensers. The weapons would be designed to kill even antiaircraft missiles with multimode seekers that operate outside the IR portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>Photograph: Detailed CLIRCM algorithms analyze laser returns and select the precise jamming code that will put the missile into a high-g turn.
<br>Word count: 1752
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br />Aviation Week & Space Technology 154.21 (May 21, 2001): 43-44.
<br>Publication date
<br>May 21, 2001
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_130');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 130 -->
<a name="x131"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x131" class="tiny">x131</a>
<a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_131');">Army ramping up directed energy weapons for land, air, and space</a></h1>
<h2>2001-07</h2>
<div id="sect_131" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>THEL is a deuterium fluoride chemical laser operating at a power level of hundreds of kilowatts. The complete system involves a beam director, a command and control shelter, and a radar. THEL is an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD).
<br />When completed, the ABL aircraft will carry COIL (chemical oxygen iodine laser) on its nose. COIL is a megawatt-class laser equivalent to 100,000 100-watt light bulbs, and is capable of destroying boost- phase missiles by targeting their fuel tanks. COIL was first developed by Philips Lab at Kirtland Air Force Base in the mid- 1970s.
<br>"Once we have that, we have three lasers that actually operate through the main optical system," explained [James Forrest]. These lasers include two solid state lasers, a track-illuminating laser, and a beacon-illuminating laser.
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Several new directed energy systems are being developed by the services, in conjunction with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), that will use powerful laser energy to destroy missile targets from land, air, and even space.
<br>To address the threat of short-range missiles on the ground, the Army is currently working jointly with Israel on the THEL (Tactical High-Energy Laser) program.
<br>Israel is interested in eventually using THEL to protect its northern border against potential rocket attacks by terrorists.
<br>THEL is a deuterium fluoride chemical laser operating at a power level of hundreds of kilowatts. The complete system involves a beam director, a command and control shelter, and a radar. THEL is an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD).
<br>The most recent test of THEL was a limited operational capability test in which the crew, consisting of two people, didn't know where the launch was going to originate.
<br>The system is largely automated and doesn't require a tremendous amount of technical expertise to operate, according to Richard Bradshaw, program manager for the Directed Energy Technology Program Office at the Army's Space and Missile Defense Technical Center.
<br>"You could almost take anybody in here, and probably in an hour, teach them how to operate the system," Bradshaw said at a missile defense conference here.
<br>So far, THEL has shot down 23 rockets. More tests are scheduled for this summer, according to Bradshaw.
<br>THEL has been tested against Katyusha rockets, which are approximately 3.5 meters long and 122 millimeters in diameter. Katyusha rockets did considerable damage to American bases during the Vietnam War, according to Bradshaw.
<br>For the time being, Israel has elected not to employ THEL because it is not mobile. However, the current system is being used as a test bed for a future mobile THEL system.
<br>"The Israelis would be happy with a [system that fit in] a tractor- trailer," said Bradshaw. He said the goal of the mobile THEL development program is to eventually build a system capable of being transported in a C-130 cargo aircraft.
<br>The Airborne Laser
<br>Later this year, the Boeing Company will roll out an extensively modified 747-400 cargo aircraft that will serve as the platform for the Airborne Laser (ABL) program.
<br>ABL is the air component of BMDO's boost-phase missile defense program, and is intended to address the proliferation of short-range missiles, according to Deputy Program Director Col. James Forrest.
<br>The system would be the first layer of defense in BMDO's planned "multi-layered" missile defense system.
<br>"If we can't attack the missile, we can pass that information on and be backed up," said Forrest.
<br>When completed, the ABL aircraft will carry COIL (chemical oxygen iodine laser) on its nose. COIL is a megawatt-class laser equivalent to 100,000 100-watt light bulbs, and is capable of destroying boost- phase missiles by targeting their fuel tanks. COIL was first developed by Philips Lab at Kirtland Air Force Base in the mid- 1970s.
<br>Infrared sensors placed around the outside of the ABL aircraft provide 360-degree coverage to detect missile launches. A modified LANTIRN pod on the top of the aircraft provides the range to the target, as well as cueing to the battle management system.
<br>"Once we have that, we have three lasers that actually operate through the main optical system," explained Forrest. These lasers include two solid state lasers, a track-illuminating laser, and a beacon-illuminating laser.
<br>The track-illuminating laser finds the nose of the target, while other sensors locate the plume of the missile, thus allowing the system to calculate the missile's total length. This calculation then allows the system to determine precisely where to hit the missile.
<br>The beacon-illuminating laser helps allow for atmospheric compensation. "We actually condition the beam to compensate for the optical turbulence in the atmosphere," he said.
<br>Boeing's modifications to the basic 747 airframe constitute the most extensive modification to an aircraft the company has ever carried out, Forrest said.
<br>Flight testing of the first aircraft, without the laser aboard, is scheduled to begin next February.
<br>The first lethal test of the ABL system is currently scheduled for 2003. It will involve "putting six laser modules on a 747, and that'll be sufficient power for us to shoot down a SCUD-like missile in 2003," Forrest said.
<br>The eventual operational configuration will involve 14 laser modules on each of a fleet of seven aircraft.
<br>Since the laser cannot operate through clouds, the plane will loiter in a figure-eight pattern, at 38,500 feet, waiting for missiles to appear.
<br>Each aircraft will carry enough laser fuel to destroy 20 short- range missiles at distances of more than 200 miles.
<br>Lockheed Martin is providing the beam control/fire control system.
<br>TRW is developing the laser module itself.
<br>Space-based laser
<br>Further in the future, another solution to intercepting missiles in their boost phase could be the Space-based Laser program - a system of orbiting satellites capable of destroying ballistic missile- class targets from space.
<br>The seed for this future system is the Integrated Flight Experiment (IFX), which is scheduled to culminate in a launch in 2012. Based on data from IFX, a potential operational space-based laser system could be in operation by 2020, according to Program Director Col. William McCasland.
<br>However, McCasland emphasized, "we're in a concept exploration phase.
<br>There just isn't a firm plan at all." By 2007, the completed IFX hardware will undergo integrated testing in a new facility at Stennis Space Center. The facility will be capable of simulating a vacuum environment in which to test the unit. This vacuum environment must be preserved even when nine or 10 pounds of laser reactant are being expelled into it every second.
<br>The centerpiece of the system is the Alpha laser - a megawatt- class hydrogen fluoride laser.
<br>Since IFX will not result in a system actually capable of destroying non-cooperative targets, it can be developed in compliance with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, McCasland said.
<br>The requirement to comply with ABM represents "guidance that we inherited from the last Administration, and so far this Administration hasn't changed that at all," McCasland said.
<br>The Air Force is currently the executing agent for the program. By 2002, the funding for the program will be shifted entirely to BMDO.
<br>- Jefferson Morris (jeff_morris@AviationNow.com) Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>6 7/19/2001 Article:185210 Missile defense push won't mean
<br>nuclear arms cut, Gen. Welch says The nation's nuclear arsenal can
<br>shrink further while still remaining a deterrent, but the Bush Administration's push for a missile defense system won't accelerate that process anytime soon, retired Air Force Gen.
<br>Larry Welch said July 18.
<br>The missile defense system being proposed would initally be able to handle only a few incoming warheads by hitting each one with multiple kill vehicles, he said, which he described as a high "exchange ratio." "To give up offensive missiles for this capability ... we may have to address that trade-off" in the future, he said, but not for at least a decade.
<br>Welch, the former Air Force chief of staff, helmed a review panel that concluded in 1998 that the National Missile Defense program was being rushed and did not include enough testing.
<br>Missile defense officials have now requested a 57 percent increase for their programs and have mapped out a much more rigorous testing schedule. Welch said the program now is in line with what his panel recommended.
<br>"I think the Administration has become very much more realistic in terms of expectations," Welch said.
</blockquote>
<p>Word count: 1237
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>Publication title
<br>Aerospace Daily
<br>Volume
<br>199
<br>Issue
<br>77
<br>Pages
<br>3
<br>Number of pages
<br>0
<br>Publication year
<br>2001
<br>Publication date
<br>Jul 19, 2001
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_131');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 131 -->
<a name="x132"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x132" class="tiny">x132</a>
Wall, Robert : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">Killing Missiles At the Speed of Light</a></h1>
<h2>2001-08</h2>
<div id="sect_132" style="display: block;">
<p>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>After more than 20 years of research, US military officials believe they are on the verge of demonstrating the ability to destroy a boosting ballistic missile using a high-power laser. The Pentagon is betting heavily on directed-energy weapons because the timelines for a boost-phase intercept kill are extremely short. With less than 5 min. of boost time of the target, using a missile to catch it is a daunting problem. The Airborne Laser (ABL), the largest program among all boost-phase intercept efforts next fiscal year, is also the one with the most research and development behind it. The Air Force plans to begin flight tests of the laser on a modified 747-400 freighter early next year. Pentagon officials are particularly drawn to a space-based system because a large enough constellation would provide permanent global coverage, while ABL or most of the Pentagon's other boost-phase intercept systems would have to be deployed and positioned precisely to carry out their mission.</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Translate [unavailable for this document]
<br>After more than 20 years of research, U.S. military officials believe they are on the verge of demonstrating the ability to destroy a boosting ballistic missile using a high-power laser.
<br>The Pentagon is betting heavily on directed-energy weapons because the timelines for a boost-phase intercept kill are extremely short. With less than 5 min. of boost time of the target, using a missile to catch it is a daunting problem.
<br>``The speed of light cuts down that [time] rather tremendously, so that's why we like laser energy for that type of a system,'' said Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
<br>The Airborne Laser, the largest program among all boost-phase intercept efforts next fiscal year, is also the one with the most research and development behind it. Initially, ABL is being designed to defeat short-range ballistic missiles. But Kadish said ``we are taking deliberate steps to prepare ABL for a strategic defense role as well.''
<br>System designers currently are focusing on defeating about 30 types of threats, such as liquid and solid-fueled, single- and multi-stage missiles. Destroying longer range missiles may not require a redesign, a senior defense official said. Since ABL is intended to destroy missiles by shooting through the atmosphere
<br>(using a deformable mirror to compensate for turbulence), targeting an ICBM that would be boosting at higher altitudes in less turbulent atmosphere should be possible with the same system. However, that capability must be demonstrated, he said.
<br>THE ABL CONCEPT hasn't been without its critics. For instance, the Pentagon's internal operational test community has suggested that ``producing a system that is operationally suitable will be a challenge.'' Furthermore, in a report to Congress earlier this year, test officials raised concerns that a missile warhead could still cause damage because ABL won't necessarily destroy the rocket but could only shorten its flight time by damaging the booster.
<br>Confidence in the emerging field of laser weapons technology was bolstered last year when the U.S. Army destroyed a short-range Katyusha rocket with its Tactical High-Energy Laser. Although Thel is aimed against a different set of targets than the ABL or Space-Based Laser (SBL)--operating at much shorter ranges--in many respects, the Katyusha is a more difficult target to destroy. The repeated success against short-range rockets gives laser experts confidence that they can certainly knock down boosting ballistic missiles.
<br>But Pentagon officials acknowledge that directed-energy programs have ``a lot of proving to do.'' For ABL, that event will come relatively soon, in about 26 months, when it is slated to attempt to destroy a boosting Scud-like ballistic missile. In the run-up, the ABL will be tested against target boards and mock missiles that are air-dropped.
<br>If the lethal demonstration is successful, the Pentagon would consider using the system in emergencies. However, the prototype ABL will have only six of 14 laser modules and therefore not the full range of an operational system. Additionally, the first shoot-down will not be conducted at the maximum range of even the interim system's capability, said Col. James Forrest, ABL deputy program director.
<br>The Air Force plans to begin flight tests of the laser on a modified 747-400 freighter early next year. First flight at Boeing's Wichita, Kan., facility, where the aircraft is being reconfigured and the battle management system installed, is expected in February. Work on the aircraft is about 80% complete, Forrest said.
<br>Two months later, the aircraft will move to Edwards AFB, Calif., for testing and installation of the optics and laser elements. One of the most recent milestones was delivery of the first two of six infrared sensors to Boeing last month.
<br>The sensors, derivatives of the F-14 infrared search and track system, will be used by ABL to spot the boosting missile and provide 360-deg. coverage. The sensors are being used to refine missile-tracking software. The optics will be added first, tested alone and then in conjunction with the battle management package. The laser will be added and also tested by itself and then with other components.
<br>There will be differences in the way the Pentagon plans to put together later versions of ABL from the prototype, designated YAL-1A.
<br>``We already learned things for the [engineering and manufacturing development] design,'' Forrest noted. But that is causing some heartache in the Pentagon test office. The group complains that given the growing differences, a 24-month EMD phase is likely to be too short. In total, the Air Force expects to field seven aircraft.
<br>Program engineers recently completed a key event by testing a redesigned laser turbopump that's used to pump the hydrogen peroxide fuel through the megawatt-power chemical oxygen iodine laser (Coil). Design problems delayed delivery of the critical element, which was tested successfully for the first time last month at TRW's Capistrano, Calif., test site. The next step is trying to get ``first light''--or laser energy--out of the first of six laser modules to be installed on the prototype aircraft. USAF officials hope to achieve the milestone this month.
<br>Besides its own work, ABL is serving as a trailblazer for SBL technologies. Pentagon officials are particularly drawn to a space-based system because a large enough constellation would provide permanent global coverage, while ABL or most of the Pentagon's other boost-phase intercept systems would have to be deployed and positioned precisely to carry out their mission. A Russian SS-18-like intercontinental ballistic missile is the baseline threat against which SBL is being designed.
<br>But there also are important differences between the two directed-energy systems. While ABL uses a Coil, its space-based counterpart will employ a hydrogen fluoride system. Coil is not suitable for space operations because its chemicals won't mix properly in a zero-g environment, according to Air Force Col. William N. McCasland, SBL program director.
<br>An area in which SBL engineers are directly leveraging ABL work involves the components that will guide the laser. ``The beam control is remarkably similar,'' McCasland said. But because of the close affinities of technologies, some of the problems affecting ABL also are encountered by its space-based counterpart. For instance, ABL officials have seen cost growth because of an industry-wide shortage of some optical coatings. The same bottleneck affects SBL, McCasland said.
<br>AT THIS POINT, SBL work is focused on an integrated flight experiment (IFX) planned for around 2012, with a major ground test of the flight-ready hardware that's supposed to go into space starting about five years earlier. IFX should provide about 110 sec. of in-orbit power using the hydrogen fluoride laser. However, it is serving only as a technology demonstrator, not a limited operational system, program managers stress.
<br>Requirements for an operational system haven't been defined yet, and officials are still debating whether they can augment a constellation of lasers with relay mirrors, or whether an all-laser system is needed. An operational system wouldn't be ready until 2018-20. While industry officials have indicated an acceleration is possible, program managers are not pushing for a faster pace at this point.
<br>The range requirement for the experiment, while not spelled out in detail, will be far more than 100 naut. mi. An operational system would have to have much greater capability.
<br>A baseline requirements review for IFX was recently completed that assigned notional weight goals for different parts of the satellite design. Work has started on defining interfaces and lower level system design elements. Another review is slated for the fall.
<br>To fit into the constraints of a heavy-lift Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, the total spacecraft is being limited to 53 ft. in height and 43,400 lb. By far the largest element will be the laser payload, which has been allotted 25,265 lb. The beam control is being designed to 5,681 lb., while the beam director--the mirror through which the laser will be pointed--is assigned 3,420 lb. The mirror will measure 2.8 meters in diameter, although it would have to be 8-10 meters in an operational version.
<br>The weight allocation may shift as the program progresses. Because flight weight is such a critical element of the engineering task, managers have established a control group to monitor progress in this area.
<br>IN THE NEAR TERM, engineers will pursue two major risk-reduction paths. One activity centers on demonstrating the ability to control the laser's wavefront. Wavefront manipulation is needed on a multi-line laser such as the one to be used in SBL to achieve defraction-limited performance, which in turn allows the system to project enough power onto a focused spot on the target.
<br>The second major engineering activity will involve the laser itself. While the Alpha laser at Capistrano has validated the basic design of the type of laser SBL will use, it doesn't meet the efficiency requirements and power-level demands for a space-based system. A subscale SBL, also known as the Short Stack that would consist of 10 of 92 rings that produce the laser energy, will be built at Capistrano with the hope of achieving first light in 2003. It will also serve to generate much more laser time.
<br>Alpha has lased for a little more than 100 sec., which isn't enough to start building a flight-ready system. ``We can't go through a process of discovery about the degree to which the laser works on orbit,'' McCasland stressed.
<br>The full flight prototype will be assembled to undergo extensive ground testing at a new facility being built at Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. The prototype will include all elements of weapons-relevant components of an SBL, the laser and optics, but not the spacecraft itself. Once testing of the hardware is completed, it will be refurbished and packaged for flight.
<br>USAF officials hope both directed-energy projects will do more for them than just missile defense work. ABL is being envisioned for potential use in destroying cruise missiles, aircraft or even surface-to-air missiles. SBL, for instance, is seen as potentially having a space-to-ground application, although that would require a laser using an atmosphere-penetrating wavelength that currently isn't being pursued.
<br>SBL also may be able to destroy air-breathing targets or satellites. In both cases, military planners believe they can use the laser system's extensive surveillance tools to provide vital battlefield information to other operators.
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>Illustration: Chart: Boeing has completed about 80% of the modifications it is making to the 747-400F at its Wichita, Kan., facility. The aircraft is slated for first flight early next year and will move to Edwards AFB, Calif., a few weeks later.
<br>Photograph
<br>Photograph: The Pentagon hasn't defined the size of an operational constellation of space-based lasers, but it could range from 18-48 spacecraft and include some relay mirrors.
<br>Illustration
<br>Illustration: Map: This planned test facility at the Stennis Space Center will be where the space-based laser experimental hardware is to undergo intense ground testing before being readied for launch.
<br>Word count: 1785
<br>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
<br>Aviation Week & Space Technology 155.7 (August 13, 2001): 55.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 132 -->
<a name="x133"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x133" class="tiny">x133</a>
Nielsen, Paul D; Noor, Ahmed K; Venneri, Samuel L : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_133');">The next century of air power</a></h1>
<h2>2001-11</h2>
<div id="sect_133" style="display: block;">
<p><i>The next century of air power</i>
<br>Nielsen, Paul D;Noor, Ahmed K;Venneri, Samuel L
<br><i>Mechanical Engineering</i>; Nov 2003; 125, 11; ProQuest Science Journals
<br>pg. 34
<blockquote><p>The U.S. Air Force has been pursuing the transformation of air and space power through development of technologies that yield new capabilities and by adopting novel operational concepts that enhance our ability to achieve desired military effects. Maturing a comprehensive set of technologies is the mission of the Air Force Research Laboratory.
<br>
<br>The transformation includes migrating military capabilities to unmanned platforms for a wide range of air applications and developing new directed energy capabilities, which produce effects on the battlefield ranging from the traditional destruction of enemy equipment to the revolutionary non-lethal, non-destructive stopping of advancing enemy troops.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>Directed Energy
<br>
<br>Precision weapons have provent heir value over the last 20 years and have been a deciding factor in all of our recent large-scale military operations. However, the precision weapons of the second century of aerospace may not always carry traditional kinetic warheads like those today.
<br>
<br>Directed energy weapons, both laser and high-power microwave, are beginning to emerge as future options for military commanders. These new concepts will provide both the traditional destructive capability of today with a new capability to temporarily or permanently disable an enemy target rather than to destroy it.
<br>
<br>The best-known current application of high-power directed energy is the Airborne Laser, or ABL, program now in developmental testing. With roots stretching back to the Airborne Laser Laboratory of the 1970s, the system places a weapons-class chemical laser aboard a modified Boeing 745-400 freighter. Its mission is to destroy enemy ballistic missiles shortly after launch while they are still in the boost phase of flight.
<br>
<br>There are actually four lasers onboard this aircraft, as well as advanced optical systems, a sensor suite, and a state-of-the-art computer system. These individual elements function as a system of systems to find, track, and destroy enemy missiles.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>High-power microwaves, a second directed energy technology, can producte innovative soft-kill, or non-lethal, effects. It has huge potential in command and control warefare, in supporessing enemy air defenses, against tactical aircraft or unmanned aierial vehicles, including missiles, and in airbase defense. When high-power microwaves encounter present-day microelectronic systems, the results can be disastrous to the electronics. Microwaves can cause systems to burn out and fail, or to function improperly.
<br>
<br>A short burst of high-power microwave energy, while being lethal to the electronics, will have basically no effect on humans operating the equipment. The low collateral damage aspect of this technology and the heavy reliance on electronic components in today's weaponry make microwave weapons attractive in a wide variety of missions, especially where avoiding civilian casualties is a major concern.
<br>
<br>At lower power levels, beam microwaves can also be used to prevent intrusion by unauthorized individuals without hurting them. If the proper frequency and wavelength are selected, millimeter wave energy will penetrate less that 1/64 of an inch into an individual's skin, stimulating the pain sensors and causing an experience of severe pain without physical damage.
<br></p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_133');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 133 -->
<a name="x134"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x134" class="tiny">x134</a>
Bob Preston et al. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">Space Weapons Earth Wars</a></h1>
<h2>2002-01</h2>
<div id="sect_134" style="display: block;">
<p>by Bob Preston; Dana J. Johnson; Sean J.A. Edwards; Michael Miller; Calvin Shipbaugh
<br><a href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1209/">http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1209/</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>
During the Reagan administration in the 1980s, vigorous public debate surfaced with the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a sustained, significant investment in technologies for defense against ballistic missiles. The initiative explored space-based defenses�interceptors, directed-energy weapons, and even nuclear weapons (x-ray lasers). All these space-based missile defenses would require renegotiation or abrogation of the ABM Treaty and presumably also of related arms control treaties. The last item would also violate the Outer Space Treaty�s ban on nuclear weapons in space.
<br>
<br>[*] Directed-energy weapons include lasers, high-energy particle beams, and highpower
microwave beams.
<br>[**] To avoid the issue of nuclear weapons in space, proponents of the x-ray laser offered to base it on the earth or in the oceans on missiles that would lift the weapon above
the atmosphere where its x-rays could propagate to the target.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>The most significant characteristic of this class of weapon is propagation of destructive energy at very high speeds. ... However, while the speed of propagation may be dazzling, the speed of effect will be more pedestrian. Because useful effects take time to accumulate or sustain and time to redirect from target to target, the capacity of directed-energy weapons is inherently limited. The specific limits depend on the scale and duration of effect necessary
for the military purpose at hand. Useful levels of disruptive or destructive energy at the target range from gentle to extreme; the class of weapons we discuss here includes the range from electronic jammers to laser cutting torches. At the level of jamming, a weapon consists of a radio transmitter tuned to cover a target range of frequencies and focused on target receivers to achieve a power level high enough to compete with the receivers� intended signals. At the level of destruction, a weapon supplies enough power to heat some
critical component of the target beyond its ability to survive.
<br>
<br>The challenge in achieving destructive levels of directed energy from space is scaling up to the power levels and component sizes needed to focus a lethal energy level over the much greater distances inherent in space basing. For example, a laser welding machine in a factory
typically uses a laser with a few hundred to a few thousand watts of power directed by optics with a diameter less than 0.1 m. A spacebased laser intended for targets on or near the earth requires millions of watts of power and optics with a diameter of about 10 m. The ability to create effects at the level of interference or disruption (e.g., jamming) is readily available worldwide; generating and directing the more destructive effects from or through space is a stretch for everyone.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>The amount of energy needed <i>at</i> the target to produce the desired effect depends on how the weapon�s energy couples with the target. Factors that influence the degree or efficiency of coupling include the target�s materials, configuration, and orientation and how these interact with the particular characteristics of the energy the weapon transmits. Laser energy interacts with the surface of the target. High-energy particles penetrate further into the target... The weapon�s budget for energy needed at the target must include an assumption about the efficiency of coupling (or, equivalently, of the hardness of the target) and some degree of uncertainty about the assumption.
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 134 -->
<a name="x135"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x135" class="tiny">x135</a>
Fulghum, David a. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_135');">Lasers, HPM Weapons Near Operational Status</a></h1>
<h2>2002-07</h2>
<div id="sect_135" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.4 (July 22, 2002): 173-174.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<br>
<blockquote><p>Directed energy weapons - lasers and high-power microwaves - are emerging from the black world of classified projects as the time nears for their debut on aircraft, vehicles, ships and eventually even spacecraft. The first combat applications, probably involving high-power microwaves (HPM) used as antielectronics weapons, will appear within the next 4-5 years, say top Raytheon officials. A short, intense energy surge can scramble computer memories and damage electronic components. Raytheon is already involved in most of the major directed energy programs. The company is two years into a project that would put a laser weapon on Lockheed Martin's multiservice, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It also is one of the contractors asked to study the design of a high-power microwave weapon for Boeing's X-45 unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV).
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Directed energy weapons--lasers and high-power microwaves--are emerging from the black world of classified projects as the time nears for their debut on aircraft, vehicles, ships and eventually even spacecraft.
<br>
<br>The first combat applications, probably involving high-power microwaves (HPM) used as antielectronics weapons, will appear within the next 4-5 years, say top Raytheon officials. A short, intense energy surge can scramble computer memories and damage electronic components.
<br>
<br>Raytheon is already involved in most of the major directed energy programs. The company is two years into a project that would put a laser weapon on Lockheed Martin's multiservice, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It also is one of the contractors asked to study the design of a high-power microwave weapon for Boeing's X-45 unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV). Moreover, it has won the DD-X contract for next-generation U.S. Navy ships. Its electric drive will one day power a laser-based air defense system.
<br>
<br>In the future, ``our strategy is simple,'' said Mike Booen, head of Raytheon Electronic System's directed energy programs. ``We want to replace high explosives with directed energy weapons [DEW]. Any munitions or platforms that carry high explosives, we want to replace with DEW. We want to enable new missions where . . . high explosives [are called for but can't be used] because of problems of collateral damage or the need for a facility after the conflict.''
<br>
<br>While Pentagon acquisition officials are cautious of the new technologies and want demonstrations of its capabilities, the trends are already in place. ``You only have to look at science and technology funding in the current budget planning,'' Booen said. ``If you plot what is being invested in traditional precision munitions, you see a down slope. If you look at how much the Defense Dept. is investing in directed energy, it's on an up slope. People are recognizing that directed energy will start going on all sorts of platforms as the next step in munitions. And technology is mature enough that it's now only a configuration change, not a leap in physics.''
<br>
<br>One of the significant problems is scaling up the output of directed energy weapons.
<br>
<br>``Power is king,'' Booen said. ``Distance is the trade space.'' Therefore, close-range missions will likely emerge first. They would include the self-defense of manned aircraft air- and ground-launched missiles and the use of unmanned aircraft that can fly close to anti-aircraft defenses. ``The bottom line is that there are mission areas where you do not have to wait until you have a megawatt of laser power on your aircraft to do militarily important things,'' he said.
<br>
<br>Laser weapons produce very small, precise beams of energy that can physically damage aircraft as well as cruise and ballistic missiles, set fire to ground structures or, with less power, befuddle missile guidance systems with false targets.
<br>
<br>HPM have broader beams that can be used, for example, to heat the water in a person's skin to unendurable levels as a crowd-dispersion device. At higher power, it becomes a weapon that can erase computer memories and damage communications and other battlefield electronic devices. Several HPM projects are underway to test their effectiveness against underground and deeply buried targets that are immune to conventional bombs.
<br>
<br>Designers, at least for the present, have chosen to put laser weapons on manned aircraft and HPM on unmanned aircraft because of the possibility that the latter's less-precisely-focused output or its electrical side lobes might affect the UCAV's flight systems and cause it to become uncontrollable. Currently the weapon is being designed for a later, Block 30 version of the Air Force UCAV.
<br>
<br>As directed energy weapons emerge, so too, will the rules of engagement which shape their use and design. Israel, a leader in military innovation, is largely putting off development of such weapons except in an antimissile role. One of the country's military technologists said they are concerned that using an HPM weapon, for example, could be mired in legal reviews since it might result in new, unanticipated types of collateral damage. While HPM targets electronics and humans, it could also disrupt electricity to a hospital or even affect individuals with pacemakers. None of these issues have been completely thought through, he said.
<br>
<br>Developers and the military are still loath to talk about these technologies but evidence about the technologies involved in directed energy weapons and platforms has emerged that are expected to carry them. The aerospace industry also is at work on simulating and modeling the effects of such weaponry. Raytheon, for example, has been developing advanced algorithms and computer tools for two years at its simulation facility in Tucson.
<br>
<br>There also appears to be a growing sophistication in how potential military customers are approaching DEW. Initially, customers were interested in individual pieces of hardware, said Louise Francesconi, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems' business unit. That is no longer the case. Interest now is focused on integrated solutions that include not just the laser or HPM weapon, but also sensor and battle management functions, she said.
<br>
<br>DEW technology has been gathering momentum with the construction of powerful solid-state lasers that can be used in the development of small weapons. Solid-state technology also offers fewer environmental concerns than chemical lasers like those in the U.S. Air Force's YAL-1A airborne laser aircraft which requires a Boeing 747 to carry the long-range laser device and huge amounts of toxic chemicals aloft.
<br>
<br>However, there is interest in larger, non-airborne directed energy weapons that can fire repeatedly in short periods of intense combat against, for example, a wave of low-flying, high-speed cruise missiles. The Navy's new ship design, DD-X, which was awarded to Raytheon, will have an electric drive capable of producing the massive power necessary to run a self-defense system that can shoot down aircraft, large numbers of very-high-speed surface-skimming cruise missiles and, eventually, ballistic missiles. Electric drive ships are the perfect platform for weapons that must fire quickly and repeatedly. But, for the aviation community, the necessity for small payload packages for both laser and HPM weapons that may only need to produce a few pulses of energy during each mission as it attacks other aircraft, missiles or ground targets, will remain.
<br>
<br>Boeing is working with U.S. Special Operations Command on the Advanced Tactical Laser to develop a medium-power laser using uncooled optics on a CV-22 tiltrotor, AC-130 gunship or MH-47 helicopter. The device is intended for attacking targets with lethal and non-lethal forces at ranges of up to 10 mi.
<br>
<br>Another near-term project is development of a laser weapon envisioned for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Some of the problems of a small payload are reduced because the aircraft already has a drive shaft from the engine to the bay just behind the cockpit that could be used to produce the electrical energy needed to power a directed energy device. When needed, the area holds a lift fan used for vertical flight. But for other versions of the manned aircraft, the space can be used for a laser weapon using shaft-generated electrical power.
<br>
<br>Raytheon has to complete the solutions to two technology problems as they create a powerful laser weapon for the F-35.
<br>
<br>First, they have to scale up the power output of their solid-state lasers from about 10 kw. to about 100 kw. in order to kill targets at a tactically significant range. Some analysts set the mark at about 10 km. (6.2 mi.). A solid-state laser is needed for the F-35 ``because its going to be sold in large numbers, it has to be easily maintainable and it must operate without a chemical farm going in and lots of toxic residue coming out,'' a Lockheed Martin official said. ``Right now solid-state lasers don't exist at the power level and beam quality [needed].''
<br>
<br>Second, they have to keep the laser beam focused over those long distances.
<br>
<br>``The air around a fighter is pretty disturbed because you're trying to operate at around Mach 1,'' he said. ``That, in turn, will disturb the laser beam as you fire it to the target. The air density and the shocks coming off the air vehicle will distort the beam. As part of our laser concept, we will employ adaptive optics to sense what the distortion is and use a conformal mirror. The mirror will predistort the beam so that as it goes through the disturbed air it corrects itself.'' Mirror technology is being developed in the airborne laser project which uses deformable mirrors to limit defraction of the laser over its 250-mi. range.
<br>
<br>HPM (which produce spikes of power much like energy generated by radars) is primarily thought of as an anti-electronics weapon. While a laser is a low-frequency weapon requiring perhaps 4 sec. to inflict the necessary damage, HPM consists of high-frequency energy pulses that need only milliseconds to create the needed effect.
<br>
<br>An advantage of HPM is that the technology is more mature than solid-state, high-energy lasers. ``HPM will proceed the solid-state lasers by a few years,'' a senior Raytheon official said. ``We have focused a lot of new people and dollars on the technology. But the race is between directed energy technologies and the platforms. If we had a DEW available today, we couldn't fly it because [the Air Force and Navy] don't have a UCAV.
<br>
<br>``But the intersection of DEW and UCAVs is a perfect marriage and a growth area. That's how you can prosecute the war in a heavily defended area. Look at the missions for UCAV. Suppression of air defense is number one. You don't want your pilots shot down. You can speculate on what an antielectronics weapon could do to electronics on a SAM battery or an air operations center.''
<br>
<br>The Air Force's UCAV that will evolve from Boeing's X-45 program will have the added problem of providing a large enough power supply to drive an HPM device. Part of the solution is achieved by putting the DE weapon on an unmanned aircraft that can fly very close to a well-defended target before loosing its pulse of microwaves, without endangering an aircrew. The effectiveness of an HPM weapon decreases by the square of its distance from the target.
<br>
<br>``Where we can pull power off the engine we will,'' Booen said. Lockheed Martin intends to use that strategy with its UCAV designs. ``But in many configurations, we do plan on using batteries. You will see HPM applications within the next 4-5 years.''
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: One concept for an aircraft with directed energy weapons shows a laser being fired from the aft position in a C-130 and a high-power microwave device from forward of the wing.
<br>
<br>Photograph
<br>
<br>Photograph: An anti-personnel device using high-power microwaves to heat water in the skin can inflict enough pain to cause crowds to disperse.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_135');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 135 -->
<a name="x136"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x136" class="tiny">x136</a>
Fulghum, David A. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">USAF Acknowledges Beam Weapon Readiness</a></h1>
<h2>2002-10</h2>
<div id="sect_136" style="display: block;">
<p>Aviation Week & Space Technology 157.15 (Oct 7, 2002): 27-28.
<br>
<br>Abstract (summary)
<blockquote><p>Directed-energy technology is ready to be used as weaponry and, in a mature state, one device carried by an unmanned aircraft could attack each of 100 targets with 1,000 pulses of energy in a single sortie. HPM (high-powered microwave) also affects a larger area than a bomb, but without harming physical structures or people. A 1-ton bomb creates damage in a radius of about 120 ft. The footprint of a microwave munition is at least 100 times greater than that of a conventional munition. US military research laboratories have demonstrated HPM effects ranging from upsetting to destroying the electronics within military and commercial systems.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Full Text
<blockquote><p>Directed-energy technology is ready to be used as weaponry and, in a mature state, one device carried by an unmanned aircraft could attack each of 100 targets with 1,000 pulses of energy in a single sortie, says a former director of the U.S. Air Force's high-power microwave program.
<br>
<br>"Except for the standard rifle, gun, knife or grenade, virtually all military equipment contains some electronics" that are vulnerable to a large pulse of energy, wrote Air Force Col. Eileen M. Walling. "Military commanders are in a state of virtually total dependence on radios, telephones, satellite communications, computers and faxes for communication with military units." Other targets include artillery targeting devices, guidance and control on precision munitions, and even locomotive engines. She also suggests HPM could be used to protect U.S. satellites and attack those of a foe without creating clouds of debris that could damage other spacecraft.
<br>
<br>Having spent most of her career working on directed-energy technology issues, she wrote a research paper on what she considers an underrated weapons technology. Entitled "High Power Microwaves: Strategic and Operational Implications for Warfare," it was published by the Air University's center for strategy and technology in early 2000. Walling is now a division chief in Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
<br>
<br>"The projected maximum capability for a microwave [armed] UCAV is approximately 100,000 pulses of microwave energy (or shots) per mission," Walling wrote. "If one assumes 1,000 pulses per target, it is conceivable that a microwave UCAV could attack on the order of 100 targets per mission. In addition, a microwave system could be used to protect the UCAV from enemy missiles [even] if the enemy has the ability to detect low-observable aircraft."
<br>
<br>HPM also affects a larger area than a bomb, but without harming physical structures or people. A 1-ton bomb creates damage in a radius of about 120 ft. "The footprint of a microwave munition is at least 100 times greater than that of a conventional munition," the report states. That may be a bloated number if applied to developmental weapons currently available for use against Iraq, according to other U.S. officials. They usually describe effects in terms of a few thousand feet or less. In fact, the primary stumbling block for directed-energy weapons is achieving sufficient range and power levels to be effective.
<br>
<br>U.S. MILITARY RESEARCH laboratories have demonstrated HPM effects ranging from upsetting to destroying the electronics within military and commercial systems, Walling noted. The paper's conclusion, made more than two years ago, is that "high-power microwave technology is ready for the transition to active weapons in the U.S. military." Both Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the chief of U.S. Air Forces, Europe, Gen. Gregory Martin, have said publicly that unspecified new developmental weapons technology could be used in an attack on Iraq. Facilities that manufacture, store or dispense chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are a "target set" particularly earmarked for energy weapons, according to statements made this summer and fall by U.S. aerospace industry officials. Conventional attacks could leave plumes of lethal agents adrift.
<br>
<br>HPM devices have great potential both as offensive and defensive weapons, Walling said. She cited a 1998 Air Force survey--"Directed-Energy Applications for Tactical Airborne Combat"--that found the top four priorities were for microwave weapons (instead of lasers) in the areas of precision-guided munitions, large aircraft self-protection shields, small aircraft self-protection shields and as weapons for unmanned combat air vehicles. As a munition, some developmental systems are believed to be ready for combat in Iraq. Boeing plans to build an HPM weapon into the Block 30 version of its X-45 UCAV.
<br>
<br>These weapons also could be built into a pod for carriage on a helicopter or packaged as artillery shells, scatterable mines and 1-ton bombs, the report said. As a defensive system, it contends HPM devices could ward off infrared- and radar-guided missiles. A phased-array antenna allows for rapid retargeting.
<br>
<br>The report quickly ticks off the advantages of HPM weapons: They don't rely on exact knowledge of the enemy system. They leave persisting effects in enemy targets that may take weeks to find and repair. Even if enemy systems are turned off, they are still affected. And to counter HPM, the entire system must be hardened, which is a very expensive process.
<br>
<br>An energy pulse can get into an enemy system by the "front door," which means its own antenna, dome or other sensor opening; or through the "back door," which includes cracks, seams, trailing wires, metal conduits of seals. Once inside, the emissions can destroy or disrupt integrated circuits, circuit cards and relay switches. The system's own electronic circuitry transmits the pulse, and resulting damage, even deeper into the system.
<br>
<br>In the microwave technical community, the ability to scale or increase the effects is often described as "dial a hurt," Walling said. Results depend on the distance between the HPM weapon and the target, the vulnerability of the target, the power generated, and the characteristics of the microwave emission including frequency, burst rate and pulse duration. A rough scale describes four levels of effects:
<br>
<br>-- Deny, which involves electronic upset or jamming. It might cause malfunctions within relay and processing circuits.
<br>
<br>-- Degrade, which involves locking up a system or limiting its capabilities enough to require rebooting. It can include signal override or turning power on and off at irregular intervals.
<br>
<br>-- Damage, which includes permanent effects that "latch up" a system. This can mean damage to components, circuit cards or mother boards, as wells as weeks to diagnose and repair the problems. Because microwaves can enter through multiple entry points, it is likely numerous circuits and components will be damaged.
<br>
<br>-- Destroy, which means catastrophic and permanent injury to the system, requiring total replacement.
<br>
<br>ANTENNA TECHNOLOGY is crucial for HPM weapons. Field of view for the phased-array emitter is expected to vary from several to tens of degrees. The multi-element design allows it to be built conformally into a pod or UCAV. Because it doesn't require precise aiming, there are far fewer stringent pointing and tracking requirements, Walling said. The microwaves' cone could offer a means to attack multiple targets at once; for example, all of the equipment in an antiaircraft missile site.
<br>
<br>The range of HPM weapons has always been a concern. Tests have shown effects at tens to "more than" hundreds of feet. Walling seemed more optimistic. "With current technology, the range for a tactical microwave weapon could be in the tens of kilometers, and future advances . . . should permit the development of even longer ranges," the report said.
<br>
<br>Other advantages cited for HPM weapons are that they would be immune to the weather and could produce multiple shots on a single mission. However, the report also alludes to single-shot designs. These latter seem to address concerns that side and back lobes from the generation of an HPM pulse could affect the carrying aircraft's own electronics.
<br>
<br>Power levels for HPM weapons are increasing. The report said one microwave source weighing less that 45 lb. radiated 1 gigawatt of power within a few nanoseconds. A 400-lb. system radiated 20 gigawatts. The report noted that Hoover Dam generates 2 gigawatts per day. The HPM weapon would draw power from the air vehicle's engines, which would let it make a number of attacks during a mission.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Illustration
<br>
<br>Photo: Photograph: Instead of bombs, some X-45 UCAVs may carry a multi-shot high-power microwave weapon that could paralyze the electronics of 100 targets in one mission.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 136 -->
<a name="x137"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x137" class="tiny">x137</a>
Doug Beason, Ph.D : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_137');">The E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy weapons Will Change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought</a></h1>
<h2>2005</h2>
<div id="sect_137" style="display: block;">
<p>
<i>"THE E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought",</i> Doug Beason, Ph.D., 2005
<blockquote><p>+++ page ix
<br>
<br>Directed Energy (DE) encompasses a wide, cross-disciplinary field of science and engineering. It is nearly impossible to enumerate the many academic and technical disciplines that make up DE, as it includes fields as diverse as physics and engineering to psychology (for studying the Active Denial effect). The people who have advanced the research and development of DE are just as numerous.
<br>...
<br>DE research and development has been shrouded in a veil of secrecy. there are national security reasons for not revealing certain applications or vulnerabilities. My reviewers and I have been careful to ensure that no classified or insider information has been disclosed. I relied on publicly released information as well as interviews to build the story of directed energy.
<br>
<br>~Doug Beason
<br>
<br>+++ page xii
<br>
<br>1973 The air force's classified Project Delta downs an aerial drone with a high-energy laser.
<br>
<br>1976 Army shoots down a drone and a helicopter at Redstone arsenal with an Avco electric discharge laser (EDL)
<br>
<br>1977 McDermott and his team invent the COIL (chemical oxygen-iodine laser)
<br>
<br>1978 Navy shoots down an army TOW missile with a TRW 400-kilowatt deuterium fluoride (DF) laser at San Juan Capistrano
<br>
<br>1983 Airborne Laser Lab downs an AIM-9B Sidewinder missile with a CO<sub>2</sub> laser
<br>
<br>1993 USAF establishes the Airborne Laser System Program Office at the Phillips Lab
<br>
<br>2001 Defense Department declassifies Active Denial, the first nonlethal DE antipersonnel weapon
<br>
<br>2002 Army's THEL laser destroys Katyshu rockets, artillery rounds, and mortar shells at White Sands Missile Range
<br>
<br>2003 ZEUS, the Army's anti-land mine laser, deployed to Afghanistan
<br>
<br>2006 NIRF, the navy's anti-IED (improvised explosive device) high-power microwave, scheduled for deployment in Iraq
<br>
<br>+++ page 9
<br>
<br>Directed Energy (DE) weapons -- lasers, high-power microwaves (HPMs), and particle beams -- have come of age. Over the past two decades, directed energy power has increased by nine orders of magnitude -- over a billion times -- from millwatt to megawatt.
<br>
<br>+++ page 10
<br>
<br>National leaders will soon ahve the abiliyt to instantly deter threats anywhere in the world with infinite precision at the speed of light. The dynamic changes this will make to international relations will reverberate throughout American society. It will transform our way of life.
<br>
<br>This is because directed energy is more than a new weapon in the warrior's arsenal. It's about a completely new way of thinking, a new way of employing both strategic and nonlethal force, and interacting in the international community.
<br>
<br>+++ page 11
<br>
<br>The date for this scenario? Summer 2001 -- months before the September 11 terorist attack on the World Trade Center.
<br>
<br>The place? White Sands, New Mexico, only miles from the Trinity site, birthplace of the world's first atomic blast, another revolution in military affairs.
<br>
<br>To date, over 30 Katyusha rockets have been shot down in realistic scenarios such as this by THEL -- tactical high-energy laser, the world's first high-energy laser weapon developed by the U.S. army and funded by the Israeli government for deployment along Israel's borders.
<br>
<br>+++ page 12
<br>
<br>Largely shrouded in highly classified environment, directed energy weapons research is conducted by a cadre of closed-mouthed technical wizards.
<br>
<br>+++ page 171
<br>
<br>On August 21, 2003, the U.S. army and Irsraeli Ministry of Defense announced the slection of NOrthrop Grumman Corporation's design for MTHEL, the mobile tactical high-energy laser, a protoypte laser weapon capable of shooting down short-range rockets and artillery. [Northrop Grumman, press release, August 21, 2003.] MTHEL is an advanced, mobile version of the THEL, an advanced concept technology demonstrator (ACTD) initiated in 1996 by the Defense Department and subsequently tested at the army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
<br>
<br>THEL was designed and built by an international team led by Northrop Grummand, including Ball Aerospace and Brashear LP, with several Israeli companies, including Electro-Optic Industries, Israel Aircraft Industries, Yehud Industrial Zone, RAFAEL, and Tadiran.
<br>
<br>+++ page 181
<br>
<br>The ABL (airborne laser) uses a weapons-class laser system, but it has to be carried in the most heavily modified 747 ever built. The present result is a platform that is loaded to the max, with little margin to add additional weight, say laser fuel, to lase longer, since adding weight cuts down on the time the ABL can stay in the air. Adding a refueling capability will extend the time the ABL can spend in combat, but the extra time also stresses the crew and airframe.
<br>
<br>+++ page 182
<br>
<br>Advance tactical laser (ATL), the shorter-range, tactical airborne COIL laser system, began as an engineering feat looking for an application.
<br>...
<br>High-power microwaves in the form of long-wavelength radars achieved weapons-class power levels decades ago. But reducing the size of the system to something smaller than a battleship has kept the technology off the battlefield for years -- until the Active Denial effect was discovered and exploited.
<br>
<br>+++ page 185
<br>
<br>Recall that lasers and microwves are just manifestations of the same thing, the electromagnetic spectrum. Lasers and HPM both consist of photons, or electromagnetic waves that have different wavelengths. Laser wavelengths run from ultraviolet to infrared -- from 0.4 to0.7 microns (or 0.16 millionths of an inch to 0.28 millionths of an inch), while high-power microwaves are generally defined as having wavelengths of anywhere from a meter to a cenimeter (or 3 feet to a third of an inch). That covers just a small part of th electromagnetic (EM) spectrum.
<br>
<br>+++ page 186
<br>
<br>The interaction of radio waves -- {long part of the EM spectrum the covers wavelengths from a tenth of a centimeter [EHF, or extremely high frequency wves) down to wves over 100 kilometers in length [VLF, or very low frequency]} -- with matter is well known and has been documented for years. ... [W]aves of the electromanetic spectrum generally have to be the same size of the target or object ot cause any damage. In a simplified view, lasers burrow into solid material quite well because their wavelengths are about the same size as molecultes. Lasers can thus deposit their energy and "resonate" with the size of the solid material they hit, including metals.
<br>
<br>On the other hand, although high-power microwaves can penetrate building walls and sirupt computers, they can't penetrate metals and don't do much damage to things like trucks or missiles. Instead, they interact with targets that are the same size of its wavelength (meters to millimeters), such as human skin and sires in electronics. This coupling, a measure of the amount of interaction, is greater for things that are the same size as an HPM wavelength.
<br>
<br>This means that radio waves don't interact efficiently with targets unless they are the same size. And since radio waves are hundreds of meters to hundreds of kilometers long, they pass through most material and aren't much of a threat.
<br>
<br>High-power microwave wavelengths are the longest part of the EM spectrum that can be used effectively as a weapon.
<br>
<br>+++ page 188
<br>
<br>Free electron lasers (FEL) represent a unique way of creating laser radiation without the use of chemicals, crystals, or any of the traditional means of generating beams. They are classed as electric lasers and can produce any wavelength, from extreme ultraviolet to microwaves.
<br>
<br>+++ page 190
<br>
<br>An FEL is essentially an electric laser; the laser light is created by an accelerating electron beam as it "wiggles" back and forth through a series of alternating magnets...
<br>
<br>+++ page 213
<br>
<br>Laser power has increased over a billion times in the past four decades, allowing laser weapons to soon be fielded in the air (ABL, ATL),on the ground (MTHEL, ZEUS), and within a decade or so on the sea (FEL).
<br>
<br>Research in millimeter wave technology, an extremely short-wave version of the radio frequency spectrum, produce ADS (Active Denial System), the world's first long-range, nonlethal antipersonnel weapon that no only gives war fighters the option for assessing the intent of the attackers but also proivides a clear option between two wildly disparate options of shouting at people and shooting them.
<br>
<br>+++ page 214-216
<br>
<br>Lasers and high-power microwaves are simply different manifestations of the electromagnetic spectrum. They both consist of photons -- bundles of electromagnetic energy -- and the only difference between the two is that they have different energy, a function of wavelength, or equivalent frequency.
<br>
<br>Because of this difference in energy, lasers and high-power microwaves have to be created in different ways. In addition, they propagate through the atmosphere and in space differently, and they interact with targets differently.
<br>
<br>Laser wvelengths are as much as 10,000 times smaller than microwaves. As such, they diffract up to 10,000 times less than microwaves, which allows lasers to propagate up to 10,000 times farther than a similarly generated microwave to deposit the same energy on a target. This allows lasers to use high-precision reflecting mirrors to redirect their devestation throughout the battlefield, and with the use of space-based relay mirrors, perhaps even around the globe.
<br>
<br>However, lasers scatter in the atmosphere more than microwaves do because the laser wavelength is about the same size as atmospheric gas molecules.
<br>
<br>Finally, when a laser hits a target, it tends to heat up the target material and burn away layer anfter layer, producing a copious plume of plasma. The ABL uses this heat-producing mechanism to weaken the skin of a ballistic missile around the missile's fuel tank, allowing the tank's internal pressure to explode; MTHEL uses its laser's heating mechanism to cause a rocket warheat to explode.
<br>
<br>On the other hand, because the wavelength of a high-power microwave is so much larger than that of a laser, the HPM interacts with the electronics and circuits of a weapon.
<br>...
<br>However, microwaves are not yet ready for prime time. Much work needs to be accomplished increating microwve power and shrinking the infrastructure that generates HPM...
<br>
<br>Active Denial uses a high-frequency version of HPM caled millimeter waves to heat up a minuscule depth of a person's skin to create a "flee" effect. It provides an ultraprecise, unique, nonlethal means of countering personnel actions.
<br>
<br>Despite the outward dissimilarities between lasers and HPM, their similarities far outweigh their perceived differences:
<br>
<br>- They both exploit parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
<br>
<br>- They are both impervious to the effects of gravity or ballistic motion.
<br>
<br>- They are both ultraprecise, allowing for enormous amounts of energy to be applied exactly wehre the war fighter wants. This is in contrast to kinetic energy precision weapons, which although relatively accurate ... may have devastating, unintended collateral effects -- such as death -- due to blast and fragments.
<br>
<br>And the most important apsect of directed energy weapons is the best feature of all: their speed. Kinetic energy weapons reach their target at the speed of sound, or in the case of ballistic missiles, at velocities up to Mach 20, or 20 times the speed of sound, enabling them to hit targets around the globe on the order of 45 minutes.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>[H]aving an ultraprecise wapon capable of striking around the globe almost instantaneously, in less than a second, provides the technological advantage needed to defeat the next generation of adversaries.
<br>
<br>And <i>that</i> advantage is only provided by directed energy weapons capable of engaging the enemy at the speed of light.
<br>
</p></blockquote>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_137');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 137 -->
<a name="x138"></a><hr>
<h1><a href="#x138" class="tiny">x138</a>
Andre Gsponer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');"><i>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weaspons:</i> Military effectivenss and collateral effects.</a></h1>
<h2>2008</h2>
<div id="sect_138" style="display: block;">
<p><i>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weaspons:</i> Military effectivenss and collateral effects.
<br>Andre Gsponer
<br>
<br>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>
<br>Independent Scientific Research Institute
<br>Box 30, CH1211
<br>Geneva12, Switzerland
<br>
<br>Version ISRI0503.17
<br>February 2, 2008
<br>
<p>Abstract
<blockquote><p>The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previous generation nuclearexplosives and from conventional weapons based on chemicalexplosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shapedcharge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc.</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote><p>+++ page 3
<br>
<br>First generation: 6 kg <i>Pu</i> ~= 10 <i>kt</i> yield at 10% efficiency
<br>Fourth generation: 25 mg <i>DT</i> ~= 1 <i>ton</i> yield at 50% efficiency
<br>
<br>+++ page 8
<br>
<br>[A] two-stage H-bomb demonstrates that a powerful source of X-rays can be used to produce mechanical work, i.e., to strongly compress the material of the secondary. This leads to other possible applications, where the ablation pressure is used to accelerate a missile or a spacecraft (nuclear-driven rocket), or to squeeze a shape-dcharge liner (nuclear-driven plasma-jet).
<br>
<br>+++ page 9
<br>
<br>[T]hird generation nuclear weapons require a fission-explosive as trigger, which implies that their yield tends to be too high for battlefield uses, and that they necessarily produce large-scale radioactive pollution, etc.
<br>
<br>As will be seen in the sequel of this paper, most third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.
<br>
<br>+++ page 11
<br>
<br>There is no standard definition of fourth generation nuclear-weapons. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this paper, we may use either of the two definitions:
<br><i>- "Nuclear explosive devices based on atomic and nuclear processes that are not restricted by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)," or
<br>- "Nuclear explosive devices based on low-yield thermonuclear pellets triggered by compact non-fission
<br>primaries."</i>
<br>The second definition recognizes the technical fact that radically new, but <i>realistic</i>, types of nuclear weapons will most probably use highly-compressed deuterium-tritium pellets as the main source of their explosive energy. This means that while fission was the main source of yield in the first three generations, the main source of yield in the fourth generation will be the fusion reaction...
<br>
<br>+++ page 17-19
<br>
<br>To ignite the pellet after compression, a different method is required because ignition has to be achieved on a much shorter timescale than compression. For example, while a 1 MJ energy laser pulse of a few nanosecond duration is suitable for compression, ignition may require a pulse of only 1 kJ energy, but of a duration several thousand times shorter, i.e., less than one picosecond. Thus, while high-<i>energy</i> lasers are needed for compression, high-<i>power</i> lasers are required for ignition.
<br>
<br>+++ page 27-28
<br>[S]ince the kinetic energy of the expanding materials of a nuclear bomb generally corresponds to a small fraction of the radiated energy, the immediate vicinity of a nuclear explosive is that of an extremely-intense pulsed-source of radiations. Depending on the type of the bomb, the dominant kinds of emitted radiations are as follows:
<br>- <i>Hot fission bomb:</i> soft X-rays and some fission neutrons;
<br>- <i>H-bomb:</i> soft X-rays and some fission and fusion neutrons;
<br>- <i>Pure fusion bomb:</i> 14 MeV neutrons and soft X-rays;
<br>- <i>Pure isomer bomb:</i> 0.1 to 5 MeV gamma-rays;
<br>- <i>Pure positron bomb:</i> 0.511 MeV gamma-rays;
<br>- <i>Pure antiproton bomb:</i> ~= 200 MeV pions and gamma-rays.
<br>
<br>+++ page 28-30
<br>In the case of nuclear explosives the situation is more complicated because the different kinds of radiations can have a variety of effects, especially if they are very penetrating, as is the case for high-energy neutrons and gamma-rays. The most important of these effects are as follows:
<br>- <i>Generate a fireball (in air or a material)</i>. This is primarily the effect of the soft X-rays
<br>which have a relatively short mean-free path in any material, including air. The material will heat up and the resulting fireball will radiate longer wavelength electromagnetic energy, i.e., a heat wave leading
<br>to various thermal effects.
<br>- <i>Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).</i> This is primarily the result of the expansion of the soft X-rays generated fireball into the surroundings, which launches a shock wave leading to blast effects.
<br>- <i>Heat the surface of a material.</i> Hard X-rays and low-energy gamma-rays able to propagate over some distances in low-density intervening materials (e.g., air) will be absorbed at the surface of any high-density material.
<br>- <i>Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it.</i> If surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction (i.e., "rocket effect") a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
<br>- <i>Accelerate or compress a material.</i> If the ablation pressure is sufficiently strong, a material can be accelerated to high velocity by rocket-effect; and if the ablation pressure is simultaneously exerted on all sides, a material can be compressed to high-density as is the case of the secondary in a two-stage thermonuclear weapon.
<br>- <i>Transfer momentum to a material.</i> Either directly through the effect of radiations, or indirectly by means of shock waves propagating through an intervening medium, momentum can be transferred to a material which can be directly accelerated to high velocity without being ablated.
<br>- <i>Heat the volume of a material.</i> Penetrating high-energy radiations (neutrons, pions, or high-energy gamma-rays) will easily cross a low-density intervening medium such as air and deposit their energy deep into any high-density material. As a result, a substantial (i.e., centimeter to meter-thick) layer of a bomb-irradiated material can be brought to a temperature sufficiently high for it to melt, vaporize, or even explode.
<br>- <i>Energize a working material.</i> A special case of volume heating is that in which a "working material" is intentionally placed near a nuclear explosive in order to heat it to high-temperature so that it can do mechanical work on other materials. This is the nuclear analog of a steam machine, in which
<br>super-heated water (i.e., steam) is used to produce motion.
<br>- <i>Forge and project missiles.</i> A superheated working material can be used to forge a material into a missile and project it to a large distance.
<br>- <i>Form and send high-velocity jets.</i> A super-heated working material can be used to form and send high-velocity (plasma) jets to some distance.
<br>
<br>This list calls for three remarks:
<br>
<br>1. The above list includes only the primarily "mechanical" and "thermodynamical" effects of nuclear explosives. Important non-thermo-mechanical effects such as the production of an electromagnetic-pulse
<br>affecting electronic equipments, and the prompt or delayed radiations affecting living bodies (and electronic equipments to some extent), can be considered as collateral effects in that perspective.
<br>
<br>2. As was stressed in the introduction to this section, many physical processes (such as energy and momentum transfer, transformation of kinetic into internal energy, etc.) have to be simultaneous taken into account, so that none of the effects in the list are "pure effects" that would be fully independent
<br>from the other effects.
<br>
<br>3. Because they produce mainly blast and thermal effects, first and second generation nuclear weapons can basically be considered as gigantic conventional weapons � except of course for their radioactive fallout and other nuclearradiation effects.
<br>
<br>+++ page 39-31
<br>
<br><i>[C]onventional explosives, and first and second generation nuclear explosives</i>, primarily couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium: air, water, earth, rocks, etc. This means that the coupling of these weapons can be qualified as indirect, independently on whether the target is (relatively) close or distant from the point of
<br>explosion.
<br>
<br>In the case of <i>fourth generation nuclear explosives</i>, however, the coupling can be qualified as direct, unless the target is sufficiently far away from the point of explosion that the radiations are absorbed in the intervening medium before interactingwith the target. In otherwords, the fact that these weapons are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiations means that they can produce direct
<br>work on the target, and therefore induce a very different response than if the target was just hit by a shock wave.
<br>
<br>+++ page 31
<br>[W]hen a shock wave strikes a high-density material after propagating in a lower density medium (e.g., striking the ground after propagating through air) most of the energy in the shock wave is reflected, and only a small fraction of the energy of the initial shock wave is given to secondary shock waves propagating through the target material. Consequently, as is well known, indirect coupling by means of shock waves is very poor, because such waves are reflected at the boundaries between low and high-density materials. For example, for both conventional and current generation nuclear weapons, less than 10% of the energy striking a relatively heavy target (e.g., a main battletank, a bunker, or the ground) is actually coupled to it, even for explosions very close to the target, i.e., "surface bursts." As a matter of fact, for ideal (absolutely rigid) materials, incoming shock waves are fully reflected.
<br>
<br>+++ page 32
<br>
<br>Let us suppose that the yield froman idealized <i>DT</i>-based FGNWconsists of about
<br>20% in soft X-rays and 80% in 14 MeV neutrons. Let us also take into account that relative to a surface at some distance from the point of explosion, 50% of each of these radiations will flow forwards, and 50% backwards.
<br>
<br>If we suppose that this weapon has a yield in the range of a few tons, and is detonated in air at a relatively short distance from a target, say a few meters, most of the forwards going X-rays will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
<br>
<br>The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
<br>
<br>+++ page 32-35
<br>
<br>As an example, Fig. 5 shows the neutron heating effect of a 1 ton equivalent point source of 14 MeV neutrons detonated 1 meter away from a thick slab of polyethylene (CH2), taken as representative (from the neutron-heating point of view) of the light materials used in modern multi-layered tank armor. As can
<br>be seen, heating is maximum at about 2 cm below the surface, and then decays exponentially with a half-length of about 10 cm. Therefore, the energy deposited in the first 10 cm has a density of about 0.5 kJ/cm<sup>3</sup>, more than enough to vaporize thematerial. Moreover, if the point of explosion is put at 30 cm rather than 100 cm, or if the explosive yield is increased from 1 to 10 tons, the energy density would become comparable to that of the detonation products of a powerful chemical explosives.
<br>
<br>The same neutron heating calculation can be repeated with other materials: earth, concrete, aluminum, iron, uranium, etc. The result is that the magnitudes, as well as the distributions with depth, are generally rather similar to those of lightweight materials such as CH2, despite that in heavier materials the nuclear interactions of neutrons are very different from those in lightweight materials (i.e., much less elastic scattering, but more inelastic scattering instead). It is only for very heavy material, or in materials such as uranium where 14 MeV neutrons can induce fission, that the magnitude of energy deposition can be larger by a factor of two or more.
<br>
<br>To summarize, and to phrase the results in a simplified form because what matters here are orders of magnitude rather than high precision, one has found that:
<br>- Because most of the energy of a <i>DT</i>-based FGNW is in the form of highly penetrating neutrons, almost all of the forwards going energy is coupled into any target located less than a few meters away from the point of detonation. This implies a coupling coefficient of almost 50%, that is ten times higher than for any conventional or previous generation nuclear weapons;
<br>- The combined surface and volume heating effects of a 1 ton FGNW detonated 1 meter away from any solid target leads to an energy deposition of about 1 kJ/cm3 in the first 10 cm of any material.
<br>
<br>To make some further simplifications, this means that the energy deposition by 14 MeV neutrons is comparable to that of myriads of "femto" kinetic-energy or shaped-charge penetrators, and that while a 1 <i>ton</i> chemical explosion 1 m away from a 10 cm thick steel plate will barely damage it, a 1 <i>ton</i> FGNW explosion at the same 1 m distance will burn a 1 m<sup>2</sup> hole through it.
<br>
<br>+++ page 41
<br>
<br>The mechanical and thermal effects of conventional and nuclear weapons are
<br>well-known. For instance, their scaling laws with explosive yield are
<br>simple power laws: direct proportionally (�proportional Y <sup>-1</sup>) for thermal effects, and third-root dependence (�proportional Y <sup>-1/3</sup>) for blast overpressure. The factor of three difference in the exponent of these powerlaws makes that, in comparison to blast effects, thermal effects are generally negligible in conventional explosives, but dominant in<i>Mt</i>-yield nuclear explosives.which are in fact gigantic incendiary bombs [60]. This means that for <i>kt</i>-yield nuclear weapons, and FGNWs with yields between 1 and 100 tons, both effects should be taken into consideration.
<br>
<br>A first significant difference between <i>DT</i>-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor �{cubeRoot(5)} = 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
<br>
<br>+++ page 42
<br>
<br>However, direct-coupling to a finite-size target has a 1/(r<sup>2</sup>) dependence on the distance r between the point of explosion and the surface of the target, and this distance should be on the order of a few meters at most for a circa 1 <i>ton</i> FGNW to be effective. This requires truly high accuracy in delivery, and a corresponding accuracy in the knowledge of the target coordinates.
<br>
<br>Finally, as with all types of explosiveweapons, debris will be sent at random to large distances from the target. But since the kinetic energy available for sending these debris is directly related to blast energy, this collateral effect should be proportionally reduced in FGNWs.
<br>
<br>+++ page 42-43
<br>
<br>One can therefore find the distance below which the "instant permanent incapacitation" is close or equal to 100% :
<br>1 ton FGNW: more than 10�000 rad below 100 m,
<br>> 24 <sup>o</sup>C body temperature rise,
<br>> 99% lethal within 1 hour.
<br>
<br>And the distance beyond which the probability of survival is higher than 50% :
<br>1 ton FGNW: less than 300 rad beyond 300 m,
<br>1 <sup>o</sup>C body temperature rise,
<br>< 50% lethal within 1 month.
<br>
<br>In these two boxes, the instantaneous full-body temperature rise produced by the given dose is calculate in order to provide an intuitive explanation for the prompt biological effect of high-doses of radiations. As can easily be understood, an instantaneous full-body temperature rise from 37 to about 60<sup>o</sup>C will have a very big impact on physiology, which explains the immediate loss of consciousness and nearly instantaneous death. On the other hand, a 1<sup>o</sup>C temperature rise will not have such a strong physiological effect, and death will be due to radiation sickness, which can be medically treated to some extent.
<br>
<br>+++ page 44-45
<br>[T]he comparison is useful to highlight the considerably smaller radioactive burden induced by FGNWs relative to the previous generations of nuclear weapons. It can also be inferred that:
<br>- Tritium dispersal and induced ground-radioactivity will to a large extent not impair further military action;
<br>- Just as it was the case with the use of depleted-uranium weapons, it will be possible for the proponents of FGNWs to argue that the radiological burden due to their use could be in some way tolerable;
<br>- Many political leaders and large fractions of the public opinion may not object to the long term radiological impact of FGNWs;
<br>- In any case, with a tritium content of about 15 mg per <i>ton</i> explosive equivalent, there will be 15 kg of tritium in an arsenal equivalent to one million 1<i>-ton-</i>FGNWs, that is about the same tritium inventory as in one single full-size thermonuclear reactor. Acceptance of civilian fusion power will therefore be linked to that of FGNWS.</p>
</blockquote><p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 138 -->
</div> <!-- part_2 -->
<hr>
<br>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('part_');"><b>Expand All</b> Part</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('part_');"><b>Hide All</b> Part</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
M. C. Brueckehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11749873350461333806noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-51023570344871971582019-12-22T23:11:00.001-08:002023-11-05T17:41:30.865-08:00FGNW Discussions Vol. 1<!-- <h1>FGNW Discussions</h1>
<h2>Maxwell C. Bridges</h2>
<p>2020-01-22</p>
-->
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 1000;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function getURLParam(strParamName){
var strReturn = "";
var strHref = window.location.href;
if ( strHref.indexOf("?") > -1 ){
var strQueryString = strHref.substr(strHref.indexOf("?")).toLowerCase();
var aQueryString = strQueryString.split("&");
for ( var iParam = 0; iParam < aQueryString.length; iParam++ ){
if (aQueryString[iParam].indexOf(strParamName.toLowerCase() + "=") > -1 ){
var aParam = aQueryString[iParam].split("=");
strReturn = aParam[1];
// alert(strReturn);
break;
}
}
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget == "-false-") {
areaHideAll("sect_");
sectionToggle('sect_part1');
sectionToggle('sect_part2');
sectionToggle('sect_part3');
sectionToggle('sect_part4');
sectionToggle('sect_part5');
sectionToggle('sect_part6');
sectionToggle('sect_part7');
sectionToggle('sect_part8');
sectionToggle('sect_part9');
sectionToggle('sect_part10');
sectionToggle('sect_part11');
sectionToggle('sect_part12');
sectionToggle('sect_part13');
sectionToggle('sect_part14');
sectionToggle('sect_part15');
sectionToggle('sect_part16');
sectionToggle('sect_part17');
sectionToggle('sect_part18');
sectionToggle('sect_part19');
sectionToggle('sect_part20');
window.location.hash;
} else {
areaShowAll('sect_part');
areaShowAll('sect_');
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
blockquote {
/* font-style: italic;
background-color: #eeeeee; */
padding: 5px;
}
.outing {
background-color: red;
color: white;
font-weight: bold;
}
.tiny {
color: white;
font-size: 6pt;
text-decoration: none;
}
p.image, img.image {
width: 60%;
text-align: center;
border: none;
}
-->
</style>
<!-- Start the page here -->
<p>
The following discussions happened over a two year period primarily on Facebook, but also in other discussion forums and by e-mail. They were attempts by me to have rational discussions about 9/11 fourth generation nuclear devices, and tangentially about nano-thermite and about the <i>"No Planes Theory"</i> (NPT).
<br/>
<br/>In most cases, my discussion partners resembled what a conspiracy theorist would expect as boots-to-the-ground infiltration of on-line forums, and controlling the message. Some are classic disinformation, defended poorly, unwilling to acknowledge weaknesses in premise, exhibiting in cases bot-tells in the engagement.
<br/>
<br/>These discussions add more data points to a particular trend line in the 9/11 realm. The trend line dictates that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into nuclear methods must be shutdown.
</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Expand All</b> Chapters</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All</b> Chapters</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Subsections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Subsections</a></p>
<hr>
<a name="x37"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part7');">Chapter 3:
FGNW Discussions with David Chandler</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part7" style="display: block;">
<p>
I have a history with Mr. David Chandler. After Dr. Judy Wood's book came out, I was intrigued by the information. It was curious, however, why no one from the established 9/11 Truth Movement or AE9/11Truth would legitimately validate it or debunk it. At one point, I was in correspondence with Mr. Chandler and, with his approval, purchased Dr. Wood's book and had it sent to him for review: the good, the bad, the ugly.
<br/>
<br/>To cut that story short, he never did thoroughly review it or discuss with depth any errors. Eventually in my studying of her book, I discovered the deceit and can debunk it legitimately. Alas, it does have nuggets of truth, however, that other concensus 9/11 Truth cannot address, which is why her work is given such the <i>"non-treatment"</i> and avoidance. Dr. Wood's book is a great collection of evidence that 9/11 had nuclear components.
<br/>
<br/>At any rate, I originally came to Mr. Chandler as a Woodsian DEWer. My understanding and beliefs changed with further study and analysis. FGNW (fourth generation nuclear devices) are all in the category of DEW.
</p>
<a name="x38"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x38" class="tiny">x38</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_38');">Flat-Earth: training for how to disrupt discussions</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/david.chandler.9026/posts/10157101379693103?comment_id=10157101752233103¬if_id=1546228428746888¬if_t=comment_mention">2018-12-31</a></p>
<div id="sect_38" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Chandler, My experience with flat-earthers is much like yours. Yes, it appeared to be training for how to disrupt discussions. Has another element of guilt-by-association, in that they'll be vocal members of other groups researching various conspiracies but will argue flat-earth so poorly, it'll call into question the legitimacy of the other groups.
<br/>
<br/>You may be making too many assumptions about any "Marc Ruff" and "Adam Ruff" correlations. I only know the latter, and I found him to be a blow-hard braggard and MeToo on 9/11 on and off Truth & Shadows (soon to make a comeback), but Mr. Ruff did not have enough intellectual chops or even personal fortitude to go into details. He'd play games and run out the clock.. I'm not at all proud of myself that I completely discredited his credibility, but I wasn't the one be called out to defend unsubstantiated bragging. He said he could debunk Dr. Wood and nukes, so I was holding his feet to the fire.
<br/>
<br/>In case you were interested, I did what you & he couldn't: I debunk Dr. Wood legitimately. Could have been the assessment you made with the copy I gave you. Her work drops a lot of dangling innuendo, fails to connect dots, draws no conclusions, and did really shitty research into the state of nuclear developments. Dr. Wood's work was never meant as an end-station, which is ironically how die-hard Woodsian followers get tripped up. They don't acknowledge the deficiencies and incompleteness of the work necessitating looking for next-level-Woodsian-DEW, and then they (purposely) let the work be malframed into "DEW from space".
<br/>
<br/>Pay attention, because this accusation of "shitty research into the state of nuclear developments" applies to Dr. Jones, A&E9/11 Truth, and ~YOU~, Mr. David Chandler. For shame, for shame. I know your Physics degree gave you enough background to understand FGNW. Pity you didn't apply yourself.
<br/>
<br/>Still not too late for you to do some real research into the nuclear 9/11 fingerprints and what FGNW can accomplish, being in the DEW classification, easily powered, and next-level Wood. (Hint: google Dr. Andre Gsponer who'd been writing about FGNW in the decade prior to Dr. Jones' "reputiation of 9/11 nukes" or Dr. Wood's tome of nuclear evidence.)
<br/>
<br/>I'll not distract this discussion further. You know how to get to an appropriate entry on my blog to discuss / debunk my FGNW premise, or to my Facebook wall and relevant postings there. If you don't spot the link in the discussions, I'll be happy to post you a link to my raw research into 9/11 DEW and nukes.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 38 -->
<a name="x39"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x39" class="tiny">x39</a>
EL Quesnell : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_39');">aren't you full of yourself!</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_39" style="display: block;">
<p>I do not, could not speak for David Chandler, but oh my, aren't you full of yourself! How about the simple observation that there must have been something other than structural collapse due to fire in play? This alone disputes the official account. "Shame"? Seriously?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 39 -->
<a name="x40"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x40" class="tiny">x40</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">Ain't the worst character trait to exhibit</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_40" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Señor EL Quesnell, Sure, I'll cop a plea to your accusation of me being full of myself! Woo-hoo! Ain't the worst character trait to exhibit... particularly if I am right.
<br/>
<br/>I've got two blog postings that would be of interest. I've provided the link only to the one from 2016 (but you'll easily be able to find the more recent one from Feb 2018). I apologize for the overlap between the two. I included the first one because right out of the gate I slaughter the nano-thermite sacred cow (limited hang-out).
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br/>
<br/>Again, I encourage you to be courteous to this discussion here by taking me to task on a posting on my Facebook wall or my blog.
<br/>
<br/>And let the fact that I have had a blog documenting my zig-zag course to 9/11 Truth since 2010 (and a website before that too) be an indication of my focus and persistence.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 40 -->
<a name="x41"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x41" class="tiny">x41</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_41');">if you don't address all the evidence, you'll be duped again and again</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_41" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Señor EL Quesnell, sorry for this second comment so soon. This is in reference to your comment: "How about the simple observation that there must have been something other than structural collapse due to fire in play?"
<br/>
<br/>Except that if you don't address all the evidence and try to get at the cause, you'll be duped again and again. Face it. The PTB scheduled military exercises to distract and outsourced to Israel the boots-to-the-ground of how we nuked ourselves and then went through all manner of subterfuge and deceit to the point of damaging science institutions to cover for it with a complicit media.
<br/>
<br/>+++ quote from me
<br/>
<blockquote><p>Evidence of "nuclear anything" has about the same PR stigma as a "toxic waste dump": nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of NY city shrivel up & die as inhabitants and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that "nuclear something" was involved. Even though the spectrum of "nuclear somethings" is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The "Field of Dreams" message to Silverstein paraphrased: "If you re-build it, ain't nobody gonna come."
<br/>
<br/>All over the internet, intelligent thinkers offer hints at much deeper causes, motives, and players to what is happening in the world. If any of that is given any credit as being valid with respect to the players and the nookies-and-cranies of all the arsenals of the world, then it seems rather contradictory that nuclear mechanisms get taken off the table so quickly with regards to 9/11. That was a showcase event with redundancies to their redundancies, but with shock-&-awe, baby, being first and foremost. They did not care WTF it looked like, because they were going to PR tell the masses what they wanted the masses to believe. And so it was.</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 41 -->
<a name="x42"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x42" class="tiny">x42</a>
David Chandler : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">dumped your load of DEW garbage</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_42" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges EL Quesnell may not be able to speak for me but I can. You kept it civil and even laudatory right up until you dumped your load of DEW garbage at my doorstep again. Didn't you get the message before that I don't buy what you're selling, and that doesn't make my rejection of Judy Wood's theories shameful. Go away. You got my response before, so quit harassing me with it again. Brown nosing doesn't get you anywhere.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 42 -->
<a name="x43"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x43" class="tiny">x43</a>
EL Quesnell, Will Small : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_43');">nukers only present conjectures</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_43" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>EL Quesnell
<br/><b>EL Quesnell</b> Maxwell Bridges thank you for a very thoughtful, creative and entertaining response. With respect, I must however still disagree: Observance of anything close to free fall collapse is enough to dismiss the official account toward an indictment. You have skipped too far ahead and have no way of gaining evidence from primary sources toward your theory.
<br/>
<br/><b>Will Small</b> EL Quesnell theories require workable hypothesis, nukers only present conjectures of micro and low radiation nukes and misunderstandings of tiny trace elements and compounds found. WTC dust contained thousands of toxins easily capable of diseases that resulted.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 43 -->
<a name="x44"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x44" class="tiny">x44</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_44');">if I could make a case for 9/11 nukes, more power to me and good luck in the endeavor</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_44" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. David Chandler, I am not peddling Woodsian DEW. I went through her work and gathered my nuggets of truth to get me to my nuclear hobby-horse of Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices.
<br/>
<br/>You explicitly told me that if I could make a case for 9/11 nukes -- because it was allegedly beyond your skill set in physics --, more power to me and good luck in the endeavor.
<br/>
<br/>So I did that. As a physics teacher, there's nothing in the FGNW premise that is beyond your education.
<br/>
<br/>I couldn't get you to objectively review all of Dr. Wood's work and to at least study the evidence (that NT doesn't easily explain). Therefore, I doubt you'll go into my derivative but deviant work about FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>But one of my super-powers is being naive and trusting, so I maintain the hope that you aren't following an agenda and will give my work an objective review. In the end if I convince you, you can offer public apologies that based on new evidence you come to new conclusions about the mechanisms of WTC destruction. (Or rather, that NT wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction, if involved at all.)
<br/>
<br/>If my work doesn't convince you, then please tell me where my premise errors so that it can be improved and we can become better people.
<br/>
<br/>Again, it isn't my intention to distract from your Flat-Earth thread. Feel free to critique me on relevant postings on my Facebook wall or even the blog itself.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>You positioned yourself to be a leader in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and you mouthed the words that you would follow truth where ever it leads you. The evidence of 9/11 being nuclear leaks out all over, with the latest nugget being "camera scintillation" (a section on its own in the above work.)
<br/>
<br/>Time for an honest and objective discussion... section by section.
<br/>
<br/>Please, please, please. You've been avoiding this for too long, and is one of the dings to your reputation.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 44 -->
<a name="x45"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x45" class="tiny">x45</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_45');">this half-way effort is designed to keep understanding in inapplicable cul-de-sacs</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_45" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Will Small and Sr. El Quesnell, I don't discount your impression of "nukers" and their "conjectures", because just like many corners of the 9/11 TM, they were infiltrated with agents. This is why THEY speculate about deep underground nukes and frame them inappropriately in terms of yield. Took me awhile before I could debunk them via their malframing.
<br/>
<br/>But I am not THEY. I've been around the 9/11 block many times, and even had to recant views previously held when new evidence or analysis presented itself. I've done the research, and even provided links to the RAW efforts to give those wanting to follow & vet or debunk my substantiation a leg up and head start.
<br/>
<br/>I do agree that under normal circumstances, "Observance of anything close to free fall collapse is enough to dismiss the official account toward an indictment."
<br/>
<br/>But this half-way effort is designed to keep understanding in inapplicable cul-de-sacs and limited hang-outs. The evidence of the true mechanisms of destruction is rather copious to anyone with eyes open and connecting the dots. If presented, it will get convictions, because the set of culprits becomes much smaller when FGNW are faithfully considered.
<br/>
<br/>My work is referenced, but the one you can look up now on your own with no interference from my work is "Dr. Andre Gsponer" and his many years writing about the FGNW subject.
<br/>
<br/>Agreed, that even Dr. Gsponer is somewhat conjecture (and he hasn't written anything about 9/11 to my knowledge), but it comes from someone with deeper nuclear contacts and no axe to grind.
<br/>
<br/>To get the yea or nay from anyone involved in the nitty-gritty of nuclear development, you would put them in violation of non-disclosure agreements and even treason. Too many data points leak out all over (see my works) that expose the validity of FGNW in operation, even if no one with a PhD in Physics can publicly say so. But those of us who studied some physics can connect the dots.
<br/>
<br/>Please, objectively review my work(s) and tell me where I error. I don't like being the sole duped useful idiot on this subject, so will readily concede when the pillars of my 9/11 FGNW understanding are knocked out one by one. The only danger to you is your understanding of mechanisms, when too many pillars remain fixed that nano-thermite can't address.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 45 -->
<a name="x46"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x46" class="tiny">x46</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">Be careful of your broad brush</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.unz.com/article/911-was-an-israeli-job/#comment-2707944">2018-12-20</a></p>
<div id="sect_46" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Price,
<br/>
<br/>Be careful of your broad brush when you go dismissing certain theories as not being applicable.
<br/>
<br/>The USGS analysis of the dusts lists in its data tables the presence of Uranium and its decay elements. They discuss other toxic elements, but not these. However, these are finger-prints for fusion.
<br/>
<br/>And then we have the tritium report with stilted goals from the onset (e.g., to attribute measured tritium to building content) and no need for thorough authoritative measurements. It redefined “trace” to be 55 times greater than it was. Tritium is a component in all Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), many of which are descendants of the infamous “neutron bomb”.
<br/>
<br/>And then we have the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust of the lobby of a neighboring building (to name one analysis/report). A&E9/11Truth suggests nano-thermite created these, but the quantities are obscene even before considering the quantities needed to maintain under-rubble hot-spots and would have been unspent from the initial pulverizing task.
<br/>
<br/>Fission-triggered fusion were the FGNW devices. The yield was already tactical and sub-kiloton per device (with multiple devices per tower). However, 80% of the yield was highly energetic neutrons (that don’t linger) but that do penetrate content delivering high amounts of energy deep within the atomic structure of things it hits. The 20% remaining of the yield was in classical heat wave, blast wave, and EMP — greatly muted.
<br/>
<br/>Most of the time when nuclear device are discussed with regards to 9/11, they are framed purposely wrong and built on the nuclear fears instilled and hyped by media for over half a century. They are framed as “large, single devices and planted deep under ground” and therefore can’t even address the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Judy Wood both did very crappy research into 9/11 nuclear devices. I learned this doing my own research with a focus of what was known to be the state in 2001. How could they both have missed Dr. Andre Gsponer who had been writing authoritatively about FGNW for more than a decade before either Dr. Jones or Dr. Wood penned their shoddy and incomplete dismissive efforts.
<br/>
<br/>Rather than bore readers here, more details at:
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 46 -->
<a name="x47"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x47" class="tiny">x47</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_47');">Don't fall for the fallacy</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.unz.com/article/911-was-an-israeli-job/#comment-2707950">2018-12-20</a></p>
<div id="sect_47" style="display: block;">
<p>Don't fall for the fallacy that it was "either (US government) insiders or (Arab/Israeli) outsiders." It was both. On the inside front, the multiple distracting war games that were in play on the day is exhibit A; Israeli's didn't plan or control them although may have planned to take advantage of them. Israeli Mossad is the logical boots-to-the-ground outsourcing agency to give US insiders plausible deniability.
<br/>
<br/>The article refers to Ace Baker. All disinformation has a solid foundation of truth before it leads you astray. Our job is to mine those disinformation sources for the still valid nuggets of truth. I was duped by September Clues, NPT, etc. for several years. Wouldn't be surprised if they themselves weren't Mossad actions aimed at undermining 9/11 Truth.
<br/>
<br/>I consider Mr. Baker's efforts disinformation, mostly because ample evidence exists that real planes were involved at the WTC: 10 separate instances of pieces of landing gear landing outside the towers; an engine that went through a corner, hit a building, and landed at church & murray.
<br/>
<br/>Also because when you study closely the physics of the towers and the planes, NPT requires assumptions that don't hold true. For example, the implication is made that the tower's resistance to an incoming aircraft is constant. No; once the wall assemblies are breached -- by connecting bolts shearing, by assemblies being pushed out of the way, by hollow box columns of the assemblies getting bent & broken -- comparatively little building structure or content would be present to prevent further forward penetration of the fuselage.
<br/>
<br/>Another example are the wings and tail that many claim "should have bounced off of the towers." The velocity-squared term in the energy equation at high velocities changes the outcomes from expectations of low-velocity crashes. Namely, the energy is so great, that the materials of the wings themselves shatter locally (while also damaging the hollow box columns of the wall assemblies.) The wings would not act as cohesive wholes and bounce. As for the tail, the fuselage had already plowed a path for it to enter.
<br/>
<br/>A final example, NPTers often talk about the plane traveling its own length in the same number of frames whether traveling through air or entering the towers. This is perfectly true, but is used purposely incorrectly. Let's ignore tolerances on starting/ending points for measuring the plane's travel using pixels of a video taken from a distance. Owing to the relatively slow frame rate (24 frames/second) of the recording device, a range of (high) velocities could satisfy the equation and give the same number of frames. In other words, this form of digital error (e.g., converting to individual frames at 24 frames/second) would mask some of the deceleration. Yet NPTers claim there was none.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 47 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part7 -->
<hr>
<a name="x48"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part4');">Chapter 4:
FGNW Discussions with Roger Gloux & Israel</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part4" style="display: block;">
<p>After my exile from Truth & Shadows, Mr. Roger Gloux began posting in favor of Woodsian DEW there.
I eventually was able to have a conversation with him in the comments under my FGNW Prima Facie Case
and then 10 months later in Facebook, re-purposed here. </p>
<p>Like many Woodsian DEW supporters, his defense of her work was weak and stilted.
Worse, many of his efforts is like a "Mossad-bot". </p>
<a name="x49"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x49" class="tiny">x49</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_49');">make sure we blame Israel</a></b></p>
<p>2018-02-22</p>
<div id="sect_49" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html?showComment=1519334962421#c2324011891434230894">2018-02-22</a>
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux said...
<br/>Interesting perspective and let's make sure we blame Israel.
<br/>
<br/>I know you have Dr, Judy Wood's book and I also know you didn't read it through, because in our last discussion you were oblivious of some of the things found in her book.
<br/>
<br/>Also who can tolerate the heat of tons of supposed molten metal flowing in a stream down a steel channel in excess of 2,000 degrees, all the while not burning the paper in the building or the observers of this phenomenon. I'm not saying they didn't see some phenomenon, I'm saying they didn't know what it was and thought it was molten.
<br/>
<br/>Why didn't the paper burn?
<br/>
<br/>There were 14 people in Stairwell B that survived, that didn't experience any heat, nor felt any concussion, nor heard any sound of explosives except a "roar" and nothing fell on them. They walked out.
<br/>
<br/>What caused the Scott Paks to explode in the Fire-trucks, before the Towers were destroyed?
<br/>
<br/>What caused the cars and trucks to burst into flames but only part of some of the vehicles were burnt and others totally burnt outside of the eleven seconds it took to turn those Towers into dust?
<br/>
<br/>What caused the round circles all over the complex including the sidewalk outside of the buildings foot print?
<br/>
<br/>What caused the main floor upward to disappear while still leaving the light on in the level where the delivery vehicles used to deliver mail and parcels?
<br/>
<br/>Building 6 pictures show the place never had any fire damage but the total interior disappeared right down to the main floor. What was left of the offices and their contents is still visible. The bare steel is totally rusted. Explosives of any kind can't accomplish that.
<br/>
<br/>I think you did the same thing as Craig McKee, you thumb through the pages but didn't really read the book.
<br/>
<br/>Explain why there is a circle in the sidewalk.
</p>
</div><!-- section 49 -->
<a name="x50"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x50" class="tiny">x50</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">cranking another spin on a Woodsian carousel</a></b></p>
<p>2018-02-22</p>
<div id="sect_50" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gloux,
<br/>
<br/>Got part way through the response below when I received the distinct impression that you are cranking another spin on a Woodsian carousel. You asked similar questions on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/roger.gloux/posts/1525010434261416?comment_id=1525197564242703&reply_comment_id=1525511144211345">FaceBook</a> that I answered and have since re-purposed in <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/3017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html#x358">Part 7: Miscellaneous Exchanges</a>.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: <i>"I know you have Dr, Judy Wood's book and I also know you didn't read it through, because in our last discussion you were oblivious of some of the things found in her book. ... I think you did the same thing as Craig McKee, you thumb through the pages but didn't really read the book."</i>
<br/>
<br/>Nice try at shifting the discussion to Dr. Wood's book, but I'll remind you that the topic is FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>You complain that I supposedly didn't read her book just because I didn't recall certain specific things mentioned only once (e.g., Scott Paks)? Well, I'll see your unfounded complaint and raise you two founded complaints against you: <b>(1) you didn't <i>understand</i> Dr. Wood's book, and (2) you didn't read thoroughly the above premise.</b>
<br/>
<br/><b>Regarding #1 and your poor reading comprehension:</b> Dr. Wood drops a lot of dangling innuendo, but she does not connect dots or draw conclusions. She never claimed to be an end-station, and her book proves that. She doesn't describe the devices -- whether space-based or earth bound --, nor does she power it with anything real-world. Her valued contribution to 9/11 lore is in collecting together a good portion of the evidence that 9/11 at the WTC was nuclear and raises important questions. She accepted unquestioned and unchallenged several government reports that then skew her analysis. Her book carries over several errors from her website that should have been corrected. In at least one case (police car 2345 or whatever number it was), such an error has her propose gross misinformation by stating the device torched cars at the bridge; the police car was torched elsewhere and towed to the bridge. She doesn't address valid criticism of her web pages that she re-purposed in her book. She exposes various valid research branches (such as soil radiation mitigation techniques), and then stops short. She did very shoddy research into nuclear considerations, as evidence by (a) the cold fusion circus and (b) completely omitting fourth generation nuclear devices. How could she not have found Dr. Andre Gsponer's efforts if she was sincere in her nuclear research?
<br/>
<br/>I'll go back to Dr. Wood's work not being an end-station. She wrote: <i>"The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you."</i> By that she mean, <i>"Look at her collected evidence, but don't be distracted from what she is telling you."</i>
<br/>
<br/><b>Regarding #2</b>, FGNW completes Dr. Wood's work. It stands on her shoulders and takes it to the next level. It provides answers to all of your nigly questions. Did you even note what content came from Dr. Wood's work?
<br/>
<br/>At this point, it is best to go through each paragraph of your comment one by one:
<br/>
<br/><i>"Also who can tolerate the heat of tons of supposed molten metal flowing in a stream down a steel channel in excess of 2,000 degrees, all the while not burning the paper in the building or the observers of this phenomenon. I'm not saying they didn't see some phenomenon, I'm saying they didn't know what it was and thought it was molten. Why didn't the paper burn?"</i>
<br/>
<br/>Had you read my premise and understood it, it would be clear why paper didn't (seem to) burn. The tactical FGNW deployed already were designed sub-kiloton, but that is its total nuclear output. It is further subdivided into upwards of 80% of the energy being highly energetic neutrons. The remaining 20% of the aleady sub-kiloton device were heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Things local to the ignition point could have been torched.
<br/>
<br/>What effect would highly energetic neutrons have on paper? Very little. Not a significant enough atomic structure for paper to be effected. What happens to your cardboard Chinese take-out box when you put it into the microwave?
<br/>
<br/>Concrete on the other hand? Its residual water would have expanded so rapidly into steam, the rest of the concrete was blown apart. Metal in the path of the energy beam would have faired different. Thick metal receiving the highly energetic neutrons could have exhibited instantly volume heating end-to-end, resulting in arches, horseshoes, and steel-doobies. Thin metal, like the pans and trusses that held the concrete, would have ablated.
<br/>
<br/>Same for thin metal in filing cabinets, which among other office furnishings were grossly under-represented in the debris file: the thin metal in the FGNW beam was ablated. The papers enclosed by the cabinets? Some burned, but a good portion wasn't but was free to get blown around.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
<br/><i>"There were 14 people in Stairwell B that survived, that didn't experience any heat, nor felt any concussion, nor heard any sound of explosives except a "roar" and nothing fell on them. They walked out."</i>
<br/>
<br/>The survivors did experience heat, and rather suddenly and acutely. What they didn't experience were flames or lots of smoke from a fire. They did hear explosions but not explosives.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW is in the category of DEW and explains this (a) as the survivors not being in a section that was directly targeted by the FGNW output and/or (b) a fizzling or failed FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
<br/><i>"What caused the Scott Paks to explode in the Fire-trucks, before the Towers were destroyed?"</i>
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/3017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html#x363">Answered already.</a> It should be pointed out from page 110, when they say they were "going off" and "exploding", it is unclear whether they mean "value exploded" or "tank exploded".
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
<br/><i>What caused the cars and trucks to burst into flames but only part of some of the vehicles were burnt and others totally burnt outside of the eleven seconds it took to turn those Towers into dust?</i>
<br/>
<br/>Ho-hum, Mr. Gloux. Did you not read "6. EMP and Vehicle Damage" above in the article under which you comment? For shame, for shame!
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
<br/><i>"What caused the round circles all over the complex including the sidewalk outside of the buildings foot print?"</i>
<br/>
<br/>I do not know what you are referring to. What reference do you have?
<br/>
<br/>Be that as it may, how does Dr. Wood explain it? Probably applies to FGNW, too, because FGNW are the devices that Dr. Wood alludes to but doesn't ever mention.
<br/>
<br/>Because I don't know exactly what you are referring to, I'm making another wild-ass speculation. The outside steel wall assemblies acted up to a point as a Faraday cage to keep contained neutron emission and EMP among other badness. But there were window slits. There were gaps in the debris falling. Through the jostling of the destruction, a misaligned FGNW could have had parts of its output escape. Just as the neutron output cones decimated concrete in the struction, they could have put holes in sidewalks.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
<br/><i>"What caused the main floor upward to disappear while still leaving the light on in the level where the delivery vehicles used to deliver mail and parcels?"</i>
<br/>
<br/>Again, I don't know what you are referring to. What reference do you have?
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
<br/><i>"Building 6 pictures show the place never had any fire damage but the total interior disappeared right down to the main floor. What was left of the offices and their contents is still visible. The bare steel is totally rusted. Explosives of any kind can't accomplish that."</i>
<br/>
<br/>At this point, I suspect you are bot, Mr. Glous, or an idiot Woodsian supporter copying & pasting nonsense, but in any event is now definitely proven to not have read the article above. FGNW explain it. Look at Section 3, "Summary: FGNW Scenario for 9/11." Nowhere in the premise above does it talk about FGNW as being (chemical-based) explosives.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
<br/><i>"Explain why there is a circle in the sidewalk."</i>
<br/>
<br/>No, Mr. Gloux. ~You~ explain why there is a cirlce in the sidewalk after first giving me some context and reference locations.
<br/>
<br/>And just about anything you could dig up from Dr. Wood's work to explain it, I'll probably turn around and say <i>"FGNW can do that too, only better."</i>
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
</p>
</div><!-- section 50 -->
<a name="x51"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x51" class="tiny">x51</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_51');">WTF are you rabbit-ing about?</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_51" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2148340392093804">2018-11-22</a>
Maxwell Bridges You said.... "WTF are you rabbit-ing about?"
<br/>
<br/>I just put together all the things you have said and this is your response. Even you thinks it's ridiculous.
<br/>
<br/>I know what "Zion" is and where it is located. I'm still waiting for you to give me a simple explanation and so far all your doing is trying to reverse it by saying "you don't know".
<br/>
<br/>You said.... " Evidently you don't know what Zionism is, or Mossad, or even what Israel does, as you paint a pretty picture about a religion and those faithful to it."
<br/>
<br/>You can use your own words, please explain. You have the floor.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "No, you don't know what I'm saying. The 9/11 "Jewish art students"? Proven Mossad agents. "
<br/>
<br/>OK..... WHY is this important?
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "Your 9/11 research only goes to Dr. Wood, whose work has plenty of weaknesses that you fail to acknowledge. Why?"
<br/>
<br/>I read the Book several times because it covers every point. You may own the Book but you seem to get stuck in the mud due to your inability to understand what she said. Much the same as Craig Mckee who looked at a few pictures and figures he got what she is about.
<br/>
<br/>The fact you sent the Book to Craig Mckee means you think there is validity in the few pages you read. Mckee read even less.
<br/>
<br/>OK... what weaknesses are you talking about, that you see in the Book? OH!!!!!! I get it, because she didn't talk about nuclear fission, which is hot and burns with a lot of light, you didn't read the rest of the Book.
<br/>
<br/>What University did you go to to major in Nuclear Fission?
<br/>
<br/>You said..... "Because when reason bids us to stand on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work, fourth generation nuclear weapons appear, and greatly limit the number of nations capable of such. "
<br/>
<br/>Fourth Generation..... what exactly is that, and what does that have to do with the destruction of Building #6 never mind the Towers? Does this Fourth Generation make noise? The reason why I ask, no-one heard any noise while the complex was being destroyed except wind making a roaring sound. Why did the 14 people in Stairwell B "not" experience this????
<br/>
<br/>You said..... "Given that Israel has hands in the US's wallet, in its legislature, in its banks, in its technology, in its military, then it is only nature to assume that it has hands in the US's arsenals."
<br/>
<br/>All of the Banks are controlled by the Rothchild's, even China. Morris Strong the millionaire and oil man from Canada went to China for the Rothchild's to set up their big Boom in everything. It takes money to make money.
<br/>
<br/>Rothchild was originally a "Bauer" in Germany, and is now in London.
<br/>
<br/>I think you got that backwards, it is the USA that controls everything in Israel, not the other way around. Israel wouldn't last five minutes without the back up of the USA.
<br/>
<br/>What's a Zionist?
<br/>
<br/>Oh!!!! I also don't follow "Judaism" but I do follow the Bible.
</p>
</div><!-- section 51 -->
<a name="x52"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x52" class="tiny">x52</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_52');">Sincere & objective discussion participants grow.</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_52" style="display: block;">
<p>Sincere & objective discussion participants grow. They can acknowledge both the strengths in an opponent's arguments & sources and the weaknesses in their own. In the 9/11 space, all theories and their substantiating sources have weaknesses. Therefore, when such weaknesses are not acknowledged and when this happens repeatedly in the same realm, it becomes a flag of insincerity.
<br/>
<br/>Tiresome is when "discussion progress" doesn't translate into "relationship progress" in terms of being able to build & expand upon previous exchanges in subsequent encounters. The next carousel spin starts from identical (misguided) position:
<br/>
<br/> a) May 2016
<br/> b) December 2017
<br/> c) February 2018
<br/> d) November 2018
<br/>
<br/>Below this comment, I'll post three reply's that contain rabbit-hole links from the time periods (a) through (c)_ above and this thread serving as (d).
<br/>
<br/>One of my super powers is being naive, trusting, and taking another's words at face value, until given reason not to.
<br/>
<br/>Yeah, well... (a)-(d) has given me reason to label Mr. Gloux as being "insinere", and most likely a paid Israeli troll.
<br/>
<br/>// Part 1/4
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>From 2016-05-06
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>// Part 2/4
<br/>
<br/>From 2017-12-29
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html#x358">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html#x358</a>
<br/>
<br/>// Part 3/4
<br/>
<br/>From 2018-02-22
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>// Part 4/4
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 52 -->
<a name="x53"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x53" class="tiny">x53</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_53');">squelched everything but your own perceptions</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-28</p>
<div id="sect_53" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2006367319624446?comment_id=2006367516291093&reply_comment_id=2152742234986953">2018-11-27</a>
Craig McKee you do have the right to focus on what you want, because that is (or was) your blog. You heard explosions and you make a conclusion it was controlled demolition regardless the fact that Mark Loizeauz explains these kind of noises don't mean this is explosives.
<br/>
<br/>As for Maxwell Bridges comments about Minni Nukes, or hot fission, there wasn't any fire, as each floor turned to powder in 1/10th of a second. The same with explosives that have to turn six inch steel into powder. This is not cutting charges cutting every 10 feet, but turning the whole length of the steel into powder In fact, you appear to be like Maxwell Bridges, only your using a different explosive.
<br/>
<br/>Somebody has to explain how 14 people in Stairwell B wasn't blown to bits, or burned to death by fire, or not crushed by 110 stories of Building coming crashing down. In fact, these firemen saw sunlight before the dust came down on them. They walked out and down to the main floor because there wasn't anything on the main floor that represented 110 stories.
<br/>
<br/>You squelched everything but your own perceptions, or things close to them. You squelched Maxwell Bridges and then put Dr, Judy Wood into that category with the "tinfoil" hats. I don't agree with Maxwell Bridges but I did read Dr Judy Wood's book several times to digest what she was saying as an expert Scientist. You leafed through a couple of pages and made your conclusion without trying to see what she was getting at. That's much the same as the other "truthers".
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 53 -->
<a name="x54"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x54" class="tiny">x54</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">Error in attributing</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-28</p>
<div id="sect_54" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, a sign of sincerity in a discussion participant is when they can accurately quote or explain their opponent's position. We have had numerous discussions that were seeded on my hobby-horse (FGNW).
<br/>
<br/>Error is attributing to me "Minni Nukes, or hot fission."
<br/>
<br/>Another error is in writing: "Somebody has to explain how 14 people in Stairwell B wasn't blown to bits, or burned to death by fire, or not crushed by 110 stories of Building coming crashing down." I've done that and explained how FGNW accomplish this feat easily by simply aiming their neutron output up. Further, owing to the duration of under-rubble hot-spot and their radioactive emissions (caught as camera scintillation in videos by NIST of the pile), not all FGNW met their expected yields and may have fizzled, thus also possibly sparing those in the stairwell.
<br/>
<br/>Error is when you've read Dr. Wood's book several times and don't acknowledge that she hasn't prove all her tangents applicable, doesn't connect the dots, did shoddy FGNW research, and draws no conclusions. Her work is great for looking at evidence, but her own words tell readers that she is not the end station.
<br/>
<br/>Error is not standing on the shoulder's of Dr. Wood's work and arriving at the conclusions that she couldn't.
<br/>
<br/>On top of these errors, I've experienced your song-and-dance on Israel, how it is okay that Israel lobbyists and American Zionist are pushing a law in the USA that criminalizes criticizing Israel.
<br/>
<br/>Links available upon request to where discussions between Mr. Roger Gloux and myself (on Facebook and my blog). It gets a bit tiresome when all that "progress in a discussion" is completely ignored by Mr. Gloux in a new round of carousel spins re-starting from week positions: Dr. Wood's book.
<br/>
<br/>Sincere participants grow. Their opinions can change when new information is presented, and when their base information is proven in error.
<br/>
<br/>... Hmmm. I wonder if there are dots to be connected between Saint Dr. Wood praising and brushing off badness of Israel (whereby 9/11 involvement is one example).
<br/>
<br/>//</p>
</div><!-- section 54 -->
<a name="x55"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x55" class="tiny">x55</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_55');">old drywaller and truck driver</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_55" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2148340392093804?comment_id=2157333207861189¬if_id=1544000485166302¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">2018-12-28</a>
<br/>LOL You said..... "has given me reason to label Mr. Gloux as being "insinere", and most likely a paid Israeli troll. "
<br/>
<br/>You have the right to believe what you want, but I can't be anymore sincere then I am. I don't see how you can believe there was "nukes" used without any fire.
<br/>
<br/>As for being paid...... where's the money? I'm an old drywaller and truck driver that spent too much time searching things that happened on 9/11 and because of checking out all the different concepts of how the Seven Buildings were destroyed, I scratched your concepts of Nukes being used... scratched off of the list.
<br/>
<br/>You want me to believe nukes can be used without heat or fire and on top of that no radiation at ground zero. Radiation is not selective. Everyone would have been radiated but not the 14 survivors in Stairwell B. They walked out and were not crushed by the 110 stories above them.
<br/>
<br/>Now I need money so get somebody to pay me.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 55 -->
<a name="x56"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x56" class="tiny">x56</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">missed comment</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_56" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, my apologies for missing this comment and for not responding sooner. I'll include an answer to a specific point in this -- "there was 'nukes' used without fire" -- in a rebuttal down below.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 56 -->
<a name="x57"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x57" class="tiny">x57</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_57');">four Jewish guys</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_57" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I look at the videos of a Tower being destroyed in slow motion. I see big chunks of the outside wall falling and as it goes down it turns into dust. How does four Jewish guys putting brackets in a wall manage to make these outside pieces of steel turn to dust and how can "nukes" make these falling pieces turn to dust in front of our eyes but not see fire from nukes making it turn to dust?
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Judy Wood doesn't say what caused this but you are saying "nukes" did this and it don't make sense. You say it is Fourth Generation Nukes and even if a person don't know how nukes are made, that person does know there is a lot of fire due to fission.
<br/>
<br/>So watching in slow motion steel falling, trailing dust, and four Jewish guys did this with nukes makes me shake my head.....
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2IMiQzFu6I&list=PL_cJ8k_C3XEWi9IrA7dKse0vo8SE6J1oJ&index=5&t=0s&fbclid=IwAR0IctzPD7IF0k8Rg8C9viYzM3fzRB7KeAIZGlscgJHkBg1JgBl8Fquzxr8
</p>
</div><!-- section 57 -->
<a name="x58"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x58" class="tiny">x58</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">casual nukes and Israeli trolls</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_58" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, you wrote: "Dr. Judy Wood doesn't say what caused this (big chunks of the outside wall falling and as it goes down it turns into dust)" EXACTLY!!! Thank you for finally acknowledging this fact: Dr. Wood doesn't say what caused it.
<br/>
<br/>If you were being honest and rational, you'd say "Dr. Wood did us a great service with her collection of evidence but didn't get us all the way to the operational mechanisms, so we must keep searching and be open to efforts that build upon her work."
<br/>
<br/>If you were being honest and rational, you'd say that my FGNW is "worthy of study for its attempt at bringing Dr. Wood's work to the next level."
<br/>
<br/>But you don't say such things, because you aren't being honest and sincere. You can't even bring yourself to read my FGNW premise, which is a huge ding on your objectivity.
<br/>
<br/>How do I know this? Because if you had read it and were sincere, you wouldn't be trying to frame it as "casual nukes" with outdated assumptions, such as this gem of a HYPNOTIC ASSERTION: "even if a person don't know how nukes are made, that person does know there is a lot of fire due to fission."
<br/>
<br/>Pure fusion devices require much energy to get them to the fusion point, which is why fission-triggered fusion anchors most FGNW devices. Low and behold, the USGS study on the dust documents the fission decay pathway of Uranium, indicating that fission was present. And there were at least two projects to explain away the tritium levels haphazardly measured; tritium is a main component of all FGNW device variants.
<br/>
<br/>Chemical-based explosives and 1st through most of 3rd generation nuclear weapons delivered their energy to the target via intermediary mediums, such as air. Sudden and massive changes in air pressure from the explosion damage things.
<br/>
<br/>But late-3rd and most 4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW), aside from already being scaled down to tactical levels, would release 80% of their energy as highly energetic neutrons that were expelled in a controlled fashion, like a cone which would gut the insides but not necessarily the core or outer wall assemblies. The remaining 20% of the energy of these scaled-down tactical weapons would be in side-effects of a heat wave, shock wave, and EMP. Fire balls and fires for sure (and consistent with the recorded evidence) but very much reduced and contained.
<br/>
<br/>Back to those highly energetic neutrons. They pass through everything and deposit their energy deep within structures. Just by turning residual water in materials instantly into super-high pressure expanding steam, those materials are instantly dustified. With thin metal such as the pans and trusses for the poured concrete, these would ablate. The significant percentage of tiny iron spheres found in all dust samples suggest a very high energy source.
<br/>
<br/>The FGNW devices were mounted on the inner core but the cone output was aimed away from it. Still, core material near the ignition point could experience instantly volume heating to levels that weaken even thick iron beams to point of sagging (but Dr. Wood called them "arches") or getting turned into horseshoes.
<br/>
<br/>The comparatively thin steel of the spandrels connecting together the three hollow box columns of the wall assemblies? The FGNW output cone didn't target them, but did graze them and caused volume heating which allowed some of them to be turned into "steel doobies," the three box columns getting wrapped up by the pliant spandrels. Remember, these were three stories high, yet the spandrels at all three stories heated to pliancy.
<br/>
<br/>it wasn't "four Jewish guys." You should look up how many Israeli "art students" were associated with the WTC and the operation in general; a number much greater than 4 who were detained, not questioned heavily, and deported.
<br/>
<br/>++++
<br/>
<br/>How do I know you are an Israeli troll, Mr Gloux?
<br/>
<br/>- Israel-can-do-no-wrong comments.
<br/>
<br/>- Parking 9/11 discussions into the cul-de-sac of Dr. Wood's work that is known to be incomplete, connects no dots, draws no conclusions.
<br/>
<br/>- Avoidance of objective consideration of other premises that might complete Dr. Wood's work: FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>The list goes on.
<br/>
<br/>A few years ago already, I had hopes that I might nudge you to the next level for Dr. Wood's work. Your objectivity in grabbing hold of Dr. Wood's work as more accurately explaining the WTC destruction than chemical-based explosives ~hinted~ that you might be open-minded and objective enough to acknowledge the weaknesses in Dr. Wood's work that thereby necessitate FURTHER research. I had hopes that my FGNW extension would convince you, or at least get you out of Dr. Wood's false end-station and on to discovering what might be the true 9/11 end-station at the WTC.
<br/>
<br/>But your mind-set hasn't changed. You've had no growth. Your seemingly simple but mal-framed questions about FGNW indicate you didn't read my premise, and if you did, the questions were deceitful distractions.
<br/>
<br/>I patiently answered them again and again, often pointing to specific sections in my premise to help focus your reading attention. Why? The first couple rounds were in the hopes of convincing you. Because of your demonstrated lack of growth, subsequent rounds were not for your benefit, but for the benefit of truth and lurker readers.
<br/>
<br/>Thank you for proving the existence of Israeli internet trolls.
<br/>
<br/>"By their fruits ye shall know them."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 58 -->
<a name="x59"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x59" class="tiny">x59</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_59');">Dr. Wood doesn't say what did it</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_59" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges regarding what caused the destruction....the "truthers" don't know, including you. All your stuff is all suppositions.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Judy Wood doesn't say what did it, but remarks on what is happening. She says this all of the time, so that's not new info.
<br/>
<br/>On the other hand, you guess at what might be the cause. Tell me, how does huge sections of the outside wall detached from the structure, turn into dust in less then a few seconds?????
<br/>
<br/>There isn't anything attached to this steel but in turns into dust before it hits the ground. No fire, no explosions, just a silent turning to dust. I see it and so do you.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "If you were being honest and rational, you'd say "Dr. Wood did us a great service with her collection of evidence but didn't get us all the way to the operational mechanisms,"
<br/>
<br/>That wasn't her purpose, all she did was present the evidence of almost every aspect, and then lets the observer make a decision.
<br/>
<br/>You chose "nukes". That's a guess.
<br/>
<br/>In order to plant nukes on every steel I-beam, six inch steel tube (forty sen of them), and all of the concrete, with all of it's re-enforcement rebar, plus all of the contents in the occupied suites is a stretch of the of the imagination, and on top of that four guys planting this on everything every square inch of a 110 story building. You want me to believe that??????
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "Thank you for proving the existence of Israeli internet trolls."
<br/>
<br/>You sound like McCarthy, but instead of a Nazi under every rock, now your going with "Jews" everywhere.
<br/>
<br/>Since you are castigating "Jews", where did they come from? The reason why I ask is your bent on blaming "them" so I was wondering how you would recognize "one"? Do you know what a "Jew" is?????
<br/>
<br/>You said.....
<br/>"By their fruits ye shall know them."
<br/>
<br/>Yeah!!!! I'm looking at you. What's your ancestry?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 59 -->
<a name="x60"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x60" class="tiny">x60</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">salient points not addressed</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_60" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, you play games and continue with your insincerity. Proof. (1) I never wrote "Jews". (2) You have still not addressed the salient points of the article that anchors this. (3) You seemingly continue to support Dr. Wood as an end-station when you admit her work isn't.
<br/>
<br/>(4) You continue to mal-frame nukes and their placement. What is with this nonsense: "In order to plant nukes on every steel I-beam, six inch steel tube (forty sen of them), and all of the concrete..."
<br/>
<br/>... Wait a minute... I know what is happening. Your Israeli AI algorithms were honed against opponents who champion nano-thermite. So you did the lazy nasty of copying from those previous exchanges, replaced "NT" with "nukes" (not even FGNW) inappropriately paste it as a rebuttal.
<br/>
<br/>It clearly indicates ~we~ are not on the same page. Very little indication from this response that you've read my thesis (which has been a re-occurring theme). Very little respect that you can't correctly take on my premise, because you're copying from a database of canned answers, and your Mossad disinfo team isn't permitted into the realm of FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>My ancestry has nothing to do with FGNW or 9/11 or Israel.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 60 -->
<a name="x61"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x61" class="tiny">x61</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_61');">clean your glasses</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_61" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you said..... "(1) I never wrote "Jews"."
<br/>
<br/>Ha.... no, you say everything but that.
<br/>
<br/>You said... "(2) You have still not addressed the salient points of the article that anchors this"
<br/>
<br/>That's like saying the person was shot "through and through" but because we can't figure out what "weapon it was exactly". we can't anchor it.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "(3) You seemingly continue to support Dr. Wood as an end-station when you admit her work isn't. "
<br/>
<br/>She says over and over, something turned those buildings into powder. It wasn't explosives because there was no "boom boom boom" noises, and there was no fire or light. In fact the people who were caught in the dust storm said it was cooler than the ambient air. Because she doesn't tell you the "caliber" of the weapon, your not accepting it. strange.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "(4) You continue to mal-frame nukes and their placement. "
<br/>
<br/>Lets pick just one thirty foot piece of steel tubing six inches thick, you want me to believe "nukes" turn this whole piece of steel tubing into dust without making any noise or fire. It don't fly Max. plus when you put "one on one" the thing is about 117 stories high and they turn to dust in front of you eyes, like that 700 story clump of steel called the "steeple", with no building around it, and it turns into powder. Nukes don't do that. You tou try to say every square inch of that steel is covered in little nukes to make it turn into powder without any flashes or explosions you belong on a nut farm. That steel faded into powder. You don't have to know what did it, all you have to do is say it turned into powder. You wont do that and then try and tell everyone it is NUKES that destroyed the buildings without any forensic evidence. Your guessing.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "... Wait a minute... I know what is happening. Your Israeli AI algorithms were honed against opponents who champion nano-thermite."
<br/>
<br/>No "Jew" eh????? lol They were Arab Philistines and everyone knows some guy in a cave needing dialysis two time a week supplied the material.
<br/>
<br/>The building had large amounts of aluminum and steel and if you see this in the powder, it must be nano thermite.?????
<br/>
<br/>You can't think, the buildings turned into powder, obviously there is aluminum and iron oxide (rust) in the dust. Everybody saw the clips of how big steel is cut with thermite every ten feet and everybody saw the blinding light it produces. Now put this on every square inch to make it turn into powder. It's ridiculous.
<br/>
<br/>You said... "It clearly indicates ~we~ are not on the same page."
<br/>
<br/>I agree, you need to clean your glasses so you can see the building turn into dust without any fire in 10 seconds.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 61 -->
<a name="x62"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x62" class="tiny">x62</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">written in an incredulous manner</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_62" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Roger Gloux, yet another indication of a failure in your database.
<br/>
<br/>Everything you write about "nukes" in an incredulous manner doesn't really apply to FGNW, because they are tactical (already sub KT) and of that only 20% might escape as a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. The lion's share of 80% is released in a targeted fashion (upwards) in the form of highly energetic neutrons.
<br/>
<br/>When you write about "buildings turned into powder," this is exactly what would be expected as a result of deep penetration in materials with highly energetic neutrons that FGNW are capable of. Why doesn't this get you to change your tune and go to next level Dr. Wood?
<br/>
<br/>But as you continue in that paragraph about "buildings turned into powder", it immediately turns into you attacking thermite. Hello? Not my premise.
<br/>
<br/>Another example of a database glitch. No previous responses to opponents who champion a narrow range of nuclear devices and can only be addressed effectively by section-by-section discussion. The Algorithm is forbidden from doing such research.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>{mcb: Meme. "Pro-Isreal groups are attacking Rand Paul for Blocking $38 Billion in Aid" over a picture of Sen. Rand. "The IDF is awarding soldiers for a deadly crackdown on protests" over a picture of Israeli solders detaining a youth. "Israel asked the US to support Saudi Arabia after Khashoggi's murder" over a picture of Trump and Sharon. "And Israeli lobbyists filed fake lawsuits to slader boycott activists" over a picture of protestors one with a sign "Boycott Israel!!!". "If you really want to know who's in charge, look for the people you're not allowed to criticize" over a picture of George Carlin.}
<br/>
<br/>https://www.facebook.com/MintpressNewsMPN/photos/a.427073724002835/2107745599268964/?type=3&theater
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>CNN fires commentator Marc Lamont Hill after he called for eliminating Israel, endorsed violent ‘resistance’
<br/>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cnn-fires-commentator-marc-lamont-hill-after-he-called-for-eliminating-israel-endorsed-violent-resistance?fbclid=IwAR36UtCj1ORxfKU5fRF6JSEWdThrgHgQY4RJtIQKJl9krQfuzRHucOzV-d8
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 62 -->
<a name="x63"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x63" class="tiny">x63</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_63');">learn your history of "who is who"</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_63" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges well Max you really should learn your history of "who is who".
<br/>
<br/>The Hamas Terrorist group is of Egyptian descent who control the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians are the Philistines who were situated on a different piece of land.in their origins.
<br/>
<br/>The only people that started on "the Land" were the Israelite's. These Israelite's were comprised of 13 Tribes when Josephs split his inheritance to his two boys. Originally there were 12 Tribes called Israel.
<br/>
<br/>Solomon the son of King David from the Tribe of Judah, built the Temple on "the Land" that was bought by King David from Ornan the Jebusite. That Temple was destroyed by an invading Army of the Babylonians now called IRAQ.
<br/>
<br/>The Persian Empire (now Iran) defeated the Babylonians and allowed the Tribe of Judah back unto "the Land" so they could rebuild The Temple.which is part of Jerusalem. That piece of land consisted of 13 acres situated just below or South of what is now called Fort Antonia, that was built by the invading Roman Empire when Alexander the Great's armies were defeated.
<br/>
<br/>Herod of the Roman Empire expanded the Temple to a size of 600 ft. square. It rose from the Kidron Valley to approximately 40 stories high.
<br/>
<br/>The Nation of Judah consisting of mainly Judah and Benjamin Tribes were conquered by the Roman Empire and removed off of "that Land" in a revolt. General Titus the Commander of the army for the Roman Empire destroyed the Temple and the Old City of Jerusalem.
<br/>
<br/>This General Titus renames "this Land" as Palestina, to further humiliate the Nation of Judah. The Palestinians never had "this Land" nor was there a "State" there.
<br/>
<br/>Before all these conquests, there were 13 Tribes on 'that Land" called Israel. These 13 Tribes had split with Ten Tribes called Israel with a large portion of the Tribe of Levi, the Priests.
<br/>
<br/>The Assyrian Empire conquered these northern 10 1/2 Tribes and removed them from "the Land", and replaced the Northern Tribes with Sameritans. These Northern Tribes called Israel eventually migrated to just North of the Caucasus Mountains and then to North Western Europe and became the Nations of North Western Europe from which your ancestry came from.
<br/>
<br/>The Assyrians were conquered by the Babylonians and eventually migrated and now are called Germany.
<br/>
<br/>All through this history some of the Tribe of Judah lived in the environs of Jerusalem their Capital City which is where the Temple was. The Palestinians never owned any part of "the Land". in the last 2,000 years. Most of it was desert like including the area of Tel Aviv in 1900. Since then, the "Jews" built that city to what it is today.
<br/>
<br/>In 1947 the Balfour Declaration gave back some of the original "Land" to Judah, including their Capital City of Jerusalem.
<br/>
<br/>Marc Lamont has no idea who "the Land" belonged to and once again wants to remove these people from "the Land" and give it to the Palestinians who never had it in the first place.
<br/>
<br/>You also need to check out the ancestry of the owner of CNN who has this goof Marc Lamont working for him. All the main Media outlets are owned by people from ancient Israel. All Ashkenazi "Jews" are actually from Northern Israel which are not real :Jews" they are Israelites. the Sephardic Jews are from the Nation of Judah and these are the real "Jews".
<br/>
<br/>Marc Lamont is African ancestry, but you Max Bridges have your ancestry from the Northern Tribes of Israel and just possibly from the Tribe of Judah. In either case your an Israelite regardless what you call yourself today.
<br/>
<br/>Just so you know, if someone calls themselves "Jews" check and see if they are Ashkenazic or Sephardic "Jews". Most everyone in a position of Power, in the film industry, Media or the White House in the USA are Ashkenazi and actually from the Northern 10 Tribes. the Leaders of Modern Israel is run by Ashkenai "Jews", who actually originated in the Northern Ten Tribes and were the Leaders of Khasaria.
<br/>
<br/>You have no idea that "google" and Facebook are owned by Ashkenazi people who come from the Northern Ten Tribes. So if your anti-Semetic your going to be on somebosy's radar.
<br/>
<br/>My ancestry is French from the Tribe of Reuben.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 63 -->
<a name="x64"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x64" class="tiny">x64</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');">criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semetic</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_64" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, Thank you for the history lesson.
<br/>
<br/>Alas, another database failure. You wrote: "So if your anti-Semetic your going to be on somebosy's radar."
<br/>
<br/>I haven't been anti-semetic. Furthermore, criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semetic.
<br/>
<br/>But your fawning over Israel and your inconsistent 9/11 discussions proves by your actions that I'm on Israel's radar. You're it, baby! My very own Mossad agent! Woo-hoo! Do I feel special!
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 64 -->
<a name="x65"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x65" class="tiny">x65</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_65');">never been to Israel</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_65" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges OK McCarthy, I'm not Mossad nor will I ever be. I've never been to Israel.
<br/>
<br/>Do any Governments make mistakes? Absolutely.
<br/>
<br/>Is there anything specific about the Government of Israel getting you upset?
<br/>
<br/>Don't you think the American Government has at it's disposal agents who will do anything the Government wants. It don't need agents from other Governments to do their bid.
<br/>
<br/>You see four guys with Israeli credentials and right out of the blue these guys somehow manage to get "nukes", without drawing any attention to them, in rigging all seven buildings (not just the two Towers) for destruction. And without destroying half of Manhattan. In fact, the "bath tub" wasn't even chipped, never mind a crack or broken concrete on the "bath tub's" edges.
<br/>
<br/>The Mall under the complex wasn't destroyed, and even the lights are on beneath Buildings #4 and #5. Half of Building $4 disappeared The rail cars were mostly not damaged or dented and lifted out with cranes................. and Israel did this with mini Nukes?????
<br/>
<br/>Why Israel????? Why not Russia or the Hamas Egyptian group, or the Iranians.
<br/>
<br/>Nooooo instead you zero in on Israel as if these guys can transport enough "nukes" through downtown New York, with specific detonation to only destroy WTC buildings and turn them into powder, without major damage to any other buildings except the front of Bankers Trust by falling outside section of one panel hitting the building.
<br/>
<br/>If anyone came into the USA and started to blow things up, the USA can and would blow up anything attached to these people, Including their Commanders, but Israel is a bad guy because they shoot people from Gaza that try to kill their citizens and tourists.
<br/>
<br/>The last barrage of 460 rockets from the Gaza Hamas Egyptian group killed an innocent Palestinian living in Israel.
<br/>
<br/>Listen to this guy that you support and see who these people are....
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwBSWN4s9JU
<br/>
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>palestinians are a myth says hamas member "they are just…
<br/>
<br/>Jim Meade
<br/>Jim Meade Sorry to inter your discussion guys, but i thought this link would be of interest here.
<br/>https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181128-trump-us.../...
<br/>
<br/>MIDDLEEASTMONITOR.COM
<br/>Trump: US troops will stay in Middle East to protect Israel
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux
<br/>Roger Gloux Jim Meade that's a good thing, otherwise the Israeli neighbors would kill every man, woman and child including tourists.
<br/>
<br/>Imagine that, the people in Gaza would stop getting Israeli benefits like electricity and medical aid.
<br/>
<br/>Jim Meade
<br/>Jim Meade "Israeli benefits"??
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux
<br/>Roger Gloux Jim Meade The reason why the US is in the Middle east is for the resources from all of those countries Like Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and especially Iran because their oil makes the best gasoline.
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux
<br/>Roger Gloux Jim Meade Israel supplies the electricity to the Palestinians and most of the time they don't get paid.
<br/>
<br/>Jim Meade
<br/>Jim Meade Thanx for that bit of knowledge Roger Gloux. Here i thought Israel controls the supply of electricity and forces blackouts I them for the better part of the day.
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux
<br/>Roger Gloux Jim Meade that's right and they don't pay for their electric bill. On top of that when they peacefully riot and send burning kites into Israel that burn up their crops and houses and small explosives that fall everywhere including school yards, the Isr…See More
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>Palestinian Woman's life saved in Tel-Aviv Hospital
<br/>
<br/>Jim Meade
<br/>Jim Meade Israelis are scumbags Roger Gloux. There is nothing you can say or link to to make me think otherwise.
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux
<br/>Roger Gloux Jim Meade Yeah! that's what the Palestinian say but they sure need the Israeli help. SMH
<br/>
<br/>BTW why are you so caustic? What information got you in this attitude?
<br/>
<br/>Jim Meade
<br/>Jim Meade If the Israelis haven't been disrupting there lives for the past 60 years, Palestinians would be self sufficient and wouldn't need them for anything.
<br/>
<br/>Jim Meade
<br/>Jim Meade Thanx for the chat Roger Gloux
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux
<br/>Roger Gloux Jim Meade They get millions of dollars in help but instead of building infra structure, they purchase rockets and send them into Israel. Considering these are Arabs, why don't the other Arab Nations give them the money they need. When they get money they build expensive tunnels for access to Israel so they can kill the Israelis, instead of using the money to fix their sewage problem. Everybody in the Mediteranian countries are fed up with raw sewage on their sandy beaches.
<br/>
<br/>The Hamas Egyptian rebels were complaining they couldn't pay salaries for the Palestinian workers, so Israels sends them 15 million dollars, and as soon this is done, there is a barrage of rockets from Gaza. Go figure????
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 65 -->
<a name="x66"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x66" class="tiny">x66</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">very sad discussion</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_66" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jim Meade, I thank you very much for your participation in this very sad discussion with Mr. Roger Gloux, who I suspect is half Mossad agent and half artificial intelligence being supported by an inferior database that has nothing to counter 9/11 Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), my hobby-horse. This explains why I get rebuttals that seem to copy-and-paste from debates with (main-stream) 9/11 Truthers who champion nano-thermite to get them on the Dr. Wood gravy train. Not applicable to FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Alas, FGNW is not NT, and Dr. Wood isn't an end-station in thought but most useful to get at FGNW. Lost on our Gloux-bot or agent.
<br/>
<br/>"By deception we will wage war", or words to that effect explain Israel's Mossad methods. Mr. Gloux is one instantiation of such an agent.
<br/>
<br/>- Can't admit the unfairness of a US law that would give extra protection to Israel in terms of critics.
<br/>
<br/>- Can't admit that Dr. Wood isn't an end-station.
<br/>
<br/>- Can't ever change his opinion based on new-ish findings that he isn't permitted to read and base his rebuttals on, lest it reveal nuggets of truth and his game of being a Dr. Wood supporter that can go no further.
<br/>
<br/>- Well versed in Israel history and a huge champion.
<br/>
<br/>The internet purges are happening. Glad that I have some back-stops.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 66 -->
<a name="x67"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x67" class="tiny">x67</a>
Jim Meade : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_67');">these jokers some kind of artificial intelligence</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_67" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges i had some guy in Norma's 911 group say it was a good thing also. Then in typical fashion started throwing ad hominems . It wouldn't surprise me at all if these jokers were some kind of artificial intelligence.
<br/>
<br/>I thank you for all efforts Maxwell.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 67 -->
<a name="x68"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x68" class="tiny">x68</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">Norma Rae and her stable of agents</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_68" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jim Meade, I had experiences with Norma Rae and her stable of agents. My hobby-horse isn't debunking No Planes at the WTC. But I managed to ride that carousel several times.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../npt-carousel-on-fb...…See More
<br/>
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome"
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 68 -->
<a name="x69"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x69</a>
Jim Meade : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_69');">an agent?</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_69" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I'll check that out when i get free time.
<br/>
<br/>You think Norma is an agent? She always seemed fair and willing to evolve to me.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 69 -->
<a name="x70"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x70" class="tiny">x70</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">Norma doesn't re-evaluate</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jim Meade, Norma seemed fair and willing to evolve as long as she considered your position more bat-shit crazy than her own.
<br/>
<br/>She is a huge fan of no planes at the WTC. But when the errors in her position are pointed out -- with physics and math --, when by rights she should be re-evaluating her position and move on, then her agentness and repetitive agenda come to the surface.
<br/>
<br/>If you're bored, follow the first link, and search on "Norma", deep within you'll see where she goes off the rails. I'm no longer part of that FB group, so can't get to those Facebook links. But if you're curious and apply for membership, you'll be able to get to the source and validate my re-purposing activities.
<br/>
<br/>Norma more than once posted memes that were in complete error. Here's a great quote from March 2014:
<br/>
<br/>"I asked my 4th Grade daughter which object would fall a greater distance: a light object or a heavy object. She knew the lighter object would land further. Why? Because she used logic. 9/11 has messed with our ability to use our logic. I trust heavily on my logic."
<br/>
<br/>Completely messed up. If a light object (e.g., passport) and a heavy object (e.g., engine) were traveling the same speed and then thrown from an aircraft, the heavier object has more energy from momentum to overcome resistive forces (like wind resistance) and would travel further.
<br/>
<br/>Norma questions that an engine could rocket out of the towers, hit another building, and land on the street. I proved with physics that an exit velocity as low as 122 mph (reduced after impact from 500 mph) from the impact levels could go the distance observed (Church & Murray) to where the engine was found.
<br/>
<br/>There was much more that pegged her an agent.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<a name="x71"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x71</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_71');">anyone who disagrees with your perception is Mossad or AI</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_71" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I truly find your reasoning very interesting. It appears anyone who disagrees with your perception is Mossad or involved with " AI " or some other way off the deep end concept.
<br/>
<br/>The reason why I know the history of Israel is I study the Bible and traced where all the people mentioned in it..... are today. With your last name alone, I know your a descendant of the Nation of Israel that had 13 Tribes when the Assyrians (Germany today) and the Babylonians (Iraq tody) conquered them and forced them off of that "Land".
<br/>
<br/>You see I was also tracing where my ancestors came from.
<br/>
<br/>You Max, have no clue as to the history of these people or your own ancestry because you would never look in the Bible to see where all these people are today. These people kept impeccable information up to the point of going into diaspora.
<br/>
<br/>Then you have to search in the history of Nations and where the people migrated to.
<br/>
<br/>Along with this information, I found people in general, and so called "scholars" from these people kept calling Israel "Jews" when in fact only one Tribe was the "Jews". That leaves another twelve Tribes went somewhere after the were kicked off of "that Land" and replaced by other people by the Conquerors.
<br/>
<br/>One Tribe in particular was involved in rebuilding their Temples and Herod the Great of the Roman Empire embellished this Temple so that it was renowned in all the then known world. In fact it was so renown visitors thought it to be one of the Wonders of this world like an Egyptian Pyramid.
<br/>
<br/>I also found out the Persian Empire was very lenient on others that had a different religion, in fact Cyrus and Darius the Great supplied the materials needed to rebuild the Temple after the Assyrians demolished. Everyone who went to school knows the Persians are modern day Iran. Even with my grade 8 education I knew that.
<br/>
<br/>Alexander the Great a Macedonian gangster conquered Persia and destroyed their Magnificent city of Persepolis. The remains of this beautiful city is still there.....
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Mq6FZSleA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Mq6FZSleA</a>
<br/>
<br/>The Persians were a World Ruling Empire of the then known world.
<br/>
<br/>The Tribe of Judah actually (YaHUdah) were always coming back to their original place and that was Jerusalem the Capital City of all 13 Tribes originally.
<br/>
<br/>The Tribe of Judah wanted this Land back as their own dominion, but the Roman Empire wasn't going to do that, they allowed this Tribe to live in this City of Jerusalem because that was the location of their Temple. This Tribe revolted and started a war with the Roman Empire and were conquered once again and General Titus with Three Legions (18,000 fighting soldiers) squashed the revolt and totally destroyed the beautiful Temple right down to it's foundations.
<br/>
<br/>Over the centuries there was several attempts to rebuild the Temple but to no avail Constantine the Great allowed a rebuilding and after 19 years of construction by the Tribe of Judah, Constantine's mother thought this wasn't a good idea, so Constantine stopped the building project in Jerusalem. The material used in this re-construction was raided by people building other buildings in Jerusalem and to this day it is vacant.
<br/>
<br/>The place called the Temple Mount is actually Fort Antonia of the Roman Empire. This Fort was named after the famous General Mark Anthony.
<br/>
<br/>The Roman Empire is the longest world ruling empire that went up to the British Isles. The same size of Forts were constructed there as well, which is approximately 36 acres each which housed 6,000 fighting soldiers and 4,000 service personnel like cooks and whatever was needed by the troops.
<br/>
<br/>Whether you are Dutch or English descent, your ancestry goes back to a place called Khasaria.
<br/>
<br/>When the Assyrians conquered the Northern Tribes of Israel, they displaced them to an area under the Caucasus Mountains among the Medes. Look on any ancient map to see where this area is. Some of these people migrated into Spain on the Hebrew Peninsula. This Peninsula is named in Hebrew which, is Iber-ian to this day. These folks also migrated North into what we now call Europe, but the Roman Empire called this area Britania. This is also a Hebrew word which is "berit" meaning Covenant.
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile the larger remainder of the Northern Tribes moved across the Caucasus Mountains and remained there until 1200 CE, when the Six tribes of the Rus (Russian) conquered them and they in turn migrated to North Western Europe where they are now Nations.
<br/>
<br/>Just as an aside, the word "caucasian" is the color of skin these Kha-sars had. Another spelling of this word is "C-sar" and "Ca-e-sar". That the etymology of this word.
<br/>
<br/>So in your profound ignorance you don't realize your an Israelite..... not a "Jew" because they are the Tribe of Judah.... but from the Northern Tribes.
<br/>
<br/>These Israelites then migrated to the New World and established "13 colonies". Is this a coincidence of the "13 Tribes"?
<br/>
<br/>Knowing this history doesn't mean I'm Mossad because the vast majority of "Jewish" people don't know this history just like you don't know and are totally ignorant. But the Leaders do know because they have the money to search this out.
<br/>
<br/>Every President is related through their mothers blood line. Every Leader in Industry and Media know this bloodline. They are called the Industrial Complex.
<br/>
<br/>So this took me into wanting to know why there was different types of "Jews" (six in total) and the main ones are the Ashkenazi and Sephardi.
<br/>
<br/>This takes us back to Khasaria. About 1,000 years ago the Khasars were being pressed by Islam and the Byzantine religions to join their religious beliefs. At this time the Khasars were into Shamanism. They instead joined "Judaism" as a ploy to get these other religions off of their backs.
<br/>
<br/>Only the Nobles of Khasaria staid in Judaism and their offspring are the Ashkenazi today. These are not real "Jews" but from the Northern Tribes of Israel. So when you look at the banking system and the Stock Market, these guys are not real "Jews" but from Khasaria and they know it.
<br/>
<br/>So now we look at Yale University and the famous "Skull and Bones". There is anywhere from 500 to 800 of these "bonesman" alive at any one time. These control all the Leadership positions in Politics, all the Banking positions, all the Media positions, all the main Hollywood positions including Music.
<br/>
<br/>Anyone can find this information, but like you, thy are not going to investigate anything if it pertains to "Jews" and the irony in all of this is they are not "Jews". So you remain ignorant.
<br/>
<br/>If you want information go to the "Jew hate site" that reveals all the history of the Ashkenazi even to the Rothchild's Dynasty.
<br/>
<br/>The real name of the Rothcnilds is "BAUER".
<br/>
<br/>OH!!!!! All of the famous Movie Stars going back to the 1920's and earlier, are from Khasaria, not the tribe of Judah.Barbara Streisand, Eddie Durante, Kirk Douglas and son Michael,Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and all who are Ashkenazi come from Khasaria the children of the Nobles.
<br/>
<br/>So your hate of "Jews" is not really "Jews" but from the same people you came from.
<br/>
<br/>Have you ever wondered why Modern Israel is not called "Judah" Or "YeHUdah" meaning someone from the Tribe of YeHUdah?
<br/>
<br/>Because they are Ashkenazi from the Northern Tribes and not YeHUdah.
<br/>Manage
<br/>
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>Ancient City Persepolis
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 71 -->
<a name="x72"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x72" class="tiny">x72</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">Did Israel benefit from 9/11?</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_72" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, good job of copy-and-paste, but it isn't relevant.
<br/>
<br/>How does that history explain the need for Israel to strong-arm US politicians to sponsor a US law to make criticism of Israel a crime? You continue to avoid the article that anchors this discussion.
<br/>
<br/>Did Israel benefit from 9/11? How?
<br/>
<br/>Why couldn't Israel be involved with 9/11, as you imply? Even after dozens of Israeli art students were deported after 9/11? How about the Mossad informants who were housemates or neighbors of those who were named 9/11 patsies?
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 72 -->
<a name="x73"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x73</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_73');">typed it from my memory</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_73" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Nothing was copied and pasted, all of it is information I acquired over the years and I just typed it from my memory. Persepolis is a very interesting documentary of the Persians (Iran) so I included that because it was the Persian King who supplied the material for the 2 nd Temple.
<br/>
<br/>This is also proof the Israelites were there long ago and not the Philistines/Palestinians.
<br/>
<br/>You must just race over what I wrote and it is above your thinking process......
<br/>
<br/>You asked..... "How does that history explain the need for Israel to strong-arm US politicians to sponsor a US law ....."
<br/>
<br/>You don't get it.
<br/>
<br/>All these Leaders are from Khasaria or the displaced Northern Ten Tribes.
<br/>
<br/>In fact, when you read the history of Khasaria you will find their Capital building was called the White House.
<br/>
<br/>Now concentrate you dufus, the Leaders of the White House USA are also the Leaders of Modern Day Israel, who are the children of the Nobles of Khasaria. they are not real Jews. So the picture of the Senator at the top of this thread wants to protect all the leaders and their families and other descendants of Ashkenazi Khasaria origins.
<br/>
<br/>Now id you really hate "Jews", go after those folks that have the diamond industry and have "kiss curls" on the temples of their heads, these are Sephardic and they don't agree with the Ashkenazi. Two different Tribes.
<br/>
<br/>You asked..."Did Israel benefit from 9/11? How?" because both the USA and Israel are from the same ancestry and are going for world domination. And YOU come from the same ancestry.
<br/>
<br/>You asked.... "Why couldn't Israel be involved with 9/11, as you imply?"
<br/>
<br/>Because the method of destruction on all seven buildings was from a US owned weapon. Your so bent on trying to makes this "nukes", you missed what Dr. Judy Wood was showing. Not space beams from space to deride her, but something much closer like from a high flying airplane that can be aimed.
<br/>
<br/>You asked..... "Even after dozens of Israeli art students were deported after 9/11? "
<br/>
<br/>So was the Saudis, who flew the only planes in the sky to get out of the USA. Might as well blame them to. Remember the Saudi Princes (500 hundred of them) are protected because their own people would tear their arms out, because of controlling the oil and wasting the money. In return the Princes loan the US money and oil for this protection.
<br/>
<br/>You see..... those students didn't control the weapon that destroyed those seven buildings. The only way you can make them part of this is invent this caucamamie idea which is they carried "nukes" into all seven buildings while people were working there, and destroyed it without anyone knowing.
<br/>
<br/>I forgot to ask, where did you learn how to handle "mini nukes" and how to build them? What school or University did you go to to learn this?????
<br/>
<br/>You asked.... "How about the Mossad informants who were housemates or neighbors of those who were named 9/11 patsies?"
<br/>
<br/>Do you mean the 19 Arabs who were not on any plane passenger registry?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 73 -->
<a name="x74"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x74" class="tiny">x74</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">assigned to FB to champion disinformation and muddy the waters</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, when you don't use the proper words even when corrected (FGNW and not "nukes"), it becomes part of the neon sign that you aren't being sincere. The insincerity impression lingers when you force me to re-iterate what I already covered in my blog articles, because you were too lazy to read them and address their salient points.
<br/>
<br/>And you continue to champion Dr. Wood... but with inapplicable crap. Case in point, you wrote: "Because the method of destruction on all seven buildings was from a US owned weapon. Your so bent on trying to makes this "nukes", you missed what Dr. Judy Wood was showing. Not space beams from space to deride her, but something much closer like from a high flying airplane that can be aimed."
<br/>
<br/>Just because I own a car, doesn't mean I'm responsible for someone else crashing it. Israel has its arm so far up USA's butt, they have access to US technology to build their own, if not the very weapons themselves from US arsenals. (Israel is not part of any nuclear proliferation treaty, but it is know they have nuclear weapons.)
<br/>
<br/>No skin off my nose if the Israeli Mossad agents posing as art students installed US-made or Israeli-made FGNW. I speculate that they were doing mostly preparation work, such as building lead boxes with an open top that they mounted to the spire. Their purpose was to limit neutrons traveling sideways or downward that could foul neighboring FGNW devices.
<br/>
<br/>Yes, I missed what Dr. Judy Wood was showing because: she doesn't connect dots, doesn't draw conclusions, has several inapplicable detours, and has proven shitty research into both nukes and ABL. Case in point, you imply that Dr. Wood wasn't driving at beams from space, but beams from air planes. That is a lie; she doesn't.
<br/>
<br/>But given that beams from planes now seems to be your bent, prove it? I've done the research into DEW, but you have been so happy and content in Dr. Wood's dead-end-alley, you haven't. If either Dr. Wood or you would have researched this even a tiny bit, you'd discover that: yes, airborne lasers were a real thing in 2001, but are inapplicable.
<br/>
<br/>Tell me: how much energy is required to pulverize just one floor of a WTC with an ABL beam? Using that number, how would it be created in the plane's ABL system? (Hint: it is generally done by a chemical reaction.) What sort of quantities would be required of the chemicals in the plane to achieve this? The numbers are not trivial.
<br/>
<br/>It is one thing to consider an ABL boring a hot hole into the warhead, rocket engine, or fuel tanks of a missile, and then while still boring using the very nature of the warhead, engine, or fuel tank to get it to explode. Let's say the hole is less than 1 cm. The energy density required for that can be calculated.
<br/>
<br/>But the nature of the towers does not inherently have "warheads, engines, or fuel tanks" to assist in the decimation process. The surface area for the energy density isn't 1 cm, but essentially the width and length of the building, and that multiplied by each floor. A huge energy sink that your ABL needs to generate somehow, and is a glaring hole in Dr. Wood's (and your non-explanation).
<br/>
<br/>Worse for you, ABL's are line of sight, yet observation of the destruction of each show that it did not happen starting at the very top, but within the towers at about the impact levels.
<br/>
<br/>Maybe I'd give you some slack in proposing ABL's that were mounted inside the towers, but this you don't do. You continue to champion a Woodsian non-explanation that doesn't match the recorded evidence or the energy requirements.
<br/>
<br/>Why don't you apply Dr. Wood's work to devices that might be planted in the tower? Then you wouldn't have to worry about getting massive amounts of chemicals into the air, or the fact that decimation happened starting from within. Neither you nor Dr. Wood go this route, because massive amount of chemicals would be needed within the building and you're too busy covering the asses of both Israel and the US by holding to Dr. Wood's non-solution.
<br/>
<br/>But wait! Those massive energy requirements are easily met and exceeded by fourth generation nuclear weapons that are significantly smaller and don't require massive amounts of chemicals, which you won't even consider in a sincere or rational fashion. Those same FGNW would and did leave nuclear traces. And your supposed objectivity ignores this.
<br/>
<br/>Nope, Mr. Gloux, you're a Mossad agent assigned to FB to champion disinformation and muddy the waters. Dr. Wood is considered a suitable stop-gap measure to prevent the public's revelation into FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x75</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_75');">If the weapon is Nuclear, is it not "nuke" Powered?</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_75" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges OK.... Max your Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons is Nuclear, is it not? For short I say "nukes" meaning something with Nuclear Power. If the weapon is Nuclear, is it not "nuke" Powered?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 75 -->
<a name="x76"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x76" class="tiny">x76</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">FGNW or "tactical nukes"</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_76" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, FGNW may have nuclear components, but when you call them "nukes", your disinfo game is to have people attribute to them the same characteristics of the huge nukes that the media has been scaring us with for generations. "Oh, it would have a huge heat wave, huge pressure wave, huge EMP. And don't get me started on the radiation."
<br/>
<br/>If you don't want to use FGNW, use "tactical nukes". Otherwise, you are playing deceitful games.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 76 -->
<a name="x77"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x77" class="tiny">x77</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_77');">never felt or heard anything like explosions</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_77" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges OOOHHHH!!!!! OK thanks for the clarification. So these "tactical nukes" were used to destroy 7 buildings with the WTC Prefix but was very selectively under control only aimed at specific targets while the buildings were systematically destroyed and not damaging most of the seven floors below ground level leaving the lights on under Buildings #4 and $5 and not damaging the Mall and the stores in that Mall and most importantly the "bathtub" and 2/3 the train station.
<br/>
<br/>No heat involved with these "tactical nukes", and no concussion and no EMP waves. And radiation is not involved otherwise everyone would have been burned (infected) by it. but only a low dose for some.
<br/>
<br/>Now I understand why 14 people in Stairwell B never felt or heard anything like explosions and walked out from the stairwell.
<br/>
<br/>It was "tactical mini nukes".
<br/>
<br/>All the tall buildings foamed out dust just on one side and Building #7 did this for over six hours all due to tactical nukes doing it slowly. I guess that's why Mark Loizeauz said it wasn't Controlled Demolition?
<br/>
<br/>Am I getting it?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 77 -->
<a name="x78"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x78" class="tiny">x78</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">FGNW also fall into the category of DEW</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_78" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, do you know what DEW stands for? You ought to, what with you being such a troll for Dr. Wood.
<br/>
<br/>Guess what? Nearly all variants of FGNW also fall into the category of DEW.
<br/>
<br/>You made comments under this blog article in February of this year.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
<br/>
<br/>You didn't read it then, you didn't read it now. Just a Mossad agent spinning round and round. Google "Dr. Andre Gsponer" and see what he's written about FGNW starting a decade before 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>If you were objective and not promoting an Israeli agenda, you'd acknowledge that FGNW takes Dr. Wood's work to the next level.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 78 -->
<a name="x79"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x79" class="tiny">x79</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_79');">a round hole in a sidewalk</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_79" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges To continue the reply's from your derision, you stated....."But given that beams from planes now seems to be your bent, prove it? I've done the research into DEW, but you have been so happy and content in Dr. Wood's dead-end-alley, you haven't."
<br/>
<br/>Yep, I didn't check anything. I looked at the round circles in the debris and wondered what could do that? Even a round hole in a sidewalk. Those holes were all over the whole WTC site, so I searched. If you would have actually looked at the pictures of these round hole in the book you would have to wonder what did that? The reason why I point this out is this is after the buildings were destroyed and the circles show up in the debris. Id it was controlled demolition or "tactical nukes" of the Fourth Generation how could this appear if the buildings are gone with nothing to hold them up?????? What attracted me to this video was the picture of a 747 with a refitted nose cone that look's exactly like the one at the 17:00 minute mark.....
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVI09UwkPC0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVI09UwkPC0</a>
<br/>
<br/>Considering they are revealing this information in a documentary, you can bet and win, they have something else much more refined, powerful and destructive along the same line.
<br/>
<br/>The round circles also reveal it is a weapon that can be aimed because if it was something like charges doing it in sequence or as you suggest many mini "tactical nukes", how in the world would it make circles?. I know you never handled these "tactical nukes" because you haven't the money nor the lab to make them because of the incredible costs of such very dangerous materials. Nor did you ever see any. Your guessing. well guess what did this....
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1909570095805446&set=a.878380988924367&type=3&theater">https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1909570095805446&set=a.878380988924367&type=3&theater</a>
<br/>
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>Directed Energy Weapons - History Channel Documentary
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 79 -->
<a name="x80"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x80" class="tiny">x80</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">exclude either ABL or NT from being the primary mechanism of WTC destruction</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_80" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I asked in the past for images to these sidewalk holes you reference(d). Nothing.
<br/>
<br/>My position on ABL (airborne laser) is similar to my position on nano-thermite. I do not exclude it from being involved on 9/11, because the perps threw everything including kitchen sinks at this, with redundancy and back-up plans to the back-up plans.
<br/>
<br/>What I exclude is either ABL or NT being the primary mechanism of WTC destruction. I did my research into DEW, and my discovery (or anybody's discovery, really) is that Dr. Wood screwed up in this area as well. She let it get extrapolated to where it doesn't apply, just like Dr. Jones let NT get extrapolated where it doesn't apply.
<br/>
<br/>If you want to say an ABL put holes in the sidewalk, fine, maybe. (But my FGNW can explain them, too. Let's see the images.)
<br/>
<br/>More importantly, ABL could not provide the energy density per square cm OVER THE ENTIRE LENGTH & WIDTH of a tower (missing the spires, of course) to cause pulverization (if we ignore that pulverization started from within towers and not at the top as would be expected from ABL "beaming the building to nothing"). WORSE, the energy requirements (or chemicals quantities) at the source would be crippling to a flying aircraft.
<br/>
<br/>And even though I am always one to say that "we shouldn't confuse one event (or building destruction) with another or assume the means of destruction for one were the same for all others," let me make an exception here as a little thought experiment.
<br/>
<br/>According to my speculation, the individual FGNW for the towers released their highly energetic neutrons DEW-fashion as a cone directed upwards. They were probably staggered in placement around what became known as the spire. The cone was aimed away from the spire and grazed the outer wall assemblies. Staggered ignition times; not all of them reached full potential; explains the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>Take the same FGNW devices and put them into four corners (and maybe mid-points from the corners along walls) and aim them away from the walls and upwards. Voila, you get WTC-6 without any floors or ceiling -- a seeming crater --, but don't affect the vaults under WTC-6.
<br/>
<br/>Take the same FGNW devices and put them into WTC-4 main edifice. Maybe they aren't aimed as well, which is why that edifice appears to be flattened (but is really just gone). As for the North wing and why it didn't fall? WTC-4 had a gold vault, and North wing might have been on top of it. Money is a proven motivator for 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Take the same FGNW devices but not have enough of them put them into WTC-5 aimed upwards. The cone of energy could create the holes in the roof.
<br/>
<br/>My scenario: destruction originates from within and has unique characteristics as is exits the building into the sky.
<br/>
<br/>Your scenario of ABL, destruction originates from without and goes to within. Problem is, all of the above buildings were gutted much more severely from within than beams of energy outside-to-in could create.
<br/>
<br/>CAVEAT: While I piss on ABL as being a viable means for the primary destruction of the buildings in the WTC, ABL remains a very good candidate as the source for the recent California fires. California tinder-box forests has been ripe for ignition for decades. (Colorado is due for a massive fire, owing to all the dead pine trees from beetle infestation.) However, the fires in CA seem to start within buildings and at vehicles. Why? The energy of the lasers is most readily absorbed by metals, heating such pieces to the point of igniting neighboring materials affixed to the metal.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 80 -->
<a name="x81"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x81" class="tiny">x81</a>
Stephen Sinner : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_81');">AFFECTED BY THE 9/11 LIE</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_81" style="display: block;">
<p>EVERYBODY ON THIS PLANET SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS BECAUSE EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET IS AFFECTED BY THE 9/11 LIE,
<br/>https://www.911tap.org/.../775-u-s-attorney-for-the...
<br/>HERE, NOW, IS THIS VIDEO THAT SHOWS AND CAN BE HEARD, PROVING RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORIST DID NOT CAUSE THESE "BOMBS EXPLODED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY" IN THE SOUTH TOWER *[]* OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
<br/>
<br/>***** BEGIN VIEWING THIS VIDEO, courtesy of STFNews, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA_m3taErXI ) TO WITNESS THIS CLIP THAT IS SEEN AND HEARD FROM {{ 10:40 to 11:07 }} *****
<br/>
<br/>EVERYBODY SHOULD BE SHARING THIS VIDEO CLIP !!!
<br/>
<br/>#911TruthAndJusticeNOW *[]*
<br/>
<br/>911TAP.ORG
<br/>U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Responds…
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 81 -->
<a name="x82"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x82" class="tiny">x82</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">just turned to dust</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_82" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I don't know if it was lasers (ABL) that burned those round holes in Building #6 inside the green square in the picture in my last post, but whatever it was, it burned round holes as seen in that picture. You had asked me to prove aircraft with lasers so I showed you the widely known documentary revealing that.
<br/>
<br/>As for nano thermite, how could you put that on every square in in the buildings to turn it into powder? Thermite is used to cut heavy steel like "rails" on railroads . to either cut them or weld them together. There was no hot flashing bright light on every floor.
<br/>
<br/>You said..... "of a tower (missing the spires, of course) to cause pulverization".
<br/>
<br/>Nothing that pulverizes was used, instead it just turned to dust, and everyone that is shown what was happening agrees it was turning to dust but without anything explosions to do that. Even that cluster of steel called "the spire" just faded to dust. Huge chunks of outside wall steel grid was turning to dust before it hit the ground.What was making it turn to dust. Nothing was fastened to it, nor could anything inside the building was aimed at it because the building was turning to powder.
<br/>
<br/>Lets stop here for a second, that steel sticking up 700 feet in the air was striped of any other part of the building. It was "naked". we all stare at it.... and it fades into dust. No explosions, not cutting charges and it didn't go through the basement floors. so what made it fade away into dust like that? That's big heavy 6 inch steel Max. Your explanation of your "stuff" is aimed from the corners or perimeter of the building don't work because it is all gone leaving the spire all by itself. Your making this up as you go and forget the building is gone leaving just "the spire" sticking up and it just turns to dust. One piece 30 feet long is a flat deck truck load because of it's weight and there was a cluster of these with one spire sticking up and all of it turns to dust. I used to haul heavy steel and flat plate, coils to make tanks and that is very heavy material. And this spire is made of heavier material and it turns to dust. What did this????
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 82 -->
<a name="x83"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x83" class="tiny">x83</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_83');">algorithm to go completely off-topic</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_83" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, looks like I hit a trigger in your coding which then inspires your algorithm to go completely off-topic. I have not been defending NT. But because I brought it up briefly as being a parallel in my mind to ABL in terms of "maybe being in the mix but not the primary mechanism," your bot-circuitry goes off into the weeds and ignores the more salient points of FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Bravo! That comment was completely irrelevant.
<br/>
<br/>Does not apply to FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Does not apply to Israel (the main theme of the top posting.)
<br/>
<br/>Here's a great example of you being a bot and missing the point. You write: "Nothing that pulverizes was used, instead it just turned to dust, and everyone that is shown what was happening agrees it was turning to dust but without anything explosions to do that."
<br/>
<br/>Completely wrong. Obviously, if pulverization happened, then something was used. You keep evading that FGNW has the energy sources and the output to do it, and is essentially what Dr. Wood was driving at but the end-station she couldn't get to (without danger to self).
<br/>
<br/>"Without anything explosions to do that..."? I think you mean, "without anything explosive" as in "chemical explosives" to do it. Shit, we are in agreement that it wasn't chemical explosives.
<br/>
<br/>However, the very nature of FGNW and how they deposit large amounts of energy deep into materials, this can and does causes explosions. Material particularly with water content gets blown apart from the inside as instantaneous super high temperature steam rapidly expands. Muted explosions compared to explosives, but explosions none the less.
<br/>
<br/>You're a bot, an agent, and an idiot that you can't see how FGNW is the natural extension of Dr. Wood's work, and has an easily explainable and time-test power source.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 83 -->
<a name="x84"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x84" class="tiny">x84</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">duped by the imagery manipulation</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_84" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stephen Sinner, I was duped by the imagery manipulation discussed in your video for several years, but I kept researching.
<br/>
<br/>I do not discount that some imagery manipulation happened. Hell, there are 4 versions of the helicopter shot, and there are 4 frames from a parking video camera that prove it happened.
<br/>
<br/>Alas, the no planes at the WTC is disinformation.
<br/>
<br/>The argument about the plane SEEMINGLY entering into the towers effortlessly and in the same number of frames it traveled through air is a stilted one that doesn't adhere to high velocity physics and malframes the structural physics of both the plane and the towers.
<br/>
<br/>I'll be brief. (a) The high velocity of the aircraft and the slow frame rate of the video camera means that a range of velocities would be rendered in the same number of frames. The disinfo agents want you to think that no deceleration happened, when it did.
<br/>
<br/>(b) Once penetration of the wall assemblies face was achieved [call this E1 for energy #1], the resistive energy to further insertion into the building by subsequent building content and structure [E2] would decrease significantly; E2>E1. In other words, once a hole is bored through the wall for the leading edges of fuselage, very little would resist the rest of the fuselage coming in. The disinfo agents want you to think that building is end-to-end one solid block of concrete or steel with constant resistance to all movement into the structure.
<br/>
<br/>(c) The velocity squared term in the energy equation of the traveling plane gets to be huge, and exceeds the local static energy of materials of, say, the plane's wings. The wings don't bounce, but they do get shattered and the fragments sometimes bounce and sometimes fly into the building. The tail didn't bounce, because a path was already plowed into the structure.
<br/>
<br/>Look for my discussions with Dr. Fetzer on this topic, but is repeated with others as well, without the champions of NPT able to counter.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../debunking-nptwtc.html
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>Debunking NPT@WTC
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 84 -->
<a name="x85"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x85" class="tiny">x85</a>
Stephen Sinner : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_85');">BOMBS EXPLODED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_85" style="display: block;">
<p>"BOMBS EXPLODED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY".... Not Plane. I am only exploring the BOMBS that EXPLODED at near the top of WTC # 2 In this Video from ... 10:40 .. TO .. 11:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA_m3taErXI
<br/>
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>9/11 PLANES AS FAKE AS IRAQI WMD's
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 85 -->
<a name="x86"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x86" class="tiny">x86</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">avail yourself of these options</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_86" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stephen Sinner, if you would like to continue with this topic, I kindly ask that you avail yourself one of these options:
<br/>
<br/>a) Go to one of my blog postings where I debunk NPT@WTC and make a comment there. Don't be offended that I have comments on moderation and might not immediately know of your comment in the queue.
<br/>
<br/>b) Go to a relevant posting on my Facebook wall and make a comment there. Trick option, because I probably don't have any that relate to NPT@WTC, because it isn't my hobby-horse. However, if you message me, I'll rectify this deficiency on my FB wall.
<br/>
<br/>However, in this thread? With an Israeli topic and already a diversion into FGNW?
<br/>
<br/>Unless you're going to prove or demonstrate that NPT@WTC was implemented by the Israeli Mossad as a huge disinformation vehicle to run rational discussion through the weeds, let me stop the NPT carousel now so that it can start somewhere else more appropriate.
<br/>
<br/>P.S. Real aircraft hit. Period. Maybe not the exact alleged commercial aircraft, but aircraft none the less.
<br/>
<br/>The link below should take you to an entry in one of my earlier FB discussions on NPT (the predecessor to the previous NPT@WTC link). It documents convincing evidence of a real aircraft having hit WTC-1. It has images, links to images, and some of the images from validated reports that talk about various large pieces of aircraft that were found.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../npt-carousel-on-fb...
<br/>
<br/>If you're over on my blog reading it and have issues with a section (pay attention to the section numbers like "x224"), then might as well make your ire known in the comments underneath the very same blog posting. Like I said: please don't be offended if I don't get around to approving comments promptly.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome"
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 86 -->
<a name="x87"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x87" class="tiny">x87</a>
Stephen Sinner <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_87');">not inclined to acuqiess to your request</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_87" style="display: block;">
<p>i am not inclined to acuqiess to your request,
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 87 -->
<a name="x88"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x88" class="tiny">x88</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">not to promote NPT@WTC here in this thread about Israel</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_88" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stephen Sinner, I don't blame you for not wanting to make a comment under one of my relevant blog postings about NPT@WTC. I won't fault you for not encouraging me to create a Facebook thread dedicated to both of my NPT@WTC blog entries that document lots of other spins on the NPT carousel (on Facebook), because I don't really want to discuss NPT either.
<br/>
<br/>But you will adhere to my request not to promote NPT@WTC here in this particular Facebook thread about Israel and belonging to me. That is just common courtesy. I asked you nicely.
<br/>
<br/>Because I don't want to deal with it here and I control this thread, I'll delete your attempts to further that discussion. My bad and apologies in advance, but I been there and done dat.
<br/>
<br/>All the best,
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 88 -->
<a name="x89"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x89" class="tiny">x89</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_89');">pounding or grinding</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_89" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges regarding "pulverization" you said.... "Completely wrong. Obviously, if pulverization happened, then something was used."
<br/>
<br/>The only thing missing in your perception is the "instrument" used to do this pulverization of every square inch of all these buildings including 6 inch steel. The meaning of pulverization is....
<br/>
<br/>"to reduce to dust or powder, as by pounding or grinding"
<br/>
<br/>Every floor was destroyed in 1/10th of a second and your saying something pounded or ground it up??????
<br/>
<br/>Maybe you should use another word lol.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "You keep evading that FGNW has the energy sources and the output to do it, and is essentially what Dr. Wood was driving at but the end-station she couldn't get to (without danger to self)."
<br/>
<br/>Dr. wood specifically avoided your perception because you don't make sense, even if you have good English linguistics to express yourself.
<br/>
<br/>What your trying to do is pound a square block into a round hole. Use a different word, pulverization is not accurate to what we see happening. Explain how large chunks of the outside steel façade is turning to dust with nothing attached to it, as it is heading for ground level????? Each piece is turning to dust in it's free fall and it don't reach ground level. You couldn't hall that much steel on one truck because we are talking about 100's of tons of steel in one chunk, and it is just trailing dust and disappears because there is nothing left to turn to dust. What's grinding it to dust?????
<br/>
<br/>This is not pulverization.
<br/>
<br/>I'm not evading FGNW, it just don't fit in what is happening. A square peg don't fit a round hole so why use it?
<br/>
<br/>You said..... " I think you mean, "without anything explosive" as in "chemical explosives" to do it. Shit, we are in agreement that it wasn't chemical explosives."
<br/>
<br/>I mistyped the word and retyped it wrong anyways. but yes there was no explosives used because the amount needed to turn the building into powder would have destroyed all the surrounding building by the concussion not forgetting the immense heat and fire as the result of using that. A propane truck blew up on a Hiway and the rear ends on the truck vaporized. Nothing was found. Same thing with a truck hauling explosives and some guy fired a rifle shot into this unmarked truck and all that was left is a forty foot crater and all the buildings around were destroyed.
<br/>
<br/>Now we are talking about two 110 story sky scrapers plus the other five buildings and all seven of them was destroyed without explosions from any explosives because there is nothing left with no concussions. Everybody heard explosions but no-one saw explosives. A gas tank explodes. a transformer explodes, a steam tank explodes, welding tanks explode, as do Scot Pacs on fire trucks and there was no fire around them. Same thing with the Parking Lot a block away, and all the cars that had aluminum blocks just melted away and there was no fire there. what destroyed these cars?
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "You're a bot, an agent, and an idiot that you can't see how FGNW is the natural extension of Dr. Wood's work, and has an easily explainable and time-test power source."
<br/>
<br/>It takes one to know one.
<br/>
<br/>Show me your source in action as a test.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 89 -->
<a name="x90"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x90" class="tiny">x90</a>
Stephen Sinner <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_90" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Stephen Sinner
<br/>Stephen Sinner "But, no one saw explosions" ?????? YES !!! The 'Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry Are using this Video in their pursuits to get a GRAND JURY ..., that, btw, has just recently been approved of by the Courts !!!, as many of you are already aware of. . .
<br/>Lawyers Committee for 911 Inquiry Incorporated ...
<br/>
<br/>Are using this video clip that i've been posting on Fb ever since i first seen this clip from STFNews . The clip in question, shows the entire "BOMBS EXPLODED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY" ( to quote DONALD TRUMP ). That is the good news. They Are over the CRIME. However, the clip that they are using isin't the 'rest of the story', as you'll see and HEAR in the second video clip i've highlighted in the second video clip, seen and HEARD, below: to wit:
<br/>
<br/>LCGrandJuryPetition1Exhibit42
<br/>
<br/>View this LCGrandJuryPetition Exhibit:
<br/>* Begin viewing this Video at . . . . . . . . .[ 21:09 to 21:44 ]
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=106...
<br/>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<br/>
<br/>Obviously, the LC Grand Jury isn't using the following video,
<br/>do they:
<br/>* Begin viewing This video from ... [10:40 to 11:21 ]:
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA_m3taErXI
<br/>
<br/>It looks like a lot of people should bring this later video to the attention of Dr. Graeme MacQueen , and the 'Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry', ok, Right ??????
<br/>Manage
<br/>
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>LCGrandJuryPetition1Exhibit42
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 90 -->
<a name="x91"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x91" class="tiny">x91</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_91');">attempts to park understanding</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_91" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I'm tired of your game playing, too. You want to construe "pulverization" as in the act of turning something into close to pulver or powder as only being possible by something smashing into, like an explosive shock wave.
<br/>
<br/>Your argumentation is so stilted in that you imply only DEW can do this, yet you refuse to admit that all FGNW are in the category of DEW.
<br/>
<br/>Like an Israeli troll with an agenda, you want to keep questioning chemical explosives (valid) but only to replace it only with an ill-defined DEW weapon that you won't research or speculate into even its source of power (invalid).
<br/>
<br/>Your attempts to park understanding at Dr. Wood's book pegs you an agent. Were you an objective and non-agenda-toting participant, you'd be able to say:
<br/>
<br/>"By jove, I think you raise valid questions that Dr. Wood doesn't have a valid or time tested power source. She did poor research into the state of DEW and the state of nuclear weapons, and the Venn diagram that links the two. Therefore, being fair and objective, I will consider what the power source could be. And while doing so, I will acknowledge that: all of the trace decay elements of fission were measured in the dust; tritium was measured in the water; and the Dr Cahill air sampling proving continually generated fine particles. These all point to DEW powered by nuclear tricks."
<br/>
<br/>You haven't read my works, haven't considered its premise section-by-section, and as an Israeli agent who's half bot, you aren't allowed to.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 91 -->
<a name="x92"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x92" class="tiny">x92</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">take a break from posting</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_92" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Stephen Sinner, please take a break from posting in this discussion here about either Israel or nuclear involvement on 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>I no longer care whether your posting relates to the overall Israeli discussion or not. I don't want your copy-and-paste efforts slipping in NPT disinfo.
<br/>
<br/>I have no problems retroactively deleting all of your distracting comments in this thread (including even some of my responses). Fair warning to make a copy and save them off-line; I'll not have problems with you copying those saved words into some other discussion thread relevant to that topic.
<br/>
<br/>Say the word, and I'll create such a thread and personally invite you. No loss.
<br/>
<br/>Continue to disrespect my requests that were nicely conveyed?
<br/>
<br/>I'm much too jaded to deal with it nicely further.
<br/>
<br/>Don't lose your words needlessly by pushing my buttons. Copy them before commenting again, just in case, because if that comment slips in NPT side-ways, I'll slip all your words under my thread into the bit bucket. My tolerance is very low, and this is as graceful and as fair as you're going to get out of me in trying to get me to ride that disinfo carousel in this thread.
<br/>
<br/>My home, my rules.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 92 -->
<a name="x93"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x93" class="tiny">x93</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_93');">Have you got Dr. Judy Wood's book?</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_93" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you said.... "I'm tired of your game playing, too. You want to construe "pulverization" as in the act of turning something into close to pulver or powder as only being possible by something smashing into, like an explosive shock wave."
<br/>
<br/>Heh Max, I thought I would quote the dictionary of what this word means. I'm sorry you think that is a game. I'm trying to check everything your saying so I don't misconstrue what your saying. So use a different word for steel turning into powder.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "Your argumentation is so stilted in that you imply only DEW can do this, yet you refuse to admit that all FGNW are in the category of DEW."
<br/>
<br/>Max, all I'm trying to do is make the pieces fit. So don't get upset if you can't communicate what you mean.
<br/>
<br/>You still didn't explain the big hole in the sidewalk. Have you got Dr. Judy Wood's book?
<br/>
<br/>You sound like the "goof" Fetzer by calling everyone with names like a little boy who can't get his way. Fetzer was supposed to be friends with Dr. Wood and then turns around and calls her every ridiculous name he could think of to destroy her credibility and push his idea. What a goof.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "Your attempts to park understanding at Dr. Wood's book pegs you an agent."
<br/>
<br/>Here we go again.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "She did poor research into the state of DEW and the state of nuclear weapons, and the Venn diagram that links the two. Therefore, being fair and objective, I will consider what the power source could be."
<br/>
<br/>There are so many things to discuss regarding to pros and cons, your particular "tactical nuke" made that hole in the sidewalk right beside Tower #2. You explain to me how your DEW did that. Have you got the book?
<br/>
<br/>So I'm comparing what you say and what Dr. Wood said about what is found in the dust such as tritium, and the small balls of iron dust and aluminum oxide, which came from the Towers that was made of steel and aluminum siding on the facade.
<br/>
<br/>I'm sure your saying tactical nukes" don't make radiation but at the same time the existing dust is continuing to be reduced into fine powder where the Firemen are walking and resting. there's no heat at those locations but everyone sees the dust fuming and it looks like steam but with no heat. Have you still got her book?
<br/>
<br/>You said..... "You haven't read my works, haven't considered its premise section-by-section, and as an Israeli agent who's half bot, you aren't allowed to."
<br/>
<br/>Sorry Max I was reading and you don't make sense. Now it must be because your so high in intelligence and no-how that I can't figure it out. After all, I'm only a peon who deciphers things that make sense.
<br/>
<br/>Oh!!!! and I'm a Mossad who hasn't received a paycheck yet.
<br/>
<br/>Have you got the book? It's only $39.95 in American coin. If you have, I'll show you the hole in Liberty Street. I'd bring up the picture in facebook but is seems you can't make them out.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 93 -->
<a name="x94"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x94" class="tiny">x94</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">Not everything has to be attributed to the exact same cause</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_94" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, You claim that I haven't explained a hole in the sidewalk? That is true, because I asked for links to images of this anomaly multiple times, and you haven't coughed them up. I refuse to do your leg work in presenting your case. The ball has been in your court for quite some time, love.
<br/>
<br/>Could the anomaly have been generated by something installed below? Where is this hole with respect to other features of the WTC, such as the vaults below WTC-6 and WTC-7? Strategic centers, like a power or water control?
<br/>
<br/>Doesn't matter, because FGNW is under no obligation to explain this alleged anomaly in the sidewalk, because it could have been some other mechanism. Not everything has to be attributed to the exact same cause. Or worse, not everything has to be attributed to only the mechanisms planted within the towers.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood doesn't write down equations for energy requirements, nor does she power her speculation with anything real-world. Lots of dangling innuendo, and very little connecting of dots or coming to a definitive conclusions.
<br/>
<br/>The above paragraph is damning of both Dr. Wood, but more importantly you, Mr. Gloux. Your refusal to acknowledge these facts, to take Dr. Wood's work further into its logical extensions, and to demonstrate some objectivity in considering both the borrowed evidence from Dr. Wood's work as well as from many other sources that can have other explanations.
<br/>
<br/>Whether or not you're Mossad for your rabid defense of Israel and your lame efforts to part 9/11 understanding in Dr. Wood's cul-de-sac, you're not very objective or sincere.
<br/>
<br/>The sport of conversation with you has lost its allure.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 94 -->
<a name="x95"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x95" class="tiny">x95</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_95');">holes are on Liberty Street</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_95" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges look on pages 208 and 209. The holes are on Liberty Street outside of Building #2 and just inside the bathtub.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 95 -->
<a name="x96"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x96" class="tiny">x96</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">misstating the evidence and purposely hyping "boogey-man radiation"</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_96" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, thank you for providing the reference pages in Dr. Wood's book to the anomalous holes next to WTC-2 along Liberty Street.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood points out:
<br/>- a missing lower portion of a beam.
<br/>- three outer columns have a "strange flanged appearance as if they had been unfolded," and they look cooked.
<br/>- a three story wall assembly had fallen into the hole to that depth, indicating somewhat its depth.
<br/>- the hole is through the sidewalk and pavement.
<br/>- the amount of debris that fell into the hole wasn't much compared to other piles of debris.
<br/>- describes metal being deformed and dissolved "as if attacked by acid."
<br/>- a large amount of material that seemed shredded.
<br/>- concrete rebar is exposed.
<br/>
<br/>In an earlier comment from you (that I missed, sorry), you wrote: "You want me to believe nukes can be used without heat or fire." No, because you are misstating the evidence in suggesting it was without heat or fire; Dr. Wood talks about beams having the appearance of "being cooked". Videos shows fireballs at two instances in the decimation of each tower.
<br/>
<br/>You went on to write: "(You want me to believe...) that (there was) no radiation at ground zero." No, because you are again misstating the evidence and purposely hyping "boogey-man radiation" without specifics. The USGS analysis of the dust in its data tables documents Uranium and its decay elements being found; evidence of fission. Tritium was measured; evidence of fusion. Camera scintillation in varous night time NIST videos of the piles documents radiation quite clearly. Alpha, gamma, and beta radiation from the limited amount of fission in the trigger would not be large and could dissipate to safe levels in 48 hours.
<br/>
<br/>You get another ding to your character in that the above proves that after all these YEARS, (a) you still haven't read my article, (b) you aren't allowed to go into its details.
<br/>
<br/>With FGNW being based on neutron devices with tritium fueled fusion, they required a little bit of fission to get to the right energy levels. The FGNW are already rated sub-kiloton or tactical, but that is in total yield. Had you read Dr. Gsponer's referenced estimations, 80% of the yield is in highly energetic neutrons that they aimed upwards and weren't measured in a timely fashion. You should research how a neutron bomb works, and you'll gain great understanding of FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Consider the effect of highly energetic neutrons depositing their energy deep with the molecular structure of materials. Think what it would do to materials with water content. The very evidence that Dr. Wood draws our attention to can be explained with FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>The heat wave, blast wave, and EMP share their energy from the remaining 20% of the yield. DEW devices aiming their energy upwards in a cone. The area affect by the heat wave is by design scaled down and small.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Radiation is not selective. Everyone would have been radiated but not the 14 survivors in Stairwell B. They walked out and were not crushed by the 110 stories above them."
<br/>
<br/>Ho-hum, Mr. Gloux. I've lost count of how many times you've brought up those firemen and how many times I've answered. For the benefit of lurker readers, the FGNW were aiming their DEW energy upwards. Maybe no FGNW were installed below their position, or maybe it failed. They were outside of the target that the neighboring FGNW were aimed at.
<br/>
<br/>Survivors and first responders had numerous health problems that seemed accelerated from that of the general population. True, radiation isn't selective. Just goes to show that on the continuium from no radiation to high radiation and instant dealth, the radiation dosage received took several years to be terminal.
<br/>
<br/>The EPA lied about the quality of the air. Everyone was lying about the amount of radiation.
<br/>
<br/>+++
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Gloux, inferring from your previous comments, you believe that an ABL (airborne laser) made that hole next to WTC-2. Because a complete wall assembly fell into the hole, it was made before or during the tower's demise, but not after.
<br/>
<br/>Owing to observations above, I think the hole originated in the garages and cleared a conic path above. Given that the holes were at locations in the garage, maybe they were created by left-over devices not yet taken from the vehicles that brought them.
<br/>
<br/>9/11 showcased many technical achievements as they tested interesting devices from the corners of their arsenals. Who's to rule out the mentality that some FGNW were planted in uncritical places (with regards to the overall heist and destruction) with the sole intent of observing the damage. These holes and WTC-4 main edifice come to mind.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote in that earlier comment: "I'm an old drywaller and truck driver that spent too much time searching things that happened on 9/11 and because of checking out all the different concepts of how the Seven Buildings were destroyed, I scratched your concepts of Nukes being used... scratched off of the list."
<br/>
<br/>You scratched nuclear powered DEW off your list when you shouldn't have. But how would "an old drywaller and truck driver" know? Because I've been trying to educate you; if you think you understand Dr. Wood, then you should have the smarts to understand when her work is taken to the next, more realistic level.
<br/>
<br/>You asked: "As for being paid...... where's the money?"
<br/>
<br/>You're retired; you don't need much. Just enough to cover your weekly consumption of various vices.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 96 -->
<a name="x97"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x97" class="tiny">x97</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_97');">supposition to try and corroborate guess </a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_97" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2148340392093804?comment_id=2160504894210687¬if_id=1544382772280602¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">2018-12-09</a>
<br />
Maxwell Bridges you have strange reasoning process. You said...." "You want me to believe nukes can be used without heat or fire." No, because you are misstating the evidence in suggesting it was without heat or fire; Dr. Wood talks about beams having the appearance of "being cooked". Videos shows fireballs at two instances in the decimation of each tower."
<br/>
<br/>We all saw the fireball at the moment of each building starting to turn to dust, right at the spot where the planes were supposed to have hit.
<br/>
<br/>What is interesting to note, one tower had a section above that particular spot leaning 23 degrees and started to go down. We all see this part turn to dust without the fire going up into it.
<br/>
<br/>Once each floor was turning to dust at one floor every 1/10th of a second per floor, we don't see fire anywhere. No fire on the steel sections falling free fall, trailing dust until they disappeared.
<br/>
<br/>You Max also stated your "tactical nukes" didn't produce fire either and were strategically situated near the outside walls aiming toward the middle. That's one strange idea, but also managed to make two deep holes in the sidewalk and pavement in the street. That's strange logic on your part.
<br/>
<br/>Then you said.... ".....Uranium and its decay elements being found; evidence of fission."
<br/>
<br/>If there is "Uranium", what is used to trigger this very dangerous product? What kind of logic have you got to explain each floor turning to dust from the top going down which includes all the heavy thick steel, re-enforced concrete, and office furniture, plus all the glass and ceramic toilets, all done by fission yet not burning the tons of paper strewn all over Manhattan???????
<br/>
<br/>And two separate place we have human beings surviving and not burnt by any radiation or heat by fission. Fourteen people in Stairwell B was not affected nor felt any concussion or fire or heat. Everything above them turned to dust. If there was radiation in that dust, these fourteen people were not affected by it because they are still alive.
<br/>
<br/>Now you want people to believe radiation from "tactical nukes" of the magnitude needed to turn everything into dust, dissipates in 48 hours.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "Owing to observations above, I think the hole originated in the garages and cleared a conic path above. Given that the holes were at locations in the garage, maybe they were created by left-over devices not yet taken from the vehicles that brought them."
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux
<br/>Roger Gloux This is all supposition to try and corroborate your guess it was "tactical nukes" as you guessed right from the start.
<br/>
<br/>In other words you are starting from your "end game" as you put it, then work backwards and try to bang these square pegs into round holes.
<br/>
<br/>Now you fabricate several trucks in the delivery garage that exploded and made a cone shape holes in the middle of Liberty Street. Of course the first loads of "tactical nuks" were carried up the elevators on every floor so each floor could be destroyed (without fire fission) in 1/0th of a second, without sending steel girders on top of all those domed buildings surrounding the WTC Complex. Lot's of aluminum siding but no steel.
<br/>
<br/>The Bankers Trust building was hit by a piece of outside wall steel and remained hooked into that building. One section of outside steel going across the street to hit the edge of the glass covered building. Other than that, no big steel hit any other building. In fact, the pictures show sidewalks across the street had no debris
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "Because I've been trying to educate you; if you think you understand Dr. Wood, then you should have the smarts to understand when her work is taken to the next, more realistic level."
<br/>
<br/>Like Mark Loizeaux said about Richard Gage's ideas, only in a Bruce Willis Hollywood Movie can you concoct these weird ideas.
<br/>
<br/>As for getting paid by Mossad, you said..... "You're retired; you don't need much. Just enough to cover your weekly consumption of various vices"
<br/>
<br/>So the pay is not there if there is a pittance income????? Not much of an incentive. Like I said, I was a Dry-waller and I did work in high office buildings and all of it is steel studs to which you fasten the drywall. I also made sound proof offices for Lawyers and fastened lead sheets to the concrete floors.
<br/>
<br/>And I did haul heavy steel of every kind when trucking. You and Richard Gage come up with some very weird ideas not backed by any experience of handling of products that are in high-rise buildings. But your an expert on how they are destroyed.
<br/>
<br/>I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't chew, and I don't go with girls that do. Cant afford the grief. hehehe (just chuckling)
<br/>
<br/>You should go into making comic books, you have a vivid imagination.
</p>
</div><!-- section 97 -->
<a name="x98"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x98" class="tiny">x98</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">a disinformation trap snapping shut</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_98" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gloux, I thank you for your response. I think it stands on its own as an excellent example of a disinformation trap snapping shut! Woo-hoo! You win! Bravo! You asked that I speculate into the cause of something I just learned about. After I do, you respond with mocking ridicule of my vivid imagination.
<br/>
<br/>Ouch! That really hurt.
<br/>
<br/>What hurt more was the crink it exposed in your database of responses and the algorithm controlling them. Loved your self-characterization: "I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't chew, and I don't go with girls that do." What's sad, is that this lovely description takes away many of the excuses you could have used to explain the bot-ish nature of your efforts.
<br/>
<br/>Here's an example of a bot reply: "Of course the first loads of "tactical nuks" were carried up the elevators on every floor so each floor could be destroyed (without fire fission) in 1/0th of a second, without sending steel girders on top of all those domed buildings surrounding the WTC Complex. Lot's of aluminum siding but no steel."
<br/>
<br/>Not my premise at all, which suggests 6 to 12 FGNW per tower. My premise is documented in the prerequisite reading material for this discussion, and has had me explain it on more than two carousel spins. For shame for you to so grossly mal-frame the premise with the lie that 110 FGNW would be need per tower!
<br/>
<br/>Looks to me like you tried to re-use one of your patent arguments against chemical-based explosives that "were carried up the elevators on every floor so each floor could be destroyed in 1/0th of a second..."
<br/>
<br/>Glad that we have some agreement that fireballs were recorded in the destruction. A great example of a FGNW ignition. Limited in scope; papers on other levels could have survived. And muted in sound.
<br/>
<br/>Given that these FGNW essentially are what Dr. Wood's research was driving at, it is clear that your bot algorithms prevent learning, improving, and changing your mind. Were it otherwise, you would already be ~at~ FGNW and wouldn't be giving me such a hard time in an agenda-toting kind of a way.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 98 -->
<a name="x99"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x99" class="tiny">x99</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_99');">no "bot-man" nature</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_99" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges there is no "bot-man" nature. I actually investigate regardless what others say or think.
<br/>
<br/>When somebody started the "Controlled Demolition Concept I was lured to it, but eventually thought this couldn't be because it didn't look like it.Then experts like Mark Loizeaux said it wasn't controlled demolition and explained why it could not be.
<br/>
<br/>This really gets to Richard Gage, who then accuses Mark Loizeaux of being pal-sie with the government because they hired him to bring down big structures. That's the same ploy you use to deride someone. Even though Mark Loizeaux explains it takes months to gut and prepare a building.
<br/>
<br/>I checked all sorts of demolition and none of them destroy the building one floor at a time starting at the top and working down like a fizzle stick used on firecracker day,. the difference is there wasn't any fire.
<br/>
<br/>Then we have the airplane situation of planes flying at 500 miles per hour and aimed perfectly into each tower by men who never sat in a cockpit in their lives. Pilots then explain why this is impossible. The wings would be ripped off at that altitude and speed. No planes hit any building and no plane went into the little ravine in Shanksville because an expert map maker showed this area in a local government picture from City Hall in 1995.
<br/>
<br/>Then we hear all these explosions on 9/11 where Truth and Shadows say these were part of Controlled Demolition and Richard Gage supports this even though Mark Loizeaux the expert says it wasn't. Yet firemen tell us things like Scott Pacs are exploding everywhere and there is no fire to cause them to blow up. Transformers explode and so do gas tanks but we are not supposed to use this as evidence. What then caused them to explode????
<br/>
<br/>I reiterate what you say and then you think that is ridicule. And you do have a vivid imagination to come up with truck loads of FGNW in trucks that explode beneath Liberty Street to explain why that hole is there. Actually there were two holes like seen in the top of Building #6 which according to you would have been set on the main floor bursting upward, but without concussion, to move the things in the open offices, Paper and Books are still in their places. Yet no damage to the main floor.
<br/>
<br/>You said..... "Not my premise at all, which suggests 6 to 12 FGNW per tower."
<br/>
<br/>When did you ever see anything like this, to come up with that idea????? What then turned the falling huge chunks of walls falling towards the ground into dust????? they were not attached to the building and nothing attached to them, yet thy turned to dust before getting to ground level.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "Glad that we have some agreement that fireballs were recorded in the destruction"
<br/>
<br/>Only at the floor where the first explosion occurred. After that the whole building turned to dust without any fire.Remember, there was a woman waving her white jacket from the hole so there wasn't any fire at that time and hardly any smoke.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "Given that these FGNW essentially are what Dr. Wood's research was driving at,"
<br/>
<br/>Not at all and she said so, if you would actually read and not just look at "some" pictures. No, she is more into the "Electro Magnetic Field" type of weapon that can be aimed, similar but not the same as a laser.
<br/>
<br/>Actually the same kind of things John Hutchison was doing with radio frequencies that caused solid square iron to bend like it was putty but with no heat. Like on pages 380-381.
<br/>
<br/>You said .... "....it is clear that your bot algorithms prevent learning, improving, and changing your mind."
<br/>
<br/>Hahaha yeah right. I've changed several times already, and then I compare what you write and Dr. Wood's Book an your not in the same class. You a "wanna be", whereas she investigated everything. You keep changing from heat to no heat and fire and no fire. You come up with radiation that disapates in 48 hours.
<br/>
<br/>You just don't make sense, your like Fetzer in so many ways.
</p>
</div><!-- section 99 -->
<a name="x100"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x100" class="tiny">x100</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">"actually investigate" is not true</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_100" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gloux, your lead-in suggests that you have no bot nature and that you "actually investigate regardless what others say or think." Too bad this is not true, as is demonstrated by your missing detailed responses to my FGNW. Then as now, you think that discussing controlled demolition (with chemical means ala Mark Loizeaux) is a way of addressing FGNW. It isn't.
<br/>
<br/>I've been trying to respond to your response paragraph by paragraph, but most of them are inapplicable to FGNW, so why bother?
<br/>
<br/>Then you take a deviation into the physics of planes and get it completely wrong, and lie about your source: "Pilots then explain why this is impossible. The wings would be ripped off at that altitude and speed." What makes you thinks that the physics of planes flying 500 mph would result in wings be ripped off, as opposed to shattered?
<br/>
<br/>Then you go into Richard Gage, who does not as much acknowledge the existence of FGNW, much less their usage on 9/11. Totally inapplicable to this conversation, because your database isn't that great and has nothing on FGNW. The bot makes due with the garbage it is fed, but doesn't make sense.
<br/>
<br/>Your algorithms plop out Scott Pacs -- again, ho-hum -- as if it hasn't been addressed. Characterize better how they were exploding, why don't you? Was it a value giving way, or did the whole tank explode sending shrapnel everywhere.
<br/>
<br/>FYI, Dr. Wood drops these Scott Pacs as dangling innuendo, but doesn't explain how her devices would account for the anomaly. Were she to do so, she'd be describing FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Liar, I never wrote: "truck loads of FGNW in trucks that explode beneath Liberty Street to explain why that hole is there." I wrote that for all we know, the truck that delivered the FGNW to the towers had an extra one that didn't get installed but went off from there. It doesn't matter, except to prove how thorough the operation.
<br/>
<br/>Liar, I never wrote: WTC-6 "would have been set on the main floor bursting upward, but without concussion, to move the things in the open offices, Paper and Books are still in their places. Yet no damage to the main floor."
<br/>
<br/>Your usage of the "concussion" demonstrates again that you haven't read my work, which then puts the lie taint on your opening paragraph. "Concussion" might be applicable if the destructive waves were sudden changes in air pressure, as if talking about conventional chemical explosives. Alas, FGNW emit their neutrons which might heat the air through which they travel, but which deposit their energy within the atomic structure of the materials they pass through. Instant volume heating can rip apart materials (like drywall, concrete) to dust; it can cause large steel beams to sag, and lesser beams to ablate.
<br/>
<br/>The nature of FGNW and their yields explain why this would be possible. Had you studied Dr. Wood's innuendo more and then done your own research to augment that effort, you would see the applicability of FGNW as being the devices Dr. Wood hints at but doesn't get to.
<br/>
<br/>Yes, "no damage to the main floor" because nothing was aimed at it from above or below.
<br/>
<br/>You asked: "What then turned the falling huge chunks of walls falling towards the ground into dust?"
<br/>
<br/>Already mentioned. FGNW deposit their energies deep with the materials, causing some of them to ablate immediately. When the wall assemblies were ejected sideways, what was rolling off of them was steam and dust from materials that were fixed to them.
<br/>
<br/>What is funny, is that if you were to suss out of Dr. Wood's work some explanation (that she doesn't provide) relating to DEW, it would apply to FGNW which can at least account for the energy required.
<br/>
<br/>I wrote: "... these FGNW essentially are what Dr. Wood's research was driving at..."
<br/>
<br/>You replied: "Not at all and she said so."
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood told her readers to look at the evidence and see what it is saying, and not necessary at what other people (including her) were saying about the evidence. Guess you missed that part. It was such a great quote, they made stickers with that and put it on my inside cover.
<br/>
<br/>Further, nothing about FGNW prevents it from being tweaked to emit more EMP, which already is a side-effect and part of the yield. Ergo, to exclude FGNW as you do is wrong and game playing.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote another blatant lie with: "she investigated everything." No, Dr. Wood didn't. Her DEW research, were it not so poor, would have brought her to the conclusion that beams from space (how she let her work get mal-framed) had optics and energy sources as two crippling stumbling blocks. ABL is similar. She never calculated the energy required to turn concrete into dust across the entire length and width and floor by floor. This calculation would have netted such energies that were beyond the payloads of ABL aircraft to carry. (And this is before we observe the destruction began from within, not at the very top.)
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood's nuclear research is even worse than here DEW research. How could she not have come across Dr. Andre Gsponer and his decade of effort before 9/11?
<br/>
<br/>FGNW had heat, but localized. It had fire, but localized. The highly energetic neutrons when they were expelled weren't localized. And yes, owing to the neutron nature of these FGNW, most of the measurable radiation wasn't generated and didn't linger... And then they lied to us about what was measured and its safety.
<br/>
<br/>I repeat my complaints against you. You are needlessly stuck in Dr. Wood's disinformation, too stubborn to admit the weaknesses in her efforts, and too agenda-toting to take her clues to the next level. You don't understand her work, and you haven't read mine, which you stiltedly continue to fail to understand.
<br/>
<br/>A bot by any other name would be Israeli troll, you are.
<br/>
<br/>"You just don't make sense, your like Fetzer in so many ways."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 100 -->
<a name="x101"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x101" class="tiny">x101</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_101');">fit everything to fit that concept</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_101" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I read Dr. Wood's Book several times because of the vast amount of information. You on the other hand start off with "nukes" then try to fit everything to fit that concept.
<br/>
<br/>About the "planes" you said..... "What makes you thinks that the physics of planes flying 500 mph would result in wings be ripped off, as opposed to shattered?"
<br/>
<br/>Because of videos that reveal this is what happens. Even a C130 carrying water for a forest fire came in too fast and the pressure on the wings just ripped them off with most of it in big pieces. They are very flimsy light weight construction.
<br/>
<br/>The same applies to Passenger Jets. The only time you can go at 500 mph is when your high up where the air is thin. On top of that you can't steer a plane at that speed because of the thickness of the air at that speed.
<br/>
<br/>The relevance of these facts is NO PLANES hit any buildings.
<br/>
<br/>So whatever product that was used to cause the big explosion had a lot of liquid diesel fuel set off. Jet fuel is diesel without the paraffin wax. Winter diesel is actually stove oil with less paraffin wax. Furnace oil is summer diesel. That fire only lasted a couple of seconds.
<br/>
<br/>Then we have the "jumpers" coming out of the Towers. Whatever it was that was prepping the building, was burning the people before the destruction. Just like a micro-wave in your kitchens burns the skin.
<br/>
<br/>This is not relevant to you because your "nukes" (whatever generation) can't do that. There were 1,400 "jumpers" splatting on the sidewalk, just like watermelons. Something was causing them to squeeze into those small windows and some were ejected, landing a long ways away from the building, not by explosions but something else at play here.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "I repeat my complaints against you. You are needlessly stuck in Dr. Wood's disinformation, too stubborn to admit the weaknesses in her efforts,....."
<br/>
<br/>Rather then just looking at one aspect of what Dr. Wood has said, you have to look at everything she said to fit together like a puzzle. Like what was causing these buildings to "froth" like smoke the whole height of each of the three towers before they started to turn to dust in 9 seconds.
<br/>
<br/>From the time of the initial explosion the building started to froth from places there was NO fire to the time it turned to dust. It only happened on one side of the buildings.
<br/>
<br/>That's what it was doing. She doesn't know what was causing this but appears to be like what Hutchison discovered.
<br/>
<br/>Do "tactical nukes" make the whole building "froth" from one side only for one hour on the Towers and five hours on Building #7?
<br/>
<br/>Anybody can come up with any idea on Wikipedia but not Doc. Wood. She was cut off in 12 hours. On the other hand you can put up any wild idea about "nukes" and that is accepted. Seems like Doc. Wood hit a raw nerve.
<br/>
<br/>Truth and Shadows was cut off because it was causing people to investigate. Anyone who investigates comes to the conclusion our own Government (USA) was behind it all. It was a false flag, used to go and get the resources of Iraq. The buildings that were destroyed housed all the crookery that the US government employed to steal the money in the Stock Market and Enron's investments in infra structure in other countries, which was in Building #7.
<br/>
<br/>Rumsfeld declared the CIA misplace 2.3 Trillion Dollars on Sept 10/01.
<br/>
<br/>On 9/11, 35 people who were accountants, were killed in the Pentagon explosion, along with all the info about that missing 2.3 Trillion Dollars. Like Craig Mckee said and proved, no planes did this.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "She never calculated the energy required to turn concrete into dust across the entire length and width and floor by floor. This calculation would have netted such energies that were beyond the payloads of ABL aircraft to carry. (And this is before we observe the destruction began from within, not at the very top.)"
<br/>
<br/>What do you think caused the square iron bar to bend and disintegrate in the Hutchison demonstration? NO lasers involved and no heat.
<br/>
<br/>Throughout your concept of "tactical nukes" you state "heat and steam" yet the dust at ground level was cooler then the ambient air, according to the people who were caught in the dust cloud.
<br/>
<br/>You keep using ABL as if this is a FACT when all it is used for is the Government has something on the nose f aircraft that can be directed. There are huge buildings used in the manufacture of lasers in California. What is used on aircraft is something else, but whatever it is, it is directed like a laser.
<br/>
<br/>You have no idea what the government has and what energy is used to turn building into dust. But you want to measure it. How do you measure radio waves that Hutchison uses to make items disintegrate and change it's features??????
<br/>
<br/>The US Government paid Hutchison $25,000:00 to show them what he was doing. They wanted to see iron turn into disintegrating material and bend but without heat. So they learned something.
<br/>
<br/>You on the other hand refuse to accept it is being done, even if you watch it.
</p>
</div><!-- section 101 -->
<a name="x102"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x102" class="tiny">x102</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">a re-purposed criticism</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_102" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gloux, you claim that you read Dr. Wood's book several times, yet (a) you do not acknowledge the weaknesses of her work, (b) you haven't given my work the courtesy of a single read.
<br/>
<br/>Your algorithms deposit this gem: "You on the other hand start off with "nukes" then try to fit everything to fit that concept." Too bad it isn't true, and must be a re-purposed criticism aimed at you with "nukes" replaced by "Dr. Wood" in the original.
<br/>
<br/>The most you can conclude with your airplane distraction (with no links, so I'm not even sure the C130 example is valid) is that the aircraft at the WTC were not the alleged commercial aircraft, otherwise their wings would have ripped off, eh? Swapped out, souped up military planes could do it.
<br/>
<br/>You know how to get to my blog. Although not my hobby-horse, I have had the opportunity to debunk no planes at the WTC several times, and postings such re-purposed discussions are available.
<br/>
<br/>Want to know what inspired the jumpers? If we speculate that one or more pulsing FGNW were dropped down the elevator shafts, then maybe the ramp-up to full yield was emitting sufficient alpha radiation to make it uncomfortable to be inside. Ouch, FGNW is in the category of DEW.
<br/>
<br/>I dispute your claimes of "1,400 jumpers splatting on the sidewalk. The number is much less. You wrote: "Something was causing them to squeeze into those small windows and some were ejected, landing a long ways away from the building, not by explosions but something else at play here."
<br/>
<br/>Something? What could it be? A FGNW ramping up?
<br/>
<br/>Clearly from arguments, you are again re-purposing text aimed at someone supporting conventional controlled demolition in order to convince them of your DEW premise.
<br/>
<br/>I'll accept that evidence and point out again, FGNW is in the category of DEW. Ergo, you should already be in the FGNW camp.
<br/>
<br/>The frothing you speak of I believe came from the late summer heat and reflections off of other buildings. I think this is disinformation.
<br/>
<br/>However for the sake of discussions, did the frothing happen on the Libery Street side, where we know from the hole in the sidewalk that something beamed its out? And I speculated that a left-over FGNW in a truck but with ignition still enabled. I know I am wrong; probably wasn't in a truck, either. Doesn't mean it wasn't FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>The reason I don't often use the phrase "tactical nukes" and instead FGNW, is because bot algorithms such as yours start assigning definitions and characteristics to ot based on half a century of nuclear hype and fear-mongering.
<br/>
<br/>You are wrong about "wild ideas about FGNW being accepted" or being easy to find in Wikipedia. Got Israeli trolls like you calling it "wild ideas". The only two reasons why Dr. Wood's work gets punished: (1) It is closest to the real causes, FGNW. (2) It is disinformation made clear by the dangling innuendo, not connecting the dots, not having a conclusion, not going into FGNW in any legitimate way, and propping up cold-fusion confusion.
<br/>
<br/>What did Hutchison power his demonstrations with? Scale that up. What powered it? Hutchison is at best dangling innuendo that doesn't apply.
<br/>
<br/>Sagging beams, high percentage of iron spheres in the dust, and other things that got hot and burned off what was on them, prove that the destruction had heat. The issue is that the highly energetic neutrons got things like metal so hot so quickly, the metal could burned things. But this is different than a fireball from explosives.
<br/>
<br/>But again, I point out that Dr. Wood has no calculations on energy required, which in turn extrapolates to quantities of chemicals for ABL.
<br/>
<br/>I say the neutron cone emission was mostly contained within the outer wall assemblies of the towers, but did graze them. They could heat up and suddenly spandrels are pliable and allows for formation of the steel doobies. Enough energy deposited within to heat the wall assemblies that in turn burned or steamed off what touched them.
<br/>
<br/>The dust cloud had a cooling distance through ambient air before it reached people. Given that the dust cloud blocked the sun, yes, being inside of it could be cooler than in ambient air and sunshine.
<br/>
<br/>Loved your ABL game. When I pressured you to explain the implementation of Dr. Wood's supposed DEW, you implied either ABL or from satellites that caused the hole in the sidewalk. Now you're saying it wasn't?
<br/>
<br/>I researched ABL / satellite DEW and found them inapplicable to 9/11 at the towers.
<br/>
<br/>This latest Gloux carousel spin got me sick.
<br/>
<br/>https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-film-israel-lobby-didnt-want-you-see/25876?fbclid=IwAR3qRqNsJeVWAQjy4nLS2F8HIsF_36mb4U_OYK8XJ5N7p8XW23DkqlqpTmE
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 102 -->
<a name="x103"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x103" class="tiny">x103</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_103');">send rockets into Israel</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_103" style="display: block;">
<p>Let me ask you something Max, what is the prime objective of the Palestinians also known as the Philistines?
<br/>
<br/>Did you know Hamas is an organization of Egyptians who take the money sent to Palestinians and use it to send rockets into Israel. The Palestinians need infrastructure but can't build it because Hamas takes the money, because they run Gaza for the Palestinians. Who is it that pays for the tunnels going under the fence to get into Israel?
<br/>
<br/>The purpose of the tunnels from Gaza into Israel is to infiltrate to kill the Israelis, whether man, woman or child. Who pays for these expensive tunnels?
<br/>
<br/>Iran Pays for terrorism into Israel. If Israel retaliates they are called the aggressor against the Palestinians.
<br/>
<br/>The last barrage of rockets (460) into Israel, killed a Palestinian living in Israel.If you dare to enter a Palestinian neighborhood in Israel, you may lose your life.
<br/>
<br/>Palestinians did a drive by shooting at a bus stop.....
<br/>https://www.timesofisrael.com/condition-of-baby.../...
<br/>
<br/>Condition of baby, delivered after mother shot in terror attack, deteriorates
<br/>timesofisrael.com
<br/>Condition of baby, delivered after mother shot in terror attack,…
<br/>Condition of baby, delivered after mother shot in terror attack, deteriorates
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 103 -->
<a name="x104"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x104" class="tiny">x104</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">pro-Israel propaganda</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_104" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, Bravo on the pro-Israel propaganda and solidifying the view of your agenda.
<br/>
<br/>Bottom-line: It is a human rights crisis and war crimes that are being committed by Israel first that inspires a desperate people to seek weapons from others, who for other reasons have reason to despise Israel. And with events closer to home, have sour on Israel, too.
<br/>
<br/>The effectiveness of the propaganda that you promote is revealing in two other aspects. First, is that a fuzzy data point about Israeli involvement in 9/11 becomes more fixed. They are the ideal patsy-runners and overseers, which they turned out to be.
<br/>
<br/>Second, dear Mr. Gloux, your feeble efforts to brush off Israeli 9/11 involvement, to defend the weaknesses of Dr. Wood's work, to stall taking her work to the next level via FGNW, to throw in the disinfo of NPT @ WTC, to paste inapplicable canned responses to FGNW, to go in circles over topics that previous conversations handled and acting as if we had never discussed them... Well, it doesn't support the case that you aren't an agent.
<br/>
<br/>I'm not paid to post, and grow tired of such games. But sometimes it is necessary in order to know the sincerity of whom we are dealing.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 104 -->
<a name="x105"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x105" class="tiny">x105</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_105');">hook in to many of the news outlets in the Middle East</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_105" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you are a narrow minded individual. I hook in to many of the news outlets in the Middle East to get information from both sides.
<br/>
<br/>You reveal your ignorance about Israel and the Philistines/Palestinians and who these people are.
<br/>
<br/>You remain ignorant because you don't want to know.
<br/>
<br/>A little tiny Country like Israel who are doing their best to protect themselves from the onslaught of the Arabs and Egyptian/Hamas, Persians/Iran and of course the Palestinians/Philistine who never owned that Land.
<br/>
<br/>You figure they did 9/11 when they can barely protect themselves.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "Bottom-line: It is a human rights crisis and war crimes that are being committed by Israel...."
<br/>
<br/>Like what?????
<br/>
<br/>You said.... " ...who for other reasons have reason to despise Israel."
<br/>
<br/>What are these reasons?????
<br/>
<br/>A whole Nation of people comprising of 13 Tribes lived on that Land and your upset because they got a small portion of what they used to have?????
<br/>
<br/>This Nation was called Israel. One of those 13 Tribes is called "jews" and you are bent on going after them for who knows what reason. You yourself come from one of those Tribes only you don't know it. How do I know???? Because I traced their footsteps and where they went. The history is there, but you have to dig it out.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "....your feeble efforts to brush off Israeli 9/11 involvement, to defend the weaknesses of Dr. Wood's work,..."
<br/>
<br/>Wait a minute, it's Israeli or it's "Jew" one of the two. Do you know why they are called "Jew"????? I know you can't answer that because you haven't a clue. What makes a "Jew" a Jew???? You don't know but you hate their guts and have no idea who they are. STRANGE.... Max.
<br/>
<br/>You think you are right concerning your Mini Nukes even though it doesn't make sense.... but you somehow contort it to make sense in your mind. Read pages 372-373 about tritium.
<br/>
<br/>It is interesting to have this chat with you just to see how twisted you are. I've never been to Israel and don't want to go there about the same as going to an all black neighborhood in New York.... it's not a healthy place to be. But you say I am Mossad. Your nuts.
<br/>
<br/>Though you have a good command of the English language, your much like having a conversation with a mentally handicap person. I think you have a short circuit and you can't help it.
<br/>
<br/>+++
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 105 -->
<a name="x106"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x106" class="tiny">x106</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">Israeli scholar in several canned paste-jobs</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_106" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gloux, you call me narrow-minded? I'm not the one plugging an agenda for Israel, stopped in Dr. Wood's "not an end-station," and throwing out disinformation diversions into NPT. You are. The agenda alone that isn't your own demonstrates how open-minded you are: not very.
<br/>
<br/>I write that war crimes are being committed by Israel, and you act the innocent in your reply "LIKE WHAT???" I wrote that other nations in the region have reasons to despise Israel, and again with the act in your reply: "What are these reasons?????"
<br/>
<br/>For being such the Israeli scholar in your several canned paste-jobs, the fact that you can't or won't answer your own questions pulls a flag on the play about your sincerity, truthfulness, and research thoroughness.
<br/>
<br/>And then, ever the Mossad Disinfo Agent, you start sliding the nomenclature from Mossad & Israeli to be "Jewish", because the next disinfo card you want to play is "anti-semetism" against me, but you have to set it up first.
<br/>
<br/>You know what I don't see on pages 372-373? No mention of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons, or even Dr. Andre Gsponer who'd been writing about such for a cool decade before Dr. Wood posted this information on her website. That she would re-purpose it without enhancement or fixing of errors into her book, not a good sign for its veracity.
<br/>
<br/>And while we're referencing these pages that show re-purposed measurements from a flawed report that was scope-limited into considering only building content as the source for the tritium measured, let us not forget that the shoddy & delayed measuring of tritium may have been good enough for the purposes of the original stilted report, it is by far woefully inadequate to give the complete story about what tritium was present.
<br/>
<br/>Consider this a huge boner flag into the disinfo that Dr. Wood (and Dr. Jones) conspired to spread: unchallenged and unquestioned.
<br/>
<br/>Further, I've already boasted about researching DEW beyond the innuendo dropped by Dr. Wood. Nuclear devices as well. I've even dived into Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), called cold fusion. Ain't operational at the scale required for the observed destruction today; wasn't operational then.
<br/>
<br/>Point is, most of the PhD's in the 9/11 Truth Movement had the purpose of serving as an end-point for research, with the public assuming that these doctorates would demonstrate thorough researching abilities into these technical subjects. That assumptions goes with the public myth being created about 9/11. The sad part isn't just that the assumptions of researcher thoroughness are wrong, but that YOU, Mr. Gloux, won't admit it.
<br/>
<br/>You're beaten; your Dr. Wood end-station is beaten. You're exposed as an agent beholden to an agenda. Your only hope is to instigate a flame war.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Gloux, you are losing your educational value as well as your entertainment value in discussions with me. I suggest you engage with others. I no longer have the patience.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 106 -->
<a name="x107"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x107" class="tiny">x107</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_107');">something else that is more efficient</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_107" style="display: block;">
<p><br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1933595483402907&set=a.878380988924367&type=1&theater&comment_id=1934672269961895&reply_comment_id=1934719826623806¬if_t=feed_comment_reply¬if_id=1544553578268973">2018-12-11</a>
<br/>Max why use "nukes" when you would have something else that is more efficient and not so "dirty"?????
<br/>
<br/>Besides your "tactical nukes" produce heat and what you see in the picture didn't have heat involved, else the paper book would have been burned. Yet it is fused into the steel.
</p>
</div><!-- section 107 -->
<a name="x108"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x108" class="tiny">x108</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">lodged in Dr. Wood's non-end-station</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_108" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, nice game play, but no goal. First of all, you haven't proved that they used something clean, despite being lodged in Dr. Wood's non-end-station.
<br/>
<br/>Secondly, the USGS documents in its tables Uranium and its decay elements; there was a whole tritium circus of a report; Dr. Cahill measured months later particles in the air that indicated a continually heating process was going on in the WTC rubble.
<br/>
<br/>Wrap your head around the concept of "at the point of ignition", "within the path of the output beam", and "outside the path of the output beam." You conflate effects of one with that of all other in a classic straw-man fashion.
<br/>
<br/>Dive into the piece, and point out its errors. Or just to get you to read it, why don't you identify everything I might have re-used from Dr. Wood so that you'd have something agreeable to say.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 108 -->
<a name="x109"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x109" class="tiny">x109</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_109');">trying to make self smart</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-20</p>
<div id="sect_109" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/walter.siegrist.7/posts/10157033805214656?comment_id=10157045228474656¬if_id=1545411072838521¬if_t=comment_mention">2018-12-20</a>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux
<br/>Roger Gloux Walter Siegrist Actually is was short, I just wanted to hit the high spots so you would at least have some knowledge of what has happened and what to expect but most of all where people (nations) actually came from. Most folks have no clue and try the DNA thing. Of course if a "expert" has no clues as to the history and "who is who", the information is based on ignorance.
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux
<br/>Roger Gloux Maxwell Bridges there you go again, trying to make yourself smart by saying.... " that was a copy-and-paste from somewhere"..... HUH??????
<br/>
<br/>I just rattled it off from memory and the only thing I did copy and paste was on the "Siegrist" name.
<br/>
<br/>Max, Max, Max take off the metal noodle strainer off your head and think.
<br/>
<br/>Regarding the last line in the meme, first you have to know what a Gentile is and the difference between a "Jew" and a person from the ancestry of Israel.
<br/>
<br/>There is a movement trying for WORLD DOMINION as President Busch Senior and and President Johnson pointed out in the 60's. I'm not disputing that, even the Muslims are trying for that as is Russia and China.
<br/>
<br/>Right now the USA has the majority of POWER to pull it off, providing the world on a whole doesn't go against it at the same time. If that happens we will see how far the secret technology has gone that can turn buildings into powder without heat. At present the USA is flat assed broke and just keep printing out worthless paper money. As long as the US dollar is used to buy oil in OPEC it will continue. The day the "world" refuses the US dollar in OPEC, is the day the US will crash starting with the Banks. But..... the thing the world Leaders are concerned about is not Nuclear explosives, it is concerned with the weapon that destroyed seven Buildings in New York. Considering it can be "aimed", they wont push too hard.
<br/>
<br/>In the meantime the USA is showing what it has done with "lasers" but not the other "thing" that Dr. Judy Wood is talking about. Unfortunately for you, you follow the "Fetzer" thing and don't see what Dr. Judy Wood is talking about. Your like Craig Mckee who looked at a few pages and dismissed it. You can't explain why the Bankers Trust Building had to be torn down because of on-going rust inside the building. Only one piece of the outside façade of the Tower hit the building but something was going on inside the building that after ten years the building had to be torn down. Nukes of any kind don't do that, especially after ten years. You can bet and win, the Leaders in this world are aware there is something very powerful they don't have and are afraid of.
<br/>
<br/>The USA is crashing on all fronts financially. When the final crash occurs it will topple all the Banks in domino effect. The only thing left will be "weapons".
<br/>
<br/>All of what I wrote in these posts is concerning who is the USA and the UK??? This also includes the other North Western European Nations.
<br/>
<br/>You yourself are from one of these Nations, so guess what your ancestry is. LOL
</p>
</div><!-- section 109 -->
<a name="x110"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x110" class="tiny">x110</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">data points do not deviate</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-20</p>
<div id="sect_110" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gloux, the data points from your last comment do not deviate much from the trend line already established from you.
<br/>
<br/>I particularly liked the insightful comment: "Max, Max, Max take off the metal noodle strainer off your head and think." Kind of like when you borrow someone's meme and post it elsewhere, this reeks of an insult someone threw at you that you'll repurpose against me. Bravo.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Right now the USA has the majority of POWER to pull it off, providing the world on a whole doesn't go against it at the same time."
<br/>
<br/>Assuming that "pull it off" refers to 9/11, it is true that the USA has the ability from its arsenals and its agencies' skill sets to pull off what was observed, but few of those agencies can muster the critical mass of conspiratorial willingness to inflict such damage. Doesn't take many boots-to-the-ground patriotic whistleblowers to foul this action against the citizens of the USA.
<br/>
<br/>Therefore, if the operation can be outsourced to circumvent patriotism and duty from exposing it, then Israel is the likely agency, and this is what is proven to be true.
<br/>
<br/>You continued: "If that happens we will see how far the secret technology has gone that can turn buildings into powder without heat."
<br/>
<br/>You are spreading disinformation with your mischaracterization of WTC 9/11 features: "buildings (turning) into powder without heat."
<br/>
<br/>Heat was present, and it is a deceitful to suggest otherwise. The tiny iron spheres found in significant quantities in the dust disproves this lame assertion that you repeat. The duration of under-rubble hot-spots disproves this assertion. Lots of evidence disproves this assertion.
<br/>
<br/>Because you regularly copy and paste from discussions with those championing NT, you bring up facets of conventional explosions (e.g., pressure wave through air, fireball) as a strawman to go after FGNW, but it won't be so.
<br/>
<br/>The delivery of the heat was unconventional, because the highly energetic neutrons deposited energy deep with the atomic structure of the materials they passed through. Once there, it did spectacular things, like volume heating of large steel beams to get them to sag, like ablating of thin pieces. Things with residual water content, like drywall, porcelain, humans, etc. experienced that water turning instantly to high temperature steam, whose expanding volumetric pressure turned such content to dust.
<br/>
<br/>The stubborness that keeps you planted in Dr. Wood's non-conclusions exposes your lack of objectiveness and sincerity, because FGNW are the natural extension and logical conclusions that Dr. Wood should have come to.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "the thing the world Leaders are concerned about is not Nuclear explosives, it is concerned with the weapon that destroyed seven Buildings in New York."
<br/>
<br/>That's wrong. "Nuclear explosives?" Use the right term: FGNW. If less than 20% of their yield is in traditional shock waves and heat waves, then they don't fit into the category of "explosives" but of DEW. It was the 80% of the directed energy as highly energetic neutrons that achieved wonders that you attribute to Dr. Wood's vague theories.
<br/>
<br/>I came to my nuclear conclusions independently of Dr. James Fetzer, and in many ways my FGNW explain the outcome better.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: (you) "don't see what Dr. Judy Wood is talking about." Not true, Mr. Gloux. I understand Dr. Wood's work, its limits, and its weaknesses clearly far better than you, because you won't even acknowledge them: lots of dangling innuendo, nothing real world, shoddy nuclear research, and NO CONCLUSIONS.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Your like Craig Mckee who looked at a few pages and dismissed it." Reverting to your bot-ish ways, I see, and your inability to remember details of past discussions. Ho-hum, I read her book cover-to-cover and have revisited many sections many times. I dismiss it because of the reasons already given that your Mossad agenda won't let you see.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "You can't explain why the Bankers Trust Building had to be torn down because of on-going rust inside the building.... Nukes of any kind don't do that, especially after ten years."
<br/>
<br/>Not true in the least. The above lie proves (a) you haven't read my works, (b) you don't remember our exchanges, (c)_ you are copying & pasting from discussions aimed at conventional explosives and not FGNW. The neutron bombardment from FGNW does indeed explain that, and embrittlement.
<br/>
<br/>Section 25. Embrittlement.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#25
<br/>
<br/>Your favorite tactic is circle back to Dr. Wood's non-conclusive work, rather than exploring my work that I claim builds upon and expands her efforts.
<br/>
<br/>So I once again proclaimeth thou to be Mossad agent/bot.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 110 -->
<a name="x111"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x111" class="tiny">x111</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_111');">memorial pools are radiation mitigation technique</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_111" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2119262678334909&set=a.2119267651667745&type=3&comment_id=2172255629702280¬if_id=1545939115824727¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">2018-12-28</a>
The memorial pools are a classic radiation mitigation technique. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 111 -->
<a name="x112"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x112" class="tiny">x112</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">away from the source</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_112" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges keep people away from the source and bury the evidence of those events - DEEP.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 112 -->
<a name="x113"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x113" class="tiny">x113</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_113');">that's not steam</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_113" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges a classical mitigation technique?????
<br/>
<br/>Show me some that gave you this clue.
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux
<br/>Roger Gloux Lawrence Fine that's not steam. Look below the bucket on the orange hoe, that's more like the fumes the first responder's were walking in and all it was is dust on the road.
<br/>
<br/>Look at the yellow hoe where the fumes is between the tracks. If that was steam, the operator would feel the heat.he can't back up, so would have to turn the tracks away and move. that's a heavy hoe. If it was smoke, they would be in trouble because smoke makes you tear and cough and you would choke and they couldn't do their job.
<br/>
<br/>Nobody drives an expensive machine that works off of hydraulics into a fire.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 113 -->
<a name="x114"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x114" class="tiny">x114</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">steam coming off</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_114" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I have done my nuclear research and published my findings. Yes, there are several radiation mitigation techniques used at the WTC, including hauling in fresh dirt, spreading it around, and a few days later scooping it up to cart away; repeat. Hosing things down with water is another classic. If a location can't be completely free of lingering radiation, building a water-filled reflecting pool on top would help the badness from radiating up.
<br/>
<br/>If you doubt this technique, I suggest you do your homework that disputes this.
<br/>
<br/>To the point about steam coming off, Mr. Lawrence Fine we should recall one of the stark findings from Dr. Cahill who came a month late and measured the air quality for another couple months.
<br/>
<br/>"The presence of coarse particles immediately after days of rain indicated that they were being continually re-generated from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 114 -->
<a name="x115"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x115" class="tiny">x115</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_115');">all the fumes coming from the dust</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_115" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges your well aware of all the fumes coming from the dust because the First Responders were sitting and walking in it on the street. There was no heat down the street from the complex but the dust was fuming.
<br/>
<br/>You already said it takes heat to get these FGNukes to "go off" yet there is no heat on the streets and the dust is fuming.
<br/>
<br/>The only thing that was not affected was paper and some aluminum siding. If it was hot FGNW blowing up, it would burn the paper, yet wherever you look, there is tons of paper in the dust. Just like when a person burns the chicken in the microwave and the paper plate is not affected.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 115 -->
<a name="x116"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x116" class="tiny">x116</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">dust sitting on top of something that was hot</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_116" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux-bot, Regarding "fumes coming from the dust", you'll have to be more specific.
<br/>
<br/>In the examples you provide, ask yourself if the dust might be sitting on top of something that was hot, like food particles dropped onto an electric stove element that is hot but cooling?
<br/>
<br/>Because of the ratio of surface area to mass of the dust (and rubble), they would have been more affected by air resistance than cohesive pieces of wall assemblies. As such and as observed, much dust trailed heavier pieces of falling steel and even lingered and descended slowly. Therefore, it is only natural that many heavier pieces of steel might be present but buried under rubble and dust.
<br/>
<br/>The FGNW scenario suggests that cone shaped DEW output of highly energetic neutrons grazed some and went through others of the wall assemblies. Those hit instantly heat. Like a burner on an electric stove on high touching a plastic spoon (spoon ~starts~ getting affected), things normally attached to the wall assemblies would be affected. Wall assemblies in free-fall that seemed to "smoke or steam off" a trail of dusty smoke steam is what this might look like.
<br/>
<br/>After these pieces hit the ground, dust and content that were slowed by air resistance fell on top. The pieces being hot but cooling, the dust on top would appear to fume, just like food dropped on a kitchen electric element.
<br/>
<br/>Let us turn our attention to metal filing cabinets which, together with other office furnishings, are woefully under-represented in the debris pile. When the highly energetic neutrons passed through the thin sheet metal of the filing cabinets, the metal heated so fast that it ablated, melted, and sent hot blobs of its metals into the air.
<br/>
<br/>The highly energetic neutrons would pass through the paper but not leave vasts amounts of energy in its simpler molecular structure (e.g., non metal.) The paper doesn't ignite from the bombardment.
<br/>
<br/>But wait! The paper is right next to a hot fragment of the metal file cabinet. Does the paper ignite? Depends on how long they remain in contact and the ignition temperature of paper versus the now-cooling blob of metal in the turmoil of the destruction and falling to the ground.
<br/>
<br/>In other words with FGNW, lots of ignited paper falling over the WTC isn't to be expected, because they would have had insufficient sustained contact with heat sources capable of ignition.
<br/>
<br/>Fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) are next-level that Dr. Wood's work needs to be taken to.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 116 -->
<a name="x117"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x117" class="tiny">x117</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_117');">Pictures are better then words</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_117" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2119262678334909&set=a.2119267651667745&type=3&comment_id=2172255629702280¬if_id=1545939115824727¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">2018-12-28</a>
<br/>Sam Haschets Pictures are better then words. People like yourself say the big steel square tubes with 6 inch steel went into the basement and these weigh in excess of 25 ton per 35 f. lengths and ther were 47 of them. Look at the basement when it is cleared out. The wall your looking at is the bath tub that holds out the Hudson River, if it broke the water would have flooded Manhattan. Those two square holes is the train tunnel going each way. Where is the damage in this concrete????
<br/>Image may contain: sky and outdoor
<br/>
<br/>Sam Haschets
<br/>Sam Haschets Roger Gloux https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYm1AnUKi8
<br/>
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>Directed Energy Weapons? LOL! Dr Greg Jenkins Destroys…
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 117 -->
<a name="x118"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x118" class="tiny">x118</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">both Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Greg Jenkins were pushing some disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_118" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Sam Haschets, the interesting thing about that video is that both Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Greg Jenkins were pushing some disinformation. Dr. Jenkins is one of Dr. Jones' crew.
<br/>
<br/>The characterization of ~all~ the steel being vaporized or turned to dust is an indication of the disinfo, because clearly the debris piles exhibit plenty of steel. The proper characterization first recognizes the type of steel not found in the piles: namely the pans and trusses that supported the concrete at each floor, thin metal. These being thin and directly in the line of fire of highly energetic neutrons from FGNW were ablated, which is akin to vaporization. Other materials with residual water content could not withstand the internal pressure of that water instantly turning to steam. This gives us the dust.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Jenkins purposely mischaracterizes the amount of steel missing and energy required to vaporize, likens it to the surface of the sun, and never recognizes that FGNW complete the picture.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 118 -->
<a name="x119"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x119" class="tiny">x119</a>
Sam Haschets, Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_119');">moving the goal posts</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_119" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Sam Haschets</b> You are moving the goal posts
<br/>
<br/><b>Roger Gloux</b> Maxwell Bridges what disinformation did Dr. Judy Wood give?
<br/>
<br/><b>Sam Haschets</b> Maxwell Bridges Judy wood and her I'll claim steel turned to dust
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 119 -->
<a name="x120"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x120" class="tiny">x120</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">explained many times only to have its algorithms repeat the same tired refrains</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_120" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Sam Haschets, funny how Mr. Roger Gloux plays coy about the disinformation given by Dr. Judy Wood. I've explained ~many~ times before to the Gloux-Mossad-bot only to have its algorithms repeat the same tired refrains. Included in Dr. Wood's disinformation are lots of dangling innuendo, no connecting of dots, no conclusions, and very shitty research into nuclear means. FGNW are the natural extension of her work, and power its effects with real-world state-of-the-art nuclear devices. How could she have missed Dr. Andre Gsponer's work?
<br/>
<br/>These deficits are practically understandable when suppressing truth in a disinformation work. Even incomplete, they can be pardoned because they do get us closer to truth.
<br/>
<br/>What can't be so easily excused are the Gloux-bot hard-liners who cannot publicly acknowledge these deficiencies, always cycle discussions back to incomplete Woodsian premises, and cannot objectively review work that goes beyond the dead-end they are charged with poorly defending.
<br/>
<br/>A disinformation technique is to conflate effects or evidence of one thing with another. In the DEW paradigm, what happens to things in the line of fire are not the same as those just grazed or close to the ignition points.
<br/>
<br/>Steel pans and trusses that held concrete floors? Drywall, concrete, porcelain? Not well represented in the debris pile as cohesive pieces, let alone wholes, while the outer wall assemblies and inner core are.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 120 -->
<a name="x121"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x121" class="tiny">x121</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_121');">Dr. Judy Wood compiled evidence</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_121" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Dr. Judy Wood compiled evidence. You didn't. But you figured out it has to be FGNW that doesn't produce fire as each floor turned to dust in 1/10th of a second.... starting from the top going down. BUTTTT... it requires heat to set this stuff off all in 1/10th of a second per floor. It didn't evaporate because that requires heat, and the dust was cool. Everybody caught in the dust cloud said the dust was cooler than the air. None felt any heat. None were burned.
<br/>
<br/>You stated the FGNW were placed every 6 to 12 floors apart but each floor turned to dust in 1/10th of a second.
<br/>
<br/>Most of the 47 inner core steel girders turned to dust. Very few of those girders is in the debris.
<br/>
<br/>As for the outside façade, most of that turned to dust but much of the aluminum siding that covered it was on the roofs of the surrounding buildings and in the streets. There is no damage to the domes on the buildings surrounding the complex so no steel hit them but lots of aluminum scattered everywhere.
<br/>
<br/>In your last paragraph you figure the ceramic toilets and sinks were all broken in the debris yet the responders stated there was none. No steel cabinets survived either except one all distorted with paper files sticking out. Obviously no heat was involved because the paper wasn't even burnt or singed.
<br/>
<br/>Like Dr. Judy Wood stated, "if you say a person was shot, there better be a hole in the body "
<br/>
<br/>You disregard evidence but come to a conclusion it was FGNW that were not hot enough to burn paper but turned steel into dust including the concrete. Most of the debris didn't cover the sidewalk across the street. One spandrel got caught in the Bnkers trust building and one long section of spandrel went across the corner and hit the glass Winter Garden......
<br/>
<br/>Roger Gloux
<br/>Roger Gloux Maxwell Bridges wheres the steel?....
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 121 -->
<a name="x122"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x122" class="tiny">x122</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">again fail to acknowledge the weaknesses of her work </a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_122" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux-bot, it is true that Dr. Wood compiled evidence. But just like I called you on your fake "playing coy" before, I'll call you on your lame defense of Wood's premise while attacking FGNW, because again you fail to acknowledge the weaknesses of her work that necessitate rational & objective seekers of truth continue beyond. Such a Mossad agent you are.
<br/>
<br/>Exhibit A is your assumption of "fire" and that FGNW would produce such (in great quantities). When you heat water on an electric stove and it evaporates, does it mean there was fire? No. But of course, if you leave that electric burner turned on, various cooking utensils near it can become deformed and even charred without there having been a fire (until maybe the utensil itself reached an ignition temperature.)
<br/>
<br/>Among the evidence collected by Dr. Wood were beams that she called "arches", which is itself an example of her disinformation. Why? Because she should have properly named some of them "sags", because they were volume heated end-to-end as if by a foundry but much faster, thus weakened, and being fixed at the ends sagged under the force of gravity."
<br/>
<br/>FGNW explains the volume heating of steel beams by having been bombarded by highly energetic neutrons from a FGNW, which deposit their energy deep within the entire molecular structure of the steel. (How does Dr. Wood explain it? She doesn't.)
<br/>
<br/>Tying it back to the analogy, really hot beams or even steel that was ablated into tiny iron spheres can be created without a fire or fireball further from the ignition point of the FGNW by those directed highly energetic neutrons. Granted, materials with a lower ignition temperature than the high temperatures reached by the steel in its volume heating (or the iron spheres) could result in a fire, but only if other conditions are met, like sufficient time in contact with the heat source.
<br/>
<br/>Exhibit B is your characterization of "cool dust", because it doesn't tell the full story or even match what Dr. Wood collects in her evidence. Owing to the neutrons of the FGNW also having passed through air not just in the towers but above the towers, the ambient temperature at the WTC rose. The first responders crossing the bridge noted how all of a sudden they crossed into a hotter area.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW explain how residual water in materials (e.g., drywall, concrete) being bombarded with highly energetic neutrons would instantly turn to steam whose expanding volume pressure would break those same materials from the inside and everywhere and "dustify" it. This is what we observe streaming off of ejected wall assemblies. The ratio of surface area to mass of the created dust that was ejected would be cooled by the air through which it traveled.
<br/>
<br/>By the time the dust had traveled from the height of the towers to the street level, it would have had insufficient temperature to ignite things landed upon. To characterize the dust as "cold" or "cool" is incorrect. True, the dust wasn't burning embers as can happen when chemical explosives are deployed.
<br/>
<br/>Exhibit C is your question "where's the steel?" in a photo with just one tiny snippet of a much larger damage area that doesn't happen to show many wall assemblies. Boo-hoo. Look how far away from the tower shell the picture was. How much steel can't be seen because it is covered in dust and rubble?
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 122 -->
<a name="x123"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x123" class="tiny">x123</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_123');">trying to figure out what you are saying</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_123" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I wont comment on your silly name calling meant to demean me. Kinda like Fetzer does.
<br/>
<br/>On your A. point I acknowledge electricity is used to heat water and we don't see fire. You also don't see fire when a crowd dispersal round antenna is directed at people either but they do feel very uncomfortable and move away very quickly.
<br/>
<br/>We are not talking about a hot plate that takes electricity, we are discussing your perception of NW that have to receive heat in order to make it work..What is this heat source?
<br/>
<br/>And what temperature are we talking about.
<br/>
<br/>You stated before, every sixth to 12 floors there were NW's used to destroy each floor in 1/10th of a sec.. Does that mean each of these floors had a different source to cause detonation?
<br/>
<br/>And so low you can't see the fire of these detonations?
<br/>
<br/>I'm trying to figure out what you are saying because when you see big chunks of outside walls falling, they are turning to dust and don't reach the ground. Nothing was attached to them, but we all see them turn to dust.
<br/>
<br/>The same with the heavy steel girders that protrude above the destruction and nothing is attached to them, but these just turn to dust. If your going to say the NW's did it, how exactly do they accomplish that?
<br/>
<br/>You said..... " like sufficient time in contact with the heat source. "
<br/>
<br/>Well the whole Tower turned to dust in 9-10 seconds or 1/10th of a second per floor. And this happened from the top down and hardly anything hit the ground except lots of dust. So this means something cooked the NW's sufficiently at precisely 1/10th of a second in sequence. What triggered the heat to cook the NW"s?
<br/>
<br/>will go to B. next.
<br/>
<br/>+++ g
</p>
</div><!-- section 123 -->
<a name="x124"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x124" class="tiny">x124</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">Neither "Mossad" nor "bot" has belittling effect</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_124" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gloux, you wrote that you "wont comment on your silly name calling meant to demean me. Kinda like Fetzer does."
<br/>
<br/>There you go again, spinning disinformation and making dubious associations.
<br/>
<br/>(a) "Mossad" and "bot" are proven character traits for you, not "silly names."
<br/>
<br/>(b) Words like "idiot" and "fool" would be meant to demean you, and aren't used by me. Neither "Mossad" nor "bot" has belittling effect, given the skills and persistence that the connotation of each brings to the table.
<br/>
<br/>(c)_ Dr. Fetzer does use belittling language meant to demean. But as is proven, my language wasn't, so I'm ~not~ "kinda like Fetzer."
<br/>
<br/>(d) Kudos, because your bot-ish, database-limited, repetitive responses makes it understandable why a participant might be inspired to be "kinda like Fetzer" in how they deal with you.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "You also don't see fire when a crowd dispersal round antenna is directed at people either but they do feel very uncomfortable and move away very quickly."
<br/>
<br/>Regarding my POINT A.
<br/>
<br/>I blame myself for your confused rebuttal, because I probably didn't make myself clear in the analogy chosen owing to too many assumptions in my audience's intelligence. So this gives me the opportunity to explain it again using different words.
<br/>
<br/>I speculate that if wall assemblies (or other ejected steel building components) were grazed by the cone of emitted highly energetic neutrons from FGNW passing right through the steel's molecules, energy deposited to the volume of the material would cause it get very hot.
<br/>
<br/>The ejected steel that was subjected to such FGNW targeting would potentially burn off what might be attached to them. Anything such as concrete dust coming to rest on these heated pieces in the aftermath would eventually smolder.
<br/>
<br/>The "steel doobies" (or Dr. Wood's "rolled up carpets") already prove the spandrels connecting the three hollow box columns of the wall assemblies got so hot, they became pliable and allowed the assembly "to be rolled together" after separation from the tower and before (in one case) stabbing itself into the ground next to an adjacent building on Libery Street.
<br/>
<br/>Your rebuttal contained a description of a DEW crowd disperal antenna and its ability to make people move as if on fire, but with no actual fire. Bravo. You should research both the wavelengths used in such feats, the relative amplitude of the output, and the energy consumption at the source. Why?
<br/>
<br/>Because the wavelengths are not all equal in terms of ease of transmission through the atmosphere, through building structure, or transmission of energy for the destruction of a target. When the spectrum is explored for sweet-spots, those devices would still line of sight progressively bore through what they aim at.
<br/>
<br/>Contrast the above DEW with FGNW that expell highly energetic neutrons as the DEW. The neutrons pass instantly through all material placed in front of them, rather than progressively boring through.
<br/>
<br/>Consider the videos of the upper block of stories seemingly accordioning in on itself. Based on its acceleration, the structure of the upper block on all levels ~instantly~ lost minimum 65% of its original strength. FGNW's expelled highly energetic neutrons can do this. Woodsian DEW at other wavelengths cannot achieve such an instant on all floors effect.
<br/>
<br/>Further analysis of Woodsian DEW, if a "super-duper set of harmonic destructive wavelengths" could theoretically exhibit certain anomalous features observed in the WTC destruction or aftermath, how does Hutchinson's research scale to the levels required for the observed destruction output? Is it instant or does it require time for harmonic resonance to build? More importantly, how much input energy would this require and what would its energy source be?
<br/>
<br/>[Disinformation element in Dr. Wood's work] The math isn't performed to estimate the input energy required for the observed output. Supposition and destraction are made into cold fusion, barely out of its infancy today, followed by the minimum plausible amount of superficial nuclear research.
<br/>
<br/>The analysis of the USGS dust samples proves that fission happened, while the song-and-dance tritium report was needed to cover for the tritium evidence, a feature of nearly all FGNW. When considering nuclear means as an input energy source, it is much easier to expell highly energetic neutrons (FGNW) in a DEW fashion than it is to generate a "super-duper set of harmonic destructive wavelengths" at sufficient amplitude (DEW).
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Gloux, your DEW research seems to be limited to Dr. Wood's efforts. A trip to your local institution of higher education to get a library card and online access would serve you well, if you were a real person. My raw research into DEW would give any earnest seeker of Truth a leg up and headstart on their own edification into the matter.
<br/>
<br/>Your Mossad agenda prevented you from objective review of its details. Why? Because further research proves that Woodsian DEW can't be easily powered and wouldn't necessarily produce the observed destruction.
<br/>
<br/>I've speculated before that 6 to 12 FGNW per tower. A tiny fission trigger causes a fusion reaction, but 80% of the energy & total yield is highly energetic neutrons that pass instantly through all material in the path of its output cone. (Neutrons passing through material doesn't mean the material isn't affected.) Devices were subkiloton total yield before considering 20% is in a localized heat wave, shock wave, and EMP, and somewhat mitigated by ignition within the structure and aimed upwards.
<br/>
<br/>Depending on how they were targeted, various building components were able to absorb energy and radiate it as heat for a time in the pile. However, I speculate that all FGNW reached their full yield, and were left nuclear fizzling in the pile (supported by Dr. Cahill's air testing that proved "continual regeneration of particles".)
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Gloux, you wrote: "... when you see big chunks of outside walls falling, they are turning to dust and don't reach the ground. Nothing was attached to them, but we all see them turn to dust."
<br/>
<br/>This is a wrong characterization of the destruction, or spin. The big chunks of outside walls were not turning to dust as they fell. No. The highly energetic neutrons that passed through the materials left behind energy in the entire volume of steel targeted, causing the metal to radiate heat sufficient "smolder/smoke/steam" off material affix to it, like paint, asbestos, drywall... and is seen as smoke & dust trailing the falling wall assemblies. The possiblity exists that the metal surfaces facing the oncoming cone of highly energetic neutrons experienced ablation, such as the leading surface edge turning to vapor, and would therefore also have this in the mix of smoke and dust getting cooked off of the metal.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 124 -->
<a name="x125"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x125" class="tiny">x125</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_125');">Do you speak at anytime, the Mossad in nice terms?</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_125" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges you make me laugh Big Max. You sound like a Politician using exquisite english to baffle the audience and in the end, a person says, "What did he say?".
<br/>
<br/>You said.... " Words like "idiot" and "fool" would be meant to demean you,"
<br/>
<br/>Is this a joke?
<br/>
<br/>What do you think of anyone living in Israel that speaks Aramaic? Do you speak at anytime, the Mossad in nice terms?
<br/>
<br/>When you call me a Mossad agent--- bot, is that a compliment or is it meant as something in the derogatory realm in your eyes? I've never been to Israel and don't want to go there because of all the wars surrounding the Country, and not forgetting the Palestinians who go around stabbing or running people down in their cars with intent to kill.
<br/>
<br/>You are totally ignorant (lacking facts) as to who the Palestinians are and where they came from. The Hamas Leader say the Gazans are Egyptians. With all the money extracted from Countries around the world, why don't they build infra structure with that money rather then purchase rockets to send into Israel to kill anyone in that Country?
<br/>
<br/>For some strange reason you are sour and attack verbally anything to do with Israel. You blame Israel for everything as if they can control what goes on in the World. Your a very strange man.
<br/>
<br/>The fact you are so against Israel and then call me a Mossad is meant to demean me.
<br/>
<br/>Let me ask you a simple question, why do you think people call "that Land" as Israel?
<br/>
<br/>Not only that, you never tried to trace the "steps" as to where "Ancient Israel" went because of being displaced by a foreign ruler. They didn't disappear.
<br/>
<br/>You have no idea what "Zion" means but in your eyes that is a derogatory word so call others as a "Zionist" to demean them.
<br/>
<br/>On top of that, you don't know what "Jew" means and have no idea who they are. But your a self proclaimed expert and anyone that goes against what you "think" in your mind, is an agent for Mossad.
<br/>
<br/>So getting back to the topic of what went on on 9/11, you figure "Jews" got into the whole complex of seven Buildings and destroyed them with FGNW or "nukes" for short, to further their aim to Control the World. And pulled an "oops" by leaving a delivery truck under Liberty street that exploded by who knows what means, FGNW. Youve never seen FGNW and have no idea as to what they can do and and never handled them but your absolutely convinced this is how the Whole Complex was destroyed.... and Silverstein was the culprit.
<br/>
<br/>Obviously Silverstein is complicit with Cheney, Rumsfeld and "dubbya" and gang. Just like the Mafia has a leader and all their henchmen behind the scene.
<br/>
<br/>As for the chunks of steel falling, there was nothing attached to them, but they did turn to dust.Your explanation doesn't make sense. It's a lot of fancy jargon coming from a guy who never saw, used, or demonstrated with this supposed scenario.
<br/>
<br/>But a eccentric John Hutchison shows how a piece of iron turns and twists totally deformed without any heat whatsoever....
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnBdhsXl088">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnBdhsXl088</a>
<br/>
<br/>Now you don't have any thing to show your concept in any form, with material that is so rare and hard to get, and only the lead scientists and Leaders of a country have access to. And supposedly hauled over bridges through downtown New York with a substance that would be highly radioactive and placed in seven buildings while occupied without anyone knowing. You don't make sense.
<br/>Delete or hide this
<br/>
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>The Hutchison Effect - Iron Bar Warping and Fuming from…
<br/>
<br/>Sam Haschets
<br/>Sam Haschets Roger Gloux not to interrupt - but is it your claim that all the steel turned to dust
<br/>
<br/>"As for the chunks of steel falling, there was nothing attached to them, but they did turn to dust"
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 125 -->
<a name="x126"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x126" class="tiny">x126</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">three prongs to the disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_126" style="display: block;">
<p>Sure, Mr. Sam Haschets, by all means interrupt. The thing about our Mossad-bot Mr. Gloux is that he was given Dr. Wood's work to defend, and that is all he has. His bot algorithms won't let him analyze and critique work that isn't Dr. Wood or isn't in his database of acceptable answers that have been aimed at 9/11 Truthers still hung up on the Nano-Thermite, so aren't even applicable to FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>I've noticed three prongs to the disinformation about the extent of building content, and in particular steel, turning to dust.
<br/>
<br/>(1) The video that from one perspective of the spire showed suddenly buffs of dust to obscure the movement of spire downwards out of frame. Woodsian adherents do not reference other view points of the same expiring spire that more clearly show the steel spire telescoping and falling quickly through the lighter lingering dust clouds.
<br/>
<br/>Begs the question what created this sudden dust event? I speculate that the spire was used as a controlled mounting location for FGNW that were not within the destructive output cones of energy. Because of this, building construction material close to the spire was also spared. When the final cleanup FGNW from below completed the job, its energy beam affected first materials with water content (e.g., drywall, concrete) turning them into dust that lingered in the air, while base support steel failed cause the above to drop through the dust cloud.
<br/>
<br/>(2) Lots of images show large wall assemblies falling while trailing smoke, dust, steam. The FGNW premise suggest that wall assemblies grazed by the cone of highly energetic neutrons would absorb energy and become sufficiently hot to be able to cook off anything attached to them (e.g., paint, asbestos, drywall, concrete). Some form of ablation of the actual steel could have happened that also would have been part of the dark gray matter seen billowing off the falling wall chunks.
<br/>
<br/>(3) Woodsian followers are prone to saying "steel was dustified" without quantifying the amount and while skewing select images that from the angle (or the amount of rubble and dust that covered the ground and heavier pieces of metal) suggest that there wasn't enough steel. Wall assemblies are seen falling and were well represented in the debris piles, which tends to mess with the Woodsian brain-dead arguments of "steel dustification."
<br/>
<br/>If the Woodsian followers were sincere, they'd admit that DEW means "targeting of the energy" such that it missed the spire or only grazed the wall assemblies, but completely ablated the steel pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors and dustified the concrete, because these were within the targeted output cone.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 126 -->
<a name="x127"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x127" class="tiny">x127</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_127');">three prongs to the disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2018-12-28</p>
<div id="sect_127" style="display: block;">
<p>Part 1/2 Dear Mr. Gloux, you wrote poorly: "What do you think of anyone living in Israel that speaks Aramaic? Do you speak at anytime, the Mossad in nice terms?"
<br/>
<br/>Two questions that only a Mossad agent would think to bring up, as if it had any relevance. Aramaic speaking Israelis I give about as much thought to as a speaker of one dialect of the 230 languages spoken in Cameroon.
<br/>
<br/>I speak nicely of Mossad in the same frequency that I speak fondly of the FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, and the Pentagon, and my praise of them individually or combined has a huge wavelength. Only a Mossad agent would try to spin the discussion into thinking of Mossad in nice terms, instead of realistic terms of how they destabalize their region and the planet.
<br/>
<br/>You asked: "When you call me a Mossad agent--- bot, is that a compliment or is it meant as something in the derogatory realm in your eyes?"
<br/>
<br/>From my years of interactions with you, "Mossad-bot" becomes a valid character assessment of you. Like the disinformation warrior that you are, you try to parry into "snowflake territory" by assuming it has a negative bias, when it simply is what it is: an assessment of your activities. You'd rather talk about feelings than address the specifics in your comments that would give a reader that impression.
<br/>
<br/>Tirelessly like a bot, you steadfastly adhere to Woodsian premises, cycle through lame arguments (some not even relevant to FGNW DEW), and refuse to acknowledge Woodsian deficiencies (e.g., lots of dangling innuendo, no connecting of dots, no conclusions, poor nuclear research). Were you sincere and not enamoured with carrying out Mossad disinformation campaigns, exposed Woodsian deficits would have had you objectively considering variations that build on DEW, like FGNW. In trying to wrap my head around why you aren't an FGNW ally & promoter by now, "Mossad-bot" is what comes to mind.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "I've never been to Israel and don't want to go there because of all the wars surrounding the Country, and not forgetting the Palestinians who go around stabbing or running people down in their cars with intent to kill."
<br/>
<br/>I'll accept at face value your claim of never visiting Israel. The question becomes: Why do you defend Israel so? Your reasoning is that Israel is a victim surrounded by other violent nations, and those bad, bad Palestinian. Yet, the badness that Israel inflicts on the Palestianians and the invasion into its territories? Oh, your pro-Mossad blinders won't let you see that or that such slows the frequency even more of nice things said about Mossad from unbiased outsiders.
<br/>
<br/>If it's true -- and I have no reason to doubt -- that you've never been to Israel, you should feel sad. When the Israeli lobby purchases US Congress, they at least sponsor "fact finding" trips to the region (and its beaches and night life). Plenty of money greases the support of Christian Zionists, although they like you may not have gotten an all expense paid trip out of it. Bummer for you. You don't rank.
<br/>
<br/>I will not address your other Mossad-inspired and irrelevant comments. The discussion was about FGNW, not the Palestines. The fact that "Mossad" seems to be a trigger word for your algorithms to re-post lame propaganda from your databases is and has been a sign.
<br/>
<br/>... And man, did your Mossad-bot trigger ever get pulled! I was responding paragraph by paragraph until I got to the database dump and started deleting for them being unworthy of comment.
<br/>
<br/>Until I get to the paragraph where you attempt to think for me: (Mr. Bridges figures)"'Jews' got into the whole complex of seven Buildings and destroyed them with FGNW or 'nukes' for short, to further their aim to Control the World."
<br/>
<br/>*Beebp* *Beebp* Nope! Wrong answer. Wrong tactic, and so lamely repetitive Mr. Gloux-bot.
<br/>
<br/>I never wrote or referenced "Jews", but this is the second or third time you've tried to misquote me in this manner. Why? Because you're trying to set up an anti-semitic charge against me. Again, your bot algorithms are misfiring and posting database entries into the response that aren't relevant.
<br/>
<br/>Regarding 9/11 and your point, American-Israelis and Christian Zionists were involved with the operation, and Israel was a huge beneficiary of the changes shoved into American policies. Under the cover of American war crimes in the region to Israeli enemies (e.g., Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan), Israel conducted its war crimes against Palastinians.
<br/>
<br/>The "oops" pulled by leaving a delivery truck under Liberty Street with a FGNW? That was bat-shit crazy speculation requested by you from me as one possible explanation. As such, you have no basis for mocking it, particularly if you don't have an explanation or potential mechanisms that explain this feature.
<br/>
<br/>// Part 1/2
<br/>
<br/>Part 2/2 You wrote with my edits: "Youve never seen [blank] and have no idea as to what they can do and and never handled them but your absolutely convinced this is how the Whole Complex was destroyed.... and Silverstein was [a] culprit."
<br/>
<br/>I replaced "[blank]" for "FGNW in the above. Why? Because this piece of nonsense in more true when "[blank]" refers to Dr. Wood's non-conclusions that our Mossad-bot defends as an end-station. I replaced "the culprit" with "a culprit," because this is clearly meant as a diversion from considering the involvement of other American-Israelis and Christian Zionists.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote the following hypnotic suggestion that is plain wrong: "As for the chunks of steel falling, there was nothing attached to them, but they did turn to dust."
<br/>
<br/>The chunks of steel falling most assuredly did originally have things attached to them. Aluminum cladding on the outside. On the inside, there would be insulation if not asbestos insulation followed by drywall or other materials that would finish the inside and could be painted to match office decor.
<br/>
<br/>Furthermore, a three-story wall assembly had four connections with the steel trusses that held the steel pans that supported the concrete floors. Some of the larger wall assemblies were dragging chunks of floor with them. As was already mentioned, the concrete was already decimated into particles and would have been trail streaming behind.
<br/>
<br/>The amount of steel wall assemblies (and steel pieces) scattered throughout the WTC and depicted in images all over Dr. Judy Wood's book trashes the assertion that "(steel) did turn to dust." Needs to be quantified as I have done (e.g., trusses, pans), otherwise a valid argument is being promoted dubiously so that it will fail.
<br/>
<br/>So many classic disinformation techniques were deployed by you, only to be exposed and destroyed by me... Ho-hum.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Your explanation doesn't make sense. It's a lot of fancy jargon coming from a guy who never saw, used, or demonstrated with this supposed scenario."
<br/>
<br/>I wager that the Mossad-bot re-purposed the above, and it was originally aimed at his Woodsian premises that have no conclusions, nor any hint of actual mechanisms that deliver such power and can be real-world powered.
<br/>
<br/>How many seconds were required for an "eccentric John Hutchison (to show) how a piece of iron turns and twists totally deformed without any heat whatsoever...."? How much power did it require? Does it scale? And are the deformations produced the same as at the WTC?
<br/>
<br/>Questions posed for the Mossad-bot already, but not addressed.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote finally: "Now you don't have any thing to show your concept in any form, with material that is so rare and hard to get, and only the lead scientists and Leaders of a country have access to. And supposedly hauled over bridges through downtown New York with a substance that would be highly radioactive and placed in seven buildings while occupied without anyone knowing. You don't make sense."
<br/>
<br/>What a wonderful bot-glitch that was! I throw your last sentence -- "You don't make sense. -- back at you. The paragraph represents a two-for-one in negative points against you. One, it exposes that you still haven't read any of my blog postings. Two, it exposes that you still haven't done any of your own nuclear research.
<br/>
<br/>Such deficiencies in your education come to light in the hype and fear and lies you spread with your "substance that would be highly radioactive."
<br/>
<br/>When considering the requirements for the sub-kiloton yields of FGNW, the expulsion of targeted highly energetic neutrons is achieved through fusion that use small amounts of tritium as its source. However in order to reach temperatures for fusion to happen, tiny amounts of Uranium were used in a fission trigger.
<br/>
<br/>My premise? Limited number of devices, and tiny amounts of radioactive material, which in any event can be adequately shielded in lead containment and transported here, there, and everywhere, hauled across bridges, through towns, and even up elevators without others being the wiser (or radiated senseless). Wouldn't surprise me if the radioactive material in the fission trigger wasn't delivered separately after the base FGNW were mounted in the several days bomb-sniffing dogs took vacation prior to the event. Many Hollywood movies that use military advisors for accuracy have already hinted at how real world FGNW would be assembled and enabled.
<br/>
<br/>// Part 2/2
<br/>
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 127 -->
<a name="x128"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x128" class="tiny">x128</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">cock-a-maymie crazy ideas</a></b></p>
<p>2019-02-05</p>
<div id="sect_128" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, you make many valid points in this originally authored comment (as opposed to copy & paste). I loved your phrasing of "cock-a-maymie crazy ideas", but is one of the areas where you're wrong.
<br/>
<br/>I don't generally call people names. When a name or description has become a validated characteristic assessment, that is a different story. I haven't validated that you are Mossad, so I really shouldn't be calling you that just because the trend line from the data points you've sprinkled screams it.
<br/>
<br/>What data points? Your inability to objectively admit the limitations of Dr. Wood's work that necessitate further research and other 9/11 premises. Yes, she's close, but deliberately stopped short and even inserted branching rabbit-holes. This is before shitty research is exposed.
<br/>
<br/>Another data point near and dear to my heart is that when a premise is presented that expands and enhances Dr. Wood's work to the next level, the manner of your avoidance to address specifics coupled with the number of times you copied & pasted inapplicable responses and then the constant circling back to incomplete Woodsian premises... these spell out insincerity and an agenda.
<br/>
<br/>The data point near and dear to your heart is your depth of knowledge of all historical things Jew, Israel, and Zionism with hardly any effort, and scholarly goes above and beyond, and certainly in agreement with what any other internet Zionist-troll might spew out into the ether in defense of Israel.
<br/>
<br/>Ever hear of triagnularization? Made popular by President Clinton, but really has a long history in a manner similar to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I haven't known Ms. Jennie Johnstone very long and find her postings a very mixed bag in terms of my agreement.
<br/>
<br/>Just like you, Mr. Roger Gloux, often come across like an Israeli agent, Ms. Jennie Johnstone often comes across like a Trump-GOP disinfo agent. You two should compare notes, insights into game-plans, "better the devil that you know than the one you don't."
<br/>
<br/>//</p>
</div><!-- section 128 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part4 -->
<hr>
<a name="x129"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part1');">Chapter 5:
FGNW Discussions with Heinz Pommer</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part1" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. Heinz Pommer has done admirable work to finding root causes of 9/11 WTC destruction.
Discovering examples of camera scintillation is a major find for 9/11 Truth,
because it is recorded real-time evidence of radiation at the WTC.</p>
<p>However, Mr. Pommer and I deviate in our premises, because he proposes
singular and underground nuclear devices per tower (like many others who champion 9/11 nuclear.) After a below ground nuclear ignition,
somehow energy goes up the elevator shaft to start destruction at high floors and progressing downwards, without that energy decimating lower floors at the same time or before the higher floors. </p>
<!-- mcb: 20200124 commented out -->
<a name="x130"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x130" class="tiny">x130</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_130');">FGNW Discussion</a></b></p>
<p>2017-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_130" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:33 PM
<br/>subject: FGNW Discussion
<br/>
<br/>Sehr geehter Herrn Pommer,
<br/>
<br/>Als ich heute an Facebook Ihre Videos über 9/11 erfuhr, habe ich mich total gefreut! Ich bin nicht der einzige (conspiracy theorist), der Nuklearewaffen spekulierte!!! Ich bin dabei Ihre Webseite durchzulesen. Ich bin so froh, müsste ich gleich Kontakt mit Ihnen aufklopfen.
<br/>
<br/>Leider ist Deutsch nicht meine Muttersprache. Ich entschüldige mich für die Sprachfehler. Zu wenig Übung. Da ich weiss, Sie Englisch verstehen, wechsele ich den Text. Letzten Jahrhundert war ich fünf Jahr Geschäftlich tätig in Deutschland und Österreich: Redateur für technische Englisch, "technical writer" (und daher finde ich Ihre www.bitplant.de auch sehr interessant.)
<br/>
<br/>Wie dem auch sei, meine Arbeitskollege und ich habe meistens unsere Muttersprache benutzt (Englisch/Deutsch) worin wir uns am besten ausdrücken konnten. Können wir auch hier tun.
<br/>
<br/>Three of my super-powers: (1) persistence, (2) naive & trusting [until given reason not to be], and (3) written discussions.
<br/>
<br/>I've been around the 9/11 block many times and have been duped by more than my share of disinformation owing to super power #2. However, my persistence super-power #1 had me vet information and that information sources; helped me identify disinformation. With regards to 9/11, practically everything has misinformation if not blatant disinformation. The key, I learned, was to identify & rescue the nuggets that are the required foundation of every successful disinformation vehicle. My super power #3 comes from my engineering studies and subsequent career in technical writing. I am a very formidable discussion opponent in online forums.
<br/>
<br/>In fact, such online discussions make up the majority of the content for my blog. I write for posterity, not for the heat of the moment in "battle." I take the high road, and am not deterred by attempts at flame wars. I learned early on never to trust the databases of others to preserve my worthy efforts. Aside from curbing baser instincts in composition, having my own (vanity) blog and website that I maintain OCD style ends up being possibly even a super power #4. I save links and enough quotes from discussions in my re-publishing efforts. Gives me the ability to quickly shut down troll attempts to re-spin carousels; I simply locate the appropriate in my blog "goto" URLs where original discussions transpired.
<br/>
<br/>I wish to call your attention to this article that I wrote:
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>I don't claim it is the end-station on 9/11. And just in watching your video, I might have to modify my views and/or technical details based on your analysis. [Let that be proof that I am a real person, and not a bot or troll. I'm willing to change my opinion based on new information.]
<br/>
<br/>I have been using the holiday period to consolidate & publish my meager FGNW discussions from the year. I've achieved consolidation, but not publication, because I've been distracted by editing, shortening, and updating the above article into a new work: 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case. And now I'm distracted again by writing you -- on the last day of the year.
<br/>
<br/>I won't bore you with more details, because if the above link wasn't enough of a rabbit hole, then the readily available archive links into my re-purposed online discussions are.
<br/>
<br/>Sorry in advance. Not something I recommend reading A-Z; very repetitive; shows how I got to be burned out on 9/11 and jaded.
<br/>
<br/>What I'm not sorry about is how it demonstrates legacy and evolution in thought. Neither are things you will find with disinfo agents and trolls, in part because they are paid to defend an agenda, in part because they don't stand by their words, and in part because they don't write words worthy of preserving. (Too much legacy in an agent is bad, because eventually patterns emerge in their agenda-defending that makes them less than genuine.)
<br/>
<br/>Aside from desiring feedback on the FGNW premise above, I did have feedback for you on the Part 2 video.
<br/>
<br/>You depict your weapon in the basement of the towers, directing its energy upwards. I'm not saying that there wasn't such an FGNW in the basements and maybe caused that geological formation. What I'm saying is that there had to be more than one FGNW placed at various levels in the structure in order to match the video evidence that shows destruction originating in the upper levels.
<br/>
<br/>Fracticide is a big problem with nuclear devices, particularly those emitting neutrons. They can foul neighboring FGNW causing them to fizzle or otherwise not meet their full expected output. [The under rubble hot-spots are an indication of such happening.] But if they are aimed upwards and detonated high in the structure first before lower, their neutron emissions won't knock out FGNW lower in the structure.
<br/>
<br/>Occupational hazard, I've gone on too long already with this email. Apologies.
<br/>
<br/>I do hope that you will review my article and engage me in FGNW discussion.
<br/>
<br/>P.S. My wife is from Argentina and encouraged me many years ago to use an alias. Those with even middling IT skills can discover the "Bruce Wayne" to my "Batman". I never fixed the flaw that allows its discovery, because ultimately I do stand behind my words. It is one thing to discover "Peter Parker" is "Spider-Man", and quite another to expose it to the world.
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
</p>
</div><!-- section 130 -->
<!-- mcb: 20200124 commented out -->
<a name="x131"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x131" class="tiny">x131</a>
Heinz Pommer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_131');">model-test-adaption</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-01</p>
<div id="sect_131" style="display: block;">
<p> <br/>date: Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 9:38 AM
<br/>subject: Re: FGNW Discussion
<br/>
<br/>Happy New Year Mr. Maxwell,
<br/>
<br/>I see we share the same methodology: as the 9/11-lies are dynamic, flexible and adaptive we must not stay focused on a rigid model.
<br/>This is the good scientific approach: model-test-adaption -- model-test-adaption.
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>I consider the physical problems as solved. Please find the up-to-date [corrected] model attached.
<br/>This model includes the real data interference/EMP signal from Chopper 2 during the North Tower's destruction.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=007pcpMihSY&t=1h20m22s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=007pcpMihSY&t=1h20m22s</a>
<br/>
<br/>MY INTERPRETATION:
<br/>
<br/>6 seconds: nuclear process/pressure chamber builds up (= camera blackout)
<br/>3 seconds: cavity remains sealed under high pressure (= camera stable, no interference noise)
<br/>2 seconds: plasma breakthrough at ground level (= camera unstable, first interference wave)
<br/>2 seconds: plasma breakthrough on top (= camera unstable, second interference wave)
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>*************
<br/>
<br/>The second-generation nuke cavity as postulated by Khalzov does not exist. He has been fiercely attacked for this error.
<br/>I fell into the same trap last year, still assuming an impulse response with a nuclear plasma upshot.
<br/>
<br/>A third generation nuclear weapon would account for many additional observed phenomena: *a reflected radiation flash upwards and a delayed eruption*
<br/>This includes the registered interference/EMP signal from Chopper 2.
<br/>
<br/>It also solves the riddle why the ground trembled 10 seconds prior to the North Tower's eruption.
<br/>I had a real headache, trying to figure it out (it is too long for an impulse response).
<br/>
<br/>*************
<br/>
<br/>When it comes to FGNW I would like to recommend caution.
<br/>By postulating their existence you only offer the payed dis-information agents a new point of attack.
<br/>Even when citing Andre Gsponer's work you will be ridiculed: we have no real data about their possiblities in action.
<br/>
<br/>Furthermore, why should the perpertrators care about the duped civilian population and a bit of low-level radioactivity?
<br/>Thousands of people already died of 9/11 cancer, many thousand more are currently dying, tens of thousands need medical care.
<br/>
<br/>With these numbers and the USGS dust sample data (uranium/thorium) I am inclined to believe in a dirty process, not in FGNW technology.
<br/>
<br/>*************
<br/>
<br/>We cannot be sure about the weapon's true design, some minor riddles remain: *the energy pulses in and around the Towers, up to one hour before destruction*
<br/>
<br/>In my video I showed a possible layout of a neutron pulsator, without being too sure. But using/assuming simple, dirty technology.
<br/>
<br/>It does not matter. The head of the snake is the financial system, with privately owned rights to print money. They use their financial power to subjugate the people of the United States and Europe, heavily controlling Russia and China as well. The use of nuclear weapons on 9/11 was a show of force, in my opinion. The paid politicians are following their orders, and we 'The People' live in carefully guarded ignorance by the Powers That Should Not Be.
<br/>
<br/>I recommend humor to face the situation, not all looks black!
<br/>
<br/>Best regards
<br/>Heinz Pommer
<br/>
<br/><!-- mailto:info@bitplant.de
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>bitplant.de GmbH & Co. ATD-Services KG
<br/>Fabrikstr. 15
<br/>D-89520 Heidenheim
<br/>Tel. (+49) 7321 / 660 345
<br/>---
<br/>Handelsregister: Ulm, HRA 661148
<br/>Sitz der Gesellschaft: Heidenheim (Brenz)
<br/>Geschäftsführung: Heinz Pommer -->
</p>
</div><!-- section 131 -->
<a name="x132"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x132" class="tiny">x132</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">potential issues with Dr. Andre Gsponer</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-01</p>
<div id="sect_132" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 12:36 PM
<br/>subject: Re: FGNW Discussion
<br/>
<br/>Sehr geehrte Herrn Pommer,
<br/>
<br/>Alles gutes im neuen Jahr, wünsche ich Ihnen und Ihre Familie! Und vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung!
<br/>
<br/>You are correct to point out potential issues with Dr. Andre Gsponer: mostly that his work is speculative and he doesn't & hasn't designed any nuclear devices. On the other hand, everything in the public domain is speculative and forward looking, otherwise it doesn't get out. By its nature, it has room for disinformation to keep "enemies" in doubt. It can make it appear that certain devices don't exist yet when maybe they do; it can speculate about things that might never come to existence, etc. One constant, however, is that he has enough contacts in the nuclear industry to be able to constantly improve his work, and (to my knowledge) nobody has taken issue with it. In case you missed the link, here's the important one:
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br/>
<br/>I'm sure you'll be able to gather important insight from the above document (PDF available). I certainly did.
<br/>
<br/>Yes, the evidence you present of video static prior to the demolitions is new information for me that has me scratching my head. In many ways, it matches Dr. Wood's speculation about the process starting early and made victims (in WTC-1) jump to their deaths.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
<br/><blockquote><p>When it comes to FGNW I would like to recommend caution.
<br/> By postulating their existence you only offer the payed dis-information agents a new point of attack.
<br/> Even when citing Andre Gsponer's work you will be ridiculed: we have no real data about their possiblities in action.
</p></blockquote>
<p>While it should be true that postulating the existence of FGNW, I offer the paid disinfo agents an attack point. In practice, it does not. Nuclear 9/11 is the topic they are not allowed to talk about, period. They'll mock it, attack me, but they will never go into specifics, quote from one of my sources, and have a reasoned explanation for why it is wrong. Their attack point is limited to Dr. Gsponer only being able to write "speculative forward-looking" FGNW, not about what is current day state-of-the-art & operational.
<br/>
<br/>In fact, this "nuclear discussion avoidance" is so wide-spread inside and outside 9/11 Truther camps that it becomes an anomaly in and of itself. I now know where Dr. Wood errored and is disinformation, but I also know & knew that she was closest to the truth. (If you are ever bored, you should read some of my exchanges with Mr. Rogue or Mr. Ruff on Truth & Shadows.) Every where I went to have a reasoned and rational -- taking the high road, using respectful honorifics, substantiating my views, researching into their sources & discovering errors --, my discussion opponents went to greater and greater efforts not to. It is as if: "To even venture into my (Gsponer) source, validates it." So they don't go into it beyond mockery and flame wars, and they'd just as soon ban me.
<br/>
<br/>I am in exile from my favorite 9/11 discussion group -- Truth and Shadows. It wasn't out of punishment for anything I did. It was because of the anticipated bad behavior of discussion opponents to (infrequent) comments from me that might on occasion relate my FGNW hobby-horse to the topic. I was punished for my bad behaving opponent's "pre-crime". I'm naive enough to think I still have good relations with Mr. McKee. He thinks it is enough to prove controlled demolitions, and discussions into demolition details have become disruptive. He'd rather focus on bringing greater public awareness to 9/11 Truth. A bit short-sighted, because the disruptive comments against nuclear 9/11 are proof of a disinformation effort, and nothing says "Wake up, America!" better than "The USA nuked itself on 9/11 and told you it was gravity." In other words, if he gave FGNW a corner for it to be discussed rationally, moderated it fairly, he'd have the hot-button issue to achieve is greater aims of public awareness, but he could also channel off-topic nuclear side-bar comments on other threads.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>Furthermore, why should the perpertrators care about the duped civilian population and a bit of low-level radioactivity?
<br/> Thousands of people already died of 9/11 cancer, many thousand more are currently dying, tens of thousands need medical care.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The perpetrators are also the ones hyping nuclear fear for decades: "large yields, lots of radiation." Any whiff from the public of any radioactivity would result in mass public panic in the New York area, regardless of low-level or not. Further, such validated whiffs reduce the number of possible perpetrators, and would lead to the figurative additional nuclear fall out in the halls of government, agencies, etc. An angry public could change government, and the status quo profiting from the ruse. Meanwhile, though, they get lots of credit around the leadership of the world for having low-level radiation nuclear devices and a crazy zeal to deploy them on themselves and by extension others, and sufficient media control to convince the masses it was gravity. Power.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>With these numbers and the USGS dust sample data (uranium/thorium) I am inclined to believe in a dirty process, not in FGNW technology.</p></blockquote>
<p>Pure fusion doesn't exist. All FGNW as far as I can tell is fission-triggered.
</p>
<blockquote><p>We cannot be sure about the weapon's true design, some minor riddles remain: *the energy pulses in and around the Towers, up to one hour before destruction*
<br/>
<br/>In my video I showed a possible layout of a neutron pulsator, without being too sure. But using/assuming simple, dirty technology.
</p></blockquote>
<p>I'm still scratching my head about your riddles.
</p>
<blockquote><p>It does not matter. The head of the snake is the financial system, with privately owned rights to print money. They use their financial power to subjugate the people of the United States and Europe, heavily controlling Russia and China as well. The use of nuclear weapons on 9/11 was a show of force, in my opinion. The paid politicians are following their orders, and we 'The People' live in carefully guarded ignorance by the Powers That Should Not Be.</p></blockquote>
<p>Agreed.
<br/>
<br/>Short version. 9/11 goes back 10 years before to President G.H.W.Bush who took borrowed against the gold of various black operations (Black Eagle Fund, Marcos Fund: gold stolen by Nazi's and Japanese, found by Americans, never given back to heirs, and used to fund black ops). What he borrowed, he used to manipulate the Russian markets and put the evil empire against the ropes. That note came due on 9/11/2001. Not only was this forgiven, but SEC records on many ongoing cases were destroyed. When the markets opened, many billions were laundered in the opening days. WTC-4 had gold vaults that were looted in part. And let's not forget the missing $2.3 trillion in defense spending the Pentagon couldn't account for on 9/10. The Office of Naval Investigations -- its agents and records -- were the only ones who moved into the newly renovated Pentagon wing and were the only fatalities. And war profiteering and HSA/TSA followed. A huge money heist and transfer of wealth that even played into the 2007 collapse. (When the markets opened and laundered money and various funds no longer committed, banks found themselves with more money. What do banks do when they have more money? They lend even more, and lent to those who really couldn't afford it, didn't understand changing terms, and got caught holding the bag. Lots of real brick-and-mortar wealth changed hands since 9/11.)
<br/>
<br/>+++++
<br/>
<br/>I have two areas of disagreement that maybe you can convince me otherwise: deployment and number of devices. You show only one device in the base of the tower's structure. Lines of highly energetic neutrons start at the single device and go upwards through the core. Whereas a single detonation might match the video evidence you present, I don't think it matches either the observed event or the expected outcome.
<br/>
<br/>I don't see how a single device in the basement could handle the "20-30 story block" anomalies that were pulverized first and before the collapsed passed below the impact level. Here's a quote from me, because it is relevant (and I am lazy).
<br/>
<br/>When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories [Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower by David Chandler], he calculated that the roof fell at a constant 65% gravitational acceleraton. This means that the 20 story structure SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY went to 35% of its minimum strength needed to support itself. The pulverization is visible in the earliest moments of annihilation.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"What we actually see here, is the falling section of the building turning to dust before our eyes."~David Chandler at 2:30 in video.</p></blockquote>
<p>The expected outcome from your proposed single device in the basement is that the highly energetic neutrons penetrate materials at all levels instantly, ablating thin metal in its path and volume heating bigger pieces to foundry levels for instant weakening. The observed effect (described on the top 20 stories) would not have initiated there, but at all levels; the entire structure would have been failing and turning to dust before our eyes.
<br/>
<br/>I counter and propose that the 20 stories above is one piece of evidence pointing towards multiple devices. There is much evidence of explosions happening before the planes impacted at lower levels. WTC-4 did have a gold heist (vault door decimated, some gold found but loaded in a semi-truck and abandoned in the under ground parking structure.)
<br/>
<br/>The theoretical inventor of the neutron bomb was asked if it could be aimed. He said you could probably get a hemisphere (with the technology of that era). Consider that a worst-case scenario to get tandem nuclear devices to work together and not cause fractricide. The best case is a relatively narrow beam.
<br/>
<br/>The same devices were probably used on WTC-5 and WTC-6, but placed in various corners. Vaporized the roof, because not quite the number of floors to mask the energy, as in the towers. The spire is another clue to multiple devices; device mounting points.
<br/>
<br/>9/11 was multiple events on purpose, so that the details could be conflated and confuse. It is easy to fall into the trap of saying, "if X was used at A, then X was also used at B." I'm guilty of that in the above paragraph.
<br/>
<br/>+++ begin bat-shit crazy speculation
<br/>
<br/>9/11 WTC towers doesn't have to be either-or with regards to your single device or my multiple devices. It could have been both.
<br/>
<br/>It is hard to bring fusion-based devices to ignition, often requiring a fission trigger as you depicted. Under my premise, I've got at least 6 fission reactions per tower, and such reactions are temperamental and can fizzle around highly energetic neutrons from another source.
<br/>
<br/>Is there a way for the output from your device -- once fission triggered on from the basements -- to bring other fusion devices higher in the tower to ignition?
<br/>
<br/>It might only require one upper level device to decimate the upper block of stories and start the momentum of mass downward into the path -- not of greatest resistance but -- of weakened resistance.
<br/>
<br/>Not my beliefs; just a thought.
<br/>
<br/>+++ end bat-shit crazy speculation
<br/>
<br/>Attached is an HTML file with a shorter version of my premise (still DRAFT). Save it locally, then double-click or drag into your browser. It has Javascript to open the sections.
<br/>
<br/>I would appreciate any comments, feedback, and criticism that you might have. If it is okay with you, I would like permission to re-use (with attribution to you) some of your content in my next revision. I'd appreciate any recommendations on passages from your work.
<br/>
<br/>Alles gutes.
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
</p>
</div><!-- section 132 -->
<a name="x133"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x133" class="tiny">x133</a>
Heinz Pommer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_133');">keep things simple</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_133" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:41 AM
<br/>subject: Re: FGNW Discussion
<br/>
<br/>Good morning Mr. Maxwell,
<br/>
<br/>writing technical documentation I have learned to keep things simple.
<br/>When explaining difficult machinery the description's power lies in its simplicity.
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>So I avoided publishing some of my drawings/ geometric studies with multiple nuclear devices (you can use any of my drawings if you like).
<br/>
<br/>I tried to explain the following facts:
<br/>
<br/>- outflow of molten metal (WTC2)
<br/>- yellow "dust" seen at the beginning of the collapse (WTC2)
<br/>- disappearing / dissolving top (WTC2/WTC1)
<br/>- survivors in the lower staircase of WTC1 (the entire team of Mickey Kross)
<br/>- free passing was possible inside the staircase of WTC1 (Pasquale Buzzelli)
<br/>- free passing was possible inside the staircase of WTC1 and strange sounds on floor 34 (William Rodriguez)
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EEvJ-3SLAA&t=29m55s
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>One year ago I was confident that the upshooting plasma could destroy the top, just melting it away, from inside out.
<br/>Well done, in a direct shot: 1 or 2 seconds after the blast with a focused plasma beam.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>The new situation: we have 10 or even 15 seconds delay between the blast signal (tremor) and the observed eruption.
<br/>In these 15 seconds the plasma does loose far too much energy.
<br/>
<br/>On the other hand, the Towers' top WERE SLOWLY weakend beforehand - the outflowing liquid metal of WTC2 shows that clearly.
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Judy Woods said in an interview: "we don't know what it was, we can only guess". This is a pretty good statement.
<br/>
<br/>We risk to ridicule ourselves if we add too many devices: one nuke in the basement, thermate for the connectors, explosives in the elevator shafts, one or several neutron pulsators beforehand...
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>So I will stick to my "single shot" neutron flash / eruption theory, with additional explosives in the elevator shafts and some additional unknown devilry. This is as far as I can go while being honest with myself.
<br/>
<br/>But I think the most important message to the public should be: "expose the lies, reject the wars, do not fear the powerful".
<br/>
<br/>The combination of Truth, Justice and Peace is the most dangerous enemy of the perpetrators.
<br/>They are not in an enviable position, although they have all the power and the money in this world.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Regards
<br/>Heinz Pommer
</p>
</div><!-- section 133 -->
<a name="x134"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x134" class="tiny">x134</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">simplification has to be correct</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-03</p>
<div id="sect_134" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Pommer,
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: <i>"writing technical documentation I have learned to keep things simple. When explaining difficult machinery the description's power lies in its simplicity."</i>
<br/>
<br/>True. But the simplification has to be correct and has to remain valid both extracted from and inserted back into a larger owning system.
<br/>
<br/>The last couple days is the first I learned about the static in the videos. I admit it still puzzles me and causes issue with my premise of multiple FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>I'll come out quickly in agreement with these statements:
<br/></p>
<br/><blockquote><p>But I think the most important message to the public should be: "expose the lies, reject the wars, do not fear the powerful".
<br/>
<br/>The combination of Truth, Justice and Peace is the most dangerous enemy of the perpetrators.
<br/>They are not in an enviable position, although they have all the power and the money in this world.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Judy Woods said in an interview: "we don't know what it was, we can only guess". This is a pretty good statement.</p></blockquote>
<br/><p>
<br/>I wish more Woodsian followers would see that quote when they try to park 9/ll thought. Her work is not an end-station.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
<br/>
<br/></p>
<br/><blockquote><p>We risk to ridicule ourselves if we add too many devices: one nuke in the basement, thermate for the connectors, explosives in the elevator shafts, one or several neutron pulsators beforehand...</p></blockquote>
<br/><p>
<br/>What is the purpose of one or several neutron pulsators in your scenario before over after the nuke in the basement? What sets them apart?
<br/>
<br/>The ridicule risk is a given and the first line of attack of a disinfo agent, regardless of the proposition. So this shouldn't be a gating factor. Whatever number of devices we propose can be tweaked with more analysis.
<br/>
<br/>I am unclear if you are proposing what comes after the colon, or if you are ridiculing it for being too many devices (from my bat-shit crazy speculation). I assume the latter. Being fair, their back-up plans probably had back-up plans. You've posted videos and images documenting multiple explosions, some happening below street level. So I don't know why you hold to only one device.
<br/>
<br/>Section 2-5 of my <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW</a> posting destroy nano-thermite (mixed with any combination of other explosive compounds, like RDX). The only samples having "energetic alumimum-iron flakes" were those samples given to Dr. Jones. He did not attempt to measure for any other type of chemical explosive when he first got them, or a few years later when this deficiency was brought to his attention. The logic was: if Dr. Jones failed to find such (owing to possible degredation over time), they feared OCT would have a hay-day with "no explosives found" marketing to underscore gravity alone. [I think they knew such wasn't there.]
<br/>
<br/>The aluminum-iron flakes in the dust came from the corrosion of the aluminum cladding with the steel wall assemblies. No other outfit measuring elements in the dust found anything "energetic". Were such present in the dust to the degree implied by Dr. Jones et al, (1) what was found in the dust was unspent and represents massive overkill quantities, (2) the dust everwhere would have been an explosive hazard.
<br/>
<br/>+++
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
<br/></p>
<br/><blockquote><p>So I will stick to my "single shot" neutron flash / eruption theory, with additional explosives in the elevator shafts and some additional unknown devilry. This is as far as I can go while being honest with myself.</p></blockquote>
<br/><p>
<br/>For the sake of discussion, let's assume such a "single shot" or "upshooting plasma." The entire structure was weakened all at once. The mass resting above the impact zone was less than the mass supported low in the structure.
<br/>
<br/>So what was special about the top floors that they would disintegrate first? Why wouldn't the larger potential energy imposed on lower levels -- given that the "single shot" weakened everything -- cause them to fail first? Instead of top-down, we'd have seen classic controlled demolition (like at WTC-7) that took out lower sections and let gravity crush everything down.
<br/>
<br/>I apologize for my stubborness and disagreement in this area. As Dr. Wood writes:
<br/></p>
<br/><blockquote><p>"If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don't know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tell the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is tell you."</p></blockquote>
<br/><p>
<br/>Having read her book, I take this to mean: <i>"I (Dr. Wood) was forced to include some bullshit, so don't get distracted by what I write, look at the evidence that I collected instead. Listen to it..."</i> The audio signature is a clue.
<br/>
<br/>If we assume only one device, the evidence suggests it couldn't be at the base. If anything, it was up near the impact point. Think of a Star Wars double-headed light saber.
<br/>
<br/>[Bat-shit crazy speculation]
<br/>Instead of a device pointing only one direction, what if it were pointed two directions: up and down. Maybe a little delay between upward targeting and downward. Maybe an ignition that lasted several seconds, so after decimating the top levels, it starting aiming downwards ~and~ falling downwards. The falling device getting mis-aligned and targeting outside the wall assemblies could explain vehicle damage and whatnot.
<br/>[/Bat-shit crazy speculation]
<br/>
<br/>The point is: I don't think upshooting plasma from a singular basement device could destroy the top and melt it away WITHOUT also doing the same to other levels at the same time and more closely resembling a bottom-up demolition.
<br/>
<br/>I think more rational speculation needs to be made into the number of devices and their placement.
<br/>
<br/>This being said, the destruction of the spire in the last seconds indicates at least one clean-up device.
<br/>
<br/>With kind regards,
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 134 -->
<a name="x135"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x135" class="tiny">x135</a>
Heinz Pommer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_135');">Camera Fails</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-03</p>
<div id="sect_135" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:43 AM
<br/>subject: Camera Fails
<br/>
<br/>Good morning Mr. Maxwell,
<br/>
<br/>as a matter of fact we had surprisingly few camera fails.
<br/>
<br/>Chopper 4 registered only 2 times a sort of strong energy field (neutrons I suspect)
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRK9_Aauhdg&t=5m10s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRK9_Aauhdg&t=5m10s</a>
<br/>
<br/>and
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRK9_Aauhdg&t=6m15s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRK9_Aauhdg&t=6m15s</a>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Chopper 2 registered the energy field with low intensity several times per minutes, here is a strong one:
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=007pcpMihSY&t=18m10s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=007pcpMihSY&t=18m10s</a>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>The full protocol is attached as PDF, but often its only one particle in one frame, its very time consuming.
<br/>I used shotcut Version 17.03.02 (free video editing tool)
<br/>
<br/>Sometimes I thought to see a pattern, sometimes the intereferences are just randomly.
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=007pcpMihSY&t=1h9m31s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=007pcpMihSY&t=1h9m31s</a>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Nonetheless, EMP and interference during the NorthTower's destruction are recorded excellently.
<br/>This is thanks to the fact that the Mico was closed all the time and the chopper 2 pilot did not comment the events.
<br/>
<br/>In case of chopper 2 you hear the rotor blades all the time, in chopper 1 the micro is also open.
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>As for the scintillations on the ground (FOX NEWS & others): there is just this particular position, where the camera team was fully engulfed into the black cloud, running away, filming.
<br/>
<br/>Someone said to me: "it is just the thermate-iron-micro-droplets which cause the malfunction after penetration in the camera system".
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGaiSrxhRhU&t=50">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGaiSrxhRhU&t=50</a>
<br/>
<br/>So I was hunting for these camera fails outside the dustcloud, with modest success.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Regards
<br/>
<br/>Heinz Pommer
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:15 AM
<br/>subject: Backup
<br/>
<br/>Good morning, once again,
<br/>
<br/>currently I am pondering about WTC 7.
<br/>
<br/>You are certainly right about the Backup Plan.
<br/>Also, a professor from Sweden brought my attention to the danger of firing a nuclear weapon near a nuclear weapon.
<br/>Neutron and radiation flux has to die down half an hour or so, until you can control/trigger the next shot.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>On 9/11 three significant seismic shocks were registered (see attached file):
<br/>
<br/>09:59: WTC-2; ML = 2.1
<br/>10:28: WTC-1; ML = 2.3
<br/>11:15: WTC-X ? ; ML = 1.3 (as I calculated it)
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Then the still-false reports about WTC7's collapse did come in, hours too soon.
<br/>The seismic shock at 5:20 pm with ML = 0.6 was insignificant (and with even less energy than the impact/subbasement explosions with ML = 0.7)
<br/>
<br/>This is speculation. But I suspect that WTC7 was behind schedule. Not CNN and BBC got the script wrong. Just the pulse at 11:15 was too weak.
<br/>As Silverstein put it: "we decided to pull" (e.g. the backup option).
<br/>
<br/>I will try to summarize my thoughts in a video clip. The marge of error in the theories is still significant.
<br/>
<br/>All the best
<br/>Heinz Pommer
<!-- <br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>bitplant.de GmbH & Co. ATD-Services KG
<br/>Fabrikstr. 15
<br/>
<br/>D-89520 Heidenheim
<br/>
<br/>Tel. (+49) 7321 / 660 345
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>Handelsregister: Ulm, HRA 661148
<br/>Sitz der Gesellschaft: Heidenheim (Brenz)
<br/>Geschäftsführung: Heinz Pommer
<br/> -->
</p>
</div><!-- section 135 -->
<a name="x136"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x136" class="tiny">x136</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">digesting</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-04</p>
<div id="sect_136" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>date: Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:51 PM
<br/>subject: Re: Camera Fails
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Pommer,
<br/>
<!-- <br/>I haven't completely digested what you've sent me, interrupted by work and kids still on holiday.
<br/> -->
<br/>You wrote "finding surprisingly few camera fails." Do you mean instances where the camera stopped working temporarily? permanently? This doesn't surprise me, because they weren't in the path of the directed energy and wouldn't necessarily be line of sight for EMP either.
<br/>
<br/>You seem to be on target with the interference registered by the helicopter cameras seconds prior to major events.
<br/>
<br/>Too bad you only found one example of scintillation on the ground when the camera was over-run by the dust cloud. But when put together with research of others showing camera side-effects when in the presense of radiation, it is still convincing.
<br/>
<br/>You have much new information that I must assimilate, and will modify my FGNW premise; nuggets of truth always need to acknowledged.
<br/>
<br/>However, you don't have me convinced of Dimitri's K.'s "deep under-ground nuke" that you've performed value-add and put a schematic around. Why?
<br/>
<br/>The images of a "glassy rock" crater -- that OCT says were ancient natural geological features -- are from under WTC-4. The invalid assumptions are that a nuclear device was detonated here and/or that WTC-1 and WTC-2 had similar formations. The thermal images however show only a couple small hot-spots under WTC-4. You can see where 2/3 of WTC-4 was decimated, but (from other images) insufficient debris from WTC-2 to justify its disappearance.
<br/>
<br/>Also, stories were that WTC-4 had a gold vault underneath. Reports are slim, but supposedly vault door was zapped. Gold was found, but loaded in the back of a semi-truck trailer abandoned by driver in the underground parking structure. They didn't report how much gold was expected to have been in the vaults, how much was recovered in the vault and the truck, etc. so we don't know the extent of the heist.
<br/>
<br/>I think the OCT is right in this case about the natural geological features under WTC-4.
<br/>
<br/>Returning to the nuclear chimney (and assuming true your premise), what was special about the 20-30 floors above the impact point that made them react and decimate first from the highly energetic neutrons (or other energy wavelength) ignited from below the towers as given in your schematic? Why would it produce multiple hot-spots? Why would so many be outside of the towers' footprints?
<br/>
<br/>Stubborn that I am, I don't believe that your premise can satisfactorily answer those questions and match the observed destruction. But you present evidence that I must bring into my own thinking. So maybe both our premises need to adapt accordingly.
<br/>
<br/>[speculation]
<br/>A single FGNW, emitting highly energetic neutrons in a cone upwards range of about 20 stories. Imagine that its ignition duration could be pro-longed to, say, 7 seconds. Position this device in the express elevator car at a level near the impact zone. It would first zap the upper stories as observed but then fall (or made to fall). As it fell, it would progressively zap other levels as observed.
<br/>
<br/>Or it could be a pulsed FGNW in an elevator car that fell. Each pulse would be lower in the structure, cadence with the countable boom's of others, but with the sound resulting from decimating shock waves within materials from ablating.
<br/>
<br/>[/speculation]
<br/>
<br/>I'm missing something(s) with my speculation. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
<br/>
<br/>Regarding your second email, I was not aware of the neutron and radiation flux, but this would explain the delay in the two towers and WTC-7. I was aware of fracticide, but thought aiming the neutrons upwards would spare devices lower. These discussions are putting a kabash on any beliefs I had of multiple devices per tower.
<br/>
<br/>Although I'm now coming around to a single device that destroyed each tower, evidence exists of other questionably timed explosions in the basement just prior to plane impacts. They were probably working on that gold heist.
<br/>
<br/>I believe that WTC-2 came down first, because (a) its fires were waning and (b) firemen made it to that level and were discussing the (few) pockets of fires and the number of lines needed to bring them under control. Radios were still working. They had to adjust their plans.
<br/>
<br/>You say WTC-7 was behind schedule? I think WTC-7 was planned to go with WTC-1/WTC-2, but its devices may have been neutron impacted by one of the igniting ones. Fizzled. Took them until later in the afternoon to get Plan B operational. The new script was for 5, but yes, that schedule probably slipped.
<br/>
<br/>Thank you for the correspondence and being a sounding board.
<br/>
<br/>All the best,
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
</p>
</div><!-- section 136 -->
<a name="x137"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x137" class="tiny">x137</a>
Heinz Pommer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_137');">Camera fails 1-5</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-05</p>
<div id="sect_137" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:00 AM
<br/>subject: 1/5: Camera fails
<br/>
<br/>Good morning Mr. Bridges,
<br/>
<br/>I will reply with 5 short E-mails, in order to avoid too lengthy passages.
<br/>
<br/>1. Scintillation on ground level
<br/>
<br/>I name two sources for scintillation. Here is a local short copy (Source was deleted by YouTube):
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aycMAQP1GPs
<br/>
<br/>However, you have to go through this clip frame by frame, the green, blue, violett spots are hardly visible.
<br/>Analysis is attached, taken from: http://911history.de/aaannxyz_ch07_en.html
<br/>
<br/>Regards
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:03 AM
<br/>subject: 2/5: Variety of thermal images
<br/>
<br/>Good morning Mr. Bridges,
<br/>
<br/>be careful with using just a few thermal images (you send me an example). Are we sure that the author published the "hotspots of all three Towers" or are we looking only at the published "hotspots of the Twin Towers"?
<br/>
<br/>The image you sent may be correct for the Twin Towers. But it should at least show SOME activity under Building 7 on september 18.
<br/>I do attach further examples: they leave room for a wide variety for speculation and misinterpretation.
<br/>
<br/>Regards
<br/>
<br/> Heinz Pommer
<br/>date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:06 AM
<br/>subject: 3/5 Fizzle Reactions
<br/>
<br/>Good morning Mr. Bridges,
<br/>
<br/>an atmospheric nuclear recation (fission / fusion) is over within 1 mikrosecond, as the whole device evaporates.
<br/>A fizzle reaction (in french: "long feu") takes several milliseconds and has a much lower energy yield, but in the meantime I doubt that it was used on 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>You can get a long energy output reaction (7 seconds) only by:
<br/>
<br/>1. long fusion: having 1 million degree and 1 million bar and sufficient D/T fuel
<br/>2. secondary radioactive decay: your bomb must contain a shell which (e.g. through neutron activation) produces highly radioactive (thus short lived) isotopes.
<br/>
<br/>Sounds terrible, but in fact if the whole decay is over in 10 seconds in the rockbed there will be no long-lasting contamination.
<br/>
<br/>It is the opposite of a cobald-bomb, which contaminates for decates (same principle, just choosing an element with a long half-life).
<br/>
<br/>Regards
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:12 AM
<br/>subject: 4/5 Kahlezov's 150 kt yield melt Cavity
<br/>
<br/>Good morning Mr. Bridges,
<br/>
<br/>the size of a melt cavity can be calculated easily, according to Wikipedia:
<br/>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_weapons_testing
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>My drawings are to scale. Khalezov clearly over-emphasized and simplyfied the process.
<br/>
<br/>The crazy thing is:
<br/>
<br/>- 150 kt (as proposed by Khalezov) would create a neat 42 m cavity (supposing only the slow energy input, not the blast wave)
<br/>- on the aereal photo we can identify two excavators/machines, laboring a wall which seems to me to be lower that the bathtub's floor (South Tower, upper right)
<br/>- on the aereal photo we can identify also work going on, machinery digging sideways under the North Tower (flattened, in the middle)
<br/>
<br/>I would not exclude that we are looking at the remains of the melt cavity. It might not be perfectly round, but flattened by reflection.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>On the top of the photo you can see Silverstein's Glacier valley encircled in red, still a riddle to me.
<br/>
<br/>Regards
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>date: Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:39 AM
<br/>subject: 5/5 Silverstein's glacier valley
<br/>
<br/>Good morning Mr. Bridges,
<br/>
<br/>the understanding of this valley is crucial to the whole event. It can't be a flip-flop decision, honestly said: I don't know what to do.
<br/>
<br/>Fast neutrons penetrate and even cross a brick wall easily, killing anyone behind it (water [hydrogen] has a high cross section).
<br/>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section
<br/>
<br/>Remark: please note that iron has outstanding scattering values for fast neutrons, but is poor in capturing neutrons (no neutron activation, and mostly stable isotopes anyway).
<br/>
<br/>So, a penetration depth of 10 cm or 20 cm can be easily assumed. But what about 20 m or 50 m (horizontally)?
<br/>Same goes with X-ray radiation. Only some sort of relativistic neutrons could do that. It is unclear to me, I can only guess.
<br/>
<br/>The problem is not so accute with the vertical component, as the 400 m high [hollow] building were not a block as a rock, but scattering leaves much space for radiation to hit later, distributing the energy high up. A micro-machine gun, firing upwards.
<br/>
<br/>I have no problem in accepting a fact [if that was the case] that Silverstein valley was formed 10,000 years ago by glaciers.
<br/>We can't proove it anymore: the rock under Tower 4 was broken up and carried away. A pity for the smooth potholes (a worker wrote).
<br/>
<br/>I call it: suspicious.
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>In short: we should not "skip" the valley - yet
<br/>
<br/>Our questions should be:
<br/>
<br/>- what about the underground communication tunnels?
<br/>- what about the PATH and other subway tunnels?
<br/>
<br/>Curiously enough, the subway runs parallel to Silverstein valley. I find this intriguing, even a possible explanation.
<br/>
<br/>If the South Tower's device and Tower 4 were separated by some brick walls [and very few meters of rock], neutrons could have travelled tens of meters, before depositing their energy under Tower 4.
<br/>
<br/>To quote the worker who said he would miss the beautiful potholes, cited by the NewYork Times:
<br/>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/nyregion/22rocks.html
<br/>
<br/>“I think they should keep it,” he said. “Turn it into an aquarium. Fill it with fish. Do something special — not just another building.”
<br/>
<br/>Regards
</p>
</div><!-- section 137 -->
<a name="x138"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x138" class="tiny">x138</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');">deceit in the documentation</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-05</p>
<div id="sect_138" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Dear Mr. Pommer,
<br/>
<br/>Yes, I apologize if my small number of thermal images gave a misleading impression. I knew you had access to many more.
<br/>
<br/>As an aside, the thermal images illustrates "deceit in the documentation", something we both hate. You rightly point out that one of the images I sent you might have been tweaked for the purposes of only showing the hot-spots of WTC-1 and WTC-2 for some local goal. But then the image is taken out of context and used elsewhere, and presto WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6 and WTC-7 no longer have any hotspots going forward.
<br/>
<br/>The second attachment (image) is one that appears in many reports showing 9/16, 9/18, and 9/23, and represents in my mind (without substantiation) an area of deliberate deceit. Where are the images from 9/11 through 9/16? The image from 9/23 I speculate was from 10/23 and was accidentally (on purpose) mis-labeled in the documentation, oh my. Because even your third attachment (image) shows a greater area of hot-spots for 9/23. And the kicker is, Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood accepted the data unquestioned and unchallenged from that official report.
<br/>
<br/>[rant]
<br/>Maybe because it is our profession, it bothers me when lies are propagated through technical papers.
<br/>
<br/>Were measurements taken promptly, thoroughly, and accurately and repeated in the same manner on other days? Were all measurement dates and data points from those dates included in the report's tables? Did the report discuss correlations listed in the table?
<br/>
<br/>Any casual reader can readily see no discussion on items in the tables. Huge omission. Why would we assume that all measurment dates and data points from all dates were included in the tables and are reliable?
<br/>[/rant]
<br/>
<br/>Discovered an error in your presentation in section "7.2.3 The metal fence radiation barrier". One of the images has 1. Burnt cars in front of the fence, 2. Damaged cars behind the fence. It uses this for unfounded and wrong speculation. The police car 2723 with its trunk up was photographed while still on fire and in another location; I've seen it; never should have been propagated by Dr. Wood into her book and never fixed on her website. Police car 2723 was towed to the bridge. As a logical place to stage getting damaged vehicles out (on a flatbed trailer), many or even all of the other cars at the bridge were towed there (or parked there). Therefore, any speculation that says the energy reached the distance to the bridge must be re-stated, because cars weren't damaged there; the chain link fence did not act as a boundary line.
<br/>
<br/>My original concern was that the rock formation below WTC-4 is being attributed either to a nuclear device on 9/11 or God many centuries ago. Two-thirds of WTC-4 were flattened at a neat line with its north annex and where the hot-spots are in WTC-4 (when rendered).
<br/>
<br/>I did some (basic) research into WTC-4 this morning. Discovered it had a tiny overlap with the area covered by the slurry wall where it could have had deep basements. The other side took advantage of old subway lines.
<br/>
<br/>"But engineers and recovery officials say that large parts of the underground perimeter are undamaged, even though the buildings above them are partly collapsed. One area is below 4 World Trade Center, where more than two decades ago, Swiss Bank built a huge vault and storage area. The vault was reached from the Swiss Bank offices by a private elevator. To reach the vaults, armored trucks would drive through what had once been the tunnels for the Hudson and Manhattan railroad, the predecessor of the PATH system. These tunnels had run as far east as Church Street, but were not needed when the trade center was built and the PATH terminal was set closer to the river."
<br/><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>"Large amounts of gold are stored in vaults in the massive basement below the WTC, and some of this is being transported through the basement this morning. Several weeks later, recovery workers will discover hundreds of ingots in a service tunnel below WTC 5, along with a ten-wheel lorry and some cars (which were, presumably, transporting the gold) (see (Mid-October-mid November 2001)). The lorry and cars had been crushed by falling steel, but no bodies will be reported found with them, so presumably they were abandoned before the first WTC collapse, at 9:59 a.m."
<br/><a href="https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any">https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any</a>
<br/>
<br/>Owing to the vaults and that 9/11 had extensive monetary motivation, I remain doubtful that the rock formation and WTC-4's hot-spots are related. Geological.
<br/>
<br/>Back to the WTC: Positioning a device at 50 m below street level or 25 m below the lowest garage level seems like it would be an involved project not without notice. For the nuclear chimney to be most effective, this work would have to happen below the elevator shafts in order to use elevator shafts. (But I'm waffling.)
<br/>
<br/>Thank you for the information on longer reaction times. In my research I found an interesting book from Kenneth D. Bergeron called <i>"Tritium on Ice: The Dangerous New Alliance of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power"</i> 2002. It documents the lies and deceit to get tritium produced at unsafe facilities in the 1980 through late 1990's. Makes even more sense after President G.W. Bush's actions with regards to nuclear weapons productions. Here's me connecting some dots. Tritium is critical for all FGNW. Although it could be manufactured as a by-product at existing facilities, it was a $$$ boondoggle to put production at an unsafe and unprepared facility. The benefit? Easier for some tritium to go missing and then be used in black ops.
<br/>
<br/>Other take away from the book was "deuterium-tritium pellets". A nuclear reaction (power generation) could be controlled and extended by feeding in nuclear pellets. "In an inertial confinement fusion (ICF) reactor, a tiny solid pellet of fuel—such as deuterium-tritium (D-T)—would be compressed to tremendous density and temperature so that fusion power is produced in the few nanoseconds before the pellet blows apart."
<br/><a href="https://www.britannica.com/technology/fusion-reactor#ref89119">https://www.britannica.com/technology/fusion-reactor#ref89119</a>
<br/>
<br/>So again, I seem to be falling into another speculative rabbit-hole. Sorry. But see if anything is worth rescuing.
<br/>
<br/>From your email 4/5, your first attachment is a device placement 50 m below street level. Is this only Khalezov's theory, or are there enhancements from you?
<br/>
<br/>The energy cone depicted is what I have issue with. First, it is depicted too wide, else how did it avoid hitting the spire? Second, what was installed or special about the top floors that they would be decimate first, when the energetic neutrons would have decimated at the same time all levels between ignition level and roof.
<br/>
<br/>In the 2nd attachment to the email having a picture of the escavation site long into the process, you puts in some red markings. For orientation purposes, the building in the top-left is the U.S. Post Office (right?). The gap just below it on the left was from WTC-7. The scape yard in the lower-left quadrant was WTC-6 (and has an area still smoldering). WTC-1 is towards the center but in the lower-right quadrant (where your half circle smiley is). The ramp into the area crosses over what was WTC-3 and lets out between where WTC-1 and WTC-2 were. Both the WTC-5 and WTC-4 were on the other side of the bathtub wall. WTC-4 you have marked with red. Interesting about WTC-2 marked with a red square is an escavator -- as you said -- digging at a level below the bottom of the bathtub wall. Also, a blue pumper truck is still pouring water on it.
<br/>
<br/>Yes, it seems they did dig pretty deep.
<br/>
<br/>What confuses me now is that I thought WTC-5 and WTC-4 had footprints entirely within the bathtub. Turns out they don't, and didn't appear to go that deep either. WTC-4 had some overlap with the slurry wall, meaning a portion of its basement could have gone as deep as the WTC-2. But that overlap is smaller than the 2/3 of the WTC-4 destroyed.
<br/>
<br/>Here's also something I learned today. WTC-6 also had a CIA office and the secret service. The customs office had vaults in the basement to hold contriband confiscated (including money, drugs, weapons).
<br/>
<br/>"Of particular interest was what he found beneath World Trade Center 6. (Kurt Sonnenfeld) says inside the building he came across a vault that had been cleared of its contents before the planes struck."
<br/><a href="http://www.mintpressnews.com/fema-investigator-claims-world-trade-center-vault-contents-emptied-attack/218111/">http://www.mintpressnews.com/fema-investigator-claims-world-trade-center-vault-contents-emptied-attack/218111/</a>
<br/>
<br/>A FB acquaintance call my attention to this video: Chuck Bowden 9/11 Burn Patterns Fission Bomb
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbVm5S2fbFI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbVm5S2fbFI</a>
<br/>
<br/>+++
<br/>
<br/>Having written all of the above, I just assimulated your information about the fountain effect. Puts me back onto the fence with regards to deep under-ground nukes (as opposed to being against it). Good work, Mr. Pommer.
<br/>
<br/>I'm still troubled why we see the upper 20-30 stories act on themselves first; why weren't other levels affected at the same time? And why were there distinct waves of activity?
<br/>
<br/>Thank you for your correspondence.
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 138 -->
<a name="x139"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x139" class="tiny">x139</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_139');">stimme nicht mit seiner Schlüsse</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://kenfm.de/9-11-das-ground-zero-modell/#comment-152485">2018-10-30</a></p>
<div id="sect_139" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb: This comment was made to <a href="https://kenfm.de/9-11-das-ground-zero-modell">9/11 – Das Ground Zero Modell</a>, which was written by Heinz Pommer.
It was not directed at Mr. Pommer, but was about Mr. Pommer.}</p>
<p>Entschuldigung bitte ich im voraus für den Sprachfehler.
<br/>
<br/>Herr Pommer hat gute Arbeit bei der Sammlungen jeder Einzelheit, die auf ein nuklaerishe 9/11 andeutet, geleistet. Seine Webseite habe ich mich durch gelesen.
<br/>
<br/>Ich stimme nicht mit seiner Schlüsse, nämlich tiefliegende nuklaere Waffen nach oben geziehlt, mit oder ohne eine (neue) heisse Plasma Zuteil.
<br/>
<br/>So etwas stimmt nicht mit Video-Beobactung, wo die Zerstörungen in Blocken oberhalb der Linie der Flugzeugeinbrüche angefängen haben. Wäre es ein einziges Waffen von unten nach oben abgeschossen, hätten wir die Zerstörungen in selben Zeitpunkt auf aller Ebene beobachtet, wenn auch nicht Zerstörung von unten und das oberere Teil fällt rein.
<br/>
<br/>Ein anderes Problem der Theorie von begrabene gezielte nukläre Waffen ist die Verwendung eines "Schein" Beweis. Die uralte geologische Formationen, die die Mitarbeiter unter WTC-4 ausgegraben haben, sind kein Beweis von solche nukläre Waffen, weil WTC-4 ausserhalb der Badewanne lag, einen Kellergewölber für Gold hatte und dessen Nordgebaudeflügel überstanden.
<br/>
<br/>Meiner Meinung nach, mehrere vierte generation nukläre Waffen (Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons = FGNW) wurden vervendet. Gerichtet nach oben. Zurest auf der Linie der Flugzeugeinbrüche eingezundet, dann jede 10 bis 20 Stockwerke in Reifolge. Wurden auf der "Spire" installiert und davon gerichtet.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Andre Gsponer hat nie über 9/11 geschrieben, aber er hat viel über FGNW in den Jahrzehnten vor geschrieben.
<br/>
<br/>Ich habe viel mehr auf English auf meinem Blog geschrieben:
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>Tja, und in bezug auf die Nano-Thermite (NT). Die Tatsache ist, sie wurde nicht überall gefunden. Was gefunden war eine hohe Prozentteil von kleine Eisenkugel, und einige Doktor-titel der 9/11 Wahrheitbewegung behauptet nur NT so etwas erzeugen kann. Falsch. FGNW kann auch diese kleine Eisenkugel erzeugen, und kann viel mehr Beweisstück erklären.
<br/>
<br/>Geschlachte wurde NT in diesem Post.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/> </p>
</div><!-- section 139 -->
<a name="x140"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x140" class="tiny">x140</a>
Heinz Pommer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_140');">plasma jet from below</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-03</p>
<div id="sect_140" style="display: block;">
<p>Hello Mr. Bridges,
<br/>
<br/>thanks for your comments.
<br/>
<br/>Concerning the developing plasma jet from below: I have no technical data to prove my views, its just my estimation.
<br/>My statement is based on the analysis of this picture: <a href="https://jamesperloff.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/elevators-chematic.png">https://jamesperloff.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/elevators-chematic.png</a>
<br/>
<br/>My view is: FGNW = Tower + Rockbed; in short: a 500 m big thing.
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>Precondition:
<br/>1. nuclear fizzle occurred in the [previously upheated] rockbed
<br/>2. full containment of pressure and heat directly below the Tower
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Effects:
<br/>
<br/>1. the small 5 m deep pit in the granite (according to the construction plans) is critical: it's the bottle neck which will release the plasma
<br/>2. the initial upshooting NARROW plasma jet (200 m/s if we take chopper 2's signal) guts out the core entirely, within 2 seconds: eruption on top starts after this
<br/>3. the nozzle (= 5 m deep pit) is widening in these 2 seconds as well: from 4 m to approx. 12 m (4 m = original shaft size; 12 m = memorial pool's pit)
<br/>4. the "blast-effect" (pressure/eruption with full release of energy) occurs due to the self-opening (evaporation) of the nozzle and lasts about 8 additional seconds
<br/>5. as the cavity empties itself, viscous rock fills and seals it: no blast cavity is to be found
<br/>
<br/>Please keep in mind that the new GZM (as published by KenFM) is based on a long-lasting energy input (1 hour approx.).
<br/>As well as the jumpers and deformation of rock structures nearby are explained by this long-lasting energy input.
<br/>
<br/>---
<br/>
<br/>I hope to have answered your questions from my point of view convincingly.
<br/>
<br/>Best regards
<br/>Heinz Pommer</p>
</div><!-- section 140 -->
<a name="x141"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x141" class="tiny">x141</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_141');">a fourth state of matter</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-03</p>
<div id="sect_141" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Pommer,
<br/>
<br/>Thank you for your correspondence regarding your theory of a deep underground nuclear device that sent plasma up the elevator shafts.
<br/>
<br/>Plasma is super-heated material, a fourth state of matter beyond solid, liquid, and gas. What was the original material of the plasma sent up the chimney?
<br/>
<br/>Granite containing the plasma? Hum. Then you write it shoots up and guts out the core. A huge problem, because such would have been observable at all levels, and defies what was observed in the immediate aftermath: (in both towers) significant sections of the inner core that remained standing after the outer-shell and floors fell from around it.
<br/>
<br/>You are making the task of explaining the many examples of 9/11 being nuclear more difficult than it needs to be. You wrote something that might be a key to your beliefs.
<br/>
<br/>"My view is: FGNW = Tower + Rockbed; in short: a 500 m big thing."
<br/>
<br/>Paraphrased, you believe "FGNW = a 500m big thing".
<br/>
<br/>No, no, no, no. Paradigm shift is required! Warning! Warning!
<br/>
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons do ~not~ have to be "big things," and in fact most of them as described by Dr. Andre Gsponer are ~not~ big. Sub-kiloton. More importantly, FGNW can give off 80% of their energy as highly energetic neutrons that deeply penetrate materials. The 20% remaining of its energy is in conventional heat-wave, blast wave, EMP. Aim it upwards, and excess neutrons are sent into air.
<br/>
<br/>If you are aiming the expelled neutrons upwards, but the demolition is more or less top-down, then ignition of upper FGNW won't affect those FGNW below it. One implementation. Another implementation is a pulsing FGNW with a longer energy output and being dropped down the elevator shaft.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
<br/><i>"Please keep in mind that the new GZM (as published by KenFM) is based on a long-lasting energy input (1 hour approx.). As well as the jumpers and deformation of rock structures nearby are explained by this long-lasting energy input."</i>
<br/>
<br/>I fail to see how a deep-underground device and plasma shooting upwards would account for the jumpers. Your premise should have affected everybody in the building (e.g., those going down the stairs, firemen going up), not just those people above the impact point.
<br/>
<br/>I regret that this clarification failed to convince me and lowered its plausibility in my estimation. You should google "Dr. Andre Gsponer" with "FGND". Two of the hits will be:
<br/><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br/><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/44481406">https://www.jstor.org/stable/44481406</a>
<br/>
<br/>Think out of the box, and certainly out of the granite hole.
<br/>
<br/>With kind regards,
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 141 -->
<p>The work of Mr. Heinz Pommer came up briefly in the following discussion.</p>
<a name="x142"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x142" class="tiny">x142</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_142');">engine in this firetruck sits further back</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_142" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/?multi_permalinks=631283050742611">https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/?multi_permalinks=631283050742611</a>
<br/>2019-12-11
<br/>
<br/>Just for clarification, the engine in this firetruck sits further back closer to the front axle. So when Dr. Wood implies that the engine melted based on this picture, she got it wrong and it did not.
<br/>Don't mean to be taking away from this piece of anomalous evidence that still needs an explanation [that I do have: FGNW].
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
EMP slipping out from the towers from multiple FGNW.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 142 -->
<a name="x143"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x143" class="tiny">x143</a>
Petr Lunák : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_143');">9/11: nukleare Kriegsspiele der Oligarchen</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_143" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Petr Lunák
<br/>Petr Lunák The answer is here:
<br/><a href="https://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch07_en.html">https://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch07_en.html</a>
<br/>9/11: nukleare Kriegsspiele der Oligarchen
<br/>911HISTORY.DE
<br/>9/11: nukleare Kriegsspiele der Oligarchen
<br/>9/11: nukleare Kriegsspiele der Oligarchen
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 143 -->
<a name="x144"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x144" class="tiny">x144</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_144');">Studied the work of Mr. Heinz Pommer</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_144" style="display: block;">
<p>
I've studied that work, and disagree. Don't get me wrong; lots of great analysis and collection of evidence. I particularly like camera scintillation which is effectively recordings of real-time radiation.
<br/>However, Mr. Heinz Pommer doubles down on singular nuclear devices per tower, deep-under ground, with the towers becoming a "nuclear chimney." Were this the case, we'd see evidence of such over the entire height of the towering being destroyed, probably all at once. Instead, the real evidence shows the destruction of the block of floors above the crash impact level -- it accordians in on itself -- before the pulverized mass passes through that level. There were distinct levels where one can observe the ignition of something.
<br/>FGNW fits the evidence better.
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html//
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 144 -->
<a name="x145"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x145" class="tiny">x145</a>
Petr Lunák : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_145');">we have no proof that this kind of weapon already exists</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_145" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Petr Lunák
<br/>Petr Lunák Maxwell Bridges thanks for the link, I will look at it.
<br/>Mr. Pommer mentiones briefly FGNW in one oh his lectures in England (it's on youtube). If I remember it correctly, he claims, that we have no proof that this kind of weapon already exists, or something like that.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 145 -->
<a name="x146"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x146" class="tiny">x146</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_146');">Reputable nuclear physicists, peer-reviewed, in a reputable science journal (Cornell University)</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_146" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Petr Lunák, I have communicated via email with Mr. Pommer. I've expressed my doubts about energy (or neutrons) traveling up the elevator shaft, doing the damage starting at the 80th or 90th floor, and then going down WITHOUT it being noted at all of the lower levels at about the same time, if not sooner.
<br/>I was intrigued by the concept of a pulsed emission, and hold that in reserve as an alternative. A pulsed device aimed upwards but dropped down an express elevator shaft...
<br/>At any rate, to Mr. Pommer's comment about "no proof that this kind of weapon already exists": Reputable nuclear physicists, peer-reviewed, in a reputable science journal (Cornell University).
<br/><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br/>Dr. Gsponer was writing about FGNW for a cool decade before 9/11. Haven't read his book, which was in its 5th or so revision by 2000 (if memory serves me), BUT Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood should have. The revisions are indication of improvements, as in what feedback from other scientists might have provided.
<br/>You don't see anyone debunking it. What you do see is lots of people with PhD's in the 9/11 Truth Movement who have ignored it, or any half-assed researched into FGNW.
<br/>I'm in the process of ripping AE9/11Truth and Mr. Wayne Coste "a new one" in their so-called "9/11 nuclear debunking" efforts, because they frame everything as "nuclear blast", which is just so first- thru third-generation nuclear weapons.
<br/>Here's a quote from my blog posting.
<blockquote><p>+++ begin quote
<br/>Many decades ago, various world governments led by the USA took the position to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available, because publishing such could "enable those with bad intentions." Although most nuclear research does not get a public viewing, some of it does, particularly if it is only offering an overview, speculation, and omissions of operational details that would help "arm the enemy terrorist with weapons of mass destruction."
<br/>The public work of Dr. Andre Gsponer met those nuclear publication requirements. Noteworthy is also (A) nothing has been published over many decades to contradict, discredit, or debunk Dr. Gsponer's "speculation" into where nuclear research was headed; (B) Dr. Gsponer continually improved his work over many editions [even prior to 2001], indicating assistance from those in the nuclear field.
<br/>Those who have professions involving nuclear science (or weapons) in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties [involving charges of treason], or they are left out of all of the interesting research. Besides treason charges, many other penalties involving employment or health & well-being of the individual or family members can be leveraged to keep silent the well educated in science.
<br/>"Directed Energy (DE) research and development has been shrouded in a veil of secrecy. There are national security reasons for not revealing certain applications or vulnerabilities. ... Largely shrouded in highly classified environment, directed energy weapons research is conducted by a cadre of closed-mouthed technical wizards."
<br/>"THE E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought", Doug Beason, Ph.D., 2005.
<br/>+++ end quote</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In my research at my institution of higher education (during a period of unemployment when I could follow my hobby-horse), I came across a little book call <i>"Tritium on Ice"</i> by Kenneth D. Bergeron that documented the history and fucked-up politics of how the US went about making sure they could keep their tritium stock piles up, because tritium is instrumental in all modern (FGNW) nuclear weapons.
<br/>"In December 1998, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson announced that the U.S. planned to begin producing tritium for its nuclear weapons in commercial nuclear power plants. This decision overturned a fifty-year policy of keeping civilian and military nuclear production processes separate."
<br/>They chose the most fucked up nuclear power plant with the weakest and worst safety measures, because -- I believe -- this would allow them to "disappear" quantities for off-book purposes.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 146 -->
<a name="x147"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x147" class="tiny">x147</a>
Tobin Barrette : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_147');">Dew</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_147" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Tobin Barrette
<br/>Tobin Barrette Dew
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 147 -->
<a name="x148"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x148" class="tiny">x148</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_148');">FGNW are in the category of DEW</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_148" style="display: block;">
<p>
FGNW are in the category of DEW. //
<br/>
Just so we're clear, the vehicles (like 2723 cop car) were ~not~ damaged at the bridge [as implied by Dr. Wood] but were towed there. I've seen pictures of 2723 while still on fire in the middle of an intersection or so.
<br/>Of course, THAT 2723 was torched anywhere is still anomalous and needs an explanation [which I have], but I've seen too many times where Dr. Wood and her Woodsian DEWers mischaracterize the evidence.
<br/>Here's the deal, fourth generation nuclear weapons [FGNW] change the paradigm about how energy is delivered to the targets. First- through third-generation devices used nuclear blasts (and heat wave) to inflict their damage.
<br/>FGNW, which are already subkiloton yield, release 80% of their energy as targeted highly energetic neutrons which pass right through all material in their path. Only 20% of the yield is in the traditional blast wave, heat wave, and EMP and can be mitigated but not eliminated. Point is, any blast wave is already tactical in yield. [My premise assumes 6-12 FGNW per tower, and also 6-8 in each WTC-6, WTC-4, probably WTC-5. Don't know how many in WTC-7, but could have been there, too.]
<br/>When those highly energetic neutrons pass through material, they leave energy in the form of (high) heat behind. Imagine trapped water molecules in concrete. The level of heat left behind would turn that water instantly into steam whose expanding volume pressure would create micro-fractures. Of course, this happens across the entire length, width, thickness of the portion of the material TARGETED. Concrete gets dustified, and it wouldn't necessarily be loud, because it is not displacing large quantities of air.
<br/>Metals, like the floor pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors and were woefully under-represented in the debris pile? They would ablate. The leading edge vaporizes so quickly, it sends a shockwave into the rest of the material. Accounts for the tiny iron spheres found in high percentage in the dust. Again, shockwave within the material does not translate into a loud sound.
<br/>The wall assemblies were not targeted per se, but were grazed and, in some cases higher up from the ignition point, hit and heated, which gave us wall assemblies ejected as steel doobies and wall assemblies with arcs, and arcs in inner core beams and horse-shoes.
<br/>TORCHED VEHICLES IN THE PARKING LOT AND ALONG WEST BROADWAY? FGNW, as was mentioned, do have EMP. Being inside the steel wall assemblies of the building would mitigate this some, but there were window slits and whatnot.
<br/>I attribute escaping EMP from the structure for the vehicle damage. EMP hitting line-of-sight metal of vehicles would create Eddy currents. Sufficiently large Eddy currents would generate heat that could ignite things on the metal, like paint, seals, plastic handles, etc. Once something on the vehicle was ignited, more of the vehicle could burn.
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
<br/>Dr. Wood collected lots of evidence, but she doesn't power her DEW with anything real-world, did a shitty job of researching nuclear anything, dropped lots of dangling innuendo, connected no dots, drew no conclusions, and by her own admission is not an end station. Still, the very fact that FGNW are in the category of DEW makes her work closer to be correct than NT ever was.
<br/>//</p>
</div><!-- section 148 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part1 -->
<hr>
<a name="x149"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part5');">Chapter 6:
FGNW Discussions with Lawrence Fine</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part5" style="display: block;">
<p>One of the techniques of disinformation is to mis-use a valid nugget of truth.
The large pit that was excavate under WTC-4 is an example. Geologists knew that a strange
formation existed under WTC-4, just not its depth or scope. Many who proposed 9/11 nuclear
devices often referred to this to support deep underground nukes. Unfortunately,
the slurry wall between WTC-1 / WTC-2 and WTC-4 was not affected, so this could not have
been the origination point for nuclear devices that affected the towers. </p>
<p>I lean towards the geological formation under WTC-4 existing long before 9/11.
Were nuclear devices detonated there, effects would have been more readily
apparent at the plaza level. WTC-4 also had gold vault; gold was found loaded
in a trailer in the WTC-4 tunnels; the WTC-6 vaults were emptied prior to 9/11.
Money has already been determined to be a motivating factor behind 9/11: airline PUT options,
money-laundrying when the stock markets re-opened, war profiteering, Homeland Security.
</p>
<p>This chapter is incomplete with regards to my interactions with Mr. Lawrence Fine.
We've had many, fine, smaller exchanges that repeated in different words what I've written
to others on FB. In my eyes at the time, it didn't rise to the level of me bothering
to collect those words so they could be re-purposed here.
</p>
<a name="x150"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x150" class="tiny">x150</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_150');">primary mechanisms of destruction</a></b></p>
<p>2018-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_150" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2033060456916294&id=100006370783810&comment_id=2033290596893280¬if_id=1520006879786134¬if_t=comment_mention&ref=notif">2018-03-02</a>
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Dan Gallagher, Explosives may have been involved, but they weren't the primary mechanisms of destruction. Occam Razor nixes the logistics which amounts to such overkill amounts that not only would they pulverize everything but would have such unspent quantities as to maintain hot-spots for months. Too hard to implement in the scant few days bomb sniffing dogs took holiday before 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>No. Turns out, the evidence for 9/11 having nuclear components slips out everywhere: from the USGS reports on dust, to the evidence of intense heat, to the duration of hot-spots, to the tight security, to the radiation decontamination efforts, to the carting away of evidence without analysis, to the first responder health ailments....
<br/>
<br/>Who planted the seed that is ~WASN'T~ nuclear devices? Nuclear physics professor Steven Jones who accepted unchallenged and unquestioned several stilted government reports, malframed nuclear devices, and didn't even mention Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices. To fill the void, he says the aluminum-iron flakes in the dust for a result of a nano-thermite (NT) reaction (instead of being from the aluminum cladding on the towers corroding with the steel wall assemblies that made the towers white elephants in addition to the asbestos.) When pressed to explain the brisance of the destruction, Dr. Jones said it was mixed with something like RDX that he didn't even test his dust samples for and weren't in the USGS reports. When NT was speculated to have causes several abnormal spikes in the debris pile, Dr. Jones admits "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." Of course, he did not speculation into what that was.
<br/>
<br/>No sense distracting the conversation here. You can either go to my wall or my blog (below) if you disagree or think I'm wrong. But I'll warn you that I've been around the 9/11 block ~many~ times and matched this FGNW hobby-horse of mine against the best paid trolls the government can fund, and they've never succeeded in discrediting my sources or concluding premise.
<br/>
<br/>The prima facie case is made for FGNW below.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 150 -->
<a name="x151"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x151" class="tiny">x151</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_151');">9/11 synthesis</a></b></p>
<p>2018-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_151" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>
<br/><b>Lawrence Fine</b> Maxwell Bridges <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/911-synthesis/the-pit/663396007092439/">https://www.facebook.com/notes/911-synthesis/the-pit/663396007092439/</a>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 151 -->
<a name="x152"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x152" class="tiny">x152</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_152');">researched the formations</a></b></p>
<p>2018-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_152" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, I researched those formations. The two options were (1) they came from one of the 9/11 nuclear events, and (2) the geological formations came from God billions of years ago. I conclude #2. Here's why.
<br/>
<br/>The geological formations are under WTC-4, not under the towers. WTC-4 sat partway over the bathtub and partway not. These formations were outside the bathtub that was more or less in tact in that area. So the disinfo campaigns to attribute these formations to either of the nuclear events from towers (or WTC-7) is bunk.
<br/>
<br/>The WTC-4 hot-spots were small and don't match the geological formation.
<br/>
<br/>Final piece of evidence. WTC-4 had gold vaults in its basements (that weren't basement levels inside the bathtub.) They were accessed via old and unused subway tunnels. Some gold from those vaults was recovered -- loaded into a 18 wheel semi and had no bodies. They don't say how much gold was recovered from the actual WTC-4 vault.
<br/>
<br/>9/11 was about money. It involved clearing old debt (from Bush senior); clearing SEC cases, $2.3 trillion in unaccounted for pentagon purchases, put options, laundering money when the markets opened, war profiteering, oil & natural gas reserves, etc. as well as heists from the vaults under WTC-4 and WTC-6. (WTC-6 customs house where they stored confiscated drugs, weapons, money, were completely cleared out.)
<br/>
<br/>Because 9/11 is certainly about money and reshaping the world, the gold vaults under WTC-4 were critical. Even if they don't tell us how much gold they recovered from the vault, they did access the vault.
<br/>
<br/>Thus, there was no major nuclear event happening below WTC-4 that created "the pit," because that would have been throwing away money.
<br/>
<br/>P.S. I discuss this in section 17. Controlling the Opposition of my work.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 152 -->
<a name="x153"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x153" class="tiny">x153</a>
Lawrence Fine : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_153');">whatever HIGHLY ENERGETIC event</a></b></p>
<p>2018-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_153" style="display: block;">
<p><br/><b>Lawrence Fine</b> Maxwell Bridges -what leads you to believe the money was there at the time or that whatever HIGHLY ENERGETIC event created this formation had any purpose other than the perps letting us know what they are capable of doing? This event (possibly SINGULAR) probably occurred BEFORE the first aircraft struck
<br/>
<br/> <a href="https://www.globalresearch.ca/eye-witness-testimony-is-conclusive-that-north-tower-collapsed-from-controlled-demolition/761">https://www.globalresearch.ca/eye-witness-testimony-is-conclusive-that-north-tower-collapsed-from-controlled-demolition/761</a>
<br/>
<br/>Now, are YOU for "real truth" or are you dis or mis info?
</p>
</div><!-- section 153 -->
<a name="x154"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x154" class="tiny">x154</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_154');">deep underground nukes is part of the disinformation campaign</a></b></p>
<p>2018-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_154" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Lawrence Fine, your "The PIT" posting doesn't allow comments. However, my FB posting does, as well as my blog.
<br/>
<br/>You are welcome to go to my page or my blog to discuss this further, so we don't distract from the discussion.
<br/>
<br/>Got your response before this was posted. You asked: "what leads you to believe the money was there at the time...?"
<br/>
<br/>FEMA photographer states that WTC-6 vaults were empty when they got there, signifying huge foreknowledge. (So this is to your point.)
<br/>
<br/>Against your point, as for WTC-4, we know it had gold because we have evidence of the 18 wheel semi having been loaded with it and was caught in the tunnels, but abandoned by driver (e.g., no bodies).
<br/>
<br/>Nice pictures of geological formations, but none of them have anything to do with either tower. Too far away. These are under WTC-4. Look at the handy maps that Dr. Wood provides in and with her book and you'll see.
<br/>
<br/>Associating these geological formations with deep underground nukes is part of the disinformation campaign from the ex-Russian agent Dimitri.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 154 -->
<a name="x155"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x155" class="tiny">x155</a>
Maxwell Bridges, Lawrence Fine, Dan Gallagher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_155');">geological formation under WTC-4</a></b></p>
<p>2018-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_155" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> "But engineers and recovery officials say that large parts of the underground perimeter are undamaged, even though the buildings above them are partly collapsed. One area is below 4 World Trade Center, where more than two decades ago, Swiss Bank built a huge vault and storage area. The vault was reached from the Swiss Bank offices by a private elevator. To reach the vaults, armored trucks would drive through what had once been the tunnels for the Hudson and Manhattan railroad, the predecessor of the PATH system. These tunnels had run as far east as Church Street, but were not needed when the trade center was built and the PATH terminal was set closer to the river."
<br/><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html</a>
<br/>
<br/><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> "Large amounts of gold are stored in vaults in the massive basement below the WTC, and some of this is being transported through the basement this morning. Several weeks later, recovery workers will discover hundreds of ingots in a service tunnel below WTC 5, along with a ten-wheel lorry and some cars (which were, presumably, transporting the gold) (see (Mid-October-mid November 2001)). The lorry and cars had been crushed by falling steel, but no bodies will be reported found with them, so presumably they were abandoned before the first WTC collapse, at 9:59 a.m."
<br/><a href="https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any">https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any</a>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/><b>Lawrence Fine</b> Maxwell Bridges -Good discussion although I have no confidence in JWs' research and analysis. I'm a full supporting subscriber to the work Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are sharing. Given my "knowledge", my familiarity with geology and what happens when an extremely energetic event occurs UNDERGROUND. The only type of event that I'm familiar with leave a signature very much like the pictures posted.
<br/>
<br/><b>Dan Gallagher</b> Maxwell I don’t recall the presence of aluminum flakes in the dust. I do recall the presence of an abundance of iron spheres which result from super heating steel with nano-thermite as well as red paint like chips which actually are nano-thermite as has been shown from analysis.
<br/>
<br/><b>Dan Gallagher</b> https://www.benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
<br/>
<br/><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Dear Mr. Dan Gallagher, NT isn't the only mechanism that can super heat steel. The question you need to ask, how much would be required to achieve that effect, the pulverization of concrete, and the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. It becomes Occam Razor obscenely unreasonable and a stupid massive logistics challenge that could easily be solved by the missing $2.3 trillion in DoD spending and reaching into the deep and classified nuclear arsenals.
<br/>
<br/>Fourth generation nuclear weapons. Read about them at my blog. Look up Dr. Andre Gsponer. Ask yourself why neither Dr. Jones nor Dr. Wood did, although Dr. Gsponer had research into FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11. Peer-reviewed. Enhanced over time with new information.
<br/>
<br/>There was no nano-thermite in the dust. Period. Read the reports carefully, they say there were tiny iron spheres, and the red paint like chips, which were aluminum corroded with iron. Nothing energetic. Dr. Jones speculates how they could have been used, and got caught in this misuse, so had to say RDX was involved, which makes accounting for the duration of hot-spots even worse.
<br/>
<br/>Nobody who champions NT has ever explained how the arches, horseshoes, and steel-doobies were created.
<br/>
<br/>In an earlier version of my FGNW premise, I thoroughly debunk NT in sections 2-5.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 155 -->
<a name="x156"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x156" class="tiny">x156</a>
Lawrence Fine, Dan Gallagher, Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_156');">Belief is not evidence.</a></b></p>
<p>2018-03-02</p>
<div id="sect_156" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>
<br/><b>Lawrence Fine</b> Belief is not evidence.
<br/>
<br/><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Dear Mr. Dan Gallagher, the abstract of the report you posted already gives chain-of-custody issues. They didn't test those dust samples for RDX or anything else explosive. When this was to the attention of Dr. Jones and A&E9/11Truth several years later, first response was they didn't have the capacity to test for such (wrong); second response was that maybe the shelf-life for detecting such expired, so if we come up with null results, the OCTer and gravity-only believers will have a field day.
<br/>
<br/>The USGS dust samples were much more comprehensive. Listed in their tables are precisely the finger prints and nuclear decay fingerprints of 9/11 having nuclear components, but beyond the tables, no explanation is given.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/><b>Dan Gallagher</b> They actually applied heat to he nano chips and they exploded with the energy signature of nano thermite.
<br/>
<br/><b>Dan Gallagher</b> Maxwell, you propose 4th gen nukes but refute 2nd gen nano thermite. I wonder why. The scientists refer to it as super NT due to the energy signature. As far as application goes who knows if bomb dogs would alert to it? It was apparently painted onto the steel.
<br/>
<br/><b>Lawrence Fine</b> Dan Gallagher - I'm familiar with this research which is ongoing. Mark Basile will, hopefully continue with his project which should add to the arsenal of the honest truth community. The current analysis "spectrum" and the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE which includes the red gray chips which were examined under a scanning electron microscope revealed NANO PARTICLES which ain't available to we, the peeps. When heated to the point of reaction the spectrograph indicated the components of a NANO Thermite.
<br/>
<br/><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Dear Dan Gallagher, the dust samples that had chain-of-custody issues. Who knows who added what and when? Why weren't RJ Lee group and USGS on board and reporting the same in their dust samples?
<br/>
<br/>And the same good Doctor -- PhD in nuclear physics -- did a monumental ~BAD~ job in trying to steer the public away from nuclear considerations. I detail this in section 12. "Report 3: Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers" of that same earlier work I just linked.
<br/>
<br/>I am not so dogmatic as to claim "no NT was ever involved in 9/11 at the WTC." Shit, no. Such stilted positions play right into the hands of disinformation. Sure, let's say that NT was involved. They threw it and the kitchen sink at the WTC! But that doesn't make it the primary mechanism of destruction.
<br/>
<br/>Curiously, the "kitchen sink", toilets, concrete slabs, etc. were also things that weren't in the debris pile. What were there was pulverized. How did NT (mixed with any amount chemical-based explosive like RDX as speculated by Dr. Jones) do that? And why?
<br/>
<br/>FGNW answer this. FGNW is DEW; highly energetic neutrons were targeted. When going through the concrete and other things with residual water in the structure, the water turned to expanding steam so quickly, pulverization was automatic.
<br/>
<br/>The steel pans and trusses supporting the concrete floors are under-represented. I say they ablated and resulted in iron spheres in the dust.
<br/>
<br/>The wall assemblies acted like a faraday cage, but they still experienced in cases volume heating, which explains the steel doobies. The inner core wasn't targeted as much, but did have instant volume heating creating arches and horseshoes. NT doesn't explain this.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Griffin wrote a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored." NT ignores all of the anomalous steel creations.
<br/>
<br/>Please, look at either of my works on the blog, "Expand all", and look for the name "Dr. Andre Gsponer."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 156 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part5 -->
<hr>
<a name="x157"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part6');">Chapter 7:
FGNW Discussions with AlienScientist, Henry Hansteen, Adam Fitzgerald</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part6" style="display: block;">
<p>This chapter has exchanges about the Pentagon plane, or lack thereof, and other attempted FGNW discussions.</p>
<a name="x158"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x158" class="tiny">x158</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_158');">AlienScientist</a></b></p>
<p>2018-05-28</p>
<div id="sect_158" style="display: block;">
<p>
<p>{mcb: Tried to email to AlienScientist@alienscientist.com, but came back because address couldn't be found or is unable to receive email. Tried to post on AlienScientist.com Facebook page. Tried to message through Facebook.}
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. AlienScientist,
<br/>
<br/>If you prefer a different name or salutation more gender or education-level appropriate, I'll be happy to accomodate.
<br/>
<br/>Recently a quote from you came up in some disinformation game playing by a suspected bot with a habit of using 9/11 statements from others as his own (plagiarism), but in a manner resembling a snippet (including remnant HTML from the source) being recalled from a database. The algorithms are suspected of scraping the spiteful blog of my chief opponent on a narrow 9/11 theme into its database, and one such entry had a legitimate quote from you and acredited as such.
<br/>
<br/><blockquote>"If you see anyone attempting to "debunk" someone using character assassination methods, you should automatically see this as a direct signal that they have absolutely no valid argument whatsoever." </blockquote>
<p>The quote isn't the reason why I'm contacting you, but I knew you'd be curious as to what it was. It was just the seed to have me look up the source of the quote, and his body of work.
<br/>
<br/>Kudos, AlienScientist.
<br/>
<br/>I've been there before over the years. I may have run into you on other forums. I haven't explored your blog completely from A-Z, but have seen enough to know that we have many parallel views.
<br/>
<br/>I'm writing you because I seek rational discussion about a particular aspect of 9/11 at the WTC. I've been around the 9/11 block, been duped by many premises, but persisted in my efforts for Truth that uncovered the errors in those disinfo-seeded beliefs. My one remaining hobby-horse for 9/11 is Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGNW).
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html"><i>"9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case"</i>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>I earnestly seek feedback on the latest evolution in my thought (above). I'd like it debunked legitimately if possible, because I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the subject.
<br/>
<br/>I respectfully ask you to take FGNW on in a serious and mature manner. Maybe it becomes the newest button in your <b>"Debunk Bin"</b>. But naive and trusting are two of my super-powers, so my hope is for a new button under <b>"Conspiracy"</b>, because my research and analysis will have convinced you.
<br/>
<br/>I do not encourage reading my blog cover-to-cover, because such a repetitive bore it has become even for me. However, my blog represents the evolution on my thoughts. My blog demonstrates my other super-powers of being persistent, organized, religiously fanatical (about Truth), and even a touch OCD while exposing my high-road tactics and game plan.
<br/>
<br/>Legacy is a bitch for those with dubious intentions. I've experienced individual comments, individual postings, Google search results, entire databases (of comments), and entire blogs disappearing from the ether, during play or in post-operation clean-up efforts. Less baggage when their persona goes into a new playground. Any cursory scanning of my rabbit-hole blog shows that most of my blog postings are composed of re-purposed exchanges from other forums (including email): my sincere efforts to defend this nuclear truth, or to be set straight. Plenty of baggage.
<br/>
<br/>I see in your blog under <b>"Debunk Bin"</b> both <b>"Dr. Judy Wood"</b> and <b>"Mini Nukes"</b> that you have already tried to address subjects related to my FGNW. If you frame nukes in an imprecise and inaccurate manner, straw-men and distractions. <b><i>My hobby-horse is the bastard child of the Nuke-DEW hook-up: 9/11 FGNW.</i></b>
<br/>
<br/><b>I encourage you to save and re-purpose our discussion (if deemed worthy), because I will be doing the same.</b> Unless the discussion is on my blog, don't expect a real-time parallel discussion-track on my blog; it'll be compiled and posted afterwards. I'm a lone nut, so no sense dividing my singular forces needlessly.
<br/>
<br/>I have the capacity and courage to change my opinion with the proper application of science & analysis of all the evidence. When such happens, I will publicly apologize and correct the record, such as I did for my years being an active "no-planer (at the WTC)" under the clever duping of September Clues.
<br/>
<br/>An ongoing trend line in my 9/11 travels in various public forums is that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into (9/11) nuclear methods must be suppressed or shutdown using any and all of the available disinformation techniques, up to and including banishment.
<br/>
<br/>Why?
<br/>
<br/>One reason: If wide-spread public revelation were to come to fruition that the US Government (possibly with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the "figurative" nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo.
<br/>
<br/>My earnest hope is for you to convince me (of no-nukes on 9/11) or to let me convince you of FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Because I am a fair and generous fellow, allow me to call attention to <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html"><i>"Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW"</i></a>, the immediate predecessor to <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html"><i>"9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case"</i></a>. Sections 2-5 slaughter the nano-thermite sacred cow. It also addresses specifically and individually the very reports that your <b>"Debunk Bin -> Mini Nukes"</b> brings up.
<br/>
<br/>I am looking forward to our correspondence, our exchange of ideas, and our search for 9/11 truth. If you would prefer another forum for this Jefferson-Franklin style discussion, I am amiable.
<br/>
<br/>P.S. My Achille's heel on my 9/11 FGNW premise, is that my naive and trusting super-powers make me susceptible to believing in portions of the "alien agendas", like humans not evolving on this planet but rather having alien DNA inserted into our nearest genetic cousins (at the time) to make us, intelligent slaves. To be sure, this "alien agenda" explains in my mind why we poison our planet and stockpile nuclear weapons. I learned calculus, it's pretty trippy, and Sir Isaac Newton probably had information seeded. As did the semi-conductor industry.
<br/>
<br/>(You can address me as "Mr. Bridges.")
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
</p></p>
</div><!-- section 158 -->
<a name="x159"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x159" class="tiny">x159</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_159');">a particular aspect of 9/11 at the WTC</a></b></p>
<p>2018-05-28</p>
<div id="sect_159" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/Alienscientist/posts/1908567899201974?comment_id=1908730049185759¬if_id=1527562071457112¬if_t=feed_comment&ref=notif">2018-05-28</a>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges => Alienscientist.com
<br/>May 28 at 4:58pm ·
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. AlienScientist,
<br/>
<br/>I'm writing you because I seek rational discussion about a particular aspect of 9/11 at the WTC. I've been around the 9/11 block, been duped by many premises, but persisted in my efforts for Truth that uncovered the errors in those disinfo-seeded beliefs. My one remaining hobby-horse for 9/11 is Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGNW).
<br/>
<br/>"9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case"
<br/><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>I earnestly seek feedback on the latest evolution in my thought (above). I'd like it debunked legitimately if possible, because I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the subject.
<br/>
<br/>I respectfully ask you to take FGNW on in a serious and mature manner. Maybe it becomes the newest button in your "Debunk Bin". But naive and trusting are two of my super-powers, so my hope is for a new button under "Conspiracy", because my research and analysis will have convinced you.
<br/>
<br/>I see in your blog under "Debunk Bin" both "Dr. Judy Wood" and "Mini Nukes" that you have already tried to address subjects related to my FGNW. If you frame nukes in an imprecise and inaccurate manner, straw-men and distractions. My hobby-horse is the bastard child of the Nuke-DEW hook-up: 9/11 FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>I have the capacity and courage to change my opinion with the proper application of science & analysis of all the evidence. When such happens, I will publicly apologize and correct the record.
<br/>
<br/>An ongoing trend line in my 9/11 travels in various public forums is that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into (9/11) nuclear methods must be suppressed or shutdown using any and all of the available disinformation techniques, up to and including banishment.
<br/>
<br/>Why?
<br/>
<br/>One reason: If wide-spread public revelation were to come to fruition that the US Government (possibly with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the "figurative" nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo.
<br/>
<br/>My earnest hope is for you to convince me (of no-nukes on 9/11) or to let me convince you of FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>I am looking forward to our correspondence, our exchange of ideas, and our search for 9/11 truth. If you would prefer another forum for this Jefferson-Franklin style discussion, I am amiable.
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
</p>
</div><!-- section 159 -->
<a name="x160"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x160" class="tiny">x160</a>
Alienscientist : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_160');">Dear 9/11 Disinfo Ops Center</a></b></p>
<p>2018-05-29</p>
<div id="sect_160" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Alienscientist.com</b>
<br/>2018-05-29
<br/>
<br/>Dear 9/11 Disinfo Ops Center:
<br/>
<br/>We have received your message, and are not interested in debating or discussing debunked disinformation theories, which only lead to more speculation instead of actual suspects.
<br/>
<br/>If you are not naming names, and digging up evidence which can be used to prosecute actual suspects for actual crimes, then you are spreading "conspiracy theories" (aka lies and disinformation) and are therefor wasting everybody's time.
<br/>
<br/>Here is the CIA explosives for sabotage manual:
<br/>https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-sBYjmHG5phtmtHck/CIA%20Explosives%20For%20Sabotage%20Manual_djvu.txt
<br/>
<br/>{mcb: <i>Full text of "CIA Explosives For Sabotage Manual.pdf (PDFy mirror)"</i>}
<br/>
<br/>Thermite is listed.
<br/>FGNWs are not.
<br/>
<br/>I am not here to convince anyone of anything.. There is a growing movement of people who still believe the earth is flat... I am not here to fix stupid, or try to attempt rational debate with stupid.
<br/>
<br/>Unless you are fingering SUSPECTS, You are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist, spreading conspiracy theories, helping the elite to hide factual evidence of real crimes amid a sea of rumors and specualtion.
<br/>
<br/>And for that I tell you to go fuck yourself.
<br/>
<br/>How's that for correspondence?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 160 -->
<a name="x161"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x161" class="tiny">x161</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_161');">FGNW hasn't been debunked</a></b></p>
<p>2018-05-29</p>
<div id="sect_161" style="display: block;">
<p>FGNW hasn't been debunked. Hasn't been addressed. We'll categorize that as your first lie with me.
<br/>
<br/>What your work attempted is debunking of two strawmen: mini-nukes and DEW. Both were worthy of being debunked for how they are malframed. But alas, your work didn't even achieve those goals, because it has fundamental weaknesses in what it assumes are true, accurate, and complete, like the reports of tritium.
<br/>
<br/>Stop trying to change the playing field to "naming names". You've got other postings for that.
<br/>
<br/>I did my research into the matter. You have not. Can't even be bothered to read my article. For shame.
<br/>
<br/>BTW, thermite in whole or in part isn't listed in the tabulated results of the USGS study of the dust. Neither are conventional explosives. Glaring hole.
<br/>
<br/>You know what is listed? The trace elements of nuclear hijinx as well as their decay elements, plain as day in decay order in their bloody tables.
<br/>
<br/>Nuclear means on 9/11 do a great job of narrowing down the list of suspects.
<br/>
<br/>Thank you for your clever comment: "And for that I tell you to go fuck yourself."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 161 -->
<a name="x162"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x162" class="tiny">x162</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_162');">Using something from 1987 to debunk something from 2001</a></b></p>
<p>2018-05-29</p>
<div id="sect_162" style="display: block;">
<p>Referencing a 1987 manual "Explosives for Sabatage"? This is the time frame when Star Wars & SDI (their initial) names were just starting to ramp up, although nukes had been tweaked for decades prior. I think they achieved their goals of a low-radiation tactical nuclear device with OKC in 1995, but for sure with the WTC in 2001.
<br/>
<br/>Yanno. Using something from 1987 to debunk something from 2001? Not your best effort.
<br/>
<br/>Try reading my (blog) posting linked and study its evidence. Obviously, you haven't. Failing your objectivity test.
<br/>
<br/>Take it and its predecessor apart section by section. Let it be known that the latter completely trashes NT as being the primary mechanism of destruction. NT is a limited hang-out. If you knew more science, alienScientist, this would be self-evident. NT can neither explain the pulverization, nor the duration of hot-spots.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW, on the other hand, explains ~all~ of the evidence as well as all of the lame attempts to steer public thought into other avenues and the cover-up right on down to infiltrating public forums. It is the only topic that no one discusses rationally. You are case in point.
<br/>
<br/>//</p>
</div><!-- section 162 -->
<a name="x163"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x163" class="tiny">x163</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_163');">real deals</a></b></p>
<p>2018-05-29</p>
<div id="sect_163" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="http://alternativeresearcher.com/911-disinfo-agents/#comment-30212">2018-05-29</a>
<br/>
<br/>Enjoyed the article. I would leave the following in your list of real deal:
<br/>
<br/>- David Ray Griffin
<br/>- Webster Tarpley (although I sometimes dislike his style)
<br/>
<br/>However, I have issues with the following being considered the real deal on 9/11:
<br/>
<br/>- Steven Jones
<br/>- David Chandler
<br/>- Richard Gage
<br/>- Kevin Ryan
<br/>- Alien Scientist
<br/>
<br/>Why? I'll just cut right to the chase. My hobby-horse is the bastard child of the Nuke-DEW hook-up: <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">9/11 FGNW (fourth generation nuclear weapons)</a>. It and its predecessor <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW</a> make the case. The latter, however, slaughters the nano-thermite sacred cow.
<br/>
<br/>An ongoing trend line in my 9/11 travels in various public forums is that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into (9/11) nuclear methods must be suppressed or shutdown using any and all of the available disinformation techniques, up to and including banishment. Why?
<br/>
<br/>If wide-spread public revelation were to come to fruition that the US Government (possibly with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the "figurative" nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo.
<br/>
<br/>I'll summarize work documented on my blog. Dr. Jones supposedly debunked nuclear involvement. But:
<br/>
<br/>(a) Dr. Jones accepted unquestioned & unchallenged many government (sponsored) reports on tritium and nuclear isotopes, when closer inspection reveals their weaknesses: timing of samples, number of samples, and correlation of the data. In light of the EPA and NIST games, no reason these reports shouldn't have been exposed.
<br/>
<br/>(b) Dr. Jones framed nuclear devices as big. He never mentioned neutron devices or fourth generation nuclear devices. He never mentioned the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer, which was available.
<br/>
<br/>(c)_ To fill the void, he came up with nano-thermite, which was never measured in any of the dust samples by USGS, Paul Lioy et al, etc. What was measured were a high percentage of tiny iron spheres from the dust samples taken from the lobby of a neighboring building. They make a conclusion that only an NT chemical reaction could achieve this, when in fact FGNW could and more easily, too. When called on NT not having the brissance for pulverization, Dr. Jones back-pedals and said it was mixed with RDX or some such. He and A&E9/11 never measured their own dust samples for such under the ruse that if they had exceeded the "sell-by" date for measuring traces of such, then the OCT opposition would have a field-day with their gravity-driven collapses.
<br/>
<br/>(d) The postulation of NT being mixed with any other chemical means exasperates a second problem, the duration of underground hot-spots. Massively unreasonable quantities of NT/RDX/? would have been required, unspent from their original pulverizing purposes. Dr. Jones back-pedals on this, saying in 2012 "Something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." Yet no research was done into this.
<br/>
<br/>NT is a limited hang-out. Can't do pulverization by itself; can't account for hot-spots without massively unreasonable unspent quantities; can't account for horse-shoes, arches, steel-doobies, and meteors and other evidence presented in Dr. Wood's efforts.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood is closer to the truth than NT, but has disinformation. She drops a lot of dangling innuendo that she never connects together into a cohesive whole, and also gives nuclear means a short-shrift. No mention of Dr. Andre Gsponer's work, either.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. David Chandler has great 9/11 physics videos, but (a) he did not attempt to legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's book despite the book being provided, (b) he would not speculate into nuclear mechanisms, despite have the education to understand such, (c)_ he believes a real plane hit the Pentagon.
<br/>
<br/>Dimitri Khalezov is disinformation in his deep under-ground nukes whose detonation would not have matched what was observed and recorded.
<br/>
<br/>Again, a consistency in the framing of 9/11 is to call any nuclear speculation kooky and to not entertain any rational discussion thereof. Yet, traces of nuclear hijinx were measured by the USGS, including decay elements, and were presented in their data tables but not in any clear text explanation of those tables. Tritium, tritium, tritium is another dead-give away of FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Recently I came across proof about as good as any Geiger counter of the true radioactive nature of WTC. In the first article, section 9. Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras.
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
<br/>
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 163 -->
<a name="x164"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x164" class="tiny">x164</a>
Herr der Elf : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_164');">discussion into (9/11) nuclear methods must be suppressed or shutdown</a></b></p>
<p>2018-05-29</p>
<div id="sect_164" style="display: block;">
<p class="mcb">{mcb: The alias <i>"Herr der Elf"</i> belongs to Maxwell C. Bridges and was used in that reddit discussion.}</p>
<p>
<br/><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/8n1owz/911_fourth_generation_nuclear_weapons/">2018-05-29</a>
<br/>
<br/>An ongoing trend line in my 9/11 travels in various public forums is that any attempt at objective & rational discussion into (9/11) nuclear methods must be suppressed or shutdown using any and all of the available disinformation techniques. Why?
<br/>
<br/>If wide-spread public revelation were to come to fruition that the US Government (possibly with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the "figurative" nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo.
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, the fact that 9/11 (at the WTC) had nuclear components leaks out of all government reports and the mainstream 9/11 Truth Movement. Can you say "tritium"? Or how about the USGS study of the dust showing trace elements of nuclear fission as well as their decay elements?
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Jones framed nuclear devices improperly, never mentioned neutron devices, never mentioned fourth generation nuclear devices, and accepted unquestioned & unchallenged many government (sponsored) reports of things measured as being the final word on what was measured.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood both have a glaring omission in their nuclear research: Dr. Andre Gsponer.
<br/>
<br/>[9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case](http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html)
<br/>
<br/>FGNW isn't mini-nukes, nor deep underground nukes. FGNW isn't DEW as narrowly defined by many (including Dr. Wood), but is very much in the category of Directed Energy Weapons. FGNW is the bastard child of the Nuke-DEW hook-up.
<br/>
<br/>It is a testament to the levels of disinformation at play to suppress this that others instrumental in the 9/11 Truth Movement "never went there." Kind of damning that all of the alleged "open-minded" supporters of Dr. Wood won't recognize that Dr. Wood herself claims her work wasn't the end-station on 9/11 Truth. Yet, true to disinfo intents, they try to park understanding in Woodsian limited hang-outs.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Jones said that NT had to be mixed with something like RDX to account of the pulverization, yet never bothered to measure his dust samples for traces of such. Dr. Jones said in 2012 that something maintained the hot-spots, not just NT. Yet performed no research into that "something".
<br/>
<br/>// HdE</p>
</div><!-- section 164 -->
<a name="x165"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x165" class="tiny">x165</a>
Henry Hansteen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_165');">McGee is bad news for 9/11 truth</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_165" style="display: block;">
<p>2018-11-21
<br/>
<br/>I'm against censorship, but McGee is bad news for 9/11 truth. He attacks the most credible, respected, qualified, and professional 9/11 truth researchers for believing that a large plane hit the Pentagon. McGee is trying to divide, discredit and obstruct the 9/11 truth movement by focusing on one area of contention rather than the many areas of agreement.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 165 -->
<a name="x166"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x166" class="tiny">x166</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">Mr. McGee sounds like a real rotten person</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_166" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. McGee sounds like a real rotten person, whoever he is.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Craig McKee, on the other hand, is not. A rather upstanding chap, if I do say so.
<br/>
<br/>"Most credible, respected, qualified, and professional" researcher doesn't mean that what they champion is 100% truth. My word, the GOP said the same thing about Dr. Zelikow and his role as public myth builder on the 9/11 Commission.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. McKee has his hobby-horse that those "most credible, respected, qualified, and professional" researchers ignored with regards to the Pentagon. No plane struck it. (And this gave rise to the whole disinfo campaign about no planes at the WTC.)
<br/>
<br/>And wouldn't you know as just another rinky-dink coincidence, those same "most credible, respected, qualified, and professional" researchers completely fucked up their efforts into proving (or not) that 9/11 at the WTC involved fourth generation nuclear devices, my hobby-horse. Dr. Jones has a PhD in nuclear physics, and he accepts unquestioned and unchallenged various government reports on radiation and tritium, frames nuclear weapons out of wack, and fills the void with NT which can't go the distance in explaining the evidence without obscenely massive quantities.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 166 -->
<a name="x167"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x167" class="tiny">x167</a>
Henry Hansteen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_167');">what do you hope to accomplish by attacking</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_167" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell, since McKee won't answer this question, maybe you can. Other than divide, discredit, and obstruct the 9/11 truth movement, what do you hope to accomplish by attacking the most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers and fo…See More
</p>
</div><!-- section 167 -->
<a name="x168"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x168" class="tiny">x168</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">"holding accountable the most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers"</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_168" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, you are the one who brings up space beams. If you can't accurately reflect the positions of your debate opponents, your sincerity in these discussions is called into question.
<br/>
<br/>FTR, Mr. Craig McKee has different reasons (based on the Pentagon) for "holding accountable" <i>"the most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers"</i> for mistakes, misinformation, if not blatant disinformation in their works.
<br/>
<br/>My hobby-horse FGNW is one that Mr. McKee does not ride. Funny, in my research into DEW and FGNW in the libraries of my local institute of higher education, I discovered that "beams from air planes" (ABL) were operational in 2001, isn't applicable to 9/11, but is very applicable to California fires today.
<br/>
<br/>"... focusing on a few areas of contention rather than the many areas of agreement." Is it not practically biblical if not Christian as well the belief that you have to be faithful in the little things in order to be trusted with and prove your faithfulness with the larger things?
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Craig McKee's (and other's) noble contention that those "most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers" pulled some fast ones in their Pentagon research. One little thing.
<br/>
<br/>But don't let me put words into Mr. Craig McKee's mouth. I will say this for me on my FGNW hobby-horse topic about that exact same group of "most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers": THEIR RESEARCH SUCKED !!! Another little thing they weren't faithful in. When Dr. Jones poo-poo-ed nuclear weapons, he did not mention FGNW. His literature review contained no references to Dr. Andre Gsponer who's been writing about FGNW since the 1990's. (Same omission by Dr. Wood.) Read more of my complaints in the blog posting below.
<br/>
<br/>Between Mr. Craig McKee's hobby-horse and my FGNW hobby-horse, we have TWO important data points that make up a trend line into the premise of how even the 9/11 Truth Movement was infiltrated and controlled by seemingly the "most credible, dedicated, respected, and professional researchers". Thus far and no further they were charged to go; no nukes, because the figurative nuclear fallout from such public revelations even today could be damning to the status quo.
<br/>
<br/>FTR, if they were truly rational and open-minded human beings (and not paid to promote an agenda short of one that names the domestic terrorists within our government), they could look at my 9/11 FGNW case (or the Pentagon case), let themselves be convinced of the overwhelming evidence of (nuclear) hijinx, and apologize for having misled the public. NO HARM, NO FOUL.
<br/>
<br/>But this they won't do.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10155820409191269?comment_id=10155830555616269¬if_id=1542828112272844¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10155820409191269?comment_id=10155830555616269¬if_id=1542828112272844¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif</a>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 168 -->
<a name="x169"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x169" class="tiny">x169</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_169');">pricks your bubble about his willingness to debate</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_169" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Gentlemen, Gentlemen. Truth & Shadows was a debate forum. Even these hallowed Facebook forums can be respectable debate forums.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Adam Fitzgerald, the very fact that your comments are permitted to exist here under Mr. Craig McKee's postings kind of pricks your bubble about his willingness to debate. And I'm sure that a posting could be made where you and he had your reasoned, rational debate.
<br/>
<br/>But alas, when you approach the table with your head already tilted, is it any wonder why you'd be promoting skewed and even wrong views -- not on a specific area but -- on the subject of willingness to debate on a specific area. Moving the playing field, anyone?
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 169 -->
<a name="x170"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x170" class="tiny">x170</a>
Adam Fitzgerald : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_170');">everyone saw the plane crash into the building</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_170" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>The pentagon issue is a one sided debate for me. No one saw a fly over, everyone saw the plane crash into the building. McKee peddles nonsense. As evident in his views regarding Moon Landing and sandy Hook.
</p>
</div><!-- section 170 -->
<a name="x171"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x171" class="tiny">x171</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_171');">No one saw a crash.</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_171" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Adam Fitzgerald, correction. No one saw a crash. (Not even any of the dozens of surveillance videos they confiscated and haven't released. All it would take is releasing one video with conclusively a plane on it to fix the record; instead, all we got were three inconclusive frames from a parking machine.)
<br/>
<br/>Many people saw a plane and later heard an explosion and/or saw smoke at the Pentagon. They assume one anomaly led to the other. No one, not even the police officers getting gas at the (since razed) convenience store across the high way, saw a plane clip light poles and plow into the building.
<br/>
<br/>Get your facts straight.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 171 -->
<a name="x172"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x172" class="tiny">x172</a>
Adam Fitzgerald : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_172');">You have zero facts</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_172" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>1. Over 87 eyewitness accounts who were in the vicinity of the pentagon saw the plane crash directly into the building. More who saw the plane descend from the sky heading toward the Pentagon.
<br/>
<br/>2. There are two videos which were near the security gate captured the details of the plane. Wayne Coste prepared an exceptional 5 hour presentation showing the damages done from the plane. The frame by frame camera wont be capturing a plane whole going at 500mph.
<br/>
<br/>3. Yes many people saw the plane. Yes many heard the impact. You have zero facts supporting a fly over which no one saw.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 172 -->
<a name="x173"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x173" class="tiny">x173</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_173');">Cough up the URLs</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_173" style="display: block;">
<p>Number 2 is a flat out lie. Two videos? Wrong. But I'm willing to be a believer. Cough up the URLs and I'll apologize for calling you a liar. (However, were are the videos they confiscated? According to you, no issue there.)
<br/>
<br/>And gee. Mr. McKee who I respect has already called you a liar for different reasons. And I found your claim about refusing to debate another lie, because this is a debate forum. The impression of your honesty isn't a good one.)
<br/>
<br/>BTW, as we learned from the NPT @ WTC carousel, the frame rate of videos is sufficient to capture a plane going 500 mph (even if that speed is hyped.)
<br/>
<br/>NPT at the Pentagon isn't my hobby-horse. You and I have had our go-arounds on my hobby-horse: fourth generation nuclear devices. You accel at hypnotic suggestion, but not science, reason, or facts.
<br/>
<br/>Just like I used properly applied science to debunk NPT@WTC, I can do the same to prove NPT@WTC. Namely, the light poles impacts would have crippled the aircraft out of the sky before impacting the Pentagon, *if* that was the path the (flyover) plane flew.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 173 -->
<a name="x174"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x174" class="tiny">x174</a>
Adam Fitzgerald : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_174');">videos are frame by frames</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_174" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>The videos are frame by frames. They are from two security cameras. Both are shown here:
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzT0QnwtTE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzT0QnwtTE</a>
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyPbUoe2iA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyPbUoe2iA</a>
<br/>
<br/>McKee is the only liar here. He has been challenged by me to a debate regarding the Pentagon, 3 times, which he refused. Not my concern actually since he is coming from an angle which no one supports besides his followers who in turn also cannot support. If you support nuclear weapons for the WTC, then you are every bit as delusional as McKee.
</p>
</div><!-- section 174 -->
<a name="x175"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x175" class="tiny">x175</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_175');">diving into the maw of blatant disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_175" style="display: block;">
<p>I've made my 9/11 truther career out of diving into the maw of blatant disinformation and rescuing the nuggets of the truth, lest they be caste away and forgotten when the disinformation vehicle drives off the road into the weeds and over the cliff.
<br/>
<br/>A nugget of truth from that great disinformation vehicle called "the No Plane Theory" at the WTC and promoted by "September Clues" is: imagery manipulation did happen with regards 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Both of these videos are exhibit A and B towards that thesis. Thank you for posting them.
<br/>
<br/>And here I'll concede a point and offer an apology. "These" parking lot video cameras had an insufficient frame rate to capture the plane at 500 mph, and this rate was probably made worse by the frames they edited out. When I was writing about video cameras, I was referring to news cameras.
<br/>
<br/>The omissions on 9/11 speak louder than what they include. The frame rates of surveillance cameras on other buildings were probably higher than the parking videos and would have captured clearly several frames with a definitive plane. Whether or not this assumption is true, the fact remains that this doctored video is all that remains. (Need I point out that for many years, only three frames from these videos were released. Who knows what Hollywood magic was bestowed on the footage in the intervening years?)
<br/>
<br/>P.S. I've stated many times that NPT at the Pentagon isn't my hobby-horse. But were I to defend it, it is the physics of the light poles, wing attachments, velocity-squared in the energy equation at high velocities, and lift that destroy the argument of the alleged flight path and a real plane impact.
<br/>
<br/>The same principles of physics used to explain how real aircraft (but not necessarily the specific alleged aircraft) crashed into the towers leaving seeming cut-outs and outlines, having seemingly passed in the same number of frames going into building as through air, and having aircraft parts pass completely through the structure and get launched some distance to bounce off a roof and land in the street... These same principles explain why the aircraft did not fly the alleged Pentagon crash path.
<br/>
<br/>The energy in question at high velocity is significantly greater than at low velocities. Energies greater than the strength holding materials together. Instead of "bouncing as cohesive wholes", they shatter and perchance there might be some fragments that bounce.
<br/>
<br/>Equal and opposite energies, and energies about a fulcrum. When the wings (allegedly) hit a light pole, materials of wing at impact location might shatter, and certainly deform, and become less aerodynamic. The wing acts like a lever against the shoulder / fulcrum where the wing attaches, certainly weakening the connection. But then the plane hits another light pole. Both wings each allegedly hit at least two light poles (if memory serves me).
<br/>
<br/>If this were true, I maintain that localized shattering damage to wings from such high velocity impacts would have made the aircraft uncontrollable, if not unable to maintain lift and crashing all over the lawn and very much short of the Office of Naval Intelligence's in the Pentagon.
<br/>
<br/>For this reason, it would make sense to stage the broken light poles so that the alleged flight path could be flown by a real aircraft and hit its targets. But this is where I get off the hobby-horse and others hop-on and read you the riot act on what little to no evidence were found of a real aircraft, and that real eye witnesses describe a completely different flight path.
<br/>
<br/>Why are you defending the government's public myths so vigorously?
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 175 -->
<a name="x176"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x176" class="tiny">x176</a>
Adam Fitzgerald : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_176');">a skeptic, nor truther, nor debunker</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_176" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>You made an error here, in which i am defending the government narrative. I dont adhere to their summary of what happened that day.
<br/>
<br/>I myself am a skeptic, nor truther, nor debunker. However these planes that were hijacked were real, the crashes were real...the passengers and hijackers were real.....However the actual conspiracy isnt from the superficial, nor from the planes which some like you discount. Its from who these hijackers were and how many were there....who were the pilots and who were they not. The humorous aspect about no planers is that they think 4 planes werent hijacked that day nor crashed....yet have absolutely no idea that there were supposed to be more planes hijacked and crashing into other targets. One of the biggest "conspiracies" of 9/11 is automatically dismissed by no planers and they have absolutely zero idea that they are doing it in the first place. Thats because they are vastly ignorant about the geo-political.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 176 -->
<a name="x177"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x177" class="tiny">x177</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_177');">constantly conflate two (or more) separate events as having the same cause</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_177" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Adam Fitzgerald, one of the tricks of those working the public myths of 9/11 was to constantly conflate two (or more) separate events as having the same cause. Becomes but child's play to disprove it in one instance and then boastfully proclaim it isn't applicable therefore in any other instance. Clearly, this is illogical, insincere, and deliberate distraction.
<br/>
<br/>I agree that real planes were involved. Whether or not they were hijacked or truly had the personnel manifests alleged, this is a valid point of contention. (SimVictim is a real thing, proposed even in the Operation Northwoods document rejected by JFK. Made easy today with social media.)
<br/>
<br/>The definitive case has not been made to prove who got on what planes, to prove the planes took off and flew completely their alleged flight paths, etc. THIS IS A GLARING WEAKNESS IN THE O.C.T. AND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Lots of assumptions are made and dots supposedly connected, but lots left out too that would draw a different picture. How many military exercises and games were going on during these events? Was inserting false blips into the systems part of it?
<br/>
<br/>I am convinced real planes crashed at the WTC, but not at the Pentagon or Shanksville. Because those are real instances of valid "no planes theories", we see the creation of September Clues and NPT at the WTC. When it is debunked, guilt by association it tries to debunk NPT at the Pentagon. A tactic right out of the disinformation playbook.
<br/>
<br/>But I already know your sincerity in these discussions, having experienced you before on "Debunkers vs. Truthers" from last year.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 177 -->
<a name="x178"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x178" class="tiny">x178</a>
Adam Fitzgerald : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_178');">a "half-planer"</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_178" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>So you are what i call a "half-planer", WTC planes real, Pentagon and Shanksville no hijacked planes. And yet you question my sincerity while you hold the fantastical beliefs of drones or fake planes as your valid explanations for the two aforementioned destinations. The difference between me and you is quite clear, you deal with belief. I deal with knowledge. Its a certian fact that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon and Flight 93 at Shanksville. You can not deter those facts to fit your narrative. You can try ut like many others you will faiil, terribly.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 178 -->
<a name="x179"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x179" class="tiny">x179</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_179');">"certain facts" are not</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_179" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Adam Fitzgerald, very clever, your mockery.
<br/>
<br/>What you call "certain facts" are not.
<br/>
<br/>Shanksville: first responders arrive, and there were no bodies. No luggage. No seats. No wings. No tail. Nothing to indicate that an aircraft crashed there, let alone the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br/>
<br/>You assume all alleged victims even existed and weren't inflated by SimVictim means to reach a threshold in the public's mental state. You assume that certain victims (and hijackers) got on the planes; that the planes flew their course; that those perished at the alleged crash sites. Not to discount the demise of certain victims, but it is a big ass assumption to say they died when the alleged planes crashed. The military games in progress on the day leave ample room plane swaperoos...
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3noExmsCRyg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3noExmsCRyg</a>
<br/>
<br/>And with this weakness, your house of cards belief system into the righteousness and absolute correctness of the official conspiracy theory gets support pulled out.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 179 -->
<a name="x180"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x180" class="tiny">x180</a>
Adam Fitzgerald : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">cant rationally argue for their irrational scenarios logically</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_180" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>1. First responders from Somerset County, Listie, Berlin, Pittsburgh, EMS, Fire Depts. all came. Including Wallace Miller county Coroner (who happened to collect 600lbs of human remains from the site) who were involved in the search and rescue operations. They found numerous items, which included human remains of passengers, passengers belongings, clothes found on the tree tops and even ID cards. Your claim of first responders finding nothing is blatantly false. Pieces of the plane were small but they found much of it around the impact zone.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.firehouse.com/historical-incidents/news/10495986/pennsylvania-firefighters-share-bond-with-flight-93-families?fbclid=IwAR1PHVF2Hn7XOFVE4osBiWvXMKq9JxkijYHIe5cdMuWRzkORXJLSTxqqHFY
<br/>
<br/>https://www.tribdem.com/news/somerset-county-coroner-recalls-aftermath/article_b5535054-54a1-11e7-9a49-8376d4b335ff.html?fbclid=IwAR0qhDful2amBRT-sQ4Kp1EhTyjKAZqhP8EJco6KMOd2IGOndmt9v_VGdzg
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>2. Its actually you who automatically assumes these victims were fictitious as well as the hijackers aboard the planes. Its only you who has the mere convenience to assert claims without providing evidence (even thou you have none). It is you who asserts falsely that these flights didnt fly according to the data recorded by the NTSB. It is you who falsely asserts that these planes didnt exist.
<br/>
<br/>And this is the best you have, conjecture. But i expected nothing better than this coming from you and others like you like Craig McKee and his merry band of speculators. You literally have nothing left but to dismiss everything i post as a rebuttal because you dont have a factual counter. You have conjecture. That is it.
<br/>
<br/>This is why no planers wont debate in a moderated video setting. Its because they cant rationally argue for their irrational scenarios logically.
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 180 -->
<a name="x181"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x181" class="tiny">x181</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_181');">"researchers" talk about third & fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) with any depth</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_181" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, let's aim your ire where it is deserving, such as at MYSELF. For valid reasons, I have attacked THE RESEARCH (and hence conclusions) of "the most highly respected, credible, qualified, and dedicated researchers..." And in doing so, ding the respect, credibility, and qualifications of them, and certainly their dedication, because God damn it! Their research should have taken them into FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>But for all of the adjectives you put in front of their names, it boils down to the old computer expression: garbage in, garbage out.
<br/>
<br/>Show me where those "researchers" talk about third & fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) with any depth or correlating tabulated evidence and videos with a supposition into their usage. Don't take this as a plug for either Dr. Wood or Dimitri K., because like Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Jones, their disinfo job was to undermine the truth, not discover it.
<br/>
<br/>But FGNW at the WTC is my hobby-horse, not Mr. Craig McKee's. But it relates to this discussion, because it has overlap in personnel with the "most highly respected, credible, qualified, and dedicated" players who poo-poo a Pentagon flyover. While we're talking Pentagon, Mr. McKee has never advocated use of a missile, but I have along with a distracting low flyover.
<br/>
<br/>If you wanted to exact precise damage and contain overshoot of the destruction, an airplane crash has too many unknowns such as the physics of 500 mph wings getting crippled or shattered upon impact with light poles and therefore not getting the aircraft to the Pentagon in order to cleanly wipe out all of the ONI investigating agents and their records into the missing $2.3 trillion.
<br/>
<br/>So with your deep pockets, you hedge your bets. Flyover to support the ruse, but a cruise missile launched nearby to plow a path and planted explosives from the re-construction to assure a clean operation.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 181 -->
<a name="x182"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x182" class="tiny">x182</a>
Henry Hansteen, Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_182');">No nuclear bombs</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_182" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>
<br/>Henry Hansteen
<br/>Henry Hansteen Maxwell Bridges, WTF is FGNW? No nuclear bombs were detonated in NYC on 9-11-01. That's also disinformation that harms the 9-11 truth movement.
<br/>
<br/>Michael W. Lurie
<br/>Michael W. Lurie Oh, the incredible irony.... ;-)
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 182 -->
<a name="x183"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x183" class="tiny">x183</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_183');">argue your losing position on my FB wall</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_183" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, you're welcome to argue your losing position on my FB wall under an appropriate entry, or on my blog under an appropriate posting. I've made my case; my arguments are cleanly laid out. Go through one by one and destroy them. Please! Disabuse me of my beliefs with a convincing case that analyzes all of the evidence properly.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 183 -->
<a name="x184"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x184" class="tiny">x184</a>
Henry Hansteen, Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_184');">nothing worth reading</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_184" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Henry Hansteen
<br/>Henry Hansteen Michael (details don't matter) Lurie wrote - nothing worth reading as usual. ;-)
<br/>
<br/>Michael W. Lurie
<br/>Michael W. Lurie Hank, will your lying ever cease? I expect not.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 184 -->
<a name="x185"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x185" class="tiny">x185</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_185');">where you are welcome to debunk FGNW</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_185" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, Here is a FB link that coincidentally references an article by Mr. Craig McKee where you are welcome to debunk FGNW.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2006367319624446">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2006367319624446</a>
<br/>
<br/>Please, come forward and prove your premise that "No nuclear bombs were detonated in NYC on 9-11-01." Tritium, tritium, tritium are already causing you problems. But please, I beg you! Save me from the disinformation... by providing properly applied science to all of the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>Disinformation that harms the 9/11 Truth Movement is of the kind that stops critical thinking in cul-de-sacs of nanothermite that isn't an explosive, doesn't pulverize things, needs other explosives mixed with it to achieve even close to the effects observed, and without massively obscene quantities cannot account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
<br/>
<br/>A fun game to get at truth is to get two or more disinformation premises to go head-to-head. So let's take disinfo Dr. Wood's " "horseshoes", "arches" (or "sags") and steel doobies and kindly explain how disinfo Dr. Jones NT accounts for them? What quantities and placement make them possible?
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 185 -->
<a name="x186"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x186" class="tiny">x186</a>
Henry Hansteen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_186');">siding with Judy Wood</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_186" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Henry Hansteen
<br/>Henry Hansteen Maxwell Bridges oh wow, you're siding with Judy Wood and calling Steven Jones disinfo? Looks like I was right about you from the get-go.
<br/>
<br/>Henry Hansteen
<br/>Henry Hansteen http://www.journalof911studies.com/.../Hard-Evidence...
<br/>
<br/>Henry Hansteen
<br/>Henry Hansteen And of course, nano-thermite can be highly explosive. You're either shockingly ignorant of the relevant research, or deliberately spewing disinformation. Doesn't matter which - you and your absurd nonsense are no friend of -911 truth.
<br/>
<br/>https://digwithin.net/.../the-explosive-nature-of.../
<br/>Manage
<br/>
<br/>DIGWITHIN.NET
<br/>The explosive nature of nanothermite
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 186 -->
<a name="x187"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x187" class="tiny">x187</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_187');">Bravo on the misrepresentation</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_187" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, Bravo on the misrepresentation, but you don't get any points because you already attempted that trick against Mr. Craig McKee and attributing him positions he didn't have.
<br/>
<br/>I call your attention to Section 12 of this blog posting. Read it and consider it the starting point for discussion. It and the sections in front of it completely shreds Dr. Jones' "Hard Evidence..."
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
<br/>
<br/>All disinformation has a solid foundation of truth, before injecting error and wrongness meant to misinform. Dr. Wood is no exception, and neither is Dr. Jones. Hell, everything written about 9/11 is at best misinformation, so only the nuggets of truth in each can be relied upon.
<br/>
<br/>I brought up Dr. Wood because she highlighted several notable anomalies: horse-shoes, arches (e.g., sags), and steel doobies.
<br/>
<br/>David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br/>
<br/>Yet with regards to the evidence collected by Dr. Wood, it hasn't been disputed. Worse, oh so much more worse, is the fact that your cabal of "the most highly respected, credible, qualified, and dedicated researchers" DO NOT ADDRESS IT, not even in a lame attempt to get their NT to explain it.
<br/>
<br/>So yes, Mr. Hansteen, you've staked your position and expressed your premise, and I'm having you prove it. Convince me, bro, and I'll shut up and offer public apologies.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 187 -->
<a name="x188"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x188" class="tiny">x188</a>
Henry Hansteen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_188');">spewing absurd, blatant, and long ago corrected disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_188" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Henry Hansteen
<br/>Henry Hansteen Maxwell Bridges why are you spewing absurd, blatant, and long ago corrected disinformation, like nanothermite isn't explosive? A few minutes of research would show you that you're dead wrong about that, too. Seems like whenever the name Craig McKee pops up a bunch of disinformation trolls show up too.
<br/>
<br/>https://digwithin.net/2011/06/19/the-explosive-nature-of-nanothermite/?fbclid=IwAR2XNIoFeu-4sAs2JA8sn8OwwYs4azHVGq8JSDiraILLmDYSPJ2l4Zav4Vs
<br/>
<br/>DIGWITHIN.NET
<br/>The explosive nature of nanothermite
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 188 -->
<a name="x189"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x189" class="tiny">x189</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_189');">starts off with a lie</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_189" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, that article you post in response starts off with a lie.
<blockquote><p>"Although we know that nanothermite has been found in the WTC dust, we do not know what purpose it served in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings."</p></blockquote>
<p>What was found in the dust was not NT. Instead it was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres -- and this from a report from an insurance company who analyzed the dust IN THE LOBBY of Deutsches Bank (that they repaired and then demolished.)
<br/>
<br/>Your experts then did some speculation into saying that NT "may have been the source" and extrapolated back to approximately how much NT would be required. The answer was massive and unreasonable from a logistics point of view, but the experts pressed on with their speculation. NT not having the necessary brisance, the main expert (Dr. Jones) suggested it was mixed with something faster, like RDX. Funny, Dr. Jones didn't test his samples for RDX or any other accelerant. Dr. Jones made a convincing case that NT might have been the cause of six measured spikes in the pile temperature. Yet, when it came down to brass tacks, Dr. Jones said "Something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT." Did they investigate into that other thing? No. Should be huge red flags to the veracity of Dr. Jones.
<br/>
<br/>The company that measured the high percentage of iron spheres did not measure RDX or other things. Neither did the USGS. IF YOU WOULD HAVE READ MY BLOG POSTING (which clearly you didn't), you'd know that the USGS did find Uranium and traces of nuclear decay, handily tabulated into tables, yet no plain text discussions as would be expected in a disinformation ploy. Tritium, tritium, tritium. And new evidence in the form of Camera Scintillation proves that GZ was radioactive.
<br/>
<br/>Come, debate me on my FB posting or my blog. My arguments are laid out and divided into section. Take it on section by section so you can be thorough.
<br/>
<br/>Bottom-line, until you do, you're just spreading bullshit and disinformation that you and the science-challenged yeomen of 9/11 never vetted or questioned or validated.
<br/>
<br/>NT is a limited hangout sacred cow, and you know it.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 189 -->
<a name="x190"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x190" class="tiny">x190</a>
Henry Hansteen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_190');">nanothermite isn't explosive</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_190" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell Bridges why are you spewing absurd, blatant, and long ago corrected disinformation, like nanothermite isn't explosive? A few minutes of research would show you that you're dead wrong about that, too.
<br/>
<br/>https://digwithin.net/2011/06/19/the-explosive-nature-of-nanothermite/?fbclid=IwAR2XNIoFeu-4sAs2JA8sn8OwwYs4azHVGq8JSDiraILLmDYSPJ2l4Zav4Vs
<br/>
<br/>DIGWITHIN.NET
<br/>The explosive nature of nanothermite
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 190 -->
<a name="x191"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x191" class="tiny">x191</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_191');">Why have your 9/11 Truth heroes never addressed all of the evidence?</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_191" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, why are you promoting bullshit that has never been vetted about NT?
<br/>
<br/>A few minutes of research into FGNW would reveal that it answers ALL OF THE 9/11 ANOMALIES.
<br/>
<br/>Why have your 9/11 Truth heroes never addressed all of the evidence? Come on. Show me where Dr. Jones or Dr. Harrit or Mr. Gage talk about how NT would be installed in the building to turn iron beams into horse-shoes and arches? Where do they explain how NT can create steel-doobies?
<br/>
<br/>Where do they explain Dr. Cahill's analysis of the dust/air?
<br/>
<br/>Where do they give FGNW a fair shake to see if the Cinderella shoe fits? They don't. They don't take on Dr. Wood's work with any more than mockery or ridicule, because to do so would necessitate acknowledging nuggets of truth that they'd have to explain. They never do a deep dive in Dr. Wood -- who has lots of dangling innuendo, doesn't connect dots, and has no conclusions -- to debunk or collect relevant pieces of evidence.
<br/>
<br/>But please. I welcome your discussion on my FB wall, on my blog, etc. Take my premise apart piece by piece, but be sure that your NT explanation for the evidence is valid.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 191 -->
<a name="x192"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x192" class="tiny">x192</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_192');">Peer-reviewed in a reputable journals</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_192" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. Henry Hansteen, please refer to this article: "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" by Dr. Andre Gsponer
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br/>
<br/>Peer-reviewed in a reputable journals. Was writing about FGNW a decade before 9/11. The above article came out BEFORE Dr. Jones Reputiation and BEFORE Dr. Wood's book. Such stellar researchers these were not to have missed Dr. Gsponer when looking into modern nukes as being a possible answer.
<br/>
<br/>They drew a line in the sand when they infiltrated the 9/11 Truth Movement. All of the bullshit NT, beams from space, deep underground nukes, gravity driven pile-drivers... are fallback positions to keep the public from knowing that the USA nuked itself (with the help of Israeli operatives and multiple war games.)
<br/>
<br/>Why? Because decades of media hype (not all of it applicable to all devices in existence or being planned) into nuclear devices put a stigma over the revelation of anything nuclear. Might have lead us to nuke the scape-goated enemies instead of invasion and stealing of resources.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>ARXIV.ORG
<br/>[physics/0510071] Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and…
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 192 -->
<a name="x193"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x193" class="tiny">x193</a>
Henry Hansteen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_193');">you're naught but a troll and a waste of time</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_193" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges nanothermitic material can be highly explosive. Why are you saying it isn't? If you lack the honesty and integrity to admit it when you're proven to be dead wrong, then you're naught but a troll and a waste of time.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 193 -->
<a name="x194"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x194" class="tiny">x194</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_194');">Was hearing loss and deafness a condition experienced by survivors and first reponders?</a></b></p>
<p>2018-11-21</p>
<div id="sect_194" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Henry Hansteen, Dr. Sunder of NIST was absolutely correct when he stated that conventional chemical explosives (which would have included Dr. Jones' NT even mixed with RDX) would have been deafening within 1/2 mile.
<br/>
<br/>Was hearing loss and deafness a condition experienced by survivors and first reponders? No.
<br/>
<br/>Just like Dr. Sunder was able to have a straight face with no lying ticks when he said that the first 18 stories of WTC-7 collapse happened slower than gravitational acceleration. Perfectly true, but to come to this conclusion, he had to average three stages of demolition, of which Stage 2 NIST says was identical to gravitational acceleration and was over 8 stories or 100' of structure.
<br/>
<br/>It is easy to debunk speculation when you know what the true source of the added energy is.
<br/>
<br/>The pulverization of the towers was relatively quiet (compared to the expectations from the explosions of conventional chemical-based devices) is that some of the FGNW possibilities are essentially variants of neutron bombs. FGNW do not rely on the medium of air to cause destruction; quick changes in air pressure from such explosions would be loud.
<br/>
<br/>Instead, highly energetic neutrons can deposit their energy deep within molecular structures. Air gets a little heated up. (Reports of 1st responders coming across the bridge noted increased outside temperatures). But the energy goes quietly into the material. For materials with latent water molecules trapped inside, think of a microwave on a closed container: pop. Trapped moisture instantly turning into steam exhibits large forces of the expanding volume to blow apart the material. (Dry wall, porcellain, humans). Other material directly in the line of fire, like the metal trusses and pans holding the poured concrete would "ablate". Look that word up.
<br/>
<br/>Look up my references. Stop trying to argue with me from a position of ignorance. Know your enemy's (argument). Study it and refute it in a logical manner.
<br/>
<br/>I'll wait.
<br/>
<br/>Going off half-cocked when you haven't even read either of my blog articles linked... Well, it doesn't reflect well on you or your arguments.
<br/>
<br/>I fucking did my research. Now you do yours! Your job is made easier because I've given you targets to aim at: section by section, point by point.
<br/>
<br/>P.S. The point of four or more events happening at once is that in the aftermath, we'd conflate evidence from one event being relevant to another and munge everything together and come up with a one-size-fits-all solution. The reality is that each building destroyed requires analysis independent of the others. One method of destruction doesn't have to apply to all. Furthermore, my argument has plenty of room to accept NT as being present and involved, but that NT was not the primary mechanism.
<br/>
<br/>The either-or argument is lame. I say they had generals and majors with itchy trigger fingers literally just dying to deploy some of the nuclear toys developed over the 55 years since WWII and available in the USA's and Israel's arsenals.
<br/>
<br/>The overkill pulverization is proof that they threw everything including the kitchen sink at the destruction of WTC. However, overkill pulverization doesn't make sense as a design goal, because it is so glaring an energy sink that gravity can't explain. It only makes sense as an unplanned side-effect of the mechanisms chosen.
<br/>
<br/>//</p>
</div><!-- section 194 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part6 -->
<hr>
<a name="x195"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part20');">Chapter 8:
FGNW Discussions with Paul Donnelly, Sam Lock, Olé Pedersen</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part20" style="display: block;">
<p>Persona Management Software, I guess. Because why would you assign multiple human agents to monitor individual Facebook forums? More effective to get one agent to be multiple personas and tag team. </p>
<a name="x196"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x196" class="tiny">x196</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_196');">Neils Harriet paper on nano-thermite</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_196" style="display: block;">
<p>Gaylord Campbell
<br/>
<br/>You're mentioning 'loose change' not me. And I suggest you research professor Neils Harriet paper on nano-thermite, as opposed to ordinary thermite. Please don't attempt to put words into my mouth , as you have no idea what I'm thinking.
<br/>
<br/>The WTC's were incredibly strong structures which both withstood the initial impacts..until they were taken down in a controlled demolition, as evidenced by the pyroclastic nature of the dust clouds that removed the concrete.
<br/>
<br/>The building effectivley collapsed to dust, apart from the steel beams.
</p>
</div><!-- section 196 -->
<a name="x197"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x197" class="tiny">x197</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_197');">paper on nano-thermite is a red-herring and a limited hang-out</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_197" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, I regret to inform you that Professor Neils Harriet's paper on nano-thermite is a red-herring and a limited hang-out. Rather than distract from the thread here (and because I'm lazy), I'll just refer you to my blog posting whose early sections slaughter the NT sacred cow.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br/>
<br/>However, my FGNW is still within the realm of controlled demolition, so we are in agreement there.
<br/>
<br/>Here's where I'm going to reach into the maw of disinformation and rescue a nugget of truth. Dr. Sunder of NIST when validly poo-poo-ing chemical based explosives (despite not replacing it with anything that could solve the energy equation), he mentioned that the number of conventional explosives would have been deafening.
<br/>
<br/>You see, much of the destructiveness of chemical-based explosives is the sudden change in air pressure that is the medium for the energy. That translates into LOUD, in addition to overkill amounts to account for pulverization.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW, on the other hand, emit highly energetic neutrons in a directed fashion (hence falling into the category of DEW). As they neutrons pass through materials, sometimes energy is left behind in the molecular structure. Picture this for content that has residual water molecules (e.g., drywall, concrete): the water molecules hit by the FGNW DEW go from liquid directly to super hot gas (steam), whose expanding volumetric pressure blows the material of the trapped water molecules apart. Dustification. Steel in the path (like the floor plates and supporting trusses that are under-represented in the debris pile) would ablate, the leading edges vaporizing so quickly that it sends a shockwave into the material to blow it apart -- which would account for the tiny iron spheres measured in the dust all over.
<br/>
<br/>To quote "The Cat in the Hat", "and that is not all I can do..."
<br/>
<br/>Remember the NIST videos of the debris pile that they suppressed for half a decade or more? Turns out, these SHOW radiation. Dr. Cahill who came a month after 9/11 and was measuring air quality downwind determined that some particles in the air were heavy metals and were being continually regenerated by the hot spots that burned for literally months.
<br/>
<br/>For those with eyes open, the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event slip out all over.
<br/>
<br/>And PhD's like Dr. Jones, Dr. Harriet, Dr. Wood had a role to keep us parked in lesser conspiratorial methods. Why? Because any whiff of nuclear involvement would have had figurative fall-out to agencies and leaders.
<br/>
<br/>The linked article is not the latest. This has overlap but is the latest.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 197 -->
<a name="x198"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x198" class="tiny">x198</a>
Kevin Brant : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_198');">submit another paper—through the peer review process</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_198" style="display: block;">
<p>If you believe the Harriett’s paper is incorrect, then you should submit another paper—through the peer review process—which supports your POV. That is how science is done. Until then your assertions about nuclear devices is just another BS Internet rumor (of the disinformation variety).
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 198 -->
<a name="x199"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x199" class="tiny">x199</a>
Sam Lock, Pads Buhl, Olé Pedersen, Kevin Brant : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_199');">from the emergency exit signage</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_199" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Sam Lock</b> Kevin Brant The limited radioactive elements were from the emergency exit signage. No nukes exploded there that day.
<br/>
<br/><b>Mads Buhl</b> Gaylord Campbell Which 19 hijackers...?
<br/>
<br/><b>Olé Pedersen</b>
<br/>YES. Were there any hijackers Mads Buhl ?
<br/>
<br/>
<br/><b>Paul Donnelly</b> Maxwell Bridges
<br/>So you're basing your 'debunking ' of NT on the fact it would have been impossible to transport 60 tonnes of material into a largely empty towers over a six week period under the guise of say an elevator maintenance scheme? With the Israeli security firm in place? Good luck with that..
<br/>Professor Neils was hounded out of his postat Copenhagen for publishing a scientifically sound document, but I suppose this was part of his cover as a deep state operative.?
<br/>
<br/><b>Paul Donnelly</b>
<br/>Olé Pedersen
<br/>Interesting isnt it?
<br/>Yes, they were there , but on the actual day?
<br/>Enjoy Christopher Bollyns take on this a la 'the little drummer girl'. They all had false IDs didn't they?
<br/>
<br/><b>Olé Pedersen</b>
<br/>Paul Donnelly Do you have link
<br/>
<br/><b>Paul Donnelly</b>
<br/>Olé Pedersen I just watch his stuff on YT it's pretty informative for the WTC stuff , but I tend to stick with Craig for the Pentagon info.
<br/>
<br/><b>Olé Pedersen</b>
<br/>Paul Donnelly I also agree pretty much with Craig McKee
<br/>
<br/><b>Olé Pedersen</b>
<br/>Paul Donnelly Do you have a kink to Christopher Bollyn you referred to ?
<br/>
<br/><b>Paul Donnelly</b>
<br/>Olé Pedersen
<br/>Not posting for some reason but the YT vid with Sean Stone is a great primer.
<br/>
<br/><b>Olé Pedersen</b>
<br/>Paul Donnelly What respons? And who is Sean Stone?
<br/>
<br/><b>Paul Donnelly</b>
<br/>Olé Pedersen Sean stone is son of producer
<br/>
<br/><b>Olé Pedersen</b>
<br/>Ok. I do not know anything about that
<br/>
<br/><b>Kevin Brant</b>
<br/>Olé Pedersen Sean Stone & Christopher Bollyn
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/wZuj59S_WN0">https://youtu.be/wZuj59S_WN0</a>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 199 -->
<a name="x200"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x200" class="tiny">x200</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_200');">demonstrate that you didn't read my article</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_200" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, you wrote: "So you're basing your 'debunking ' of NT on the fact it would have been impossible to transport 60 tonnes of material into a largely empty towers over a six week period under the guise of say an elevator maintenance scheme?"
<br/>
<br/>No. This is not my (complete) argument, and demonstrates that you didn't read my article. For shame. Way to discredit your own objectivity!
<br/>
<br/>If 60 tonnes of NT is the figure you want to use, then let it be known that this has to be transported and installed in 3 buildings in the scant few days prior to 9/11 that bomb sniffing dogs took as holiday. Furthermore, does this 60 tonnes also account for the overkill amount needed for (a) pulverization and (b) duration of under-rubble hot-spots? I doubt it. RTFM, because I do the calculations.
<br/>
<br/>Furthermore, how does 60 tonnes of NT account for: steel sags, steel horseshoes, and steel doobies? What placement of NT accounts for these unique artifacts?
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "With the Israeli security firm in place? Good luck with that.."
<br/>
<br/>I knew they had Israeli operatives in the form of (a) art students in the WTC, (b) camera operators who danced on top of vans, and (c) minders who were neighbors of the patsies. Israel has nuclear weapons, warned the US of the attack, which is why they were filming it. Israeli security? Not a problem for installing nukes.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Professor Neils was hounded out of his postat Copenhagen for publishing a scientifically sound document, but I suppose this was part of his cover as a deep state operative?"
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood suffered a worse fate. Dr. Jones complains about bad treatment.
<br/>
<br/>But wait a minute! The premise has a hole in it called "scientifically sound document." Was it? Did it address all of the evidence? Or did it have an agenda going in to possibly attribute certain features to NT?
<br/>
<br/>Why didn't he considered fourth generation nuclear devices? They are much easier to install and can easily generate the tiny iron spheres in the dust (e.g., high heat), as well as the necessity for the tritium report song-and-dance, not discussing the traces of nuclear decay in the tables of the USGS analysis of the dust, etc.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 200 -->
<a name="x201"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x201" class="tiny">x201</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_201');">Harriet's paper was peer reviewed</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_201" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>Go ahead and try and push your mini-nuke theory.
<br/>
<br/>Wouldn't it leave a tiny bit of radioactivity which would have been picked up on.? I didn't realise it was a competition between Dr. Woods and Professor Neils Harriet about who had been persecuted the most .
<br/>
<br/>There is no hole in my argument as Professor Neils Harriet's paper was peer reviewed. The only agenda being displayed here is yours, and the fact is NT could only have been produced in a handful of laboratories in the US at the time, a fact shared with 'Amerithrax'.
<br/>
<br/>A fourth generation nuke would have vaporized half of Manhattan and would not have caused the controlled demolition of the Towers, visible by the detonation flashes as it came down. But I'm not going to convince you,
<br/>
<br/>You certainly aren't going to convince me , so let's just concentrate on getting the perpetrators put behind bars, hopefully we will at least be able to agree on that.
</p>
</div><!-- section 201 -->
<a name="x202"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x202" class="tiny">x202</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_202');">Dr. Andre Gsponer's work on FGNW was also peer reviewed</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_202" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, I prefer the phrase "fourth generation nuclear weapons" instead of "mini-nuke", owing to the already established and often false connotations associated with the latter.
<br/>
<br/>In fact, your comment illustrates the false propaganda perfectly: "A fourth generation nuke would have vaporized half of Manhattan and would not have caused the controlled demolition of the Towers, visible by the detonation flashes as it came down."
<br/>
<br/>Nothing could be further from the truth.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Andre Gsponer's work on FGNW was also peer reviewed, although to my knowledge he has not written anything about 9/11. Point is, Dr. Harriet, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Wood among others have this as a glaring omission in their stilted works.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br/>
<br/>// Part 1/2
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly Part 2/2
<br/>
<br/>Allow me to call your attention to section 9. "Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras" in the following as one example of many that 9/11 had radiation.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
<br/>
<br/>In addition to the radiation that you can actually see in the NIST videos, there is the tritium report, the USGS analysis of the dust, etc. The evidence leaks out all over.
<br/>
<br/>Take your time and review the material.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 202 -->
<a name="x203"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x203" class="tiny">x203</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_203');">mini-nuke theory implausible at best</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_203" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>So the dust samples you collected in your survey are all legit and above board but Professor Harriet's are in some way suspect because they dont fit your narrative. ? Have fun tying yourself into knots trying to explain that one.
<br/>
<br/>I've already said that I find the mini-nuke theory implausible at best and that you aren't going to convince me otherwise as it doesn't fit the way the buildings came down.
<br/>
<br/>Bottom line, You haven't convinced me, and I reject your analysis.
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Hate to break it to you. {mcb: Meme similar to the 20th Century Fox logo but with the words "NO ONE CARES".}
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 203 -->
<a name="x204"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x204" class="tiny">x204</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_204');">demonstrating how much you don't care... by posting two comments to my one</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_204" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, congratulations on having read two / three lengthy reference items and gleamed all that was important in them in just over one half hour! Kindly point out all the errors that didn't convince you of FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Nothing like demonstrating how much you don't care... by posting two comments to my one. Nothing worthwhile from your second comment prevented it from being appended to the first comment, so you wouldn't come across as an ignorant spammer too chicken shit to wade into substantiated information that might burst his widdle bubble.
<br/>
<br/>You are absolutely correct in your assessment about me not being able to convince you, because you refuse to do the leg work to understand the premise. And because you have a paid agenda to not be convinced.
<br/>
<br/>To say that you reject my analysis? Without having read it. Bravo! Way to expose your lack of integrity and objectivity.
<br/>
<br/>Run along now. Your presence here is no longer needed. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 204 -->
<a name="x205"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x205" class="tiny">x205</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_205');">I read your your analysis, It's just incorrect..</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_205" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>How much are you getting paid to schill?
<br/>Hope it is worth it you wanker
<br/>I read your your analysis,
<br/>It's just incorrect..
<br/>And it's not up to you who stays or goes, I believe this is Craig McKee's page?
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>That's the difference between you and me , I realise there are multiple scenarios that are possible,
<br/>I prefer Northwoods myself but admire field McConnell's Boeing remote-fly scenario as equally plausible.
<br/>You on the other hand are straight in with the Ad Hominem's just because I hold a differing opinion.
<br/>I am allowed my opinion to say that mini-nukes don't work for me. I would also like to state that this is a Pentagon site and this whole thread is off topic.
<br/>Don't you have enough WTC sites you can share your Pearl's of wisdom with?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 205 -->
<a name="x206"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x206" class="tiny">x206</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_206');">identify what was in error.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_206" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, Mr. McKee and I go back many years. He doesn't appreciate me posting nuclear topics, particularly under the 757 thread, but I'm not the one who brought it up first, and I've been posting links that would take the sincere to my blog where they can continue the discussion.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "It's just incorrect."
<br/>
<br/>Doesn't cut it. Doesn't even prove that you read it. Your argument would be helped if you at least quoted from it and identified what was in error.
<br/>
<br/>Sorry, dude, but such wanking effort makes you a projectionist with your "paid to shill" comment. And your two comments in a row? Spam much, I see.
<br/>
<br/>The difference between you and me, Mr. Donnelly, is that I'm willing to do some research and change my views based on what I learned. You are not. You won't even read the articles, not even the ones that slaughter your sacred cows.
<br/>
<br/>Had you been to my blog, you'd see many re-purposed discussions where I won many a debate because my opponents were too much of agenda-toting shills to even READ my argument... and they, like you, were PROUD of their ignorance. Kind of violates one of the rules of war that "you should know your enemy." Can't debate appropriately if you don't know your opponent's position.
<br/>
<br/>This thread alone has links to three blog articles from me. You know how to reach me.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 206 -->
<a name="x207"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x207" class="tiny">x207</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_207');">more Dr Woods fluff</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_207" style="display: block;">
<p>Well Mr Craig McKee has my deepest sympathies.
<br/>I read your blog and it is just more Dr Woods fluff.
<br/>It is incorrect.
<br/>The towers wouldn't have fell like that.
<br/>Why would I quote your blog? It is factually inaccurate. No nuke was detonated.
<br/>I'm sorry I cant be of more assistance but mental health is not my field of expertise...
<br/>Help is out there dude, you only have to ask .
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 207 -->
<a name="x208"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x208" class="tiny">x208</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_208');">FGNW is ~not~ "more Dr. Wood's fluff"</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_208" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, clearly you did not read my blog, because FGNW is ~not~ "more Dr. Wood's fluff." Nowhere do I suggest it was one device per tower, but because of the nuclear propaganda that has you duped, you think all nukes are the same, are large, have the same radiation signatures, have the same nature... They don't.
<br/>
<br/>Not only did you not read my blog, you did not read the PEER-REVIEWED article on a reputable science website about FGNW by Dr. Gsponer.
<br/>
<br/>Major fail, Mr. Donnelly.
<br/>
<br/>If you can't quote from my blog and point out the errors, then all you are attempting is hypnotic suggestion. With your single-nuke comments, you're giving book reports without having read (and certainly not understood) the book. Bravo!
<br/>
<br/>Run along now. Your shilling here for limited hang-out premises is no longer required.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 208 -->
<a name="x209"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x209" class="tiny">x209</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_209');">a teeny tiny nuke</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_209" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Yes I didn't read any of it.
<br/>My bad, it was only a teeny tiny nuke,
<br/>That's what you're going with?
<br/>??????
<br/>Still Nobody cares..
<br/>Remember, little baby steps, you can do it.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 209 -->
<a name="x210"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x210" class="tiny">x210</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_210');">hypnotic suggestion fails</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_210" style="display: block;">
<p>
Oh, you are just so damn brilliant, Mr. Paul Donnelly! Love your admission that you didn't read any of it, despite trying to give the impression that you had and that it was supposedly incorrect.
<br/>
<br/>You couldn't even be bothered to read the PEER REVIEWED article from Cornell University that talks about "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons".
<br/>
<br/>"Teeny tiny nuke, That's what you're going with?"
<br/>
<br/>Your hypnotic suggestion fails.
<br/>
<br/>You write: "Still Nobody cares."
<br/>
<br/>Can't even get that right, and end up contradicting yourself with your very comment. You cared. How ironic.
<br/>
<br/>Now take your baby steps and walk away. Don't comment. You've already shot your integrity to hell and exposed your agenda. Buh-bye!
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 210 -->
<a name="x211"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x211" class="tiny">x211</a>
Paul Donnelly, Sam Lock, Daniel Coble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_211');">Another one who didn’t read the article</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_211" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Paul Donnelly</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Yes extremely small..
<br/>
<br/><b>Sam Lock</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges What other elements are produced when a nuke goes off? You do not see those other elements in the debris. You only see tritium that powers the emergency exit signs.
<br/>
<br/><b>Daniel Coble</b>
<br/>Another one who didn’t read the article, but who is armed and ready to enforce the dogma of “No Nukes at the WTC”
<br/>
<br/>
<br/><b>Paul Donnelly</b>
<br/>Sam Lock thank you.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 211 -->
<a name="x212"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x212" class="tiny">x212</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_212');">MY FAVORITE piece of radioactive evidence has got to be the NIST videos</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_212" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Daniel Coble, I echo "thank you". To Mr. Sam Lock, I point out that if he is astute enough to have read way down into this thread and determined that the subject has turned into one about Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), then he ought to have also seen the icons and banners to the supporting material and been able to click on it. But failing that but while still reading with comprehension, he probably oughta shoulda seen how his back-slapping colleague, Mr. Paul Donnelly, was being dinged because in his responses and by his own admission he did not RTFM.
<br/>
<br/>I'll give Mr. Sam Lock a hint: the other elements that are produced when a nuke goes off depends on its composition (Duh!), but most of the newer ones could be classified as fission-trigger-fusion and essentially modified neutron bombs [which is why nobody writes about that once feared and grossly misrepresented weapon].
<br/>
<br/>The primary output is highly energetic neutrons aimed upwards and only detectable very promptly with special equipment. Steel that wasn't directly in the line of fire or at a distance might still receive some lower-energy neutron bombardment which leads to embrittlement and could be the reason the Deutsches Bank after repairing its outer face was demolished.
<br/>
<br/>The fission-trigger does leave the standard traces (alpha, beta, gamma), but being only the trigger and not the payload, they aren't quite as lingering after 48 hours, which is when the earliest radiation measurements clock in at.
<br/>
<br/>The fission-trigger can also be deduced by Uranium and its decay trace elements that USGS dust samples had in correlated quantities sample-to-sample. Although the elements appeared in the data tables of their report [while coincidentally nothing relating to nano-thermite], no plain text explanation is given in the report to point this little factoid out.
<br/>
<br/>Tritium is key to all FGNW weapons. Can the cover-up be more ludicrous than a report whose stilted purposes limits them to speculating about alleged building content that would lead to the tritium measurements [late and very late, spotty, tiny sample set] at a small number of water run-off points [at WTC-6, I believe]. Supposedly aircraft exit signs, sights on weapons, and time pieces (e.g., wrist-watches) could account for what was measured. Obviously because weapons or means of destruction weren't in the scope of the report, they weren't considered. In the process, they redefined trace amounts to be 55 times what it normally would have been.
<br/>
<br/>HERE'S THE SHOCKER. Dr. Jones, Dr. Harriet, Dr. Wood, et al accepted this report unchallenged and unquestioned as the total truth and the total picture on what tritium was present and measured. As the trend line in other government reports already proves, the report shouldn't have been accepted at face-value.
<br/>
<br/>MY FAVORITE piece of radioactive evidence has got to be the NIST videos that were sat on for half a decade or more and that actually allow you to see radiation being emitted from the pile. Same principle in how your smart phone with the right app can become a handy geiger counter. I leave this as an exercise for you to pursue and validate, but my article does have discussion and links to get you there quicker.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 212 -->
<a name="x213"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x213" class="tiny">x213</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_213');">C'mon, little baby steps</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_213" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>C'mon, little baby steps,
<br/>You can do it.
<br/>How's your moms basement btw?
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>So what , they placed NT in WTC 7 for a CD , but put a mini nuke into the other two for a CD ..
<br/>A CD with mini nukes..
<br/>You are out of your Godamn mind. ??????????
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 213 -->
<a name="x214"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x214" class="tiny">x214</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_214');">been on this carousel before</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_214" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, did they really place NT in WTC-7? It could have been FGNW as well. Please use the correct nomenclature, because otherwise it is a very glaring tell that you haven't RTFM. How do you expect to refute something without reading it, studying it, and knowing what it is? Hypnotic suggestion? *Finger-Snap* That spell is broken.
<br/>
<br/>Because I have been on this carousel before, I am looking for an easy-out, and I'm sure Mr. McKee doesn't relish having nuclear devices discussed under his pentagon non-plane (although Chandler & Jones are a bridge between the topics).
<br/>
<br/>Therefore, I encourage you to go to my blog and debunk either one of my articles in their comments. [I have it on moderation, but will publish relevant comments.]
<br/>
<br/>Take a lesson from our patron saint of 9/11, Dr. Griffin, address my article section-by-section. Tear it apart. Anything less is, well, simply hypnotic suggestion by either a government agent or a duped useful idiot too proud to discover what he was duped by.
<br/>
<br/>I did my homework; I did my part. I don't need to re-discuss it here, and certainly not before you've familiarized your ass on what FGNW is and how it applies.
<br/>
<br/>Prove you're objective. Prove you're open-minded. Prove you're reasonable, intelligent, and not agenda-toting. First step... Baby-steps, as it were, is to RTFM.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 214 -->
<a name="x215"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x215" class="tiny">x215</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_215');">I would have to value your opinion</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_215" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>At this point , to have any effect I would have to value your opinion...
<br/>
<br/>The only reason you are pushing mini-nukes is to disinfo NanoThermite.. Let's see how many people agree with that statement.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 215 -->
<a name="x216"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x216" class="tiny">x216</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_216');">very limited imagination</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_216" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, obviously I don't agree with your statement: "The only reason [I am] pushing mini-nukes is to disinfo NanoThermite."
<br/>
<br/>You have a very limited imagination if you think that could be the ~only~ reason. I can think of another reason right off the top of my head: FGNW is the TRUTH and where the evidence leads. If you follow Dr. Griffin's advice that no relevant evidence should be overlooked, I can think of lots that NT overlooks and doesn't explain: arches, sags, horseshoes, steel doobies, meteor, duration of hot-spots.
<br/>
<br/>I've already proven how NT doesn't go the full distance, and you have tripped over your own agenda by not going into that work to determine if it has any merit.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br/>
<br/>You'll notice that I use information for A&E9/11 Truth, but I take the evidence where it needs to go and don't park understanding in cul-de-sacs that stop short of what the evidence and research says it should be.
<br/>
<br/>Show that you are a sincere seeker of truth and an objective individual. RTFM.
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 216 -->
<a name="x217"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x217" class="tiny">x217</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_217');">I find you very amusing</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_217" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges
<br/>That's ok pal, you think what you want, you don't have to convince me.
<br/>Christopher Bollyn joins the dots for me in a far more lucid and convincing manner than your self serving conjecture ever will. As is my right to hold a different opinion as it is the truth. But let me guess, you will refer me back to your blog for..
<br/>How many times is this? I've lost count.
<br/>??????????
<br/>But no hard feelings, I find you very amusing ????
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 217 -->
<a name="x218"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x218" class="tiny">x218</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_218');">how many times have you ignored following reference links</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_218" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, I don't know. How many times have I referred you to either of the write-up's on my blog. It was really to save both of us a ton of time. Saves you time and embarrassment from asking questions that have already been answered; saves me time from copy-and-pasting those answers in here and spamming this forum.
<br/>
<br/>How many times I pasted in a link isn't the right question. The right question is how many times (and counting) you have ignored following reference links and gave your hypnotic suggestion of a book report without having read the material in question?
<br/>
<br/>Shows that I am sincere in wanting discussion and having my premise debunked or supported.
<br/>
<br/>Shows that you are not sincere.
<br/>
<br/>If you were exploring my blog, you'd run across at least two instances of me TOTALLY PUNKING AND PWNING debate opponents because they couldn't objectively review material on their own. If they couldn't find someone else's work that they could copy-and-paste, they couldn't speak to the truths therein.
<br/>
<br/>One fellow I GAVE a copy of Dr. Wood's book just to get us onto the same literal page for discussion what was good, bad, and ugly. He ran out a generous clock on reading the book. Admitted finally that he didn't. Then bragged that he physically destroyed the book to make bird cage liner. I mocked him on this mercilessly for quite some time. He tries to re-write the deal. He tries to say that the overlap between the website and book made the deal invalid. He weaseled all over the place. He maintained this LIE about having physically destroying Dr. Wood's book instead of venturing a good, bad, ugly review of the same for TWO AND A HALF YEARS, and was eventually caught in this blatant lie.
<br/>
<br/>Don't be like this fellow. Dinged his integrity big time.
<br/>
<br/>It happened with Dr. Wood's website and book that I was just mining for evidence, not her non-conclusions.
<br/>
<br/>It happened with this link, peer reviewed and all, oh my: https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br/>
<br/>It happens with my blog that extracts relevant information from all over and brings it together to make the case.
<br/>
<br/>I've got my ducks in a row. You do not. You are proving how closed-minded, un-objective, un-inquisative, and duped you really are.
<br/>
<br/>If you've got anything valid left in your bag of rational discussion tricks besides HYPNOTIC SUGGESTION and BOOK REPORTS WITHOUT READING THE BOOK, now is the time to prove that it includes READING and attempting to UNDERSTAND the substantiating material.
<br/>
<br/>Chop, chop, young man! Prove that you aren't a shill. Debunk my work (and its substantiating material) legitimately and fairly.
<br/>
<br/>Otherwise, now would be a good time to STFU and simply go away. I don't relish PWNING you, but I will if you are less than genuine.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>ARXIV.ORG
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 218 -->
<a name="x219"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x219" class="tiny">x219</a>
Paul Donnelly, Daniel Coble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_219');">Your material is flawed</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_219" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><b>Paul Donnelly</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>That's exactly the point. Your material is flawed.
<br/>It's just a sad attempt to undermine the Nano-thermite . I mean, think about it, if it really was mini-nukes you'd have been at least threatened by the deep state, wouldn't you..
<br/>The only punking and pawning I saw was in your own mind. But thank you for confirming that you are just regurgitating Dr Woods work, which has a small following in the truth movement but never gained the required momentum due to it's long winded nature.
<br/>
<br/><b>Daniel Coble</b>
<br/>Are there comments from Donnelly on this thread? I don’t see any.... Maybe he blocked me....
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 219 -->
<a name="x220"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x220" class="tiny">x220</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_220');">flawed is your research and debating abilities</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_220" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, I just posted a PEER REVIEWED article from Cornell University's physics department, and you have the audacity to call it flawed WITHOUT HAVING READ IT!!!
<br/>
<br/>Bravo! Way to point out your shilliness! You take the cake! Such an eloquent debater and logical beyond anything Mr. Spock could dream up.
<br/>
<br/>What is flawed here is your research and debating abilities.
<br/>
<br/>BTW, my work does NOT regurgitate Dr. Wood's work. Sure, I've mined her work for various things, but I stand on her shoulders and take her work to the next level. But you HAVEN'T READ IT so you don't know, and all you can do is keep muttering your hypnotic suggestion.
<br/>
<br/>Yes, Mr. Daniel Coble, Mr. Donnelly has had some comments here. Mostly of the variety "I don't need to crack no stinking book to be able to judge it by its cover and be done with it." Blocking you is another flag that Mr. Donnelly isn't sincere and can't handle debate.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 220 -->
<a name="x221"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x221" class="tiny">x221</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_221');">mini nukes debunk themselves</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_221" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges
<br/>The mini nukes debunk themselves.
<br/>The 16 people in stairwell B? ..no fatalities due to radioactive 'burning' Gee must have been related to Hugh Jackman..
<br/>What's the odds..
<br/>Pasquale Buzzalli as well...
<br/>Then theres the extremely rapid rusting of WTC steel,
<br/>Iodine concentration lower in the upper layers, radioactive hot spots due to Radium, lioy reporting that Uranium , thorium and
<br/>Actinium and other radionuclide at background levels
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 221 -->
<a name="x222"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x222" class="tiny">x222</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_222');">Do you know what DEW stands for?</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_222" style="display: block;">
<p>
God-Damn, Mr. Paul Donnelly. You should STFU right now before you embarrass yourself even more and thoroughly trash your reputation and any belief lurker-readers might have that you aren't an agent with your obvious agenda toting from that really strong debate position of not knowing your opponent's work, SO YOU MAKE THINGS UP.
<br/>
<br/>FWIW, FGNW are in the category of DEW. Do you know what DEW stands for? Let me give you a hint. The first two words are "directed" and "energy". If DEW isn't aimed at the survivors in the stairwell (because maybe they didn't have a device lower or maybe the device failed leading to the nuclear fizzle that we observe as smoldering piles for months), then what you write is a non-issue. The FGNW were aimed upwards but detonated top-down, and the survivors in the stairwell weren't targeted.
<br/>
<br/>I've addressed the radiation issues and much more in my work. Ho-hum. Go read it. Don't comment here until you do.
<br/>
<br/>Geesh, Agent Paul Donnelly, you are fumbling. Our government dollars at work. Guess they've lowered their standards to have accepted you.
<br/>
<br/>How much do you get per posting? Not asking for myself, but for a friend who wants something productive to do during retirement. At least when I debunk the shit, I study what substantiates it and its flaws which ultimately is meant to help you. "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" Don't answer that. We already know, Agent Paul Donnelly. You do a Trump and double down on the bullshit and lies. Congratulations!
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 222 -->
<a name="x223"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x223" class="tiny">x223</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_223');">Aimed upwards but detonated top-down</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_223" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Aimed upwards but detonated top-down?
<br/>Riiiight
<br/>????????????
<br/>It's not just me is it?
<br/>I didn't realise embarrassing myself could be such FUN ???
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 223 -->
<a name="x224"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x224" class="tiny">x224</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_224');">It is just you</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_224" style="display: block;">
<p>
Yes. "Aimed upwards but detonated top-down."
<br/>
<br/>For the sake of discussion, imagine 6-12 devices per tower mounted on either side of the steel structure that later became know as the "spire". The top-most device goes off first and gets the upper block to fall at 65% of gravitational acceleration, suddenly and symmetrically and at one point arresting the block's angular momentum.
<br/>
<br/>Before the debris wave passes the level of the just detonated device, the next lower device in the towers goes off. Repeat top-down until all devices are detonated and tower is dustified on the ground. Top-down.
<br/>
<br/>But each device is aimed or targeted upwards. Helps limit what gets zapped with each detonation. More importantly, FGNW aimed upwards won't fracticide FGNW mounted lower in the tower and could be fizzled by neutron emissions from the first detonated device unless those emissions can be aimed (DEW-like) in a different direction. I don't know, like, maybe, aimed up?!!
<br/>
<br/>It is just you.
<br/>
<br/>You really should do some more research before you open your mouth again. Even better, go to my blog and debunk my premise section by section. That's what the Dr. David Griffin model of debunking false theories calls for. Don't be such a weasel.
<br/>
<br/>I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this FGNW hobby-horse. Set me straight and bring me back into the fold of 9/11 concensus sheep, but do it in a legitimate manner. Emoticons and memes? Not legitimate.
<br/>
<br/>Chop, chop! It is only your reputation and integrity that are on the line.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 224 -->
<a name="x225"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x225" class="tiny">x225</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_225');">get a theory to fit the facts</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_225" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>It is just me? I'm not the one trying myself up in verbal knots to get a theory to fit the facts.
<br/>You should try it the other way round. Maybe you could use your profound knowledge to make millions in the field of controlled demolition with your teeny tiny nukes?
<br/>Could you cut me in on a percentage? ??????
<br/>I'm so glad are spending quality time like this..
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 225 -->
<a name="x226"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x226" class="tiny">x226</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_226');">a perfect example of what an agent on the internet looks like</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_226" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Donnelly, you have hit the nail on the head with your most astute assertion: it is just you.
<br/>
<br/>You are indeed tying yourself up in verbal knots to get theory to fit the facts... about NT. And you would have a better go of it if you'd read the three sections or so where I slaughter that sacred cow of limited hang-out that NT is. But because you haven't read it, and seem to pride yourself on this *cough* *hack* *choke* *choke* most useful of all debate tactics (e.g., be ignorant of what your opponent's true position is by not studying it), you have missed the many pieces of evidence that NT doesn't explain.
<br/>
<br/>If you want to emulate Dr. David Ray Griffin, you have to address all of the evidence. Arches, sags, horseshoes, and steel doobies; duration of under-rubble hot-spots; tritium, tritium, tritium; camera scintillation...
<br/>
<br/>I've debunked NT already. I've made the case for FGNW already. I don't need to make it here again.
<br/>
<br/>Your job -- as an alleged 9/11 Truther -- is to follow truth where ever it may lead. My FGNW is full of truth, or so I say. If you want to disagree, it is a simple task for you to identify all of the nuggets of disinformation and nuggets of truth. Take it apart, section-by-section. Go to town. Do a thorough job. My blog allows commentary, although the comment size is smaller than FB.
<br/>
<br/>But don't come here and expect hypnotic statements to impress the latter-day lurker readers, or for your integrity to remain in high esteem in their estimation.
<br/>
<br/>If you are foolish enough to continue your present course of being a weasel, latter-day lurker readers will have a perfect example of what an agent on the internet looks like, and will be all *clap* *clap* *clap* "Bravo, old chap! Way to out yourself and prove the depths of infiltration!"
<br/>
<br/>Looking forward to your comment on my blog, either article... Although read those comments first to make sure you don't re-hash what was already discussed.
<br/>
<br/>No need to continue the discussion here. You are at a disadvantage and losing.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 226 -->
<a name="x227"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x227" class="tiny">x227</a>
Sam Lock, Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_227');">not the sharpest tool in the box</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_227" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Sam Lock</b><br />
Maxwell Bridges boldly said "I'll give Mr. Sam Lock a hint: the other elements that are produced when a nuke goes off depends on its composition (Duh!)" --- So what -->other<-- radio-logical elements were found in the dust. Besides all of that unused thermite (not a radio-logical element).
<br/>
<br/><b>Paul Donnelly</b>
<br/>Sam Lock well said.
<br/>I fear you are debating with not the sharpest tool in the box.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 227 -->
<a name="x228"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x228" class="tiny">x228</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_228');">assigning me busy work that you probably won't read</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_228" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Sam Lock, I'll give you another hint. The location in my comment where you retrieved that lovely quote from me? Start there and keep reading. I answer your original question, and the question you just posted. Geesh.
<br/>
<br/>And with that, I brush off your attempt at assigning me busy work that you probably won't read. I proved you didn't read the comment, and you probably also haven't been to my blog where my two postings go into great details about the collection of nuclear evidence.
<br/>
<br/>Ho-hum.
<br/>
<br/>I did my homework, and I saved my work, and I am making it available to you. Go to any of my comments above with a link, follow the link, become enlightened.
<br/>
<br/>Legitimately debunk it (or validate it).
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 228 -->
<a name="x229"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x229" class="tiny">x229</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_229');">read the blog</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_229" style="display: block;">
<p>Sam Lock but have you read the blog? ..????
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 229 -->
<a name="x230"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x230" class="tiny">x230</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_230');">a manly-man's man threesome! Woo-hoo, baby. I can't wait!</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_230" style="display: block;">
<p>
Looks like Mr. Paul Donnelly is trying to assign reading my blog to Mr. Sam Lock. Funny how they are tripping over themselves and racing to the bottom of who isn't going to read it, and proving their lack of reading comprehension skills in each and every comment!
<br/>
<br/>My advice? You're tag teaming me here; tag team me under the discussion to one of my FGNW blog articles LINK WITHIN THIS THREAD. Working together (and with me), we can discover what is wrong in my premise, as well as nuggets of truth that remain valid and must be addressed by all 9/11 theories-du-jour.
<br/>
<br/>Section by section.
<br/>
<br/>Find the good, the bad, and the ugly.
<br/>
<br/>Warning: I've got my blog on moderation and am not checking emails too frequently that would normally ping me of a new comment for approval. I'll change that habit and be more on top of email if you start posting comments there, but give me a head's up initially that you're finally doing me the favor of downing my last remaining 9/11 hobby-horse (Neu Nookiedoo).
<br/>
<br/>Something like a FB message: <i>"Hey Bridge-man, I've just posted a comment on your lame-ass blog that wipes my ass onto your section X, and my thorough comment addresses with substantiation all of the points in that section. I'll be addressing section X+1 tomorrow. Stay tuned, mo-fo!"</i>
<br/>
<br/>And then I'll go there, review your comment, approve your comment, and then my multi-part response will put your feces onto a piece of toilet paper for you to sniff and prove where your substantiation is in error, and hence making your premise in error.
<br/>
<br/>Such great fun we all are to have: a manly-man's man threesome! Woo-hoo, baby. I can't wait!
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 230 -->
<a name="x231"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x231" class="tiny">x231</a>
Paul Donnelly, Sam Lock : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_231');">tag teaming</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_231" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><b>Paul Donnelly</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Have you missed me? ??
<br/>
<br/><b>Sam Lock</b>
<br/> Maxwell Bridges "the NIST videos that were sat on for half a decade or more and that actually allow you to see radiation being emitted from the pile." --- Where?
<br/>
<br/><b>Paul Donnelly</b>
<br/>Sam Lock
<br/>Are we tag teaming ?
<br/>Didn't realise this was a WWF thread...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 231 -->
<a name="x232"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x232" class="tiny">x232</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_232');">hitting the softball question</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_232" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Sam Lock, thank you for that wonderful opening that allows me to paste in a quote from my article.
<blockquote><p>+++ quote {edited}
<br/>
<br/>A startling discovering from Mr. Heinz Pommer's work (<a href="http://www.911history.de">http://www.911history.de</a>) was real-time evidence of radiation in the immediate after-effects of the towers' destruction. This evidence is in the form of camera scintillation (flashes or sparkles of light) as a result of radioactive particles in the dust cloud. [-snip-]
<br/>
<br/>Here is another example of camera scintillation, 9/11 - World Trade Center Recovery and debris removal part 4 of 6. At around 6:00 as the camera pans up and down, whenever it aims down, more scintillation appears in the lower half of the image that depicts the pulverized debris pile. Other instances in the video (such as around 12:00), the camera will have relatively few glitches, but as it pans over areas of the destruction, the lower portion of the image with the debris pile (and not the upper portion with standing structures) begin to have more white flashes or camera anomalies. When the camera pans over other areas of equipment and workers, not such scintillation.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xScpRFVVx4w&feature=youtu.be">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xScpRFVVx4w&feature=youtu.be</a>
<br/>
<br/>+++ end quote
</p></blockquote>
<p>
It comes from Secton 9: titled "Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras". [Off topic is how you could have missed this section. Guilty of not RTFM? Man, that is just plain ugly in how it paints your objectivity in being able to (not) read your debate opponent's premises and know exactly WHAT has to be debunked.]
<br/>
<br/>And as for Mr. Paul Donnelly and his outing of the coordination between those who promote an agenda about stifling any whiff whatsoever that 9/11 had nuclear components. Thank you. And you both suck at it.
<br/>
<br/>Come on, gentlemen. If we assume that you -- Mr. Paul Donnelly and Mr. Sam Lock -- are real 9/11 truthers who follow truth where ever it leads, then god-damn if Dr. David Griffin ain't a patron saint where he demonstrates how to "debunk-the-debunkers". Namely, "section by section". If you have to, "paragraph by paragraph". In doing so, you can rescue nuggets of truth while simultaneously skewering the disinformation nuggets.
<br/>
<br/>Your work is cut out for you, and fuck if I care if you WWF-thread tag-team it... In the comments under my relevant blog posting, where it absolutely has to be debunked (or validated)!
<br/>
<br/>Please excuse me for hitting the softball question right. on. out. of. the. park.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 232 -->
<a name="x233"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x233" class="tiny">x233</a>
Paul Donnelly, Sam Lock : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_233');">ugly is how it paints your objectivity</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_233" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><b>Paul Donnelly</b>
<br/>I think it's from his blog.
<br/>You can go and have a look if you like.
<br/>
<br/><b>Sam Lock</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges boldly said "Man, that is just plain ugly in how it paints your objectivity" --- You have avoided my direct question of what other radiological elements were found in the debris. Right back at yuh. Camera anomalies does not answer that question.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 233 -->
<a name="x234"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x234" class="tiny">x234</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_234');">Crickets</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_234" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Sam Lock, I posted my reference material first and been encouraging people to not only read it but to battle me there. You are avoiding the direct RTFM. Has nothing to do with me avoiding questions.
<br/>
<br/>Thank you for the excellent opportunity to have you start reading in section 9. "Efforts to Debunk 9/11 Nuclear Devices"
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>I suspect that section and those following already expose the weaknesses of "all" reports that you might be tempted to throw into this debate about "other radiological elements found in the debris." Talk about a skewed lot and scope-limited, and none of them can be trusted at face value as giving us the true state of fallout badness except the good news for war-mongers that the FGNW were indeed low-radiation nuclear, if they couldn't get the media to spew the lie that there was no radiation whatsoever, and pancaking gravity did the deed.
<br/>
<br/>The reality of this discussion, Mr. Sam Lock and Mr. Paul Donnelly, is that **I** staked my position long ago and am already several steps ahead of you. I did my homework, but am eager to have you younglings school me where I got it wrong. But owing to your wet-behind-the-ears mentality, you keep posting questions that would have been long answered, if you would have RTFM. Moreover, you could be quoting from my two articles and tearing them apart where it got it wrong.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
Crickets from Mr. Sam Lock and Mr. Paul Donnelly. On purpose, because they want this FB thread to naturally bury itself.
<br/>
<br/>Which is why the debate forum can be in the discussion under my blog posts.
<br/>
<br/>Remember, fellas. Emulate our 9/11 Patron Saint of Dr. David Griffin. Debunk them section-by-section (or smaller chunks). And rescue those nuggets of truth and properly evaluate their influence on your theories.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 234 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part20 -->
<hr>
<a name="x235"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part10');">Chapter 9:
FGNW Discussions with Marcel Lugtenborg, Paul Wenc, Sheila Baber, Michael W. Lurie, Rik Scholten, Jeff Rusin</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part10" style="display: block;">
<p>A real person who was a sincere seeker of Truth would be able to say: </p>
<blockquote>"Those anomalies are some real fucked up shit, and I don't know how NT would have been positioned to explain them." They'd say: "Mr. Bridges re-arrangement of the 9/11 Tetris evidence blocks into his FGNW does surprisingly have fewer gaps while addressing a wider swath of evidence, and my cognitive dissonance gives me headaches trying to grasp it."</blockquote>
<p>Bots are incapable of (or prevented from) deep-diving into references outside of their scope or of expounding in depth on premises within their scope.
<br>
<br>In Dutch, "Lugten" means "to smell". So, "smelling like Borg" is an interesting construct.
</P>
<p>NT isn't defended well. </p>
<p>Projecting your weaknesses onto your opponent, so the trolling goes. But no viewing of the NIST FOIA video of the WTC steel scrap yards and providing commentary about how their favored mechanism of destruction would be positioned to achieve such evidence.</p>
<a name="x236"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x236" class="tiny">x236</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_236');">WTC 6 was the customs house for the port authority</a></b></p>
<p>2019-08-01</p>
<div id="sect_236" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Anonymous said...
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/48028443651/in/album-72157708997281912/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/48028443651/in/album-72157708997281912/</a>
<br/>
<br/>The smoke is from Welders using plasma torches to cut steel.
<br/>The cancers are from exposure to known carcinogens in the dust and in the rubble
<br/>concrete dust causes silicosis the dust from wallboard causes the cancers that are showing up
<br/>July 21, 2019 at 9:07 PM
<br/>
<br/>Anonymous said...
<br/>
<br/>A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes. The following is based on Mr. Prager's conclusion. The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance. The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.
<br/>
<br/>Nope because WTC 6 was the customs house for the port authority and you MCB have zero clues about what you are typing or what TRITIUM ISOTOPES make a Fission device flat point the isotopes were present no fission no device at WTC 6 or under WTC 7 the basements of both buildings were intact. The mear fact that parts of WTC 1 were found inside WTC 6 indicates the auxiliary generators on the roof were hit and the fuel tanks ruptured causing the fire that burned WTC 6 But you will continue your speculative fiction that has been thoroughly debunked through actual physical evidence which you lack.
<br/>MCB what was the count of munitions and weapons ceased and held in evidence lockers? What type of explosives and RPGs was being held at the site? Was there also confiscated cargo there that would render your assumptions invalid? The answer is the source of Tritium was the seawater pumped into WTC 1 and 2 to put out hotspots. The NYFD described the basement parking garage and physical plant of WTC north as well as the Communication server fires in B1 2 and 3 of north and south towers They were not part of any Fission device detonation. They were secondary fires associated by the smell of Jet fuel burning and wiring from the utility cores burning as well. A speculative fictional portrayal of jumpers being hot from a DEW or anything other than fire is fiction Woods is a joke when it comes to Metallurgy and tour statement on Tritium levels is exaggerated as you do not understand that you are quoting rainwater runoff. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf that is the source you may want to quote from also try going on a reputable site like Quora you may actually be able to interact with Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW. You nor Woods are competent enough to even make speculation about DEW or any FGNW devices because you both simply lack any competence in the related sciences this is shown by your own speculative fiction and has already been called out and exposed quite accurately. BTW: the vehicles were moved and have no EMP or EMF damage so your false portrayal of evidence invalidates your speculative fiction.
<br/>you entire blog should be taken down as it just shows how incompetent you are.
<br/>July 21, 2019 at 9:54 PM
<br/>
<br/>++++++
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Anonymous from July 21, 2019, I apologize for tardiness in noticing your comment and approving it.
<br/>
<br/>You have a tendancy to accept the least reputation-damaging of the set of plausible explanations and are beholden to sophomoric "exclusive-OR" arguments that leaves no room for "all of the above".
<br/>
<br/>Example 1, you wrote: "The smoke is from Welders using plasma torches to cut steel." I'm an objective and fair fellow, and will readily agree that on some days in some photos, the smoke was worsened by welder's torches. But given that they weren't welding under certain debris piles in various tower footprints that smoldered for weeks, your explanation falls short.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "The cancers are from exposure to known carcinogens in the dust and in the rubble concrete dust causes silicosis the dust from wallboard causes the cancers that are showing up..."
<br/>
<br/>Again being an objective and fair fellow, I will readily agree that the carcinogens you describe may have constituted the majority factor in first-responder illnesses. But such does not rule out radiation from low-radiation fourth generation nukes.
<br/>
<br/>The discussion was about tritium that was found in quantities 55 times greater than it should in the run-off from WTC-6. Tritium is a common feature of nearly all fourth generation nuclear devices and is used in a fusion reaction. These however required a fission trigger, which is what the heavy metals and their decay elements in correlated quanties from the USGS proves.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Nope because WTC 6 was the customs house for the port authority..."
<br/>
<br/>You are correct that WTC-6 was the customs house. It had vaults in the basements for confiscated weapons, money, and drugs. A FEMA photographer testifies that vaults were empty when they got to them, meaning prior to 9/11 and with foreknowledge. Funny thing is, the song and dance report about tritium suggested that aircraft exit signs and the gun sights on weapons cache attributed to the tritium measurement. Can't do that if the WTC-6 vaults were empty.
<br/>
<br/>// Part 1/4
<br/>
<br/>Part 2/4
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "you MCB have zero clues about what you are typing or what TRITIUM ISOTOPES make a Fission device flat point the isotopes were present no fission no device at WTC 6 or under WTC 7 the basements of both buildings were intact."
<br/>
<br/>Au contraire. I've already explained it was fission-triggered-fusion with evidence of fission (Uranium and decay elements, Prager's work) and fusion (tritium) leaking out of all reports. AND the NIST night filming of the pile actively shows radiation to the discerning eye.
<br/>
<br/>Your reference to intact basements of WTC-6 and WTC-7 does not rule out FGNW which fall into the category of DEW. They worked as designed, directing their energy where aimed, and decimated what they were aimed at (ceiling / floors above mounting point).
<br/>
<br/>You would know this if you had read the article (blog posting) under which you made your comment. For shame.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "The mear fact that parts of WTC 1 were found inside WTC 6 indicates the auxiliary generators on the roof were hit and the fuel tanks ruptured causing the fire that burned WTC 6..."
<br/>
<br/>You have a vivid imagination that is unsupported by anything. Where does the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST talk about WTC-6?
<br/>
<br/>// Part 2/4
<br/>
<br/>Part 3/4
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "But you will continue your speculative fiction that has been thoroughly debunked through actual physical evidence which you lack."
<br/>
<br/>I lack for nothing in physical evidence of FGNW. The energy sink represented by the pulverization of content is the most glaring. I also have the significant percentages of tiny iron spheres found in the dust, as well as Uranium and its decay elements. I have tritium. I have NIST videos. I have horseshoes, arches/ sags, and steel doobies. [If you're a 9/11 Truther and in the NT camp, what demolition configuration of NT would generate them?]
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "MCB what was the count of munitions and weapons ceased and held in evidence lockers? What type of explosives and RPGs was being held at the site?"
<br/>
<br/>Don't be giving me your busy work. If you know the answer, state it and cite your sources. As further proof of my fair nature, I will let you know from my research that no report every provided before and after inventories; I look forward to your research that finds what I lack. Meanwhile, let us not forget that FEMA photographer has stated that the vaults were empty when they got there.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Was there also confiscated cargo there that would render your assumptions invalid?"
<br/>
<br/>No. But you can prove me wrong.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "The answer is the source of Tritium was the seawater pumped into WTC 1 and 2 to put out hotspots."
<br/>
<br/>You make me laugh out loud. Why didn't the report on the WTC-6 tritium run-off measurments mention these seawater pumps? Instead, why did they go with the ludicrous aircraft exit signs and weapons sights?
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "The NYFD described the basement parking garage and physical plant of WTC north as well as the Communication server fires in B1 2 and 3 of north and south towers They were not part of any Fission device detonation."
<br/>
<br/>Such hypnotic suggestion you utter. What part of the description of FGNW in the category of DEW would not be applicable to the description of the destruction.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "They were secondary fires associated by the smell of Jet fuel burning and wiring from the utility cores burning as well."
<br/>
<br/>The jet fuel burned up in the fire ball and within the first 10 minutes, according to NIST. The detonation point of FGNW would cause secondary fires locally, although most of the energy was released upwards and into the structure.
<br/>
<br/>// Part 3/4
<br/>
<br/>Part 4/4
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "A speculative fictional portrayal of jumpers being hot from a DEW or anything other than fire is fiction Woods is a joke when it comes to Metallurgy."
<br/>
<br/>Good thing I'm not in Wood's camp.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "... and tour statement on Tritium levels is exaggerated as you do not understand that you are quoting rainwater runoff."
<br/>
<br/>Since when does rainwater have concentrations of tritium above the background levels? Who doesn't understand background levels.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf that is the source you may want to quote from..."
<br/>
<br/>I already did, and completely gutted that report in the predecessor to the above blog article.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Also try going on a reputable site like Quora you may actually be able to interact with Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW."
<br/>
<br/>Why don't you take your own advice?
<br/>
<br/>I did my research. And I know that "Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW" aren't allowed to talk about it, and have stiff treason penalties for violations thereof.
<br/>
<br/>But you didn't read my work(s), so aren't in a position to invalidate my sources, which are reputable.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "You nor Woods are competent enough to even make speculation about DEW or any FGNW devices because you both simply lack any competence in the related sciences this is shown by your own speculative fiction and has already been called out and exposed quite accurately."
<br/>
<br/>Such wonderful hypnotic suggestion more fitting of your own personal weaknesses that you are trying to project and pawn off onto me: classic disinformation technique.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "BTW: the vehicles were moved and have no EMP or EMF damage so your false portrayal of evidence invalidates your speculative fiction."
<br/>
<br/>What vehicles are you referring to? Are you talking about those near WTC-7 before it came down? Those in the car park catti-corner from the towers?
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "you entire blog should be taken down as it just shows how incompetent you are."
<br/>
<br/>Thank you for that glowing recommendation and vote of confidence in my work.
<br/>
<br/>But given the glaring deficiencies in your reading abilities, your research, and your reasoning already exposed in my rebuttal, I will not be following your advice.
<br/>
<br/>// Part 3/4
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 236 -->
<a name="x237"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x237" class="tiny">x237</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_237');">missing bodies</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_237" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>To Paul Wenc's posting of <a href="https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/september-11-victims-identified-twin-17015841.amp">The MISSING BODIES: Why half of September 11 victims in Twin Towers were never found</a>, I replied:
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/paul.wenc/posts/2411510845633779">2019-09-12</a>
<br/>
Fourth generation nuclear devices will do that to materials in the way of DEW cone of highly energetic neutrons. //
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 237 -->
<a name="x238"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x238" class="tiny">x238</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg, Paul Wenc : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_238');">scientific (peer review?) evidence for that</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_238" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Please name me the scientific (peer review?) evidence for that.. Thanks. I still believe it was nanothermite (Bentham Open Chemical and Physics Journal) https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/exhibit-01-petition-1/
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Exhibit 01 -- Petition 1 | Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
<br/>LAWYERSCOMMITTEEFOR9-11INQUIRY.ORG
<br/>Exhibit 01 -- Petition 1 | Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
<br/>Exhibit 01 -- Petition 1 | Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
<br/>
<br/><b>Paul Wenc</b>
<br/>Marcel Lugtenborg Yes, physical evidence of Nano thermite !
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 238 -->
<a name="x239"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x239" class="tiny">x239</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_239');">how the public myth was implanted in our thoughts</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_239" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Paul Wenc, I hate to be the bearer of bad news that even 9/11 Truthers suffer from cognitive dissonance. Your statement "physical evidence of nano-thermite" is exhibit A in how the public myth was implanted in our thoughts.
<br/>
<br/>Correcting the record, nobody found evidence of NT: not the RJ Lee Group, not the USGS, not Paul Lioy et all. Only allegedly the dust samples with chain-of-custody issues given to Dr. Jones.
<br/>
<br/>If you read closely, what you'll learn is that they discovered tiny iron spheres in the dust. They did not speculate very well into all of the different mechanisms that could create this artifact. Dr. Jones went right to saying it was a result of the NT chemical reaction with steel.
<br/>
<br/>Oh, but this was immediately after Dr. Jones poo-pooed all manner and forms of nuclear mechanisms by framing them improperly, not mentioning neutron devices, and not researching fourth generation nuclear devices (fission-triggered-fusion.) The USGS did not find NT in the dust; instead they found the finger-prints of fission with uranium and all of its decay elements in CORRELATED QUANTITIES sample-to-sample; they list this in their tables, but don't discuss. And let's not forget the tritium report and its song and dance; Dr. Jones is guilty of not questioning what he was fed and having no imagination that things besides aircraft exit signs and gun sights would leave tritium traces. For those researching things nuclear in the last quarter century, tritium is a key factor in all fourth generation nuclear devices.
<br/>
<br/>I have an updated version of this on my blog if you menu around, but this version is useful for how it slaughters the NT sacred cow.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 239 -->
<a name="x240"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x240" class="tiny">x240</a>
Paul Wenc, Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_240');">no NT and AE911TRUTH is wrong</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_240" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><b>Paul Wenc</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>So, are you saying no NT and AE911TRUTH is wrong ?
<br/>
<br/><b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Zionist Troll, look at the facts
<br/>
<br/><b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Listen to Barbara
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/VXBk8JqwFlw?t=7514">https://youtu.be/VXBk8JqwFlw?t=7514</a>
<br/>
<br/>Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015)
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015)
<br/>Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015)
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 240 -->
<a name="x241"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x241" class="tiny">x241</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_241');">NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_241" style="display: block;">
<p>
Good point, Mr. Paul Wenc. I don't discount that NT may have been involved; they had backup plans for the backup plans in this thoroughly redundant and overkill operation -- one of its biggest tells.
<br/>
<br/>I'm saying that NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction. (Too many things it cannot account for, like the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, like arches / sags, horseshoes, and steel doobies, like pulverized concrete.)
<br/>
<br/>By extension, I am saying that AE911Truth is wrong on NT. Their treatment of Dr. Wood is case in point. Dr. Wood has disinformation, but tons of nuggets of truth that only stack up with FGNW. AE911 did not review her material chapter-by-chapter, section-by-section, image-by-image. They waved their hands. (In my search for truth, I've debunked Dr. Wood's work, because she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws not conclusions, and did shitty research into nuclear anything.)
<br/>
<br/>AE9/11 didn't do what I did; they didn't wade in at all. (Their one piece I'm aware of spends half of its word count promoting NT.) This is a tell.
<br/>
<br/>And Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, please retract your "zionist troll" comment. Has nothing to do with me.
<br/>
<br/>You encourage me to look at the facts. Indeed, and this is what I encourage you to do as well with an open-mind, as I have done.
<br/>
<br/>NT doesn't go the distance in explaining the anomalies of the day. FGNW does.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 241 -->
<a name="x242"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x242" class="tiny">x242</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_242');">published in a reputable science journal</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_242" style="display: block;">
<p>
Here's a clue. Dr. Jones wrote his paper about hard evidence allegedly reputiating nuclear devices in 2007.
<br/>
<br/>This peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal was published in 2005.
<br/>
<br/>Disinfo Dr. Judy Wood and disinfo Dr. Steven Jones both missed Dr. Andre Gsponer.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br/>
<br/>There are many reasons why the government would want to hide the fact that nuclear devices were used, even if hard evidence proves that they were low radiation (comparatively to what media has been hyping for decades.)
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>ARXIV.ORG
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness…
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 242 -->
<a name="x243"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x243" class="tiny">x243</a>
Paul Wenc : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_243');">Exactly what are your Qualifications</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_243" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>What you present is interesting ... Exactly what are your Qualifications ?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 243 -->
<a name="x244"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x244" class="tiny">x244</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_244');">Open-mind and persistence, mostly.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_244" style="display: block;">
<p>
Open-mind and persistence, mostly. Took physics derived from calculus in college last century among many other technical classes. Enough math and science chops to research and read in the technical stacks of engineering libraries, and get the gist. And just as importantly, to find the issues and holes. Like in Dr. Jones work.
<br/>
<br/>Here's a good one. Dr. Jones essentially wrote: "Nuclear devices of type A, B, and C have radiation signature P, R, Q. Well, we found radiation signature S. [Logic error] Therefore, not only was it not nuclear devices of type A, B, and C, but it was not any nuclear devices at all."
<br/>
<br/>Neutron bombs were my clue. Why didn't Dr. Jones discuss them as type D, as the evidence S would suggest? For that matter, why have they been so silent about neutron bombs since the 1980's when they used to be hyped as the ultimate weapon in our nuclear stockpiles?
<br/>
<br/>The inventor of the neutron bomb once suggested that the neutrons could be aimed in a half-sphere (as opposed to full-sphere). From there, you go to cones in terms of directing energy, highly energetic neutrons.
<br/>
<br/>At any rate, nuclear devices in (rational) 9/11 discussions is kind of like black holes in space. Even if you couldn't see them, their effect on neighboring systems proves they exist. 9/11 nuclear devices are avoided everywhere and aren't discussed by movers and shakers in 9/11 TM, despite evidence leaking out all over of nuclear means.
<br/>
<br/>It is how they didn't discuss it, if that makes sense.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood was closest to the truth, but was disinfo because she purposely (maybe to save her live) drew no conclusions. She gathered together tons of evidence that 9/11 had nuclear aspects, and then let it get camped under kooky umbrellas with other dangling innuendo that can't be proved, can't be powered by real world means to the level required, etc. "The best way to stop the opposition is to lead it," Lenin or Marx, right?
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 244 -->
<a name="x245"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x245" class="tiny">x245</a>
Sheila Baber, Sheila Baber, Michael W. Lurie, Andy Christensen, Paul Wenc : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_245');">silly to argue engineering methodology</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_245" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><b>Sheila Baber</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges it’s silly to argue engineering methodology ... I reviewed the Bentham paper and it’s legitimate.
<br/>I’ve taken and supervised thousands of samples. Claiming COC issues is stupid.
<br/>
<br/><b>Michael W. Lurie</b>
<br/>The idea is to keep 'truthers' fighting with each other over the "facts" concerning 911. Have you noticed how well that has been working? Many are angry (or even hating!) with each other, simply for disagreeing about the methods used (or culprits) behind 9/11.
<br/>Divide and conquer. Still working... :-(
<br/>
<br/><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br/>We may never understand the. Multiple forces that brought these buildings down.
<br/>We DO KNOW that it wasn't planes....
<br/>
<br/><b>Paul Wenc</b>
<br/>Andy Christensen Not Planes, Not ??, Not Jet Fuel !
<br/>
<br/><b>Andy Christensen</b>
<br/>Paul Wenc truth is like a big onion...many layers of details. Understanding your audience's aptitude for facts before presenting them. No sense in alienating them before one even gets started.
<br/>
<br/><b>Geoffrey Ritchey</b>
<br/>Nist, the official government source, says it was normal office fires that brought down building 7, and they have a computer model. They will not release those models on the grounds they would jeopardize public safety; that for a building that no longer even exists. Even architects who design new buildings cannot get those models that describe a "new phenomenon" in NISTS words. If those models show deliberate fraud, well then, the gig is up for the whole government. There is no sense in arguing exotic theories. No nukes are required for a controlled demolition.
<br/>
<br/><b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Compared to Bentham Open work from Dr. Steven E Jones and Prof Niels Harrit and others, your suggestions are at the Mickey Mouse level.
<br/>
<br/><b>Michael W. Lurie</b>
<br/>...please don't insult Mickey Mouse.
<br/>
<br/><b>Sheila Baber</b>
<br/>Geoffrey Ritchey “jeopardize public safety” ??
<br/>They should be in jail!
<br/>
<br/><b>Erik K Patterson</b>
<br/>nuke talk is idiotic
<br/>
<br/><b>Erik K Patterson</b>
<br/>nuke talk is disinfo
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 245 -->
<a name="x246"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x246" class="tiny">x246</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_246');">Russian Agent Dimitri K.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_246" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Erik K Patterson, when the nuke talk is from the Russian Agent Dimitri K., when it focuses on deep underground nukes and/or single devices per tower, (or when it is Dr. Steven Jones in his poorly researched debunking), THEN I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE that nuke talk is disinformation, just like Woodsian DEW and NT.
<br/>
<br/>However, I have been around the 9/11 block many times, and nukes are always what NOBODY discusses rationally, despite the glaring evidence of such leaking out of ALL REPORTS. I have done my homework, compiled my research, and created my hypothesis.
<br/>
<br/>I would like someone to convince me otherwise. But nobody can or will. That is a sign. (Not even David Chandler or any of the leaders of AE911 TM will do so. And I have approached them directly.)
<br/>
<br/>My reference links are already posted. If you want to debunk FGNW, by all means, do so. I am eager to be duped another way and convinced of my errors. But to do so, you'll have to wade in section-by-section and be factual.
<br/>
<br/>Hypnotic suggestion, as your comments have been, won't cut it.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 246 -->
<a name="x247"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x247" class="tiny">x247</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_247');">Bentham paper has major issues</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_247" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, you wrote: "I reviewed the Bentham paper and it’s legitimate."
<br/>
<br/>I have reviewed it, too. It has major issues, like its immediate extrapolation that "tiny iron spheres" could only be created by the chemical reaction of NT with steel. Limiting the scope is a classic disinformation technique that is a hallmark for 9/11. (They did the same thing for the Tritium report, which was then re-used without question or qualification by Dr. Steven Jones as the final word on tritium levels, when its scope-limited actually prevented it from being treated as such from the onset.)
<br/>
<br/>I don't discount that NT might have been involved, but even the NT reports do not explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. At best, it tries to explain 6 spikes in the gas released.
<br/>
<br/>Thing is, Dr. Cahill was measuring downwind air quality (starting in October, already late). The metals he discovered in the samples indicated a very hot heat source THAT CONTINUALLY REGENERATED THE PARTICLES. Problem with NT, once the chemical reaction has stopped, it can't maintain the hot-spots and it cools.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit et al have be negligent in the math. It is one thing to calculate (poorly) the amounts of NT required for pulverization. But these disinfo agents want us to believe that obscenely massive overkill amounts of NT above and beyond what was needed for pulverization were placed in the towers to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. The 9/11 TM (including you) has been duped into believing that NT can go the distance while ignoring the phrase that pays "obscenely massive overkill amounts of NT above and beyond what was needed for pulverization."
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "I’ve taken and supervised thousands of samples. Claiming COC issues is stupid."
<br/>
<br/>If you are such a sampling expert, then how about you review my analysis of the three reports that make up the pillars of NT.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
<br/>
<br/>Surprise, surprise, you'll discover that samples (how many/few, when, and where) were major issues that call the conclusions of all those reports into question.
<br/>
<br/>The one report on the dust that was somewhat comprehensive was the USGS dust analysis. Plain text, it didn't say much, but the tables spoke volumes. In particularly, they document Uranium and its decay trace elements IN CORRELATED QUANTITIES sample-to-sample (evidence of fission as in "fission-triggered-fusion"), while at the same time NOT documenting NT or other explosives.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 247 -->
<a name="x248"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x248" class="tiny">x248</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_248');">scientists were strong-armed into lying</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_248" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, you wrote "Compared to Bentham Open work from Dr. Steven E Jones and Prof Niels Harrit and others, your suggestions are at the Mickey Mouse level."
<br/>
<br/>See my last comment regarding the disinformation that Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit and AE911Truth were pawning. Nuclear physicists Dr. Jones -- when he first "debunked" nukes -- did not even mention neutron devices or any Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices which use tritium. He framed nukes inappropriately. He accepted unchallenged and unquestioned the lame sampling and reports on tritium.
<br/>
<br/>As has already been proven by the reports of many government agencies, scientists were strong-armed into lying. EPA? Lied about air quality. NIST? Averaged together demolition phases including one "indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration" in order to say with a straight face that the three phases were slower than free-fall (e.g., WTC-7 report, that was slow-walked and delayed). WTC-7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, which is the mother of all public myth creating documents.
<br/>
<br/>Point is, just because Jones & Harrit got published by Bentham, doesn't mean squat.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Andre Gsponer had been writing about FGNW for a decade or more before Dr. Jones' 2007 "nuke reputiation" disinfo piece just prior to NT. When cornered, though, Jones said that NT didn't have the brisance to affect pulverization, so was mixed with other explosives. Too bad, none were measured not even by Jones on his samples even brought to his attention. Later, Dr. Jones admitted that "something maintained the hot spots, not just NT." Yet, did he or anyone else (besides me) ever look into it.
<br/>
<br/>NT is a limited-hang-out. I don't argue that it wasn't involved. I argue that NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction. FGNW were.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 248 -->
<a name="x249"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x249" class="tiny">x249</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg, Sheila Baber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_249');">Nobody challenged the evidence presented peer review by Dr Jones and other scientists</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_249" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Nobody challenged the evidence presented peer review by Dr Jones and other scientists. The nuke has been debunked by scientists. I admit that not everything is solved and there still are some questions. But thermitic reactions were scientificly proven. And nanothermite is found and published and not challenged. (Bentham) You don't mean squat.
<br/>
<br/><b>Sheila Baber</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges ...
<br/>You’re not discounting that NT might have been involved.
<br/>We agree. Fighting others seeking justice for OBVIOUSLY ENGINEERED DEMOLITION is a highly suspect activity, IMO.
<br/>It’s (intentionally?) disruptive.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 249 -->
<a name="x250"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x250" class="tiny">x250</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_250');">You made the claim that scientists have debunked nukes; you defend it.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_250" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, you made the startling claim that "the nuke has been debunked by scientists," so I must hold your feet to the fire and have you prove it. You made the statement, now you defend it. (And if you refuse or rely on hypnotic suggestion, the cut of your jibe will be known, and I will make hay with this exposed character deficiency.)
<br/>
<br/>But because I am a fair and generous fellow, I will inform you up front (as if I haven't already with the links to my blog) that if your defense rests on Dr. Jones' troublesome and logic-impaired "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that mini-nukes were used at the WTC towers", I have already debunked it in section 12 of the "Beyond Misinformation" article linked in my last comment. Thus, if that is your intention and your defense, I am a step ahead of you (having debunked your foundation already), so your defense and furtherance of this discussion will need to address my efforts... section-by-section, paragraph-by-paragraph if needed. Be thorough, my good man.
<br/>
<br/>Please, do a good job. I'm a duped useful idiot and do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this front. I'm easy to dupe one way or another. All it takes is a proper understanding of science & the evidence, and rational science-based arguments that explains in a logical manner where I got it wrong.
<br/>
<br/>And because I'm a fair and generous fellow, not only do I give you in advance MY POSITION so you can know exactly what you need to address, but I also will gladly let your fact-filled science-based counter-arguments convince me of something else, and which point I will offer up a public apology and henceforth stop promoting this FGNW premise. (I was duped by NPT @ WTC, until exactly those things happened that convinced me of the errors of my ways and consequently a public apology.)
<br/>
<br/>Chop, chop! You made the claim that scientists have debunked nukes; you defend it.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 250 -->
<a name="x251"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x251" class="tiny">x251</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_251');">arguing for controlled demolition</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_251" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, on the one hand you are correct that we are all arguing for controlled demolition or engineered demolition. On the other hand, you imply that any speculation beyond controlled demolition (e.g., arguing with those in the 9/11 TM who suffer from cognitive dissonance with regards to NT) is suspect and "It’s (intentionally?) disruptive."
<br/>
<br/>Well I believe that any effort that doesn't follow Truth all the way down the rabbit-hole to its true end-station is disinformation and has already laid an intentionally disruptive foundation. This is what I'm trying to correct (or have you convince me otherwise so I can correct my position.)
<br/>
<br/>Using an analogy. Let's assume that someone was killed with a knife in the kitchen. Those who want to stop at "controlled demolition" are essentially saying that it didn't matter how the person died except by knife; they leave the door open for the framing to be "a battered and beaten wife who grabbed the knife and killed in self-defense." But what if the truth is that the wife forged the knife in a garage kiln, honed it for weeks to an exact sharpness, and when the bully was killed, it wasn't a single knife wound to the belly, but a sewing-machine-like stabbing all over the victim's body.
<br/>
<br/>Obviously, the two instances of a kitchen death are not equivalent. The thoroughness of the operation (e.g., manner of death) needs to be factored in.
<br/>
<br/>My point is that the copious amount of evidence of nuclear involvement on 9/11 takes the situation beyond "controlled demolition" (that could be pawned off on any foreign patsy) to being an act that only a select number of suspects (e.g., US and Israel) have the ability to pull off. And once 75 years of media hype into nukes gets out of the bag on this front, all manner of hysteria will result. The figurative 9/11 nuclear fall-out on elected representatives and institutions & agencies will still be figuratively deadly to those in power (and Israel) today.
<br/>
<br/>What you all are doing with your hypnotic suggestion (that provides no indication that any effort was made into reading & comprehending my FGNW premise) is simply providing cover for those who did it, stopping understanding in false end-stations, and are settling for a lesser and less-damaging truth.
<br/>
<br/>Whereas I am open to have my premise debunked so that I can change my tune, because I am religiously fanatical about truth, can you say the same thing? Can you look at the weaknesses in the NT premise (given in my article) and see where NT comes up short? Assuming your objectivity in see the weaknesses of NT, are you capable of changing your opinion and acknowledging where 9/11 TM was infiltrated and seeded with disinformation?
<br/>
<br/>This is your objectivity test. Will you pass, or will you fail?
<br/>
<br/>Because I am a fair and generous person, if you explore further my blog, you'll see where much of its content in later years came from re-purposed exchanges with those -- some possibly better than you -- who failed (sometimes spectacularly) in defending NT and attacking FGNW... Learn from their mistakes. A primary failure (that so far all in this forum also exhibit) is an an willingness to dive into my premise (or its substantion) and legitimately debunk it section-by-section. No, they don't go there, and get fouled out on a technicality rather than on the merits of thorough debunking. Don't be like them.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 251 -->
<a name="x252"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x252" class="tiny">x252</a>
Sheila Baber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_252');">NT is also highly specialized</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_252" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges NT is also highly specialized, as is Amerithrax.
<br/>I have no interest in debating the “who” and do believe that gets in the way of the obvious “what” (destruction was engineered ... NOT due to 2 planes violating the laws of physics by pulverizing 3 NYC towers).
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 252 -->
<a name="x253"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x253" class="tiny">x253</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_253');">Bentham no longer allows commentary</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_253" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, sorry for this continuation, but I need to address a couple of things you wrote.
<br/>
<br/>(1) "Nobody challenged the evidence presented peer review by Dr Jones and other scientists."
<br/>
<br/>I challenged it. It is in my blog article linked above, sections 2-6. I would have posted on Bantham, but they no longer allow commentary. I was banned from 9/11 Blogger before I could even get in, because nukes were something they wouldn't address.
<br/>
<br/>(2) "But thermitic reactions were scientificly proven."
<br/>
<br/>Meh. Not really. Look closely, and their efforts amount to speculating that the NT chemical reaction is the cause/source of the tiny iron spheres measured everywhere in the dust. Scope-limited from the onset. Without such scope-limits and with rational consideration of FGNW as viable from the evidence (of Uranium and its decay elements, of tritium, of the energy sink of pulverization, of the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, of camera defects that expose radiation leaking off of the pile), then you should recognize HOW AE9/11 TRUTH was duped.
<br/>
<br/>(3) "And nanothermite is found and published and not challenged. (Bentham) "
<br/>
<br/>I also provided peer-reviewed sources, published in reputable science journals, and not challenged. Look for Dr. Gsponer in my article for links, but it is also exposed in this FB thread if you look there.
<br/>
<br/>Worse than not challenged, Dr. Jones didn't include any of it in his literature review on nukes... a fucking major oversight / omission.
<br/>
<br/>To sum up, your whole comment is all bun and no meat, all hypnotic suggestion and no research, all cognitive dissonance concensus "let others think for me" and no objectivity to the fact that 9/11 is from start-to-finish in all aspects disinformation. (And if my shit is in error, point it out and I'll sing a different tune with a public apology, too.)
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 253 -->
<a name="x254"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x254" class="tiny">x254</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_254');">when the truth leaks out?</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_254" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, I agree that NT is highly specialized, supposedly. However, the good Dr. Jones who allegedly discovered energetic flakes (only in his dust samples) -- when cornered -- admitted that NT did not have the brisance for pulverization so was mixed with something else that he failed to measure the existence of in his dust samples, even when brought to his attention.
<br/>
<br/>And further, Dr. Jones speculation into NT ultimately only has it allegedly accounting for 6 spikes in the gas output of the smoldering rubble pile. When cornered, Dr. Jones admitted that "something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT."
<br/>
<br/>If you aren't going to listen to your PhD patron saints of 9/11, then how are you going to recognize when the truth leaks out?
<br/>
<br/>FGNW is also highly specialized, with 60+ years of research and development BEFORE 9/11 came about.
<br/>
<br/>And as for not asking about the "who", you are simply covering the asses of the perpetrators. And if "who" questions aren't asked, we find ourselves under the yoke of practically the same "who" (or ilk of "who"): namely bankers, MIL, and Israel.
<br/>
<br/>Israel is the biggest beneficiary of 9/11. As Mr. Epstein proves, US leaders are blackmailed (willingly in many cases) into doing Israel bidding and fighting Israeli wars for Israel... and this trend line continues with the Iran war drums.
<br/>
<br/>If you are not willing to follow Truth where ever it leads, then are you really a truther?
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 254 -->
<a name="x255"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x255" class="tiny">x255</a>
Sheila Baber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_255');">disrupting the “what”</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_255" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges the “Who” comes during investigation of the “WHAT”.
<br/>We agree that 2 planes did not pulverize 3 NYC skyscrapers.
<br/>I’m a scientist, so the “what” comes before the “who”, and to accuse me of giving perpetrators a pass is preposterous.
<br/>Why are you so adamant in disrupting the “what”?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 255 -->
<a name="x256"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x256" class="tiny">x256</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_256');">so adamant about not researching</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_256" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, owing to the nature and abilities of FGNW (within the category of DEW which ultimately makes Dr. Wood's efforts closer to the Truth than Dr. Jones' NT efforts and nuke-debunking efforts), I believe they took down the three NYC skyscrapers plus half of WTC-4, gutted WTC-5, and put a crater in WTC-6.
<br/>
<br/>If you are a scientist, then you'll have no problems looking through my premise and understanding how -- once the evidence is extracted from disinformation premises and set in a line -- FGNW should become the holy grail of 9/11 at the WTC.
<br/>
<br/>You accuse me of being "so adamant in disrupting the “what”?"
<br/>
<br/>Au contraire! I am a fanatical about Truth, so I am adamant that any premise which does not address adequately all of the evidence is at the least not the complete Truth, so we must continue our research.
<br/>
<br/>This I have done. I did my homework. I wrote my thesis.
<br/>
<br/>Why are you, as a scientist, so adamant about not researching my premise to find its errors and truths? It is you who are disrupting, as you stall and try to keep understanding at lesser truths (which equates to "error"). You are welcome to go to my blog and school me correctly (although let me know you've done so, because comments on my blog are on moderation to prevent spam; I promise to publish your responses once I know they are there.)
<br/>
<br/>P.S. I made a relevant top-level comment to Paul Wenc's post and established the direction that this thread -- to be on-topic -- would go: FGNW. So technically, it is you who are disrupting discussions on the "what" by trying to park understanding in erroneous cul-de-sacs.
<br/>
<br/>Here's something for you to study. (Posted again.) Although speculative in nature, it has been honed over more than a decade, was never disputed by nuclear scientists, and even has evidence via its evolution of having been improved with input from nuclear scientists.
<br/>
<br/>Debunk it as a starting point, please. Peer-reviewed and in a reputable science journal.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br/>
<br/>And to be clear, to my knowledge, Dr. Andre Gsponer has not written a single word about 9/11 or how FGNW relates. But then again, disinfo agents Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood didn't write a single word about any of the late-3rd-generation or early-4th generation nuclear devices that were being developed and discussed in the late 1990's.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>ARXIV.ORG
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness…
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 256 -->
<a name="x257"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x257" class="tiny">x257</a>
Sheila Baber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_257');">Jones et al are not “disinformation agents”</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_257" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Jones et al are not “disinformation agents”.
<br/>You, YOURSELF, said YOU have not ruled out NT, AND you said that Jones did not rule out your technological research.
<br/>Why do you wish to argue?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 257 -->
<a name="x258"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x258" class="tiny">x258</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_258');">can't even do basic research</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_258" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, I know this is hard for 9/11 Truthers to swallow. But when I compile all of the evidence of nuclear hijinx that was glaring and available to Dr. Jones together with the glaring weaknesses of NT, the obvious conclusion is "controlled opposition". They went "thus far and no further" and stopped before legitimately and thoroughly explaining how NT went the distance and/or debunking comprehensively FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>It is no skin off my nose if NT were involved. But I am not being the fool and saying "NT was the primary (and only) cause of controlled demolition" as you are doing. I am not trying to park Truth into false NT cul-de-sacs as you are doing. I am not being blind to the deficiencies (and omissions) on Dr. Jones work as you are being. Way to go in showing how objective you really are not.
<br/>
<br/>And were you not so obstinate, you'd HEAR and UNDERSTAND the meaning of Dr. Jones words "something maintained the hotspots, not just NT."
<br/>
<br/>The question is not "why (I) wish to argue"? Hell, this is my thread.
<br/>
<br/>The questions truly are why you wish to argue? Why do spout off that you were a scientist, yet can't even do basic research into following my posted links, read the articles, and note where it and/or its references are in error? Hypnotic suggestion is all you got.
<br/>
<br/>Your reputation is getting dinged. Prove that you are a truther. Please, debunk my FGNW legitimately like any real scientist worth her research-salt would be able to do. (If you look closely at the comments under my blog entries, you'll even find links to my RAW research into DEW and Nukes that could give you a huge leg up and several steps forward into grasping the true mechanisms of destruction. I'm fanatical about Truth. You? Yet to be seen.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 258 -->
<a name="x259"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x259" class="tiny">x259</a>
Sheila Baber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_259');">I NEVER said</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_259" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges I NEVER said NT “was the primary (and only) cause of controlled demolition”.
<br/>You repeated that Dr. Jones AGREED that “something maintained the hotspots, not just NT”.
<br/>SO, despite me (and Dr. Jones) agreeing with you ... you insist on lying about my previous statements and position, and falsely stating that I’m arguing with you.
<br/>Your commentary is dishonest, which makes me suspicious.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 259 -->
<a name="x260"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x260" class="tiny">x260</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_260');">acknowledging that something maintained the hotspots besides NT</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_260" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, I commend you on acknowledging that something maintained the hotspots besides NT. What does it tell you, Madam Scientist?
<br/>
<br/>Logically, if NT isn't the end-station and we know it is not the end-station as being the primary means o…See More
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 260 -->
<a name="x261"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x261" class="tiny">x261</a>
Sheila Baber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_261');">no legitimate criminal investigation</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_261" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges because the “how” and “who” requires a legitimate criminal investigation.
<br/>Speculation regarding the “who” will make the entire effort emotional and unscientific.
<br/>There has been no legitimate criminal investigation.
<br/>The only SURE THING, is that the official conspiracy theory is unscientific BS. ALL scientific evidence supports this conclusion. A legitimate CRIMINAL investigation is the demand of everyone seeking justice.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 261 -->
<a name="x262"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x262" class="tiny">x262</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_262');">been playing us and running out the clock.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_262" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, on the surface your comment seems so very agreeable that I gave it a "like". But then I'm struck by the wording of "a legitimate criminal investigation". What factors and forces of nature would make this pipe-dream possible? I mean, you look at how screwed up various agencies were (EPA, NIST) in promoting lies; you look at the compromised 9/11 Commission, delayed, underfunded, and Zelikow controlled from the onset for the public myth.
<br/>
<br/>How many years has it been since the original 9/11? They've been playing us and running out the clock.
<br/>
<br/>All too often I (figuratively) hear people on the internet crying for "legitimate" this and that. Aside from the powers that be never letting this happen, it becomes a futile rallying cry for a lot of nothing. Just another stalling tactic.
<br/>
<br/>What is needed -- and you are welcome to follow in my footsteps -- are simply a lot of independent "illegitimate investigations" that rescue nuggets of truth from the maws of disinformation and builds them into rational conclusions that the slow-walking and foot-dragging of "legitimate" won't start.
<br/>
<br/>To be clear, the only difference between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" investigations are (1) who sanctioned them, funded them, steered them, and promoted them, and (2) the confidence that the results won't be a load of horseshit. And it isn't what you think.
<br/>
<br/>Or to sum up with your own words, you wrote that the only sure thing is that the official conspiracy theory is unscientific BS, yet in a logic fail don't recognize that this is essentially "legitimate" and sanctioned through official channels.
<br/>
<br/>"Illegitimate" can still be true, thorough, and valid.
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, Madam Scientist, did you review Dr. Andre Gsponer's PDF about FGNW peer-reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal in 2005, yet conveniently missed by Dr. Jones' 2007 "nuke reputiation" and "NT crammed into the void", and Dr. Wood's WDTTG? 2010 book.
<br/>
<br/>You want legitimacy? Do your homework and come to your own conclusions, and have the courage of your own convictions to ask the right questions and persistence to get the answers.
<br/>
<br/>I'll have no problem with you LEGITIMATELY debunking my FGNW premise, but it can't be done without first evaluating its foundation of truth nuggets mined from many sources.
<br/>
<br/>I give you several huge steps forward by providing an outline & thesis of all that ~any~ theory-du-jour must address. Think of each section as a different target that you can aim at and shoot down. I'll give you my raw research into DEW / Nukes to save you time in the library catalogs and bookstacks [but as a solid foundation on which to do further research from.] I'll praise every error or mistake you find in my work and its sources, and will use the opportunity to re-assess my thesis and its conclusions. Convince me, or let me convince you. THIS would be legitimate.
<br/>
<br/>Waiting for the wheels of government and justice to move on this, and assuming only that is legitimate, or assuming only those things where the author's have PhD's after their names are legitimate? Yeah, well, they gotta eat too and know which side their bread is buttered on.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 262 -->
<a name="x263"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x263" class="tiny">x263</a>
Sheila Baber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_263');">hold criminals accountable</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_263" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges since you have solved everything, when and how are you going to hold criminals accountable? What’s your next step?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 263 -->
<a name="x264"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x264" class="tiny">x264</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_264');">how so many bodies allegedly disappeared from the towers</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_264" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Sheila Baber, looks another distraction and delay of game on your part. This thread is supposed to be about how so many bodies allegedly disappeared from the towers, and I proposed a thesis that I researched and substantiated to the best of my ability: FGNW. And as bonus, my work exposes the deficiencies of the controlled 9/11 TM and its lame NT theories.
<br/>
<br/>Your task has been to wade into it, read it, assess what is valid and what is not, and determine the merit of the work. And after bragging about being a scientist, you have yet to offer up any reasoned comments (or even quotations from the work you have issues with) that would indicate you read them. (FAIL.)
<br/>
<br/>So while you moan "legitimate investigations", you seem incapable of launching your own "legitimate investigations" and vetting (or not) my premise.
<br/>
<br/>For shame, for shame!
<br/>
<br/>Once you have validated or not my premise through your own elbow-grease and scholarly scientific efforts, then the next steps of "when and how" criminals can be held accountable will be clear.
<br/>
<br/>My wishful thinking? That the revelations of 9/11 @ WTC had nuclear components most likely directly from US stockpiles will lead to massive public outrage, House & Senate cleaning, and institution & agency restructuring. Hell, I'd even be supportive of us doing a "founding fathers" and overthrowing the present government and breaking the USA into independent regions who establish laws applicable to their geography. (Then the electoral college won't be as big an issue when it goes away in favor of ranked-voting, divestiture of money from politics, and transparent elections.)
<br/>
<br/>Think of it as a peaceful transition from MIL bankers and Israel control of us to state's rights.
<br/>
<br/>For certain, with Trump and McConnell, ain't shit gonna get done today. Alas as was proven with Obama, he was simply a more eloquent continuation of the same war mongering strategies.
<br/>
<br/>So, if the nuclear truth can raise emotions for the public to demand change and death to the institutions and policies that enslave us, then great. But first, we need to know the extent and depravity of the crime.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 264 -->
<a name="x265"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x265" class="tiny">x265</a>
Sheila Baber, Olof Won Howler : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_265');">achieve justice sitting at your keyboard</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_265" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><b>Sheila Baber</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges ... which demands legitimate investigation.
<br/>You’re not going to achieve justice sitting at your keyboard.
<br/>
<br/><b>Olof Won Howler</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Sure, you have some detailed info about 4-G nukes? Hardly unless you have taken part in developing those. It's true that you might be right - that 4-nukes were used, but to stay focused in what's going on with getting investigation going, repeating that same at this point irrelevant matter sounds like trolling - not that I'd see you as one..
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 265 -->
<a name="x266"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x266" class="tiny">x266</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_266');">Justice on 9/11 is your hobby-horse</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-12</p>
<div id="sect_266" style="display: block;">
<p>
You guys completely misunderstand my Blues Brothers mission from God in feeding you sheeple Truth. Your investigations and trials, I fully support. Like FGNW has become my one-trick-pony hobby horse, getting some legal circus going can be yours.
<br/>
<br/>Hold in your hip pocket this truth about FGNW. Then in your trials, use it as a litmus test for the rightness, fairness, and completeness of the games.... Did it really go far enough down the rabbit-hole? ... And I'm sure there a lot of Epstein connections in 9/11, as well, indicating a path of weakness exploited by Israel as but one tool in their deceptions arsenal to get the US military take out Israeli's enemies and turn a blind eye to its war crimes in Gaza.
<br/>
<br/>Ms. Sheila Baber laments: "You’re not going to achieve justice sitting at your keyboard."
<br/>
<br/>Justice on 9/11 is your hobby-horse. My hobby-horse was getting at Truth in the WTC demolitions and that nuclear means were used.
<br/>
<br/>What a long strange trip it has been, but I achieved already the pinnacle of my 9/11 endeavors (from my keyboard), and this old man is burned out. I offer the fruits of my labor to others. I encourage others to distrust my work, because then they will vet it or applicable portions of it, or not. Truth is what I'm fanatical about, so inform me of errors.
<br/>
<br/>Ultimately, the hope is that OTHERS will stand on my shoulders to take it to the next level.
<br/>
<br/>Consider it my gift to you and your 9/11 endeavors. How so? What better way to inspire public distrust and lead to your justice cause than the public revelation that a Zionist faction in the leadership of the US government and Israel incinerated hundreds of innocent US citizens trapped in the WTC towers by detonating multiple fourth generation nuclear devices and comically tried to say that gravity alone did it. "9/11 VICTIMS INCINERATED BY US NUKES". Has a nice ring to it.
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, my work on this thread is done, (and saved for later re-purposing on my blog.)
<br/>
<br/>Thank you for your participation.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 266 -->
<a name="x267"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x267" class="tiny">x267</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_267');">Excellent job by David Chandler</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-04</p>
<div id="sect_267" style="display: block;">
<p>Marcel Lugtenborg
<br/>November 4 at 12:13 PM ·
<br/>
<br/>Molten steel found at WTC... Nist (John Gross) said he did not know or never heard of.. Look at the video by David Chandler. Startready to subject.. Molten steel. . https://youtu.be/b3zz2o_8WKQ?t=6049
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3zz2o_8WKQ&feature=youtu.be&t=6049">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3zz2o_8WKQ&feature=youtu.be&t=6049</a>
<br/>
<br/>Marcel Lugtenborg You can easily start the video at the beginning.. The whole video is very much worth watching. Excellent job by David Chandler
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 267 -->
<a name="x268"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x268" class="tiny">x268</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_268');">Chandler didn't take it far enough</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_268" style="display: block;">
<p>
Except that he didn't take it far enough. And to think he first got a degree in physics (which includes nuclear topics) and then got certified as a school teacher.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 268 -->
<a name="x269"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x269" class="tiny">x269</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_269');">Sick remark</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_269" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges Sick remark.. you should respect David for what he achieved for the truth movement..
</p>
</div><!-- section 269 -->
<a name="x270"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x270" class="tiny">x270</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_270');">I respect Mr. Chandler and his videos</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_270" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, I do respect Mr. Chandler and his videos. But that doesn't mean he is completely right.
<br/>
<br/>In fact, the Pentagon truthers believe he has that wrong.
<br/>
<br/>From a different direction, I believe he has the 9/11 WTC destruction wrong. NT is a limited-hang-out, and he & A&E911Truth know it. Sure, no skin off my nose to agree that NT ~might~ have been involved.
<br/>
<br/>But NT was ~not~ the primary mechanism of destruction. Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (6-12 per tower, plus several for each WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6).
<br/>
<br/>The evidence leaks out all over, but is constantly misinterpreted, even Mr. Chandler. I've exchanged email and FB correspondence with Mr. Chandler directly.
<br/>
<br/>Back before I discovered the deceit in Dr. Wood's book, I had such a difficult time getting 9/11 Truth gate-keepers to legitimately review it for the good, the bad, and the ugly, that I would secure permission to send these leaders a copy, so that a legitimate discussion could be had.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Chandler wormed his way out of the effort. And it isn't as if Dr. Wood doesn't have disinformation. She drops a lot of dangling innuendo, doesn't connect chapters, draws no conclusions, and performed very shitty nuclear research.
<br/>
<br/>But she has a great collection of pictorial evidence of FGNW mayhem correlated to map locations and perspectives, so that you get the true magnitude of the destruction. She collects lots of evidence together that 9/11 had nuclear components, but purposely drops that ball and pursues it in a shitty, dead-end way.
<br/>
<br/>Google my name, find my blog, read my FGNW case, make up your own mind in a fair and objective way. I'm working on a newer version that rips A&E911truth a new one as well as Wayne Coste, but it is several weeks away.
<br/>
<br/>Spoiler Alert: "nuclear blast" is what they do a great job of debunking, to the point that I agree. "Blast" implies large changes in air pressure that blows the buildings apart and spreads nuclear badness everywhere. Didn't happen like that.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW are sub-kiloton from the get-go, and deliver 80% of their nuclear yield as targeted highly energetic neutrons (aimed upwards from point of ignition). The remaining 20% was heat wave, blast wave, EMP -- which did exist but were mitigated.
<br/>
<br/>This is very important concept to grasp. FGNW couple their energy directly to their targets, what with neutrons able to pass through anything. In passing through, though, they leave energy behind. How did the concrete get pulverized? Trapped residual water molecules received heat from the highly energetic neutrons -- sufficient heat to turn instantly into gas whose expanding volumetric pressure blew the rest apart. Metal was ablated.
<br/>
<br/>I love Mr. Chandler's video on the upper block of WTC-1 (I believe) which accordioned in on itself all at once. Mr. Chandler said words to the effect that the entire block went from its over-designed >100% strength instantly to 35% of its minimum strength (e.g., it went through its path of greatest resistance at 65% gravitational acceleration) and arrested the angular momentum of the leaning of that upper block through this dustification. By rights, it should have rolled off the upper building as a near cohesive whole and creamed the bathtub and neighboring buildings... But didn't.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 270 -->
<a name="x271"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x271" class="tiny">x271</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_271');">only a data distributor with enough skills to comprehend the basic level</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_271" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges Thank you for your opinion. I'm only a data distributor with enough skills to comprehend the basic level. I like to listen to credible specialists instead of thinking how things might have happened myself. As you mentioned mr Chandler did a great job. The pinnacle was the freefall of WTC7 which made Nist to acknowledge, but still could not explain. In my search and research for truth I found a remarkable fact stated by Chris Bollyn. (imho one of the best) Bollyn tells about Gordon Duff of Veterans Today, that he has to tell lies, otherwise he wouldn't be alive.(Think 1). Link: https://youtu.be/sw4UDcmOqp4?t=2714 .. Another link is about a hidden camera operation to reveal Zionist smear operations.. People who are pro Palestine or against Israel are destroyed/demonized. (Think 2) The next thing I want your attention for is Barbara Honegger. She knows very much about The Pentagon, She has a network of people in and out the Pentagon, She has done very meticulous research on this subject. And very important to establish someones integrity …> She names the names of the criminals who did 9/11 The dual US-Israelli collaborators from PNAC, Dov Zakheim, Michael Chertoff, Philip Zelikow, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. So, no doubt about on which side Barbara is on. Also you can be certain that Zionists do every trick in the book to demonise Barbara.(Think 3) Barbara's video Behind the Smoke Curtain, can be found on youtube. Barbara also posted a video to react on Chandler /Coste Pentagon analysis.. I value David Chandlers as the best for WTC7, and I value Barbara Honegger the best for the Pentagon. . Main thing is .. that we stick together as a truth movement.. Together we should conquer mainstream media so public research and debate can contribute to clear the facts.. (I have a dream...)
<br/>Chris Bollyn: Israel behind the 9-11 attacks-- and Iraq wars.
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>Chris Bollyn: Israel behind the 9-11 attacks-- and Iraq wars.
<br/>Chris Bollyn: Israel behind the 9-11 attacks-- and Iraq wars.
<br/>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05wSreYUUnY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05wSreYUUnY</a>
<br/>
<br/>Coste-Chandler Pentagon Evidence Overview Video Rebuttal
<br/>Barbara Honegger 2019 "Coste-Chandler Pentagon Evidence Overview Video Rebuttal"
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>Barbara Honegger 2019 "Coste-Chandler Pentagon Evidence…
<br/>Barbara Honegger 2019 "Coste-Chandler Pentagon Evidence Overview Video Rebuttal"
<br/>
The Zionist Deception and Blackmail operations can imho be seen as responsible for the 'strange' conclusions of Coste and Chandler. Chandler did a tremendous good job in the freefall evidence of WTC and debunking Nist. I suggest to them if they want to be credible again they can show that by naming the zionists like Barbara Honegger did.. Dov Zakheim, Michael Chertoff, Philip Zelikow, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Richard Perle, Stanley Hilton, … Naming these zionists is probably the reason for Barbara being discredited by blackmailed of forced members from within the truthmovement. For more info about blackmail see Canary Mission and https://youtu.be/wByhwcBn3nk?t=2821
<br/>
<br/>Hidden camera reveals zionist smear operations to destroy anyone against Israel or pro-palestine. Exposing lies on the canary mission website.
<br/>
<br/>One of the funders is billionaire Adam Milstein according to this documentary.
<br/>The Lobby - Israel lobby in USA - part 3
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>The Lobby - Israel lobby in USA - part 3
<br/>The Lobby - Israel lobby in USA - part 3
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 271 -->
<a name="x272"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x272" class="tiny">x272</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_272');">we stick together to the Truth</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_272" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, all great comments, but allow me to offer an amendment to this: "Main thing is .. that we stick together as a truth movement."
<br/>
<br/>My amendment: "Main thing is... that we stick together to the Truth." Follow that Truth rabbit wherever it leads, regardless of how deep the rabbit-hole.
<br/>
<br/>Because when it comes down to "sticking together as a movement..."? Meh.
<br/>
<br/>Infiltration and compromised that we have known to expect for years of observing it done many times last century or longer. It should not be a surprise that the organization which sprang up to channel and focus our thought and emotions might also have infiltration issues, most evident by the topics deemed acceptable and those not.
<br/>
<br/>Two of my super-powers are being naive and trusting. So I hold out the hope that AE911truth and others are keeping the nuclear 9/11 on the down-low until they can spring them forth at the trials they are helping spur into happening. In fact, that will be the litmus test whether they let Truth go where it needed to go.
<br/>
<br/>... And geesh! Sincere and objective people are allowed to study new analysis and evidence (like camera scintillation after 9/11), change their mind, and offer apologies for having led others astray in the past with the disinfo that had duped them most cleverly.
<br/>
<br/>They have an out.
<br/>
<br/>If they are sincere.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 272 -->
<a name="x273"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x273" class="tiny">x273</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_273');">The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and AE911.org are most reliable</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_273" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges <a href="https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/">https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/</a> and AE911.org are most reliable (/with high lever integrity ) to me.. However, I still think that there should be enough room for other opinions as long as not everything can be explained. I don't believe the nuke-theory, but technology had developed and don't know what is possible nowadays.. My lead for truth is the question how high is the level of integrity./and counterforce. of the publisher/scientist. If we ever want truth to come out, there has to be a Ghandi-like revolution. Starting with protest at mainstreammedia sites/buildings/ etc.. Would like to see people capable of organizing such an event.
<br/>The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
<br/>lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
<br/>The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
<br/>The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 273 -->
<a name="x274"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x274" class="tiny">x274</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_274');">"I don't believe the nuke-theory..." either.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_274" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, "I don't believe the nuke-theory..." either. There isn't a single theory, but most of them are purposely wrong, framing it as single devices per tower and deep-underground..So we are in agreement there.
<br/>
<br/>But I did my research and I followed the rabbit holes given by footnotes in my search for Truth.
<br/>
<br/>Read it for yourself. Make up your own mind. Stand on my shoulders.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
</p>
</div><!-- section 274 -->
<a name="x275"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x275" class="tiny">x275</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_275');">How much nanothermite was used and where ?</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_275" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges Thank you. If I may ask, How much nanothermite was used and where ? Or don't you agree with nanothermite findings? What was the result of the used nanothermite? (Melting steel, pulverised concrete, white smoke, projectiles blowing away or changing direction in mid-air..or combination of before mentioned? )
<br/>
</div><!-- section 275 -->
<a name="x276"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x276" class="tiny">x276</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_276');">leveled on those who champion such</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_276" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, The question about how much nanothermite was used and where, really should be leveled on those who champion such. Their numbers for "how much" were huge, before considering that unspent amounts of such had to keep the under-rubble fires smoldering for months, making it kwazy obscenely large and not at all Occam Razor for logistics.
<br/>
<br/>The "and where" question they haven't answered. NT doesn't answer the anomalies captured here by NIST.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI</a>
<br/>
<br/>The NT findings were sketchy, and other sources of destruction could have accounted for things like the tiny iron spheres in the dust that they ASSUMED was the result of an NT reaction. The scope-limit hoodwinked the science-challenged right from the get-go.
<br/>
<br/>I don't have to argue whether or not any NT was involved, and won't hurt my case in the least if some truly was part of this overly-redundant operation.
<br/>
<br/>My beef has been that NT wasn't the primary cause of destruction, and is being propped up as if it were.
<br/>
<br/>In the video, go to 44:00. Look at the "steel doobie". But then wait! It gets better. At 46:00, look at how the perfectly good NIST high quality state of the art camera starts misbehaving upon getting close and personal with radiated steel. Images of bolt holes in spandrals that were ripped out as if a piece of paper out of a notebook.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY,…
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 1 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2001-2002)
<br/>
<br/>The "squibs" well below the crash wave? The (conventional) shaped-charge detonation to initiate fission to get heat necessary for fusion, which then released its highly-energetic neutrons in a controlled fashion upwards.
<br/>
<br/>Material changing direction in flight and Chandler says it is igniting chemical explosives or such. Could very well be, and I have no problem. Could also be EMP or nuetrons from devices lower slipping through the window slits and acting on falling content. Could be both. [The agreement is that it was controlled, and wasn't gravitational acceleration only.]
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>1:09:00, faces of the wall assemblies rolled over like spegheti, and the exhibition of camera scintillation.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 276 -->
<a name="x277"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x277" class="tiny">x277</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_277');">suspicious for trolls</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_277" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges Thank you very much for this video. I have to study this and think it over.. I'm suspicious for trolls, so that is why I might not be as polite as I would be when I' m sure about your remarks and video. (Apologies) As long as you say it is a controlled demolition.. (and would be nice if you confirm you thoughts heading towards.. Zionists..) I'm with you.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 277 -->
<a name="x278"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x278" class="tiny">x278</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_278');">not a troll</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_278" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, I may be an asshole for having deviant 9/11 Truth beliefs and not giving up so easily 9/11 nukes, but I'm not a troll.
<br/>
<br/>To your last point, Zionists were the ones who did 9/11, some from within the US government, and some without. Aside from US arsenals, Israel is about the only country that could match the effectiveness of the US nuclear wizardry, in part because they probably got them from our arsenals anyway. Israel was the main beneficiary of 9/11 and its aftermath and regime change wars.
<br/>
<br/>I can easily be duped away from my 9/11 nuclear views, but that requires evidence and a rational argument. When I dived into the Dr. Jones rabbit holes and all those who follow NT, NT comes up lacking and the actions of 9/11 leaders suspicious.
<br/>
<br/>I'm still more than a few weeks out in my next thesis which tears apart Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for their scope-limited anti-9/11-nuke pieces. But I'm at it, slowly, and am motivated to at least overcome my burn-out and procrastination to set the record straight.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 278 -->
<a name="x279"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x279" class="tiny">x279</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_279');">beyond any doubt about NanoThermite</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_279" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges I am beyond any doubt about NanoThermite being used.,. I am almost certain about no nukes being involved, but I do acknowledge multiple (unknown) technologies are used to pull this off. I value you contribution very much, and I will follow you on this subject. Thanks.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 279 -->
<a name="x280"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x280" class="tiny">x280</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_280');">a hypothesis-in-search-of-evidence and ignoring evidence that it couldn't explain</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_280" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, I would have no problems being convinced that NT was involved. I hope that it was. However, the more I dug into "the case for NT", the more it unraveled as a hypothesis-in-search-of-evidence and ignoring evidence that it couldn't explain.
<br/>
<br/>But let's just set NT on the shelf for a moment, because its involvement doesn't have to be exclusivity, which is another fault in its promotion. I've provided a link to an even earlier article of mine (with overlap to the newer article), because it slaughters the NT sacred cow.
<br/>
<br/>You are almost certain about no nukes being involved?!! On what do you base your certainty?
<br/>
<br/>Chances are, I have already debunked it, including Dr. Jones' stilted "nuke reputiation" paper and the sources he relied upon (unquestioned and unchallenged).
<br/>
<br/>Whether or not NT was involved, it can't explain the "wavey" beams or the box columns coming unwelded at its joints, visible in the videos. Or the real-time evidence of radiation. Or the stilted tritium report. Or the energy of pulverization. Or that even Dr. Shyam Sunder debunks legitimately conventional chemical-based weapons, because the destruction wasn't loud enough.
<br/>
<br/>I'll not use FB to convince you, because I'd only be repeating what I wrote in my blog that you can read on your own.
<br/>
<br/>Here's another point. While it in itself isn't really a solid argument for nuclear involvement, it is worth considering with an open-mind. ASSUME for the purposes of discussion and the remainder of this comment, that FGNW were used. But the government isn't keen on divulging is means and methods. What efforts would they go to in order to squash such thinking by the public and why?
<br/>
<br/>Aside from the low radiation nature, the "nuking ourselves" theme shows just how bat-shit crazy the zionist neo-cons were, and other nations better watch out.
<br/>
<br/>But were this to become public, the figurative nuclear fallout from that, even from 17 years ago or so, could still have damaging effects to our government, our institutions, to our very nation.
<br/>
<br/>Do you think the government would leave it to chance that the public wouldn't stumble upon nuclear clues and connect the dots? No. They would have pumping the disinformation away from this premise from many angles. Their chief angle is by framing the nuclear involvement completely wrong -- large nukes, lots of radiation, lots of fallout, deep-underground, "blast waves", etc.
<br/>
<br/>The audio signature is a huge clue. Not loud enough to be conventional chemical-based explosives, yet not soft enough to be gravity by itself.
<br/>
<br/>Oh well. I've planted my seed.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 280 -->
<a name="x281"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x281" class="tiny">x281</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_281');">reasons for Neo Cons/Zionists to promote the Nuke theory</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_281" style="display: block;">
<p>
Again, thank you. I will study this, but I can easily think of reasons for Neo Cons/Zionists to promote the Nuke theory and shove it to Bin Laden in Court. The case is that Nano-thermite controlled demolition had to be rigged months in advance.. while a nuke could be brought in by a lorry.. the day before... Not saying it happened this way, but I'm carefull with unscientific explanations.. And NanoThermite is scientific proof. For the first time however, I've been convinced to study the possibility of nuke tech being involved. Not ruling this option out anymore.. Thank you. I'll be back
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 281 -->
<a name="x282"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x282" class="tiny">x282</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_282');">more light and water</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_282" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, I regret my disagreement with just about everything you wrote in your last comment. The nuke theory could ~not~ be scapegoated to Bin Laden very easily, and opens it up to follow-up questions like how they acquired them and whose nuclear arsenal has inventory missing.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote "while a nuke..." ... Let me stop that right there, because is frames things improperly. I'm talking multiple FGNW per tower and per WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7.
<br/>
<br/>To your point modified, "while several nukes could be brought in by lorry... the day before..." is practically right on the money. Bomb-sniffing dogs only had a few days of vacation immediately prior to 9/11. According to Dr. Jones, (assuming for a moment) NT was mixed with something else like RDX to achieve the brisance which then would have been detected by those bomb-sniffing dogs in the weeks/months of preparation.
<br/>
<br/>These FGNW would have required some preparatory work, like where they were mounted and aimed, possibly even with structure that could mask flashes from the ignition phases.
<br/>
<br/>I dispute the scientific proof of NT, or at least, of NT being so allegedly prominent everywhere. It was not called out in the USGS study of the dust (although radioactive elements and their decay elements were); it was not called out in RJ Lee or severak other studies on the dust. (Only called out from Dr. Jones' dust samples.)
<br/>
<br/>WHAT WAS DISCOVERED in all reports was a high percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust. In their scope-limited efforts, Dr. Jones / Harrit ASSUMED it was the result of an NT chemical reaction and extrapolated backwards how much it was. AND IT WAS OBSCENELY LARGE even before considering the extra and unspent NT necessarily to maintain the under-rubble hots-spots for weeks/months.
<br/>
<br/>The tiny iron spheres indicated a really hot heat source. When Dr. Cahill was measuring the downwind air for a couple months (with a last start of beginning of October already), the metals he was measuring in the air samples indicated sufficiently high heat still present to have continually GENERATED those particles. [Some FGNW may not have reached their full nuclear yield and may have "fizzled" instead, a legitimate nuclear term.]
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Griffin says that none of the relevant evidence should be ignored. Well, at the 22:00 mark is a pieces of wall assembly rolled into a "doobie" and "smoked part way to a stub". Flagged by NIST several times as important. [Watch to at least 22:42.] No NIST explanation, however. Not from AE911truth either. The narrator on the video cracked a funny when looking at it. "What... in the hell got that. That's a mystery that those guys will have to figure out."
<br/>
<br/>https://youtu.be/bOQOBIhxNEE?t=1323
<br/>
<br/>My FGNW premise explains more anomalies of the NIST filmed scrap yard footage than the NT-crowd.
<br/>
<br/>Thanks for letting my seed germinate a little. The above is some more light and water.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 282 -->
<a name="x283"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x283" class="tiny">x283</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_283');">you are a zionist troll</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_283" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges Thank you for now I am 100% sure, you are a zionist troll attempting to deceive.. Have a nice day.. and please back off with your nonsens
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 283 -->
<a name="x284"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x284" class="tiny">x284</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_284');">Me? A zoinist troll? Fail.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_284" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, me? A zoinist troll? Fail. Try reading my FB wall.
<br/>
<br/>You, on the other hand, seem incapable of recognizing what is being put right in front of your eyes and has many touch points. Cognitive dissonance runs deep even in supposedly open-minded 9/11 Truthers, who once they get invested in a premise (like NT), can't be shaken loose even when that premise doesn't explain OR EVEN ATTEMPT to explain much of the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>By point of comparison, the true zionist trolls who peddle nukes malframe the devices as being too large, deep underground, large "blast waves", etc. Easy to debunk.
<br/>
<br/>Or they try to leave discussions at Woodsian DEW or Jonesian NT.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 284 -->
<a name="x285"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x285" class="tiny">x285</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_285');">Take your piss somewhere else</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_285" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges Take your piss somewhere else
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 285 -->
<a name="x286"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x286" class="tiny">x286</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_286');">your counter-arguments against FGNW are running a bit out of steam</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_286" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Marcel Lugtenborg, what means this anger directed at me?!! What means these insults -- "zionist", "troll", "piss" -- that have no bearing on me?
<br/>
<br/>Guess your counter-arguments against FGNW are running a bit out of steam. Scraping the bottom of your ammo barrel, leaving you nothing but ad hominem. Your cognitive dissonance about NT is giving you headaches and causing you to behave badly.
<br/>
<br/>So put on your NT hat and view some of that NIST tape 2 of 2.
<br/>
<br/>At 1:27:00, NIST looks at a perimeter column (3/4" web) bent into a C-shape, "a big arc."
<br/>
<br/>What placement of NT in the tower would achieve this? (And why?)
<br/>
<br/>And then put on the FGNW hat and see if volume heating as a result of highly energetic neutrons emitted from a FGNW could explain this.
<br/>
<br/>And if you're still watching around 1:40:00, what is with the camera acting up?
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, lurker latter-day readers will judge from this discussion that I made my case (for FGNW). You made / defended your case (for NT) so poorly, that your last rebuttals have you spewing unfounded "zionist" insults and telling me to take a hike.
<br/>
<br/>You know how to reach me in order to school me properly on causes of destruction. Do your homework, which amounts to double-checking my homework. Let me know when you find errors, so I can amend my views if warranted.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
Maxwell Bridges You are just a troll hiding behind a fake politeness. You pretend to know better than dozens of credible Scientists... You are fake. I recommend anybody seeing this to check Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, LCfor911.org and don't pay any attention to this timeconsuming troll
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 286 -->
<a name="x287"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x287" class="tiny">x287</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_287');">fake politeness, a debate tactic</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_287" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Marcel Lugtenborg, there is nothing wrong with fake politeness, a debate tactic that I recognized and honed in the double-aughts. Not only did it remove foul language as an excuse for banishment or running afoul of forum etiquette, but it helped me from the onset in writing words worthy of preservation.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote that I "pretend to know better than dozens of credible Scientists." No. I am just smart enough and persistent enough to read through what seems to substantiate their opinions -- the reports they accepted at face-value unquestioned and unchallenged -- and discovered the errors that led them (purposely) to wrong conclusions.
<br/>
<br/>You? You don't have the smarts or persistence for that. (I bet you haven't read my two posted articles end-to-end yet.) With your "dozens of credible Scientists" statement, you are essentially appealing to authority and accept what anyone with a PhD plops in front of you. Too bad for you, because it kind of shoots holes into your 9/11 Truther objectivity and turns you into a hypocrite.
<br/>
<br/>(What makes you think that the 9/11 Truth Movement wouldn't be actively infiltrated? NPT at the WTC, deep underground nukes, DEW from space, gravity pile-drivers... And Nano Thermite.)
<br/>
<br/>If I was wrong, someone (smarter than you) could simply step through my premise section-by-section and identify the errors, and I would be most grateful for the correction.
<br/>
<br/>But there is an old disinformation trick that if you address any aspect of an opponent's premise, you essentially validate it as a real thing to be debunked rather than as a "figment of someone's imagination" not requiring effort. AE911Truth never did address Dr. Wood's book; neither did Mr. David Chandler, and I was the one who personally purchased him his copy (back before I saw the light and shifted towards nuclear involvement.) AE911Truth's one lame attempt spent half of its short word count promoting NT rather than identifying evidence (nuggets of truth) from Wood's work that essentially any 9/11 theory-du-jour has to address.
<br/>
<br/>As for nukes? Dr. Jones did a good "blinded-by-science" to completely malframed it in 2007 (while missing a decade of Dr. Andre Gsponer's work into FGNW and a 2005 paper), and then filled the void with NT that can't explain all of the evidence (and they don't even fucking try.) This sufficed for many years until AE911Truth was finally nudged into addressing nukes, which jumps from a webpage into two PDF files absolutely choked full of footnotes that, when you follow them, prove cherry-picking of insignificant aspects while ignoring what is damning. They frame it as "nuclear blast", in a very 3rd-generation-nuclear-weapon's sense. No mention of neutron bombs or their bastard offspring FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>You pat yourself on the back at being smart enough not to fall for NIST's lies and those of the 9/11 Commission Report, yet seem completely content (by design) with the half-baked efforts of AE911Truth.
<br/>
<br/>"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they've been fooled."~Mark Twain.
<br/>
<br/>If anything I wrote above insults you, good! Let it jar you out of your complacency. Are you really as objective as you claim? Prove it.
<br/>
<br/>Here's something per-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 287 -->
<a name="x288"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x288" class="tiny">x288</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_288');">still value you as a troll</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_288" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges Thanks for sharing the David Chandler video... For the rest I still value you as a troll.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 288 -->
<a name="x289"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x289" class="tiny">x289</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_289');">Thank you for your participation and contribution</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_289" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, It pleases me to no end that I still have value in your eyes.
<br/>
<br/>According to Wikipedia: "a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."
<br/>
<br/>You make the claim that I am a troll; you should defend it... in a new thread. (Let's not pollute this rational nuclear discussion thread.) I'd like to know what characteristics I exhibit that puts me into such a category. Examples would be appreciated of my efforts "to distract and sow discord" and "to provoke readers into displaying emotional responses in a tangential discussion" (e.g., flame war.)
<br/>
<br/>JUST KIDDING!
<br/>
<br/>Were you to engage in such, you'd be the one distracting and sowing discord! We don't need to go there, and I'll set aside the fact that you started calling me "zionist" and "troll" names first, as if it was your intention to get an emotional response out of me.
<br/>
<br/>+++
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, I didn't share the David Chandler video; you did. That's like two factual errors in your first sentence alone. WTF? It almost reeks of failed bot algorithms.
<br/>
<br/>What I shared were two NIST videos that show more evidence of nuclear mahem than NT mahem. I shared a peer-reviewed article that was published in a reputable science journal that discussed "exotic nukes" (FGNW) before various 9/11 TM leaders wrote their initial "no-nukes" faulty papers. I shared two articles penned by me that stack the 9/11 evidence blocks into a viable 9/11 nuclear tower with fewer gaps than the NT premise.
<br/>
<br/>From my perspective, I've been having a reasoned, rational, level-headed conversation that started with me responding to your Chandler video posting & first comment by pointing out where Mr. Chandler got things wrong. The conversation progressed with me defending honorably & most admirably my premise.
<br/>
<br/>+++
<br/>
<br/>Early in this thread, you wrote: "I'm only a data distributor with enough skills to comprehend the basic level."
<br/>
<br/>In this regard, you were indeed correct, and I am in complete agreement.
<br/>
<br/>As a data distributor, you've posted something that you don't understand and can't defend. Worse, "with (only) enough skills to comprehend the basic level", you are ill-equiped to open-mindedly and objectively research anything outside of what you were given (or paid) to distribute.
<br/>
<br/>Anything I write or link isn't going to convince you to shift your 9/11 views, because "data distributors" aren't paid to think or deviate from the agenda.
<br/>
<br/>When you tote an agenda like that? Well,... it makes your views less genuine and you less sincere as a person.
<br/>
<br/>In fact, it opens a whole new pandora's box of government infiltration of forums (and bot algorithms) that can be laid at your feet as Exhibit A.
<br/>
<br/>Thank you, Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, for your participation and contribution, in more ways than one.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 289 -->
<a name="x290"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x290" class="tiny">x290</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_290');">returning to topic</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ole.pedersen.7921/posts/3226519517389851?comment_id=3250527438322392">2019-11-12</a></p>
<div id="sect_290" style="display: block;">
<p>Let's try this again, seeing how Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg was incapable of staying on topic on my last attempt at this thread.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
<br/>
<br/>I wrote:
<br/>
<br/>+++
<br/>
<br/>If you read Dr. Wood's very own words and understand, she never considered her research to be the end-station. Her main goal was to get rational consideration of all of the evidence. Because she dropped a lot of dangling innuendo, did not power her premises with anything real-world, did not connect dots, did not draw conclusions, did a shitty job of nuclear research, and did not name serial numbers of weapons, her work can't be the end-station but a mid-station.
<br/>
<br/>You can use this to identify the Woodsian disinfo agents when they fail to recognize these glaring deficiencies, fail to stand on Wood's shoulders, and fail to take the work to the next level.
<br/>
<br/>Woodsian DEW and 9/11 nukes should have married much sooner, because clearly the devil spawn was FGNW exhibited on 9/11 (but probably first at OKC).
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 290 -->
<a name="x291"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x291" class="tiny">x291</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_291');">scientists that studied your premises?</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-12</p>
<div id="sect_291" style="display: block;">
<p>
Who are the scientists that studied your premises? Names please.. I don't spent time on text and more text.. Just to keep me busy. Name me the names of the scientists and then (I promise,) I will study and analyse with friends.. Evidence mr Maxwel Bridges.!! I've seen enough BS. I gave you evidence..and names..
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 291 -->
<a name="x292"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x292" class="tiny">x292</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_292');">you are just stalling for time</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-12</p>
<div id="sect_292" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, this isn't the first time I've drawn your attention to my blog posting. You should have read (and studied) it already. Ergo, you are just stalling for time.
<br/>
<br/>And WTF would I want to start with your arguments that champion NT when the discussion in this thread is about FGNW? That's a distraction.
<br/>
<br/>Furthermore, I've already debunked NT in another blog posting that was also posted and you promised to read in that other thread.
<br/>
<br/>Ain't my job to do your busy work.
<br/>
<br/>The topic here is FGNW and there are 19 sections or so to explore.
<br/>
<br/>Doesn't bother me in the least if you want to hang onto NT, but NT has to explain ~all~ the evidence. It and you have not.
<br/>
<br/>Please explain -- on a thread or posting of your own -- how this wonderful plasma ARC could be used to create the artifacts of hollow box columns (from the wall assemblies) that seem to come undone at their corner welds that went the length (30') of the box column.
<br/>
<br/>Or, how about the hollow box column that had a gash throughout its length and through a spandrel?
<br/>
<br/>Or, how does it explain the many instances of steel doobies?
<br/>
<br/>Or, how does NT explain tritium in the run-off?
<br/>
<br/>Or, how does NT explain Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities in the dust?
<br/>
<br/>Again, please do this on your own thread.
<br/>
<br/>This thread is for talking about FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Curious that this is now at least our second round (could be third), and you still haven't waded into my premise and taken it apart section by section.
<br/>
<br/>Lame, so lame. Toting an agenda, I see.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 292 -->
<a name="x293"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x293" class="tiny">x293</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_293');">You behave very much like a troll.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-12</p>
<div id="sect_293" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges You behave very much like a troll. How come? Lots of bladibla but no evidence.. Questions to deceive, questions to degrade, questions to smear.. All troll tactics.. Please have a look at this, and don't forget to look at my previous posts...
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g</a>
<br/>9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
<br/>9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
<br/>1
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 293 -->
<a name="x294"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x294" class="tiny">x294</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_294');">sounds like an excellent research project for you to gather this sacred information</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-12</p>
<div id="sect_294" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, it is not my job to monitor the web traffic of Cornell University's website's physics department to see who has read it. Nor is it my job to find out who peer-reviewed what.
<br/>
<br/>Seeing how this is the bone you want to pick, then sounds like an excellent research project for you to gather this sacred information. You'll probably wrap it in some ad hominem diversion rather than reading and understanding what is relevant.
<br/>
<br/>But let me give you a hint. This article had five (5) versions between October 2005 and February 2006. Must mean someone who was a subject matter expert was reviewing it and meriting that Dr. Gsponer amend his work and come up with these five version.
<br/>
<br/>And this isn't to mention that Dr. Gsponer was writing about this theme for a decade at least before this article was published.
<br/>
<br/>As for your latest plasma ARC & thermite re-tread (which I happened to have read many years ago), Please delete it from this and the other thread where I was top-level commenter and discussing FGNW. It is off topic here, particularly when you created your own top-level thread in this very discussion for it.
<br/>
<br/>You are spamming the discussion I want to have with your lame NT theories that can't explain a fraction of the NIST video evidence.
<br/>
<br/>Me? A troll?
<br/>
<br/>Don't be pawning your strengths and weaknesses onto me.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>arxiv.org
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness…
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 294 -->
<a name="x295"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x295" class="tiny">x295</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_295');">"a mystery that the other guys will have to solve."</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-12</p>
<div id="sect_295" style="display: block;">
<p>Whatever theory you champion, gotta address all the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>Video is cued at a truncated or half-smoked "steel doobie". Narrator even said at 22:46 that this is "a mystery that the other guys will have to solve." In another thread, the NT-ers like Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg should describe how NT made it happen. How did all that wrinkling happen at the truncated end of the half-smoked steel doobie?
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE</a>...
<br/>
<br/>Fascinating. At 1:27:00 it shows a column that got bent into a C-shape.
<br/>
<br/>My FGNW theory explains all this easily.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY,…
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 295 -->
<a name="x296"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x296" class="tiny">x296</a>
Michael W. Lurie : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_296');">intent separates dis- from mis-</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-12</p>
<div id="sect_296" style="display: block;">
<p>"The only difference between misinformation and disinformation is intent. " - me
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 296 -->
<a name="x297"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x297" class="tiny">x297</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_297');">Not just "no", but "glaringly no".</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-12</p>
<div id="sect_297" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, you've tried twice to side-track the discussion on FGNW with the lame "Who are the scientists that studied your premises? Names please."
<br/>
<br/>I gave you a name: Dr. Andre Gsponer who had co-authors of his work, and we can only assume that Cornell University assigned peer-reviewers to his paper that he went through 5 version and his earlier books.
<br/>
<br/>Just as importantly, where are all the scientists who debunk Dr. Gsponer's work.
<br/>
<br/>Did Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jenkins, and Dr. Wood? Did David Chandler, Jon Cole, or Richard Gage?
<br/>
<br/>No.
<br/>
<br/>Not just "no", but "glaringly no". I even had direct contact with David Chandler, who claimed Dr. Wood's book was disinformation but failed to even read it to identify the good, the bad, and the ugly. When my beliefs shifted, I communicated with him to get his comments, his corrections, and even his debunking. No show.
<br/>
<br/>Be careful, because Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth FAQ #15 only debunks a "nuclear blast", and that in a stilted and underhanded way that ignored huge areas from Jeff Prager while focusing on minutia. FAQ #15 does not debunk nuclear involvement, and most certainly doesn't mention FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to do basic research at your institution of higher education and come to a good understanding of some of the nuclear capabilities at the turn of the century.
<br/>
<br/>But let's be clear. Anybody whose career involves nuclear physics probably signed a stiff non-disclosure with charges of treason, long prison sentences, or the death penalty hanging over their head.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/trend-line-to-shut-down-911-nuclear.html</a>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 297 -->
<a name="x298"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x298" class="tiny">x298</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_298');">The Great Thermate Debate</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_298" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/marcel.lugtenborg/posts/3135456853136940">2019-11-13</a>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>9/11 Experiements: The Great Thermate Debate
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g</a>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 298 -->
<a name="x299"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x299" class="tiny">x299</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_299');">NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_299" style="display: block;">
<p>
Impressive. Now figure out the logistics of putting this wonder NT on every floor of two 110 story buildings, plus critical locations in WTC-7, a secure 47 story building, and WTC-6, -5, -4...
<br/>
<br/>How how was NT placed to create this NIST artifact -- a half-smoked steel doobie with a wilted stub?
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE</a>...
<br/>
<br/>Patron-saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br/>
<br/>You're making the case for NT, Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, so you defend it. How does NT address the evidence in the above video.
<br/>
<br/>For the sake of discussion, let's just start with 21:00 and 1:27:00 and the artifacts discussed there, respectively, the half-smoked and wilted stub of a steel doobie and the large box column bent smoothly into a C.
<br/>
<br/>Frankly, the NT that your video puts into the corner and gives wonderful effects? Well, in following Dr. Griffin's example, please explain how Mr. Jon Cole's thermitic box-cutter (8 minutes into your video) would accomplish those two examples from NIST.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 299 -->
<a name="x300"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x300" class="tiny">x300</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_300');">still can't name any scientists</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_300" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/> Youre a troll.. If you find a huge pile of shit, then you go figure out what the color of the horse was? You still can't name any scientists (a few working in a group.. not a lonely bribed one.) who support your bullshit story...
<br/>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/> You still don't get it.. Nanothermite is scientificly proven. You ignore that and you want to convince ordinary people to believe you're story.. without any evidence only based on you're findings.. That means you are a TROLL or an Idiot
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 300 -->
<a name="x301"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x301" class="tiny">x301</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_301');">prove it by having NT account for the wilted stub of a steel doobie</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_301" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, you make the claim that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction, yet you call me a troll when I simply request that you prove it by having it account for the wilted stub of a steel doobie and a large box column bent smoothly into a C at respectively 21:00 and 1:27:00 in the video of my top-level comment that anchors this thread.
<br/>
<br/>Your inability to stay on topic even when it is your topic starts to delineate the parameters that make you up. The glaring one is an inability to "deep-dive" and do your own research.
<br/>
<br/>Examples: you never read my two FGNW blog postings, the peer-reviewed and published in a reputable science journal FGNW article by Dr. Andre Gsponer, and what is becoming apparent now is Dr. Jones' work itself.
<br/>
<br/>How so on the latter? Dr. Jones did not attempt to explain glaring artifacts (like just the two I've given you from NIST), the duration of hot-spots, how NT was mixed with something more brisance to achieve observed pulverization... You never read and contemplated the limits of their work, such as the fact it is all based on an ASSUMPTION simply stated: the tiny iron spheres found in high percentages in the dust THEY ASSUMED were exclusively the result of an NT reaction.
<br/>
<br/>So, whereas you call me a troll, it is as if you are trying to pawn your weaknesses onto me. You crap on what I researched and put together, yet all you can offer are what OTHERS GAVE you, with no real understanding or desire to understand the limits of those premises and the wide margin for error.
<br/>
<br/>It would be no skin off my nose or my premise if NT was involved. But sure as shit, it wasn't the primary mechanism of destruction. What quantities are required for pulverization? What quantities unspent from the pulverization task would be required to maintain the under-rubble hot-spots for months, to the point that when Dr. Cahill late started in October in measuring samples downwind, he determined that the metals found in the air samples meant a high heat source that still continued to generate such. [None of your wimpy-ass thermite videos have it burning for months.]
<br/>
<br/>You make the claim that NT was the primary mechanisms of destruction. You prove it. Speculate rationally and objectively how NT could cause those artifacts.
<br/>
<br/>... And if you try to back-pedal and say, "I never claimed NT was the primary mechanism of destruction," my response is gonna be "well then, why the F did you stop your personal research into the primary mechanism of destruction and why the F do you settle for something that is clearly less than the complete truth and a limited hang-out."
<br/>
<br/>Chop, chop.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 301 -->
<a name="x302"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x302" class="tiny">x302</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_302');">you provide NO names of scientists</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_302" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/> Maxwell Bridges Again and Again you provide NO names of scientists, no evidence to support your BS. Long story bs.. Again I point to evidence. Check L Paul Bremer, Komatsu Ltd (Patent) Bremer was also a member of the board for Akzo Nobel, the parent of International Paint, a company that produced a fireproofing application for skyscrapers called Interchar. ** It is less well known that Bremer's relationship to Marsh started earlier. In fact, on 9/11, Bremer was the CEO of Marsh Political Risk Practice and he had an office in the south tower. That day, he was interviewed on NBC television, stating that Osama bin Laden was responsible and that possibly Iraq and Iran were involved too, and he called for the most severe military response possible. Google removed the interview video from its servers three times, and blocked it once. Check the facts and if you provide evidence I will check it.. I don't spent time on BS though. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5532449...
<br/>US5532449A - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete - Google Patents
<br/>patents.google.com
<br/>US5532449A - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish…
<br/>US5532449A - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete - Google Patents
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 302 -->
<a name="x303"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x303" class="tiny">x303</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_303');">Dr. Andre Gsponer</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_303" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, again you are caught red-handed not reading my comment, much less anything referenced by my comment. Let me spell it out for you again.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Andre Gsponer
<br/>
<br/>Dr. André Gsponer is Director of the Geneva-based Independent Scientific Research Institute (ISRI), founded in 1982 to study the arms-control/disarmament implications of emerging technologies. Check out his Resume:
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://isri.ch/wiki/_media/publications:ag-09-02.pdf">http://isri.ch/wiki/_media/publications:ag-09-02.pdf</a>
<br/>
<br/>He's fluent in three languages and has been writing highly technical papers in all three for multiple decades. Where are all the scientist who debunk his work?
<br/>
<br/>He's done work with Suren Erkman, Jean-Pierre Hurni, Stephan Klement, and others. More name dropping for you.
<br/>
<br/>Where are your scientists who debunk or discredit his work?
<br/>
<br/>Thus, your attempt at ad-homimem attacks aimed at people instead of the premise falls on its face.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 303 -->
<a name="x304"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x304" class="tiny">x304</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_304');">Indeed I don't read troll papers.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_304" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/> Maxwell Bridges Deceiving Troll. Again and again.. Israel is committing terrorism against the whole world.. and 9/11 was part of their terrorism.
<br/>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/> Maxwell Bridges Indeed I don't read troll papers.. So I didn't see the names you provided. I will check and come back on this.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 304 -->
<a name="x305"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x305" class="tiny">x305</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_305');">try to pawn your character traits onto me</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_305" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, you wrote: "Israel is committing terrorism against the whole world.. and 9/11 was part of their terrorism." I agree.
<br/>
<br/>But your lead-off was aimed at me in an unfriendly way. "Troll. Again and again."
<br/>
<br/>Yes, "again and again" you try to pawn your character traits onto me. But "troll" is not my M.O. "Duped useful idiot", maybe. But all it takes is a proper scientific analysis of all the evidence to convince me of something else. This, you haven't done, and neither have your NT heroes in the 9/11 TM.
<br/>
<br/>What is the first sign of you being a troll? Three (or more) lame responses to my one comment, as if paid to post (not to mention your tag-teaming Mr. Rik Scholten). All of your comments could have been wrapped into one. In fact, you can and should have delayed your response until you had done your homework. I would have waited.
<br/>
<br/>Second sign of you being a troll, Mr. Lugtenborg, is that this thread belongs to you and is supposed to discuss YOUR claim that NT was primary mechanism of destruction. When I post a NIST video of evidence that all 9/11 theories-du-jour (including NT) would need to explain (brought to your attention several times now), YOU DROP THE BALL. You try to side-step and try to drag things from a neighboring thread into this one.
<br/>
<br/>Have you answered the questions posed in my top-level comment that contained the NIST videos? No.
<br/>
<br/>But here's the most glaring flag of you, Mr. Lugtenborg, being a troll. You wrote: "Indeed I don't read troll papers."
<br/>
<br/>WTF?!! Talk about dinging your own character. As if ~WE~ could ever have a rational, reasoned, and legimate discussion on any topic when you so blatantly prove that you are not genuine, are not sincere, certainly are not a sincere seeker of truth, because you won't read (a) what I wrote to summarize a premise or (b) the references that substantiates my opinions.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 305 -->
<a name="x306"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x306" class="tiny">x306</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_306');">prove NT was the primary mechanism of destruction</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_306" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, Obviously your tag-team partner was losing so bad, he had to call in for re-enforcements. You, like Mr. Lugtenborg, do not even know what you are arguing.
<br/>
<br/>I'll grant you that the deceit of Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth isn't always easy to spot in a purposeful "blinded-by-science" sense. And their true deceit isn't what they researched and wrote, but what they didn't.
<br/>
<br/>So that we're clear. Mr. Lugtenborg and you seem to be arguing that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction. I am having you prove it. [My premise does not exclude the possibility that NT was involved, but it rationally moves forward that FGNW was the primary mechanism of destruction.]
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Lugtenborg already has the assignment (from my top-level comment and the NIST video) of explaining the half-smoked & wilted stub of a steel doobie (21:00) and the large box column bent smoothly into a "C" (1:27:00).
<br/>
<br/>You could help him if you wish, but the more important assignment for you is to find all of the reports that list NT or any chemical-based explosives in the dust.
<br/>
<br/>Because I'm a fair and generous fellow, let me give you some hints. Dr. Jones samples are the only ones allegedly with NT.
<br/>
<br/>The reports from USGS, RJ Lee Group, and Paul Lioy et al DO NOT HAVE NT OR CHEMICAL EXPLOSIVES.
<br/>
<br/>What they do have is a high percentage of iron spheres, with the deceit being that allegedly only NT can create those. [FGNW can create them, too, and still have energy left-over to volume heat steel into bending into arcs and getting wall assemblies to wrap themselves into steel-doobies, and turn concrete to dust, and maintain (through nuclear-fizzle) under-rubble hot-spots), but I digress.]
<br/>
<br/>Here's something that the USGS has in its tables that summarize their more thorough set of dust samples. It has Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities. Yet plain text of this same report completely ignores this anomaly.
<br/>
<br/>And let's not forget tritium, tritium, tritium.
<br/>
<br/>I suggest you re-review the work of Dr. Jones and look for areas where they omitted things. His no-nukes reputiation paper? Doesn't mention neutron devices or any of the derivatives that make up all fourth generation nuclear devices. The more recent FAQ #15 tries to frame things as "nuclear blasts" doing destruction by sudden changes of air pressure to blow things apart. Given their scope-limit, I agree with its conclusions, but its true deceitful purpose is to take all nuclear devices off the table.
<br/>
<br/>I posted the FGNW work of a reputable nuclear scientist and then his CV, and all Mr. Lugtenborg could ask was who peer-reviewed this.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br/>
<br/>Guess what? It comes from the same Cornell University repository as your paper, Mr. Scholten.
<br/>
<br/>Why didn't Dr. Jones see this? All five versions of this were published before Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" paper, as were several versions of Dr. Gsponer's book?
<br/>
<br/>For the record, Dr. Andre Gsponer to my knowledge has never written anything about 9/11. And he has had a lengthy career of some reputation in the field of nuclear weapons.
<br/>
<br/>Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you have been cleverly duped with NT.
<br/>
<br/>Google my name, find my blog, enlighten yourself.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 306 -->
<a name="x307"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x307" class="tiny">x307</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_307');">Firemen witnessed the whole event</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_307" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/> Maxwell Bridges DeceptionTroll... Find some evidence provided by people who researched 911. Did you ever have a look at LCfor911.org.. Firemen witnessed the whole event.. Goya just came out with an official statement of explosives etc. Did you hear him or other first responders say anything to back your BS? https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 307 -->
<a name="x308"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x308" class="tiny">x308</a>
Rik Scholten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_308');">toilets to be cleaned</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_308" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>There's toilets to be cleaned
<br/>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>I have no theorie about NT
<br/>
<br/>Bút the facts are Clear.
<br/>
<br/>It was in the dust and should'n have been
<br/>
<br/>And the patent is a fact as is Paul bremers footprint ALL over the place
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 308 -->
<a name="x309"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x309" class="tiny">x309</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_309');">all of the TM groups were destined to be infiltrated and imploded from within</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_309" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, Bravo on that very clever, well researched, and well articulated first rebuttal. I really don't know how I'm supposed to respond to such beautiful rhetoric: "There's toilets to be cleaned." I'm speechless. Your intellect and wit surpasses mine.
<br/>
<br/>Thankfully, your second comment has some more meat to it.
<br/>
<br/>For the sake of discussion, let's say that the red molten steel we see streaming out of the towers before their demise was NT and for all we know were in the offices that L. Paul Bremer occupied at the WTC, making placement of his whack-a-doodle thermite cutter easy to accomplish. I'm not arguing against this.
<br/>
<br/>The issues remain, NT could not have pulverized content, dustified the concrete, ablated the metal, bent large steel pieces into arcs and "C" shapes, ~AND~ maintained under-rubble hot-spots for months.
<br/>
<br/>However, to correct you yet again on the same point, NT was ~NOT~ as represented in the dust as you have been duped into claiming.
<br/>
<br/>Set Dr. Jones' dust samples aside for a moment. Nobody else, no group who studied the dust, claims that NT was in the dust. If you study closely, they make note of the high percentage of tiny iron spheres, which necessitates a really high temperature to create. If you look closer still, you'll see Uranium, Barium, Stratium, Lithium, etc. (decay elements in correlated quantities).
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Jones has major issues in his "repudiation" of nuclear involvement. This earlier analysis from me takes it apart. He accepts unquestioned and unchallenged various reports as being definitive, when in reality they had issues and should not have been treated as the final, authoritative word on what was or wasn't present in the dust. Dr. Jones frames the nuclear weapons inappropriately, introduces a major logic error, and re-defines trace amounts to be 55 times greater than it should have been. These errors alone call into question his sincerity, and to be sure, the trend line extends into his NT work and his dust samples, a limited-hang-out designed to keep the public from considering FGNW.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>Whether or not NT was involved doesn't negate in the least my FGNW premise, because I'm not arguing mutual-exclusivity like the yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement are with their "NT! NT! NT!" chants.
<br/>
<br/>Yes, it appears that all of the TM groups were destined to be infiltrated and imploded from within. I take no pleasure in pointing out the detonator and how they duped everyone. I just care about the truth.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 309 -->
<a name="x310"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x310" class="tiny">x310</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_310');">a demonstration of your bot-ish and troll-agent ways</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_310" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, You are the one making the claim that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction. I am having you prove it. Alas, in a demonstration of your bot-ish and troll-agent ways, you have yet to do so in the 29 comments of this thread so far that I've tried to keep focused on the NT limited hang-out.
<br/>
<br/>And I gave you such an easy assignment, too.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE</a>
<br/>
<br/>The NIST video shows the half-smoked and wilted stub of a steel doobie (21:00) and the large box column bent smoothly into a C (1:27:00).
<br/>
<br/>Your task was to speculate into the placement of NT that would result in those NIST artifacts.
<br/>
<br/>Patron-saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br/>
<br/>Regardless of the childish "DeceptionTroll" names that you call me, you are the one in this thread promoting the NT deception that you can neither describe nor defend. Who's the "DeceptionTroll"?
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 310 -->
<a name="x311"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x311" class="tiny">x311</a>
Rik Scholten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_311');">Harrit was peereviewed</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_311" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>De toon is exact dezelfde als die Van Sander knol.
<br/>
<br/>Zouden ze een opleiding krijgen in het trollen ?
<br/>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>The tone is exactly the same as sander knol's.
<br/>
<br/>Would they get a training in the trolls?
<br/>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>Niels Harrit wrote
<br/>
<br/>Yes we are shure by the nature of the material discovered that it was carefully composed material and not just residu of primer or such.
<br/>
<br/>The scientific work of Niels harrit & c/o, has never been refuted.
<br/>
<br/>In this clip Niels Harrit talks about himself and nanothermite.
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/0lU-vu2JvZY">https://youtu.be/0lU-vu2JvZY</a>
<br/>
<br/>This is more in depth:
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/PZ1B2TqBIM0">https://youtu.be/PZ1B2TqBIM0</a>
<br/>
<br/>The report itself
<br/><a href="https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf">https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf</a>
<br/>
<br/>Fires did not cause WTC7s collapse, that is the conclusion of a four year study done by Dr. Leroy Hulsey and his team. The conclusion is, that it was near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building, that made it collapse.
<br/>
<br/>Such a precise failure of almost every column in the building, can only be accomplished by timed explosions, like in a controlled demolition.
<br/>
<br/>The study shows, that the conclusions of National Institute of Standards and Technology was wrong, and that Niels Harrit, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth etc., is right.
<br/>
<br/>You can download the report (114 pages), by following this link.
<br/>https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7...
<br/>
<br/>lowing this link.
<br/>https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7...
<br/>9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE - AE911Truth.org Niels Harrit-Chemist
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE - AE911Truth.org…
<br/>9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE - AE911Truth.org Niels Harrit-Chemist
<br/>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>Harrit was peereviewed by David Griscom
<br/>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>Griscom is a wellrespected scientist as is Niels Harrit
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>:
<br/>No photo description available.
<br/>{mcb: David L Griscom image.}
<br/>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>phony as a three-dollar bill this Walter Maxwell white-Bridges is.
<br/>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>The patented device/material:
<br/>
<br/>Abstract
<br/>A plasma arc can be employed to demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like. The concrete structure can be demolished by melting a surface of the concrete structure by generating a plasma arc from a plasma torch (15) of a plasma arc generator, mixing thermite powder (T) with a supply gas (Gc) for the plasma torch (15), directing the plasma arc at the surface of the concrete structure, and controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder (T) to the plasma torch (15) in response to the operation of the plasma arc, including initiating and stopping the supply of the thermite powder (T) to the plasma torch (15) in a manner coordinated with the initiation and stoppage of the plasma arc, thereby controlling the heat generated by the thermite reaction, and melting the surface of the concrete structure. The plasma generator (1) can be provided with a feeder (20) for mixing the thermite powder (T) with the supply gas (Gc), and controller (30) for controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder (T) or for stopping the supply of the thermite powder (T).
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 311 -->
<a name="x312"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x312" class="tiny">x312</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_312');">From the shitty trollfactory</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_312" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/> Rik Scholten From the shitty trollfactory
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 312 -->
<a name="x313"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x313" class="tiny">x313</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_313');">Seven to One and "Toon"-Schmoon</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_313" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, seven (7) responses to my last lonely (1) comment, and not one of them explained how NT was positioned to account for just two (2) examples from the NIST video, as requested at least three times in this thread alone.
<br/>
<br/>"Toon"-Schmoon, Mr. Scholten. I ain't the one dodging and weaving like an agent weasel whose agenda prevents him from reviewing objectively other 9/11 premises that explains the evidence better. 7-to-1 puts the "trollen" label on your forehead like a Dole Banana sticker.
<br/>
<br/>I have a blog (and a website). I've been at this 9/11 research evidently longer than you, and in a sincere, truthful manner.
<br/>
<br/>I welcome comments. I want my FGNW premise to be debunked.
<br/>
<br/>But you two "phony as a three-dollar bill" from the "shitty trollfactory" are either incapable of such, or ordered not to even attempt it. Mr. Lugtenborg bragged earlier how his job was just to post things, and he had no expertise to analyze it or think for himself, or to read anything outside the agenda.
<br/>
<br/>Neither of you have read anything I've posted, not even the article (one of many) that Dr. Gsponer published at Cornell University.
<br/>
<br/>You are not debating in good faith.
</p>
<blockquote><p>+++ Quote from what you didn't read.
<p>If we assume briefly that NT was the main mechanism, how much would be required? Dr. Nils Harrit made some calculations to this end. He started with the analysis that the RJ Lee group did with dust from the lobby of a neighboring building, where they found 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust (see Table 3,p.28 in the 2003 Report). Dr. Harrit wrote:
<br/>
<br/>=== Quote from Dr. Harrit</p>
<blockquote><p>There were produced at least 0.0583 x 200000 = 11,660 tonnes = 11.6 kilo-tons of iron-rich spheres per tower. ... If we assume, that ALL the thermitic material should react to form iron spheres (please notice, that this is another highly conservative condition), RJ Lee Groups observation implies that:
<br/>
<br/> (10000 x 1000 x 1000)/70 = 143,000,000 kg = 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material was present in WTC2 prior to collapse. Of course, it is five times less [28k metric tons], if the iron oxide content is 50%. Still, it's a lot.
<br/>
<br/> Hedegaard had earlier calculated, on his own, that at least 60 tons of thermite would have been needed to take down the Twin Towers, and on that basis he found it difficult to believe that controlled demolition had been used to level those two buildings.
</p>
<p>=== end quote from Dr. Harrit</p></blockquote>
<p>+++ end quote from me</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Did you miss the phrase that pays? "Still, it's a lot." And this is before we consider the amount unspent and overkill from its original pulverizing purposes to maintain the hot-spots. Obscenely massive over-kill amounts that aren't very Occam Razor in the scant few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday before 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Andre Gsponer is a well-respected scientist, too. He has never written about 9/11 to my knowledge. But that doesn't mean that his decades of research into nuclear weapons don't apply to 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>"De toon is exact dezelfde als die Van Sander knol"
<br/>
<br/>Must apply to you only, because it is in your native language. "He who smelt it, dealt it."
<br/>
<br/>At this point, you two agents (Mr. Scholten and Mr. Lugtenborg) should re-group and combine forces AND ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT NT PLACEMENT THAT WOULD RESULT IN THESE NIST ARTIFACTS.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
<br/>
<br/>The NIST video shows the half-smoked and wilted stub of a steel doobie (21:00) and the large box column bent smoothly into a C (1:27:00).
<br/>
<br/>Your task was to speculate into the placement of NT that would result in those NIST artifacts.
<br/>
<br/>Patron-saint of 9/11 Truth, Dr. David Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br/>
<br/>Presently, you two agents are on the fast track to IGNORING this relevant evidence. If you don't know what your opponent's arguments are because you refuse to read them, how can you even attempt to debunk them?
<br/>
<br/>Only true trolls and agents would come to the table and try to argue from a strong-hold of ignorance.
<br/>
<br/>Bravo for proving that Facebook is infiltrated with government agents, and that suppression of 9/11 truth is still alive and well.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 313 -->
<a name="x314"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x314" class="tiny">x314</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_314');">in the category of DEW</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_314" style="display: block;">
<p>
Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices are in the category of DEW, and don't rely on "beams from space from Hurricanes" to power them.
<br/>
<br/>Highly energetic neutrons ejected in a target fashion from (multiple) FGNW (in sequence and aimed away from the inner core spire) would pass right through all content instantly, but would leave some of that energy behind as heat.
<br/>
<br/>Concrete and drywall have trapped water molecules. Imagine them all turning instantly into steam, whose expanding volumetric forces break them apart... into dust.
<br/>
<br/>Such energy could volume heat instantly large steel girders into levels that made them pliable. Can you say "arcs, sags, steel doobies"?
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 314 -->
<a name="x315"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x315" class="tiny">x315</a>
Jeff Rusin : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_315');">cautious with the AE9/11 group</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_315" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Jeff Rusin
<br/>Jeff Rusin Marcel Lugtenborg Hmmm, not sure why not a lot of mutual friends, but keep in mind, this has been a passion of mine well before even FB was around. I was in MANY heated discussions on MySpace!! I am also very leary of disinformation groups and individuals..."govt. shills", if you will....so I am cautious about befriending just anyone. I have run across more than 1 shills over the years...
<br/>I will admit I am cautious with the AE9/11 group, as they are unbending with only acknowledging conventional explosives/weaponry. I do believe there was indeed conventional explosives used in the towers, and esp. bldg. 7, but as I thoroughly explained in my previous post, that does not FULLY explain, not only the dustification of the towers, but also the disappearance of 80-95% of the mass of the towers. I don't believe nano thermite alone could do that....mini nukes..I don't believe that would either? And again, you still have all the other unexplained phenomena that took place near ground zero that even AE9/11 refuse to discuss. I am very open minded with attempting to look at ALL evidence available, and I have changed my mind more than once in the past 18 years as I was presented with new evidence.
<br/>The other BIG factor to keep in mind, is that it is not easy for a new researchers to have access to the evidence that I was privy to in the years immediately following 9/11. The available evidence was readily abundant, as the govt. was still trying to tap dance around all of us "truthers" that could easily sift through the data, and easily see where they were altering their story on the fly. For instance, try to find actual/real photos, or original witness testimony of the Pentagon attack. As soon as it happened, winess after witness reported seeing absolutely no plane wreckage ANYWHERE near the explosion, or ANY discernible plane parts on the lawn, or in the building. In the days following, the story changed multiple times about finding the black box and exactly where it was found. No plane parts, but out of no where they find a black box. If you Google now, you'll see big plane parts on the lawn, and witnesses saying they saw these bug parts on the lawn and inside the Pentagon. This WAS NOT what was seen or reported (including from CNN) on, or immediately after 9/11. The internet has/is being scrubbed of original info. I just tried to call out an obvious shill recently (he/she says its an inside job, but refuses to acknowledge no plane was at the Pentagon), and had to REALLY dig to find the original interviews and photos I remember. I do have an old computer with much saved info I may dig out. So a new researcher had to be very mindful of this, or the info you are getting may be indeed, disinformation....leading you to believe they are trying to expose the coverup, but steering the research away from where the ultimate truth lies. Agent provocateurs...
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Jeff Rusin
<br/>Jeff Rusin Maxwell BridgesBridgesMaxwell... interesting info, I will definitely check this out...
<br/>
<br/>Jeff Rusin
<br/>Jeff Rusin Maxwell Bridges.... so, could this weaponry, essentially, turn bldgs to dust? Completely eliminating most of the mass if the bldgs before reaching ground level?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 315 -->
<a name="x316"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x316" class="tiny">x316</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_316');">I labelled Maxwell as Troll</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_316" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/> Jeff Rusin Ask Maxwell Bridges for names of scientists and evidence.. He is sidestepping.. No evidence / research on 9/11. I labelled Maxwell as Troll
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 316 -->
<a name="x317"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x317" class="tiny">x317</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_317');">independent research and thought</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_317" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Jeff Rusin, FGNW could turn content that it targeted to dust. It didn't target the inner core that become a spire. It didn't target the outer steel wall assemblies, but they were hit or grazed. Examples are the steel doobies, arcs, sags, and many other things.
<br/>
<br/>An earlier blog article of mine (with overlap to the article already posted.) It is noteworthy because I slaughter the NT sacred cow and the alleged substantiation that "repudiates" involvement of nukes.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
<br/>
<br/>Here's are some suggestions. "SHIFT-ENTER" will allow you to put in line-breaks to aid readability without pre-mature publication to FB. Or you can write off-line (like I do) and then paste in later once an adequate response has been composed.
<br/>
<br/>My blog is a rabbit hole. I in no way recommend reading it front-to-back, A-to-Z, such a repetitive bore it has become even for me. It started as a "best-of" of what I wrote for my hardly promoted website. But it later became something more.
<br/>
<br/>P.S. Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg labels me a "troll" because he is incapable of independent research and thought. His only value-add is constantly re-posting things given to him by others that he doesn't understand and can't defend.
<br/>
<br/>You are welcome to google the name "Dr. Andre Gsponer". He has never written anything about 9/11, but he sure as hell wrote for a decade or more about the direction nuclear weapons were taking (in three languages) and should have come up in both the research of Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood.
<br/>
<br/>Thus, Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg's labeling me as a "troll" comes home to roost on his shoulder.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>"Toon"-Sch…See More
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY,…
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 317 -->
<a name="x318"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x318" class="tiny">x318</a>
Rik Scholten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_318');">Nist was tasked with explaining but failed miserably.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_318" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>"Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, seven (7) responses to my last lonely (1) comment, and not one of them explained how NT was positioned to account for just two (2) examples from the NIST video, as requested at least three times in this thread alone. "
<br/>
<br/>I don't think it is up to me to explain.
<br/>I am not NIST. Nist was tasked with explaining but failed miserably.
<br/>
<br/>And those who do not question this miserable failure are ignorant
<br/>
<br/>"how NT was positioned to account for just two (2) examples"
<br/>I Don not understand this question
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 318 -->
<a name="x319"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x319" class="tiny">x319</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_319');">your responsibility to explain how NT created those many wonderful artifacts</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_319" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, And now you demonstrate how you can argue out of both sides of your face, or with a "forked tongue" as the Native Americans used to say.
<br/>
<br/>You are one of the two trolls promoting NT, so yes, it is your responsibility to explain how NT created those many wonderful artifacts given in the NIST videos (but I have graciously limited the initial discussion to just two examples out of 4 hours of videos.)
<br/>
<br/>And if you don't have the smarts to take this on yourself with a reasoned, researched explanation, you should send this up the flag-pole to your superiors at AE9/11Truth to have them describe exactly how NT could have caused those artifacts.
<br/>
<br/>No answer is an answer in and of itself, and is common for the 9/11 cover-up.
<br/>
<br/>Indeed, one would think it was the responsibility of NIST to explain what is viewed in the videos. Is it a great surprise that they didn't? Is it a surprise that the videos were suppressed for years (if not a decade; I just ran across those two NIST videos this month myself)?
<br/>
<br/>NIST didn't address what was observed. They also put out the shitty reports on the towers that stopped at the initiation of collapse, but addressed not a single anomaly observed in the remainder of the gravitational acceleration.
<br/>
<br/>We agree that NIST failed miserably. But their failure doesn't have to be yours. The video has evidence that has to be explained even today by those who think they are "woke" and promoting "valid" 9/11 Truth.
<br/>
<br/>I have an explanation already. On my blog, posted here a bunch of times already. In the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote that you didn't understand the question about NT placement to account for (just) two anomalies in the evidence NIST put on tape from the scrape yard.
<br/>
<br/>Has some appearance of you assigning me busy work, because I've explained it several times already.
<br/>
<br/>But I will indulge you.
<br/>
<br/>In the video of my top-level comment that anchors this thread from NIST, there is at 21:00 a wilted stub of a steel doobie (formerly wall assembly) and at 1:27:00 a single steel box column of a wall assembly bent smoothly into the shape of a "C".
<br/>
<br/>Where was the NT positioned on that exact floor of the WTC tower that would account for these?
<br/>
<br/>You realize, that normally to bend a box column normally requires foundry conditions. My premise suggests that the heat left by the highly energetic neutrons did some volume heating instantly of the beam, instantly making it pliable.
<br/>
<br/>I don't know what the NT premise suggests. Neither does anybody. Because the whole NT-cabal has consistently been ignoring whole reams of evidence, such as that collected by Dr. Wood. (Sure, debunk her for not connecting dots with anything that could be real-world powered, but rescue those nuggets of truth.)
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 319 -->
<a name="x320"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x320" class="tiny">x320</a>
Jeff Rusin : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_320');">Maxwell has very little on his FB page, and almost no friends</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_320" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Jeff Rusin
<br/>Jeff Rusin Marcel Lugtenborg Marcel, I agree, Maxwell has very little on his FB page, and almost no friends, but I am interested in his info that attempts to explain what most in the conventional explosives camps refuse to touch. As I said, I am open minded. With all my research in to Dr. Stephen Jones, thermite/nano thermite, AE9/11, they all did a great job in showing the buildings DEFINITELY didn't collapse due to normal combustible fires (my area of expertise), but then stopped short of explaining how 90% of the buildings simply turned to dust and vanished. I will definitely check out the links you provided, as there may be new evidence from this camp than when I first began researching Jones...circa 2007-8-9.
<br/>
<br/>Jeff Rusin
<br/>Jeff Rusin Marcel Lugtenborg I study everything, no worries there. I am NOT locked into any one camp, nor should anyone since there isn't definitive proof...the govt. destroyed all evidence that could have proven one, or multiple facts to the crime. Gage is not admitting anything groundbreaking...if course we don't have all the necessary evidence...as I just described.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Jeff Rusin
<br/>Jeff Rusin MarcelLugtenborgMarcel and MaxwellBridgesMaxwell....I think we all have to keep in mind (it appears Maxwell, you do agree with this) that if we are ONLY trying to explain 9/11 based on technology that is CURRENTLY known and acknowledged, we are only going so far. Remember and keep in mind, the military is YEARS beyond known/public technology, so completely dismissing technology that we think is only "theoretical", or still in design stage, is stopping your research with only going so far then hitting a dead end. Most will admit the military is 20-25 ahead of current/public technology...I know an industry/military insider that claims it can be closer to 100 years in a lit of cases. By acknowledging and understanding this, it forces you to not stay rigid in your view that it can ONLY be a known conventional type device that could possibly be used...just because that is all mainstream science knows. A conventional weapon could not have been used, LOGICALLY, because it could not appear to be a conventional collapse...the BS story was that a plane it, caused fires, and the steel weakened, and it collapsed on its own. Thats why it was top down...it couldnt appear to be a "normal" implosion. I have a theory on bldg. 7, and why that followed more of the look of a conventional implosion...
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 320 -->
<a name="x321"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x321" class="tiny">x321</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_321');">legacy and consistency -- outside of FB</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_321" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Jeff Rusin, for the most part, I am in agreement with your last comment. All of the science-challenged yeomen of AE9/11Truth conveniently forget that Dr. Jones stated "NT was mixed with something with more brisance like RDX" (yet did no research into this, even when brought to his attention) and "something maintainted those hot-spots, not just NT" (yet didn't research what that something else was.)
<br/>
<br/>To those who aren't science- or research-challenged, Dr. Jones can be faulted for many things. But his "nuke repudiation" paper is the cherry on top. It is as if he didn't research anything at all, because otherwise Dr. Andre Gsponer would have come up and his work into FGNW.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br/>
<br/>You wrote to Marcel: "I agree, Maxwell has very little on his FB page, and almost no friends." I kind of agree, too, except that 201 Facebook friends isn't "almost no friends." And when you become really popular (with deviant topics), FB throttles your friend possibilities. [Greg Palast and his research into election frauds is a great example.] Good thing I have no aspirations of such.
<br/>
<br/>But, Mr. Rusin, what I do have is legacy and consistency -- outside of FB.
<br/>
<br/>I don't rely on FB to preserve my words. Hell, I can hardly find my words, if I don't make a note off-line where I posted it. [But I have no delusions that the FBI / CIA will be able to locate every comment I ever made at my trial.]
<br/>
<br/>I demonstrate sincerity in my truth seeking and evolution in thought [with my blog / website.] I used to be a no-planer, but didn't rest on my laurels and eventually ran across the evidence / analysis that was sufficient to convince me to change my opinion. I used to be a champion of Dr. Wood and NT. Until my research took me further into FGNW that more accurately explains events.
<br/>
<br/>Want to know why NT is promoted so heavily even though it clearly can't address all of the evidence? Because public revelation of a nuclear 9/11 can still have (figurative) nuclear fall-out today in institutions, agencies, and politics. It limits the pool of suspects to USA and Israel. Status quo would change mightily, in that every politician, every newscaster, every agency head or representative who ever played into the emotionalism of the "foreign 9/11 terrorists" would be, should be, ought to be ousted immediately.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 321 -->
<a name="x322"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x322" class="tiny">x322</a>
Rik Scholten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_322');">interchar 202</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_322" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>Do you know by any chance wether interchar 202 was used when Bremer updated the fireproofing of his part of WTC 1 ?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 322 -->
<a name="x323"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x323" class="tiny">x323</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_323');">Explain how NT was positioned to account for anomalies from NIST video.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_323" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, No, I do not know what was involved with the fireproofing of his WTC-1 office space.
<br/>
<br/>Assume that it was. So what? That might explain molten metal dripping out before it came down. Still, so what?
<br/>
<br/>It is still your assignment to explain how NT -- in whatever form -- caused the anomalies from the NIST video.
<br/>
<br/>You make the case that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction. You defend it.
<br/>
<br/>In the video of my top-level comment that anchors this thread from NIST, there is at 21:00 a wilted stub of a steel doobie (formerly wall assembly) and at 1:27:00 a single steel box column of a wall assembly bent smoothly into the shape of a "C".
<br/>
<br/>Explain how NT was positioned to account for this shit.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 323 -->
<a name="x324"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x324" class="tiny">x324</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_324');">Bot-algorithms dodging the point</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_324" style="display: block;">
<p>
Fail, Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg! Your bot-algorithms have posted that same US5532449A plasma ARC three times in this thread already without a single explanation regarding how it could account for a wilted stub of a steel doobie (formerly wall assembly) at 21:00 in the NIST video or the single steel box column of a wall assembly bent smoothly into the shape of a "C" at at 1:27:00.
<br/>
<br/>Dodging the point, I see.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. David Griffin would be mighty upset with you for disregarding the third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br/>
<br/>You're making the claim that NT was the primary mechanism of destruction, and then are caught spamming this thread when your ability to think rationally and reasonably comes up short.
<br/>
<br/>NT comes up short, and you know it.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 324 -->
<a name="x325"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x325" class="tiny">x325</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_325');">NT produces HEAT</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_325" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/> Maxwell Bridges NT produces HEAT.. a lot of HEAT. And nanotech means the thermite can be tailored from incendiary to explosive
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 325 -->
<a name="x326"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x326" class="tiny">x326</a>
Rik Scholten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_326');">2.25 seconds of freefall</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_326" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Rik Scholten</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>I have aanmerking assignment for you:
<br/>
<br/>Explain how 2.25 seconds of freefall could occur at the WTC 7 collaps.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 326 -->
<a name="x327"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x327" class="tiny">x327</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_327');">how long does NT produce HEAT?</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_327" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, how long does NT produce HEAT? Let me give you a clue. The duration of the heat is directly correlated to physical quantities of NT present. Once the NT is spent, the reaction stops and whatever was there begins to cool.
<br/>
<br/>How much NT is required to maintain the under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months? In early October 2001 when Dr. Cahill first began to measure (late) air samples, the findings of metals indicated that a very high heat source was still present in order to continually generate such and be present in his air samples.
<br/>
<br/>You promote NT; you defend it. Calculate quantities of NT. I'll let you simplify and assume just one hot-spot burning for one month. And remember, this amount is unspent and over-and-above the quantities required for the initial destruction and pulverization. [If you read my blog article, you might find where I already did the math & chemistry for you science-challenged wannabe-truthers.]
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Lugtenborg, remember than when your thermite is tailored from incendiary to explosive, its burn-rate also increases, which means that (obscenely) MORE must be present to account for just one hot-spot. Not very Occam Razor, but it is your premise, so you defend it.
<br/>
<br/>Oh, and before I forget. When thermite gets tailored from incendiary to explosive that transfers destructive energy through air, it becomes very loud. Dr. Shyan Sunder of NIST debunks this (legitimately) where he talks about how such blasts would be deafening. Hearing loss and deafness were not ailments of the survivors / first responders.
<br/>
<br/>9/11 was an overkill operation, with back-up plans to the back-up plans. It also wasn't 100% successful. WTC-7 not going down in the morning could be pointed to as possibly one example.
<br/>
<br/>My premise is that each tower had multiple FGNW at various levels aimed upwards. They were mounted to the inner core which later became known as the spire.
<br/>
<br/>Nukes used in tandem can foul with each other if not mounted and aimed properly. I suspect that some devices did not reach their full nuclear potential and resulted in nuclear fizzle, which would have had no problems generating the metal measured in Dr. Cahill's air samples for weeks on end.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 327 -->
<a name="x328"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x328" class="tiny">x328</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_328');">"aanmerking assignment" in 199 words</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_328" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Rik Scholten, Your "aanmerking assignment" (whatever the adjective means) reeks of busy work.
<br/>
<br/>"Explain how 2.25 seconds of freefall could occur at the WTC 7 collaps."
<br/>
<br/>It wasn't just (Stage 2) 2.25 seconds of freefall. It was uniform and symmetric across the entire length and breadth of WTC-7, and represents more than 100 feet or 8 stories.
<br/>
<br/>And if we make the unfounded assumption that the mechanisms of destruction were the same for all buildings, that 8 stories of content would be a good indication of the main destructive range of the FGNW (and that the towers had devices every 10 stories or so.)
<br/>
<br/>In the case of WTC-7 (WTC-6, WTC-5, WTC-4), several FGNW could be mounted near the corners and aimed upwards but tilted inwards in a fashion to miss the outer walls.
<br/>
<br/>Ignition of the tandem devices, and instantly support structure steel is heated to foundry levels loosing strength.
<br/>
<br/>If you look at the WTC-7 videos, it shows in the very early stage (before the 3 stages that NIST considers) that the penthouse suddenly falls through the roof line before Stage 1 and then Stage 2 which had the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration.
<br/>
<br/>// 199 words
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 328 -->
<a name="x329"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x329" class="tiny">x329</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_329');">video of...</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_329" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyogTsrsgI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyogTsrsgI</a>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 329 -->
<a name="x330"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x330" class="tiny">x330</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_330');">four to one, bot algorithms have gotten crossed</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-13</p>
<div id="sect_330" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, 4-to-1, your comments to mine. Looks like spam, given that all four of your comments are the same thing. No words directing me to what is important? Fail.
<br/>
<br/>Your bot algorithms have gotten crossed. You post that is if you were conversing with a champion of OCT and not a fellow 9/11 Truther who happens to be a member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
<br/>
<br/>Controlled demolition for WTC-7 (and the other WTC buildings) isn't in contention.
<br/>
<br/>We're just splitting hairs over the mechanisms involved with that controlled demolition. I don't think its demolition was loud enough to be conventional chemical explosives or NT, or in any combination of the two.
<br/>
<br/>At any rate, nice attempt to distract the conversation and delay doing any thinking into the basic assignment put before you: how does NT explain wilted steel or beams in a "C" shape (just two examples).
<br/>
<br/>The video does a good job of leading you astray. At 8:30, it talks about these tiny iron spheres that could only be created by high heat. Then it makes the leap to assume it was NT -- which was ONLY found in Dr. Jones' dust samples. Maybe we could let this pass, except that NT can't account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. It can barely (... I mean, "not at all") explain the pulverization of concrete.
<br/>
<br/>NT isn't the only mechanism that can cause iron spheres.
<br/>
<br/>You've been duped and refuse to admit it. Gives you headaches, don't it. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch, no?
<br/>
<br/>"It is easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled."~Mark Twain.
<br/>
<br/>Bottom-line, you need to send this up the flag-pole, because you two agents don't have the smarts or resources to defend NT, let alone see its deficiencies or that FGNW easily meets all requirements.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 330 -->
<a name="x331"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x331" class="tiny">x331</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_331');">Get a life you pathetic fuck</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-14</p>
<div id="sect_331" style="display: block;">
<p>
Get a life you pathetic fuck
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 331 -->
<a name="x332"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x332" class="tiny">x332</a>
Rik Scholten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_332');">words of mister Sunder are not convincing</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-14</p>
<div id="sect_332" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>The words of mister Sunder are as convincing to me as the aforementioned three-dollar bill.
<br/>
<br/>He has lost imho ALL credibility by representing this sorry ass excuse for an investigation
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Rik Scholten
<br/>Rik Scholten Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>There were 4 dust sample from very different Locations. They ALL had the same 5% of Iron microspheres and red gray chips.
<br/>
<br/>There was an international team of scientists and one of the peerreree's was dr. David Griscom, a highly respected scientist with an impressive hirschindex.
<br/>
<br/>We can trust their findings To be true
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 332 -->
<a name="x333"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x333" class="tiny">x333</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_333');">duped defenders of NT have not done the math</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-14</p>
<div id="sect_333" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Rik Scholton and Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, Let's do a recap. You two defenders of NT have not done the math to determine the quantities either to achieve pulverization or to maintain the under-rubble hot-spots, maybe because the latter represents an obscenely massive amount above-and-beyond and unspent from the former,... and that dog don't hunt for Occam Razor.
<br/>
<br/>You duped NTers still have not reviewed my work, otherwise you wouldn't be making stupid arguments that I have already debunked.
<br/>
<br/>You duped NTers can't think out of the box and speculate on your own as to how this wonder-NT would have been positioned in the towers to achieve a wilted stub of a steel doobie (wall assembly) or a box column bent into a "C" shape, as but only two examples and shown in the NIST video. You're angry that you can't turn to AE9/11Truth for a "blinded-by-science" canned response, because they have reputation of ignoring evidence (like all of the images collected in Dr. Wood's book.)
<br/>
<br/>Instead of doing this fundamental work necessary to convince a science-literate discussion participant, one of you duped NTers proclaims "get a life you pathetic fuck" while the other wants to put forth that a mere four (4) samples is somehow statistically significant.
<br/>
<br/>Guess what? The sum total of all the samples (not just four ?!! el-oh-el) had the anomaly of 5% iron microspheres, and if memory serves me, it was the RJ Lee Group's sampling of the dust from lobby of the Deutsches Bank for insurance purposes who first exposed this factoid. The backward calculation of Dr. Harrit from the resulting iron spheres to alleged original quantities of NT was HUGE; he conveniently never considered any different mechanisms of destruction.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/millette-progress-report-on-the-analysis-of-red-gray-chips-in-wtc-dust-pdf.37907/">https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/millette-progress-report-on-the-analysis-of-red-gray-chips-in-wtc-dust-pdf.37907/</a>
<br/>
<br/>"Conclusion:The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."
<br/>
<br/>From the Introduction:
<br/>
<br/>"MVA Scientific Consultants was requested by Mr. Chris Mohr of Classical Guide to scientifically study red/gray chips from WTC dust that matched those presented in a paper by Harrit et al., 2009, [1] which concluded that thermitic material was present in the WTC dust. Mr. Mohr was unable to gain access to any samples used in the Harrit study so four samples were chosen from the archives of MVA Scientific Consultants. These dust samples had been collected within a month of 11 September 2001 and sent to MVA for different projects."
<br/>
<br/>Maybe we can say "sleight of hand" on the samples. But were MVA's samples switched or tainted, or were Dr. Harrit's (Dr. Jones')? Why weren't Dr. Harrit's samples made available?
<br/>
<br/>This is all a circus distraction. The USGS analysis of far more dust samples that Dr. Harrit's also didn't register to have these chips, but they did measure Uranium and all of its decay elements in correlated quantities plain as day in its tables (but not its explanatory text).
<br/>
<br/>And let's not forget the scope-limited tritium report that also suffered from sampling issue. Why the song-and-dance and attributing tritium in the run-off from WTC-6 to air plane exit signs of the aircraft that hit the towers? Then they try to say "weapons sights" were also in the mix. Alas, the great revelation from the FEMA photographer was that the vaults (money, drugs, guns) below WTC-6 were emptied before the 9/11 event.
<br/>
<br/>Tritium is a fundamental building block of all FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>With regards to the words of Dr. Sunder, not everything out of his mouth was a lie. In fact, he was absolutely correct that conventional chemical explosives (including anything mixed with NT) that use blast waves (sudden changes in air pressure) as part of their destructive yield would have been deafening loud. Dr. Sunder was able to say with a straight face and no lying ticks that explosives weren't used, because he knew no such chemical explosivers were used, because they were nuclear devices that coupled their energy to the target in a more direct manner. It was all about "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 333 -->
<a name="x334"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x334" class="tiny">x334</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_334');">You are a timeconsuming pathetic troll.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-14</p>
<div id="sect_334" style="display: block;">
<p>
Maxwell Bridges . You are a timeconsuming pathetic troll. I asked you several times for evidence and everytime you are sidestepping.. Goodbye Maxwell.. How to recognize Zionist Trolls (a quick guide..)
<br/>Zionist Trolls never come up with real facts, only with accusations.
<br/>Zionist Trolls will try to degrade/demonize truthers
<br/>Zionist Trolls will vanish if you ask them for evidence..
<br/>Zionist Trolls try to keep you busy.. occupy your abilities to spread the Contra-Zionist truth.
<br/>Zionist Trolls will try to give fake evidence which consumes lots of time to check.. (and then appears as no evidence..)
<br/>Zionist Trolls will vanish/quit harrasment as soon as you accuse them of being a 'Zionist Troll' and publish a list of Zionist Collaborators from PNAC, NeoCons, Dual US-Israeli hardnose people like: Dov Zakheim, Michael Chertoff, Philip Zelikow, Chalabi, Richard Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Condeleeza Rice, Paul Bremer, Lucky Larry Silverstein, Jeb Bush etc.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 334 -->
<a name="x335"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x335" class="tiny">x335</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_335');">All of your claims are unfounded.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-14</p>
<div id="sect_335" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Lugtenborg, This discussion is forthcoming under a your posting (a YouTube video of Jon Cole's "The Great Thermate Debate") and under my top-level comment for this thread that references a NIST FOIA WTC Steel Salvage Yards video.
<br/>
<br/>In keeping with the subject that is clearly thermite and NT, you were asked (repeatedly) to speculate in a rational and reasoned manner how NT could account for (just) two pieces of evidence that I call "the wilted stub of a steel doobie" and a box column bent into a "C" shape from the NIST video.
<br/>
<br/>Evidently, you are unable to explain such, or the other points about NT that make it entirely unsuitable for the observed destruction.
<br/>
<br/>In a classic disinformationalist manuever, you try to turn the tables by stating "I asked you several times for evidence [of FGNW] and everytime you are sidestepping."
<br/>
<br/>Au contraire, I provided the evidence, many times, but in a thread where it was appropriate. I've posted the links to two of my blog articles, that themselves have substantiating linked references, as well as a link to probably my most important reference, Dr. Gsponer's peer-reviewed FGNW article that was published in a reputable journal.
<br/>
<br/>These? You have not read. In a brilliantly idiotic move, you bragged about not having read them. And now you offer up the blatant lie that I kept side-stepping the issue and never provided them.
<br/>
<br/>Rather than doing any reading, any homework, or any thinking even on the subject near and dear to your heart called NT, you are quick to end this conversation in anger and with a slew of libel that tries to peg me as a "Zionist Troll".
<br/>
<br/>Show me one shared posting from my FB wall that has me promote Zionism or Israel. You make the claim, you prove it, idiot. [Let's chalk this up as yet another lie.]
<br/>
<br/>Seeing how you provided the keys for being a troll, let's see if they don't unlock your character (which thence would expose your whole posting as the classic disinformationalist attempt to pawn all of your weaknesses onto me.)
<br/>
<br/>"Zionist Trolls never come up with real facts, only with accusations."
<br/>
<br/>When you were asked how NT would be positioned to account for real evidence from the NIST video, you never came up with real facts, only with accusations (about me being a troll.)
<br/>
<br/>"Zionist Trolls will try to degrade/demonize truthers"
<br/>
<br/>I am a member of AE9/11Truth. My blog is nothing but my attempts at getting to 9/11 truth. In this thread alone, how many times have you called me a "troll", "zionist troll", "from the shitty trollfactory", or "a timeconsuming pathetic troll"?
<br/>
<br/>"Zionist Trolls will vanish if you ask them for evidence..."
<br/>
<br/>I haven't gone anywhere. More importantly, my blog (and website) were around ~way~ before you were, demonstrate my consistency in searching for truth, and aren't going to go anywhere. Clearly though with you "Goodbye Maxwell" comment, your intention is to torpedo this whole FB posting and all its comments, because you want me to vanish.
<br/>
<br/>"Zionist Trolls try to keep you busy.. occupy your abilities to spread the Contra-Zionist truth."
<br/>
<br/>You asked for references that substantiate my views, and then bragged about not reading them.
<br/>
<br/>"Zionist Trolls will try to give fake evidence which consumes lots of time to check.. (and then appears as no evidence..)"
<br/>
<br/>The "evidence" can't get any more fake than your non-attempts to calculate how much NT would be required for pulvization and for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. They can't get any more fake than your non-attempts to explain how NT could explain JUST TWO PIECES OF ANOMALOUS EVIDENCE from the NIST videos.
<br/>
<br/>"Zionist Trolls will vanish/quit harrasment as soon as you accuse them of being a 'Zionist Troll' and publish a list of Zionist Collaborators from PNAC, NeoCons, Dual US-Israeli hardnose people like: Dov Zakheim, Michael Chertoff, Philip Zelikow, Chalabi, Richard Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Condeleeza Rice, Paul Bremer, Lucky Larry Silverstein, Jeb Bush etc."
<br/>
<br/>Q.E.D. I haven't vanished despite your completely unfounded accusations of me being a "Zionist Troll", despite the published list in the preceding paragraph of Zionist collaborators from PNAC et al. Therefore, according to your weak reasoning, I am not a "Zionist Troll" (but I and astute readers already knew that.)
<br/>
<br/>All of your claims are unfounded.
<br/>
<br/>You are factually a liar and an idiot, which I just proved, thereby making my assertions validated character assessment of you (as opposed to defamation). Your actions, not mine, more clearly resemble that of a troll, if not an agenda-toting bot, or worse.
<br/>
<br/>And hey, the fact that you promote in a brain-dead manner NT that is a known limited hang-out, is right out of the playbook of a Zionist infiltrator, who will do anything to keep public revelation from 9/11 nuclear involvement which could/would/should bring Israel and Zionist into sharper focus as the only suspects with the means and crazy "deceit is war" motivation to carry out 9/11 and its after-wars.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 335 -->
<a name="x336"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x336" class="tiny">x336</a>
Jeff Rusin : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_336');">conventional explosives (thermite - nano thermite, etc) narrative must be maintained</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_336" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/marcel.lugtenborg/posts/3135456853136940?comment_id=3137125812970044">https://www.facebook.com/marcel.lugtenborg/posts/3135456853136940?comment_id=3137125812970044</a>
<br/>Jeff Rusin
<br/>Jeff Rusin MaxwellBridges....I completely agree with your assertion that the conventional explosives (thermite - nano thermite, etc) narrative must be maintained (been saying this for years), because once you detour into the possibility of very high tech, top secret weaponry being used, the govt. takes out all possibilities of placing blame on foreign entities, and certainly not 19 goofball highjackers. Absolute worst case scenario is, the govt could admit that foreign entities somehow infiltrated the WTC site to plant explosives, but due to intelligence breakdowns (which has since been fixed...and the reason why the Patriot Act had to be fast tracked...), they could not stop them. If the evidence points to high tech weapons that highjackers or foreign countries have no access to,,,,well, it can only point to the US, and just a handful of other countries with that tech...all countries that have NOT been blamed for 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Jeff Rusin
<br/>Jeff Rusin MaxwellBridgesMaxwell...I apologize about almost no friends...I misread your profile....I just quickly read "9 followers" and mistook that number for friends...
<br/>
<br/>Jeff Rusin
<br/>Jeff Rusin Maxwell Bridges are we thinking that the poster is actually not just an individual, but another entity that uses "bot driven algorithms"?? If so, I've seen this behavior in other 9/11 FB pages, where I called them out as being a govt. shill....and they never responded...just kept repeating almost the same replies... never denied being a govt. shill, which I found very strange. If someone accused me of that, I would certainly have a personal reply...
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 336 -->
<a name="x337"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x337" class="tiny">x337</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_337');">Waisting Time</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_337" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Jeff Rusin Waisting Time
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 337 -->
<a name="x338"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x338" class="tiny">x338</a>
Jeff Rusin : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_338');">not accusing you</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_338" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Marcel Lugtenborg I'm not accusing you! Just asking because of the similarities in what was described. As I've said before, I've been neck deep in the 9/11 world for 18 years...I know and remember the evidence from day 1. I'm seeing now, a lot of new 9/11 pages here popping up basing everything on current info out there...alot of this info is MUCH different than the facts and evidence that I saw on 9/11 as it was happening. The internet, Youtube, Google searches are DEFINITELY being scrubbed of the original evidence..this I know as I've been trying to find photos that I know for a fact where from the day of 9/11, and are now gone from search engines. I had to scroll through page after page of Google search to find anything remotely familiar with the original evidence!! So, yes...I am on "old timer", "old school" with researching 9/11 and WILL react when a new researcher thinks they have all the evidence needed based on a year of current research. I'm afraid it is becoming much harder to begin researching now, and be assured you have all the REAL evidence. Not accusing you of being a "shill", but unless you believe what I'm saying above...I will doubt your true intentions.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 338 -->
<a name="x339"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x339" class="tiny">x339</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_339');">asked Bridges several times to come up with evidence</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_339" style="display: block;">
<p>Jeff Rusin You still have access to my FB-page.. You can find everything you need. I asked Bridges several times to come up with evidence.. And the things he supplied is no evidence at all. Next thing is the evidence I supplied is denied. Well like I said. Please don't waiste my time. Bridges is blocked. You still have a chance to embrace to right side.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 339 -->
<a name="x340"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x340" class="tiny">x340</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_340');">a government agent with bot tendancies</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_340" style="display: block;">
<p>
El-oh-el! Goodie, goodie, goodie! Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg outs himself as a government agent with bot tendancies.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Lugtenborg wrote: <i>"I asked Bridges several times to come up with evidence."</i>
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Bridges responded to the exact same claim on another thread: <i>"Au contraire, I provided the evidence, many times. [...] I've posted the links to two of my blog articles, that themselves have substantiating linked references, as well as a link to probably my most important reference, Dr. Gsponer's peer-reviewed FGNW article that was published in a reputable journal. [...] In a brilliantly idiotic move, [Lugtenborg] bragged about not having read them. And now [Lugtenborg] offers up the blatant lie that I kept side-stepping the issue and never provided them."</i>
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/marcel.lugtenborg/posts/3135456853136940">https://www.facebook.com/marcel.lugtenborg/posts/3135456853136940</a>
<br/>
<br/>That other thread starts with Mr. Lugtenborg's posting (a YouTube video of Jon Cole's "The Great Thermate Debate"), and my top-level comment (that has >63 responses) referenced a NIST FOIA WTC Steel Salvage Yards video. The subject of that thread was clearly thermite and NT. He was asked (repeatedly) to speculate in a rational and reasoned manner how NT could account for (just) two pieces of evidence that I call "the wilted stub of a steel doobie" and a box column bent into a "C" shape from the NIST video.
<br/>
<br/>Not only did Lugtenborg fail that simple assignment, he now tries to turn the tables and suggest it was me.
<br/>
<br/>The record begs to differ with Lugtenborg's assessment regarding who asked for what and who delivered. It isn't just a bot-repeat, but a repeat of what layman's venacular would call a "lie". I'm at odds on how to categorize it, because is it considered "one lie repeated" or simply "two lies" and in addition to the other lies ("Bridges is a Zionist troll")?
<br/>
<br/>And if this sees the light of day here, then "Bridges is blocked" is added to his CV of balderdash.
<br/>
<br/>In that thread and here, Lugtenborg is factually proven a liar and an idiot, thereby making such assertions now "validated character assessments" of Lugtenborg (as opposed to defamation.)
<br/>
<br/>[But if I ~am~ actually blocked and this comment fails, it will only underscore how weak Lugtenborg's premise and character are; they can't stand up to rational debate; rational opponents must be blocked. Not to worry; my exchanges with Lugtenborg will eventually be re-purposed through my blogging efforts.]
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 340 -->
<a name="x341"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x341" class="tiny">x341</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_341');">incapable of (or prevented from) deep-diving</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_341" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Jeff Rusin, Bots are incapable of (or prevented from) deep-diving into references outside of their scope or of expounding in depth on premises within their scope.
<br/>
<br/>LugtenBORG bragged about not reading my reference material, and then couldn't defend his own NT premise by explaining how it could account for anomalies in the NIST video.
<br/>
<br/>A real person who was a sincere seeker of Truth would be able to say: "Those anomalies are some real fucked up shit, and I don't know how NT would have been positioned to explain them." They'd say: "Mr. Bridges re-arrangement of the 9/11 Tetris evidence blocks into his FGNW does surprisingly have fewer gaps while addressing a wider swath of evidence, and my cognitive dissonance gives me headaches trying to grasp it."
<br/>
<br/>LugtenBORG just keeps cycling on.
<br/>
<br/>I don't know Dutch, but I am fluent in German. "Lugten" seems to be close to the German verb "Lugen" [to lie]. So LugtenBORG is an interesting almost self-fulfilling construct.
<br/>
<br/>[Edited] Actually, in Dutch, "Lugten" means "to smell". So, "smelling like Borg" is also an interesting construct.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 341 -->
<a name="x342"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x342" class="tiny">x342</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_342');">pathetic troll is using you to take my time</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_342" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Sorry Jeff, but this pathetic troll is using you to take my time.. Goodbye Jeff..
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 342 -->
<a name="x343"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x343" class="tiny">x343</a>
Penny Furman : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_343');">so what is the problem?</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_343" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Penny Furman
<br/>Penny Furman Marcel Lugtenborg so what is the problem? You don't believe thermite was used in the downing of the buildings? What about the Israelis seen dancing in the streets with the buildings painted on their van or the students held up in the buildings for weeks? You a non believer in Mossad being a part of this? Or Larry Silverstein? Or the Bushes? Or Cheney?
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 343 -->
<a name="x344"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x344" class="tiny">x344</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_344');">mistaken about Mr. Lugtenborg</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_344" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Ms. Penny Furman, I regret to inform you that you are mistaken about Mr. Lugtenborg. He does indeed believe that Israelis were involved, and Bush, Cheney, Silverstein, etc. (So do I.)
<br/>
<br/>The issue is that he also believes that thermite was used as the primary mechanisms of destruction in the downing of the buildings, in a very brain-dead way.
<br/>
<br/>Unfortunately, I have presented analysis that proves that NT is a limited hang-out, incapable of producing the observed and recorded evidence. Moreover, the NT crowd of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have been ignoring the evidence that 9/11 at the WTC had nuclear components.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Lugtenborg is suffering from cognitive dissonance which is rooted in NT, and does not want his understanding nudged into rationally considering where NT doesn't address all the evidence, where NT can't go the distance, where NT is just plain wrong... It makes him and his beliefs wrong.
<br/>
<br/>I'm not saying NT could not have been involved. I'm saying that NT was not the primary mechanism of destruction. And it has been quite the game these last 17 years or so to keep the circus distractions going, just as long as nuclear methods are not discussed.
<br/>
<br/>In this thread alone, I've posted links to two of my blog postings that spell out what was wrong with NT, plus a huge piece of information that represents a gross omission from the nuclear research of Dr. Jones (Dr. Wood, et al) regarding fourth generation nukes.
<br/>
<br/>Suppression of 9/11 truth is still alive and well, and the line they absolutely will not cross is acknowledging the many data points of nuclear involvement. (Tritium, tritium, tritium; tiny iron spheres; air samples a month later with metal particles indicating a high heat source capable of continually re-generating such.)
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 344 -->
<a name="x345"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x345" class="tiny">x345</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_345');">never seen any evidence with names of scientist</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_345" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Again I see remarks about Nuclear devices being used for the demolition of WTC at 9/11. I have never seen any evidence with names of scientist who did research on this ..Nukes at WTC on 9/11. Would you be so kind to show me a one page (or 2 pages) like the evidence of NT being used. The front page I provided here..(Names of academic,, scientists..) and the whole document (Bentham Open pdf) is also attached to it.. Show me similar in simple overview of Nuke WTC 9/11. Thank you
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 345 -->
<a name="x346"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x346" class="tiny">x346</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_346');">an awesome execution of the tactics of disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_346" style="display: block;">
<p>
Bravo, Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, for such an awesome execution of the tactics of disinformation! I particularly enjoyed the "bait-and-switch", whereby you mention "Nukes at the WTC on 9/11" and then post a screen-shot of an article about nano-thermite. Woo-hoo!!!
<br/>
<br/>And the red-herring was also enjoyable, as you wrote: "I have never seen any evidence with names of scientist who did research on this ."
<br/>
<br/>Did you ever think about why that is? Have you never heard of "non-disclosure agreements?" When you work in the nuclear field, charges of treason have stiff penalties including execution.
<br/>
<br/>But given that I posted a peer-reviewed article from Dr. Andre Gsponer on the subject of fourth generation nuclear devices in another thread of this same posting, your statement -- "I have never seen any evidence with names of scientist who did research on this" -- rings of deceit & lies as well as purposeful ignorance. You still haven't read it.
<br/>
<br/>True to disinformationalist form, you then try to assign me busy work that I know you will never read. How can I make such a claim and be so certain of your (non) actions? Because the links to my blog articles posted in earlier discussions proves that I have already done that homework, made and defended the claim, etc. If you had read the works, the discussion would be advanced and you'd be asking different questions. Clearly, if you haven't read those works, you have no intention of reading what I post here.
<br/>
<br/>If Mr. Lugtenborg were sincere -- not agenda-toting, not a bot --, long ago he would have bookmarked my links and found the time to read or skim those works and possibly come up with some constructive feedback. If the works are completely wrong, I would most certainly like to hear about it, because I am sincere and will change my mind when presented new evidence or improved analysis. OCD-me, those pesky nuggets of truth must be rescued even if my neu nukie-DEW hobby-horse gets shot out from underneath me!
<br/>
<br/>But go there? The likes of Mr. Lugtenborg do not. Limited by his algorithms and agenda-to-tote. Shallow the discussion.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 346 -->
<a name="x347"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x347" class="tiny">x347</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_347');">I only ask for Names of Scientist</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_347" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Again no evidence... ??? I only ask for Names of Scientist who did research on WTC collapse on 9/11 .. The Nanothermite page I provided names the scientists and it is scientific research on WTC on 9/11 on nanothermite.. You are a smearing deception troll..
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 347 -->
<a name="x348"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x348" class="tiny">x348</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_348');">appeals to authority (PhD's) while continuing with the bait-and-switch gambit</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_348" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Lugtenborg, again in a deceitful way, you make your appeals to authority (PhD's) while continuing with the bait-and-switch gambit. This discussion is about nuclear involvement, not NT.
<br/>
<br/>You were given the name of Dr. Andre Gsponer and his PhD'ed co-authors and co-workers before. This would then be the start of the second spin on that disinformationalist carousel ride, or second pass of the credential loop.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br/>
<br/>You do not have to be a PhD to research, to connect dots, to understand.
<br/>
<br/>I do not have a PhD, but I did the research from the library of my institution of higher education. I wrote up the homework. I made the results available, for constructive criticism, "no less."
<br/>
<br/>While it is true that I did not write the article linked and that those authors *never* wrote about 9/11 to my knowledge, they did write about Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices in the decade leading up to 2001.
<br/>
<br/>Use your imagination and see if some late-third or early-fourth generation nuclear devices could more accurately account for the exuberance of energy on display in the WTC destruction, the thoroughness, yet also the accuracy.
<br/>
<br/>Only a disinformationalist would insist on a lesser answer A, but the bigger solution B is staring them in the face.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>ARXIV.ORG
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness…
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
</p>
</div><!-- section 348 -->
<a name="x349"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x349" class="tiny">x349</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_349');">ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_349" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 349 -->
<a name="x350"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x350" class="tiny">x350</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_350');">read the Cornell University article from Dr. Andre Gsponer </a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_350" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Lugtenborg, while waiting for me to perform your busy work assignment of <i>"ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,"</i> kindly make efficient use of your time by reading the Cornell University article from Dr. Andre Gsponer entitled "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects."
<br/>
<br/>Read it.
<br/>
<br/>No excuses.
<br/>
<br/>Chop, chop.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
<br/>
<br/>And if you make any comment (a) not related to Dr. Andre Gsponer's work or (b) before I come back with the results of your busy-work assignment, in the eyes of lurker readers you lose points for the distraction from the nuclear subject.
<br/>
<br/>In those same eyes, you risk utterly failing due to demonstration of the insincerity of your persona in your unwillingness to read and explore your opponent's substantiating material.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 350 -->
<a name="x351"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x351" class="tiny">x351</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_351');">timeconsuming, deceiving, distracting</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_351" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges You are just timeconsuming, deceiving, distracting.. You don't provide evidence of nuclear devices used on 9/11. No names of scientists who did research. You are a deception zionist troll. I give you an example of NAMES of SCIENTISTS who did research on WTC on 911. The arrow points to the NAMES of the SCIENTISTS who did research NANOTHERMITE on 9/11
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 351 -->
<a name="x352"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x352" class="tiny">x352</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_352');">not debating in good faith</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_352" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Lugtenborg, Again with the bait-and-switch! This discussion is about FGNW, not nano-thermite.
<br/>
<br/>You gave me the assignment of providing ... something ... but before I can even begin my research and certainly before you read the 55 page PDF file from Dr. Gsponer that defines FGNW, you immediately hammer me on the same topic of PhD credentials for nuclear involvement AGAIN!
<br/>
<br/>You are not debating in good faith.
<br/>
<br/>You are playing games, as would be expected from a disinfo troll.
<br/>
<br/>I dare you to follow the link into the PDF file, to copy Dr. Gsponer's abstract, and to paste it into your next comment, to verify in the least your sincerity in researching and discussing topics in a fair manner.
<br/>
<br/>Chop, chop!
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, you gave me my assignment but are distracting me from fulfilling those duties. Don't do that again, or I'll call a penalty on the play, bucko.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 352 -->
<a name="x353"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x353" class="tiny">x353</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_353');">No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_353" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 353 -->
<a name="x354"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x354" class="tiny">x354</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_354');">inability to deep-dive flag your ass as a bot</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_354" style="display: block;">
<p>
That's a penalty, Mr. "Smells-like-Borg"! You are not allowed to make repeated demands for the same assignment or to lie that the busy assignment wasn't carried out when the assignment was literally just given within the same hour and insufficient reasonable real-life time has elapsed to complete it.
<br/>
<br/>In the hour since your initial challenge, you have demanded instantaneous results from me three times -- carries its own penalties for distracting me from the assignment you assigned. Further, at the same time you have blatantly not acted on the reciprical assignment of you reading a silly little 55-page peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal. [What makes you incapable of copying its Abstract and posting it in your next comment?]
<br/>
<br/>More and more proof that you are not debating in good faith.
<br/>
<br/>And at every turn comment, you insert completely irrelevant comments or links to NT, when the subject of this thread should be FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>My bet is that the inability already mentioned is going to flag your ass as a bot.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 354 -->
<a name="x355"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x355" class="tiny">x355</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_355');">(Troll) Give me ONE page</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_355" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Still no evidence...Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong wit
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 355 -->
<a name="x356"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x356" class="tiny">x356</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_356');">another three penalties</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_356" style="display: block;">
<p>
That's another three penalties, Mr. Lugtenborg. First penalty is badgering your debate opponent for completion of an assignment that you assigned him while still within the reasonable work window.
<br/>
<br/>If you don't allow sufficient time for the work to be completed, then you were never sincere in asking for it, and certainly won't review it.
<br/>
<br/>While there was down-time as I worked your assignment, you were expected to read the Dr. Andre Gsponer article published in the peer-reviewed Cornell University website so that it could be rationally discussed under your 9/11 nuke thread (not "9/11 NT thread").
<br/>
<br/>As a good faith gesture that you were a real human being and not some bot, your were asked to follow the link to Dr. Gsponer's PDF article, copy the abstract from the PDF file, and paste that into your next comment (now two comments ago).
<br/>
<br/>If you were a human, you seem to be failing this simple objectivity test of being able to study your opponent's position.
<br/>
<br/>That you're a bot, I'm not surprised that you continue to fail, and continue to spew shallow and repetitive things, like "fake smearing zionist deception troll."
<br/>
<br/>You taunt: "Prove me wrong wit."
<br/>
<br/>Penalty. You are proving you have no intention of considering anything that could prove you wrong. Glad that we've finally identified you as a bot with its responses stuck in a loop.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 356 -->
<a name="x357"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x357" class="tiny">x357</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_357');">One single scientist</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_357" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges One single scientist.. is a bribed scientist.. Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 357 -->
<a name="x358"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x358" class="tiny">x358</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_358');">forfeits this discussion and his credibility</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_358" style="display: block;">
<p>
Awe, too bad! Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg forfeits this discussion and his credibility!!!
<br/>
<br/>[x] Badging the discussion opponent with the same assignment.
<br/>
<br/>[x] Purposely allowing insufficient time for the assignment to be completed.
<br/>
<br/>[x] Spamming the same thread multiple times with the same NT articles.
<br/>
<br/>[x] Spamming the same thread multiple times with unrelated NT articles, because the discussion is nuclear means.
<br/>
<br/>[x] Not tit-for-tat taking the assignment from his discussion oppoent in a serious manner.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg is not participating in a sincere, objective, or fair manner, and is not putting out a good faith effort.
<br/>
<br/>As such, Mr. Maxwell Bridges is no longer under obligation to complete the said assignment, because Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg assigned it in bad faith with no intention on reviewing it.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg might not even be human.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 358 -->
<a name="x359"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x359" class="tiny">x359</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_359');">Wow you really need therapy</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_359" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Wow you really need therapy.. Seems to me you just see 9/11 as a moneymaker to promote your deceptions.. You never, ever can prove any evidence.. fake sick troll.. Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 359 -->
<a name="x360"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x360" class="tiny">x360</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_360');">a hostile research environment</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_360" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dearest Mr. Marcel Lugtenborg, do you base your assessment of my alleged needed therapy from your ~own~ experience already being ~in~ therapy and how it helps you turn off your mind from objective thinking?
<br/>
<br/>When the clock is set unreasonably short from the get-go, and when the work is constantly interrupted by a hovering micro-managing bot, then a hostile environment is created that undermines the sincerity of the assignment and whether its results will be fairly and objectively considered. Beep, beep. Disinformation tactic exposed. FAIL. No reason to go further in the work. Points against Mr. Lugtenborg.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Lugtenborg thought that he caught me in a trap, because indeed when we're talking NDA's that have charges of treason listed as a penalty, it is difficult to come up with the names of scientists who have done research into FGNW and/or done anything publicity-wise to let the public know. They know which side their bread is buttered on, who pays their bills, who gives their research funding.
<br/>
<br/>If the last 20 years didn't prove anything else, whistleblowers are not treated well, and that desired list of scientist would not be fairing well.
<br/>
<br/>Worse for you, is that an even larger list of scientists (in the nuclear field) have not spoken out against Dr. Andre Gsponer's work.
<br/>
<br/>Or if the lists of nuclear scientists are so easy to come by (according to you), the onus is on you to provide the list of scientists who have debunked or discredited Dr. Andre Gsponer's work.
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, how does the following quote relate to Mr. Lugtenborg?
<br/>
<blockquote><p>+++ Quote
<br/>
<br/>The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previous-generation nuclear-explosives and from conventional weapons based on chemical-explosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shaped-charge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc.
<br/>
<br/>+++ End Quote</p></blockquote>
<p>Where did the quote come from?
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 360 -->
<a name="x361"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x361" class="tiny">x361</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_361');">Get therapy</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_361" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>No doubt about you. Get therapy.. or look in the mirror and vomit, You zionist smearing deception troll Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 361 -->
<a name="x362"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x362" class="tiny">x362</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_362');">could not identify who made the quote or where it came from</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_362" style="display: block;">
<p>
Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg spammed this thread seven times with the same meme, badgered a discussion participant with copy-and-pasted assignments that he is now proven to have assigned in bad faith.
<br/>
<br/>Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg could not identify who made the quote or where it came from.
<br/>
<br/>Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg has repeated called Mr. Bridges "a fake smearing zionist deception troll" without a single piece of evidence (quote, link, meme) to prove his charge.
<br/>
<br/>The word "zionist" in particular is easily proven by my facebook wall to be patently false, which in turn make Mr. Lugtenborg's statement into libel.
<br/>
<br/>And the other fingers of his pointing hand point back to Mr. Lugtenborg as being exactly what his namesake suggests: "smells-like-borg" (bot).
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 362 -->
<a name="x363"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x363" class="tiny">x363</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_363');">human-ness of the agent</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_363" style="display: block;">
<p>
Let us prove the human-ness of the agent known as "Marcel Lugtenborg". If he is not a bot (and not an agent), his task is simple:
<br/>
<br/>1) Follow the link.
<br/>2) Open the associated PDF.
<br/>3) Copy the abstract.
<br/>4) Paste it into his replying comment.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 363 -->
<a name="x364"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x364" class="tiny">x364</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_364');">(Troll) Give me ONE page</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_364" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Pathetic.. Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 364 -->
<a name="x365"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x365" class="tiny">x365</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_365');">Mr. "smells-like-bot" (borg)</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_365" style="display: block;">
<p>
Ohhhh, Snap! Fail! Fall on your face! Face-plant! Ooooo, it don't look good for you, Mr. "smells-like-bot" (borg)!
<br/>
<br/>Specifically, how does the following quote relate to Mr. Lugtenborg?
</p>
<blockquote><p>+++ Quote
<br/>
<br/>The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previous-generation nuclear-explosives and from conventional weapons based on chemical-explosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shaped-charge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc.
<br/>
<br/>+++ End Quote</p></blockquote>
<p>Where did the quote come from?
<br/>
<br/>Trick question for the bot known as "Marcel Lugtenborg", and for that reason, he won't get it.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 365 -->
<a name="x366"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x366" class="tiny">x366</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_366');">Pathetic Idiot</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_366" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Pathetic Idiot.. Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 366 -->
<a name="x367"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x367" class="tiny">x367</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_367');">assignments assigned in bad faith</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_367" style="display: block;">
<p>
Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg badgered a discussion participant with copy-and-pasted assignments that he is now proven to have assigned in bad faith.
<br/>
<br/>Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg could not identify who made the quote or where it came from.
<br/>
<br/>Let the record show that Mr. Lugtenborg continues to distract with an NT meme with this thread was clearly about FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>And the other fingers of his pointing hand point back to Mr. Lugtenborg as being exactly what his namesake suggests: "smells-like-borg" (bot).
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 367 -->
<a name="x368"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x368" class="tiny">x368</a>
Marcel Lugtenborg : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_368');">you desperately need a therapist</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_368" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Marcel Lugtenborg</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Let the record show that you desperately need a therapist. Maxwel Bridges (Troll) Give me ONE page with evidence that nuclear device was used on 9/11,,, with the names of the scientists who did the research.. Why is this so difficult? No other conclusion possible that you are a fake smearing zionist deception troll.. Prove me wrong with the ONE page Like the page about nanothermite evidence of WTC on 9/11 with names of the scientists like this...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 368 -->
<a name="x369"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x369" class="tiny">x369</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_369');">prove whether or not you were a human and genuine</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-15</p>
<div id="sect_369" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dearest Mr. Lugtenborg, the purpose of this thread was to prove whether or not you were a human and genuine. The test was for you to copy and paste a paragraph from an easy-to-get-to location. The test continued with you being asked who made a certain quote and where it came from.
<br/>
<br/>And you failed spectacularly!
<br/>
<br/>It wasn't even a trick when I reveal that the quotation itself was the simple human-verus-bot assignment of what you needed to copy.
<br/>
<br/>The lame insults? The repeated copy-and-pasted assignment "Give me ONE page that nuclear devices were used..."?
<br/>
<br/>What is even funnier in exposing this bot -- with whom I tire of playing with -- is that I've already posted multiple times "TWO (web) pages" that connect the dots and provide such evidence from sources already public. Like the Dr. Andre Gsponer PDF, the bot known as "smells-like-borg" doesn't understand that these web pages already accomplished what he allegedly desired. (He doesn't desire it, though. His agenda is fixed. His mind is blocked. Cognitive dissonance is giving him NT headaches.)
<br/>
<br/>It is well that you don't FB friend me, Mr. Lugtenborg. I tire of your insincere participation. I don't have the CPU cycles to loop through your repetitive, boring, and incorrect reasoning. Don't cancel your weekly therapy meetings.
<br/>
<br/>You fail. Like an elephant, (my blog) will remember this exchange. When I get around to publishing it and if we encounter each other again in FB 9/11 discussions, I'll use its URL to avoid more cycles on your carousel.
<br/>
<br/>I've got legacy, and you don't.
<br/>
<br/>But hey, I'm done here. Slap some more spam into this thread to show you are legitimately bot. You can have the last word. It'll probably only underscore my findings.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 369 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part10 -->
<hr>
<a name="x370"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part12');">Chapter 10:
FGNW Discussions with Nigel Beckwith</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part12" style="display: block;">
<p>A different 9/11 yeoman poorly defending NT. </p>
<a name="x371"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x371" class="tiny">x371</a>
XTC : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_371');">Making Plans for Nigel</a></b></p>
<p>1979-09-07</p>
<div id="sect_371" style="display: block;">
<p>
<p><a href="https://youtu.be/mfsYSPCNWCw">XTC "Making Plans for Nigel"
<br/>https://youtu.be/mfsYSPCNWCw</a></p>
<blockquote>
<pre>
We're only making plans for Nigel
We only want what's best for him
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel just needs that helping hand
And if young Nigel says he's happy
He must be happy
He must be happy
He must be happy in his work
We're only making plans for Nigel
He has his future in a British steel
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel's whole future is as good as sealed, yeah
And if young Nigel says he's happy
He must be happy
He must be happy
He must be happy in his work
Nigel is not outspoken
But he likes to speak
And loves to be spoken to (in his world)
Nigel is happy in his work (in his world)
Nigel is happy in his work (in his world)
We're only making plans for Nigel
We only want what's best for him
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel just needs this helping hand
And if young Nigel says he's happy
He must be happy
He must be happy
He must be happy in his work
We're only making plans for Nigel
We only want what's best for him
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel just needs this helping hand
We're only making plans for Nigel
He has his future in a British steel
Steel, steel, steel, steel, steel, yeah yeah
We're only making plans for Nigel
Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel
Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel
Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel
Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel
</pre></blockquote>
</p>
</div><!-- section 371 -->
<a name="x372"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x372" class="tiny">x372</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_372');">so stilted that even I agree</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_372" style="display: block;">
<p>Dr. Gsponer's work that even Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth did not explore in their lame FAQ #15, whose "nuclear blast" framing is so stilted, that even I agree with the conclusions. But that doesn't mean that FAQ #15 debunked nuclear involvement. Quite the contrary. Their lame and half-assed efforts prove (a) suppression of 9/11 nuclear involvement is still alive and well and (b) the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth group was not immune from infiltration and steering.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>arxiv.org
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral…
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 372 -->
<a name="x373"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x373" class="tiny">x373</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_373');">giant omission of Dr. Jones</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_373" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, you haven't read the above peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal from Cornell University.
<br/>
<br/>But you should consider this a giant omission of Dr. Jones (and Dr. Wood).
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 373 -->
<a name="x374"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x374" class="tiny">x374</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_374');">paper discusses 4th generation nuclear weapons....not 9/11</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_374" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges you are not even aware of what Jones and the 9/11 team are actually saying.
<br/>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges that paper discusses 4th generation nuclear weapons....not 9/11 or how they might be employed in building demolition. Ffs.
<br/>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/><a href="https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf">https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf</a>
<br/>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>Occam's razor.
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 374 -->
<a name="x375"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x375" class="tiny">x375</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_375');">Point is, FGNW are valid</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_375" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, agreed: the paper discusses FGNW. It does not discuss 9/11. So the fuck what?
<br/>
<br/>Point is, FGNW are valid.
<br/>
<br/>So why haven't the leaders of AE9/11Truth applied this technology to the evidence of 9/11?
<br/>
<br/>Because they are part of the cover-up.
<br/>
<br/>The links to my blog bridge the concepts from the above paper to 9/11. You still haven't read them.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 375 -->
<a name="x376"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x376" class="tiny">x376</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_376');">they have gaps and weaknesses</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_376" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, if you would but study these references that you post and think for yourself, you'd see where they have gaps and weaknesses, and for the reasons of Occam's razor, can't be considered the primary mechanisms of destruction.
<br/>
<br/>Here is something from several years ago, but my take-down and debunking of "NT as the primary mechanism of destruction" remains valid.
<br/>
<br/>Rather than bore you with a copy-and-paste into this discussion, you can just go off and read it alone and then come back with rebuttals or agreements that takes the discussion forward from that point.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 376 -->
<a name="x377"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x377" class="tiny">x377</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_377');">Nano thermite was one element of the process of demolition</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_377" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>Nano thermite was one element of the process of demolition. There was conventional explosives used too. If one is seeking to make a case by misrepresenting the case that has already been made then I am not sure how that helps.
<br/>Where is the supporting evidence for 4th generation nuclear devices? Are they in use already? Cheaper to use? Easier to deploy? Anything in the rubble/ dust to support their presence? Any signs in the explosions that took place in the buildings that day that demand unconventional devices?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 377 -->
<a name="x378"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x378" class="tiny">x378</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_378');">your speed reading ability</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_378" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, I commend you on your speed reading ability in absorbing that entire article in under 5 minutes. But for shame, for shame, that you didn't address a single issue brought up against NT.
<br/>
<br/>I suggest you go try again before your participation gets pegged as an agent or bot with agendas to plug.
<br/>
<br/>I'm several steps ahead of you, but being a fair and generous fellow, I'll await your objective review and intelligent comments.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 378 -->
<a name="x379"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x379" class="tiny">x379</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_379');">when I see the proof of process of intelligent rational construction of an argument</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_379" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges You are missing the point. NT was only part of the process. So its a null and void hypothesis. I will save myself the effort as a quick scan revealed immediate weakness in the argument. Don't complain, get better and refrain from claiming superiority. I will decide when I see the proof of process of intelligent rational construction of an argument. Until then I will approach it in the way that suits me.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 379 -->
<a name="x380"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x380" class="tiny">x380</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_380');">not reading your debate opponent's substantiating work?</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_380" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, but not reading your debate opponent's substantiating work? I don't have to claim superiority, because such willfully ignorant debating practices makes you inferior, and me disappointed that I'm not conversing with an equal.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 380 -->
<a name="x381"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x381" class="tiny">x381</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_381');">The very basis of your "thesis" is flawed</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_381" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Ha ha ha...how amusing. The very basis of your "thesis" is flawed as you have claimed a straw man in A&E for 9/11 truth and now me. Look up logical fallacy and learn how to construct a proper argument please.
<br/>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>So far the lesser "equal" is not me.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 381 -->
<a name="x382"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x382" class="tiny">x382</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_382');">*Snap of the fingers* Your hypnotic suggestion has no power.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_382" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, thank you for coming over here to resume the discussion. But come on? Two comments to my one? Next time, use "SHIFT ENTER" within a comment and delay your gratification of posting it until your thoughts are complete. Two or more comments in a row when not dictated by comment length, embedded memes, or highlighted links comes across as spam.
<br/>
<br/>*Snap of the fingers* Your hypnotic suggestion has no power.
<br/>
<br/>If you're going to make the claim that the very basis of my premise is flawed, then the onus is on you to prove it.
<br/>
<br/>Section-by-section.
<br/>
<br/>Please. Identify the errors in my work. I'll wait while you first read it.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 382 -->
<a name="x383"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x383" class="tiny">x383</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_383');">a fundamental assumption</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_383" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges You have made a fundamental assumption, namely that NT is the only material used to demolish the buildings. That is not what was being said. Hence to attack an argument based on ignoring one aspect and highlighting another is what is called a straw man argument.
<br/>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>Unless there is no way that these buildings could be taken down by more conventional means, then conventional means will suffice.
<br/>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>To use Judy Wood's silly assertions and inventions and seek to include them to make a case is not helpful either.
<br/>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>I can accept that there are different forms of explosives...but look at any number of controlled demolitions, study them, and they all come down like all 3 buildings did on 9/11, The explosions, the puffs of smoke in non random order etc etc. The only thing that looks different is the streams of molten metal....which is an indicator of thermite use in some specific way.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 383 -->
<a name="x384"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x384" class="tiny">x384</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_384');">no research into what those other "materials / mechanisms" would be</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_384" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, In acknowledging that NT was not the only "material" (I prefer "mechanism") used to demolish the WTC complex exposes a major flaw of NT champions: namely, no research into what those other "materials / mechanisms" would be. Omission is such a great disinformation technique, and you fell for it.
<br/>
<br/>Why was there no further research? If you would have read Section 3 in the above article, you'd learn that chemical explosives added to NT to achieve the brisance of the observed pulverization, (a) increases the loudness of the destruction and (b) exasperates the ability of this NT-mixture ever being able to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without obscenely massive (and not very Occam Razar) quantities of this NT-mixture that was UNSPENT and OVER-AND-ABOVE the already huge quantities needed for pulverization.
<br/>
<br/>I see four comments to my one. There is no need to shoot from the hip and spam my thread. SHIFT-ENTER goes a long way to allowing more than one thought into a comment.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Unless there is no way that these buildings could be taken down by more conventional means, then conventional means will suffice."
<br/>
<br/>Such logical rubbish. That same band XTC used to sing about "generals and majors", and I relate that to this discussion by saying that there were generals and majors who were literally dying to use the exotic nuclear weapons in the MIL arsenals that they had full access to. So to limit the discussion to a mechanism that can't even explain all of the evidence -- like section 7 "Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies." -- isn't just wrong, it is deceitful.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "To use Judy Wood's silly assertions and inventions and seek to include them to make a case is not helpful either."
<br/>
<br/>I am not a champion of Woodsian DEW, and in fact, I debunk her work in a rational and objective way, which is more than we can say for AE9/11Truth.
<br/>
<br/>Just because she doesn't connect dots, draws no conclusions, and did really shitty research into nuclear weapons, doesn't mean that she didn't collect lots of pieces of evidence and nuggets of truth that have to be addressed.
<br/>
<br/>The puffs of smoke observed preceding the destructive wave. A tell is that they weren't symmetric and coming out on other sides at the same level at the same time. Why?
<br/>
<br/>The FGNW premise states that this was the conventional charge needed to start the first fission phase, which in turn created the heat necessary for the fusion phase, which in turn like a neutron bomb released its highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion (cone-shape) upwards purposely missing the inner core and grazing the outer wall assemblies at levels above the nuclear ignition point.
<br/>
<br/>The molten metal in early phases before the tower's fall? No skin off the nose of FGNW if maybe NT is used to account for that. But NT could not have pulverized the concrete, accounted for all of the tiny iron spheres, the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, or that metals were measured in air samples all through Oct/Nov which indicated a very hot-heat source still was present to generate them.
<br/>
<br/>At any rate, in case you missed it, your assignment is Section 7 "Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies". You must explain simply how NT-mixture was positioned in the towers to account for these anomalies. [Yes, Dr. Wood is the one who originally collected these images, but please consider that me "rescuing nuggets of truth" and ~not~ me championing Woodsian DEW.}
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 384 -->
<a name="x385"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x385" class="tiny">x385</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_385');">taken in by nothing you silly man</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_385" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>Good god. You really have a problem pal. I have been taken in by nothing you silly man. NT is a material. The way it was employed is the method (weaken beams for the effective use of explosives prior to the explosive sequence). Now it appears to me that you have ignored that in making a case that only NT was used, so that you can then pull the theory to pieces. But you have erred see. We call that a straw man argument and sadly that is not what was or is being claimed was the entire process. So you have fundamentally erred here. If that is not clear I cannot help you anymore. I cannot put it any simpler.
<br/>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>Explosives pulverise concrete. Good god. Seems that you did not read much of Jenkins site or A&E for 9/11. Unrepentant personality type too. Oh dear.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 385 -->
<a name="x386"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x386" class="tiny">x386</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_386');">You've been duped by NT.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_386" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, if you can't identify what else NT was used with, then your theory has holes. The hole gets bigger when you consider that this gap was known and wasn't addressed in the NT research. What was that material used with NT?
<br/>
<br/>Yes, you missed it. Your assignment is Section 7 "Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies". You must explain simply how NT-mixture was positioned in the towers to account for these anomalies.
<br/>
<br/>"Good god" is right, Mr. Beckwith, you really have a problem pal in being unable to use SHIFT-ENTER in your reply, as you continue to spam this thread with more multiple comments in a row when they all could have been one.
<br/>
<br/>Want to know what happens when you use explosives to pulverize concrete? The medium of destruction is air -- sudden changes in air pressure -- and is VERY FUCKING LOUD. Deafness and loss of hearing were not ailments of survivors and first responders. [Dr. Shyam Sunder may have been a disinfo agent, but his assessment of the loudness of the destruction had conventional means been deployed was correct.]
<br/>
<br/>Because you are demonstrating that you still haven't scanned my work, let me give you a hint. FGNW don't use the medium of air to act on targets. The highly energetic neutrons pass through all material, leaving energy in the form of heat behind. Trap water molecules inside concrete instantly turning into steam wouldn't necessarily be loud when the steam's expanding volume pressure makes lots of tiny breaks in the concrete and giving us dustification.
<br/>
<br/>I most certainly did read Dr. Jenkins. He tries to suggest that the dust was somehow conductive which then resulted in the car fires along West Broadway and the car park. (Getting the "condustive dust" to go between the two battery terminals under the hood to create something that would ignite.) Although 80% of the FGNW's energy is in the highly energetic neutrons, 20% is still present in a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP. The EMP line-of-sight, through window slits, could create the observed vehicle fires via the Eddy currents EMP would created in the metals hit.
<br/>
<br/>You've been duped by NT.
<br/>
<br/>"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they've been fooled."~Mark Twain
<br/>
<br/>Don't get personal with me. It is your cognitive dissonance for the NT that you've been duped by that gives you headaches when the proof of the errors of NT are presented to you. It isn't me personally; it is you.
<br/>
<br/>Section 7. When you come up short as to how NT explains the steel doobies, maybe you'll see how you've been fooled.
<br/>
<br/>//</p>
</div><!-- section 386 -->
<a name="x387"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x387" class="tiny">x387</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_387');">NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_387" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2398907623703745">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2398907623703745</a>
<br/>2019-11-22
<br/>
Here's part 2. Lots of great evidence of 9/11 destruction that NT cannot explain. [28.51]
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE...…See More
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br/>NIST FOIA: WTC Steel Salvage Yards - Tape 2 of 2 (SEAoNY, 2002)
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 387 -->
<a name="x388"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x388" class="tiny">x388</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_388');">that steel doobie was smoked to a stub and wilted at one end</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_388" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, the above video is cued up on not just another example of a "steel doobie", but that doobie was smoked to a stub and wilted at one end.
<br/>
<br/>Please help my ignorance and explain how NT (in whatever mixture with conventional explosives) was positioned in the towers to achieve that.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 388 -->
<a name="x389"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x389" class="tiny">x389</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_389');">what the A&E for 9/11 is saying</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_389" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>You seem to not know what the A&E for 9/11 is saying.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features
<br/>Explosive Features | Twin Towers
<br/>ae911truth.org
<br/>Explosive Features | Twin Towers
<br/>Explosive Features | Twin Towers
<br/>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>And you explain to me how the f ck nuclear weapons/ explosives were placed in the buildings?????
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 389 -->
<a name="x390"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x390" class="tiny">x390</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_390');">both your objectivity and sincerity are on the line</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_390" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, My homework has been completed and available for grading for quite some time. Your lame attempt to assign me busy work -- "explain to me how nuclear weapons were placed in the building" -- falls flat and exposes one or more of your character flaws, with the most glaring one being an inability to read. Let's remove this blatant failing in your future discourse.
<br/>
<br/>Allow me to call your attention to section 3, "Summary: FGNW Scenario for 9/11" of the following.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
<br/>
<br/>Given the earlier link to Dr. Andre Gsponer's peer-reviewed article in a reputable science journal that Dr. Jones, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Wood, et al and YOU also failed to read, and the NIST videos that you failed to watch with an eye for how NT could explain the evidence, both your objectivity and sincerity are on the line.
<br/>
<br/>But, ho-hum. I'll play along.
<br/>
<br/>6-12 FGNW would have been mounted on alternative sides of what became "the spire" (inner core remnants that remained standing for a few moments after the other content including outer wall assemblies were removed) and about 10-15 floors apart. [If we make the assumption that several were used in each WTC-4, WTC-5, and particularly WTC-6 that cratered out the building but left the vaults underneath in good enough condition for FEMA photographers to determine they were emptied before the destruction, we could see the range is easily 9 floors.] Thus, mounted about every 10-15 floors in the WTC towers actually would account for the "boom-boom-boom" cadence mentioned by first responders. They were aimed upwards and the highly energetic neutrons were emitted in a cone shape. They would not have hit the wall assemblies on the floors where they were mounted, but they would graze such assemblies above them.
<br/>
<br/>I've already explained how the concrete and other content with residual water were destroyed, simply by the massive amounts of extra heat dropped directly into the molecular structure of the content turning the water molecules into steam whose expanding volume pressure broke locally connections that held content together at a micro-level. This feature of destruction would not have been necessarily loud; it wasn't changes in air pressure that pulverized the concrete.
<br/>
<br/>As for the "steel doobies"? When the highly energetic neutrons hit these wall assemblies, the deposited heat made pliable the spandrel sheets that connected the hollow box columns together. Outward forces, like from concrete blowing itself apart, cause the pliable wall assemblies to roll themselves into what I called "steel doobies". The pile had many of these, but the one I pointed out was smoked to a stub, and had wilting at one end.
<br/>
<br/>Then there were other examples of the hollow box columns coming apart at its welds, or exhibited large smooth arcs over their length, which normally would only be possible with the help of a blast furnace and a significant number of minutes within (not instantaneous end-to-end volume heating as observed.)
<br/>
<br/>There was one box column from the NIST video that had a gash in one face going its entire length and through the spandrel sections, and the gash was bent in. Again, if the face was heated to be pliable, then something could cut it like a hot knife in cold butter.
<br/>
<br/>You watch those videos and note the many occurrences of "wavey" steel, some from the faces of box columns in the wall assemblies.
<br/>
<br/>I show how FGNW explains them (and account for lots of other AE9/11truth ignored pieces of evidence).
<br/>
<br/>Now it is your turn. Please tell me where NT was placed to account for a steel doobie.
<br/>
<br/>Sure, I could possibly see NT taking out the connecting bolts, but how could the localized heat from that NT chemical reaction weaken the spandrels? How could that localized heat undo the welds of the hollow box column at perpendicular distances from where the NT was placed? How could NT at those bolts heat the face of a box column to the point where something else could cut a gash into it?
<br/>
<br/>You go back. Do your homework. Watch those videos with two questions in mind. (1) How could NT account for this? And (2) how could FGNW account for this?
<br/>
<br/>I'm fine with limiting your analysis to just one piece of evidence, like the steel doobies or arcs, because I'm confident that the conclusions will be the same: "NT can't explain it; FGNW can."
<br/>
<br/>I'm in no hurry. If you are as objective as you claim, what with you already being woke as evident by your membership in the 9/11 Truth Movement, then studying the evidence and asking those questions to get to Truth is a necessity to the very fiber of your being.
<br/>
<br/>I had originally written above "... asking those questions to get to Truth isn't going to hurt", but it is. Sorry. Given your NT cognitive dissonance. It'll give you headaches and make you angry: you were fooled by those with PhD's you trusted, and you were the duped useful idiot spreading around the disinformation which left the primary mechanism of destruction out-of-mind while promoting a minority-role mechanism which can't explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots (among other things).
<br/>
<br/>I'll wait.
<br/>
<br/>In fact, to avoid more dings to your character, I recommend that you not respond to anything until you've had a chance to do your homework. You don't have to watch all four hours; just watch what I've cued up or identified at time stamps, because you'll come to the same conclusions.
<br/>
<br/>... And then, you might owe me an apology that I was (more) right and you were (much more) wrong.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 390 -->
<a name="x391"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x391" class="tiny">x391</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_391');">totally unhinged and stupid and utterly lacking in insight</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_391" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>You come across as totally unhinged and stupid and utterly lacking in insight. I have read you stuff and asked very simple questions and you fail to answer them each time using a variety of pathetic and childish tactics. The truth is you have no better theory and require diversions and subterfuge in order to try to get your reader to follow your silly game. Sorry. You have shown only one thing, you are a fool. Now take that as you wish. You are winning no one over with facts or evidence or skilled argument.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 391 -->
<a name="x392"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x392" class="tiny">x392</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_392');">The ball has been in your court for quite some time, love</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_392" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, Let the record show that your first sentence is an ad hominem attack. Maybe if you had substantiation, I'd cop a guilty plea for being "totally unhinged and stupid and utterly lacking in insight". But you are not arguing in good faith.
<br/>
<br/>The ball has been in your court for quite some time, love, for you to smack a line drive for NT. You continue to avoid the important assignment of matching NT to the evidence, and as a result continue to fail.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "I have read you stuff and asked very simple questions and you fail to answer them each time using a variety of pathetic and childish tactics."
<br/>
<br/>This becomes clues that you are a bot. (a) If you had read my stuff, your simple answers would have been answered. You'd probably have more complex questions. (b) Thinking you had not read my work, I did answer your question in two ways. I explained again how FGNW would do it, and I offered substantiating reference material in several places. THAT you didn't see my answer or recognize it to be as such, is telling.
<br/>
<br/>I noticed that your response had no quotations from my work with an explanation on what makes it wrong. Are you sure you read it?
<br/>
<br/>Not one specific thing do you point out.
<br/>
<br/>Although, I do admire your skill in assigning your weaknesses to me with the clever and humorous "a variety of pathetic and childish tactics" phrase. El-oh-el. What a great summary of not just your last comment, but of your entire participation.
<br/>
<br/>The ball remains in your court, love. You're promoting NT; you defend how NT causes the anomalous evidence exposed in the NIST videos.
<br/>
<br/>P.S. Your AE9/11Truth link is worthy of study, for it is a mighty fine example of clever disinformation. Its omissions are grand.
<br/>
<br/>I do not believe the expulsions through window slits 10-20 floors ahead of the collapse wave were "squibs" in the traditional controlled demolition sense.
<br/>
<br/>I describe them as the conventional detonation phase needed to kick off a fission reaction phase. The fission then provides the heat needed for fusion phase. It isn't as if this squib were observed in other symmetric points on other faces of the towers. That's because it was blow-back from this conventional detonation phase.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 392 -->
<a name="x393"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x393" class="tiny">x393</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_393');">3 buildings came down via Nanothermite only!</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_393" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>You told a lie at the very offset....you said A&E claimed that the 3 buildings came down via Nanothermite only!!?? Now are you denying that? If no then I have said all that I need to say.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 393 -->
<a name="x394"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x394" class="tiny">x394</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_394');">conjecture on what else was involved with NT</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_394" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, if it be true that A&E did ~not~ claim that the 3 buildings came down with NT alone, then please provide me with their conjecture on what else was involved with NT.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Jones said it was mixed with something like RDX to get the brisance, but nobody fucking measured RDX or any other such explosives. Later, Dr. Jones said that NT was only presumably responsible for six spikes in the releases of gases off of the pile, and he also said that "something maintained the hot-spots, not just NT." Where is the analysis into what that something was?
<br/>
<br/>The onus is on you. You are making the claim that NT did not act alone. I'm having you prove it.
<br/>
<br/>And were you not a bot, you'd be having an "ah-ha" moment and acknowledging that FGNW might just be that something else that only a few hardy souls (like me) want to legitimately research and connect dots on.
<br/>
<br/>Cough up the AE9/11Truth conjecture about the mechanisms used in tandem with NT, because now we know and acknowledge that NT did not work alone, and our research & 9/11 Truth cheer-leading are not done until that Truth is known. Follow the rabbit.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 394 -->
<a name="x395"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x395" class="tiny">x395</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_395');">weakening or severing of the main frame</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_395" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges The detailed information is on the site.
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>It is clear that they state that nanothermite was used to cause weakening or severing of the main frame prior to explosives demolishing the buildings. They have never said anything less. It appears to be you that simply cannot read.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 395 -->
<a name="x396"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x396" class="tiny">x396</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_396');">spam my thread with non-answers, non-research, and nothing specific</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_396" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, Very clever how you once again spam my thread with non-answers, non-research, and nothing specific to back up your NT claim. You can't explain what else was used with NT, nor can you explain a possible placement of NT that will create steel doobies.
<br/>
<br/>You have not offered one specific thing to defend NT in accounting for evidence, or to explain where FGNW is wrong.
<br/>
<br/>This must be like our third spin on the same carousel.
<br/>
<br/>Congratulations on being pegged an agent-bot. Woo-hoo!!! I win!
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 396 -->
<a name="x397"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x397" class="tiny">x397</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_397');">resorting to lies and disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_397" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>I have explained the facts and you are resorting to lies and disinformation. Just look at the A&E site. Nano thermite for only a preliminary party of the demolition, the rest explosives. It is fucking obvious. You are the internet troll pal. You are stating things that anyone can check up on. You ought to be careful what lies you tell and who you call names as one day it might come back to haunt you.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 397 -->
<a name="x398"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x398" class="tiny">x398</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_398');">identified AE9/11Truth deceit in reviewing Dr. Wood's work and their newer deceit in debunking "nuclear blasts"</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_398" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, You wrote: "I have explained the facts." Really? Give me a quote from your comment that explained such facts. You'll get bonus points if those comments also explain how NT accounts for the NIST evidence or if you provide the substantiation for the "something else" that was used in tandem for NT.
<br/>
<br/>You continue: "... and you are resorting to lies and disinformation."
<br/>
<br/>If you don't explain what makes a statement "a lie" or "disinformation", if you don't substantiate, then the charges of "lie" and "disinformation" boomerang back at you.
<br/>
<br/>But I missed your explanation of the facts. I'm so confident that you didn't provide it (and won't be able to quote from your masterful prior effort), that I'll be able to legitimately label your first sentence a lie.
<br/>
<br/>Because I'm having fun, you seem to think that the A&E site has all the answers and "it is fucking obvious." Not to brag, but my knowledge of A&E's site is superior to yours. In fact, I have identified their deceit in reviewing Dr. Wood's work and their newer deceit in debunking "nuclear blasts". [When the nuclear weapons are framed improperly, it is easy for me to also agree that "nuclear blasts" didn't destroy the WTC. The blast portion would have been less than 20% the expected nuclear yield that was already sub-kiloton.]
<br/>
<br/>Given how your agenthood characteristics are on display, I wonder if I should be alarmed at your THREAT: "You ought to be careful what lies you tell and who you call names as one day it might come back to haunt you."
<br/>
<br/>First of all, I'm not telling "lies"; I am sincere in my beliefs making it at worst "misinformation". Were you to do your fucking homework and be specific in debunking my material, I'd be having an "ah-ha" moment and apologizing to the public for being so wrong.
<br/>
<br/>Secondly, "name calling" fits into the defamation category. When it is substantiated though, it is no longer defamation but becomes a valid character assessment, even if negative.
<br/>
<br/>You've been calling me "stupid", "unhinged", "liar", "internet troll", ... I have been consistent in my LONG internet history documented on my blog / website. I have legacy; you don't. Trolls don't have legacy. Ergo, boomerang duck.
<br/>
<br/>I've been calling you "bot" and "agent" and laying out how your non-answers, your carousel spins, your inability to read, your inability to talk specifics, inability to tell the truth, etc. flag you as such.
<br/>
<br/>With that, our discussion here probably should come to an end. You are not programmed to go into details or specifics. All you can do is re-crank the same carousel spins. Your algorithms don't tire of repeating itself, but I do. Clearly, I enjoy the discussion, but it becomes rather moot if your programming won't allow you to ever be convinced of errors / alternatives.
<br/>
<br/>You fail, agent Nigel Beckwith. Unless you can prove some sincerity and genuine human qualities, you should run along.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 398 -->
<a name="x399"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x399" class="tiny">x399</a>
Nigel Beckwith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_399');">Nano thermite has never been claimed as the only aspect of the demolition</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_399" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Nigel Beckwith</b>
<br/>I have told you...you are either mistaken or lying. Nano thermite has never been claimed as the only aspect of the demolition. Not at all. This is easy to check. Go on his site, read, watch and you will learn. Better still go and ask him? Now this is boring. You are so wrong and like a naughty child you cannot admit it.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 399 -->
<a name="x400"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x400" class="tiny">x400</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_400');">again with the bot-tells</a></b></p>
<p>2019-11-24</p>
<div id="sect_400" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Nigel Beckwith, again with the bot-tells that we shall call "non-specifics" and "non-answers." You provided no quotations of your previously allegedly posted wise words telling me wonderous stories of NT and the steel doobies. You have done no deep-dives into my research; you have dragged no errors to the forefront.
<br/>
<br/>Last chance. How does NT explain the steel doobies? What was its placement? How did it make the spandrels pliable?
<br/>
<br/>Your bot carousel has teetered on a misconception about exclusivity of destructive mechanisms. Turns out that we are both in agreement that NT didn't act alone. Yet faced with this fact, you have been crippled in exploring what acted in tandem with NT. Your sources don't go there, so you don't have the brain cells (or database entries) to go there.
<br/>
<br/>... So you weasel, weasel, weasel.
<br/>
<br/>Whereas I regret that my sincere and legitimate attempts to convince you (or to convince me of your points) have utterly failed, their one crowning success was identifying you as an agent-bot.
<br/>
<br/>Now please, go away. You can't defend your own premise in a coherent, thoughtful, rational, reasoned way. You are not genuine. You are not sincere. You probably aren't even human. You are losing badly, because your character was tried and found wanting.
<br/>
<br/>P.S. Probably over Christmas, I'll have the time to gather my FB exchanges over the last couple years and get them re-purposed to my blog. This exchange will be highlighted. So funny, and such proof of continued and active disinformation on 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Should we have tangos in the future, I'll be providing the URLs to the discussion that will act as GOTO statements that expose carousel spins. And I'll be able to legitimately call you "bot" and "agent" in those new forums with the receipts to prove it.
<br/>
<br/>You're only honorable out is to do the work and defend NT against the evidence, or admit NT's defeat.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 400 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part12 -->
<hr>
<a name="x401"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part14');">Chapter 11:
FGNW Discussions with Wayne Coste</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part14" style="display: block;">
<p>I had fallen behind in being current on 9/11 affairs. Mr. Wayne Coste published his <i>"no 9/11 nuclear devices"</i> on 2019-08-25 and was based on AE9/11Truth FAQ #13 / FAQ #15, whose publication date I had also missed. When I learned of them, I obtained a spark to ignite my research efforts. Maybe these <i>"no 9/11 nukes"</i> works finally nail the coffin of my FGNW premise and bring me back into the fold of concensus 9/11 Truth. Or maybe not, and maybe their mis-/dis- information could be spotted by humble me.
<br/>
<br/>The stilted framing of <i>"no nuclear blasts"</i> was clever, but incomplete. On purpose. A phrase that is valid, but not all encompassing of nuclear means.
<br/>
<br/>My debunking efforts as part of <i>"2020 FGNW Opus"</i> had been started, but stalled by Facebook distractions.
<br/>
<br/>As fate would have it, while in a NPT discussion, I ran across Mr. Wayne Coste. Once I had dispatched the NPTer with WTC aircraft physical evidence, I had mentioned to Mr. Coste that I had issues with his <i>"no 9/11 nukes"</i> work.
<br/>
<br/>Which then let to this wonderful conversation: the best FGNW discussion yet.
<br/>
<br/>Alas, Mr. Coste's reputation was already known to me through his Pentagon plane efforts and discussions with Mr. Craig McKee. The reputation was justified.
<br/>
<br/>I was surprised and disappointed in Mr. Coste's inability or unwillingness to defend not even a single section of his work that I critiqued section-by-section. Our discussion went into other valid and useful nuclear terain, but this omission, this avoidance, this weaseling out of the detailed discussion that he asked for?
<br/>
<br/>At times, Mr. Coste's responses seemed to reflect genuine objectivity in considering my new and deviant nuclear analysis into FGNW. It seemed as if I was convincing him to change his mind. But then as time progressed, it unraveled as just another stalling technique, and pre-determined agendas would be returned to in his mind.
</p>
<a name="x402"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x402" class="tiny">x402</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_402');">revisit your (insufficiently-researched) position on No-plane-at-the-Pentagon</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_402" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Great line of argument about planes at the WTC. But you need to revisit your (insufficiently-researched) position on No-plane-at-the-Pentagon. ALL the evidence supports a plane impact -- nothing supports explosive detonations at the Pentagon (required for every alternative to a large plane impact).
<br/>What do you know that I don't know about the damage to the Pentagon and what caused it: Here is a summary of what I know.
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_5WdUhQgI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_5WdUhQgI</a>
<br/>
<br/>9/11 Evidence at the Pentagon: Summary
<br/>YOUTUBE.COM
<br/>9/11 Evidence at the Pentagon: Summary
<br/>9/11 Evidence at the Pentagon: Summary
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 402 -->
<a name="x403"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x403" class="tiny">x403</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_403');">over-generalizations in argumentation are easily defeated</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_403" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, as a sophomore in high school writing class, I learned that over-generalizations in argumentation are easily defeated, such as your claim "ALL the evidence supports a plane impact...". Seems to me, isn't the number in the 80's about how many surveillance videos on and around the Pentagon that might have captured the arriving plane and its impact? You have three, inconclusive frames off of a parking camera to suggest a plane impact, versus 80-something videos that were confiscated and not a one made public. ... Now THAT is an action of someone not trying to hide something, such as no actual airplane impact.
<br/>
<br/>That pesky physics of high velocities that defeats the no-planers at the WTC in some of their arguments is also truth healing at the Pentagon. According to the official conspiracy theory (OCT) and your position, a commercial aircraft made a 270 degree descending spiral, clipped 6 (?) light poles, came in at ground level with no grass scraping, and punctured a hole too small for the alleged aircraft model and didn't do any of the wingtip-to-wingtip cartoon outlines like similar aircraft did at the WTC.
<br/>
<br/>The high velocity physics, however, would have severely decimated the wings upon clipping those light poles -- equal and opposite energy, velocity (500 mph) squared in the energy equation... We saw with WTC damage, Sandia F4, and Mythbusters Rocket-Wedge what energy is present. The alleged aircraft hitting those poles at that high velocity would have left parts of the wings on the Pentagon lawn if not the fuselage itself.
<br/>
<br/>The alleged aircraft would have left far more bodies and luggage everywhere.
<br/>
<br/>No. Physics suggests the plane couldn't have flown that path directly into the Pentagon (without "staging the area and purposely downing those poles" possibly even during the night before.) Staging the light poles to permit a real aircraft to fly the path is certainly within the realm of possibility for the (Zionist) perpetrators.
<br/>
<br/>The reality is, they need this to be precise: the Office of Naval Intelligence, all of its investigators and their records into the (September 10th announced by Rumsfeld) missing $2.3 trillion in defense spending. An aircraft clipping light poles isn't precise. A cruise missile is.
<br/>
<br/>I'm just playing with you, Mr. Wayne Coste, because <i>"no planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville"</i> are not my hobby-horse. I'm in the Craig McKee camp on the Pentagon. I've followed tangentially your (and Mr. Chandler's) Pentagon debates, and don't find your OCT side all that convincing. My reasoning above attacks your premise from a different angle.
<br/>
<br/>My real hobby-horse is the use of fourth generation nuclear devices at the WTC. On that front, I find both AE9/11Truth and your <b><i>"no 9/11 nuke"</i></b> efforts most dubious and disinfo.
<br/>
<br/>I would like to give you the opportunity to prove that you are a rational and objective citizen capable of researching and deciding for yourself, and changing your opinions when new evidence or facts so merit it. I wish to have 9/11 nuclear discussions with you: "Convince me or let me convince you." I've read your work; you don't convince me and it is based on a faulty premise "no nuclear blasts did 9/11".
<br/>
<br/>Please accept my friend request, and let's stake out a forum or turf where we can have that rational discussion.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 403 -->
<a name="x404"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x404" class="tiny">x404</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_404');">What specifically (from my article) do you find objectionable from a technical point of view</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_404" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: OK. Here is the article I posted, What specifically do you find objectionable from a technical point of view.
<br/>For starters, please pick just one topic to get started. We can get to the others eventually.
<br/><a href="https://www.911tap.org/component/k2/557-news-releases/823-nuclear-demolition-at-the-world-trade-center-on-9-11-an-empirical-review">https://www.911tap.org/component/k2/557-news-releases/823-nuclear-demolition-at-the-world-trade-center-on-9-11-an-empirical-review</a>
<br/>
<br/>Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An Empirical Review; Where Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations
<br/>911TAP.ORG
<br/>Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An…
<br/>Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An Empirical Review; Where Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 404 -->
<a name="x405"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x405" class="tiny">x405</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_405');">Challenge Accepted and Engagement Terms</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_405" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I accept your challenge. Your website does not seem to allow comments. Our discussion, to do it justice, needs its own little FB posting so the comments can be dedicated to it.
<br/>
<br/>I've created such a location on my FB wall, but you'll have to send me a friend request to get there, or accept the one I sent you a while ago. Presently, we are only seeing each other's comments because we're part of the same FB group.
<br/>
<br/>I'm not too keen on having that discussion here. I don't know yet exactly where this particular forum is going. Seen too many times how forums owned or controlled by others can disappear worthy words.
<br/>
<br/>I will be saving my effort off-line for re-purposing elsewhere later (when I get around to it, CYA.) Thus, I guess it doesn't matter too much if you'd like to create a posting on your FB home-turf instead of mine. Other locations? At the very least and to be courteous to the NPT discussions of this FB posting & discussion, we need to move the nuclear debate elsewhere.
<br/>
<br/>Might be other terms of the debate you'd like to negotiate before we start.
<br/>
<br/>Here's some terms that I will have.
<br/>
<br/>I'd like to limit our discussion to one place, because debates on multiple fronts have a way of becoming incoherent, weak, redundant, and another spin on the same carousel.
<br/>
<br/>Multiple comments in a row in a short period of time by the same person to the same thread (when they could have been combined into one comment with SHIFT-ENTER) will be considered SPAM and is a foul. Exceptions: when the each comment has a unique URL or relevant meme to highlight; when a FB comment hard word-limit has been hit; when the last comment was literally hours earlier and the next comment has a new perspective.
<br/>
<br/>There will be no expectation of an instant response. I know that when I pause and write my response off-line, I have the freedom to consider different versions. I rarely post the first shoot-from-the-hip response that I pen, and subsequent versions help tone down and remove flame-baiting language. You are free to read whatever you want into my "Dear Mr. Wayne Coste" honorific, but I find that even sarcastically it is better than most of the more vulgar alternatives.
<br/>
<br/>I have a life and am not paid to post... And I'm also trying to reign in the addiction FB has over me. So, maybe once a day for a limited amount of time, I can be counted on to post a response or two.
<br/>
<br/>... What else? ... Hmmm.
<br/>
<br/>Your terms, Mr. Coste?
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 405 -->
<a name="x406"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x406" class="tiny">x406</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_406');">waste my time in a back-water</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_406" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell, I'm sorry, I don't want to waste my time in a back-water.
<br/>My perspective is that regarding FGNW you don't have shit. Nothing. Zero.
<br/>I don't want you to hide your embarrassing nothingness on your private wall.
<br/>While there may be advanced nuclear technologies -- they were not involved at the WTC on 9/11.
<br/>Answer what is wrong with my assessment that I posted in this article -- here -- at your convenience (because we both have lives).
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.911tap.org/557-news-releases/823-nuclear-demolition-at-the-world-trade-center-on-9-11-an-empirical-review">https://www.911tap.org/557-news-releases/823-nuclear-demolition-at-the-world-trade-center-on-9-11-an-empirical-review</a>
<br/>Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An Empirical Review; Where Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations
<br/>911TAP.ORG
<br/>Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An…
<br/>Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An Empirical Review; Where Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 406 -->
<a name="x407"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x407" class="tiny">x407</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_407');">still negotiating WHERE the discussion will take place</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_407" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Why thank you very much for that most charitable assessment of my FB wall: "embarrassing nothingness". Woo-hoo! Amazing how "nothingness" could even arise to the level of being "embarrassing", but if you say so, and it means it can't hurt you.
<br/>
<br/>Ok, so choose where you want to have this discussion. If your FB wall isn't a backwater as well, we can have it there, but you still need to FB friend me. Simple assignment you aren't passing.
<br/>
<br/>You miss the salient point, which is that having the discussion here in this disinfo NPT thread is most disrespectful. We need to move it.
<br/>
<br/>Don't worry, Mr. Wayne Coste, I'm prepared to take your work down section by section. I've followed your links to their sources, to your sources' footnotes, and into the sources of those footnotes. Haven't written it all up yet, but my mind has mapped out a couple of different ways to undermine your agenda. One example, is that I could go through each bullet point in your conclusions and prove them stilted and wrong.
<br/>
<br/>Be that as it may, we're still negotiating WHERE the discussion will take place. Given the lack of the acceptance of my FB friend request, or one of from you, you're the one who is looking like a weasel. Won't accept my FB request; won't battle on one posting of my FB wall; haven't provided an alternative venue; and are taking this NPT discussion most disrespectfully into the weeds.
<br/>
<br/>I am a serious and worthy debate opponent. Do your homework on me. Here's my blog.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/</a>
<br/>
<br/>We can have the discussion on my blog, by the way (and its "embarrassing nothingness" as well), but its commenting mechanism really isn't as good as FB. So here's your chance to name the turf.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 407 -->
<a name="x408"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x408" class="tiny">x408</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_408');">waiting your assessment here (in an NPT thread)</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_408" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges I’m waiting you assessment here
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 408 -->
<a name="x409"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x409" class="tiny">x409</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_409');">"Here" is not the proper place for nuclear discussions</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_409" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, stop being a weasel, and a disrespectful one at that. "Here" is in posting about NPT specifically under a thread of the same. "Here" is not the proper place for nuclear discussions. "Here" is the very definition of a back-water place, probably worse than my wall.
<br/>
<br/>And as near as I can tell, you still haven't accepted my friend request, nor have you sent me one, so that we can better the communication channels.
<br/>
<br/>You are welcome to make a fresh posting to this forum (9/11 Verified Truth) to kick off the discussion. You are welcome to go to my wall and make a comment under the posting I have there.
<br/>
<br/>The ball is in your court, and it is the simple challenge of you defining an appropriate court for the discussion to proceed. Rest assured, I'll be happy to ding your credibility based on weasel actions, but this is a trap you can easily avoid and I am being more than fair and generous in pointing out the pitfall.
<br/>
<br/>Friend me. Then (a) go to my wall and use the posting there as our debate field. Or, (b) post a new posting here with your article.
<br/>
<br/>If your work is really all that jizzle and more, then surely specifying an agreeable (FB or other) location for the debate is not a hardship... unless your plan is to forever be the dodging weasel, unwilling to defend your own work on a level playing field.
<br/>
<br/>You will get my critique of your work (and of that work on which your work is based) in due time. You have my word on that, and that is quite possibly what you have to be worried about, hence the weasel actions to define the debate location or accept the one or two that I have already offered. Doesn't reflect well on your character to lurker-readers, so please try to improve.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 409 -->
<a name="x410"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x410" class="tiny">x410</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_410');">rapid release of energy</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/permalink/644582302746019">2019-12-09</a></p>
<div id="sect_410" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/644582302746019/?comment_id=644582899412626&reply_comment_id=644807936056789¬if_id=1575895578643244">2019-12-08</a>
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges OK. First question to you is whether a Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW) operates by means of rapid release of energy as mass is converted to energy in relationship to Einstein's equation e=mc^2.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 410 -->
<a name="x411"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x411" class="tiny">x411</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_411');">what form will that energy release take?</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_411" style="display: block;">
<p>
Mr. Wayne Coste asked the question: "OK. First question to you is whether a Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW) operates by means of rapid release of energy as mass is converted to energy in relationship to Einstein's equation e=mc^2."
<br/>
<br/>Yes. But the more interesting question is: what form that energy release will take?
<br/>
<br/>The isolated explosions that were seen bursting out of the face of the WTC towers ahead of the collapse wave have been termed as "squibs". I believe that ~if~ they were really squibs in the traditional controlled demolition sense, there would have been more of them per detonation level and in total, and they would have been symmetric and simultaneous at a given level.
<br/>
<br/>Instead, we only saw per detonation level one "squib". I suggest that this was kickback from a conventional explosive needed to jump start the fission stage, which generated the heat for the fusion stage that then released its highly energetic neutrons upwards (in a cone shape).
<br/>
<br/>I know where you're going with your question. Your rhetoric will try to frame the discussion around not just fission devices, but also a large fission device as a strawman that you'll try to knock down by correctly stating the observed destruction wasn't loud enough, energetic enough, or radioactive enough.
<br/>
<br/>Unlike with first- thru third-generation nuclear devices, FGNW can be used in tandem as long as their highly energetic neutrons are aimed to not hit partner devices. In the case of the WTC towers, lower FGNW were timed to ignite after upper FGNW had ignited. In the case of WTC-6, the devices were placed, say, in corners and aimed away from the walls. They zapped the roof right out of a recognizable existence as a roof structure. And, the vaults underneath WTC-6 were not targeted, at least sufficiently so that FEMA was able to determine that its vaults were emptied beforehand.
<br/>
<br/>Be that as it may, I'll foreshadow how your premise (of no-nukes) will get destroyed again and again in our forthcoming discussion.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW devices release 80% of their total nuclear yield (already dialed back to be sub-kiloton) as highly energetic neutrons. Less than 1/5 of its yield would be available for the standard nuclear side effects of heat wave, blast wave, and EMP that the earlier generations used as their primary means of destruction.
<br/>
<br/>The deceit of AE9/11Truth and your web page is to frame the discussion as "nuclear blasts", whereby air served as the primary medium of destruction. Such "nuclear blasts" would have been loud and energetic, and would have blown nuclear badness all over the place.
<br/>
<br/>The paradigm shift with FGNW is that the highly energetic neutrons passed through all content / materials in their targeted emission, and in doing so, left behind energy in the form of heat deep within the molecular structures. The materials reaction to this sudden deposit of heat would be very different from destructive "blasts" using the medium of air.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br/>
<br/>To my knowledge, Dr. Andre Gsponer has not written a single word of speculation regarding the devices used to destroy the WTC on 9/11. His works on FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11 were peer-reviewed and published in reputable science publications. It isn't as if nuclear scientists were stepping out in droves (or even as individuals) to debunk his efforts; quite the contrary, many of his works went through multiple revisions, which would indicate that nuclear scientists were providing feedback to tweak his works so that they could be more fully in agreement.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Gsponer's FGNW is only the tip of the iceberg and only what is public. Below the surface and what was not in the public domain, FGNW is undoubtedly more detailed. "Star Wars", the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and the various other acronyms that such nuclear weapons research later assumed over the 50+ years leading up to 9/11 were ~not~ "public works project to employ nuclear scientists with no expectation ever of producing something that works."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 411 -->
<a name="x412"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x412" class="tiny">x412</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_412');">intro references AE9/11 Truth with FAQ #13 / FAQ #15</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_412" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your intro references work by AE9/11 Truth with FAQ #13, which in turn eventually goes to two similar PDF files for FAQ #15 that differ only in their use of end notes versus footnotes.
<br/>
<br/>The main body of FAQ #15 tried to summarize the analysis efforts that the references (e.g., end notes or footnotes) supposedly thoroughly covered. The endnote PDF version was probably created first, but when all the references were backloaded, the main body didn't look all that scholarly. They then created the footnote PDF so that at first glance it had more the appearances of being detailed and scholar.
<br/>
<br/>Alas, when a scholar dives into the meat of the footnotes, they discover that the footnotes cherry-picked things. As an example, Mr. Jeff Prager work is pretty substantial, but FAQ #15 footnotes don't go into his dust analysis and instead choose to pick a fight about an inconsequential description.
<br/>
<br/>FAQ #15 frames the discussion around "nuclear blasts". For this technicality, rational researches would be inclined to agree: "nuclear blasts" did not destroy the towers. The FGNW do not rely on "nuclear blasts" but on energy deposited deep within molecular structure of materials. Because FGNW were not considered, FAQ #15 cannot be relied upon as the final word or authority on "no-nukes".
<br/>
<br/>FAQ #15 ends up being an effort to "blind readers by science" without actually doing a fair and objective analysis of the works it tries to debunk. This effort runs parallel to Popular Science's hit-job on 9/11 Truth.
<br/>
<br/>FAQ #15 was one of the pillars of your web page, and gets knocked out from underneath your no-nukes premise right from the get-go.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 412 -->
<a name="x413"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x413" class="tiny">x413</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_413');">"Nuclear Detonations" section suffers from framing the nuclear devices</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_413" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Nuclear Detonations" section suffers from framing the nuclear devices as something from first- thru third-generation nuclear devices.
<br/>
<br/>I'm hitting low-hanging fruit in your disinfo effort, so will defer to another comment later a detailed assessment of your link to your earlier article "Review of Atomic Elements found at the World Trade Center."
<br/>
<br/>Off the top of my head, looks like a lame attack against Mr. Jeff Prager's work. You go to great efforts to find more benign explanations for the many bad elements found in the USGS Dust Analysis.
<br/>
<br/>Something to note: the USGS analysis of the dust found Uranium and its decay elements, but had no plain text explanations for why such was in the dust. That same USGS analysis did not find energetic NT or other things (Dr. Jones suggests) NT was mixed with. Knocks out two of your supporting pillars with one go.
<br/>
<br/>Another thing to note according to Mr. Prager. Uranium and its decay elements were found in correlated quantities, sample-to-sample. This would rule out lots of lame-ass explanations for some of those elements, like "X is found in computer display terminals, Y is found in certain devices, and Z is found in certain vegetables." The alleged sources of the anomalous decay elements were not in proportional quantities in the towers. The only way X, Y, and Z could be found in correlated quantities sample to sample is if X, Y, and Z were part of the destructive mechanism.
<br/>
<br/>Coincidently, X, Y, and Z were the exact fingerprints of nuclear involvement.
<br/>
<br/>We're not talking about three elements X, Y, and Z, though. In reality we're talking about 9 or so elements.
<br/>
<br/>I promise a more thorough debunking in this thread later, but have already highlighted its issues.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.911tap.org/557-news-releases/703-review-of-atomic-elements-found-at-the-world-trade-center
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 413 -->
<a name="x414"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x414" class="tiny">x414</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_414');">principal documents used to support the erroneous belief of no nuclear devices</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_414" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, as a related side note, an earlier work of mine dives into the principal documents used to support the erroneous belief that no nuclear devices being used on 9/11/2001. They were:
<br/>
<br/>- "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
<br/>
<br/>- "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001" by The Paul Lioy et al.
<br/>
<br/>- "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers" by Dr. Steven Jones.
<br/>
<br/>Your paper seems to rely on these, but they all have issues. Your work suffers from that reliance. You accepted such papers unquestioned and unchallenged, and seem to prop them up as definitive and authoritative. They were not the final word on badness found, in part because they all suffer from sampling issues and other scientific sleight of hand.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 414 -->
<a name="x415"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x415" class="tiny">x415</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_415');">section "Silent Nukes" begins with a scope-limit and scientific sleight of hand</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_415" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your section "Silent Nukes" begins with a scope-limit and scientific sleight of hand.
<br/>
<br/>"A nuclear detonation creates three types of damage: heat, radiation and blast damage via a large over-pressure wave. A nuclear explosion creates a huge over-pressure wave that would be very loud, distinct and captured in the audio record of the many videos of the towers being destroyed."
<br/>
<br/>That is all just so first- thru third generational nuclear weapons! It makes no mention of neutron devices or the deviant hell-spawns of such, which are FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "The destruction via a large over-pressure blast wave from a nuclear detonation is what was asserted to have created the observed damage."
<br/>
<br/>Indeed, in order to control the message and steer public consideration from the correct nuclear mechanisms, various disinfo agents (like the Russian agent Dimitri Khalezov) proposed incorrectly singular nuclear devices per tower that were deep-underground.
<br/>
<br/>Indeed, that premise is bullshit and doesn't match the observable and recorded evidence.
<br/>
<br/>Thus, this section is just you knocking down a straw man.
<br/>
<br/>The ignition of a FGNW via a conventional charge would have been (and was) audible, but the aims of the conventional charge detonation and the fission stage were not destruction (via "over-pressurize blast waves"); the aim was to trigger the fission stage to achieve the heat required for the fusion stage. Neither the detonation nor the fission trigger would necessarily have been loud, because that wasn't their purpose.
<br/>
<br/>What is funny is that this "Silent Nukes" section may debunk first- thru third generation nuclear devices, but it also debunks NT (mixed with whatever you want to achieve the observed brisance in the pulverization). The destruction wasn't loud enough for NT to have caused it.
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, this "Silent Nukes" section doesn't touch FGNW, because such devices aren't relying on overpressurize wave for its destruction.
<br/>
<br/>Here is a Gedankenexperiment. Let's focus for a moment on concrete that has residual water molecules trapped inside. At a micro level when the highly energetic neutrons pass through this and leave some energy in the form of heat behind, what happens? The water molecule instantly turns to steam whose expanding volume pressure would create a micro-fracture at that micro-location. It wouldn't necessarily be loud, what with it being deep inside the concrete mass.
<br/>
<br/>But now imagine that it wasn't one micro-fracture at one micro-location. No, imagine that a whole concrete slap through its whole thickness experienced instantaneously micro-fractures. Again, this event wouldn't necessarily be loud, because most of the micro-fractures were within the concrete itself. Only the outer surface layers would be in contact with air, but those individual micro-fractures aren't displacing large volume or over-pressurizing lots of air. It would not be loud.
<br/>
<br/>In summary, your "Silent Nukes" section with its sound-level tables debunks the use of NT while validating the energy delivery of FGNW wasn't loud.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 415 -->
<a name="x416"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x416" class="tiny">x416</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_416');">"Brilliant Flash" section is another example of malframing nuclear devices</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_416" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Brilliant Flash" section is another example of malframing nuclear devices into being (a) singular and (b) large.
<br/>
<br/>Smaller devices who direct most of their highly energetic energy upwards could easily be positioned within the building (maybe even within a box) that could mask any such flash.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 416 -->
<a name="x417"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x417" class="tiny">x417</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_417');">"Subterranean Nuclear Devices" section is bit of a strawman</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_417" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Subterranean Nuclear Devices" section debunks the disinfo of singular deep underground nukes as a bit of a strawman.
<br/>
<br/>"If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon
<br/>
<br/>This section has nothing to do with FGNW, where probably 6-12 were used per tower.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 417 -->
<a name="x418"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x418" class="tiny">x418</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_418');">"Atomic Elements" section: debunking phrase-that-pays is "correleated quantities,"</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_418" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Atomic Elements" section tries to summarize your other work, which I said I'd go into detail in another thread under this posting.
<br/>
<br/>Despite how you try to frame the benignness of those 9 elements and how they would normally still be present, the debunking phrase-that-pays is "correleated quantities," and therefore needs to be attributed to a single source (multiple FGNW) rather many sources with unequal distribution throughout the complex.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 418 -->
<a name="x419"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x419" class="tiny">x419</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_419');">"Tritium" section: bullshit accepted unquestioned and unchallenged</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_419" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Tritium" section is another piece of bullshit work where you accepted unquestioned and unchallenged shoddy work from others who were scope-limited into what they were looking for and their starting hypothesis.
<br/>
<br/>Tritium is the building block of all FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Here is a quote from my write-up.
<blockquote><p>
<br/>+++ begin quote
<br/>
<br/>Many reports pertaining to 9/11 exhibit the "unscientific method" of adopting a conclusion and manipulating efforts & information to fit that conclusion. For example, the security clamp-down of the WTC site prevented fire investigators for doing their job, and they rightfully complained. FEMA's investigators were not granted access to the site until the week of October 7. Part of the rationale (cover-up) went: "We already know that airplanes damaged the towers and started fires, so we already know what caused the WTC destruction. Therefore, the efforts of fire investigators aren't needed."
<br/>
<br/>Along those same lines, when the cover-up team knew what the true sources of destruction were, they could be pro-active in steering analysis about anomalous features. An excellent example of this is: "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams. This work was "performed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48."
<br/>
<br/>Tritium is a common feature in nearly all fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND). In order to prevent speculation from going to FGND, the study was "scope limited" to attribute tritium to RL devices that might already be in the contents of the WTC complex.
<br/>
<br/>They wrote: "We became interested in the subject of tritium at WTC because of the possibility that tritium RL devices could have been present and destroyed at WTC... Tritium radio luminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero... Several sources of tritium were considered and analyzed, as consistent with the experimental data: i) EXIT signs in the buildings, ii) emergency signs on the airplanes, iii) fire and emergency equipment, iv) weaponry, and v) timepieces."
<br/>
<br/>Further, because the authors weren't looking at nuclear weapons as being the source for tritium or the destruction, (a) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (b) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.
<br/>
<br/>Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that ready binds with hydroxyl radicals to form tritiated water, (HTO or heavy water). It is thus diluted by water. From the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile along with several rainfall events, some heavy.
<br/>
<br/>Sampling for tritium took place on 9/13 and 9/21. These delays are noteworthy because with this the study implies that tritium levels from 9/21 -- after much dilution from rain and firefighting efforts -- would be representative of tritium levels from 9/11. Samples were only taken in run-off from WTC-6 and not from around any of the other buildings or hot-spots. They stopped taking additional samples when their analysis indicated levels well below the EPA threshold for what constitutes a health risk.
<br/>
<br/>In addition to the shoddy sampling, the study re-defines "trace or background levels" to be 55 times greater than they were previously.(More details.)
<br/>
<br/>The conclusion buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft exit signs yielded an HTO deposition fraction that was too high in comparison with historical incidents involving fire and tritium, yet was still too small to account for the tritium measurements.
<br/>
<br/>To fill the gap in tritium measured, they turn to a supposition about weapons' sights. Their modeling suggested a minimum of 120 so-equipped weapons were destroyed with leaking tritium. The study mentions "evidence that weapons belonging to federal and law-enforcement agencies were present and destroyed at the WTC," but does not provide an accurate reporting (1) of how many total weapons needed to be accounted for, (2) of what weapons were recovered and with only minor damage, or (3) of where weapons were stored before the destruction and thereby being able to account for the tritium at the limited sampling locations. In other words, the extent that measured tritium came from weapons (and watches) becomes a big unsubstantiated assumption.
<br/>
<br/>The conclusion is a bit forced but in line with the limited scope of the study: "This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source."
<br/>
<br/>The authors of the study did an admirable job of supposing that tritium from consumer products (e.g., exit signs, weapons' sights) would leach into the water as HTO (tritiated or heavy water). Further, they succeeded in conveying the message that the lingering tritium was at benign levels with respect to human health.
<br/>
<br/>However, readers of the report must assume (a) that such consumer products existed in sufficient quantity within the WTC, (b) that the diluting HTO pathways to the scant few measuring locations were as they were so neatly story-boarded, and (c) that the measurements are complete and accurate.
<br/>
<br/>The bigger issue caused by this study is when it is later re-purposed by Dr. Steven Jones as the final word on tritium at the WTC: unquestioned and unchallenged.
<br/>
<br/>+++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 419 -->
<a name="x420"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x420" class="tiny">x420</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_420');">"Health Effects / Cancers" section again has a juked scope</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_420" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your "Health Effects / Cancers" section again has a juked scope, where you try to attribute all ill-health to first- thru third-generation nuclear devices, which rightfully would have blown their nuclear badness everywhere.
<br/>
<br/>The fact is, FGNW had their ignition localized within the towers and weren't using overpressure "nuclear blast" waves to create the destruction.
<br/>
<br/>Agreed, lots of other materials that were zapped in the towers (e.g., asbestos) and present in the debris would have been a bigger cause of physical ailments.
<br/>
<br/>I say, "ho-hum" to your lame efforts. I refer you instead to my section 20 "Decontamination and First Responder Ailments" from:
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 420 -->
<a name="x421"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x421" class="tiny">x421</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_421');">watch these NIST videos</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_421" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, the patron saint of 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br/>
<br/>Your assignment is to watch these NIST videos. Because you champion NT, you are to contemplate what the placement of NT would be to achieve these anomalies.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 421 -->
<a name="x422"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x422" class="tiny">x422</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_422');">NIST FOIA Release 10: Notice the camera scintillation</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_422" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Coste,
<br/>
<br/>Here's part 2. Lots of great evidence of 9/11 destruction that NT cannot explain. [28.51]
<br/>
<br/>FGNW's instant volume heating from highly energetic neutron penetration easily explains the collected evidence from the scrap yards. Most of the other theories for 9/11 do not, nor can they suggest (a) how the chemical-based [NT] explosives were positioned or (b) why such anomalies resulted.
<br/>
<br/>The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly, which are the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle (or doobie, or joint) and held together by their three spandrels. FGNW suggests sufficient volume heating of the sprandels (across three stories) that they became pliable. The shock wave in ablating materials had a lateral component in their destruction. Easily wraps the beams up by their own spandrels.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 422 -->
<a name="x423"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x423" class="tiny">x423</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_423');">NIST FOIA Release 10: Notice the camera scintillation</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_423" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, A startling discovery from Mr. Heinz Pommer's work [www (dot) 911history (dot) de] was real-time evidence of radiation in the immediate after-effects of the towers' destruction. This evidence is in the form of camera scintillation (flashes or sparkles of light) as a result of radioactive particles in the dust cloud.
<br/>
<br/>At about 0:52 in the following video of the South Tower Dust Cloud, the camera is over-run by the dust cloud. Suddenly the video camera, that worked perfectly before, starts registering small flashes in the dust cloud.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/uGaiSrxhRhU?t=52">https://youtu.be/uGaiSrxhRhU?t=52</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 423 -->
<a name="x424"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x424" class="tiny">x424</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_424');">NIST FOIA Release 10: Notice the camera scintillation</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_424" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Here is an example from "Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10." Notice how the camera scintillation affects the lower portion of the image where the debris is piled up and not the structure in the upper portion.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/p4HOCf7WK3g?t=291">https://youtu.be/p4HOCf7WK3g?t=291</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 424 -->
<a name="x425"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x425" class="tiny">x425</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_425');">scanned some of the material you presented</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_425" style="display: block;">
<p>
2019-12-09
<br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/644582302746019/?comment_id=645289652675284">https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/644582302746019/?comment_id=645289652675284</a>
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell: I've scanned some of the material you presented.
<br/>I guess we have one more preliminary question.
<br/>I'd like to know if you invoke any other fundamental forces of nature than the four that are classically referenced.
<br/>These Forces of Nature are Gravitational force, Weak Nuclear force, Electromagnetic force and Strong Nuclear force.
<br/>Got any others?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 425 -->
<a name="x426"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x426" class="tiny">x426</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_426');">weasel move from addressing my several identified objections to your original work?</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_426" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I hope that your comment is really an acknowledgment that you saw my replies, and you're scanning them to find first one of many to respond to.
<br/>
<br/>Otherwise, I'll be disappointed, because it was you who dared me with:</p>
<blockquote><p>"Here is the article I posted, What specifically do you find objectionable from a technical point of view."</p></blockquote>
<p>I had a bit of extra time this morning, and through a combination of data-mining and composing new relevant text, was able to address your work section-by-section from a technical point of view and identify what was objectionable: the premise of "nuclear blasts" and conflating that to be the same for all generations of nuclear weapons.
<br/>
<br/>When you posted your article, you wrote something that I can now paste in as if it were my words: "For starters, please pick just one topic to get started. We can get to the others eventually."
<br/>
<br/>Start a thread by replying to any of my 12 or so top-level comments above.
<blockquote><p><br/>+++ begin quote
<br/>I'd like to know if you invoke any other fundamental forces of nature than the four that are classically referenced.
<br/>These Forces of Nature are Gravitational force, Weak Nuclear force, Electromagnetic force and Strong Nuclear force.
<br/>Got any others?
<br/>+++ end quote
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Two of my super-powers are being naive and trusting until given reason to be otherwise, So my hope is that the above preliminary question isn't a distraction or weasel move from addressing my several identified objections to your original work that anchors this posting.
<br/>
<br/>In answer to your question, other forces of nature are Love and Fear, and the tolerances around each that give respectively healing and ailments, understanding and hate, ... satisfaction and dissatisfaction. However, this probably wasn't what you were driving at.
<br/>
<br/>Spectrum, in terms of frequencies going from low through our audio range, to radio waves through microwaves to light waves and beyond. This broader concept of nature forces as spectrum fits into the category of what you ask.
<br/>
<br/>For example, in an old Bible story, the walls of Jericho came down because the surrounding army marched in a manner and blew their horns at certain resonant frequencies that created a standing wave that shook down the walls.
<br/>
<br/>Harmonic vibrations can be used to move great objects like the building blocks of the Pyramids, which themselves were giant batteries.
<br/>
<br/>When I was doing my nuclear research and assessing Dr. Wood's work, I believe it is within the realm of FGNW to also release energy from the fusion process at specific wavelengths, that in turn, if those wavelengths were at molecular distances or harmonics thereof, might create resonant frequencies within materials to vibrate them to pieces.
<br/>
<br/>I do not champion this on 9/11 at the WTC for various Occam Razar reasons. Getting a FGNW to release highly energetic neutrons is easy to do, because that is the whole concept of the neutron bomb well understood. Further, the evidence of nuclear involvement is there in dust and staring at us from the USGS data tables and the stilted tritium reports. Plus, Dr. Andre Gsponer wrote about the types of devices.
<br/>
<br/>Therefore, I had to take a step back from FGNW that would somehow transform the energy from the fusion process into some other form of energy at a specific wavelength. Seemed like overkill over-design, and much harder to do than simply releasing the highly energetic neutrons in a directed or targeted fashion.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 426 -->
<a name="x427"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x427" class="tiny">x427</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_427');">the evidence of nuclear involvement is there in dust</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_427" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Just wanted to know if you were invoking a fifth force of nature that is implied, but never defined by the astrophysicists.
<br/>Love and Fear are not measurable in the physics laboratories -- and are not envisioned as part of this discussion.
<br/>Lets discuss this phrase .. "the evidence of nuclear involvement is there in dust and staring at us from the USGS data tables." can you
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 427 -->
<a name="x428"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x428" class="tiny">x428</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_428');">placeholder to return to later</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_428" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I respectfully decline at this point in time to discuss "the evidence of nuclear involvement is there in dust and staring at us from the USGS data tables."
<br/>
<br/>Each of my comments above were meant to address a specific section of your work. Because you only scanned my comments, you may have missed the one where I conveyed in not so many words the message: "This section is a rabbit hole that takes one to a completely separate web page and requires more work than I have time for today; I will return to this."
<br/>
<br/>It turns out that your question relates to this exact same section for which I made a placeholder to return to later. [I do have the ammo already to some measure written up.]
<br/>
<br/>Rather than waiting for me, pick out any of the other comments that address a section from your work.
<br/>
<br/>Maybe I should have you acknowledge that "nuclear blasts" is the scope-limit placed on your work. When you recognize that FGNW release energy in a different manner and don't rely on over-pressurized blasts to destroy content, you'll have to revisit your work, your conclusions, and how that damn-nagget scope-limit got put on you.
<br/>
<br/>Chop, chop. Even with my analysis still missing on that one section, I am still way ahead of you. "The ball is in your court, Love."
<br/>
<br/>[I'm sorry about that, and didn't mean to flood you. But I've been working in recent weeks at quarter speed with lots of distractions on a detailed take-down of AE9/11Truth's FAQ #15, on which most of your work was based. I'd already given it much thought, and had relevant passages from previous efforts at my disposal.]
<br/>
<br/>OCD-me, oh my! I'm a serious debate opponent on this FGNW hobby-horse of mine, and come prepared. Don't underestimate me. My blog already gives away my strategies, tactics, and long-term game plane. [One way or another, some day, I'll re-purpose this discussion there and rescue it from Facebook obscurity.]
<br/>
<br/>This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste.
<br/>
<br/>They didn't call me "an industrial strength conspiracy theorists" for nothing.
<br/>
<br/>Alas, with the proper analysis that addresses all the evidence in a science-based way, this duped useful idiot can be convinced of something else, so all hope is not lost in discussion with me.
<br/>
<br/>Case in point, I issued public apologies for having had been a rather ardent and persistent no-planer for several years many years ago, until a proper analysis that addressed all of the evidence in a science-based way convinced me of its errors.
<br/>
<br/>Take this discussion seriously.
<br/>
<br/>Looking forward to our rational and reasoned discourse!
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 428 -->
<a name="x429"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x429" class="tiny">x429</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_429');">act like your are in pre-school</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_429" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Regarding: "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste"
<br/>Actually, based on what I've seen so far, you appears to act like your are in pre-school.
<br/>Lets discuss this phrase .. "the evidence of nuclear involvement is there in dust and staring at us from the USGS data tables."
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 429 -->
<a name="x430"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x430" class="tiny">x430</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_430');">varsity 1st string, A-game time</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_430" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, you wrote: "Actually, based on what I've seen so far, you appears to act like your are in pre-school."
<br/>
<br/>Why, thank you for that glowing assessment! Too bad you had to resort to such grammatically challenged ad hominem, because it reflects poorly on you.
<br/>
<br/>Too bad also that it was followed by a bot-move in repeating your request to analyze the dust, which I have now publicly written twice is at the top of my list of things to do [and you're not going like it.]
<br/>
<br/>That you didn't comprehend my promise and the reasons for not doing it now -- like the project being a bit involved -- reeks of you assigning me busy work that you aren't going to look at, because you haven't looked at or addressed A SINGLE OBJECTION TO YOUR WORK already given in a dozen top-level comments above, just awaiting your learned and wise replies.
<br/>
<br/>I am shocked, Mr. Coste, absolutely shocked that your efforts to defend your glorious "nuclear blasts" work is represented so far as... weasel moves, inabilities to FB friend, inabilities to specify a discussion forum for your work, ad hominem, bot-repeats, busy-work requests, ...
<br/>
<br/>Clearly, you haven't scanned my blog yet and don't fathom how this discussion is going to reflect on you.
<br/>
<br/>You are fumbling the ball spectacularly. Although you mocked it, I feel duty bound to repeat: "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste. ... OCD-me, oh my! I'm a serious debate opponent on this FGNW hobby-horse of mine, and come prepared."
<br/>
<br/>Up your game, Mr. Coste. It is only your work and reputation that are at stake.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 430 -->
<a name="x431"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x431" class="tiny">x431</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_431');">release neutrons directionally</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_431" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/644582302746019/?comment_id=647451995792383">https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/644582302746019/?comment_id=647451995792383</a>
<br/>2019-12-11
<br/>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges: While I had some quiet time on a plane, I spent some time with the materials you've suggested. I didn't finish the videos of the steel yards and clean-up -- but I did wonder if you could provide more clarity about just what you advocate regarding FGNW at the WTC on 9/11.
<br/>From what I've gathered, your hypothesis is that FGNW can be designed to release neutrons directionally and can be thought of as a cone with the FGNW at its apex. According to your hypothesis, the neutrons represent 80 percent of the energetic release with only 20 percent (or less) going into sound and heat. The neutrons then heat up the concrete to significantly over 212 deg F to turn bound water molecules in the concrete to steam -- which "explodes" the concrete in the well-known failure mode called spalling. Again, according to your hypothesis, this explosion of the concrete is what what the primary mode of destruction if the Twin Towers. Furthermore, you assert that WTC 6 was also destroyed by four additional FGNW around the opening in the building.
<br/>I'm struggling to understand the placement of the 6 to 12 FGNW devices in the Twin Towers. From what you've provided, I envision something like the following possible arrangements. Because you have studied the mechanics of destruction of the Twin Towers, do either of these arrangements fit your hypothesis. Can you provide more analysis of the patterns of the exploding concrete?
<br/>
<br/>No photo description available.
<br/>
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMU7MeaZqNQRxweDKlx7Y06vvtm3WXgRbHKsLSpck8FWtGhPhrFU5rZz-jLDQa_6VsJWQsMcn52SloPolKnxQkE6qieePkEQQYSM-d3q0pmxB8yspZNOyzQ1yd3WIfN0OtK3NjUkGVJrg/s1600/WTC_fgnw_cone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMU7MeaZqNQRxweDKlx7Y06vvtm3WXgRbHKsLSpck8FWtGhPhrFU5rZz-jLDQa_6VsJWQsMcn52SloPolKnxQkE6qieePkEQQYSM-d3q0pmxB8yspZNOyzQ1yd3WIfN0OtK3NjUkGVJrg/s320/WTC_fgnw_cone.jpg" width="222" height="320" data-original-width="435" data-original-height="627" /></a></div>
</div><!-- section 431 -->
<a name="x432"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x432" class="tiny">x432</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_432');">cone shaped outputs of the FGNW</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_432" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Your images of the cone shaped outputs of the FGNW are getting much closer to what I speculate. I ran into the same problem as you with regards to scaling and trying to depict something reasonable.
<br/>
<br/>On the left hand portion of your drawing, the output cones are not positioned to miss the core. On the right hand portion of your drawing, the "height" of the cone is a bit too long. Although even in my scenario, the devices were ignited below where most of their damage was inflicted, your right-hand version has them too low. I estimate that the "squibs" (or "FGNW ignition") were 20-30 stories below where their output cone would graze the outer wall assemblies.
<br/>
<br/>What needs to be taken into consideration is that in both towers (but most visible on WTC-2) had outer structure falling away leaving behind for a few moments tall portions of the inner core, which later became known as the spire. It is as if the multiple FGNW needed a stable platform that couldn't be zapped out from underneath them immediately by lower devices until the very end and clean-up device took it out.
<br/>
<br/>I've depicted one scenario that mounted devices on alternate sides of the inner core. A second scenario (and more likely) is that two or more devices were positioned on corners on the inner core and ignited more or less together. The output of lower devices would overlap with destruction of upper devices.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8JQo-Tm7ClAtFLooHl39UJZWv54EoQXMqn8iDKnhjQWD7YbkshwyUKffvg178oTEJzqF_h7DUOEJ1qCVIRtZFfP6bLK0o0MViwRUrUEyoSUzTzFdHWJ1qIXCxHXtsfWD4knNtFPDNqc0/s1600/wtc_images_04.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="397" data-original-width="287" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8JQo-Tm7ClAtFLooHl39UJZWv54EoQXMqn8iDKnhjQWD7YbkshwyUKffvg178oTEJzqF_h7DUOEJ1qCVIRtZFfP6bLK0o0MViwRUrUEyoSUzTzFdHWJ1qIXCxHXtsfWD4knNtFPDNqc0/s320/wtc_images_04.png" width="231" /></a></div>
</div><!-- section 432 -->
<a name="x433"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x433" class="tiny">x433</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_433');">mock-up bad photoshop</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_433" style="display: block;">
<p>
Here is another mock-up bad photoshop job on my part. Although it shows one device per level, a more accurate depiction to account for the spire would be 2-4 devices per level mounted on the corners of the inner spire and aimed to miss the spire. This might well increase the number of devices needed per tower from 6-12 to 24-48.
<br/><br/>Clarification to the above: "per level" doesn't mean "per floor" as in "every floor." It means on the particular floors or levels where FGNW were mounted, there might have really been 2-4. Mounting may have been every 10th, 15th, or 20th floor.
<br/><br/>//
<br/>
</p>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR-HxeQNU7JJ5peEa-kdC0z5sQio772qjeOeTShYiR5iRlVTrNFOPp8hzIyAWx-t9-5OqaY0cH5pyLQ3CDyc142QpZQ9GdxlUEWWzxL8dUkvC4a2d3Od9pCklEdryvlsHstbytUk0BIYA/s1600/WTC_innerCore_30.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="361" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR-HxeQNU7JJ5peEa-kdC0z5sQio772qjeOeTShYiR5iRlVTrNFOPp8hzIyAWx-t9-5OqaY0cH5pyLQ3CDyc142QpZQ9GdxlUEWWzxL8dUkvC4a2d3Od9pCklEdryvlsHstbytUk0BIYA/s320/WTC_innerCore_30.png" width="231" /></a></div>
</div><!-- section 433 -->
<a name="x434"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x434" class="tiny">x434</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_434');">according to your hypothesis</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_434" style="display: block;">
<p>
You summarized my words as: "According to your hypothesis, the neutrons represent 80 percent of the energetic release with only 20 percent (or less) going into sound and heat."
<br/>
<br/>No. 20% (or less) went into a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Given that the 80% release of highly energetic neutrons was directed (upwards), I can only speculate how much of the heat wave and blast wave could also be sent in the same direction. They probably didn't have much control over the EMP except that the devices were within the steel wall assemblies and had metal floor pans underneath, which can help mitigate it spread. Window slits offer a line-of-sight path for EMP to escape.
<br/>
<br/>The torched cars along West Broadway and in the car park are pretty significant anomalies that NT doesn't address.
<br/>
<br/>Escaping EMP would create Eddy currents in metal hit line-of-sight. Sufficiently large Eddy currents could ignite paint and whatnot attached to the metal.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "The neutrons then heat up the concrete to significantly over 212 deg F to turn bound water molecules in the concrete to steam -- which "explodes" the concrete in the well-known failure mode called spalling."
<br/>
<br/>Also, you summarized my words as: "according to your hypothesis, this explosion of the concrete is what what the primary mode of destruction if the Twin Towers."
<br/>
<br/>I wouldn't use the words "explodes" or "explosion of concrete", because it tends to get confused with "explosives" and "blast waves of over-pressurized air", and "sounds." If the expanding steam of a trapped water molecule only caused a micro-fractures or displaced neighboring content by microns, this displacement happens for the volume affected by the output beam. Doesn't have to mean a large displacement, which translates into a large sound.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote about "the well-known failure mode called spalling" when trapped water molecules turned to steam and break apart content / materials in which they are trapped. Wasn't well-known to me, so thank you for bringing it up and giving me something to research.
<br/>
<br/>Be that as it may, we know that concrete from the towers was represented in the debris pile as lots of dust, as opposed to larger chunks or slabs. Those who champion NT tend to say (paraphrased and probably mischaracterized by me) "NT or other shit were sprayed onto the concrete in the towers as maybe in the guise of fire-proofing, and that is what caused such dustification of concrete." I'm thinking: "Why? What would be the benefit?"
<br/>
<br/>FGNW does it as more of a side-effect and doesn't require as much work at each level in each tower.
<br/>
<br/>Another mock-up, but with showing of the spire.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 434 -->
<a name="x435"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x435" class="tiny">x435</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_435');">concrete spalling is not the same effect</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_435" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, now that I've some some simple research, "concrete spalling" is not the same effect as what I speculate highly energetic neutrons can create.
<br/>
<blockquote><p><br/>+++ begin quote
<br/>
<br/>A spall is defined as flakes of material that are broken off of a larger solid body. Concrete spalling typically begins when the steel reinforcing embedded within the concrete member rusts. Contrary to popular belief, concrete is porous. Rusting of the embedded steel reinforcing occurs when that reinforcing bar is exposed to water and air; without both of these elements, the steel bar does not rust. When exposed to both of those elements, a chemical reaction takes place wherein iron oxide (rust) is produced. The production of iron oxide includes a volumetric expansion of the bar by up to 6 times the original volume, and that increase in volume imposes significant expansive forces upon the surrounding concrete. These expansive forces can cause the concrete to delaminate or to crack, spall, and break off.
<br/>
<br/>+++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>In my speculation about highly energetic neutrons going through the concrete floor slabs, the residual water molecules in the concrete, when turned instantly into steam, cause micro-fractures.
<br/>
<br/>However, those same energetic neutrons hitting the embedded steel bars might just cause them to ablate; the leading edge vaporizes to quickly, it sends a shockwave into the rest of the steel bar that breaks the bar apart and the surrounding concrete.
<br/>
<br/>"Spalling" is a chemical reaction of the steel with water, creating iron oxide (rust) that expands the volume of the bar and breaks the concrete.
<br/>
<br/>"Ablating" isn't a chemical reaction. However, the resulting shockwave might create the same effects of breaking up the concrete.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.robsonforensic.com/articles/concrete-spalling-expert-article/">https://www.robsonforensic.com/articles/concrete-spalling-expert-article/</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 435 -->
<a name="x436"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x436" class="tiny">x436</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_436');">heating the concrete to only 212 F deg</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_436" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: I assume, from your comments about there being no significant concrete in the debris pile, that you assume virtually all of the concrete was heated to significantly above 212 deg F.
<br/>And because just heating the concrete to only 212 F deg might only create micro-fractures (only weakening the concrete) that the concrete might have been heated by the neutrons for 400 degrees F.
<br/>Perhaps you have a better neutron-induced rise in temperature to use for talking purposes?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 436 -->
<a name="x437"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x437" class="tiny">x437</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_437');">off by an order of magnitude</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_437" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, please don't be so daft. I never mentioned 212 deg F; you did. I think you are off by probably an order of magnitude.
<br/>
<br/>What temperature is required to create tiny iron sphere that were found in the dust and that everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement is duped (by Dr. Jones & AE9/11Truth) into believing came exclusively from the NT chemical reaction?
<br/>
<br/>Use the temperatures you assume came from NT, then assume that the concrete also experienced this.
<br/>
<br/>Much higher temperatures available instantly means much greater expanding volume when the water turns to vapor.
<br/>
<br/>"Temperatures" also isn't the right term. "Energy" is. The neutrons leave energy behind. Can take many forms, but heat is the most likely.
<br/>
<br/>From the NIST videos you've been watching, how were wall assemblies and steel from the inner core volume heated to create arcs? How would NT have been positions to achieve this? (And why?)
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 437 -->
<a name="x438"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x438" class="tiny">x438</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_438');">Wow, a real high energy event </a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_438" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Wow, you are talking about a real high energy event aren't you. I mean, that is enough neutron energy to heat all the concrete in each tower up to -- for talking purposed -- to 2,800 deg F to create the iron spheres found in the USGS study.
<br/>I would agree with your comment about the ultimate observable effect of the post neutron-scatter interaction, "The neutrons leave energy behind. Can take many forms, but heat is the most likely."
<br/>Can you provide a link to the description of a neutron device similar to what you hypothesize was used -- the FGNW technology? I'm impressed with the neutron energy profile vs.heat output that you say such a device produces. Wow!!, in fact.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 438 -->
<a name="x439"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x439" class="tiny">x439</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_439');">many causes of concrete spalling</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_439" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Regarding the concrete spalling article you posed, please note the article states "There are many causes of concrete spalling... This article will address concrete spalling as a result of corrosion of its steel reinforcing ..."
<br/>
<br/>Here is the general definition of spalling:
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://www.interfire.org/features/spalling.asp">http://www.interfire.org/features/spalling.asp</a>
<br/><i>"Spalling is a physical process of the breakdown of surface layers of masonry (typically concrete) which crumble into small pebble-like pieces in response to high temperatures and/or mechanical pressure. ... Alternatively, the heat may release the water in the concrete."</i>
<br/><i>"Alternatively, the heat may release the water in the concrete... If the concrete is “green,” meaning recently poured, it is more susceptible to spalling because its water content is higher than concrete that has cured." (NOTE: The Hoover Dam built in the 1930's is still 'curing').</i>
<br/>Also the ASCE mentions spalling the the Pentagon Building Performance Report, "Figures 6.8 and 6.9 show first-floor columns 5M,5N,3M,and 3N at the time of the BPS team visit. All four sustained thermal damage in the form of longitudinal cracks and corner spalling … (p. 43)"
<br/>I don't think we need to discuss the definition of spalling anymore (or the Pentagon) in this thread.
<br/>
<br/>interFIRE, A site dedicated to improving fire investigation worldwide.
<br/>INTERFIRE.ORG
<br/>interFIRE, A site dedicated to improving fire investigation…
<br/>interFIRE, A site dedicated to improving fire investigation worldwide.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 439 -->
<a name="x440"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x440" class="tiny">x440</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_440');">final spalling perversion when temperatures are super high</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_440" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I directed a sub-comment to you above, under the second or third top-level comment. You may have to unwind some "View more comments" to get there.
<br/>
<br/>Please forgive me for not wanting to duplicate in this thread what I've already put in early-on a top-level comment / placeholder for that exact subject and the resulting discussion on FGNW that I hope we can have.
<br/>
<br/>I am most appreciative of the additions of "spalling" that you bring to my attention. Nice article.
<br/>
<br/>Because I'm not a components engineer or nuclear weapons scientists or the like, I freely admit my (educated and learned) speculation into what happens when highly energetic neutrons are passed through multiple concrete floors of a WTC tower. Micro-fractures through the thickness of the targeted concrete areas owing to water molecules turning to high temperature steam may only go so far.
<br/>
<br/>The spalling perversion I'll suggest relates to the steel rebar within the concrete. I envision them collecting much heat from the neutrons passing through, sufficient to "ablate" the bars. Meaning, the leading edge vaporizes so fast, it sends a shockwave through the rest of the material that blows it apart.
<br/>
<br/>This would become very similar to spalling, and would create big chunks and fissures in the concrete. Accented by the aforementioned micro-fractures, would account for more crumbling, and for falling chunks of concrete to be seen "streaming badness" in the form of concrete no longer viable as a cohesive whole.
<br/>
<br/>I guess the final spalling perversion that I suggest is that when temperatures are super high as only nuclear devices can accomplish, the spalling becomes much more thorough.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 440 -->
<a name="x441"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x441" class="tiny">x441</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_441');">concrete have ablated, but also the office contents</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_441" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell:From what I've read, from your hypothesis it appears that not only would the concrete have ablated, but also the office contents and some of the steel depending on the distance from the FGNW detonation. These other materials have different cross sections ("barns" I guess) -- but each atom does have a nucleolus that the neutrons would impact.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 441 -->
<a name="x442"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x442" class="tiny">x442</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_442');">applaud you for your objectivity</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_442" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, In the reference material from Dr. Andre Gsponer, he used the term "ablate" to refer to metals and how their atomic structure would react. Concrete is such a mixture of materials, I've only been making suppositions about part of it: the water molecules. Given that it was reinforced with steel bars, when those steel bars ablated, they could result in "spalling" as you brought up, but instantaneous and through out the volume of material targeted by the FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, though, I applaud you for your objectivity and in looking passed my "ass-holiness" to consider FGNW in a more serious manner. If nothing else, NT (in whatever mixture with other conventional chemical-based explosives) cannot explain logically, reasonably way too much of the evidence. And to give NT's PhD champions kudos, they never said it did.
<br/>
<br/>(Their deceitful act was in stopping their research even when they knew NT didn't act alone, and in letting the science-challenged yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement extrapolate NT into explaining evidence that NT really can't. Further, their no-nukes attempts were quite stilted and malframed on purpose.)
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 442 -->
<a name="x443"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x443" class="tiny">x443</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_443');">Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNP)</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_443" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Thank you for passing me through your "ass-holiness" filter. However, please be advised that you may eventually need to place me on the outside of that filter at some point in the future. I am still in the phase of gathering information.
<br/>I've reviewed the paper that includes a discussion of "Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNP)" and it looks like 90 percent of the neutron energy would be absorbed / scattered / dissipated in a 20cm layer of concrete. According to your hypothesis, this would be an enormous sink of energy in such a layer and would be consistent with your hypothesis of ablatement.
<br/>I'll also note that the galvanized steel panels under each layer of concrete is relatively thin and the graph shows the steel has a steeper curve -- suggesting a higher neutron absorption rate than the concrete per inch. If the FGNW blast were on the underside, the propensity to have increased ablatementation of the steel would be higher.
<br/>Is this graph of neutron absorption in accordance with your thoughts? If not, why not?
<br/>
</p>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha3xBaHQ_qzQov-RnOgrNbZmkZVzmoupwF5IrXwASDYCdxo7C1Jm40EK8m7wtTmJRVsemLMTpuWnYalzu6EEHwYk30Cebumqc-prTFWk5fWyWbyaIjN9hUZ-aCyTnNTve7D3ZZthL8Vv0/s1600/FissionNeutronTransmission.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="767" data-original-width="593" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha3xBaHQ_qzQov-RnOgrNbZmkZVzmoupwF5IrXwASDYCdxo7C1Jm40EK8m7wtTmJRVsemLMTpuWnYalzu6EEHwYk30Cebumqc-prTFWk5fWyWbyaIjN9hUZ-aCyTnNTve7D3ZZthL8Vv0/s320/FissionNeutronTransmission.jpg" width="247" /></a></div>
</div><!-- section 443 -->
<a name="x444"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x444" class="tiny">x444</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_444');">thank you for adding more information and evidence in support of my premise</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_444" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I was extending you a complement for putting up with my "ass-holiness". Further, I thank you for adding more information and evidence in support of my premise.
<br/>
<br/>The metal with the least representation in the debris pile were the steel pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors. As you point it, metal had a higher neutron absorption rate with an increased ablatement. The tiny iron spheres that were recorded as an anomaly in everyone's dust samples represents both high temperatures and a huge energy sink.
<br/>
<br/>I'll set aside those previous 9/11 Truthers who advocated nuclear devices, because most did so in a dubious manner: single nukes per tower, deep under-ground, large devices. Their ignition and effects would have been completely different from the observed outcomes, and rightly deserved to be debunked. To their credit, though, the dustification of concrete and the ablatement of steel are huge energy sinks, and nuclear devices are the only ones with the energy to spare.
<br/>
<br/>I'll also set aside those previous 9/11 Truthers who advocated Woodsian DEW, because Dr. Wood did not power her speculation with anything real world, let her premise get framed as "beams from space" (having issue of optics scattering and the energy required at the source), was not an end-station, misrepresented evidence (e.g., cars at bridge, fire truck engine), did a shitty job of nuclear research, and let other dangling innuendo pervert her collection of evidence that clearly pointed to highly energetic weapons.
<br/>
<br/>But here's the deal. Even those who "discovered" and promoted NT (e.g., Dr. Jones) admitted NT didn't have the needed brisance requiring it to be mixed with something else and stated that something besides NT maintained the hot spots which burned for literally months. Dr. Cahill's air samples (that started in October) measured metal particles, which mean an extremely hot-heat source was still present to continually generate such.
<br/>
<br/>Further, those who promote NT do not discuss all the evidence. They have no explanation for how the metal pans and trusses were "disappeared", nor why. What would be the strategic gain for "painting NT" on everything? And how did NT cause the steel doobies and why? Or the arcs and other formations of the metal from the inner core and outer box columns, which in any other circumstance would require not just a blast furnace but also a measurable period (10-30 minutes) to achieve the volume heating the evidence represents.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: <i>"I am still in the phase of gathering information."</i> Preceded by words to the effect that maybe in the end, you probably won't be convinced of my FGNW premise and can't be counted in my camp.
<br/>
<br/>Doesn't surprise me. The phrase "nuclear blasts" is one of the weaknesses of your work that you gobbled up from AE9/11Truth. I still have on my to-do list the debunking for your dust analysis.
<br/>
<br/>A short version and preview of its take-down is this analogy: "A house burned down, and my (really, Jeff Prager's) hypothesis is baking of cakes was the cause. Your analysis says that most houses have flour, salt, sugar, and baking powder in the pantry, so finding such in the debris pile is no biggie and doesn't mean that baking was going on. My counter-argument simply goes back to the original (Jeff Prager) hypothesis: flour, salt, sugar, and baking powder were found in correlated quantities in all of the charred samples, which would not have been the case had these ingredients not been mixed together in the batter that got baked."
<br/>
<br/>But again, it won't surprise me if you're gathering information in order to attempt later a take-down of FGNW. Your follow-up efforts to AE9/11Truth no-nukes indicates this would be in your trend line. [And you are in the camp of "real" aircraft at the Pentagon and Shanksville, and I am not.] I bring this up, because you have been serving as a stop-gap in preventing the search for truth from going where it needs to go.
<br/>
<br/>When we tally who benefited from the surgical strike on the Pentagon (Office of Naval Intelligence: its agents and records into the missing $2.3 trillion), many sat in that same building, cozy and safe in another wing. A real aircraft would have been too messy with unpredictable damage and possibly not wiping out what it needed to destroy. That missing $2.3 trillion means they had the money to do whatever the fuck they wanted, because they were going to use the media to tell the public what they wanted the public to believe.
<br/>
<br/>By my estimation, Zionist in US government leadership and Mossad boot-on-the-ground did 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 444 -->
<a name="x445"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x445" class="tiny">x445</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_445');">trigger for the FGNW devices?</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_445" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Can you refresh my memory about what you hypothesize was used as the trigger for the FGNW devices?
<br/>I did see this in a comment to the paper you posted, "Au contraire. I've already explained it was fission-triggered-fusion with evidence of fission (Uranium and decay elements, Prager's work) and fusion (tritium) leaking out of all reports."
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 445 -->
<a name="x446"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x446" class="tiny">x446</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_446');">explain the contradiction</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_446" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Assuming that you are basing much of your hypothesis on the work of Andre Gsponer, can you explain the contradiction between the trigger you referred to in my previous post, and his paper that you posted (see. p11):
<br/>"There is no standard definition of fourth generation nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this paper, we may use either of the two definitions:
<br/>• Nuclear explosive devices based on atomic and nuclear processes that are not restricted 6 by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), or
<br/>• Nuclear explosive devices based on low yield thermonuclear pellets triggered by compact non fission primaries.”
<br/>Wasn't your previous (above) answer a contradiction to Gsponer's definition?
<br/>I'm just trying to figure out exactly what your hypothesis is.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 446 -->
<a name="x447"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x447" class="tiny">x447</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_447');">trigger for fission would have been a conventional explosive shaped-charge to drive the radioactive elements together</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_447" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, we have evidence of fission in the dust samples (but not what we be expected from a 1st thru 3rd generation nuke.)
<br/>
<br/>We observed a whole dog-and-pony show about tritium as lame cover-up for fusion, complete with sampling delays and under sampling and lame scope-limiting.
<br/>
<br/>Fission is required as a trigger for fusion to generate the requisite heat. Nuke debunkers always malframe fission as being large and explosive and having a nuclear blast with lots of badness. True for 1st thru 3rd generation devices. However, fission-based power plants already proves it doesn't have to be so destructive. The aims of the fission process was not a destructive yield, but high heat.
<br/>
<br/>The trigger for fission would have been a conventional explosive shaped-charge to drive the radioactive elements together. This goes all the way back to the Enola Gay and its payload for Japan.
<br/>
<br/>The "squibs" observed on 9/11 ahead of the destruction wave I believe were kick-back from the shaped-charge explosive used to start the fission process.
<br/>
<br/>Because you are an insider at AE9/11Truth, you should send this up their flagpole... Right to Dr. Jones himself, a nuclear scientists and the one most responsible for poo-poo-ing in a dubious manner ~all~ manner of nuclear devices. His reputation is at stake in a major way (unless he can see fit to correct his views and offer public apologies.)
<br/>
<br/>While you are communicating with him, you can determine yourself his honesty and trustworthiness on the matter, and if he's being evasive.
<br/>
<br/>The ball is really in his court, because how could his "nuke repudiation" efforts ~not~ have mentioned FGNW?
<br/>
<br/>You don't have to get caught in his lies and deceit.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4oeD-pZetvupW97EqIzfXcOc9r39ntbOOkRFUlW0i_rnB3z5mHnHTSCvIvKKC0LqTcaWAWcRXGH1clYXeEJZgfYgT_cpnI4y7sp2R4VGW2W3X3H8cXGkc1e07OV0jCZTY7HcNAIFiqg/s1600/FissionBombAssemblyWikimediaCommons.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="413" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4oeD-pZetvupW97EqIzfXcOc9r39ntbOOkRFUlW0i_rnB3z5mHnHTSCvIvKKC0LqTcaWAWcRXGH1clYXeEJZgfYgT_cpnI4y7sp2R4VGW2W3X3H8cXGkc1e07OV0jCZTY7HcNAIFiqg/s320/FissionBombAssemblyWikimediaCommons.jpg" width="275" /></a></div>
</div><!-- section 447 -->
<a name="x448"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x448" class="tiny">x448</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_448');">Gsponer says anti-matter is the most promising trigger</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_448" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges I'm confused about your hypothesis.
<br/>According to the Gsponer paper you directed me to at the beginning of this thread, a Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon doesn't use a fission trigger. What you describe above is a Tritium Boosted fission weapon as described in section 2.1.
<br/>I though you were using the Gsponer paper as the theoretical underpinning of your hypothesis. But it looks like you must have another source of technical information that you haven't shared -- or I haven't looked at (could be my oversight).
<br/>In Table1 in section 2.2 of Gsponer's paper, he says that a fission-triggered-fusion weapon would produce ~80 percent of the energy from the fission phase.
<br/>As I recall, Gsponer says anti-matter is the most promising trigger for a FGNW.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 448 -->
<a name="x449"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x449" class="tiny">x449</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_449');">what the literature suggests</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_449" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, You appear to be playing games or are demonstrating poor reading comprehension. Section 2 is titled "Second and third generation nuclear weapons". He's giving a review on the evolution of nuclear weapons.
<br/>
<br/>Section 3 starts the discussion on FGNW, but you need the understanding from the previous sections.
<br/>
<br/>Yep. Dr. Gsponer may have indeed said that anti-matter is the most promising trigger for FGNW... to get a pure fusion device. Doesn't mean that other triggers don't exist despite being less promising and dirtier.
<br/>
<br/>My speculation goes "old school" with tried and true techniques. Conventional shaped charge to initiate fission? It is what the literature suggests how fission bombs are created. Fission trigger for fusion? It is what the literature suggests how fusion and neutron bombs are created.
<br/>
<br/>Were it not for the fact that the dust analysis proves fission, and the tritium dog-and-pony shows proves fusion, I wouldn't be coming up with my "old school" theories.
<br/>
<br/>To my knowledge, Dr. Gsponer hasn't written a single word about 9/11 and his speculation into the matter.
<br/>
<br/>Guess that makes us even, because Dr. Jones et al haven't written a single word about how NT would be positioned to achieve steel doobies, meteors, and the slew of evidence in the NIST videos (that you still haven't commented on). How did NT pulverize the concrete and why? What would the aims of such be? Spray-on NT, while possible, would also be very work intensive to install. ~And~, NT isn't all that easy to ignite either, or haven't you been paying attention to Mr. Jon Cole's work?
<br/>
<br/>For that matter, why did Dr. Jones et al not review Dr. Gsponer's speculative work and that of others, when it was clearly available and the direction nuclear weapons research was heading? As if nuclear physicists Dr. Jones didn't know...
<br/>
<br/>These are excellent questions that you, with your AE9/11Truth connections, need to ask the good doctor.
<br/>
<br/>Did I ever mention the excellent read <i>"Tritium on Ice"</i>? You wouldn't believe the creative political games played to assure that the MIL could continue to have a supply of tritium, whose half life is like 15 years and needs to be constantly refreshed in modern weapons. It is a fascinating and sickening tale, I can assure you.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 449 -->
<a name="x450"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x450" class="tiny">x450</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_450');">you describe a Tritium Boosted fission weapon</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_450" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: You use the term Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW), but what you describe is a Tritium Boosted fission weapon as described in section 2.1 of the Gsponer paper. I don't see the linkage with the Gsponer definition of FGNW -- do you?
<br/>But we can leave the semantics of second or fourth generation nuclear weapon for another time.
<br/>Have you estimated the energy required to ablate the concrete and bring it to a temperature of over 2600 deg F? As mentioned earlier, the neutrons would also raise the temperature of the steel and even the other office contents.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 450 -->
<a name="x451"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x451" class="tiny">x451</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_451');">leading edge vaporizing so fast that it causes a shock wave in the rest of the material that blows it apart</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_451" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I was not talking about ablating of concrete, because ablating has the connotation of the leading edge vaporizing so fast that it causes a shock wave in the rest of the material that blows it apart. That is what happened to the steel. I think the neutrons passed right through the concrete leaving energy behind and acted on things within: steel rebar, water molecules, and aggregate things mixed in.
<br/>
<br/>So, the steel reinforcements within the concrete ablating? Sure, and that in turn gave us a certain measure of spalling for concrete that wasn't micro-fractured all over by trapped water molecules turning instantly into extremely high pressure steam.
<br/>
<br/>No, I have not estimated the temperatures required for either metal or concrete ablating, because the nuclear source has energy to spare, as is in fact the HUGE tell in the operation. If the government is going to be arguing "gravity" as the cause, then the implementation cannot be so obviously overkill. For that matter, when a 9/11 Truther is talking controlled demolition using conventional chemical-based explosives (which we can graciously assume includes anything mixed with NT), such overkill is not something that the domestic terrorists would plan and implement, because (a) it directly translates into logistics of materials and increases time to implement that adds risk of detection, and (b) such overkill would not look like their "gravity." Demolition experts influenced by Hollywood can implement all sorts of destructive wonders, and they for sure could have gone to extra pains to make it not look like controlled demolition. They didn't, which means the overkill was more of a side-effect of the mechanisms chosen than of something planned.
<br/>
<br/>Estimates of temperature have been made of what was required to create the iron spheres in the dust in the whole NT limited hang-out. Start with those figures. And remember, the hot-spots burned for literally months as a result of either (a) something super duper hot, (b) nuclear fizzle in one or more devices, or (c) all of the above.
<br/>
<br/>Listen to what the Governor of NY was saying about the concrete.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fKXyWK9SQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fKXyWK9SQ</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 451 -->
<a name="x452"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x452" class="tiny">x452</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_452');">any objection to the concept of the concrete being heated up to, say 2500 def F by neutron scattering</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_452" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Regarding your coment, "I think the neutrons passed right through the concrete leaving energy behind and acted on things within: steel rebar, water molecules, and aggregate things mixed in."
<br/>I don't know how you can make this assertion.
<br/>The neutrons that are central to your hypothesis encounter the nuclei in the concrete as well as the steel and water vapor. The heating occurs because of the elastic/inelastic neutron scattering. As I understand it, you are not talking about microwaves that excite water molecules more than concrete or steel -- but neutrons.
<br/>The following figure shows that neutron absorption of steel concrete (3.2 g/cm^3) and water are very similar. These absorption are driven by the cross section of the nucleus and are measured in Barnes. These concepts are central to the nuclear-related hypothesis that you are proposing.
<br/>QUESTION: Do you have any objection to the concept of the concrete being heated up to, say 2500 def F by neutron scattering, which is the minimum temperature to create the tiny iron spheres and which would support the super-heating of the water into high pressure steam.
<br/>Any temperature lower than this would reduce the possibility of producing the tiny iron spheres that were found in the dust. As I see it, if the concrete were significantly cooler than 2600 deg F, the tiny iron spheres could not be created,
<br/>What are your thoughts ... I know that you've considered the FGNW from every perspective possible.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 452 -->
<a name="x453"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x453" class="tiny">x453</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_453');">my previous comment was in error</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_453" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, thank you for the unearned complement that I've "considered the FGNW from every perspective possible", but regrettably I haven't. Possibly the only claim to fame afforded me is pointing out that leaders of AE9/11Truth [including you until now] didn't give FGNW ~any~ consideration, didn't review all of the evidence, have no explanations for most of the really anomalous evidence, completely malframed nuclear devices in their dubious brush-off's, and have been propping up the limited hang-out of NT.
<br/>
<br/>To your point, my previous comment was in error when I wrote "the neutrons passed right through the concrete leaving energy behind and acted on things within: steel rebar, water molecules, and aggregate things mixed in."
<br/>
<br/>My point was that the highly energetic neutrons would react most exuberantly with things within the concrete, from steel rebar to aggregates, and of course trapped water molecules.
<br/>
<br/>I honestly don't know the molecular make-up of sand and other filler in the concrete, nor how much energy they would absorb. Owing to this, my objection is more of a hair-split "to the concept of the concrete being heated up to, say 2500 def F by neutron scattering." Definitely, things within the concrete may have achieved this.
<br/>
<br/>About all I can point to is some anomalous evidence [most obvious in Dr. Wood's collection] like the "9/11 meteorite" [which is the phrase you could put into Google.]
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11%20meteorite">https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11%20meteorite</a>...
<br/>
<br/>Allow me to extend an earned complement to you. I appreciate your willingness to study evidence brought forth in support of the FGNW premise and to ask meaningful questions. They get me thinking and help me modify my views. If I didn't thank you for the graph you found on neutron absorption, then I do now.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 453 -->
<a name="x454"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x454" class="tiny">x454</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_454');">approximately 90 percent of the neutron energy would be absorbed by the concrete in a floor</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-23</p>
<div id="sect_454" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Pardon the slow response, it is a busy time of year.
<br/>First, I think with the way that neutrons interact with other nuclei that your clarified comment is still not accurate,
<br/>"My point was that the highly energetic neutrons would react most exuberantly with things within the concrete, from steel rebar to aggregates, and of course trapped water molecules."
<br/>What you say may be significant for a microwave oven, but I don't believe it applies to energetic neutrons.
<br/>But the larger issue is that your hypothesis suggest far too much energy would have been released within the area of each tower to match the observations.
<br/>Please correct me if I get something wrong, but your hypothesis assumes that neutron scatter heats up the concrete by 2500 deg F - which is hot enough to melt some steel and produce the tiny iron spheres that was found in the WTC dust by various researchers.
<br/>From what I understand, a single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete.
<br/>Using the standard formula, for thermal heat required, Q = m*C*deltaT, this suggest that the energy to heat up the 212,500 cubic yards of concrete would be 174,706,875 BTU/ per tower/ per degF.
<br/>For a temperature rise of 2500 deg F, this would require the input of 436,767,187,500 BTU.
<br/>For comparison the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was approximately 54,973,392,960 BTU of energy.
<br/>According to your parameters, each tower would require the energy equivalent of approximately 8 Hiroshima bombs per tower. This heat equation neglects heating office contents and the steel.
<br/>I think my calculations are correct.
<br/>Why this is important for you to ponder seriously is that this is only the energy that you assert was present to destroy (ablate) the concrete. Without a doubt, there would be stray energy.
<br/>The resulting concrete power at 2500+ degrees F would be heating the adjacent atmosphere and the superheated air would rise in a manner similar to a nuclear weapon's mushroom cloud (or at the very least the plume from a very, very, very large powerplant's smokestack).
<br/>Lastly, as noted in this graph, approximately 90 percent of the neutron energy would be absorbed by the concrete in a floor ... this means the neutron energy impacting the next floor slab above would only be 10% of the energy impacting the floor below it. The second slab above would only receive 1% of the initial slab. The third slab above would receive 0.1% of the energy of the initial slab. What this means is that if there were one device for each 10 floors (an it was neutron scattering / heating that did the damage) the observed damage would clearly show diminishing energetic destruction for each floor slab above the FGNW.
<br/>gotta get ready for more holiday stuff now ... chat later.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 454 -->
<a name="x455"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x455" class="tiny">x455</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_455');">Energy and heat are not be same thing</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-23</p>
<div id="sect_455" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, No need for apologies on delayed responses, particularly when contemplation and research are demonstrated in the response and generally aren't present with shoot-from-the-hip emotional instant responses [the norm for FB.]
<br/>
<br/>Correcting you where you are wrong, my hypothesis does ~not~ state "that neutron scatter heats up the concrete by 2500 deg F." Energy and heat are not be same thing.
<br/>
<br/>My hypothesis states that highly energetic neutrons from multiple FGNW were targeted to mostly go through the content of the towers, but grazed inner core steel and outer wall assemblies in places. The material composition of the various content would determine how much energy is absorbed.
<br/>
<br/>The dense molecular structure of metals would indicate a greater propensity to absorb more energy from the passing-thru neutrons than other less dense molecular structures, like sand, filler, water, etc. The tiny iron spheres found in the dust and probably created from the (1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite) steel deck, trusses, and rebars of the concrete floors indicates already the amount of energy they absorbed and minimum temperatures required.
<br/>
<br/>Paraphrased from Dr. Gsponer:
<br/>
<br/>- Because most of the energy of a DT-based FGNW is in the form of highly penetrating neutrons, almost all of the forwards going energy is coupled into any target located less than a few meters away from the point of detonation. This implies a coupling coefficient ... that is ten times higher than for any conventional or previous generation nuclear weapons.
<br/>
<br/>- The combined surface and volume heating effects of a 1 ton FGNW detonated 1 meter away from any solid target leads to an energy deposition of about 1 kJ/cm^3 in the first 10 cm of any material. ... [W]hile a 1 ton chemical explosion 1 m away from a 10 cm thick steel plate will barely damage it, a 1 ton FGNW explosion at the same 1 m distance will burn a 1 m^2 hole through it.
<br/>
<br/>Let's assume correct your figure of 160k cubic meters of concrete per tower.
<br/>
<br/>Your first and most damning fallacy in your calculations is the assumption that the totality of 160k cubic meters of concrete was affected or hit by the FGNW. This leads to a gross over-estimation of the energy. Classic "garbage in, garbage out." [Deja vu with the Dr. Jenkins ambush of Dr. Wood.]
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Jones made a big deal to point out that the dust analysis didn't just have fine particles (that is in itself a huge energy sink), it also had course particles. Because the output of a single device is a cone aimed with one edge along the spire, the footprint zapped an individual floor was an oval, which was larger on floors further from the FGNW ignition. The oval on some floors may have left areas in corners with unzapped concrete; however, lower FGNW and the fall to the ground would have an opportunity to break such remainder. The point is, the FGNW would not have been responsible for zapping the entire 160k cubic meters of concrete in a tower.
<br/>
<br/>The second fallacy is the assumption that concrete would absorb the equivalent energy as steel, or metal in general. [Paraphrased from other sources as a reference.] Ordinary concrete of a density (Sigma = 2000 - 2600 kg/m^3), is a mixture of cement, coarse and fine aggregate, water and eventually additives and admixtures that are set by cement hydratation. [Usually for shielding barrier a heavyweight concrete (Sigma > 2600 kg/m^3) is used. It is obtained by addition of heavy components (mainly aggregate and fillers) like basalt, magnetite, barite, limonite, iron and metal, ash and slag.] "Dose consequences were found to be 29-72% higher using realistic, measurement-based composition as input compared to the use of a nominal concrete composition, given by the manufacturer. This discrepancy is mainly attributed to the generally neglected contribution of trace elements."
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "[A]s noted in this [MCNP Calculation] graph, approximately 90 percent of the neutron energy would be absorbed by the concrete in a floor."
<br/>
<br/>I disagree.
<br/>
<br/>Factoid: WTC tower floor construction typically consisted of 4 inches (or just over 10 cm) of lightweight concrete on 1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite steel deck.
<br/>
<br/>For the sake of discussion, let us assume from your NCNP Calculation graph that (a) the blue-triangles represents concrete [3.2 g/cm^3] designed for neutron shielding and (b) the red-circles represents concrete [2.2 g/cm^3] closer to nominal composition given by the manufacturer.
<br/>
<br/>Therefore in theory, 10 cm of the (red-circle) concrete of the first floor zapped by the FGNW would attentuate only 60% of the neutron dose, not the 90% that you claim.
<br/>
<br/>However in practice with the actual measured composition having 24-72% discrepancy in dose consequences, that first floor (10 cm) probably maybe attenuated only 17-45% of the original neutron dose, and is further away from your suggestion of 90%.
<br/>
<br/>A third fallacy may be in using the MCNP Calculation graph about a standard neutron dose versus shielding thickness. The WTC was not optimized in the least for neutron shielding in terms of barrier thickness and atomic composition, let alone the neutron energy involved with the FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>You mentioned during your (incorrect) calculations about heat from such an event, from rebar ablating and causing instantaneous concrete spalling, to concrete micro-fractures from trapped water molecules turning to high-pressure steam. All of this would have put heat into the surrounding air. As part of Dr. Wood's collection, first responders going across the bridge recall feeling an increase in the ambient temperature the closer they got to the WTC.
<br/>
<br/>Something else I should mention. Inspired by findings from <i>"Tritium on Ice"</i>, deuterium pellets are the rage for modern nuclear weapons. An assumption that I've made is that each FGNW ignited the neutron output for a micro-second and then stopped. This assumption might be incorrect, whereby the ignition could have a duration [whether or not injected pellets accomplishes it]. A duration in the tenths of a second changes the behavior of targeted material.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>This makes for a mighty fine discussion, Mr. Coste. I appreciate how your analysis causes me to do more research and hone in further on what probably went on.
<br/>
<br/>===== Begin Research
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Sources:
<br/>- <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12794">https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12794</a>
<br/>- <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/199/3/032056/pdf">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/199/3/032056/pdf</a>
<br/>- <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/eng.2012.2.issue-2/s13531-011-0063-0/s13531-011-0063-0.pdf">https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/eng.2012.2.issue-2/s13531-011-0063-0/s13531-011-0063-0.pdf</a>
<br/>- <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf">https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf</a>
<br/>
<br/>===== End Research
<br/>
<br/>// [mcb Part 1/2]
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>+++
<br/>[mcb Part 2/2]
<br/>
<br/>Your BTU gross over-estimate gave me the feeling of "deja vu". It seemed very similar to a discussion -- a late-night video ambush in a hotel's conference room -- between Dr. Greg Jenkins (a colleague of Dr. Steven Jones) and Dr. Judy Wood.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood observed the existence and final moments of "the spire" from one perspective, and said that it vaporized owing to how it seemed to disappear in a cloud of dust. [Had she studied other perspectives, she would have concluded that the spire accordian'ed and fell over, albeit something ignited from underneath could very well have initiated the final moments of the spire. Consider that a disinfo point against Dr. Wood that she still holds and promotes the spire falling as evidence of "steel vaporizing".]
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Jenkins in his ambush started with factual words similar to yours, Mr. Coste: "a single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel." He had ready at his disposal the energy required to vaporize a single kg of steel (solid thru liquid to a gas) and naturally after multiplying by 90M kg arrived at some obscenely huge number, that if expressed as a temperature, would have been the equivalent or greater than that on the surface temperature of the sun. Consider this a disinfo point against Dr. Jenkins. [This is where he reminds me of you, Mr. Coste.]
<br/>
<br/>Within the collection of pictures in Dr. Wood's work, the wall assemblies were well represented, as were inner-core. For letting her premise get malframed as "~all~ steel was vaporized," and for not clarifying after the fact for what steel was vaporized and what was not, more disinfo points against Dr. Wood. [Further disinfo points against Dr. for letting her premise get framed as "beams from space," assuming vehicles towed to bridge were damaged at the bridge, stating firetruck engine vaporized, and shitty research into nuclear methods, etc.]
<br/>
<br/>Outside of his ambush, Dr. Jenkins collected further disinfo points in his discussion of how vehicle fires happened along West Broadway and the adjacent parking lot. He said the dust particles may have been mildly conductive. He wants us to believe that a sufficient amount of this conductive dust made its way into vehicles -- like caking itself between the two battery terminals -- and shorted circuits causing the vehicle fires.
<br/>
<br/>Amazing what one sees when two disinfo agendas collide.
<br/>
<br/>// [mcb Part 2/2]
<br/>
<br/>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha3xBaHQ_qzQov-RnOgrNbZmkZVzmoupwF5IrXwASDYCdxo7C1Jm40EK8m7wtTmJRVsemLMTpuWnYalzu6EEHwYk30Cebumqc-prTFWk5fWyWbyaIjN9hUZ-aCyTnNTve7D3ZZthL8Vv0/s1600/FissionNeutronTransmission.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="767" data-original-width="593" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha3xBaHQ_qzQov-RnOgrNbZmkZVzmoupwF5IrXwASDYCdxo7C1Jm40EK8m7wtTmJRVsemLMTpuWnYalzu6EEHwYk30Cebumqc-prTFWk5fWyWbyaIjN9hUZ-aCyTnNTve7D3ZZthL8Vv0/s320/FissionNeutronTransmission.jpg" width="247" /></a></div>
</p>
</div><!-- section 455 -->
<a name="x456"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x456" class="tiny">x456</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_456');">can you provide more clarity</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-23</p>
<div id="sect_456" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: I'm sorry If I'm confused, but in your earlier comments you provided this image which suggested one FGNW detonations (or ignitions) about every 30 floors.
<br/>Now you are saying that they needed to be about 1 meter distance to do the damage, "[W]hile a 1 ton chemical explosion 1 m away from a 10 cm thick steel plate will barely damage it, a 1 ton FGNW explosion at the same 1 m distance will burn a 1 m^2 hole through it. "
<br/>From the inclusion of this statement, it sounds like you need probably a dozen or more FGNW on each floor that destroy a portion of the concrete ("burn a 1 m^2 hole" ).
<br/>Because you assume a fission trigger is necessary (subject to a minimum critical mass) this is an insanely large amount of energy.
<br/>Because you will disagree with what I wrote, can you provide more clarity on what you exactly mean? I'm having trouble resolving the conflicts in what I hear you say and the implications of what you say.
<br/>Thanks in advance.
<br/>But please, refrain from stories about dis-info, we are talking math, science, numbers and calculations here.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 456 -->
<a name="x457"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x457" class="tiny">x457</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_457');">"insanely amounts of energy"</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-23</p>
<div id="sect_457" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Indeed, it appears that my poor PaintBrush skills are the culprit in your confusion, although my accompanying text at the time mentioned more devices per level. Here is an amended version of the image that shows four devices per detonation level.
<br/>
<br/>I suppose another source of confusion is that my beliefs and understanding do change when confronted with new information, such as our important detours into concrete spalling and neutron shielding by concrete.
<br/>
<br/>You quoted me, who was paraphrasing from Dr. Andre Gsponer's example. Aren't you impressed with the difference between a chemical explosion and the equivalent rated FGNW?
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, that example about energy transmission had nothing to do with my hypothesis, or it stating or implying there was a requirement of 1 m distance. The hypothetical example from Dr. Gsponer chose 1 ton; the 1 ton rating has nothing to do with my FGNW hypothesis. I suspect a higher rating but still in the sub-kiloton range.
<br/>
<br/>Based on your extrapolation of 1 ton, your calculated conclusion that a dozen or more FGNW would be needed on each detonation floor is precisely the reason why that nuclear yield of 1 ton is too low for the dialed-in FGNW of 9/11. Thank you for ruling that out for us.
<br/>
<br/>Your comment about the fission trigger giving off "insanely amounts of energy." First of all, just like a power plant doesn't use its fission for destructive means, the FGNW fision trigger for fusion doesn't either. But, yeah, that energy as heat is needed for fusion. The WTC tower destruction exhibits an elephant-in-the-room tell: "insanely amounts of energy" was exhibited in the overkill destruction.
<br/>
<br/>Logistics of chemical-based explosives is one factor of many that suggests the boots-to-the-group operatives would not schlep & wire in overkill amounts, particularly if the propaganda is going to be arguing "plane impacts and gravity" later. The lesser amounts chosen and implemented would help with their story. Overkill amounts of chemical-based explosives would be very loud, and would not help with their story.
<br/>
<br/>When the FGNW have "insanely amounts of energy," then observed overkill is a side-effect.
<br/>
<br/>In conclusion through our discussions, my FGNW beliefs have morphed into four FGNW devices per ignition level, because such a configuration allow for the spire anomaly. Our previous discussion about nuclear dose and shielding brought up questions in my mind regarding the effective range (e.g., how many concrete floors). Mr. David Chandler's video analysis of the upper stories of one of the WTC towers hints at the range: less than 20 floors.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv7FNUtz3i0LIRqK9JadDYXDjAPq1l4b8tsmzIaL69OcKEkhoiT_w6tzH_gqpPjH8BVUROA05rvOFgajXBf_OX79BFnzw5ALLzdizinr6RlUSbD94zUrgTraP8srgNiK0zDA09sZ8d2RE/s1600/WTC_innerCore_31.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="361" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv7FNUtz3i0LIRqK9JadDYXDjAPq1l4b8tsmzIaL69OcKEkhoiT_w6tzH_gqpPjH8BVUROA05rvOFgajXBf_OX79BFnzw5ALLzdizinr6RlUSbD94zUrgTraP8srgNiK0zDA09sZ8d2RE/s320/WTC_innerCore_31.png" width="231" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJA-54RJ25SwurxAfwBBSwVox-JofGV8ZkK-SPghFhX97Byrpc2H_ppnnX3MrBTbi9gaizhp9GmB2CtDA6AkRcZY5ogzRXqfNNgfCBg52k_88o5xj7ycjXjMG6U2gyTMN5HuDf4CzzlCA/s1600/wtc2core_02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="700" data-original-width="485" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJA-54RJ25SwurxAfwBBSwVox-JofGV8ZkK-SPghFhX97Byrpc2H_ppnnX3MrBTbi9gaizhp9GmB2CtDA6AkRcZY5ogzRXqfNNgfCBg52k_88o5xj7ycjXjMG6U2gyTMN5HuDf4CzzlCA/s320/wtc2core_02.jpg" width="221" /></a></div>
</div><!-- section 457 -->
<a name="x458"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x458" class="tiny">x458</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_458');">Not completely fleshed out.</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-23</p>
<div id="sect_458" style="display: block;">
<p>
A hypothesis seed. Not completely fleshed out.
<br/>Will be updating this article.
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../911-fgnw-prima...
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 458 -->
<a name="x459"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x459" class="tiny">x459</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_459');">reframe and clarify your hypothesis</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-23</p>
<div id="sect_459" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Please do. I tried to make sense out of your last post (in relation to other things you've said in previous posts), and couldn't.
<br/>It would be helpful for you to reframe and clarify your hypothesis. Issues that I'd like to see you address are:
<br/>1. Your assertion that the primary damage is within 1 meter of FGNW detonation
<br/>2. That a FGNW used a fission trigger (which also requires a large conventional charge for compression). Both of these cannot be silent and there are no sounds in the audio record to support fission ignitions - let alone fission triggers for FGNW).
<br/>3. That the FGNW detonation would produce neutrons where 90 percent of the energy would be absorbed in the first concrete slab -- leaving only 10 percent of the FGNW energy for the next slab up, leaving only 1 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up, leaving only 0.1 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up, leaving only 0.01 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up etc.
<br/>I posed questions in previous comments also.
<br/>I look forward to your clarifications and consistent hypothesis.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 459 -->
<a name="x460"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x460" class="tiny">x460</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_460');">your misconceptions cleared up</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-23</p>
<div id="sect_460" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, Rest assured that from these very discussions, important concepts will be rolled into my "2020 FGNW 9/11 Opus." Alas, I'm not paid to post or to write my hypothesis (or play on Facebook), and in my free-time, I don't always feel up to fleshing out the direction or details that my hypothesis needs to go. Time-sucking Facebook is a major culprit in my procrastination, with the most recent evidence being this very comment. Oh, my! El-oh-el.
<br/>
<br/>You don't have to wait for my opus to have your misconceptions cleared up.
<br/>
<br/>Misconception 1. [MCB's] assertion that the primary damage is within 1 meter of FGNW detonation.
<br/>
<br/>I never asserted this, and this is the second time you have purposely twisted an example meant to show comparisons of energy: chemical-based explosives versus FGNW. The paraphrased example from Dr. Gsponer was not applicable to 9/11, neither for the actual ton rating of the FGNW nor for its placement. It is applicable to 9/11 when scaled properly to explain why FGNW is more plausible than chemical-based explosives.
<br/>
<br/>Misconception 2. That a FGNW used a fission trigger (which also requires a large conventional charge for compression). Both of these cannot be silent and there are no sounds in the audio record to support fission ignitions - let alone fission triggers for FGNW).
<br/>
<br/>The elements and decay elements of fission undeniably measured in the dust by USGS is what suggests that fission was involved. Yes, my theory is that a conventional shaped-charge was used to initiate the fission process.
<br/>
<br/>Agreed that this starter charge would not have been silent, but it was a shaped-charged and wasn't using the medium of air to transmit its energy; it was audible but muted. Once the fission process started, its nature doesn't have to suggest loudness. [The fission process is not used to change air pressure to destroy, which would be loud. The fission process creates the heat for fusion. Is fission loud at nuclear power plants?]
<br/>
<br/>An embedded misconception is your claim: "there are no sounds in the audio record to support (fission ignitions.)" Yes, there are. I posted in these discussion a video of the camera guy being run over by the dust cloud to illustrate camera scintillation and real-time evidence of radiation (ba-da-bing.) The early part of the same video captures from ground level a tower being taken down, complete with "boom-boom-boom" in the audio.
<br/>
<br/>September Clues is correct that imagery (and audio) manipulation did happen; there are lots of video recordings with missing or altered audio.
<br/>
<br/>First responders talked about hearing regular explosions, and it was in a cadence they could mentally count -- "boom boom boom". It was not a machine gun [every floor], but every 5th or 10th floor.
<br/>
<br/>A related side-note to AE9/11Truth and their promotion of NT. NT (mixed with something having brisance to created the observed pulverization) would ~not~ have been silent and would have been louder than my FGNW hypothesis for energy transfer reasons alone.
<br/>
<br/>So the more you promote the muted audio signatures of 9/11, the more you rule out NT and rule in FGNW. Keep it up, and thank you for the assist.
<br/>
<br/>// part 1/2
<br/>
<br/>Part 2/2
<br/>
<br/>Misconception 3. That the FGNW detonation would produce neutrons where 90 percent of the energy would be absorbed in the first concrete slab -- leaving only 10 percent of the FGNW energy for the next slab up, leaving only 1 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up, leaving only 0.1 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up, leaving only 0.01 percent of the FGNW neutron energy for the slab next slab up etc.
<br/>
<br/>"Misconceptions embedded within misconceptions." Let me set aside that this exact 90% false argument has already been addressed in another thread under this same posting. Let us set aside that it looks deceitful that you didn't read my rebuttal that advanced the discussion to a new level and put the ball squarely back into your court on your faulty analysis. [Maybe you missed the FB notification that you had been mentioned in the comment. It happens.] Let's ignore that you chose the wrong grade concrete (3.2 g/cm^3 instead of 2.2 g/cm^3) in coming up with the fictitious 90% absorption in the first 10 cm concrete slab.
<br/>
<br/>You brought into the discussion a logorithmic plotting of percentage transmission of fission neutron dose against shielding thickness in cm. You have yet to explain what "Neutron Dose" is. This is important and could determine whether or not this graph is even relevant to the discussion. That is your task, not mine.
<br/>
<br/>Energy and duration are key.
<br/>
<br/>Misconception: Owing to how 1st thru 3rd generation nuclear devices typically operate -- sudden and instantaneous ignition, energy release, then cool down --, it is easy to associate this with FGNW. The very concept of tritium pellets (from the book <i>"Tritium on Ice"</i> and the USA's nuclear policies) implies nuclear weapon's techniques not just to limit the magnitude of the release but also to prolong the duration of the release or to create a pulsed-release.
<br/>
<br/>I suspect that this MCNP calculation is not relevant for energies of the "neutron dose" at or around the energies needed to deform, melt, or vaporize the material of the shielding.
<br/>
<br/>I have no idea what the energy release duration of a single tritium pellet would be in a FGNW. Whether achieved by a single tritium pellet or through pulsing (more pellets), an energy release duration in the tenths of a second for a single FGNW would literally "blow right through your graph". Regardless of whether we use 60% or 90% neutron absorption for the 10 cm of lightweight WTC concrete in the first slab, the energy involved are huge and instantly create the effects known as ablating and spalling. Suddenly that slab doesn't exist anymore as a cohesive whole in the path of the neutron beam, and the next slab in the line of fire receives the incident high-energy neutron. This process continues for subsequent concrete slabs until the neutron source consumes its fuel and stops releasing neutrons. Elapsed time is still imperceptible to humans.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/199/3/032056/pdf">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/199/3/032056/pdf</a>
<br/>"It can be concluded that the neutron and photon shielding properties of any type of concrete depend strongly on the particle type, ENERGY, as well as the material density and atomic composition. In order to select an appropriate concrete as shielding material, all this parameters should be considered thoroughly."
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "I posed questions in previous comments also."
<br/>
<br/>I answered those already and had tagged you.
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha3xBaHQ_qzQov-RnOgrNbZmkZVzmoupwF5IrXwASDYCdxo7C1Jm40EK8m7wtTmJRVsemLMTpuWnYalzu6EEHwYk30Cebumqc-prTFWk5fWyWbyaIjN9hUZ-aCyTnNTve7D3ZZthL8Vv0/s1600/FissionNeutronTransmission.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="767" data-original-width="593" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha3xBaHQ_qzQov-RnOgrNbZmkZVzmoupwF5IrXwASDYCdxo7C1Jm40EK8m7wtTmJRVsemLMTpuWnYalzu6EEHwYk30Cebumqc-prTFWk5fWyWbyaIjN9hUZ-aCyTnNTve7D3ZZthL8Vv0/s320/FissionNeutronTransmission.jpg" width="247" /></a></div>
<p>You wrote: "I look forward to your clarifications and consistent hypothesis."
<br/>
<br/>Glad that my clarifications above came promptly, so you didn't have to wait for my forthcoming opus.
<br/>
<br/>As for a consistent hypothesis? Where my FGNW hypothesis is ~inconsistent~ would take some nuclear physicists working on weapons or military nuclear weapons experts to explain details... without such an act triggering strict non-disclosure agreements having penalties of treason. Other smart people who studied physics more recently as part of some degree and without NDAs can help refine important nuclear details.
<br/>
<br/>Where my FGNW hypothesis already ~is~ consistent? It explains a much wider spectrum of (anomalous) evidence than NT has, because NT cannot. [Ho-hum: meteorite, arcs, steel doobies, duration of under-rubble hot-spots, spalling-to-dust of concrete, vehicle damage on West Broadway and car park.]
<br/>
<br/>Whereas you can rightfully chide me for the missing-in-action (in-progress) review of your dust analysis (web page) as part of my 2020 FGNW 9/11 opus, no need to hold your breath! Right here in Facebook under a posting relating directly to your work and within the first 12 top-level comments, you were tagged, dear Mr. Wayne Coste. Section-by-section from your work, each comment addressed specific concerns on various pillars in your work that your beliefs rest on, and if found shakey, ought to inspire a re-assessment of beliefs and maybe changes in tune. Do you have the capacity to acknowledge the conflicts and the mistakes (in your work)? Can you change your mind?
<br/>
<br/>So next week when I am skiing and cannot further this particular discussion, remember that those other balls have been sitting in your court for quite some time now, love. "I look forward to your clarifications and consistent hypothesis."
<br/>
<br/>In fact, let us prioritize which ball you hit first on your to-do list. I posted two NIST videos of the WTC steel in the scrap yards. Between the two videos, I identified four time-stamps. Your task is to hypothesize and scientifically speculate how NT would have been positioned in the towers to achieve those anomalous samples depicted at the time stamps. And if impossible or improbable or illogical from a logistics, auditory, or any other point of view, then please perform your service to truth by acknowledging this also. Let's see how objective that you can truly be.
<br/>
<br/>The other balls in your court, the other top-level comments on specific sections of your work? Work through them one at a time next week without fear of me interrupting. Do it at your pace, and there'll be a ton of acceptable excuses for not finishing. The problem you face is that if you continue to ignore the valid criticism of your work that you requested (quoted in the posting that anchors this), this weakness grows in its ability to ding your work, your sincerity, and your character.
<br/>
<br/>Certain depth and pattern are emerging.
<br/>
<br/>I appreciate the opportunities our discussion affords me in learning things that I did not know before, and being able to apply them properly to my FGNW hypothesis. {Spalling and neutron transmission absorption, oh my!)
<br/>
<br/>// part 2/2
</p>
</div><!-- section 460 -->
<a name="x461"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x461" class="tiny">x461</a>
Chris LaPonsey : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_461');">struck a nerve</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-10</p>
<div id="sect_461" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/?multi_permalinks=644582302746019¬if_id=1578660953004306¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif">https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/?multi_permalinks=644582302746019¬if_id=1578660953004306¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif</a>
<br/>2020-01-10
<br/>
<br/>Chris LaPonsey
<br/>Chris LaPonsey Damn Max you must have struck a nerve cause they got rid of your post.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 461 -->
<a name="x462"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x462" class="tiny">x462</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_462');">algorithms determine</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-10</p>
<div id="sect_462" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr Chris LaPonsey, I don't follow, "got rid of my post"? When active comments peter out, fb algorithms use that to determine whether or not it should appear in various feeds. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 462 -->
<a name="x463"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x463" class="tiny">x463</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_463');">your last comment to any of the threads under this posting was last year</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-10</p>
<div id="sect_463" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, your last comment to any of the threads under this posting was last year. Given that the posting itself and the first 10 or so threads under it related directly to YOUR work and your no-nukes premise and those threads took YOUR premise apart section by section, you owe it to your premise and your reputation to defend it legitimately, properly, and fairly.
<br/>... Unless, of course, your premise isn't genuine and you aren't sincere, which would be the logical conclusion from any latter-day lurker-readers of your "performance" here.
<br/>Let me assure you, my treatment of the topic and your work isn't finished. And your lackadaisical efforts to address any of the major section criticisms is not going to go away. No. It'll be expanded into other internet realms and won't be left to FB's algorithms to push out of the way. Consider this the rough draft that we are still honing. But if left in this present raw form, the assessment of you won't be positive. Hence this ping notification so that you can "pull your failing grade up."
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 463 -->
<a name="x464"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x464" class="tiny">x464</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_464');">say whatever bad things you want about me</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-10</p>
<div id="sect_464" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Please say whatever bad things you want about me. I actually don't care what you post -- or what your opinion is of me.
<br/>With that said, I thought you were going to create a new comprehensive document that covered everything related to your FGNW hypothesis.
<br/>I stopped responding here because it appeared you were contradicting yourself from post-to-post and I never knew what you meant.
<br/>Please post your complete theory that, I expect, is not internally contradictory.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 464 -->
<a name="x465"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x465" class="tiny">x465</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_465');">wrong impression on several fronts</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-10</p>
<div id="sect_465" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Wayne Coste, I apologize for having given you the wrong impression on several fronts. First and foremost, you seem to be chomping on the bit to get my 2020 FGNW Opus.
<br/>
<br/>The bad news is that this opus has not suffered enough procrastination while the missing pieces percolate in my mind. Worse news is that the opus won't be presenting a significant amount of new information, except analysis of AE9/11Truth's "nuclear blasts" and your work, and wordsmithing and organization changes.
<br/>
<br/>However, the good news is -- if you have been reading my old FGNW blog postings -- you already know where my opus is heading, the material that it will re-purpose, and the references that substantiate it! Yeah!
<br/>
<br/>The really good news is that our efforts here -- my first 10 or so comments under the posting about your "no-nukes" premise -- analyzes that very premise, section-by-section. So although Facebook has been a distracting time-suck, the sucked-out-of-me labors built the framework for the chapters in my opus on your work. You've helped me hone my FGNW position. [Thank you!]
<br/>
<br/>... And if you take these earnest attempts at rational discussion in a serious manner... "This is varsity 1st string, A-game time, Mr. Coste. ... OCD-me, oh my! I'm a serious debate opponent on this FGNW hobby-horse of mine, and come prepared."
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: <i>"I stopped responding here because it appeared you were contradicting yourself from post-to-post and I never knew what you meant."</i>
<br/>
<br/>Maybe the above is one of the fronts where I gave you the wrong impression.
<br/>
<br/>Except I wrote a two part novelle not only addressing your misconceptions, but also encouraging you to use the end-of-year holiday time and this FB forum to defend your work.
</p>
<blockquote><p><br/>+++ begin quote
<br/>
<br/>Whereas you can rightfully chide me for the missing-in-action (in-progress) review of your dust analysis (web page) as part of my 2020 FGNW 9/11 opus, no need to hold your breath! Right here in Facebook under a posting relating directly to your work and within the first 12 top-level comments, you were tagged, dear Mr. Wayne Coste. Section-by-section from your work, each comment addressed specific concerns on various pillars in your work that your beliefs rest on, and if found shakey, ought to inspire a re-assessment of beliefs and maybe changes in tune. [...]
<br/>
<br/>So next week when I am skiing and cannot further this particular discussion, remember that those other balls have been sitting in your court for quite some time now, love. "I look forward to your clarifications and consistent hypothesis."
<br/>
<br/>In fact, let us prioritize which ball you hit first on your to-do list. I posted two NIST videos of the WTC steel in the scrap yards. Between the two videos, I identified four time-stamps. Your task is to hypothesize and scientifically speculate how NT would have been positioned in the towers to achieve those anomalous samples depicted at the time stamps.
<br/>
<br/>+++ end quote</p></blockquote>
<p>You wrote: "Please say whatever bad things you want about me. I actually don't care what you post -- or what your opinion is of me."
<br/>
<br/>This is precisely one of the fronts where I may have given you the wrong impression.
<br/>
<br/>I don't need to write "bad things about you." Your "no-nukes" work is on trial. Badness found therein and not addressed, reflects on you and your reputation. Your defense of your work and overall performance here?
<br/>
<br/>Repeating your words: "I stopped responding here because it appeared you were contradicting yourself from post-to-post and I never knew what you meant."
<br/>
<br/>On second viewing in context, this is a clever weasel move, if not a lie. I've been actually fairly consistent with the exception of where our discussions modified my understanding; as a sincere and rational thinker, I'm allowed to evolve.
<br/>
<br/>What has been consistent with you has been an ability to mischaracterize and malframe statements from me. Post-to-post, it was not "me contradicting myself" but instead "me contradicting your purposeful misunderstanding."
<br/>
<br/>You wrote that you don't care what ~my~ opinion is of ~you~. Fair enough, and vice versa. But what you should really care about is the opinions of lurker-readers who discover this conversation [here & elsewhere.] So far, I'm sure "weasel" comes to their minds even before I psy-op name-dropped it in this hypnotic assertion. And then that valid character assessment blurs into "insincerity" and "not discussing in good faith", and begins to reek of agency agenda-toting.
<br/>
<br/>Becomes a rather solid data point. Your concern should be the trend line any astute reader would draw from this data point to your data points in other 9/11 realms (Pentagon, Shanksville).
<br/>
<br/>Questions asked before: Do you have the capacity to acknowledge the conflicts and the mistakes (in your work)? Can you change your mind?
<br/>
<br/>The actions of agents as more of an "inaction" or fall-thru default provide answers to these questions with "no." Whereas it may take me real-time weeks to experience the totality of your "inaction" in defending your premise, lurker-readers (here and where this discussion gets re-purposed) won't have to suffer for nearly as long to come to their conclusions.
<br/>
<br/>//</p>
</div><!-- section 465 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part14 -->
<hr>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Expand All</b> Chapters</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All</b> Chapters</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Subsections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Subsections</a></p>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-14379506784923578332019-12-22T12:12:00.000-08:002020-01-28T07:17:36.335-08:00Remnants of Truth & Shadows<!-- <h1>Remnants of Truth & Shadows</h1>
<h2>Maxwell C. Bridges</h2>
<p>2020-01-22</p>
-->
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 1000;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function getURLParam(strParamName){
var strReturn = "";
var strHref = window.location.href;
if ( strHref.indexOf("?") > -1 ){
var strQueryString = strHref.substr(strHref.indexOf("?")).toLowerCase();
var aQueryString = strQueryString.split("&");
for ( var iParam = 0; iParam < aQueryString.length; iParam++ ){
if (aQueryString[iParam].indexOf(strParamName.toLowerCase() + "=") > -1 ){
var aParam = aQueryString[iParam].split("=");
strReturn = aParam[1];
// alert(strReturn);
break;
}
}
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget == "-false-") {
areaHideAll("sect_");
sectionToggle('sect_part1');
sectionToggle('sect_part2');
sectionToggle('sect_part3');
sectionToggle('sect_part4');
sectionToggle('sect_part5');
sectionToggle('sect_part6');
sectionToggle('sect_part7');
sectionToggle('sect_part8');
sectionToggle('sect_part9');
sectionToggle('sect_part10');
sectionToggle('sect_part11');
sectionToggle('sect_part12');
sectionToggle('sect_part13');
sectionToggle('sect_part14');
sectionToggle('sect_part15');
sectionToggle('sect_part16');
sectionToggle('sect_part17');
sectionToggle('sect_part18');
sectionToggle('sect_part19');
sectionToggle('sect_part20');
window.location.hash;
} else {
areaShowAll('sect_part');
areaShowAll('sect_');
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
blockquote {
/* font-style: italic;
background-color: #eeeeee; */
padding: 5px;
}
.outing {
background-color: red;
color: white;
font-weight: bold;
}
.tiny {
color: white;
font-size: 6pt;
text-decoration: none;
}
p.image, img.image {
width: 60%;
text-align: center;
border: none;
}
-->
</style>
<!-- Start the page here -->
<p>Although I was in exile from Truth & Shadows, I was able to check in from time-to-time.
I caught passages written by others worthy of preservation and response.
Alas, my responses were written but had to wait for publication and exposure until now,
except what could reach participants through email. </p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Expand All</b> Chapters</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All</b> Chapters</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Subsections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Subsections</a></p>
<hr>
<a name="x1"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part3');">Chapter 1:
Truth & Shadows from Exile</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part3" style="display: block;">
<p>WordPress went on a censuring spree and de-commissioned Mr. Craig McKee's Truth & Shadows.
He was given the opportunity to download his data and re-purpose in a blog hosted elsewhere.
TruthAndShadows.wordpress.com became TruthAndShadows.com. When the URL is changed
accordingly, most links take you to the proper article.
However, the comment numbers that were valid for WordPress and part of my URLs,
are not valid in the new environment.
</p>
<a name="x2"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x2" class="tiny">x2</a>
Daniel Noel : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">drawing 9/11 activists to this truth</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2017/12/29/chandlers-failed-pentagon-methodology/#comment-50300">January 2, 2018 at 4:19 pm</a>
<br/>
<br/>A few good points, thank you. Indeed, much energy has been spent over the proposition that F77 hit the Pentagon as advertised. It is unfortunate that the 9/11 analysts who argue either side of it spend little energy arguing the importance of drawing 9/11 activists to this truth. What problem are causing the 9/11 scholars who defend the erroneous position? Assuming the false belief they promote would be marginalized, what opportunity would appear? What would be its impact on 9/11 activism? On the world at large? Would there exist some other 9/11-related enigma that would be easier to solve and would carry a bigger impact? The answer to these questions would justify—or not—fanning the argument until the correct viewpoint would prevail.
<br/>
<br/>Love,
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name="x3"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x3" class="tiny">x3</a>
David Hazan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_3');">demanding the truth</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_3" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
<br/><a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2017/12/29/chandlers-failed-pentagon-methodology/#comment-50305">January 2, 2018 at 9:30 pm</a>
<br/>
<br/>As long as people, truthers, private citizens keep mistaking their main responsibility of <b>demanding the truth</b> with actually having to <b>discover and prove the truth</b>, especially when 99.9% of them are not trained in any of the required specialized subjects for proper scientific analyses, we shall always be “seeking” the truth and never finding it… Let alone ultimately using the said “truth” against the perps.
<br/>
<br/>When, in the land of most advanced science and scientists and supercomputers, we’ve had to have a physics instructor to prove the towers’ free fall using a classroom physics “toolbox” to state what is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and a brain to think, I’d say our main problem as a society is not really not knowing what happened, but more like not wanting to know what happened.
<br/>
<br/>As far as the impact of “knowing” on the 9/11 activism and the world at large.. I feel that these are false concerns and misplaced priorities, similar to the bizarre concern over being embarrassed should the government produce footage of a 757…. I’d say energies would be much better spent if we were to have a ‘movement” to demand this footage. Can’t speak for anyone else, but I would be thrilled if the truth finally came out even if I had a giant egg on my face. But I’m not holding my breath… we are light years away from such a thing happening.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 3 -->
<a name="x4"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x4" class="tiny">x4</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">feeding this disagreement intentionally and purposefully</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb: These are two versions of an email <b>~not~</b> sent to Mr. Mckee.}</p>
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br/>
<br/>I hope that you enjoyed your holidays and have a good start into the new year.
<br/>
<br/>I was well into composing an end-of-the-year email to you when two things happened. Mr. David Hazan posted his wonderful comment. And I learned about <a href="http://www.911history.de">http://www.911history.de</a> and how close & parallel (& in some ways further along) it is to my own FGNW premises.
<br/>
<br/>At any rate, Mr. Hazan wrote many fine words about the Pentagon discussions and its participants, many of which could be applied to FGNW.
</p>
<blockquote><p>For a group of well meaning people who are presumably working towards the same end goal, no matter how contentious the subject, there are always ways either to come to an agreement, or to ultimately agree to disagree and move on to trying to establish or discover aspects of the event in question that everybody can get behind.
<br/>
<br/>...
<br/>
<br/>Would it then be a fair assumption that one of the two parties is essentially creating and feeding this disagreement intentionally and purposefully in order to manufacture these road blocks? One could certainly jump to that conclusion and start dismissing the other side’s arguments. It is one of the easiest cop outs, and is the outcome desired by the deceivers. But, most importantly, it is a knee jerk reaction that ultimately prevents debate and possible resolution.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, exactly! Apply the above to FGND!
<br/>
<br/>You wrote yourself in your last correspondence (2017-09-29):
<blockquote><p>Whether it is right or fair, the introduction of these [nuclear 9/11] hypotheses into the discussion will destroy any discussion because it leads to an inevitable fight over why I am allowing "disinformation."</p></blockquote>
<p>This game is right out of the 25 rules of a disinformationalist. Notice how the field of battle has been shifted from the merits/demerits of the actual premise, assumes it is disinformation, and parries into accusing you of allowing disinformation. And a good portion of that criticism/pressure would come at you off-forum.
<br/>
<br/>It would be one thing to then and there prove something wrong with specifics and/or substantiating links and have leeway to justify calling it "disinformation." It is quite another to have hypnotic suggestion and nothing else as to the disinfo label. [This is why "conspiracy" brand Dr. Fetzer is so important to the PTB. His "get-out-of-assassination" strategy -- similar to Alex Jones -- is to embrace as wide a spectrum of conspicy theories as possible and to have several bad disinfo premises (like NPT @ WTC, holograms) to discredit himself and by association all other conspiracy premises in his stable of hobby-horses.]
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Fetzer's embracing of 9/11 having nuclear components is both good news and bad news for me. The good news is that the topic has become important enough with enough details collected by others to merit having it steered by an agent. The bad news for me is that association with Dr. Fetzer gives it a black eye.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Hazan added the following quote to his posting on your blog.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…." ~ N. Chomsky</p></blockquote>
<p>You were kicked out of 9/11 Blogger for the Pentagon stance; I was not even granted admission when my (unripe) nuclear suspicions were made known to the approving admin.
<br/>
<br/>While it should be true that postulating the existence of FGNW, I offer the paid disinfo agents an attack point. In practice, it is not true. Nuclear 9/11 is the topic they are not allowed to talk about, period. They'll mock it, attack me, but they will never go into specifics, quote from one of my sources, and have a reasoned explanation for why it is wrong. Their attack point is limited to Dr. Gsponer only being able to write "speculative forward-looking" FGNW, not about what is current day state-of-the-art & operational.
<br/>
<br/>In fact, this "nuclear discussion avoidance" is so wide-spread inside and outside 9/11 Truther camps that it becomes an anomaly in and of itself. Every where I went to have a reasoned and rational discussion -- disciplined by taking the high road, using respectful honorifics, substantiating my views, researching into their sources & discovering errors --, my discussion opponents went to greater and greater efforts not to. It is as if: "To even venture into my (Gsponer) source, validates it." So they don't go into it beyond mockery and flame wars, and they'd just as soon ban me.
<br/>
<br/>Among the many fronts and tactics that I'm fought on, I have the NT agenda-defenders, the OCT gravity agenda-defenders, the Woodsian agenda-defenders too stilted to admit she wasn't an end-station, and the mal-framers of nuclear means (e.g., deep underground nukes). If the participants were earnest:
<br/>
<br/>- There would be significantly more alliances and marriages, like Woodsian DEW with nukes (FGNW).
<br/>- There would be more rescuing and re-purposing of nuggets of truth.
<br/>- There would be more acknowledgment of weaknesses in even our own premises.
<br/>- There would be more changing of opinions based on new analysis.
</p>
<p>{mcb: This is the second version of an email <b>~not~</b> sent to Mr. Mckee.}</p>
<p>Dear Mr. McKee, Two of my super-powers are (1) persistance and (2) being naive & trusting [until given reason not to be.] Obviously, my persistance super-power coupled with being an earnest seeker of Truth has brought my research to FGNW conclusions that I doggedly defend [until given reason not to.] Alas, my second super-power seems to have given you too much benefit of the doubt and misjudged you.
<br/>
<br/>In your last communication with me (2017-09-29), you claimed: <i>"I am more concerned with how we spread this truth than I am about internal intellectual debates [e.g., on the WTC destruction.]"</i> Exactly how do you prove this concern? Facebook battles. And an obsessive compulsive promotion of no planes at the Pentagon that out-does and overshadows my humble FGNW efforts. Who's the crazy one?
<br/>
<br/>We both are, Mr. McKee. Crazy fanaticals about Truth fighting the nobel online intellectual battles to influence hearts & minds to bring positive change to the world.
<br/>
<br/>[BTW: Here is a major red flag. ~THE~ David Chandler who gave us so many videos of high school physics on 9/11 proving controlled demolition. ~HE~ is the one (with a reputation) given you difficulties as he agenda-defends OCT Pentagon. Well, ~HE~ is also the one given a free-copy of Dr. Wood's textbook in hopes that he would help me debunk it -- good, bad, and ugly (before Mr. Rogue screwed the same pooch) -- and he with the qualifications refused. Why? Again, closer to the truth. He doesn't even go there and with specifics prove it wrong.]
<br/>
<br/>I took a page out of your playbook and spent a couple months in various 9/11 Facebook groups (like Debunkers vs Truthers, Fair and Civil Debates, Andrew Johnson's Woodsian group). Talk about infestation with agents, bots, and multiple personas! To the degree that you received resistance and attacks in your hobby-horse Pentagon area, my FGNW hobby-horse got it worse... but weak, without specifics, nothing to make me doubt.
<br/>
<br/>Is my FGNW disinformation? El-oh-eh, if Dr. Fetzer is practically in that nuclear camp, maybe it is.
<br/>
<br/>Seriously, you can't answer that question, Mr. McKee, and this is the area where I've misjudged you. I thought you more of an objective journalist, an eager learner, and sincere seeker of truth as I am. I was wrong. Given our parallel political outlooks and agreement on so many things [except sports and FNGW], our love of language, and superior abilities in holding rational, reasoned, researched debates, I was hoping for a Franklin-Jefferson style intellectual exchange. You disappoint.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>And further, I have gone on record as saying that I think this discussion has become counter-productive. We know the towers were blown up/destroyed, and we know this was not the result of plane impacts and fires. This is what is important to me. I am more concerned with how we spread this truth than I am about internal intellectual debates. If others wish to focus on these things, then I can't tell them not to. </p></blockquote>
<p>Your Pentagon hobby-horse is only going to go so far in <i>"spreading this 9/11 truth"</i>. The Elephant hobby-horse in the room that would become the hot-button issue to spread the truth like a California wild-fire is (as a starting point) sincere, rational, reasoned discussion of FGNW. The US government needed a threshold of civilian casualties to nudge the American public into supporting its global agenda. Well, 9/11 nuclear anything in the public consciousness is the threshold needed to change things on a large scale.
<br/>
<br/>Because you won't give me a FGNW corner on your respected blog, won't let me participate, banned me out of fear of what my opponents would do, you seem to fit into the "nuclear 9/11 discussion avoidance" camp.
<br/>
<br/>You won't even do FGNW review & critique as a personal favor to me.
<br/>
<br/>But, owning to the weaknesses of my super-powers, I persistently try again. Attached is an HTML file with a shorter version of my premise (still DRAFT). Save it locally, then double-click or drag into your browser. It has Javascript to open the sections.
<br/>
<br/>This is probably less than half the size of my previous work, about 1/3 the sections, and tries to make the prima facie case for FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>I would appreciate any comments, feedback, and criticism that you might have.
<br/>
<br/>Yes, I do probably hope to convince you (a) to publish a form of it after appropriate edits on your blog and (b) to let me defend it as an active participant. At the very least, you'll have a destination for nuclear comments so that the insuing disinfo flame wars won't pollute comments to other postings. At the most, you (and discussion participants) will have validated or debunked legitimately the FGNW premise, as well as many others.
<br/>
<br/>So, Mr. McKee. Did I misjudge your ability to see the truth, to be objective, to be fair, to be a journalist?
<br/>
<br/>I hope you have a wonderful 2018.
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
</p>
</p>
</div><!-- section 4 -->
<a name="x5"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x5</a>
Adam Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_5');">disinformation you should avoid</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-07</p>
<div id="sect_5" style="display: block;">
<p>
ruffadam
<br/><a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2018/01/06/drew-depalmas-911-awakening/#comment-50409">January 7, 2018 at 11:42 am</a>
<br/>
<br/>Drew DePalma I am sorry for your loss and yet I am glad to see that you have decided to take on the big lie told to us all on 9/11. I salute you for stepping forward into this struggle for truth and justice. Many of us have acquired over the years a vast knowledge base about the crime of 9/11 and all of us would love to pass on what we know to you and help you and all of humanity destroy the lies surrounding that fateful day so many years ago. You will have to expect to be approached by many good researchers along with many agents of disinformation as you navigate your way to the most dangerous truth in the world, the truth about 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>My recommendation to you Drew is that you stick with A+E at first and learn what you can from them and then begin to carefully branch out from there. Many liars and agents are going to descend upon you Drew to mislead you, discourage you, confuse you, and absorb your time and energy. The reason they will choose you is because you are a 9/11 victim family member and because you are new to the voluminous information about the crime. I can recommend a few really good sources for you to study and warn you about some of the larger disinformation themes surrounding 9/11 but ultimately it is you that must find the way to the truth. That having been said I recommend the following to start you down the right path.
<br/>
<br/>Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth – Best source for Information about the controlled demolition of the WTC towers and building 7.
<br/>
<br/>Citizen Investigation Team – Video – National Security Alert – Best information about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. CIT also has an extensive research forum packed with information.
<br/>
<br/>Cristopher Bollyn – Author and Journalist – Will fill you in a great deal about who did 9/11 and why.
<br/>
<br/>There are many films you should watch about 9/11 I can recommend as well.
<br/>
<br/>People and disinformation you should avoid like the plague:
<br/>
<br/>Judy Wood and directed energy weapon arguments.
<br/>Jim Fetzer and mini nuke arguments.
<br/>Hologram plane arguments.
<br/>Avoid all corporate media information about 9/11 because it is virtually all a lie.
<br/>
<br/>There are many videos out there that promote bogus disinformation which you should avoid. Just ask me and I will give you a few to see and a few to not see.
<br/>
<br/>That should get you started down the right path but I want to again warn you that there is an absolutely massive disinformation campaign in place to thwart the 9/11 truth movement involving thousands of people in media, government, and the truth movement itself has been penetrated by many disinformation operatives. 9/11 truth is VERY dangerous to the powers that be Drew and they will try to stop you, slow you, discourage you, and mislead you in particular. Be warned Drew, this is no joke, they will assign people to you and they may have already approached you. Contact me any time if you want to talk about any of this. My specialty in 9/11 research has to do with the cover-up and the ongoing disinformation campaign so I can help guide you to avoid some major pitfalls along this journey. Good luck to you Drew. Reach me at ruffadam2003@yahoo.com.
<br/>
<br/>*** Note to Craig Mckee – If you can pass this message along to Drew or tell me how I can contact him I would appreciate it and I authorize my phone and e-mail to be given to him. Every new truther should have a few mentors. ***
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 5 -->
<a name="x6"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x6" class="tiny">x6</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">shitty advice given to the 9/11 newby</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-08</p>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br/>
<br/>Obviously I'm dissatisfied with the shitty advice you gave the 9/11 newby. You wrote:
<br/>
<br/>"People and disinformation you should avoid like the plague:
<br/>Judy Wood and directed energy weapon arguments.
<br/>Jim Fetzer and mini nuke arguments."
<br/>
<br/>Classic strawman disinformation move, Mr. Ruff. You don't have the objectivity to debunk (or validate) directed energy weapons, be they nuclear or not. Didn't do any research; couldn't be bother to read mine. All you can do is associate a valid premise with players having issues. Dr. Fetzer's market brand is "conspiracy theories" and is how he supplements his retirement income. Dr. Wood was forced into a cul de sac.
<br/>
<br/>Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has issues. They plug NT left-and-right even when supposedly debunking DEW.
<br/>
<br/>Wrap your mind around this FACT: NT was ~not~ found in the dust everywhere. Period. Go back to your sources and learn.
<br/>
<br/>Three things were found: (1) iron spheres that they attribute to a NT chemical reaction, but that's not the only mechanism that can generate such. (2) Aluminum-Iron flakes. They weren't "energetic". They were a result of the corrision of the aluminum cladding with the steel wall assemblies that (together with the asbestos problem) made the towers white elephants in terms of fixing, giving Silverstein even more motivation to pull an insurance scam. (3) USGS documents not only all of the trace elements of nuclear devices, but also their expected decay. And the exact same report has all the elements of NUCLEAR COVER-UP because these elements were only mentioned in the tables, not any discussion.
<br/>
<br/>Kind of like: the 9/11 Commission report never mentioning WTC-7. The NIST reports on WTC-1 and WTC-2 stopping at the initiation of annihilation but not addressing the anomalies after. The NIST report on WTC-7 averaging together 3 stages of annihilation so they could say the average was slower than free-fall. The EPA telling everyone the air was safe. (Coincidence that neither Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, nor Dr. Fetzer found the public & peer-reviewed work from Dr. Gsponer on FGNW.)
<br/>
<br/>Geez, and Dr. Jones states "something maintain the hot-spots, not just NT." And this was after Dr. Jones back-pedaled and said NT was mixed with RDX (or something else) in order to get the brissance for pulverization. Did he ever provide calculations on amounts required? No. Dr. Harrit did, and the calculated amounts for the iron spheres was obscene. And this is before any calculations into unspent & overkill amounts required to maintain under-rubble hot-spots for months. Can you say "obscenely massive" and a logistics hurdle?
<br/>
<br/>The following has minor issues, but I'm in contact with the author. I'm having my "ah-ha moments" too, learning where I might have been wrong but re-enforcing where I was right. (I'm also pointing out to him where he or his sources were wrong. Example: cars were not zapped at the bridge; they were towed there.)
<br/>
<br/>http://www.911history.de
<br/>
<br/>Got your "radiation = nukes" covered, man. Aside from ailments, we now have on the very scene of 9/11 in the dust clouds that over-ran camera operations evidence of camera scintillation: "A flash or sparkle of light when struck by a charged particle or high-energy photon."
<br/>
<br/>Like clockwork you make an infrequent posting on T&S and beat your chest about what an objective truther would do, yet you yourself screwed the pooch on being able to claim that about yourself in the realm of 9/11 nuclear DEW.
<br/>
<br/>Be mature, reasoned, rational, and objective, Mr. Ruff. Your future options on the nuclear 9/11 subject are: (1) Debunk it legitimately, (2) Validate nuggets of truth, or (3) STFU if you ain't willing to do the work. Otherwise, you contribute to disinformation.
<br/>
<br/>P.S. Ain't nothing wrong with being a bit OCD. Gives me the persistence to discover truth that you lack.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x7" class="tiny">x7</a>
David Hazan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_7');">enlightening to go back in time</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-12</p>
<div id="sect_7" style="display: block;">
<p>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
<br/><a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2018/04/08/from-the-vault/#comment-51854">April 12, 2018 at 12:30 pm</a>
<br/>
<br/>We get bombarded, from a million different directions, by news, data points, information, propaganda, analysis and opinion on a daily basis. So much of it that even a very interested person who might invest a great deal of time into trying to process all this information ends up failing to separate wheat from chaff, and connect the dots accurately and correctly in real time. Many moving targets of history move so fast that there is really no time to even understand it before it is already history (and usually too late.) And there are other processes in history that unfold so slowly, we barely notice that it is even moving, let alone guess its direction and destination before it is too late.
<br/>
<br/>In this context, I have always found it very enlightening to go back in time and read news articles, opinion pieces, watch documentaries, revisit predictions of the future that have come to pass, etc. After all, 20/20 hindsight is a beautiful thing.
<br/>
<br/>Thank you, Craig, for this potpourri of mini articles and unfinished thoughts, and for reminding us where we were, what we thought, what came of it (if anything at all.) Cumulatively, these snippets create a great chance to zoom out and have a better perspective of where we came from, and where we might be going, and hopefully learn from it all.
<br/>
<br/>And, in particular, what spoke to me the most is your painful attempt to explain to your loved ones and people around you how you, and myself by association, have not gone mad, lost our screws, ‘gone off the deep end”… Well, come to think of it, I suppose the jury is still out on that one! ;-}]
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 7 -->
<a name="x8"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x8" class="tiny">x8</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">looking back can be quite revealing</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-12</p>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: block;">
<p>Craig McKee
<br/><a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2018/04/08/from-the-vault/#comment-51876">April 12, 2018 at 5:59 pm</a>
<br/>
<br/>David,
<br/>
<br/>I thank you for that thoughtful reaction to this post. Some of these were causing me guilt because I knew I should have been getting the damn things finished and posted. But for whatever reason, I didn’t get them finished. Some of them deserve to be revisited with more comprehensive treatments. The Omar Khadr case is one I must write about again. It’s too bad that some readers will tend to skip something that seems to be a Canadian story. But it could not be more central to the bogus war on terror.
<br/>
<br/>I’m glad you were affected by the last item. I find one of the most difficult things about doing the kind of research we all do is my seeming inability to convince even those closest to me that I’m not either paranoid or imagining things. I find it quite hurtful at times, in addition to being supremely frustrating.
<br/>
<br/>I also agree that looking back can be quite revealing. I must say that what pleases me is being able to look at something I wrote several years ago and feeling like I can stand by it today. I feel that particularly where the Pentagon and its corresponding disinfo campaign is concerned. I think I caught on to deceptions on this subject back in 2010 and 2011, and all that has happened since has only served to confirm that I was on the right track.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x9" class="tiny">x9</a>
David Hazan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_9');">not many people share my angle</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-13</p>
<div id="sect_9" style="display: block;">
<p>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
<br/><a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2018/04/08/from-the-vault/#comment-51953">April 13, 2018 at 3:10 pm</a>
<br/>
<br/>Over the years, I have painfully discovered that not many people share my angle on this, but the way I see it, being “right” has never really been our real problem in seeking the so called “truth”. And when I say “us”, I don’t mean those of us who agree on everything, but those of us who are simply sincere, have critical thinking skills, and most importantly, who have the intellectual cojones to question authority and groupthink.
<br/>
<br/>From the moment I watched the second tower fall in identical fashion with my bare eyes, it was obvious to me that they were brought down on purpose, and by forces way beyond the two planes. And, from the moment we were fed a nicely packaged “Osama’s Nineteen” script within less than 48 hours, it was equally obvious that those who were feeding us the story were the true perpetrators and beneficiaries.
<br/>
<br/>I am not telling this to show you how “right” or how darn smart I was to figure this out in a matter of days, but to actually tell you how bloody stupid and wrong I was in assuming that this lie was so damn blatant and so damn BIG, that it was a matter of weeks or months before it’d all got exposed, and the “people” would be up in arms demanding justice. Ha, fuckin’ ha, eh?
<br/>
<br/>So, our problem was not really being right or wrong about any one aspect of the whole matter, or whether or not we said or wrote what we could have, or took one position over another… We simply failed to see and comprehend the extent to which “they” would go in pushing, covering up and maintaining the lie, their capabilities of social engineeiring and mass manipulation, their methods of subversion and misdirection… We also failed to recognize the size and the scope of the conspiracy. It was neither a “rogue group” in the government, nor the Israelis, zionists, illuminati, nor the three stooges named DubyaDickAndDon, but it was the entire establishment, all members of Nato an its sphere of influence, the UN, all of the oligarchs, the Vatican, the Russians, the Chinese, and every asshole who chose to BELIEVE or stay quiet whether knowingly or not, whether willingly or not.
<br/>
<br/>And perhaps most importantly, we have failed to understand human and crowd psychology and how easily we can be manipulated… Which rendered us our own worst enemy. As Tao put it, understanding yourself is only half of the equation, and understanding the enemy is the other half. As a “group”, we seem to have failed miserably in both.
<br/>
<br/>I hope you won’t find my words patronizing, but I don’t feel Craig McKee has much to worry about in the shoulda woulda coulda department. (perhaps with the exception of still not kissing and making up with HR1 ;-}])
<br/>
<br/>Thank you for your reply, Craig. I really appreciate it.
</p>
</div><!-- section 9 -->
<a name="x10"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x10" class="tiny">x10</a>
Elias Davidsson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">snippet from T&S Article</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2018/04/20/10-irrefutable-devastating-9-11-facts/#comment-52430">2018-04-21</a></p>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: block;">
<p>7. U.S. authorities have failed to explain why more than 1,100 persons, who were present at the World Trade Center on 9/11, vanished into thin air.
<br/>
<br/>Vast parts of the Twin Towers were literally pulverized as can be seen from video recordings, photos, and testimonies. Of more than 1,100 missing persons, not a single tooth, nail, or bone has been found as of 2011 (See, inter alia, Anemona Hartocollis, “Connecting with lost loved ones, if only by the tips of fingers,” The New York Times, September 11, 2011 [mirrored on www.aldeilis.net/fake/616.pdf]). U.S. authorities have never explained what could have caused more than 1,100 persons to vanish without leaving a trace. They bear the obligation, under human rights law, to determine the reason for such disappearances.
</p>
</div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x11" class="tiny">x11</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_11');">evidence of nuclear components slips out</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2018/04/20/10-irrefutable-devastating-9-11-facts/#comment-52614">2018-04-24</a></p>
<div id="sect_11" style="display: block;">
<p>April 24, 2018 at 9:44 am
<br/>
<br/>Your comment is awaiting moderation.
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. McKee and Mr. Davidsson,
<br/>
<br/>Well done on the article.
<br/>
<br/>Although you won’t approve any of my comments, I usually get to see them in the discussion but flagged as being in the moderation queue. Unusually, that didn’t happen when I posted a comment over the weekend, although I do have the comment ID, so something did happen. I wasn’t getting the comments I subscribed to.
<br/>
<br/>Be that as it may, I’ll repeat. The evidence that 9/11 had nuclear components slips out of all official (and 9/11 TM) sources even known disinformation sources (e.g., government reports). Here is a quote where it slips out of your work.
</p>
<blockquote><p>7. U.S. authorities have failed to explain why more than 1,100 persons, who were present at the World Trade Center on 9/11, vanished into thin air.
<br/>
<br/>Vast parts of the Twin Towers were literally pulverized as can be seen from video recordings, photos, and testimonies. Of more than 1,100 missing persons, not a single tooth, nail, or bone has been found as of 2011 (See, inter alia, Anemona Hartocollis, “Connecting with lost loved ones, if only by the tips of fingers,” The New York Times, September 11, 2011 [mirrored on http://www.aldeilis.net/fake/616.pdf%5D). U.S. authorities have never explained what could have caused more than 1,100 persons to vanish without leaving a trace. They bear the obligation, under human rights law, to determine the reason for such disappearances.</p></blockquote>
<p>What effect would a FGNW have on the human body? With concrete and drywall, it would superheat the residual water to transition immediately into steam, whose rapidly expanding volumetric pressure effectively blows it appart from the insides. The human body would react in a similar manner. Need I remind you of the fragments of body parts that were found on the roofs of adjacent buildings? My latest theory is that a singular but pulsing FGNW could have been dropped down the elevator shaft. Getting such a device up to its steady pulsing at level might have been a significant period of time and could have caused the phenomenon known as “the jumpers.”
<br/>
<br/>Pay attention, Mr. McKee. If you are serious about inspiring public awareness, following and reporting the truth where ever it leads you is an important key. The figurative nuclear fallout could still be experienced today in the halls of Congress and the institutions behind this multi-faceted and complex operation.
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 11 -->
<a name="x12"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x12" class="tiny">x12</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">10 Irrefutable Devestating 9/11 Facts</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2006367319624446">2018-04-30</a></p>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/2006367319624446">2018-04-30</a>
<br/><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2017/12/emails-from-t-exile.html?showComment=1525121289589#c8511270536136333668">2018-04-30</a>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Elias Davidsson and Mr. Craig McKee wrote an interesting article, "10 Irrefutable Devestating 9/11 Facts." Here's Number Seven.
<br/>
<br/>+++ Begin Quote
<br/><i>7. U.S. authorities have failed to explain why more than 1,100 persons, who were present at the World Trade Center on 9/11, vanished into thin air.
<br/>
<br/>Vast parts of the Twin Towers were literally pulverized as can be seen from video recordings, photos, and testimonies. Of more than 1,100 missing persons, not a single tooth, nail, or bone has been found as of 2011... U.S. authorities have never explained what could have caused more than 1,100 persons to vanish without leaving a trace. They bear the obligation, under human rights law, to determine the reason for such disappearances.
<br/></i>
<br/><a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2018/04/20/10-irrefutable-devastating-9-11-facts">https://truthandshadows.com/2018/04/20/10-irrefutable-devastating-9-11-facts</a>
<br/>+++ End Quote
<br/>
<br/>Oooo-uh! Oooo-uh! Oooo-uh! *Waving hands frantacally in air* Pick me! *Jumping up and down* I have a logical explanation. In fact, my logical explanation also explains the reason for two different but related disinformation forks: [A] "the hollow towers theory" [Let's Roll Forums] and [B] "SimVictims" [Clues Forum].
<br/>
<br/>The premise of [A] the hollow towers' theory is that a significant number of floors in both towers were never finished off or occupied. Why? Money and the real estate market for office space. Laws of supply & demand dictated how quickly, and if at all, the remaining floors would have been finished. Too much office space availability would have cratered and cannabalized the NYC real estate market. Towards the time when Silverstein was buying control of the complex, reports suggest the towers were under-occupied. Because WTC records were conveniently destroyed on 9/11, we don't really know the occupancy of the buildings throughout their history. [And we do know that WTC was a front and maildrop for many a government company who wouldn't necessarily need completed space.]
<br/>
<br/>Like with Pearl Harbor, a victim count approaching 3,000 was deemed the threshold to sway public opinion into militarily doing whatever the administration desired against "this nation's enemies."
<br/>
<br/>Thus, if the under-occupied WTC is considered a valid nugget of truth from [A], it contributes towards the necessity of [B] the SimVictims theory, which is based on Operation Northwood, rejected by JFK in the 1960's for a false-flag Cuba war. Then and now, innocent victims in the story line help emotionally charge the public, and is easy to stoke by touting the grieving family members (actors) before the media. SimVictims puts aspects of Operation Northwood into the 21st century. Through social media, emotional backstories on a certain number of alleged victims can be created quickly (and prior to the event). Between those heart-wretching backstories and paid-actors for grieving family members, the message is controlled and directed: "For the senseless killing of my (fake) loved one on American soil, let's get those (patsy) bastards (and bomb them back to the stone age while stealing their natural resources)!"
<br/>
<br/>"Extent" and "extremes" in [A] hollow-towers and [B] simVictims contribute to the implosion of their over-arching disinformation vehicles. Namely, [A] hollow towers suggests the extreme that practically nothing except the lobby, sky restaurant, observation deck, and maybe a few strategic floors were ever completed & occupied. [B] The simVictims theory started out strong with many cases of thin social media backstories and instances of photoshop (particularly among the Fire Department and NYPD victims), but then over-reaches and suggests without evidence that ~all~ victims were fake.
<br/>
<br/>High school composition classes taught the lesson to use "extremes" (like "all" or "none") sparingly, because one exception can invalidate the argument. This is in part how [A] and [B] are debunked, but it shouldn't be at the expense of valid nuggets of truth: the towers were under-occupied, and some SimVictims were created.
<br/>
<br/>So why were these [A] & [B] disinformation vehicles created and then deliberately crashed?
<br/>
<br/>Because even as the nuggets of truth from [A] & [B] show deceit in inflating the victim count and reduce the actual victim count, they don't completely eliminate victims or "1,100 persons vanishing without leaving a trace."
<br/>
<br/>Such [A] & [B] disinformation vehicles, however, do distract from the true mechanisms of destruction and how Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) can vanish so many humans.
<br/>
<br/>"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…." ~ N. Chomsky
<br/>
<br/>The prima facie case is made for FGNW below.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>With concrete and drywall, it would instantly superheat the residual water to transition immediately into steam, whose rapidly expanding volumetric pressure effectively blows it apart from the insides. In any video of the WTC towers decimation, behold the pulverization and fountaining dust from the earliest moments of demise.
<br/>
<br/>What effect would a FGNW have on the human body?
<br/>
<br/>The human body is mostly made up of water. Heated water turns to steam that tends to expand in volume. Were a human body in the path of highly energetic neutrons from a FGNW, its water would so suddenly & quickly transition into steam that its expanding volume decimates the body instantly into vapor.
<br/>
<br/>Need I remind you of the fragments of body parts that were found on the roofs of adjacent buildings?
<br/>
<br/>My latest theory is that a singular but pulsing-neutron-upwards FGNW could have been dropped down the elevator shaft. Getting such a device up to its steady-pulsing level might have been a significant period of time and could have caused the phenomenon known as “the jumpers.”
<br/>
<br/>To the 9/11 Truth Movement and its Nano-Thermite (NT) Defenders!
<br/>
<br/>Wrap your mind around this FACT: NT was ~not~ found in the dust everywhere. Period. Go back to your sources and learn.
<br/>
<br/>Three things were found:
<br/>
<br/>(1) A high percentage of tiny iron spheres. The NT disinformation suggests that this could only be a by-product of a NT chemical reaction. Wrong. A FGNW would also generate such.
<br/>
<br/>(2) Aluminum-Iron flakes. The NT disinformation suggests these were "energetic". They weren't. They were a result of the corrision of the aluminum cladding with the steel wall assemblies that (together with the asbestos problem) made the towers white elephants in terms of fixing, giving Silverstein even more motivation to pull an insurance scam.
<br/>
<br/>(3) The United States Geological Survey (USGS) study on the dust documents not only all of the trace elements of nuclear devices, including their expected decay elements. And the exact same report has all the elements of NUCLEAR COVER-UP because these elements were only mentioned in the tables, not in any plain-text discussion.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Jones states "something maintain the hot-spots, not just NT." And this was after Dr. Jones back-pedaled and said NT was mixed with RDX (or something else) in order to get the brissance for pulverization. Did he ever provide calculations on amounts required? No.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Harrit did, and the calculated amounts for the iron spheres was obscene. And this is before any calculations into unspent & overkill amounts required to maintain under-rubble hot-spots for months. Can you say "obscenely massive" and a logistics hurdle for NT to be the primary mechanism?
<br/>
<br/>Not so for FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Craig McKee once wrote:
<br/>
<br/>"Whether it is right or fair, the introduction of these [nuclear 9/11] hypotheses into the discussion will destroy any discussion because it leads to an inevitable fight over why I am allowing 'disinformation.'"
<br/>
<br/>This game is right out of the 25 rules of a disinformationalist. Notice how the field of battle has been shifted from the merits/demerits of the actual FGNW premise, assumes it is disinformation, and parries into accusing you of a dastardly deed (e.g., allowing disinformation.)
<br/>
<br/>A premise has to be debunked before it can be labeled disinformation. I have given more than a good faith effort among the best-of-the-best the 9/11 Truth Movement has to offer to have FGNW debunked. The "no-shows" and "won't-touch-that-with-a-10'-pole" are as notable as those who spectacularly failed simple integrity tests.
<br/>
<br/>Truth was is FGNW's backstop, and seeps out everywhere.
<br/>
<br/>Pay attention. If you are serious about inspiring public awareness, following and reporting the truth where ever it leads you is an important key. The figurative nuclear fallout could still be experienced today in the halls of Congress and the institutions behind this multi-faceted and complex operation.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x13" class="tiny">x13</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_13');">attracting disinfo bots</a></b></p>
<p>2018-05-12</p>
<div id="sect_13" style="display: block;">
<p>2018-05-12 Email</p>
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>I haven't been following Mr. \\][//'s blog. Once every other quarter, I might get a hankering to see if anything new is on his blog(s). Long ago I removed all my subscriptions, except for his two homages to me as an "agitprop disinformant." A premonition yesterday suggested I scope out what he's up to (<a href="https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-1/#comments" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-1/%23comments&source=gmail&ust=1526247700778000&usg=AFQjCNEr94Ch0V1VMrixhQfjlrdiWaKIFw">Electronic Media</a> 2018-04-22).
<br>
<br>
<blockquote<p><strong>Another One Bites the Dust</strong>
<br>
<strong>I have come to the conclusion that Craig McKee is a mole, in cahoots with Jim Fetzer.</strong></p></blockquote>
<p>Wow. Within the subsequent 80 comments, a reader learns from a published confidential email that you saw it and you two had an email exchange.
<br>
<br> Deja Vu. In April, I was distracted by work/travel and by a third encounter with a disinfo bot
(PhantasyPublishing), an amusement park attraction first encountered on T&S. I've documented all three encounters here, (<a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html" target="_blank">Playing Disinfo Games)</a>, notable for just a few things (to spare you its tedium). One aspect, in particular having to do with publishing emails (me) and flawed legal bullying (PP) to have their words from emails removed from my blog.
<br>
<br>It is coincidentally strange that you and Mr. \\][// would be in a situation involving an email, it being labeled CONFIDENTIAL, and having it published by Mr. \\][// anyway.
<br>
<br>From my parallel experience, you don't have any legal footing. You can't one-sided contractually bind an email recipient just by inserting those words. (In my case, efforts from the emails were also lamely put onto their blog, further losing them standing about what is private and public. And then to find that much of their words weren't their words; they were plagiarized by others, sometimes down to the shitty formatting from their copy-and-paste.)
<br>
<br>What you have is an integrity test that Mr. \\][// spectacularly failed! His "No Soul" album cover featuring Mr. \\][//'s Tommy-wannabe 1970's handsomeness is just so appropriate. No soul, no morals, no integrity. Socio-path.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>A second item to clang the klaxon of paranoia deja vu was Mr. \\][//'s efforts to smear me under a "mole" attack on you. Most striking was his choice of context: exchanges he and I had, starting in 2012 (with new skew added via the re-purposing) and from my Dr. Wood's phase. Most interesting the re-tread treatment. He focuses on when my opinions were still evolving and I hadn't pinpointed the deception in Dr. Wood. He obviously doesn't mention the lie perpetuated for 2-1/2 years of physically destroying Dr. Wood's book in order to avoid a discussion on its good, bad, and ugly. (A pay-it-forward event that became one of my best 9/11 investments, ever.)
<br>
<br><b>Rather glaring that he doesn't go after my more recent 2016-03-11 and 2018-02-11 FGNW work. </b>
<br>
<br>He does finally mention Dr. Andre Gsponer, but tries the cheat of future-tense in the language as his sole argument against research directions documented within.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, I've found video evidence of radiation almost as good as Geiger counters on the scene: truth has a way of slipping out.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>A third item to clang the klaxon of paranoia deja vu was a turn of phrase that caught my attention. I researched it back, so pay attention to date stamps. Mr. \\][// wrote in <a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-2101" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/%23comment-2101&source=gmail&ust=1526247700778000&usg=AFQjCNG-TV3OHux532gBMvDqtLDeXmZk8A">July 9, 2014 at 1:44 pm</a> <i>"Maxwell Bridges can’t stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely."</i>
<br>
<br>That comment was vacuumed up (along with plagiarized words from others) into a PhantasyPublishing's disinfo bot's database and was sent to me <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html#x51" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html%23x51&source=gmail&ust=1526247700778000&usg=AFQjCNErQ2EEDmN9coYP3hMihFA0mzIb_w">2016-06-09</a> in an email during an attempted discussion on my hobby-horse (whose formatting was so poor from copy-and-paste, it indicates more plariarism.) At the time I didn't make the connection PhantasyPublishing was plagiarizing from Mr. \\][//. Once Mr. \\][//'s comment got into its databases, it was re-used again (<a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html#x59" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html%23x59&source=gmail&ust=1526247700778000&usg=AFQjCNEnm722rjbhJ_BxbvTQScBc-WCngw">2018-04-09</a>) in a comment to my blog [now re-formatted to be within the blog article Part 3.] I know that Mr. \\][// likes to copy passages from one blog to another. But it was still quite the surprise to see the exact same quote aimed at me again (<a href="https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-1/#comment-2489" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-1/%23comment-2489&source=gmail&ust=1526247700778000&usg=AFQjCNH1UHsSZXy6nd7XoQKOkbn0V9fO3A">2018-04-24</a>) on Mr. \\][// 's blog that leads off calling you, Mr. McKee, a mole.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>I mean, why was I being dug up? It isn't as if we have Venn intersections of web site activity the last three years. I haven't been on T&S. He's not on FB. My comments won't get published to his blog. He's only made one comment -- more of a ping for life-signs -- to my blog.
<br>
<br><font size="6">There are trends to be extrapolated. </font>
<br>
<br><b>I'm collecting my negative fan bases.</b> I'm attracting disinfo bots.
<br>
<br>Mr. \\][// blogging efforts: [<a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/&source=gmail&ust=1526247700778000&usg=AFQjCNGU5Egnoy9K-gmqPvEq5uzGcMqnPQ">1</a>] <i>"Carnival d'Maxifuckanus"</i>, [<a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/&source=gmail&ust=1526247700778000&usg=AFQjCNFeAgwu_Tx6wBy2Px3Ksyrx96gz9w">2</a>] <i>"Maxwell Briges: Agitprop Disinformant"</i>, and now [<a href="https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-1/#comments" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-1/%23comments&source=gmail&ust=1526247700778000&usg=AFQjCNEr94Ch0V1VMrixhQfjlrdiWaKIFw">3</a>] <i>"ELECTRONIC MEDIA"</i>.
<br>
<br>PhantasyPublishing (a bot) blogging efforts (that survive): [<a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html&source=gmail&ust=1526247700778000&usg=AFQjCNHAuYGqitEmfqdN7ygH9OtjFK0DFw">3</a>] <i>"9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation a fictional work"</i> (2018-04-09) and <a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html&source=gmail&ust=1526247700778000&usg=AFQjCNFF3wGY0s0rX8njLsjf6iVq_-0xdA">[4]</a> <i>"more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges"</i> (2018-04-09)
<br>
<br>Sports fan that you are, Mr. McKee, what's your score in your negative fan bases? Ken Doc gave you at least one.
<br>
<br>Although I did it in a joking manner, I think my assessment (among others) of Mr. \\][// being an agent still has merit. I advised at the time <i>"better the devil that you know than the one you don't sense."</i>
<br>
<br>I must ask, though. Do you ever sometimes review old blog discussions, but evaluate differently knowing now (e.g., insincerity, agenthood) what you didn't then?
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Lessons learned from Dr. Wood, Dr. Fetzer, Dimitri K., and Dr. Jones and experienced myself (on Video Fakery, NPT, DEW, etc. before evolving thought):
<br>
<ul>
<li>If you are riding the horse wrong or the wrong horse, you get to ride the carousel as long as you like and be a circus distraction. </li>
<li>If you have purposeful disinformation in your stable, you get a pass for pasturing an occasional truth-pony. </li>
</ul>
<p>But if you are riding the right hobby-horse right?
<br>
<br>If you were <i>"planning to bring (Mr. \\][//) back,"</i> then clearly as Mr. \\][//'s proven arch-enemy worthy of smear THREE years after my T&S banishment and SIX years after those Wood discussions, I was not part of those original plans, because I would have been water on his grease flames.
<br>
<br>You should ask yourself who else was lobbying for Mr. \\][// to return. Mr. Ruff? Mr. Hazan? etc.
<br>
<br>And of those, correlate their lobbying message to advice on handling yours truly and my hobby-horse. <i>"Unfaithful in the small, unfaithful in the large..."</i>
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Mr. \\][// wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I don’t see your blog flourishing as it once did. What do you suppose is the reason for that? Why have so many of your loyal fans faded away? I cannot answer that with any certainly. But perhaps you might ponder the situation.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. \\][// is every bit the cheat that he ever was. At one point after 3,000 comments, he made up a third. Remember, though, that he didn't subscribe to the articles comments, which meant that for him to follow a comments thread, he'd have to manually refresh your page over and over. Ca-ching, ca-ching for your hit count. His sock-puppetry wouldn't surprise me. He and AWright, Adam Ruff, Veritable2... "<i>so many of your loyal fans faded away</i>" Persona Management Software would help with page refreshes.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Normally I would ask to be invited back as your plan B, because maybe in truth my departure was the real reason (according to the perceptions from Mr. \\][// ) for your blog supposedly not flourishing. I had loyal fans, too, but alas none were my sockpuppet.
<br>
<br>I could only be counted on for minimum one comment per article. It'd be on topic, insightful, well-written, and long. If the discussion was interesting, maybe one comment every other day. In my unpaid internship negotiations, <b>I request that you build exclusively for my hobby-horse a corral </b>where you'll be able direct any and all wannabe rodeo (de)bunkeroos. With that corral, my participation elsewhere will have no reason to get off topic.
<br>
<br>Links within a comment are a whole different subject and should have different rules. As one who stands behind his words, any link from a participant to their own words should be permitted. Consider it a relief value and an earnest attempt to pull off-topic discussions to their blog instead of polluting your thread. Remember: it isn't the off-list link that derails threads, but what others choose to drag back.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Not making a mountain out of Mr. \\][//'s "mole" hill, but my exile was right out Tom Cruise's "Minority Report" and its Pre-Crime Division. The anticipated over-reaction and bad-behavior of my detractors (now discredited) to just about anything I posted -- no matter how small or insignificant in word count or comment stats -- was ~their~ alleged pre-crime to ~my~ actual banishment.
<br>
<br>Mr. \\][// failed your simple integrity test(s), just like he spectacularly failed my objectivity and integrity tests of yore.
Mr. \\][//'s "little buddy" also failed. My continued status in exile and banishment necessitates a review in light of Mr. \\][//'s role in the matter: on your blog, on email, and on his blog(s).
<br>
<!-- <br>Enjoy your weekend, Mr. McKee.
<br> -->
<br>// mcb
</p>
</div><!-- section 13 -->
<a name="x14"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x14" class="tiny">x14</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">loose ends in rememberance</a></b></p>
<p>2018-06-25</p>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: block;">
<p>I was looking into some of my old writings as "Señor El Once" and came across this 2012 T&S article and discussion: one of the few times in recent years when "Trump" and "ignorance" aren't in reference to a sitting US President.
<br/>
<br/>Adam Syed wrote some wise words. Dr. Jones' work took some legitimate bashing by Señor El Once.
<br/>
<br/>It takes on new significance when two players (hybridrogue1 and Mr. A.R.) have been since discredited, the former with a lie maintained for 2.5 years about "violently defacing a book to line a bird's cage" to avoid a rational discussion into the same, the latter with boasts that could be not supported by objectivity, action, research, reason.
<br/>
<br/>This quote from Mr. Craig McKee (2012-09-13) has me asking what happened?
<br/>
<br/>"I very well may write a piece about nuclear hypotheses of Prager and Dwain Deets so there will be a full discussion on that."
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2012/09/12/ignorance-trumps-ideas-during-annual-911-discussions-a-reluctant-rant/#comment-12574">https://truthandshadows.com/2012/09/12/ignorance-trumps-ideas-during-annual-911-discussions-a-reluctant-rant/#comment-12574</a>
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x15" class="tiny">x15</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_15');">seed dropping</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295266-stein-calls-for-new-9-11-investigation?mode=comments#disqus_thread">2018-08-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_15" style="display: block;">
<p>9/11 Truth was infiltrated and had many stop-gap "theories" & limited hangouts to prevent wide-spread publishing of the true methods deployed: Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW).
<br/>
<br/>Yeah, I've been around the 9/11 block a few times, and duped for a time on theories that I later had to recant and apologize. FGNW isn't one of them.
<br/>
<br/>No sense bogging down this discussion with these details that can still have significant figurative nuclear fall-out with institutions and agencies.
<br/>
<br/>"9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case"
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>I've already amassed the evidence and made the case for FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>I'm posting here as a reminder that if Jill Stein's investigation doesn't get to FGNW, we'll know it was compromised.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 15 -->
<a name="x16"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x16" class="tiny">x16</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">official story of 9/11 is dead</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/craig.mckee.16/posts/2564459596949496?comment_id=2568236583238464&reply_comment_id=2576078902454232">2019-09-07</a></p>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: block;">
<p>Craig McKee
<br/>September 7 at 6:36 PM ·
<br/>The official story of 9/11 is dead, and every day it becomes harder to ignore this fact. With the release of the Hulsey study and the Long Island fire commissioners saying it is "beyond any doubt" that explosives destroyed the three WTC towers, there is no more excuse for not getting this
<br/>
<br/>"Massive columns are being blown up and out. That's not gravity, it's explosvies.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x17" class="tiny">x17</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_17');">added energy</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-07</p>
<div id="sect_17" style="display: block;">
<p>
Instead of "... it's explosive", you should alter the meme to be "... it's added energy."
<br/>
<br/>Then you'll have bases and a**es covered when the true mechanisms for destruction are sussed out into the likely trend lnie from the many glaring data points that slip out orthogonal from of all government reports and the slickest of 9/11 disinformation vehicles.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 17 -->
<a name="x18"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x18" class="tiny">x18</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">No one would react to "added energy."</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-07</p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: block;">
<p>No one would react to "added energy." Not in a meme. Anyway, I never said it was only one thing. But I'm pretty confident explosives brought the towers down. And that's enough.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x19</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_19');">missed this in their research</a></b></p>
<p>2019-09-07</p>
<div id="sect_19" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, I'm even more confident that the primary mechanisms of destruction were nuclear in nature. I mean, those championing explosives (and/or NT) cannot even say that such was found in the dust. No.
<br/>
<br/>If you look closely, they say tiny iron spheres were found and then they assume that only NT could create them. The USGS, Paul Lioy et al, RJ Lee Group... none of them measure traces of NT. But USGS does measure Uranium and its decay elements in correlated quantities sample-to-sample. Dr. Cahill did air quality measurements and detected metals that required a sustaining high energy source to keep generating such. Tritium, tritium, tritium.
<br/>
<br/>Pulverization is a huge energy sink. Aside from the massive logistics hurdles, why would this have been a design goal of NT? And how much would be required and unspent from its original pulverizing purposes to maintain the hotspots?
<br/>
<br/>Nuggets of Truth extracted from Dr. Wood's work are images of arches / sags, horseshoes, and steel doobies. Those proposing explosives cannot even explain how such would be planted / configured to result in such anomalies. Funny how the explanation is so easy and clear with fourth generation nuclear devices... even for the pulverization of concrete and the tiny iron spheres.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br/>
<br/>The above is peer-reviewed and in a reputable science journal. How is that both Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood missed this in their research into 9/11 nuclear devices? This was published technically before Dr. Jones "no nukes" disinformation spin, and then filled the void with NT.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>ARXIV.ORG
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness…
<br/>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 19 -->
<a name="x20"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x20" class="tiny">x20</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">AE9/11Truth FAQ #13 / FAQ #15 Debunking</a></b></p>
<p>2019-10-22</p>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>
<br/>Remember that sincere and objective people are allowed to change their opinions when faced with new evidence or analysis; apologies and admission of errors can go a long way to redeeming reputation.
<br/>
<br/>Vladamir Lenin stated <i>"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."</i> Dr. Philip Zelikow, executive directory of the 9/11 Commission demonstrates this premise quite clearly. The EPA, NIST, and USGS, as but a few, were forced into offering incomplete, shoddy, and misleading works relating to 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Objectively speaking, why would AE911Truth be immune from such infiltrating influences to control the message, even today more than a decade and a half later? They wouldn't be immune, particularly when the public's revelation of 9/11 nuclear involvment can still have far-reaching figurative nuclear fall-out againsts governments, institutions, political parties, and individuals.
<br/>
<br/>Thomas Pynchon wrote: <i>"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>FAQ #12: What is AE911Truth's assessment of the directed energy weapon (DEW) hypothesis? [Jonathan Cole, Richard Gage, and Gregg Roberts]
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>FAQ #13 [& FAQ #15]: Various authors claim that nuclear blasts caused or contributed to the WTC destruction. Why does AE911Truth not endorse this claim?</p></blockquote>
<p>FAQ #12 is aimed at the work of Dr. Judy Wood. Its problem is that it does ~not~ review the work. It offers no quotations or extracts, let alone a detailed objective analysis that would indicate they read the work and debunked it section-by-section. In fact, FAQ #12 spends one-third of its meager ~2,500 word count promoting NT, and ~not~ putting on the DEW shoes and walking around.
<br/>
<br/><b>Disclaimer:</b> Dr. Judy Wood is disinformation built on a foundation of truth. She drops a lot of dangling innuendo, doesn't connect dots, doesn't draw conclusions, can't power her suspicions with anything real-world, should never have let her work be characterized as "free energy from space" or "beams from space", and did shitty research into nuclear means. And owing to the disinformation agenda, her best & most prolific surrogates in 9/11 discussions can't admit to these weaknesses or that Dr. Wood's work is not an end-station.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood's work, however, has many nuggets of truth that require not only acknowledgement, but also rescue & incorporation into any 9/11 conspiracy theory-du-jour. FAQ #12 does not do this. Glaringly.
<br/>
<br/>The 233 words of FAQ #13 is quite the rabbit-hole entrance, and offers two FAQ #15 PDF paths to its enlightment about <i>"nuclear blasts"</i>. The first version has less than 6 pages of text (~5,400 words) and 23 pages of endnotes. The second version changes the 95 endnotes into footnotes whose content appears at the bottom of the page where referenced.
<br/>
<br/>Blinded by science.
<br/>
<br/>The number of footnotes/endnotes gives the aura of completeness and thoroughness.
<br/>
<br/>Except that if you follow the rabbit-hole into the footnote and then further into their sources, a huge discrepancy becomes apparent between what the FAQ #15 footnote addresses and the breadth of information the source references.
<br/>
<br/>Except that some of the sources that attempt to bolster the no-nukes theme have issues themselves [addressed elsewhere in this work] and cannot be re-purposed as the authoritative final word about a particular theme. [Consider this both an issue and <i>"an excuse to change beliefs."</i>]
<br/>
<br/>Except that FAQ #15 has a disingenuous bent scope-limited by the phrase <i>"nuclear blasts"</i>.
</p>
<blockquote><p><b>blast</b>:
<ul>
<li>destructive wave of highly compressed air spreading outward from an explosion</li>
<li>an explosion or explosive firing, especially of a bomb.</li>
<li>a strong gust of wind or air.</li>
<li>a strong current of air used in smelting.</li>
</ul>
</p></blockquote>
<p><i>"Agree with the adversaries quickly, whilst thou art in the way with them..." Matthew 5:25</i>
<br/>
<br/>Indeed. When the framing of the dicussion is <i>"nuclear blasts"</i>, it easy to agree with FAQ #15 that <i>"nuclear blasts"</i> were not the primary mechanisms of destruction. Such <i>"nuclear blasts"</i> would certainly have thrown radioactive material great distances, radiated surrounding buildings, and ultimately would have impacted the health of a much larger population in the area, not primarily survivors and first responders. Owing to the <i>"nuclear blasts"</i> needing highly compressed air to spread destruction, they would be very loud.
<br/>
<br/>But this very phrase <i>"nuclear blasts"</i> is very much <i>first-</i> to <i>third-</i>generation nuclear weapons thinking.
<br/>
<br/>Fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) thinking says that only 20% of the nuclear yield -- already at sub-kiloton levels -- is divided between the outputs of a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Tactical in nature, and really what they are suppress in the yield.
<br/>
<br/>The other 80% of the nuclear yield is in the form of highly-energetic neutrons released in a targeted direction [cone upwards] and passing through all content. It isn't a blast or a bang; it is high amounts of energy suddenly deposited deeply and through out the molecular structure of the content.
<br/>
<br/>How does the content react? Supposition:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Content with embedded water molecules, like concrete and drywall: the water turns instantly into rapidly expanding steam that blows the material apart. That doesn't mean <i>"sending fragments of the material tens or hundreds of feet."</i> For the sake of discussion, imagine a displacement of a fraction of a millimeter, but this at every molecule in the path of the neutron beam. Dustified.</li>
<li>Metals: the leading edge catches so much energy, that it ablates so rapidly, it causes a shockwave through the rest of the material that rips it apart. Leads to tiny iron spheres in the dust.</li>
<li>Humans: lots of water turned instantly into steam. Not a lot remaining for DNA analysis.</li>
</ul>
<p>
The footnotes of FAQ #15 aims attacks at the work of specific individuals who at various points in time championed 9/11 nuclear involvement. However, some were wrong in key aspects that did not match observation of the destructions; those errors were never corrected, and its champions over time did not deviate from their erroneous agenda. [Both Mr. Dimitri Khalezov and Mr. William Tahil championed per tower single underground nukes, although the evidence shows pulverization initiating in the top blocks, progressing downwards, and leaving <i>"a spire"</i> of inner core structure for a few moments.]
</p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x21</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_21');">AE911Truth "is deliberately saying things it knows are not true"</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_21" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, The first piece of evidence that AE911Truth "is deliberately saying things it knows are not true" is their SHITTY research.
<br/>
<br/>Look at my previous link to the peer-reviewed article from Dr. Andre Gsponer that was published in a reputable scientific journal (Cornell University). Dr. Gsponer had been writing about fourth generation nuclear devices for at least a decade before 9/11. Why did Dr. Jones and AE911Truth purposely and repeatedly leave these devices out of consideration?
<br/>
<br/>AE911Truth tries to debunk ~all~ forms of nuclear weapons being used on 9/11 at the WTC by framing the discussion as "nuclear blasts". While valid for first- thru third-generation nuclear weapons, this "nuclear blast" framing does not apply to FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>AE911Truth's work is a bit wishy-washy in that they use the plural "blasts" because there were at least 2 distinct events (WTC-1 and WTC-2). When it gets into the details, their fraudulent framing turns to a single nuclear detonation per tower, which correctly would have blown badness all of NYC, been louder, etc. and even ~I~ agree does not match what was observed or the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>Why doesn't "nuclear blast" apply to FGNW? Because FGNW -- deviants of neutron bombs -- release 80% of their nuclear yield in the form of highly energetic neutrons (in a targeted fashion). Whereas this does travel through air and does heat air molecules, air is not the medium of destruction, which the fraudulent phrasing "nuclear blasts" implies. It wasn't sudden and massive changes in air pressure from a "blast" that caused the concrete to be blown apart.
<br/>
<br/>The more critical effect is in depositing energy / heat deep within the molecular structure of all content through which the neutrons passed. Residual water molecules in content like concrete instantly got turned into steam, whose expanding volume pressure broke that content apart. It wouldn't have necessarily been loud.
<br/>
<br/>Only 20% of the already sub-kiloton total nuclear yield would be evident as standard nuclear side-effects of a heat wave, blast wave, and EMP.
<br/>
<br/>I read the text of AE911Truth "no-nukes" effort, dived into the footnotes, and followed the trail to the source of those footnotes to validate (or not) AE911Truth's assessment. Their treatment of Mr. Jeff Prager's work is another example of AE911Truth's deceit. In the footnotes, AE911Truth cherry-picks such a small nit from Mr. Prager's work to find issue with, and completely ignores huge chunks that makes the case for nuclear involvement. AE911Truth's deceit is name dropping Jeff Prager but in not addressing head-on his larger case point-by-point.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. David Griffin, our patron saint of 9/11 Truth, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOQOBIhxNEE
<br/>
<br/>Lots of great evidence of 9/11 destruction that NT cannot explain. [28.51]. Fascinating. At 1:27:00 it shows a column that got bent into a C-shape.
<br/>
<br/>Those "steel doobies" and arcs/sags (data-mined from Dr. Wood's work, but really available to all researchers and quite evident in the NIST videos) I've repeatedly pointed out over the years are evidence of a high heat source creating instantaneous end-to-end volume heating that nobody in the AE911Truth crowd has ever ventured to explain how NT would be position to accomplish.
<br/>
<br/>Those vehicles destroyed along West Broadway and in the car park are evidence of EMP slipping out through window slits. The throwing of wall assemblies and other content some distance is an indication that there was a blast wave, but we're talking energy that is less than 1/5 the total sub-kiloton yield.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 21 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part3 -->
<hr>
<a name="x22"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part2');">Chapter 2:
Radioactivity Discussions with Willy Whitten</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part2" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. Willy Whitten (aka hybridrogue1 and Mr. Rogue) was once a prolific participant at Truth & Shadows,
and my eager nemesis. He's create two or three web pages devoted to me as an <i>"agitprop disinformant"</i>.
His biggest claim to fame prior to this exchange was running out the clock for a review of Dr. Judy Wood's book,
claiming he destroyed the book for bird cage liner,
and maintaining this lie for 2-1/2 years to void the objective review. </p>
<a name="x23"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x23</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_23');">Proof of radioctivity on 9/11</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_23" style="display: block;">
<p>to: Adam Ruff <ruffadam2003@yahoo.com>,
<br/>Willy Whitten <demandingzumba@gmail.com>,
<br/>Craig McKee <craigmckee911@gmail.com>
<br/>date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:52 PM
<br/>subject: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
<br/>
<br/>Gentlemen, please accept my apologies for reaching out by email unsolicited (as in, not as a response to one of your comments made to various forums).
<br/>
<br/>You will recall trying to strangle my FGNW hobby-horse with the argument: "No radiation = No nukes". Allow me to spare you the re-hash on how I proved that argument wrong, as well as one that you could not defend with proof.
<br/>
<br/>Recently, I ran into the work of <a href="http://www.911history.de/">a German citizen</a> (physics background, technical writer). We both believe 9/11 was nuclear, but differ in some details that I'm still scratching my head about.
<br/>
<br/>Let me just cut right to the chase. Go to 57:46 in the following video where he talks about Scintillation of the Cameras on 9/11.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/Ry4UWQjJnSc?t=3466">https://youtu.be/Ry4UWQjJnSc?t=3466</a>
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Rogue with your imagery background, I'm sure you'll find this rather ironic that video technology is going to turn you into a believer in a nuclear 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Ruff, be objective and fair. Whereas you might consider me OCD, that doesn't have to be a bad thing. My persistence is paying off in digging up (or recognizing) the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. McKee, if you don't want to be a journalist and interview me, how about reaching out to Heinz Pommer through email. (My email to Dr. Andre Gsponer didn't bounce, but hasn't been answered either.)
<br/>
<br/>Mr Hazan made <a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2017/12/29/chandlers-failed-pentagon-methodology/#comment-50250">a great comment</a> recently. Pentagon or nuclear 9/11, it applies.
</p>
<blockquote><p>For a group of well meaning people who are presumably working towards the same end goal, no matter how contentious the subject, there are always ways either to come to an agreement, or to ultimately agree to disagree and move on to trying to establish or discover aspects of the event in question that everybody can get behind.
<br/>
<br/>...
<br/>
<br/>Would it then be a fair assumption that one of the two parties is essentially creating and feeding this disagreement intentionally and purposefully in order to manufacture these road blocks? One could certainly jump to that conclusion and start dismissing the other side’s arguments. It is one of the easiest cop outs, and is the outcome desired by the deceivers. But, most importantly, it is a knee jerk reaction that ultimately prevents debate and possible resolution.</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br/>
<br/>Here's something that I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>this "nuclear discussion avoidance" is so wide-spread inside and outside 9/11 Truther camps that it becomes an anomaly in and of itself. Every where I went to have a reasoned and rational discussion -- disciplined by taking the high road, using respectful honorifics, substantiating my views, researching into their sources & discovering errors --, my discussion opponents went to greater and greater efforts not to. It is as if: "To even venture into my (Gsponer) source, validates it." So they don't go into it beyond mockery and flame wars, and they'd just as soon ban me.</p></blockquote>
<p>2018 is getting off to a good start.
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 23 -->
<a name="x24"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x24" class="tiny">x24</a>
Willy Whitten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">engulfed in a cloud of dust</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_24" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 6:36 PM
<br/>subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
<br/>
<br/>"If you are engulfed in a radioactive cloud your camera will start to fail"~ Dimitri Khalezov
<br/>
<br/>"If you are engulfed in a cloud of dust and grit your camera will start to fail"~Willy Whitten
<br/>
<br/>My study of these special Gamma Camera's lead me to the conclusion that neither Khalezov or Maxwell Bridges have any idea of what they are taking about.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Gamma_Camera.htm">http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Gamma_Camera.htm</a>
<br/>
<br/>We have been through the first responder illnesses before and I will not relitigate that with Max another time.
<br/>I will say that I am not surprised that Maxwell continues to grasp at straws with his "hobby-horse".
<br/>
<br/>HAPPY NEW YEAR Max
<br/>~Willy
</p>
</div><!-- section 24 -->
<a name="x25"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x25" class="tiny">x25</a>
Willy Whitten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_25');">gamma camera</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_25" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 6:54 PM
<br/>subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>There are special components to a Gamma Camera that are missing from the video cameras that were used on 9/11 by newsmen and other witnesses. See:
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/SimpleGammaCamera.gif/400px-SimpleGammaCamera.gif">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/SimpleGammaCamera.gif/400px-SimpleGammaCamera.gif</a>
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Basic_Physics_of_Nuclear_Medicine/Nuclear_Medicine_Imaging_Systems">https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Basic_Physics_of_Nuclear_Medicine/Nuclear_Medicine_Imaging_Systems</a>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 25 -->
<a name="x26"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x26" class="tiny">x26</a>
Willy Whitten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">gamma camera graphs</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:10 PM (MST)
<br/>subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
<br/>
<br/>Max,
<br/>Have you personally seen any actual images from a gamma camera? It appears to me that the system produces graphs like the one above, not moving pictures of streaks and lights such as those shown in your video.
<br/>\\][//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x27</a>
David Hazan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_27');">discover and prove the truth</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_27" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
<br/><a href="https://truthandshadows.com/2017/12/29/chandlers-failed-pentagon-methodology/#comment-50305">January 2, 2018 at 9:30 pm (EST) </a>
<br/>
<br/>As long as people, truthers, private citizens keep mistaking their main responsibility of <b>demanding the truth</b> with actually having to <b>discover and prove the truth</b>, especially when 99.9% of them are not trained in any of the required specialized subjects for proper scientific analyses, we shall always be “seeking” the truth and never finding it… Let alone ultimately using the said “truth” against the perps.
<br/>
<br/>When, in the land of most advanced science and scientists and supercomputers, we’ve had to have a physics instructor to prove the towers’ free fall using a classroom physics “toolbox” to state what is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and a brain to think, I’d say our main problem as a society is not really not knowing what happened, but more like not wanting to know what happened.
<br/>
<br/>As far as the impact of “knowing” on the 9/11 activism and the world at large.. I feel that these are false concerns and misplaced priorities, similar to the bizarre concern over being embarrassed should the government produce footage of a 757…. I’d say energies would be much better spent if we were to have a ‘movement” to demand this footage. Can’t speak for anyone else, but I would be thrilled if the truth finally came out even if I had a giant egg on my face. But I’m not holding my breath… we are light years away from such a thing happening.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 27 -->
<a name="x28"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x28" class="tiny">x28</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">scintillation of the cameras on 9/11</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 8:26 PM
<br/>subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Whitten,
<br/>
<br/>That was a valient effort on the surface. Bravo. And thank you for engaging me. I won't be making a habit of it, because I know you don't like it.
<br/>
<br/>In my excitement, I didn't even present what was worthwhile with scintillation of the cameras on 9/11. Thank you for the quote from Mr. Khalezov and yourself.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"If you are engulfed in a radioactive cloud your camera will start to fail"~ Dimitri Khalezov</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>"If you are engulfed in a cloud of dust and grit your camera will start to fail"~Willy Whitten</p></blockquote>
<p>It is the nature of the failure that is important, and would probably manifest itself differently engulfed in a radioactive cloud and a normal dust & grit cloud.
<br/>
<br/>Even though the cameras failed to render images in the cloud of dust and grit, the radioactive dust left traces on the media: the "electric disturbance snow" in the videos on 9/11 after the dust rolled over. If you watch further in the Pommer video, you'll see where others have done experiments with digital cameras and a radiation source. Similar "electric disturbance snow".
<br/>
<br/>I need not go down too far into your gamma camera rabbit hole, because normal cameras (albeit probably professional quality) were hit with the scintillation effect. <i>"Scintillation is a flash of light produced in a transparent material by the passage of a particle (an electron, an alpha particle, an ion, or a high-energy photon)."</i>
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Ruff and you wanted proof that 9/11 had normal radiation? There we have it, right before our very eyes this whole time. (And to think of the things that September Clues had us looking at instead of this scintillation?!!)
<br/>
<br/>All the best in the new year, Mr. Whitten!
<br/>
<br/>P.S. Coincidence that three emails came to me in a 35 minute period, and then 20 minutes later another well-written posting by Mr. Hazen appeared on T&S? Damn, if I wasn't playing on your hated Facebook platform in various 9/11 discussion groups, ran into several hornets nests full of agents. I shall not do that again soon; I've lost my patience, and as a lone individual with one persona in play, too many fronts get started (like when I get a disinfo one aimed at me). At one point, they were practically bragging about getting their orders from Malasia, the screenshots they take as proof to get paid, and their multiple online personas. One persona was even saying he had three debunker and two truther personas he managed.
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<a name="x29"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x29</a>
Willy Whitten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_29');">chasing your tail</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_29" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 8:37 PM
<br/>subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
<br/>
<br/>Have fun chasing your tail Max. You are right, I don't have any interest in your hypothesis. I pointed out the components that are NOT in ANY video camera. I queried whether you had ever seen such imagery produced by a Gamma Camera. You are playing the same games you always have. Hand waving relevant questions put to you, plus clearly not understanding the technology you are presenting as proof of your assertions.
<br/>\\][//
<br/>
<br/>+++
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 29 -->
<a name="x30"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x30" class="tiny">x30</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">components that aren't in any video camera</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:27 PM
<br/>subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Whitten,
<br/>
<br/>For someone who doesn't have any interest in my hypothesis, I managed to get a good hour of work out of you as you scrambled to find "a distraction" halfway relevant.
<br/>
<br/>You claim to be pointing out the components that aren't in any video camera and that make it specialized for gamma images. Great. Wonderful. But it isn't applicable; it is a distraction. Yes, medical equipment is going to be much better and have more whiz-bang components to render meaningful images. Medical equipment has to provide both the source for the radiation (e.g., scintillation component) as well as the collecting & rendering components.
<br/>
<br/>The point you miss is that without adaptation, normal smart phone cameras can pick up radiation (but not anything that would be a coherent image. It won't be providing the radiation source; that is outside.)
<br/>
<br/>Go here
<br/><a href="http://www.rdklein.de/">http://www.rdklein.de/</a>
<br/>and scroll down to "RadioactivityCounter PROJECT : Version 2.3 for mobil phones". Just an app for your phone.
<br/>
<br/>Here's a cool video from the same:
<br/><a href="http://www.rdklein.de/html/radioa_videos.html">http://www.rdklein.de/html/radioa_videos.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>You would already know these references if you had watched <a href="https://youtu.be/Ry4UWQjJnSc?t=3466">the Pommer video</a> just a few minutes passed where I told you to go (57:46).
<br/>
<br/>The fact that you didn't, is telling. Didn't go into the source; didn't go into the source's source. No, telling is that you went off and tried to Google up lame explanations for Gamma Cameras as a distraction.
<br/>
<br/>I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>This "nuclear discussion avoidance" is so wide-spread inside and outside 9/11 Truther camps that it becomes an anomaly in and of itself. Every where I went to have a reasoned and rational discussion -- disciplined by taking the high road, using respectful honorifics, substantiating my views, researching into their sources & discovering errors --, my discussion opponents went to greater and greater efforts not to. </p></blockquote>
<p>
<br/>Here I casually bend down to pick up your shot ammo:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"You are playing the same games you always have. Hand waving relevant questions put to you, plus clearly not understanding the technology you are presenting as proof of your assertions."</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br/>I load your ammo into my pee-shooter, and fire it back at you. Stop trying to pawn your weaknesses off onto me.
<br/>
<br/>Always a pleasure, Mr. Whitten, and I'll be including our exchange in my composite work when I get around to publication.
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
<br/>
<br/>+++
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 30 -->
<a name="x31"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x31" class="tiny">x31</a>
Willy Whitten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_31');">gamma camera distraction</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-03</p>
<div id="sect_31" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:45 AM
<br/>subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
<br/>
<br/>"The point you miss is that without adaptation, normal smart phone cameras can pick up radiation (but not anything that would be a coherent image. It won't be providing the radiation source; that is outside.)"
<br/>
<br/>A virtual smartphone "Geiger Counter" simply is not analogous to scintillation nor Gamma Cameras..
<br/>
<br/>You would already know these references if you had watched <a href="">the Pommer video</a> just a few minutes passed where I told you to go (57:46).
<br/>
<br/>Max, that video you link loads right on 57:46 for me. My question to you was not about those images in the video, my question to you was if you have seen any comparable images that were made by an actual Gamma Camera? And I noted that as far as I can tell from the technical details of these cameras that they do not generate visuals of the gamma rays, but in fact produce grafts and charts. DO YOU HAVE ANY VERIFICATION that the images from the 9/11 videos are comparable to radioactive scintillation or not?
<br/>
<br/>I am not inquiring because I am interested in your loopy hypothesis Max, I am asking because it it so much like you to 2 & 2 together and come up with 1,000. A thought process of yours that has always intrigued me. Wishing and hoping isn't proof Max.
<br/>
<br/>\\][//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 31 -->
<a name="x32"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x32" class="tiny">x32</a>
Willy Whitten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">False Flag Psy-Ops</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-03</p>
<div id="sect_32" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:46 AM
<br/>subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
<br/>
<br/>© Willy Whitten 2017
<br/>
<br/>OUTLINE
<br/>
<br/>> The perpetrators of the events of September 11,2001 are ruthless psychopaths
<br/>
<br/>> Several agendas Intelligence-Military-Industrial are served by the events of 9/11
<br/>
<br/>> The use of secret teams from members of the Intelligence-Military-Industrial complex are drawn on to carry out certain specific tasks, intellectual operational & planning. These teams are experts in various fields and can best be characterized as specialists in Black Ops (covert operations).
<br/>A good overview of this concept is given in ‘THE SECRET TEAM’ by Col Fletcher Prouty.
<br/>
<br/>>This psychological operation is an ongoing enterprise establishing a permanent ongoing war of terror and aggression by the perpetrators. This aggression is manifest both overseas, and domestically as oppression and totalitarian domination.
<br/>
<br/>GENERAL THEORY
<br/>
<br/>The central impetus of the 9/11 operation is a simple insurance scam by the Silverstein Group that was organized by the combined efforts of the military industrial agendas of both the United States and Israel.
<br/>There are compelling reasons to surmise that the company CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS Inc. was contracted to assess and design a plan for the demolitions of the World Trade Center complex. It can be further postulated that this demolition company did not actually carry out the process of preparing the buildings for destruction, and that this operation was carried out by covert military demolition teams of primarily Israeli origin. These teams modified the original plan by CD Inc in such a way as to give the appearance that the building’s collapses initiated at the points of aircraft impacts, thus giving the visual impression that the air crashes were the initial cause of the building collapses. This was a slight of hand diversion tactic and central to the psychological trauma meant to result from this burlesque magic act.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/false-flag-psyop-9-11-vii/">https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2017/12/30/false-flag-psyop-9-11-vii/</a>
<br/>
<br/>+++
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 32 -->
<a name="x33"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x33" class="tiny">x33</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_33');">Mobile Phone Geiger Counters</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-03</p>
<div id="sect_33" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:52 AM
<br/>subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Whitten,
<br/>
<br/>Again, thank you for your feedback.
<br/>
<br/>To your question about images made by an actual "Gamma Camera". Not sure what that is. Sounds like a good research project for you.
<br/>
<br/>What I have seen in the video at just before the 1:00:00 mark goes into details about turning your mobile phone into a Geiger counter (plus the videos on the website for the app). The application does produce graphs and charts. It has an area (above the graphs) that accumulate the flashes picked up by the camera. The camera lens was covered in a manner to not permit visible light to penetrate but only radioactive particles. Kind of like a long term continual exposure.
<br/>
<br/>But then, the experimenters take a phone camera 1:00:00 and show you what interference looks like in a strong radioactive environment. Low and behold, it looks similar to what certain cameras recorded after being overtaken by the dust cloud (58:00 mark).
<br/>
<br/>I enjoyed the comment: "I am not inquiring because I am interested in your loopy hypothesis Max, I am asking because it it so much like you to 2 & 2 together and come up with 1,000. A thought process of yours that has always intrigued me. Wishing and hoping isn't proof Max."
<br/>
<br/>Means a lot coming from a persona who played his role well in "avoiding 9/11 nuclear discussions" by running out the clock on debunking Dr. Wood's book and then crafting & maintaining a lie for two years about physically destroying it to continue avoid discussing it in a legitimate manner. Similar avoidance treatment to Dr. Andre Gsponer's "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects", peer-reviewed and in a reputable journal.
<br/>
<br/>Indeed, Mr. Whitten, "wishing and hoping isn't proof", as you (probably) continue to wish and hope that super-duper NT did all of 9/11. It is so much like you to not acknowledge the weaknesses in your own premise yet supposedly you can spot them in the others without ever sniffing their book's open crack. How many years of publications into FGNW did Dr. Gsponer have before Dr. Jones 2006 "repudiates nukes on 9/11"? A convenient glaring omission by Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Ruff calls me OCD. Yep, that's me rescuing the nuggets of truth because they are. You? Not so much, which is why I am far less intrigued with your thought process. Not enough integrity.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>// mcb
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 33 -->
<a name="x34"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x34" class="tiny">x34</a>
Willy Whitten : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">All water under the Maxwell Bridges</a></b></p>
<p>2018-01-03</p>
<div id="sect_34" style="display: block;">
<p>date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:07 AM
<br/>subject: Re: Proof of radioctivity on 9/11
<br/>
<br/>All water under the bridge Max...the Maxwell Bridges...Lol
<br/>
<br/>As you have proven absolutely zero as per the NuclearDew "hypothesis in ... however many years that you have been harping on it ... I am, frankly bored to shit with your nonsense. Put that in your supposed "upcoming article".
<br/>
<br/>In the meantime, get lost.
<br/>
<br/>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 34 -->
<a name="x35"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x35" class="tiny">x35</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_35');">Craig McKee is a mole, in cahoots with Jim Fetzer</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-22</p>
<div id="sect_35" style="display: block;">
<p>hybridrogue1
<br/>ELECTRONIC MEDIA
<br/><a href="https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/">2018-04-22</a>
<br/>
<br/><b>Another One Bites the Dust
<br/>I have come to the conclusion that Craig McKee is a mole, in cahoots with Jim Fetzer.</b>
<br/>
<br/>hybridrogue1
<br/><a href="https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-1/#comment-2483">April 24, 2018 at 10:42 am</a>
<br/>
<br/>SITUATIONAL ETHICS
<br/>
<br/>Some thoughts on situational ethics concerning the Internet and email in particular.
<br/>I received an email from from a person I have been in conflict with for some time.
<br/>The first line in this email in full caps was the term: ‘CONFIDENTIAL’.
<br/>Now to be frank, I am not this person’s lawyer, his priest, his doctor, nor his confidant.
<br/>In fact, I consider my self to be a victim of this person’s vile vindictiveness.
<br/>
<br/>I think it utterly naive that he would think it adequate to simply write the word “confidential” in his prologue to bind me to confidence.
<br/>We have made no contract, no agreement to such effect.
<br/>I have other friends who are involved with this person whom I think have a right to know what the subject of this email is about, if I should so chose to reveal it to them.
<br/>
<br/>It is in this spirit that I now am going to post the email in question as well as my response to select parties of my choosing:
<br/>___________________________
<br/>
<br/>Craig McKee
<br/>Apr 21, 2018 (3 days ago)
<br/>to me
<br/>CONFIDENTIAL
<br/>
<br/>Willy,
<br/>
<br/>“What the fuck? We start talking again and you pull this? You call me a mole?
<br/>
<br/>Obviously, my instincts to boot you were correct. And I was planning to bring you back.
<br/>
<br/>For your information, I deleted that one comment not because it challenged Fetzer but because it didn’t say anything. It didn’t explain which site he was calling junk, and it didn’t even explain what ideas he was reacting to. I would have no problem with an argument made against Fetzer. I allowed you to make hundreds of them. HUNDREDS!
<br/>
<br/>Your charge against me is really quite dishonest. And you know this. But your hatred of Fetzer blinds you.
<br/>
<br/>I was planning to bring you back to Truth and Shadows but I guess I’m glad you showed me your colors, again, before I made that mistake. It would only have been a matter of time before you went postal on the blog once again.”
<br/>___________________________
<br/>
<br/>Willy Whitten
<br/>Apr 21, 2018 (3 days ago)
<br/>to Craig
<br/>
<br/>It doesn’t matter to me anymore Craig. The very fact that you put up with Fetzer’s inane propaganda is the core of my problem, not because you booted the guy who posted a very gentle and non aggressive reply.
<br/>I am planning to delete my comment on my blog. But that doesn’t change anything.
<br/>
<br/>My dad used to pull the kind of shit you are pulling now. One day he took me out to the curb where his rebuilt 54 Chevy was sitting. He told me that he had planned on giving to me on my 16th birthday, but since I had been such a fuck up for the last few months, he was going to sell it at the swap meet instead. What was my fuck-up? I had a girl over and she made a phone call from my parents bedroom. She sat on the pillow and didn’t straighten it out when she came back into the living room. My dad accused me of fucking her in his and mom’s bed. He had merely asked it a girl had been there the night before, and I said yea…for only about an hour. We listened to music and hang out in the living room. Then he laid his scurrilous accusation on me, and grounded me for a month…for lying!!! Hahahaha.
<br/>
<br/>Well I don’t like being falsely accused. And I don’t like to hang out with moles. If you can hang out with moles like Fetzer, then you have a problem of judgement. You are probably just naive. But that doesn’t matter at all does it Craig?
<br/>A lot of people who buy the official story are merely naive. I call them dupes. What would you call them Craig?
<br/>I made that charge because you put up with Fetzer. And in my opinion whether it is because you are just gullible or something else doesn’t matter.
<br/>
<br/>I have a lot of powerful arguments and facts compiled now. Even more than before. You have chosen between an obvious disinformant and me. If you were going to reinstate me on T&S you would have done it long before now. I am not buying your story.
<br/>
<br/>I don’t see your blog flourishing as it once did. What do you suppose is the reason for that? Why have so many of your loyal fans faded away? I cannot answer that with any certainly. But perhaps you might ponder the situation.
<br/>
<br/>Happy Trails!
<br/>~Willy (in confidence, Lol)
<br/>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 35 -->
<a name="x36"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x36" class="tiny">x36</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_36');">height of your precious wisdom and talents</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-2/#comment-2574">2018-05-11</a></p>
<div id="sect_36" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-2/#comment-2574">2018-05-11</a> SEO
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-2/#comment-2575">2018-05-11</a> MCB
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. \\][//,
<br/>
<br/>I just discovered (2018-05-11) this latest work from you that is undoubtedly at the height of your precious wisdom and talents. I thank you for this new homage to me that reveal itself in some of the 80 comments that are re-plays of snippets of our past discussions on Truth & Shadows from 2012.
<br/>
<br/>I won't belabor the obvious point that re-attacking my views from 2012 is a straw-man cheat. I have a new position statement that reflects my maturing and evolving thought: <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case</a> (2018-02-11).
<br/>
<br/>I don't need to respond to any of your individual re-purposed extracts nor to your comments from recently. Except for one thing. <b>You are being plagiarized.</b> You might want to look into it and have them stop. Pay attention to the date stamps in order to get context.
<br/>
<br/>You (hybridrogue1) wrote in <a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-2101">July 9, 2014 at 1:44 pm</a> <i>"Maxwell Bridges can’t stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely."</i>
<br/>
<br/>I suspect your comment was vacuumed up (along with plagiarized words from others) into a disinfo bot's database and was sent at me <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html#x51">2016-06-09</a> in an email. At the time I didn't make the connection they were plagiarizing from you.
<br/>
<br/>Once your comment got into its databases, it was re-used again (<a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html#x59">2018-04-09</a>) in a comment to my blog [now re-formatted to be within the blog article Part 3.]
<br/>
<br/>I know that you like to copy your passages from one blog to another. But it was still quite the surprise to see the exact same quote again (<a href="https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-1/#comment-2489">2018-04-24</a>) on your blog.
<br/>
<br/>There are trends to be extrapolated.
<br/>
<br/>Your \\][// blogging efforts: [<a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/">1</a>] <i>"Carnival d'Maxifuckanus"</i>, [<a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/">2</a>] <i>"Maxwell Briges: Agitprop Disinformant"</i>, and [<a href="https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/electronic-media/comment-page-1/#comments">3</a>] <i>"ELECTRONIC MEDIA"</i>.
<br/>
<br/>PhantasyPublishing blogging efforts (that survive): [<a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html">3</a>] <i>"9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation a fictional work"</i> (2018-04-09) and <a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html">[4]</a> <i>"more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges"</i> (2018-04-09)
<br/>
<br/>The selection of "turf" is fascinating, not so much from the perspective of dueling blogs, but in the subject matter. My most current work on FGNW (2016-03-11 & 2018-02-11) do not get taken apart, section-by-section. They don't get addressed at all.
<br/>
<br/>Whereas you have a link to <i>"The physical principles of thermonuclear explosives, inertial confinement fusion, and the quest for fourth generation nuclear weapons"</i> by Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni, you get hung up on future-tense. You don't perform a deep-dive into the work to find out what was present-tense in 2000 (like late-3rd generation) nor if that could be applicable to 9/11. Exhibits both an inability to perform fundamental research and is just another a cheat.
<br/>
<br/>That inability to perform fundamental research is why you hold to the line: <i>"conclusive proof of controlled demolition using chemical explosives."</i> Not true, and you have no proof. Not documented in the USGS Survey of the dust in the tables or explanatory text, nor by the RJLee Group, nor by Paul Lioy et al, nor by Dr. Steven Jones. The latter has never tested his samples for chemical explosives and A&E9/11Truth refused to test when brought to their attention. The true findings from the dust samples were (a) a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres, and (b) the radioactive and decay elements in proportional quantities as signature to fission/fusion devices (appeared in tables but never addressed in text of the USGS Report.)
<br/>
<br/>They say, if you aren't getting any flak, you aren't over the target.
<br/>
<br/>// mcb</p>
</div><!-- section 36 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part2 -->
<hr>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Expand All</b> Chapters</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All</b> Chapters</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Subsections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Subsections</a></p>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-40994134319729074522019-12-22T11:11:00.000-08:002020-01-27T13:08:36.489-08:00NPT and Internet Bots<!--
<h1>NPT and Internet Bots</h1>
<h2>Maxwell C. Bridges</h2>
<p>2020-01-22</p>
-->
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 1000;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function getURLParam(strParamName){
var strReturn = "";
var strHref = window.location.href;
if ( strHref.indexOf("?") > -1 ){
var strQueryString = strHref.substr(strHref.indexOf("?")).toLowerCase();
var aQueryString = strQueryString.split("&");
for ( var iParam = 0; iParam < aQueryString.length; iParam++ ){
if (aQueryString[iParam].indexOf(strParamName.toLowerCase() + "=") > -1 ){
var aParam = aQueryString[iParam].split("=");
strReturn = aParam[1];
// alert(strReturn);
break;
}
}
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget == "-false-") {
areaHideAll("sect_");
sectionToggle('sect_part1');
sectionToggle('sect_part2');
sectionToggle('sect_part3');
sectionToggle('sect_part4');
sectionToggle('sect_part5');
sectionToggle('sect_part6');
sectionToggle('sect_part7');
sectionToggle('sect_part8');
sectionToggle('sect_part9');
sectionToggle('sect_part10');
sectionToggle('sect_part11');
sectionToggle('sect_part12');
sectionToggle('sect_part13');
sectionToggle('sect_part14');
sectionToggle('sect_part15');
sectionToggle('sect_part16');
sectionToggle('sect_part17');
sectionToggle('sect_part18');
sectionToggle('sect_part19');
sectionToggle('sect_part20');
window.location.hash;
} else {
areaShowAll('sect_part');
areaShowAll('sect_');
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
blockquote {
/* font-style: italic;
background-color: #eeeeee; */
padding: 5px;
}
.outing {
background-color: red;
color: white;
font-weight: bold;
}
.tiny {
color: white;
font-size: 6pt;
text-decoration: none;
}
p.image, img.image {
width: 60%;
text-align: center;
border: none;
}
-->
</style>
<!-- Start the page here -->
<hr>
<p>Debunking NPT (No Planes Theory) isn't my hobby-horse. I do it more as a community service. I had been duped 2009-2012 by NPT as provided by September Clues and its crafty Parts 1 thru 9 and A thru H. But I was open-minded and objective with regards to further analysis and research, such that I acknowledged when pillars of my NPT beliefs were destroyed and I had to recant and apologize.
<br/>
<br/><i>"Doing unto others, as I would have them do to me..."</i>. I did not relish having my <i>"open-minded and objective"</i> nature (e.g., super powers of being naive and trusting, until given reason not to) <b>be taken advantage of.</b> I want to spare my fellow yeomen in the 9/11 Truth Movement similar embarrassment for having been duped. So I've had more spins than necessary trying to set the record straight.
<br/>
<br/><i>"And I would have succeeded to, were it not for those pesky [agents & bots]"</i>. This work contains NPT rounds 5 through 7. For completeness, the following has links to previous NPT rounds.
<a name='more'></a>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html">Round 1</a> (2014-03): NPT with Norma Rae and FB "All Theories Welcome"</li>
<li><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html">Round 2</a> (2015-01: NPT with Rosalee Grable</li>
<li><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html">Round 3</a> (2016-01): NPT with Shiela Casey</li>
<li><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html">Round 4</a> (2016-06): NPT with Dr. James Fetzer</li>
<li><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">Round 5</a> (2019-05): NPT with Art Olivier, Thomas Digan</li>
<li><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">Round 6</a> (2019-12): NPT with Chukwudi Onugha</li>
<li><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2019/12/npt-and-internet-bots.html">Round 7</a> (2020-01): NPT with Michael Rose</li>
</ul>
<p>
The <i>"no planes theory"</i> (NPT) suggests that the aircraft, which appeared in videos to have hit each WTC tower, were faked using CGI and/or holograms, and controlled explosives in the towers. A lot of effort was expended in this NPT ruse, from its earlier champions Nico Haupt, Rosalee Grable, and Ace Baker, to prolific September Clues (Simon Shack) and its Parts 1 thru 9 and A thru H.
<br/>
<br/>We can speculate for a long time as to the goals and purposes of NPT and why the disinfo was spun up. At the top of the list, NPT was needed to distract and shutdown valid cases of insufficient evidence of real aircraft involvement at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.
<br/>
<br/>Not that long ago, the internet was aflame with <i>"Flat Earth"</i> (FE) nonsense, which seemed to get inserted quite frequently into discussions under conspiracy Facebook groups. Like most disinfo, it doesn't have to convince that many people; muddying the waters and pushing emotional buttons is sufficient (1) to derail discussions on other topics and (2) to discredit other theories in a <i>"guilt-by-association"</i> manner. It was very much in line with the <i>"Fake News", "Fake Science", "Fake Internet", and "Trump Lies".</i>
<br/>
<br/>Normally, you would have to give FE (NPT, Woodsian DEW) proponents credit for being open-minded and objective enough to consider FE (NPT, Woodsian DEW) and make arguments for FE (NPT, Woodsian DEW), this <i>"being open-minded and objective"</i> did not extend to counter-arguments to FE (NPT, Woodsian DEW) that debunked them.
<br/>
<br/>Based on my internet experience, my addition to the speculation is that these were field exercise for Artificial Intelligence, or bots.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnzlbyTZsQY">
AI vs. AI. Two chatbots talking to each other
<br/>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnzlbyTZsQY</a>
</p>
<iframe width="794" height="447" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WnzlbyTZsQY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Expand All</b> Chapters</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All</b> Chapters</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Subsections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Subsections</a></p>
<hr>
<a name="x466"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part8');">Chapter 12:
NPT Round 5 with Art Olivier, Thomas Digan</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part8" style="display: block;">
<p>Another tedious spin on the NPT carousel. </p>
<a name="x467"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x467" class="tiny">x467</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_467');">F4 video is very instructive</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_467" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/675092312931064/?comment_id=683338252106470&reply_comment_id=684405048666457¬if_id=1558570117542818¬if_t=group_comment&ref=notif">2019-05-22</a>
<br/>
Dear Mr. Enver Masud, this is one of those situations where they can't have their cake and eat it too. Hear me out when I say that the F4 crash video and the MythBuster's video rocket-wedge are indeed instrumental in understanding the Pentagon and the WTC, ~BUT~ not for the reasons implied by Chandler et al.
<br/>
<br/>Here's the take-away: when velocities are very large, this gets squared in the physics equation for energy that can be much greater than the internal structural strength / energy of the materials in question causing them to shatter, as opposed to bouncing off as a cohesive whole.
<br/>
<br/>The F4 video DEBUNKS a real plane crashing into the Pentagon and the official alleged flight path, because poles hitting wings at high velocities would have resulted in significant damage to the wings to the point of shattering at impact point and making the plane un-flight-worthy to make the final distance into the ground level of the Pentagon so precisely. Didn't happen to that precise plane path.
<br/>
<br/>And as a bonus, the F4 video DEBUNKS the notion of "no planes at the WTC" (NPT @ WTC), where they claim the "wings sliced the steel wall assemblies in a cartoonish manner." First, only the aluminum cladding was sliced wing-tip to wing-tip in a cartoon fashion. The wall assemblies, however, were only breached by the fuselage and engine. [The NPTers get knocked for not describing the damage accurately.]
<br/>
<br/>Second, the NPTers go farther and claim the wings should have broken off the plane and bounced off the building, as if it were a fender-bender at city speeds.
<br/>
<br/>But as already explained, the high velocities resulted in the wings shattering on impact -- the portion of the wings that didn't get sliced and enter through the near-zero resistance windows -- and therefore weren't a cohesive whole any more to bounce in such a fashion. It was not video fakery that the wings disappeared, but high velocity physics with energy that overwhelmed and shattered the wings.
<br/>
<br/>Third, the NPTers like to say that the plane flew through its own length entering the building in the same number of frames it flew through thin air. While somewhat true within a certain error tolerance, the fast aircraft speed coupled with slow camera frame rates would result in a range of velocity (e.g., "deceleration" or slowing on impact) that are valid. This is masked in their lame explanation. Further, they imply that the resistance to a mass entering the structure would be constant for the entire length of the aircraft. The reality is that once an entrance hole was breached in the towers (by plowing a wall assembly out of the way), the amount of structure or content that could impede further penetration was minimal.
<br/>
<br/>Bottom-line is that the F4 video is very instructive, but you have to apply it properly to the situation, and doing so debunks both the Pentagon plane but the WTC disinfo no-planes.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 467 -->
<a name="x468"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x468" class="tiny">x468</a>
Art Olivier : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_468');">fuselage penetrated the exoskeletons</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_468" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>What was in the fuselage that penetrated the exoskeletons of the Twin Towers?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 468 -->
<a name="x469"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x469" class="tiny">x469</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_469');">hot-tub landing gear</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_469" style="display: block;">
<p>
The heavy metal landing gear... 10 pieces of landing gear were located outside the towers, including in someone's hot-tub.
<br/>My favorite is the one embedded between hollow box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped off the backside of WTC-1 to land in a parking lot.
<br/>https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 469 -->
<a name="x470"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x470" class="tiny">x470</a>
Art Olivier : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_470');">bent the column</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_470" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges What was in the wing that bent this column 90°?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 470 -->
<a name="x471"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x471" class="tiny">x471</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_471');">hollow box column</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_471" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Art Olivier, based on the hollow box column immediately to the right of the box column in question, we can see that this was close to the top of the wall assembly. The bolts connecting it to the assembly above was sheared. (The column to the left is part of a different wall assembly with a different bolting point. Refer to the article.)
<br/>
<br/>As mentioned, the box columns were hollow. (The thickness of the four sheets making a single column varied depending on where it was in the tower, thicker lower, thinner higher.) It isn't solid steel for the entire thickness of the box column.
<br/>
<br/>I see the floor acting as a convenient fulcrum for a high velocity wing to bend it over.
<br/>
<br/>Physics says equal and opposite. So while the velocity squared term in the energy equation can shatter the light materials of the wings, that same energy is transferred into the structure, sufficient to shear some bolts and bent the top of a hollow box column at the juncture with a floor.
<br/>
<br/>I'm not sure the profile of the plane is drawn correctly.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 471 -->
<a name="x472"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x472" class="tiny">x472</a>
Art Olivier : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_472');">Newton's third law</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_472" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges The column is 14"x14", 3/8" thick, made out of structural steel. The wing is 1/10" thick aluminum. Are you saying an aluminum wing could bend over a steel column that was 14" deep?
<br/>
<br/>Newton's third law indicates that a steel building traveling at 500 mph into an aluminum plane would have the same effect as an aluminum plane hitting a steel framed building at 500 mph. Either way, the plane would be crushed.
</p>
</div><!-- section 472 -->
<a name="x473"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x473" class="tiny">x473</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_473');">shattered wing imparted energy</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_473" style="display: block;">
<p>
The plane wing was shattered, correct. But that doesn't mean it had no energy to impart upon the building.
<br/>
<br/>There are lots high-speed videos of bullets hitting steel. Here's one.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvUBjmuR2E0
<br/>
<br/>Of note is that the bullet completely shatters on the impact face and its fragments mostly go 360 degrees in plane of plate. Energy impacted upon the plate though, sends in the profile of the bullet a plug of steel out the backside.
<br/>
<br/>As with this an many videos, the bullet does not technically pierce through the steel plate, but nonetheless a whole in the shape of the bullet is created.
<br/>
<br/>Same principle with the towers. Even in the wings getting decimated upon impact with the hollow box columns, energy was transferred into the hollow box columns and did cause reasonable and expected damage.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 473 -->
<a name="x474"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x474" class="tiny">x474</a>
Art Olivier : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_474');">one bent column</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_474" style="display: block;">
<p>If the metal plate is thin enough, a lead-tipped bullet will go through a steel plate but an aluminum bullet would not, which is why lead is used on bullets and depleted uranium is used on bunker-busting bombs.
<br/>
<br/>Just concentrating on the one bent column pointed out in my picture, it is not hard to imagine what would happen if that column were to hit a wing of a 767, the wing would be destroyed and the column would not bend in the slightest.
<br/>
<br/>This is the point of Newton's Third Law. The aluminum and the steel don't know which one is going 500 mph, the result will be the same.
</p>
</div><!-- section 474 -->
<a name="x475"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x475" class="tiny">x475</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_475');">low frame-rate of a camera</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_475" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Art Olivier, don't get hung up in the weeds of thin steel versus thick steel, aluminum bullets verus lead... The salient point is the physics of high velocity impacts and their effects on materials.
<br/>
<br/>When the low frame-rate of a camera at quite some distance seems to depict a plane disappearing into a tower with what seems like a tiny puff of dust followed later by an explosive gas cloud, it does not mean that video fakery happened or that there weren't any planes.
<br/>
<br/>It means that the energy of the high velocity impact was sufficient to shatter the wings (while also inflicting damage to the wall assemblies), and the "tiny puff of dust" is really when closer up much more significant as wing shatter & slice.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Just concentrating on the one bent column pointed out in my picture, it is not hard to imagine what would happen if that column were to hit a wing of a 767, the wing would be destroyed and the column would not bend in the slightest."
<br/>
<br/>I was with you after the last "and the column would not bend in the slightest."
<br/>
<br/>Complete bullshit.
<br/>
<br/>(a) The box column in question was hollow and not a solid block of steel.
<br/>
<br/>(b) As can be seen, the bent happened just below near the juncture of two wall assemblies. The bolts failed first and were severed, and allowed the torque on top portion of this hallow box column to get bent over at the junction with the floor by the energy of the wing that was destroyed.
<br/>
<br/>Accurate physical descriptions of the wall assemblies, of the WTC structure, of the plane wings, of the damage to the wall assemblies versus aluminum cladding, of the nature of the wall assemblies and bolt-in failure points, and of reduced penetrating resistance once breached make clear that there was nothing physics defying about a hollow box column getting bent.
<br/>
<br/>The strength of those connecting bolts? Remember that some landing gear helped plow through the first set of wall assemblies and exited through a second set of wall assemblies by severing its connecting bolts, ripping it off the building, and ejecting it some distance into a parking lot.
<br/>
<br/>Let this realization impress upon you the relative weakness of the connecting bolts in general and the great amount of energy that high velocity physics brings into play.
<br/>
<br/>That Sandia F4 and MythBuster's rocket-wedge are instrumental in helping us discover the deceit in 9/11. It debunks NPT @ WTC, but also proves no planes at the Pentagon (e.g., real aircraft hitting light poles would have been crippled and spewing debris and not had the accuracy exhibited.)
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 475 -->
<a name="x476"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x476" class="tiny">x476</a>
Art Olivier : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_476');">bullets would be made out of aluminum</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_476" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>“don't get hung up in the weeds of thin steel versus thick steel, aluminum bullets verus lead... The salient point is the physics of high velocity impacts and their effects on materials.”
<br/>
<br/>If what you are saying was true, bullets would be made out of aluminum instead of lead. Aluminum bullets have a higher velocity because they are lighter but they won’t penetrate steel plate because aluminum is not as dense as steel. It is also why the military uses the most dense material they can for bunker busting bombs. You can’t change the laws of physics to match your theory. How would the metals know which one is stationary and which one is in motion? Unless you can prove that Newton was wrong when he wrote his Third Law, your velocity theory has no merit.
<br/>
<br/>“The box column in question was hollow and not a solid block of steel”
<br/>
<br/>Do you really think that there are columns in high-rise buildings that are solid blocks of steel?
<br/>
<br/>The nose-in nose-out video is clearly CGI.
</p>
</div><!-- section 476 -->
<a name="x477"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x477" class="tiny">x477</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_477');">mass is one of the factors in the energy equation</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_477" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Art Olivier, I am ~not~ "changing the laws of physics to match [my] theory." You are ~not~ understanding the laws of physics.
<br/>
<br/>A more dense bullet means more mass, and mass is one of the factors in the energy equation along with velocity squared. Can't always increase the speed of a bullet through air, but you can mess with the projectile.
<br/>
<br/>But that isn't the point. The point is energy transfer. And what I demonstrated with this particular bullet-against-steel video, is that even if the vehicle (bullet) completely fails and gets splattered to smithereens with fragments sent every which way, energy is transferred into the target. In the bullet example, a plug of steel with the profile of the bullet gets blown out the backside. Bullet didn't actually pierce it, but a hole was made, and that plug of steel can be like a (slower) bullet if it hit you. If the steel were any thicker, the steel would probably deform with the outlines of the bullet. Again, demonstrates energy transfer.
<br/>
<br/>Relating this to 9/11 and planes hitting towers, yes, it is perfectly physics compliant to observe after-effects of bent columns as one form of deformation from having energy of high-velocity wings impacting and shattering.
<br/>
<br/>Regarding your comment: "The nose-in nose-out video is clearly CGI."
<br/>
<br/>I was duped mightily by September Clues for several years, but kept my mind and research open to different conclusions.
<br/>
<br/>I can definitively state that CGI and imagery manipulation did happen with 9/11, and certainly the media was complicit. But I don't think "nose-in nose-out" is CGI. I think it is a case of coincidence that the expelled gas cloud resembled the front of the plane for a frame or two and was deceitfully used to make the disinfo case of no planes. For all I know, maybe they used CGI to enhance it after the fact to make sure the resemblance to the nose was there, which would then prove you right. Maybe CGI helped fudge truly distinguishing details of the aircraft.
<br/>
<br/>CGI doesn't take away from the fact real aircraft were involved.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 477 -->
<a name="x478"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x478" class="tiny">x478</a>
Gaylord Campbell : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_478');">14 had Saudi passports</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_478" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/388111014962530/682660348840927/?comment_id=684247352015560&reply_comment_id=684015428705419¬if_id=1558606162645625¬if_t=group_comment_follow&ref=notif">2019-05-22</a>
<br/>This doesn’t make sense since out of the 19 hijackers 14 had Saudi passports.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 478 -->
<a name="x479"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x479" class="tiny">x479</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_479');">patsy hijackers</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_479" style="display: block;">
<p>
The patsy hijackers were groomed and monitored by Israeli agents. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 479 -->
<a name="x480"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x480" class="tiny">x480</a>
Daniel Coble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_480');">no passenger planes were hijacked</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_480" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Gaylord: Bin Laden and the 18 flight-school-dropout patsies had as much to do with the destruction on 9/11 as Oswald had to do with killing JFK.... No passenger planes were hijacked or crashed into buildings on 9/11.... Turns out that too much propaganda has blinded you to the facts....
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 480 -->
<a name="x481"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x481" class="tiny">x481</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_481');">plenty of evidence of aircraft</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_481" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Daniel Coble, I agree that the Saudi's were patsies, and even to the comment that no passenger planes were hijacked. I could even agree that no planes crashed at Shanksville and the Pentagon. However, real planes (maybe not the alleged commercial aircraft) did crash into the towers.
<br/>NPT at the WTC was spun up to discredit the truth movement and distract from the real NPT.
<br/>Plenty of evidence of aircraft. Here's a starter.
<br/><a href="https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 481 -->
<a name="x482"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x482" class="tiny">x482</a>
Thomas Digan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_482');">alleged plane parts</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_482" style="display: block;">
<p>Planted. Same as all the other alleged plane parts. Impossible manoeuvres impossible speeds impossible physics. Didn't happen.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 482 -->
<a name="x483"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x483" class="tiny">x483</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_483');">physics was not impossible</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_483" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Thomas Digan, the physics was not impossible. When the towers are characterized properly (e.g., resistance to penetration went way down after wall assemblies were breached or pushed out of the way), when the high velocity physics is properly explained (e.g., energy goes way up and exceeds structural strength of materials in question, like wings that shatter), and when the damage is properly described (e.g., the aluminum cladding showed wing-tip to wing-tip damage, but not so for the wall assemblies behind them.)
<br/>I've debunked NPT at the WTC several times. I'll save you my copy-and-paste here, and you can read some of my discussions against NPT trolls.
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 483 -->
<a name="x484"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x484" class="tiny">x484</a>
Thomas Digan : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_484');">A plane didn't hit shit that day</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_484" style="display: block;">
<p>Don't bother m8. A plane didn't hit shit that day.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 484 -->
<a name="x485"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x485" class="tiny">x485</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_485');">planes swapped doesn't mean no airplanes were involved</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_485" style="display: block;">
<p>
P.S. "Impossible speeds" at low altitude might be true for the alleged commercial aircraft. But the many large pieces were never serial-numbered matched to the alleged commercial aircraft, and they did turn off transponders and even go off radar around an air force base. I don't mind the argument that the planes were swapped, but that doesn't mean no airplanes were involved. //
<br/>
Dear Mr. Thomas Digan, if you aren't going to defend your accusation of no planes (at the WTC, because I agree no planes crashed at the Pentagon or Shanksville) and if you aren't going to address the valid evidence of real aircraft already posted a few times here in this thread, then you are in a very weak debate position.
<br/>I've ridden the NPT carousel many times. See above. You can either do the right thing and find the errors in my analysis in the hopes that we'll find common ground, or you can continue with your hypnotic suggestion and get called out for such agenda-toting things.
<br/>NPT at the WTC is disinformation.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 485 -->
<a name="x486"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x486" class="tiny">x486</a>
Sam Lock : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_486');">dress up as Arabs</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_486" style="display: block;">
<p>Gaylord Campbell why do you buy the perpetrators conspiracy theory but ignore the facts before your eyes. They dress up as Arabs, trying to pass the blame onto them,,, but they were caught dressed as Arabs.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 486 -->
<a name="x487"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x487" class="tiny">x487</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_487');">dancing Mossad agents</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_487" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Sam Lock, the patsies were Arabs, but is was dancing Mossad agents who were on the van filming the event.
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 487 -->
<a name="x488"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x488" class="tiny">x488</a>
Paul Donnelly : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_488');">ghosted back to Israel at the behest of Michael Chertoff</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_488" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Not true. The dancing Israelis were arrested but released and ghosted back to Israel at the behest of Michael Chertoff. The footage is still on YouTube.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 488 -->
<a name="x489"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x489" class="tiny">x489</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_489');">Israeli TV</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_489" style="display: block;">
<p>
Yes true, Mr. Paul Donnelly, because after they were ghosted back to Israel, they went on Israeli TV and admitted they were Mossad agents tasked with filming the event. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 489 -->
<a name="x490"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x490" class="tiny">x490</a>
Gaylord Campbell : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_490');">Loose Change</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_490" style="display: block;">
<p>Paul Donnelly I remember when the first film on 911 came out, Loose Change and everyone attending the premier of it were Republicans from San Diego where the CIA has about 80 buildings under the Titan Corporation a front company. You do realize that do…See More
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 490 -->
<a name="x491"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x491" class="tiny">x491</a>
Daniel Coble : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_491');">check your work before you turn it in</a></b></p>
<p>2019-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_491" style="display: block;">
<p>Cuz wood fires can get hot enough to melt steel.... Is that your final answer, Gaylord, or would you like to check your work before you turn it in and make a fool of yourself?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 491 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part8 -->
<hr>
<a name="x492"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part13');">Chapter 13:
NPT Round 6 with Chukwudi Onugha</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part13" style="display: block;">
<p>
My debate opponent -- Mr. Chukwudi Onugha -- may be a non-native English speaker and for this reason might be entitled to some slack.
<br/>
<br/>Or Mr. Chukwudi Onugha might be a bot.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Chukwudi Onugha didn't seem all that capable of following my links to the WTC punchout hole created by aircraft landing gear. He had no comments on it.
<br/>
<br/>An objective and sincere person would be able to consider this physical evidence captured on camera before either tower fell, and maybe re-consider and modify beliefs that hinge on CGI and no actual aircraft.
<br/>
<br/>The only bright spot of this NPT carousel ride was being to engage Mr. Wayne Coste.
</p>
<a name="x493"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x493" class="tiny">x493</a>
Chukwudi Onugha : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_493');">NO PLANE HIT ANYWHERE ON 9-11</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_493" style="display: block;">
<p>
2019-12-06
<br/>https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/632507603953489/?comment_id=643527659518150&reply_comment_id=644459576091625¬if_id=1575856971184026
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Chukwudi Onugha
<br/>Chukwudi Onugha NO PLANE HIT ANYWHERE ON 9-11....
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 493 -->
<a name="x494"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x494" class="tiny">x494</a>
Marc Douglas Vogt : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_494');">completely governed mental retard</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_494" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Marc Douglas Vogt
<br/>Marc Douglas Vogt You're an total truther fail by design. -marc27
<br/>
<br/>Marc Douglas Vogt
<br/>Marc Douglas Vogt Why are you laughing you know nothing completely governed mental retard and want to easily Prove it?
<br/>
<br/>Marc Douglas Vogt
<br/>Marc Douglas Vogt Spell your real family name right and Anti-Correct. -marc27
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 494 -->
<a name="x495"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x495" class="tiny">x495</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_495');">pretty conclusive that real aircraft were involved at the WTC</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_495" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Chukwudi Onugha, please don't be so obstinate and un-objective in your conjecture! Yes, the two events at the Pentagon and Shanksville probably had no real aircraft crashing. No, the two events at the WTC did have real aircraft, although quite possibly not the exact make-and-model as the alleged commercial airliners, but that is a different rabbit-hole.
<br/>
<br/>I was a no-planer (at the WTC) for several years many years ago, but then I saw the light.
<br/>
<br/>This piece of evidence should be pretty conclusive that real aircraft were involved at the WTC. If you follow this link and look at the pictures, you'll find a wheel from an aircraft embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly that was ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 (1st aircraft) and landed in a parking lot. It was photographed from at least two angles before either tower was destroyed.
<br/>
<br/>Consider this a test of whether or not you are an agenda-toting agent.
<br/>
<br/>A real person (or non-agent) would be able to go into this simple webpage, read the analysis, study the pictures, think independently, and come to the conclusion that this evidence is conclusive in favor of real aircraft at the WTC ... AND THEN, that same real person -- if they had been championing NPT -- would be able to recant and apologize for having led others astray with the misinformation that they did not previously recognize as such.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br/>
<br/>In my cyber-experience, an agent will not be able to do even a fraction of what a real person could / would / should do. They get tripped up on even following the link and reading. Forget about them changing their minds and issuing apologies.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>CRYPTOME.ORG
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 495 -->
<a name="x496"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x496" class="tiny">x496</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_496');">impressed with the detail</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_496" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Thanks for pointing this out. I've not paid any attentions to this part of the event and I am very impressed with the detail that is present in this CRYPTOME.ORG analysis. Kudos for posting this.
<br/>Cryptome
<br/>CRYPTOME.ORG
<br/>Cryptome
<br/>Cryptome
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 496 -->
<a name="x497"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x497" class="tiny">x497</a>
Chukwudi Onugha : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_497');">may have been CGI or a hologram</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_497" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Chukwudi Onugha
<br/>Chukwudi Onugha Maxwell Bridges , I REPEAT NO PLANE HIT ANYWHERE ON 9-11....
<br/>It may have been CGI or a hologram.
<br/>However, it is practically impossible for a plane to slip into a mass of steel & reinforced concrete like hot knife through butter.
<br/>The science and physics says so and to believe otherwise what should be obvious to a teenager with a good grasp of elementary physics is disgraceful.
<br/>Hide or report this
<br/>Image may contain: text
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 497 -->
<a name="x498"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x498" class="tiny">x498</a>
Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_498');">impact and tower sway</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_498" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br/>Chukwudi Onugha Chukwudi: I agree with your comment: "obvious to a teenager with a good grasp of elementary physics is disgraceful."
<br/>Momentum transfer from a collision of a large high velocity object into the tower will cause it to sway.
<br/>https://www.911tap.org/.../770-plane-impact-and-tower...
<br/>
<br/>Plane impact and tower sway at the WTC on 9/11–Examining momentum transfer on the towers.
<br/>911TAP.ORG
<br/>Plane impact and tower sway at the WTC on 9/11–Examining…
<br/>Plane impact and tower sway at the WTC on 9/11–Examining momentum transfer on the towers.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 498 -->
<a name="x499"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x499" class="tiny">x499</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_499');">steel & reinforced concrete BLOCKS throughout their entire length, width, and height</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_499" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Chukwudi Onugha, you write about the towers as if they were steel & reinforced concrete BLOCKS throughout their entire length, width, and height. They were not.
<br/>
<br/>50% of the faces of the towers were window slits whose resistance would not have stopped the penetrating planes. The wall assemblies were each composed of three box-columns that were hollow and of varying thickness. The wall assemblies had built-in points of failure: the bolts connecting them together.
<br/>
<br/>If you study the damage closely, you'll see the aluminum cladding (over the wall assemblies) sustained damage wingtip to wingtip, but not the wall assemblies themselves, which were damaged mostly at the fuselage and engine areas, where some wall assemblies were pushed completely out of the way, others had bent hollow box columns, and only a small number of box columns were actually severed.
<br/>
<br/>The concrete that you wrote about was at 12' (or so) spacing, which translates into a lot of air. Once the fuselage had breached the initial impacted wall assemblies, there was not a lot of structure to resist the continued forward penetration of the aircraft...
<br/>
<br/>High velocity physics also needs to be factored in when considering the planes' wings and tail assemblies not "bouncing off the structure as cohesive wholes". The velocity squared term of the energy equation at high velocities has energy sufficiently high to shatter the material of wings (while also inflicting damage on the wall assembly box columns). Point is, wings would not have been cohesive whole structures; fragments penetrated windows, fragments bounced (visible in the videos), fragments were found on the ground. The tail itself entered the hole plowed by the fuselage.
<br/>
<br/>As for your "hot knife through butter" comment? Probably relates to common disinformation that the "aircraft traveled its length through air in the same number of frames as its tail entered the towers." Although the statement is factually correct, it hides the fact that the 24 frames/second of the camera makes this statement true for a range of velocities -- meaning, sufficient to hide deceleration. The engine that rocketed out of the corner, flew some distance, bounced off a roof, and landed / rolled under scaffolding at Church & Murray achieved this with a physics-compliant exit velocity of 122 mph, which is less than the 500 mph entrance velocity.
<br/>
<br/>At any rate, you made no comments about the physical evidence of aircraft given at the Crytome links, and you've been duped by poor explanations of physics.
<br/>
<br/>I've been on this carousel several times before. Good thing I saved my work and can issue you a "GOTO" statement.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../debunking-nptwtc.html
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>Debunking NPT@WTC
<br/>MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
<br/>Debunking NPT@WTC
<br/>Debunking NPT@WTC
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 499 -->
<a name="x500"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x500" class="tiny">x500</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_500');">If holograms were all that</a></b></p>
<p>2019-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_500" style="display: block;">
<p>
As for your holograms comment. If holograms were all that, we'd have holo-Santa and holo-Elvis at the malls by today. Two sets of radar data were co-linear (within tolerances) of one another, and with flight path of several dozen amateur videos overlaid on a 3D model of the city.
<br/>
<br/>When I studied holograms, the technology wasn't available on the scale it need to be. Those championing holograms deceitfully mis-represented the radar data and went into the weeds about cloaked planes projecting the hologram (on what?).
<br/>
<br/>Imagery manipulation did happen on and after 9/11. We only have to turn to the images from the Pentagon and to 4 different versions of the helicopter shot of the 2nd WTC plane to prove this.
<br/>
<br/>But that doesn't mean that everything was fake and CGI, and nothing was real.
<br/>
<br/>You are avoiding the physical evidence of real aircraft involvement at the WTC. It is a completely different argument to say that the aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft -- no matching of serial numbered parts to the planes. But to say there were "no planes" falls into the hands of you being a duped useful idiot. No planes at the WTC was concocted to deceitfully distract and confuse from real instances of no plane crashes at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
<br/>
<br/>Time for you to prove your truther credentials by being open-minded and objective and acknowledging that WTC physical evidence.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 500 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part13 -->
<hr>
<a name="x501"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part17');">Chapter 14:
NPT Round 7 with Michael Rose</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part17" style="display: block;">
<p>Debunking NPT isn't my hobby-horse; championing Truth is. I had been duped for a few years many years ago by the No Planes Theory (NPT) as provided by September Clues and its crafty Parts 1 thru 9 and A thru H. I understood Mr. Michael Rose's mindset. Therefore I figure that if I could present the few items of evidence and analysis that convinced me otherwise, those nuggets of truth might also persuade Mr. Rose.
</p>
<p>Alas, I have detected a trend in defenders of certain theories. They won't acknowledge weaknesses in their premises. Objective participants would; those promoting agendas of others can't.
</p>
<a name="x502"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x502" class="tiny">x502</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_502');">manifestation of thefireball was NOT accompanied by ANY visible airplane or airplane image</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_502" style="display: block;">
<p>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/hommedespoir/posts/10221098184714331">https://www.facebook.com/hommedespoir/posts/10221098184714331</a>
<br/>2020-01-07
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
<br/>
<br/>The Twin Towers shot just seconds after a airplane-shaped image appeared to emerge from the other side of the200-foot wide buidling, nose unscathed. The FACT that the very next TV screen was "FADE TO BLACK" indicates that Authority ws aware of the video blunder which they tried in vain to cover up.
<br/>See "September Clues Part A" by Simon Shack for many more "impossible" blunders
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT4wljY7fjM
<br/>This is just one of MANY lies inherent in the 9/11 Movie as originally seen on Telly. More anon....
<br/>
<br/>There are (at least) 5 IMPOSSIBILITIES contained within just a few minutesOf the video that purports to show a jetliner plunging into WTC2:
<br/>* One airliner image is seen moving across the scene at what can readily be timed as 580MPH
<br/>(this velocity is technically impossible on account of (a) grossly insufficient horsepower, and
<br/>(b) an airframe that risks total collapse at VNe of approx 360 MPH
<br/>* The exact-same supposed airline image is seen in an adjacent view moving at a timed 230MPH, less than HALF the velocity of the same airplane in the previous view
<br/>* The same airplane image is completely absent from WTC2 scenes shot after the fireball effect
<br/>* The same airplane image is totally absent in a long shot into which the camera zooms withouta break to a close-up from which close-up we were presented with an airplane image which
<br/>in turn proceeded to appear to enter the building. Because the image was not visible in thepreceding long shot, the image can reasonably be assumed to have been inserted either duringor after the filming.
<br/>* The airplane image that enters WTC2 via a fireball, then proceeds through the 200-foot-wide floorof the building, and a nose of the airplane image projects beyond the far side of the tower:
<br/>a lightweight aluminum airfram cannot possibly penetrate in the way we were shown.
<br/>* In another view, the airplane image is shown as if DISSOLVING harmlessly into the glass facadeof the building. No broken glass is seen, and no damaged or broken airplane componentsare shown, which is to be expected when the object concerned is in fact a digital image and nota real airplane.... or for that matter, a real building.
<br/>* The airplane image is seen in one shot, where a "wing" passes directly through a tower buildingin the distance. This is a (not uncommon) error in video compositing.
<br/>* There were video shots of both WTC1 and WTC2 showing a fireball effect bursting out of eachtower in a location directly relating to the eventual position of an artificial airplane-cutout opening
<br/>which was not seen in either building before that morning. In each case, the manifestation of thefireball was NOT accompanied by ANY visible airplane or airplane image. This latter gives riseto the concept of airplane images and associated big media stories, were all fabricated for
<br/>reasons totally unrelated to the explosive appearance of the fireballs and holles referred to here.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 502 -->
<a name="x503"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x503" class="tiny">x503</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_503');">9/11 imagery manipulation did happen</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_503" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, 9/11 imagery manipulation did happen; media outlets were coordinated in their live streams and complicit. One could even argue that the alleged commercial aircraft never took off or were swapped mid-flight.
<br/>
<br/>However, these are different issues from whether the WTC involved real aircraft.
<br/>
<br/>I was an ardent believer of September Clues for several years, until I studied beyond their premise to all of the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>I've already debunked in years past (and saved my work) most of the bullet points you bring up. Many of them malframe the nature of the towers, the physics, etc.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Debunking NPT@WTC
<br/>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br/>Debunking NPT@WTC
<br/>Debunking NPT@WTC
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 503 -->
<a name="x504"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x504" class="tiny">x504</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_504');">individual points which I claimed are IMPOSSIBILITIES </a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_504" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Maxwell Bridges If you woulld care to comment on the individual points which I claimed are IMPOSSIBILITIES re the 4 Faked Boeings, we could find some common ground to cover assiduously.
<br/>Your learned text fills rather too much of blogspot for the non-academic reader that I thought it would be useful for NPTheorists to concentrate perhaps on the more objectively non-controversial aspects of NPT
<br/>Thanks a mill,
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 504 -->
<a name="x505"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x505" class="tiny">x505</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_505');">re-canted my NPT@WTC beliefs</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_505" style="display: block;">
<p>
FTR, here is where I recanted my NPT@WTC beliefs, and links to what convinced me to change my mind.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/05/i-concede-point-and-will-no-longer-be.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/05/i-concede-point-and-will-no-longer-be.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>I will no longer advocate NPT; I concede
<br/>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br/>I will no longer advocate NPT; I concede
<br/>I will no longer advocate NPT; I concede
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 505 -->
<a name="x506"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x506" class="tiny">x506</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_506');">R. I. P. - No Plane Theory</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_506" style="display: block;">
<p>
Here is the link to lots of information. I think the 3D video is here somewhere.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=f5c869cd40d5aa18e72ebf1662fc2f62&showtopic=21992&st=0&p=10804770">http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=f5c869cd40d5aa18e72ebf1662fc2f62&showtopic=21992&st=0&p=10804770</a>
<br/>R. I. P. - No Plane Theory - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum
<br/>pilotsfor911truth.org
<br/>R. I. P. - No Plane Theory - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum
<br/>R. I. P. - No Plane Theory - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 506 -->
<a name="x507"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x507" class="tiny">x507</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_507');">dyed nin the wool myopes</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_507" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
I was/still am a Pilot 4 911 Truther.... not all, not many? pilots have a crypit clue about the fundaMENTALS of the pereps' staging of the Hollywood-directed" 9/11 Movie
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Sheesh... PilotsFor911Truth are so dyed nin the wool myopes they think chemtrails are caused by faulty airplane design.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 507 -->
<a name="x508"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x508" class="tiny">x508</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_508');">Up your game</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_508" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, such dismissive comments without actually going and reading the page, studying the videos? And you try the same brush-off down below with the link to cryptome?
<br/>
<br/>Up your game, because otherwise it doesn't bode well with your premise or your reputation.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>cryptome.org
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 508 -->
<a name="x509"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x509" class="tiny">x509</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_509');">Bullet point 1: videos with two different speeds</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_509" style="display: block;">
<p>Bullet point 1: "One airliner image is seen moving across the scene at what can readily be timed as 580MPH (this velocity is technically impossible on account of (a) grossly insufficient horsepower, and (b) an airframe that risks total collapse at VNe of approx 360 MPH"
<br/>
<br/>I could be convinced that the aircraft were swapped and were not the alleged commercial aircraft. The whole circus about the turning off the transponders and then portions of their flight path where they were off radar (and close to an airport) points to a swap. None of the parts found were serial numbered identified and matched to the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br/>
<br/>Therefore, this bullet point is a dubious argument against any type of aircraft. Such limitations don't need to apply to "hardened" military aircraft.
<br/>
<br/>Plus, the aircraft was descending without any cause or need for the landing to be soft. Thus, the velocity isn't necessarily a limiting factor.
<br/>
<br/>On to the next bullet.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 509 -->
<a name="x510"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x510" class="tiny">x510</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_510');">101% EASIER, CHEAPER AND MORE EFFECTIVE TO SIMPLY INTRODUCE A CGI</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_510" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
iS IT NOT 101% EASIER, CHEAPER AND MORE EFFECTIVE TO SIMPLY INTRODUCE A CGI?
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 510 -->
<a name="x511"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x511" class="tiny">x511</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_511');">real aircraft to do real damage as a ruse for the thorough destruction needed</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_511" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael Rose, NO!. They needed real aircraft to do real damage as a ruse for the thorough destruction needed. With the $2.3 trillion in missing pentagon spending, they had the money to spend on throw-away aircraft. They needed people to see it and be witness to it.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 511 -->
<a name="x512"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x512" class="tiny">x512</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_512');">without deploying real aircraft</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_512" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Michael Rose</b>
So how did they manage to fool so many of US for so many years withoutn deployting real aircraft (with the ?hhonorable exception of the Pentagon plane which was the only real Boeing, albeit a military aircraft (if you were to check the tail number etc)
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 512 -->
<a name="x513"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x513" class="tiny">x513</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_513');">you misconstrue my words</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_513" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, you misconstrue my words. WTC-1 and WTC-2 had real aircraft, but not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br/>
<br/>Pentagon had a fly-over but no airplane crash.
<br/>
<br/>Shanksville had no airplane crash.
<br/>
<br/>The validated cases of "no aircraft (crashes)" at those two locations led to the fake NPT@WTC meme of September Clues.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 513 -->
<a name="x514"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x514" class="tiny">x514</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_514');">don't expect any imtel from me on so called missliles</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_514" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
The USAF was the ONLY real Boeing that day.... (except the shanksville event which is total ddistra ctiuon best ignored
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
...oh, and don't expect any imtel from me on so called missliles.... I suspect they were invented over various keyboards....but still total distractions to this topic IMHO
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 514 -->
<a name="x515"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x515" class="tiny">x515</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_515');">addressed errors and distractions in the video analysis</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_515" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, to recap this thread under your posting, I addressed errors and distractions in the video analysis that try to misconstrue measured velocity from two different perspective videos. You have not addressed any counter argument to the points brought up.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 515 -->
<a name="x516"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x516" class="tiny">x516</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_516');">Bullet 2: perspective</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_516" style="display: block;">
<p>
Bullet 2: "The exact-same supposed airline image is seen in an adjacent view moving at a timed 230MPH, less than HALF the velocity of the same airplane in the previous view".
<br/>
<br/>PERSPECTIVE answers this question. What was the angle of the aircraft's path with respect to the viewing location?
<br/>
<br/>One of the strongest pieces of evidence against the NPT@WTC argument for me (and convinced me to change my tune) was an overlay of a few dozen amateur videos onto a 3D model of NYC that showed all of their flight paths co-linear with each other as well as two sets of radar data (within each radar's tolerance.)
<br/>
<br/>PilotsFor9/11Truth (or whatever their name was) had a great takedown of this.
<br/>
<br/>At any rate, you brought up the references of two videos with two seemingly different velocities, therefore the onus is on you to provide them. I already know that camera perspective is going to play a role to make this bullet invalid.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 516 -->
<a name="x517"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x517" class="tiny">x517</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_517');">my methods did NOT depend on perspective</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_517" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
I could go over this in detail.... but my methods did NOT depend on perspective.... and all I was doing was illustrating yet another way the perps made another cock-up.... an error hich even a person with little aviation intuition would have observed.
<br/>
<br/>Idd need to revisit YT to quote specifics, lets leave that till later, its the principle that counts now
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 517 -->
<a name="x518"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x518" class="tiny">x518</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_518');">V(observed) = V(in air) * cos (theta)</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_518" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, if you don't take into consideration perspective, then your analysis is wrong.
<br/>
<br/>Imagine that I am looking at the towers from a position that is a right angle Theta to flight path. The velocity that I measure is
<br/>
<br/>V(observed) = V(in air) * cos (theta)
<br/>
<br/>At a right angle, V(observed) = V(in air)
<br/>
<br/>However, if my perspective is on the other side of the tower and at an angle theta to the flight path, the cosine of theta term reduces the velocity observed by that factor.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 518 -->
<a name="x519"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x519" class="tiny">x519</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_519');">Bullet 3: missing from scenes</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_519" style="display: block;">
<p>
Bullet 3: "The same airplane image is completely absent from WTC2 scenes shot after the fireball effect".
<br/>
<br/>Yes, imagery manipulation did happen before and after 9/11. I recall four different version of the helicopter shot of the WTC-2 fireball. 1) shows aircraft, 2) shows nothing, 3) shows an orb, 4) same perspective of building but changes the background and aircraft entry.
<br/>
<br/>But proven imagery manipulation alone does not prove no real planes.
<br/>
<br/>Bullet: "The same airplane image is totally absent in a long shot into which the camera zooms withouta break to a close-up from which close-up we were presented with an airplane image which
<br/>in turn proceeded to appear to enter the building. Because the image was not visible in thepreceding long shot, the image can reasonably be assumed to have been inserted either duringor after the filming."
<br/>
<br/>This demonstrates media culpibility in knowing where to aim and zoom the camera. Advanced notice. In on the crime.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 519 -->
<a name="x520"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x520" class="tiny">x520</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_520');">very first images omitted the airplanes</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_520" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
The images referred to here were those which were shown starting 8.02 am,.... the very first images omitted the airplanes....but those were images which were not repeated in later broadcasts, for obvious reasons
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 520 -->
<a name="x521"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x521" class="tiny">x521</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_521');">proof of imagery manipulation doesn't mean that real aircraft were not involved</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_521" style="display: block;">
<p>
Again, proof of imagery manipulation (probably after the fact) doesn't mean that real aircraft were not involved. Again, if the planes were swapped, then manipulation to hide the exact details of the plane might be needed.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 521 -->
<a name="x522"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x522" class="tiny">x522</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_522');">Movie Director didn't NEED airplane swaps</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_522" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Maxwell Bridges The 9/11 Movie Director didn't NEED airplane swaps... not when His special effects were so crack-compete nt at getting the actual CAMERA to insert a CGI ....and in real time (minus the 17 seconds...)
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 522 -->
<a name="x523"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x523" class="tiny">x523</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_523');">swallowed too much Kool-aid from September Clues disinformation</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_523" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, the perpetrators needed the public to see and record real planes at the WTC. Real plane impacts needed give a plausible explanation for the tower destruction. They wanted amateur videos to capture it. The "dancing Arabs" were really "dancing Israeli Mossad agents" with the task of filming the event that they knew would take place. They admitted as much a year later on Israeli TV. No need for a crew to record this if there were not real planes involved.
<br/>
<br/>Plus, focus is all on the WTC, so it is easier to mask the staged aircraft impacts (real instances of no planes) at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
<br/>
<br/>Faking everything would be hard.
<br/>
<br/>You have swallowed too much Kool-aid from September Clues disinformation. You need to go back and mine for nuggets of truth. Lots of disinformation and dubious conclusions they do present.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 523 -->
<a name="x524"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x524" class="tiny">x524</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_524');">Bullet whatever: nose-in, nose-out</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_524" style="display: block;">
<p>Bullet whatever: "The airplane image that enters WTC2 via a fireball, then proceeds through the 200-foot-wide floorof the building, and a nose of the airplane image projects beyond the far side of the tower:
<br/>a lightweight aluminum airfram cannot possibly penetrate in the way we were shown."
<br/>
<br/>Nose-in, nose-out wasn't. It was a stupid fireball that September Clues and others have purposely misconstrue.
<br/>
<br/>It was not the nose of the plane coming out, or even a CGI image thereof.
<br/>
<br/>Case of bad and dubious interpretation of the images.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 524 -->
<a name="x525"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x525" class="tiny">x525</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_525');">Ace Baker and chopper drift</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_525" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
To avoid cross purposes.... what I refer to is the procedure where SS (and Ace Baker?) refer to as chopper drift.....whereby the helicopter in wind-drift moves such that the nose of the CGI is penetrating past the left hand side of the building.... and this got "covered up" by an infamous "Fade To Black" which in my lingo is an admission of failure (or guitlt if you prefer)
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
BTW You get 100 kudos for dealing with my unedited green copy of a para I wrote for Craig McKee (yet to bte delivered) so I muchly appreciate yoour crit ;-0
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
FYI My final copy would of course contain the video clips so necessary for clarifying what I type here from my ancient necktop memory
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 525 -->
<a name="x526"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x526" class="tiny">x526</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_526');">Ace Baker and Simon Shack: their arguments dubious and stilted, and they disingenuous</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_526" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, I have directly corresponded with Ace Baker and Simon Shack. I found their arguments dubious and stilted, and them disingenuous.
<br/>
<br/>Here is a very old conversation with Ace. Also has Simon Shack and Phil Jayhan.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2011/12/finger-pointing-at-disinformations.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2011/12/finger-pointing-at-disinformations.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>Finger Pointing at Disinformation's Behind
<br/>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br/>Finger Pointing at Disinformation's Behind
<br/>Finger Pointing at Disinformation's Behind
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 526 -->
<a name="x527"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x527" class="tiny">x527</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_527');">super impressive</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_527" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Thanks a mill.... supoer impressive.... but there's a very good reason IMHO for concentrating on objective observations especially reflecting stuff that indicates an IMPOSSIBILTY .... even if said impossibility does call for further investigation
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 527 -->
<a name="x528"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x528" class="tiny">x528</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_528');">What impossibility?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_528" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, I do not know to what you are referring with this comment.
<br/>
<br/>"concentrating on objective observations especially reflecting stuff that indicates an IMPOSSIBILTY"
<br/>
<br/>What impossibility?
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 528 -->
<a name="x529"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x529" class="tiny">x529</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_529');">Bullet whatever: airplane dissolving</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_529" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>
Bullet whatever: " In another view, the airplane image is shown as if DISSOLVING harmlessly into the glass facadeof the building. No broken glass is seen, and no damaged or broken airplane componentsare shown, which is to be expected when the object concerned is in fact a digital image and nota real airplane.... or for that matter, a real building."
<br/>
<br/>This is factually wrong and a case of bad & dubious interpretation of the images from a distance.
<br/>
<br/>The physics of the towers isn't described properly, where the September Clues (SC) crews malframes the towers as being "solid blocks of material over the entire length, width, and height." They were not. Once the wall assemblies were breached and pushed out of the way, very little content would exist resist further penetration.
<br/>
<br/>Also, the argument about "tail traveling length of plane into towers in same number of frames as it traveled such in thin air" is technically true, but owing to camera frame rates and velocities involved, these same x number of frames could represent a range of velocities. Stated another way, it would mask deceleration.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 529 -->
<a name="x530"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x530" class="tiny">x530</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_530');">missing plane wreckage and building debris</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_530" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
...and you were going to say ???? about the missing plane wreckage and building debris , not a skerrick of either being visible in any Boeing/Building video I ever saw online or on Shack's screen
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Can I suggest changing your perspective to one of the obvious.... which is that when one digital image ("aiolane") merges with another digital imag ("WTC2") yo get what all cinematographers call (very aptly) a DISSSOLVE look it up in your Bolex Manual hahahah
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 530 -->
<a name="x531"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x531" class="tiny">x531</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_531');">comment does nothing for me</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_531" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, that comment does nothing for me and isn't very convincing.
<br/>
<br/>x174 Maxwell C. Bridges : speed of light discussions
<br/>
<br/>Has a good discussion on frame rate and its effect on what appears on video to dissolve.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html">https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome"
<br/>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br/>NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome"
<br/>NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome"
<br/>
Here are some other NPT discussions I had, one with Dr. James Fetzer.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../debunking-nptwtc.html
<br/>
<br/>The disinfo game of NPT unravels quickly and paints its proponents in a bad light.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>Debunking NPT@WTC
<br/>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br/>Debunking NPT@WTC
<br/>Debunking NPT@WTC
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 531 -->
<a name="x532"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x532" class="tiny">x532</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_532');">very suspicious</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_532" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Pete Davenport
<br/>Pete Davenport Michael Rose I get very suspicious (already am), who ends their retorts w/ "hahaha"
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 532 -->
<a name="x533"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x533" class="tiny">x533</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_533');">helping me clarify my own thinking</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_533" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Your comments are much appreciated for helping me clarify my own thinking.
<br/>
<br/>The Queensberry Rulez do allow for a coffee break every 5 rounds in the world-to-wait division.....hahaha
<br/>
<br/>Just go easy on the rum top-up
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 533 -->
<a name="x534"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x534" class="tiny">x534</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_534');">Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_534" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, as much as I was a hardened no-planer, this here was the second huge piece of evidence that convinced me of real planes.
<br/>
<br/>I have to run, but this is something that your argument has to address in a major way.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>cryptome.org
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 534 -->
<a name="x535"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x535" class="tiny">x535</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_535');">eliminate the alleged airplane</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_535" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
WHEN NOT IF we can eliminate the alleged airplane, we can safely skirt this airplane wheel distraction.... as just another perpeTARITOR's glraing error..... I have for obvious reasons seen no sense in checking this matter at all.... except to comment it seems total disraction and not needing any answers.... in viw of the airplane being an i9mpossibiity for the reasons claimed above.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 535 -->
<a name="x536"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x536" class="tiny">x536</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_536');">won't be dismissed by a wave of your hand</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_536" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael Rose, No, you can't dismiss this. You have to bore into it and address each piece of evidence of real aircraft parts one-by-one.
<br/>
<br/>My favorite is the aircraft wheel embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped off the backside of WTC-1 and was photographed from at least 2 perspectives lying in a parking lot next to the towers, before either one came down.
<br/>
<br/>The engine that flew to Church & Murray, I've addressed in my prior FB discussions linked. An exit velocity as little as 122 mph would account for the distance traveled and bouncing off a building before tumbling / spinning under the scaffolding. The damage to the building hit would be hard to fake.
<br/>
<br/>Go back and try again. This piece of evidence is very damning to the NPT premise and won't be dismissed by a wave of your hand. Get to work.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 536 -->
<a name="x537"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x537" class="tiny">x537</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_537');">"100 years inckudng i vertime"</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_537" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
My fundaMENTAL problem is what needs addressing here.
<br/>
<br/>My tiny mind, after practicing for 100 years inckudng i vertime, reckons that if it was IMOSSIBLE for the alleged airplane to have flow as alleged.... then what point remains in taking another look at some evidence which coud hardly be more planted in yer face" if it tried to be?
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Which Boeing was this part supposed to be from, I forget?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 537 -->
<a name="x538"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x538" class="tiny">x538</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_538');">question about whether you even read the reference material</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_538" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, your question raises another question about whether you even read the reference material that you were supposed to address. Scroll down, and all sorts of substantiating material appears.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 538 -->
<a name="x539"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x539" class="tiny">x539</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_539');">an airplane that never existed in the context?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_539" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
I understand that.... but do you understand why I am so congenitally unwilling to go into minuteae abut an airplane that never existed in the context?
<br/>What if we address what I declare to be IMPOSSIBLE (not merely i,probable) and why would you then isnsist I vist a toic of which you are past-master, but which in my tiny flied of view, is totally irrelevant because the plane coud not have been where or donw what was ALLEGED?
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
I have only limited years left, so couold you have eough respect to allow us to agree that we procrastinate debating somethinf ?
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
I was taught be THE best architectural design teacher in the country.... Bill kept repeating repeating the same mantra....
<br/>"don't try and SOLVE a problem unless you cannot think of a way to ELIMINATE the problem.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 539 -->
<a name="x540"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x540" class="tiny">x540</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_540');">Address the evidence</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_540" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, you make the claim that the WTC aircraft never existed and were never real.
<br/>
<br/>My evidence -- amateur videos, validated aircraft parts, etc. -- clearly shows that real aircraft were involved.
<br/>
<br/>Okay by me if you want to argue that the real aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft. They were drones in the sense they were very precise. But this takes nothing away from the realness of the aircraft.
<br/>
<br/>Address the evidence in the link above.
<br/>
<br/>Otherwise, you are being a weasel.
<br/>
<br/>Might be off hours (or middle of night) where you are, so you don't have to address them today.
<br/>
<br/>But if you fail to address them, they will keep coming up.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 540 -->
<a name="x541"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x541" class="tiny">x541</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_541');">the torrid question of why and/or how an ex-NPTer became seduced by the perpeTRAITOR's propoaganda</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_541" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Your responses are a a superb effort.... and much appreciated.
<br/>
<br/>Do we need to revisit (sone late date) the torrid question of why and/or how an ex-NPTer became seduced by the perpeTRAITOR's propoaganda spread over a million websites and over 18 years of lies and slander?
<br/>
DISCLAIMER: I consider Rich D. Hall to be a disinfo agent and his conclusions wrong. However, here he is using someone else's 3D rendering of WTC that is overlaid by many amateur videos.
<br/>
<br/>Start watching about 6:50 to find where the 3D overlay is.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://youtu.be/E6iTdsS18DQ">https://youtu.be/E6iTdsS18DQ</a>
<br/>
<br/>[Rich Hall tries to frame the radar data inappropriately earlier in the video.]
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>911 Video & Radar Analysis - 2 OF 3
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>911 Video & Radar Analysis - 2 OF 3
<br/>911 Video & Radar Analysis - 2 OF 3
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Again .... much as I like and admire Richard D, if he had observed that the VERY FIRST appearance of the WTC2 fireball was accompanied by NO AIRPLANE or any other object.... he might've tried a different tack.... clever as his radar-pinpointing program un dubtledly is/was
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
We could SPECULATE on the so-called radar data.... and PikotsFor911Trutj did.... but if the "Boeing" was not a real airplane of any description.... shall we put this to once side for a later day and move on?
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
To recap: the Boeing "UA175" pefermed a few functions which were, still are, absolutely impossible.
<br/>I surmise it's 'cos the plane was not a real Boeing.
<br/>The evidence I have checked (which of course I don't claim to be ALL the evidence0 supports the NPT .... to the point where I ignore for THE TIME BEING the discrepancies as being of no consequence to th basic value of the NPT
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Let-s not forget the perpeTRAITOR has been paying hand$$$$$oely for the best ??? brains in the usiness.... and the guiding lights dwell in the murkiest depths of the Mossadd and th CIA and theFBI.
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
These guys are super-competent at fooling folk.
<br/>Be warned (yes, I know you already were/are)
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 541 -->
<a name="x542"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x542" class="tiny">x542</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_542');">the video of the 3D analysis</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_542" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, the video of the 3D analysis of the different videos and showing them to be co-linear you have not addressed.
<br/>
<br/>We're in agreement that "some" imagery manipulation happened. But your argument appears to be that ~all~ of it was faked (a classic move by SC that debunks them). It was not.
<br/>
<br/>Watch the video from 6:50 and contemplate.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 542 -->
<a name="x543"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x543" class="tiny">x543</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_543');">the classic airplane-faked cutouts</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_543" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
My eyes were finally FORCED wise open hen I came across the videos which arrived within the first few minutes.... videos which were never repeated because they had to be redone with the story grafted in.
<br/>The videos I refer to consist of (a) shot of fireball erupting from WTC1 but no aiplane>
<br/>The CGI plane was added presumably by Naudet Freres.... no doubt with $ome incentive$
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
() The first shot of WTC2 had afirball, no plane....
<br/>but everything on the video planet goes to show that BOTH of the classic airplane-faked cutouts were NOTHING to doi with any aircraft, and EVERYTHING to do with strategic unbolting of sections of buiding.... see inter alia the Mossad gangsters camped on level 91 for years and years.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 543 -->
<a name="x544"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x544" class="tiny">x544</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_544');">so interested in FACTS</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_544" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Pete Davenport
<br/>Pete Davenport Michael Rose Statement of FACT: How can I take seriously the words of a person, so interested in FACTS, supposedly, that he can't even be bothered to type correctly, or at least use "SPELL" CHECK.
<br/>I have on memory stick, a clear video image of the 2nd…See More
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 544 -->
<a name="x545"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x545" class="tiny">x545</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_545');">no help whatsobloodyever</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_545" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Obviously no help whatsobloodyever.... mea culpa.
<br/>Some folks are past being able to be helped,
<br/>It's the Way Of The World I guess
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Pete Davenport Hers a HINT FWIIW
<br/>Check the very-first video which was aired at 8.05 am on 9/11/2001
<br/>
<br/>No airplane at all.
<br/>
<br/>So why d'ya s'pose I refuse to worry about faking any contct with the buiding when the prototpe video has no plane ONLY a fireball.
<br/>
<br/>And I don't even know how genuine that fireball effect might have been... but super-suspicious in my tiny mind, that it would've been seen on Telly with no Boeing anywhere in the scene
<br/>
<br/>You don't even need to blame Simon Shack for any if that.... there original scene was videotaped by ornery Americans watching their TVs that day.....Simon merely collected the data.
<br/>
<br/>Like any video-maker worth his salt would.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 545 -->
<a name="x546"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x546" class="tiny">x546</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_546');">admit that real aircraft were involved?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_546" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, proof of imagery manipulation does not automatically conclude that no aircraft were involved.
<br/>
<br/>Can we at least get you to the point where you'll admit that real aircraft were involved?
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, two of my super powers are being naive and trusting until given reason to believe otherwise.
<br/>
<br/>I approached this discussion in good faith that you are a sincere and open-minded seeker of 9/11 Truth, only you have been duped by September Clues (and other no-planers). Don't feel bad, because I was duped for like 4 years.
<br/>
<br/>As a good faith gesture, I have supplied the analysis that got me to change my NPT tune. You need to study it and address it all. I was not able to, and it was pretty overwhelming. And I saw other major areas of unsatisfaction with the personas of Ace Baker, Simon Shack, and SC crew. They were insincere one-trick ponies that could go no further except to call imagery into doubt (albeit some of it rightly so.) Consequently, I publicly apologized and changed my opinion, when contrary information was presented. This is what sincere, open-minded people do.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, I suggest you have a good sleep before you make further replies, and also that you study the few items that I have presented.
<br/>
<br/>You seem to going off the deep end, barely repeating coherently SC and other NPTer's lame arguments.
<br/>
<br/>When you come back, address the evidence of the larger pieces of aircraft... 10 different instances. Address the 3D overlay videos.
<br/>
<br/>And be open-minded to the concept that you -- like I was for 4 years -- have been duped by NPT@WTC and based on this new evidence and analysis are in need of changing your views.
<br/>
<br/>Have a good night's sleep.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 546 -->
<a name="x547"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x547" class="tiny">x547</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_547');">(A) 580MPH velocity in shot "B" is 230 MPH.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_547" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
(1) Same "airplane" flying the exact-same trajectory in the same few seconds of Real Time, velocity in shot (A) 580MPH velocity in shot "B" is 230 MPH.
<br/>
<br/>Thatls IMPOSSIBLE
<br/>
<br/>Or tell me how you can force it to be true?
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 547 -->
<a name="x548"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x548" class="tiny">x548</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_548');">V(observed)=V(aircraft)*cosine(viewing angle to aircraft path)</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_548" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose I have already addressed this, and the solution is in the vector math. You have provided no video links, so your comment can be neither verified nor disputed.
<br/>
<br/>V(observed)=V(aircraft)*cosine(viewing angle to aircraft path)
<br/>
<br/>Observed velocity will be different from different viewing angles.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 548 -->
<a name="x549"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x549" class="tiny">x549</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_549');">refuse to address even one IMPOSSIBILITY</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_549" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Even before checking the IMPOSSIBILITY of the same plane at 2 wildly-different velocities while supposedly fly the exact-same path towards the exact-same virtual building (don't forget what you thought was WTcC2 was in laptop/necktop FACT simply a virtual representation on YOUR screen)....the shot of the airplane IMAGE speeding Right-to-Left across your screen, was traveling at a calculatid 580 MPH....|
<br/>
<br/>This is a real-life/real-time IMPOSSIBILITY for 2 reasons (a) Boeing LLC state their VNe is over 200MPH LESS than the times velocity, and (b) the 767 engines cannot develop anything like enough power to push an object such as a real 767 through sea-level dense air at the observed speed.
<br/>
<br/>Yet you refuse to address even one IMPOSSIBILITY .... so why you think anybody else might be at observational fault here completely defeats the Collective Intelligence of the Rest Of Us, Max....
<br/>
<br/>Although I have to say, the IS a THEORY....
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Maxwell Bridges Ya gotta admit, there's way-y-y too many nefariouos reasons why a SANE and sensible no-planer sez they rejoin perpeTRAITORs...
<br/>
<br/>No gentleman would event begin to speculate...., of course.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 549 -->
<a name="x550"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x550" class="tiny">x550</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_550');">Focus</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_550" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, you have yet to substantiate your lead-in sentence with a video and time-stamps. I've asked for it repeatedly. Based on my knowledge of September Clues, you are doing a lame impersonation of their disinformation.
<br/>
<br/>Clearly you don't understand math, because discrepancies in apparent velocity is due to angles of perspective with respect to flight path that simple high school trigonometry can accurately predict. (Do you even know what "cosine of an angle" means or how it is used in vector math?)
<br/>
<br/>Although Rich D. Hall is mostly disinformation, he did incorporate a 3D analysis video that visually proves why velocity might appear different. Further, these videos when overlaid on two sets of radar data, from which the velocity is also easy to derive, puts a ding into your comprehension.
<br/>
<br/>Focus.
<br/>
<br/>Ignore the videos for a moment. Go to my last comment to this discussion that posted a repeated link to the WTC-1 punch-out.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 550 -->
<a name="x551"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x551" class="tiny">x551</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_551');">Leave the latter for those who appreciate alternative thoughts.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_551" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Maxwell Bridges to show good faith I just watched a few tedious minutes of your airplane-parts-recovery video.
<br/>
<br/>And I left my very-valuable-very-valid comment: but you have better things to read, than any of my drivel....
<br/>
<br/>Leave the latter for those who appreciate alternative thoughts.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j7_CL0KgrQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j7_CL0KgrQ</a>
<br/>9/11 Plane's landing gear found
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>9/11 Plane's landing gear found
<br/>9/11 Plane's landing gear found
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Maxwell Bridges Richard D based his whole hypothesis on faulty (if not downright faked) data. The hologram nonscience demonstrates this very ably.
<br/>
<br/>I've forgotten math, but a cosine has absolute zero applicability to the videos I mean. I take you point, but if you thik a professional architect is not able to make appropriate adjustments in estimating video velocites, you have picked the rong person to try to fool, lad
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Maxwell Bridges
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT4wljY7fjM
<br/>e.g. at 3.46 .... I'll leave you and your Rolx Oyster to confirm how near to 580 MPH this image is moving…See More
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 551 -->
<a name="x552"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x552" class="tiny">x552</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_552');">Can't you see that this is slow-motion?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_552" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, you either have me confused with someone else, or you are not having a good faith discussion, because *I* did not post a video about "airplane-parts-recovery".
<br/>
<br/>You did, though, and it looks like you're trying to distract.
<br/>
<br/>You ignored my request for you to focus on the last top-level comment from me with the link to the WTC-1 punch out webpage. (Through this weasel move, you're defeated on this point and must acknowledge the validity of the physical evidence of aircraft involvement at the WTC.)
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a>
<br/>
<br/>As for Rich D. Hall, I made a disclaimer from the get-go that he peddles disinformation, which are his deceitful hologram premises and his misinterpretation of radar data to get there. But all disinformation is built on nuggets of truth. I provided the time-stamp to start viewing his video, which was an the 3D rendering of WTC overlayed by various amateur videos.
<br/>
<br/>Your admission of having no trigonometry skills kind of puts you in a bad position to understand the rational mathematical explanation for why two video clips from different perspectives might calculate the x-velocity differently. It also means that you have no counter-argument and must accept defeat on this point.
<br/>
<br/>As for the 3:46 timestamp in the SC's video, so what that it might calculate the velocity to be 580 MPH? That would be in the right ballpark for 2 sets of radar data.
<br/>
<br/>As for the 0:11 timestamp in the second video where you challenged me "see if you can do any better than
<br/>my 200 MPH".
<br/>
<br/>Can't you see that this is slow-motion? They took the original video and slowed it down, just like common sports' instant-replays. Thus, you may have dinged either your intelligence or your sincerity, but either way, you must accept defeat on this point.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Michael Rose, I have been having this discussion in good faith with you in the sense "convince me of your premise, or let me convince you of mine."
<br/>
<br/>To recap, we are in agreement that imagery manipulation did happen with the 9/11 footage, and the four different versions of the helicopter shot is an excellent example (as are the Pentagon several frames from a parking video and the 86+ confiscated videos from other cameras.) We are in agreement that the corporate media was complicit and controlled.
<br/>
<br/>However, those few valid examples do not logically lead to the conclusions from SC of the videos all being CGI faked. That is complete disinformation and struck down by the physical evidence of real aircraft involvement with the wheel assemblies.
<br/>
<br/>Your arguments defeated, are you ready to prove your open-mind and objectiveness by admitting these pillars of your NPT beliefs are in error, must be corrected, and thus gives you an opportunity to change your NPT opinion?
<br/>
<br/>When I was in the same situation of having my NPT pillars knocked out from underneath me, I acknowledged the errors and how such impacted my opinions. (I apologized for having led other astray, too.)
<br/>
<br/>You would do well to heed my example and do likewise.
<br/>
<br/>https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/05/i-concede-point-and-will-no-longer-be.html
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>cryptome.org
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 552 -->
<a name="x553"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x553" class="tiny">x553</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_553');">coparative side-on views</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_553" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Trigonometery is beyond your understanding, lad.... which is why I quote coparative side-on views of the SAME (alleged) airplane doing 200 MPH in one view and 580 MPH gping on the same route at the same time, in the other view from the other side of the DIGITAL Tower
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 553 -->
<a name="x554"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x554" class="tiny">x554</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_554');">It wasn't trig that doused your 200 mph falsehood. No. It was slow-motion that did it.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_554" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, stop projecting your weaknesses about trigonometry onto me. Ironically, though, it wasn't trig that doused your 200 mph falsehood. No. It was slow-motion that did it.
<br/>
<br/>You really ought to click on the "... See More" link of my comment and read it thoroughly to the end.
<br/>
<br/>Otherwise, Grandpa, you're just playing games... badly.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 554 -->
<a name="x555"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x555" class="tiny">x555</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_555');">Forget all your famous faked vectors</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_555" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
The no-trig method of checking YT CGIs 4 Dummies
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT4wljY7fjM
<br/>e.g. at 3.46 .... I'll leave you and your Rolx Oyster to confirm how near to 580 MPH this image is moving
<br/>
<br/>Forget all your famous faked vectors, I've made your Rolex calcs dead-easy by watching the IMAGE side on.... no corrections needs>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFBG8f-XZcw&t=3s
<br/>start around ).11 and see if you can do any better than
<br/>my 200 MPH
<br/>
<br/>Same plane, same (phony) trajectory, twice as fast in one fake shot than the other.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 555 -->
<a name="x556"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x556" class="tiny">x556</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_556');">Are you a bot?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_556" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, are you a bot? You're acting like one. You repeated the above comment several comments above in this very thread. I answered it in detail.
<br/>
<br/>You lose, because you fail to recognize "slow-motion" when you see it.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 556 -->
<a name="x557"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x557" class="tiny">x557</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_557');">prove me rong again</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_557" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
(2) Boeing crashes into glass facade, no wreckage, no broken glass.... simple dissolve/
<br/>
<br/>A real crash is IMPOSSIBLE 9unlless you say otherwise) but what we (still) see IS POSSIBLE if the plane and the building are both digitaal
<br/>
<br/>Feel free to attempt to prove me rong again....
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 557 -->
<a name="x558"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x558" class="tiny">x558</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_558');">resolution of the cameras</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_558" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael Rose your comment is factually wrong. The resolution of the cameras, all filming from a large distance, was insufficient to depict all of the impact debris. There was broken glass and shredded wings and such. But come on! We're talking 155 ft plane depicted in a comparatively small number of pixels compared to other items in the frame like sky and towers, yet you expect to see large pieces of debris, when the lessons of high velocity impacts tells us energy is sufficient to shatter materials! Please put on your thinking cap.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 558 -->
<a name="x559"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x559" class="tiny">x559</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_559');">No plane anywhere in the shot</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_559" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
(3) No plane anywhere in the shot when zoomed right out 5 miles.... when zooming rapidly into a close-up with the Tower, an airplane image sneaks in stage right. There's a very goood (=very bad) reason we dont see any plane image in the ong sht.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 559 -->
<a name="x560"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x560" class="tiny">x560</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_560');">not replying above where I addressed it</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_560" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael Rose I've addressed this already, so you are being disingenuous by 1 not replying above where I addressed it, 2 starting a new thread with the repeated claim.
<br/>
<br/>The miracle zoom represents corporate media foreknowledge and expectations. Again, you provided no video links, so it isn't just me who doesn't follow you. You aren't making your case. You're only repeated what you vaguely remember from September clues and other clever crafty disinformation efforts.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 560 -->
<a name="x561"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x561" class="tiny">x561</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_561');">defend the indefensible</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_561" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
My only problem is why some people find so much easier to try an defend the indefensible, andd so difficult to follow Logic 101 or whatever
<br/>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose point to yourself on that one. You were duped, as was I. You aren't willing to explore the evidence that contradicts with your duping. Are you really actually and factually open-minded and objective? Prove it. Explain the many instances of wheel assembly fragments. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 561 -->
<a name="x562"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x562" class="tiny">x562</a>
Pete Davenport : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_562');">Plenty of EYE-WITNESSES</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_562" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Pete Davenport
<br/>Pete Davenport LOGIC 101
<br/>Plenty of EYE-WITNESSES
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 562 -->
<a name="x563"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x563" class="tiny">x563</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_563');">eyewitnesses manufactured</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_563" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
POLIRTICS 101 eyewitnesses manufactured very low cost
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 563 -->
<a name="x564"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x564" class="tiny">x564</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_564');">even heard the aircraft coming.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_564" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose exactly, because they were there and even heard the aircraft coming. How did CGI fake that? It didn't, because aircraft were real (even if not the alleged commercial aircraft.)//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 564 -->
<a name="x565"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x565" class="tiny">x565</a>
Joe Turner : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_565');">crashing over and over</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_565" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/>Joe Turner
<br/>Joe Turner The sound was there alright the little fake plane just kept crashing over and over again,it crashed at least 4 times before the live ear witnesses changed the public address system to play elevator music.Who would have thought the plane crash audio would get hung up and keep playing over and over and over??
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 565 -->
<a name="x566"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x566" class="tiny">x566</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_566');">oh-too seriously</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_566" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
You have a wicked SOH Joe Turner ... Mr Maxwell Bridges runs the serious risk of taking you oh-too seriously, though
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Maxwell Bridges I personally heard the characteristic sound of Rolls Royce Merlin engines of RAF Spitfires over London during the Battle of Britain circa 1943 .... but I claim neither I not any other mortal man on this GFS planet can attach an particular actual real-live sound to any particular aircraft, not to the point where our puny ears can say for certain that "that's the sound of Flight UA175 going over....just wait a minute and we will hear the sound of the splintering glass etc as it fades volubly into that tall building over yonder"
<br/>(To be spoken with an english (Received Pronunciation) accent, please, chasps.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 566 -->
<a name="x567"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x567" class="tiny">x567</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_567');">sincerity and reputation are at stake.</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_567" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, you chose to make your comeback to this posting under this throw-away thread. Your weasel-move in ignoring the few times I've posted about the WTC punch out aircraft evidence does not go unnoticed.
<br/>
<br/>Your sincerity and reputation are at stake.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 567 -->
<a name="x568"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x568" class="tiny">x568</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_568');">decision-makers are still considering a verdict</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_568" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Maxwell Bridges
<br/>The decision-makers are still considering a verdict, but you got left off the Jury List, Max.
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
You won't agree with a word of it. but this classic experiment would apply directly to instances of 9/11 witness collaboration, Pete...
<br/>but I agree, you would probably be more receptive to the diea if you read it in somebody else's page not mine.
<br/>Nothing I can do about that, lots that you could do, though....if you wanted to....
<br/>https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Solomon Asch study social pressure conformity experiment psychology
<br/>age-of-the-sage.org
<br/>Solomon Asch study social pressure conformity experiment psychology
<br/>Solomon Asch study social pressure conformity experiment psychology
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
The 911 Movie was one gigantic fraud
<br/>
<br/>Scene from Simon Shack's
<br/>September Clues Part H
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0mZaYT4Qx0
<br/>September Clues Part H
<br/>youtube.com
<br/>September Clues Part H
<br/>September Clues Part H
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 568 -->
<a name="x569"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x569" class="tiny">x569</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_569');">part 1-9 and A-H gigantic frauds</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_569" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose September clues was part 1-9 and A-H gigantic frauds that were very clever and crafty in their deceit and framing. Why didn't they obtain source network footage? Instead they used low quality video where the network employed on this day unusually large and obnoxious bottom banners. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 569 -->
<a name="x570"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x570" class="tiny">x570</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_570');">folks let you watch telly on The Day?</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_570" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
How old were you when your folks let you watch telly on The Day?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 570 -->
<a name="x571"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x571" class="tiny">x571</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_571');">of "The Day", I saw lots of clips through the internet at "work"</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_571" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, both of my parents died last century, so they were not around to tell me what not to watch on the telly. Although I inherited my parents' old telly (only because I otherwise didn't have one), it was only used for Blockbuster / VCR date nights.
<br/>
<br/>However, of "The Day", I saw lots of clips through the internet at "work," as we all spent a lot of time surfing the web.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 571 -->
<a name="x572"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x572" class="tiny">x572</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_572');">total inability to spot the reason for the crap-quality of video recorded</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_572" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
I only asked because of your apparent total inability to spot the reason for the crap-quality of video recorded so faithfully from the crap-quality TV images by the very-well-qualified team of Mr Shack's
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 572 -->
<a name="x573"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x573" class="tiny">x573</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_573');">how slick and clever they were</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_573" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, September Clues made lots of crap decisions precisely to give their disinformation wiggle room.
<br/>
<br/>But think about their endeavors, and how slick and clever they were. Someone put a lot of effort (money) into this to make it look amateur while still clearly being professional. Parts 1-9 and Parts A-H, each like 10 minutes or more long. That's a movie budget, no? Clearly, the missing $2.3 trillion in Pentagon spending could afford to pay.
<br/>
<br/>Whether or not Mr. Shack has the CGI credentials, I'll not argue. But in deeper discussions with him and his SC crew, they failed integrity tests and would not discuss outside their CGI boundaries. For example, they argued "all imagery was faked, none of the 9/11 imagery was real." I challenged them with 5 or so images from Dr. Wood's book and asked them to help me discover what was "fake" about them. Had they succeeded, it would have been a great moment to 9/11 Truth that Dr. Wood's based her conclusions on "faked" images. Armed with this new information, she'd be able to re-evaluate, recant, and move forward.
<br/>
<br/>But the SC crew failed. They saw where I was going -- trying to mine nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood -- and ended up banning me in a ridiculous way.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, So where have you gotten in examining the evidence of real aircrafts at the WTC?
<br/>
<br/>http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>cryptome.org
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 573 -->
<a name="x574"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x574" class="tiny">x574</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_574');">supremely-weid SOH Max</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_574" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
I apologise profusely for being totally unable to follow your supremely-weid SOH Max.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 574 -->
<a name="x575"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x575" class="tiny">x575</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_575');">be blessed with a greater and improved understanding</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_575" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, I apologize too that this admission -- along with the others on trigonometry, "slow-motion", and WTC wall-punch-out -- kind of puts you in the position of not being able to adequately defend the NPT premise.
<br/>
<br/>Part of the reason that I use honorifics in front of people's names is to keep my writing efforts on a positive note, when otherwise such admissions from a discussion opponent might lead the whole discussion into the weeds.
<br/>
<br/>Furthermore, I am a fair and generous fellow, a couple more of my super-powers.
<br/>
<br/>I've given you the way out that allows you to save face and grow at the same time and be blessed with a greater and improved understanding.
<br/>
<br/>Namely, admit defeat, that NPT is disinformation, apologize, and stop promoting it. And go forth and stop others from promoting it with the same information that knocked out the NPT pillars.
<br/>
<br/>"Feed my sheep."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 575 -->
<a name="x576"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x576" class="tiny">x576</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_576');">Your problem, mate</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_576" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
Your problem, mate....only you can solve it.
<br/>
<br/>My brain is fortunately well able to accommodate the no-planes position without any need for apologies.
<br/>
<br/>After all, I've never been involved even remotely... in the everlasting perps' cover-up.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 576 -->
<a name="x577"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x577" class="tiny">x577</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_577');">output like a tru-bot</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_577" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, output like a tru-bot. //
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 577 -->
<a name="x578"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x578" class="tiny">x578</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_578');">your ever were a no-planer</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_578" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
FYI Nothing.... but NOTHING you've typed so far shows the slightest evidence that your ever were a no-planer>
<br/>
<br/>You're undercover typer, touch-typing 4 the perpeTRAITOR then?
<br/>
<br/>The global-elite bankers' payroll consists of a vast army of the type.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 578 -->
<a name="x579"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x579" class="tiny">x579</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_579');">Quite the embarrassment today, this link is</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_579" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, Of course nothing I've "typed so far shows the slightest evidence that [I ever was] a no-planer," because THOSE aren't my beliefs anymore. Why would I be typing fresh such erroneous views? That is faulty bot-logic.
<br/>
<br/>This exposes another of your weaknesses (that overlaps that of bots) in your inability to follow links and explore things on your own.
<br/>
<br/>My tactics and strategies have been exposed from the moment I made the first link to my blog. An intellectually curious person might go explore it beyond what I linked.
<br/>
<br/>You think I'm a fraud and was never solidly in the NPT camp.
<br/>
<br/>El-oh-el.
<br/>
<br/>Quite the embarrassment today, this link is.
<br/>
<br/><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2009/01/im-no-planer.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2009/01/im-no-planer.html</a>
<br/>
<br/>I was wrong about the physics because I used what September Clues gave me. But the more I contemplated, the more I researched, the more I saw the deceit in their faulty descriptions of the physics. From 2009 to 2012, I was NPT.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>I'm a no-planer
<br/>maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br/>I'm a no-planer
<br/>I'm a no-planer
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 579 -->
<a name="x580"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x580" class="tiny">x580</a>
Michael Rose : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_580');">pro-plane nonscience can very safely be ignored</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_580" style="display: block;">
<p>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
So you really understand everything i say....and all your pro-plane nonscience can very safely be ignored?
<br/>
<br/>
<b>Michael Rose</b>
BTW .... don't be so cute as to try blaming Simon Shack for your faulty logi(sti)c/s.
<br/>
<br/>Simon did his best, even i can understand him.... if you have a problem, Houston, so be it.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 580 -->
<a name="x581"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x581" class="tiny">x581</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_581');">a fine entry on my blog as a further example of NPT getting debunked</a></b></p>
<p>2020-01-09</p>
<div id="sect_581" style="display: block;">
<p>
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, on the positive side, our discussion here will make a fine entry (some day, when I get around to it) on my blog as a further example of NPT getting debunked. It shows that Facebook is alive and well with disinformation agents and bots pedaling NPT.
<br/>
<br/>On the negative side, I can deal with your intelligence level, but not with your insincerity. I don't find you or your NPT beliefs genuine. You fail simple integrity tests regarding reading your opponents comments and references, and characterizing his work properly. You've found no faults in my counter-arguments to your points, and in fact have actively ignored them.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Fonzie, unable to admit when he is wrong and has been duped.
<br/>
<br/>On the way negative side, your performance calls into question whether rational discourse with you is even possible on any topic. You have some bot-tendencies, too.
<br/>
<br/>I'm not paid-to-post, so will be cashing out my chips with a clear win before further time is wasted here. I'll be turning off notification to this posting (allowing you the last word on every thread, should you decide to make them.) I'll leave you as a FB friend, but will be unfollowing you. If you are easily duped by this disinformation (and can't be ever convinced of its errors), it might not bode well for any other discussion topic.
<br/>
<br/>I thank you for the discussion.
<br/>
<br/>I now leave you to carrying on without me.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 581 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part17 -->
<hr>
<a name="x582"></a>
<hr><p><b><a href="#x582" class="tiny">x582</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_582');">Physical evidence of WTC planes</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">2010-03-25</a></p>
<div id="sect_582" style="display: block;">
<p><b><a href="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm">http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm</a></b>
<br>
<br>The wall assembly is from the back-side of the WTC-1 (with respect to direction of impact) with a portion of an aircraft's wheel assembly stuck in it.
<br>
<br>This wall assembly in the street also destroys arguments about crash physics. The plane plowed through one wall and the core area, and it still had enough energy to several the bolts of a wall assembly on the back-side and knock it to the street. If nothing else, this should be saying how weak those connection bolts were. Therefore, any damage on the front-side that can be attributed to entire wall assemblies being pushed about reduces total energy requirement and leaves energy available to bend or break box columns of wall assemblies elsewhere.
<br>
<br><img src="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict32.jpg" width="50%">
<br>
<br><img src="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict33.jpg" width="50%">
<br>
<br><img src="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict34.jpg" width="50%">
<br>
<br>Landing gear at West and Rector Streets
<br><img src="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict14.jpg" width="50%">
<br>
<br><img src="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict128.jpg" width="50%">
<br>
<br><img src="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict129.jpg" width="50%">
<br>
<br><img src="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict41.jpg" width="50%">
</p>
</div><!-- section 582 -->
<hr>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Expand All</b> Chapters</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All</b> Chapters</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Subsections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Subsections</a></p>
</body>
</html>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-36795558518278575622018-02-11T11:11:00.000-08:002018-02-27T20:12:51.957-08:009/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case<p>This article makes the <i>prima facie</i> case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) were deployed in the annihilation of the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. <i>"A prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is sufficiently established by a party's evidence to justify a verdict in his or her favor, <b>provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party.</b>"</i>
<br/>
<br/><b>Note:</b> A 2016 version <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html"><i>"Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW "</i></a> has been circulated on various websites and Facebook groups catering toward 9/11 discussions. Neither those championing the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) nor those in various camps of 9/11 truth (e.g., nano-thermite, DEW) have disproved or rebutted FGNW. Many exhibit <a href="http://www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm">tactics & traits of a disinformationalist</a>. Common features across many forums were mockery, game playing, and <b>avoidance</b> of objectively discussing any of the specifics presented in the establishment of the FGNW presumption, followed by eventual banishment from the forum.
</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Subsections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Subsections</a></p>
<a name="x1"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x1">1</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_1');">
Nuclear Publications</a></h2>
<div id="sect_1" style="display: none;">
<p>Many decades ago, various world governments led by the USA took the position to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available, because publishing such could <i>"enable those with bad intentions."</i> Although most nuclear research does not get a public viewing, some of it does, particularly if it is only offering an overview, speculation, and omissions of operational details that would help <i>"arm the enemy terrorist with weapons of mass destruction."</i>
<br>
<br>The public work of <a href="http://isri.ch/wiki/_media/publications:ag-09-02.pdf">Dr. Andre Gsponer</a> met those nuclear publication requirements. Noteworthy is also (A) nothing has been published over many decades to contradict, discredit, or debunk Dr. Gsponer's "speculation" into where nuclear research was headed; (B) Dr. Gsponer continually improved his work over many editions [even prior to 2001], indicating assistance from those in the nuclear field.
<br>
<br>Those who have professions involving nuclear science (or weapons) in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties [involving charges of treason], or they are left out of all of the interesting research. Besides treason charges, many other penalties involving employment or health & well-being of the individual or family members can be leveraged to keep silent the well educated in science.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Directed Energy (DE) research and development has been shrouded in a veil of secrecy. There are national security reasons for not revealing certain applications or vulnerabilities.
<br>...
Largely shrouded in highly classified environment, directed energy weapons research is conducted by a cadre of closed-mouthed technical wizards.
<br><i>"THE E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought"</i>, Doug Beason, Ph.D., 2005. </p></blockquote>
</div><!-- section 1 -->
<a name="x2"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x2">2</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">
What is special about FGNW?</a></h2>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: none;">
<p>Conventional explosives (and 1st and 2nd generation nuclear devices) couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium, such as air, water, earth, rock, etc. FGNW are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can product direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response.
<br>
<br>FGNW based on low-yield thermonuclear pellets triggered by compact non-fission primaries have yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc.
<br>
</p><blockquote><p>A first significant difference between deuterium-tritium (DT) based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
<br>...
<br> The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
<br><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071"><i>"Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"</i> by Dr. Andre Gsponer</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Depending on design goals, FGNW can have a variety of effects, particularly for high-energy neutrons and gamma-rays that are very penetrating. FGNW can:
<br>
<br>- Generate a fireball (in air or a material).
<br>- Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).
<br>- Heat the surface of a material.
<br>- Accelerate or compress a material.
<br>- Transfer momentum to a material.
<br>- Heat the volume of a material.
<br>- Energize a working material.
<br>- Forge and project missiles.
<br>- Form and send high-velocity jets.
<br>- Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it.
<br>
<br>Collateral effects of the above list of "mechanical" and "thermodynamical" effects are non-thermo-mechanical effects, such as an electromagetic pulse (EMP) and prompt or delayed radiations.
<br>
<br>Words like "pulverization" and "dustification" were used to describe the WTC towers' destruction. A more accurate word is "ablate". When the surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted, launching a shock-wave into the material.
<br>
</p></div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name="x3"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x3">3</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_3');">
Summary: FGNW Scenario for 9/11</a></h2>
<div id="sect_3" style="display: none;">
<p>The FGNW in question are tactical and can have their energy targeted in the shape of a narrow cone fanning out upwards: a poster-child for directed energy weapons, or DEW. [For the sake of discussion, the "height" or "reach" of this inverted cone of energy was through 20 stories of the WTC. Can be tweaked.] The primary output is highly energetic neutrons, with reduced side effects of a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP.
<br>
<br>Many videos of both towers' annihilation show momentarily a spire of structure from the inner core after most of the buildings content hit the ground. FGNW devices were placed every 20 floors or so and staggered on either side of the spire structure and aimed upwards but away from the spire.
<br>
<br>Aimed in this manner upwards and detonated top-most devices first, an upper FGNW is less likely to cause fracticide or fizzle with a neighboring or lower FGNW. [Fracticide and fizzle did happen and is why the WTC had under-rubble hot-spots burning for months.]
<br>
<br>When a single FGNW ignites, it sends its highly energetic neutrons upwards in an inverted cone of energy. The towers' unique design had structural steel in the perimeter which became a type of Faraday cage to help contain the particle flux of the FGNW from damaging outside structures. Metal absorbs the energy of the radiation. Iron in particular can absorb neutrons and result in four stable isotypes (and three unstable), but the stable ones are more common.
<br>
<br>When these neutrons of the beam hit the leading layer of metal of, say, the steel pans that held the poured concrete, the surface vaporized so quickly that it caused a violent shockwave in the material that explosively tears it apart. Same for the concrete and building content in the path of the FGNW beam. [The debris piles had a lack of these metal pans and supports, and the concrete was turned to dust.]
<br>
<br>When this inverted energy cone of energy hit more solid beams, such as other supports of the core, it was sufficient to cause volume heating end-to-end in these large pieces of steel, as if they had been in a foundary furnace and reducing their strength. [The debris pile had "arches/sags", horse-shoes, steel-doobies, and what became known as "the meteor."]
<br>
<br>The inverted energy cone was aimed to miss mostly the outer wall assemblies. Video show wall assemblies being ejected to the sides and streaming smoke, steam, and dust, as if they were heated so much that they burned off whatever had been painted or attached to them.
</p>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c1Vc_QjR-2s" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<p>When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories [<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s"><i>Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower by David Chandler</i></a>], he calculated that the roof fell at a constant 65% gravitational acceleraton. This means that the 20 story structure SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY went to 35% of its minimum strength needed to support itself. The pulverization is visible in the earliest moments of annihilation.
<br>
</p><blockquote><p>"What we actually see here, is the falling section of the building turning to dust before our eyes."~David Chandler at 2:30 in video.</p></blockquote>
<p>Then the FGNW positioned slightly lower in the towers were ignited. Video evidence depicts upward fountaining destruction of pulverized content from lower levels, despite some content from upper levels also falling on it. This sequence was continued with detonations staggered and lower on the spire, until at some point the final and clean-up FGNW knocked down the spire itself.
<br>
<br>Electro-magnetic pulses (EMP) escaping through window slits and falling debris may have caused the vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car lot. </p>
<p>First responders and those on the scene said it was "boom-boom-boom": a cadence that could be counted onthe order of one every 1/2 second or more. (NIST proves for us that it wasn't chemical based explosives, because it would have been much louder and maybe more like a machine gun as detonations happened each level.) The cadence suggests a device <i><b>or pulse</b></i> every 10-20 levels.</p>
<p><b>Alternative to multiple FGNW: Pulsed FGNW.</b></p>
<p>The techniques available at the turn of the century for the TRIGA reactor to pulse neutrons could be applied to a FGNW. Put a single pulsing FGNW in the elevator shaft high in the towers just below the levels where the aircrafts are to precision impact. At the appropriate moment, ignite and let fall. A destructive pulse every 1/2 second aimed upwards would unzip the towers from the insides. </p>
<p>Mr. Heinz Pommer, an independent 9/11 researcher from Germany, mentions that particle interaction with <a href="http://www.911history.de/Feld.mp4">cameras of Chopper 4 and Chopper 2</a> started one hour prior to the collapse.
<br>
<br>Dr. Judy Wood's Chapter 3 <i>"The Jumpers"</i> (from <i>"Where did the Towers Go?"</i>) makes note of the peculiar behavior of the WTC-1 victims trapped above the impact zone. She notes that people hanging out the windows appeared to be disrobing while hanging for their lives. Shortly after despite no fire or smoke emerging from some windows where people congregated, the victims began jumping. Firefighter John Malley estimated: <i>"People started to jump with sucha [sic]-- it was maybe one jumper every five second [sic] at one point, every ten seconds. Then they just started jumping like one every second, two seconds. There were people just coming down like it was raining people."</i> Firefigher Arthur Myers said: <i>"... then you see live people jumping. This is the first time I've ever seen people jump like this in my whole career [20 years]."</i>
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood suggests it was as if an energy field within the walls of the building (similar to the microwaves of the Active Denial systems) were ramping up and necessitating an energetic leap out the window rather than stay and be cooked by radiation. </p>
<p>Placement of (non-pulsed) FGNW in WTC-6 spared the walls but couldn't help decimate all floors & roof AND content that supposedly fell onto it from WTC towers.
</p></div><!-- section 3 -->
<a name="x4"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x4">4</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">
Evidence of High Heat</a></h2>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: none;">
<p>From <a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/"><i>Beyond Misinformation</i></a> page 32.</p>
<blockquote><p>Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings. A small selection is presented below:
<br>- Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the design of WTC 1 and WTC 2, told an audience: "We were down at the B-1 level and one of the firefighters said, 'I think you'd be interested in this.' And they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel flowing."<sup>2</sup>
<br>- FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." Other firefighters chimed in: "Like lava.""Like lava from a volcano."<sup>3</sup>
<br>- Ken Holden, the Commissioner of the NYC Department of Design and Construction, testified before the 9/11 Commission: "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."<sup>4</sup>
<br>...
<br>[S]tructural steel does not begin to melt until about 1,482°C (2,700°F).
<br>...
<br>NIST assumes that the only possible cause of “melting steel” would have been "the jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers," which is an implausible hypothesis on its face.</p></blockquote>
<p>From <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378743767&sr=1-1&keywords=Kevin+R.+Ryan">Kevin R. Ryan's <i>"Another Nineteen"</i></a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The fires in the debris pile, which were violent and long-lasting, could not be extinguished even through extreme firefighting efforts, and indicated the presence of energetic materials. [901]
<br>[901] Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center.</p></blockquote>
<p>Remnants of nuclear devices -- maybe even nuclear fizzling -- explains the ineffectual <i>"extreme firefighting efforts"</i> on the <i>"violent and long-lasting" "fires in the debris pile"</i> as well as the <i>"unbelievable security."</i>
</p>
<p>In a <i>New York Times</i> article published in February 2002, James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected…from 7 World Trade Center…. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright…. A preliminary analysis at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [WPI]…suggests that sulfur released during the fires—no one knows from where — may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures.<sup>6</sup></p></blockquote>
<p>From <a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 34</p>
<blockquote><p>Three scientific studies have documented evidence in the WTC dust that indicates extremely high temperatures during the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 — and possibly WTC 7.
<br>
<br>Released in May 2004, the RJ Lee report titled WTC Dust Signature identified “[s]pherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature” in the dust.
<br>An earlier 2003 version of RJ Lee’s report observed:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…. Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in the WTC dust…but are not common in normal office dust.</p></blockquote>
<p>The 2003 version also reported that while iron particles make up only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted 5.87 percent of the WTC dust.
<br>
<br>Iron does not melt until 1,538°C (2,800°F), which, as discussed above, cannot be reached by diffuse hydrocarbon fires. Still, even higher temperatures than 1,538°C were indicated by another discovery documented in RJ Lee’s report:</p>
<blockquote><p>The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.</p></blockquote>
<p>The 2003 version also referred to temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” For such vaporization to occur, lead would need to have been heated to its boiling point of 1,749°C (3,180°F).
<br>
<br>Released in 2005, a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) titled Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust identified "trace to minor amounts" of "metal or metal oxides" in the WTC dust and presented micrographs of these particles, two of which were labeled "Iron-rich sphere."
</p></blockquote>
<p>From <a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 35
</p><blockquote><p>Published by Dr. Steven Jones and seven other scientists in early 2008, the paper Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction connected the dots between the earlier RJ Lee and USGS reports. It also provided new observations based on analysis of WTC dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones. According to the authors:</p>
<blockquote><p>The formation of spherules in the dust implies the generation of materials somehow sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes. The shape is retained as the droplet solidifies in the air.</p></blockquote>
<p>In addition to observing spherules of iron and silicates, their study discussed the presence of molybdenum spherules documented by the USGS study but not included in its report. (This additional data from the USGS study was obtained through a FOIA request.) Molybdenum is known for its extremely high melting point of 2,623°C (4,754°F).
<br>
<br>Jones’ study also discussed evidence of even higher temperatures contained in the RJ Lee report (quoting from the RJ Lee report):
</p>
<blockquote><p>Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation)….</p></blockquote>
<p>These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. Dr. Jones and his coauthors observed:</p>
<blockquote><p>[I]f the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is indeed the result of “boiling and evaporation” of the material as the [RJ Lee] report suggests, we note the boiling temperature for aluminosilicate is approximately 2,760°C.</p></blockquote>
<p>They then provided a table (see Table 6 at left) summarizing the temperatures needed to account for the various evidence of high temperatures in the World Trade Center destruction, which they contrasted with the much lower maximum temperatures associated with the fires on September 11.
<br>...
<br>Table 6: Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required
</p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td>PROCESS AND MATERIAL</td> <td>°C</td> <td>°F</td></tr>
<tr><td>To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel</td> <td>1,000</td> <td>1,832</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation)</td> <td>1,450</td> <td>2,652</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt iron (spherule formation)</td> <td>1,538</td> <td>2,800</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation)</td> <td>1,565</td> <td>2,849</td></tr>
<tr><td>To vaporize lead </td><td>1,740</td> <td>3,164</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt molybdenum (spherule formation)</td> <td>2,623</td> <td>4,753</td></tr>
<tr><td>To vaporize aluminosilicates</td> <td>2,760</td> <td>5,000</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<p>Here are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=9%2F11+-+World+Trade+Center+Recovery+and+debris+removal+part+1+of+6">raw videos of the WTC recovery and debris removal</a>, and shows lots of smoldering hot-spots. </p>
</div><!-- section 4 -->
<a name="x5"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x5">5</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_5');">
Horse-Shoes, Arches, "Steel Doobies", and "the Meteor"</a></h2>
<div id="sect_5" style="display: none;">
<p>David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br>
<br>FGNW's instant volume heating from highly energetic neutron penetration easily explains the images in this section. Most of the other theories for 9/11 do not, nor can they suggest (a) how the chemical-based [NT] explosives were positioned or (b) why such anomalies resulted.
<br>
<br>The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly, which are the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle (or doobie, or joint) and held together by their three spandrels. FGNW suggests sufficient volume heating of the sprandels (across three stories) that they became pliable. The shock wave in ablating materials had a lateral component in their destruction. Easily wraps the beams up by their own spandrels.
<br>
<br>The following image shows a <i>"steel doobies"</i> in the lower left-hand portion and on top of another intact wall assembly; it is perpendicular to the beam the man is climbing.
<br>
<br><img alt="steel doobie in pile" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_gTXU5ZcbXg_4ru2h5Hx6ONEStLtl727iGSri2Od6SjpUC-mSG5Z5nQ7M_6DdcKJTLEHxLTE6DKKjd8-9LlQfbIMYJU1XdukUGBlOO8hY1a6CneVApCNbxKb4HIweelIudtTgpYAEIW0/s1600/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg" width="90%">
<br>
<br>
<br>One of these "steel doobies" was augered into the ground and leaning against a building on Liberty street, shown in the following image just left of center. The amount of augering and distance from the towers suggest its placement was high in the tower, and also that high heat and energetic lateral forces created it before it hit the ground.
<br>
<br><img alt="Steel doobie at Libery Street" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJKJA40-wxwydEMPyDJ1xJwqeTpGrksxFO4f9XThIOUPDU5t4h_IIAXKx-Pa5_nywKBcnReVMxr8gvbrUr3honETaUK9KQSH9YQdad0GluQPVX2rU0coPwypc5FZNIpnpACt3AGYCBnfM/s320/LibertyDoobies.png" width="90%">
<br>
<br>The following shows a steel doobie and other anomalous results.
<br>
<br><img alt="steel doobie" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNv5Yc3UtjetnfikaKOrVQ8GH8CADY2mUmfDdK0gHrSwUaUqZI7FZ0cPC1wrG8TPBzrEPj2dKs1nLxPamKwV6s_PsE8BoyFsTn25BiywSyfCAjNoX0jRCOjcWwpMn-mPaRRqrlItLNJCE/s320/steel11_hires_s.jpg" width="90%">
<br>
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/9SKnGKBOPxs?t=2173">This video</a> at 36:00 shows some steel doobies augered into the ground and next to a neighboring building.
<br>
<br>
<br>The following are pictures of a core column that was bent into a horse shoe.
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDcryLGU8b9hdQMt3qcJ9TgQMnyyYoTmRjd4mVhc4wcw_GdZTbs11zhfh1MYyXqT_F2TFpTV6fRp7zMG0NfXi-ncWC8lY7HfRVHC5QsDB2lehDsCYigZicBt6NvivVVeXhBKy1k85C_UE/s320/core4.jpg" width="90%">
<br>
<br><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-SLS6f7yRvM4n1z865_jWcgae8_oSPTOgSpKJNTUh3I0ojr4NrNiV4naQRdU-TSJAq-HGOSUDXb1-S4wdLgTkqcFQlQt9q4u1isRLM0G2bwCc_1rwdxkORW5PQGFyTDOqHRVj9DEq6ak/s320/horseshoe_r1_c2.jpg" width="90%">
<br>
<br>The following are pictures of bent beams.
<br>
<br><img alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsP7M-3aYJoqCGw86yOT_uzcSR9M2O-gcqbQGXwc_n0lRVDEZ6grIJA6TnvT2LBRHtBI717Y9PkOCb8W9NvsXdIdmfyYoyvFULfye_2VM5IX1LEkn6L2T-D_6Cvdqbg0Vdw31zyittx8U/s320/DSCN0941_s.jpg" width="90%">
<br>
<br>Here is <a href="https://youtu.be/_fZ8qROHED8?t=931">a video of a wall assembly bent into smooth arches</a> being loaded onto a flatbed.
<br>
<br><br><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2wW1Wqx-ojk" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wW1Wqx-ojk">The WTC Meteorite</a>
<br>
<br>The OCT has no explanation for the anomalies shown above. Offices fires don't get hot enough to weaken steel, and certainly wouldn't be sudden and symmetric.
<br>
<br>Those who champion NT (or chemical explosives) don't explain positioning of NT that can achieve the horseshoes and arches anomalies of the large steel beams of the core. In the real world to create such arches, the steel beam has to be heated end-to-end in a blast furnace for a non-trivial period of time (e.g., longer than the office fires burned). Although NT burns hot, how much would be required to achieve volume heating in an instance of time? And why would that even have been an operational goal?
</p></div><!-- section 5 -->
<a name="x6"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x6">6</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">
EMP and Vehicle Damage</a></h2>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: none;">
<p>An EMP (electromagnetic pulse) is one of the side-effects of a nuclear detonation. The EMP would have been mitigated by many factors, like
<br>
<br>(1) the design of the device in terms of tactical yield,
<br>(2) the placement of the device, like all of the steel surrounding at the core where they would have placed the devices plus the outer wall assemblies,
<br>(3) debris,
<br>(4) the distance from the detonation, and
<br>(5) other buildings.
<br>
<br>An EMP can induce large Eddy currents in metal that it hits line-of-sight. The magnitude of the Eddy currents depends on magnitude of source, distance from source, and how much surface area gets hit (e.g., isn't shaded by obstacles.) Sufficiently large Eddy currents would generate heat in the metal that could be great enough to cause combustion in touching items: paint, rubber seals, plastic door handles. Once a portion of the car is on fire, it becomes easy for other combustible things on the car to burn.
<br>
<br>An EMP can destroy electronics in a similar fashion just from the induced currents heating circuit boards to fuse traces together, as well as from overwhelming the doping and biases of semiconductor devices.
<br>
<br>The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight. It didn't affect shaded vehicles or those around corners, or lots of more easily combustible things, like flags, paper, leaves, trees, or people. The delineation of where certain burn patterns start and end is noteworthy. Some instances (like a police car 1 on West Broadway facing away from the WTC) seem to show its rear end having been burned by a line-of-sight EMP, but the fire did not progress beyond the natural boundary of the rear doors, as if the Eddy currents were generated there.
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwKpPcDytvEuu3wtbbz2Ng0PmuRnOf69W7L5SqHQQAZk9npm6ycKTtFpI1xTPgJAloYuwhS6J13eabO3l1pLSfUGq6I6RElC8J4TBUxioxpmkJIFSB1cfv5MAPsJjPjPl90J_OsYb0iA8/s1600/Image18swamp.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwKpPcDytvEuu3wtbbz2Ng0PmuRnOf69W7L5SqHQQAZk9npm6ycKTtFpI1xTPgJAloYuwhS6J13eabO3l1pLSfUGq6I6RElC8J4TBUxioxpmkJIFSB1cfv5MAPsJjPjPl90J_OsYb0iA8/s320/Image18swamp.jpg" width="90%"></a>
<br>Police car 1
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrK_hNR9aL10e8j-04wBTyW-OUW7cKHGwNNQv8Z8sTb-RPn-CDAbk3BDMvPEFf73gADYtgwrh7WV-YuxpWiK7wkaNQseDc_VwP0BqtqfB-99mj6YuX9JzDUTr0TPrlW4Dn1vD1vtghDGw/s1600/Image19swamp.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrK_hNR9aL10e8j-04wBTyW-OUW7cKHGwNNQv8Z8sTb-RPn-CDAbk3BDMvPEFf73gADYtgwrh7WV-YuxpWiK7wkaNQseDc_VwP0BqtqfB-99mj6YuX9JzDUTr0TPrlW4Dn1vD1vtghDGw/s320/Image19swamp.jpg" width="90%"></a>
<br>Police car 1 (another view)
<br>
<br><b>Disclaimer</b>: police car 1 was just behind a mail truck that was also on fire (seen below). <a href="http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html">More views from this police car, Figure 9(a)</a>.
<br>
<br></p><p class="image">
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyY5AEp3UKn1jhmCCUkwUw6x9LScfkEZjoX0qxLhecAdaZ2EB45PCW1GMccQ-rEsgf6hGQeO4TrWm-i_WxHo7rGDObIADzF14BgWD9JFcyd1vd3aLqadrTRFirVzQtr77KCVf4SFvyb2E/s1600/Image20swamp.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyY5AEp3UKn1jhmCCUkwUw6x9LScfkEZjoX0qxLhecAdaZ2EB45PCW1GMccQ-rEsgf6hGQeO4TrWm-i_WxHo7rGDObIADzF14BgWD9JFcyd1vd3aLqadrTRFirVzQtr77KCVf4SFvyb2E/s320/Image20swamp.jpg" width="90%">
<br>[Image20swamp.jpg] West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. You can see WTC-7. </a>
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJaCzwIPlLJ9u_Zu_AS5xIyntURF_oJ9-Z-dkHKDFF_qGIvIn-MiNRA3F2bbLGyGnME4hu-WIzreJnbE-luzW_91Il8NESprXfn12wYFIqV41mZGdIcGYu8C4jkvTZiOFQgVaU3szCd0M/s1600/Image16.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJaCzwIPlLJ9u_Zu_AS5xIyntURF_oJ9-Z-dkHKDFF_qGIvIn-MiNRA3F2bbLGyGnME4hu-WIzreJnbE-luzW_91Il8NESprXfn12wYFIqV41mZGdIcGYu8C4jkvTZiOFQgVaU3szCd0M/s320/Image16.jpg" width="90%">
<br>[Image16.jpg] West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus. </a>
<br>
<br>
<br>WCBS reporter Vince Dimentri came out from WTC-7 [West Broadway and Barkley] but commented on the damage looking like a war zone.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Car after car after car and buses completely obliterated and burned down to the steel... That gaping hole? That's where one of the twin towers stood.</p></blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZI10oG1Gzrg" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<p><a href="https://youtu.be/ZI10oG1Gzrg">https://youtu.be/ZI10oG1Gzrg</a></p>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Szgj5yUSdc?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Szgj5yUSdc">https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Szgj5yUSdc</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x7">7</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_7');">
Continually Regenerated Fine Particles</a></h2>
<div id="sect_7" style="display: none;">
<p>Although three weeks after the event from October 2, 2001 until mid-December 2001, a volunteer research team from the DELTA Group monitored the levels of atmospheric particles and aerosols in the atmosphere of New York, following the collapse of the World Trade Center. Professor Thomas Cahill of the he UC Davis DELTA Group (Detection and Evaluation of Long-range Transport of Aerosols) described some of this finding on February 11, 2002. {<a href="http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/nuclear-atmospheric-physicist-dr-thomas-cahill-on-911">Source</a> with direct quotes from Dr. Cahill}
</p>
<blockquote><p>"The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles, probably associated with high temperatures in the underground debris pile. Normally, in New York City and in most of the world, situations like this just don’t exist."
<br>
<br>Many different metals were found in the samples of very fine particles, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States.
<br>
<br>Some of the metals for which there are no guidelines that were present in very fine particles in relatively high concentrations were Iron, Titanium (some associated with powdered concrete), Vanadium, Nickel (often associated with fuel-oil combustion), Copper and Zinc. Mercury was seen occasionally in fine particles but at low concentrations. Many of those metals are widely used in building construction, wiring and plumbing. Some are common in computers. The metal of the coarse particles is still being analyzed.
<br>
<br>Prof. Cahill also explained the meaning of the generation of the particles to reporters more clearly:
<br>
<br>"The presence of coarse particles immediately after days of rain indicated that they were being continually re-generated from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces."
<br>
<br>Cahills words. Continually Regenerated.
<br>
<br>Is this another subtle hint by a man who can't speak his mind freely that a nuclear reaction occurred?</p></blockquote>
</div><!-- section 7 -->
<a name="x8"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x8">8</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">
Radiation => Nukes </a></h2>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: none;">
<p>The mantra <i>"No Radiation = No Nukes"</i> has been oft cited as a reason why 9/11 did ~not~ involve nuclear devices. However, the left-hand side of this simplistic equation is canceled by <a href="http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf"><i>"Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center"</i></a> by T.M. Semkow et al.
<br>
<br>Tritium is a common feature in nearly all FGNW. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that ready binds with hydroxyl radicals to form tritiated water, (HTO or heavy water).
<br>
<br>In order to prevent speculation from going to FGNW, the study was <i><b>"scope limited"</b></i> to attribute tritium to RL devices that might already be in the contents of the WTC complex (emphasis added).
<br>
</p><blockquote><p>We became interested in the subject of tritium at WTC because of the <b><i>possibility</i></b> that tritium RL devices <b><i>could have been present</i></b> and destroyed at WTC... Tritium radio luminescent (RL) devices were investigated as <b><i>possible sources</i></b> of the traces of tritium at ground zero... Several sources of tritium were considered and analyzed, as consistent with the experimental data: i) EXIT signs in the buildings, ii) emergency signs on the airplanes, iii) fire and emergency equipment, iv) weaponry, and v) timepieces.</p></blockquote>
<p>Because the authors weren't looking at nuclear weapons as being the source for tritium or the destruction, (a) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (b) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.
<br>
<br>Sampling for tritium took place on 9/13 and 9/21. These delays are noteworthy because with this the study implies that tritium levels from 9/21 -- after much dilution from rain and firefighting efforts -- would be representative of tritium levels from 9/11. Samples were only taken in run-off from WTC-6 and not from around any of the other buildings or hot-spots. They stopped taking additional samples when their analysis indicated levels well below the EPA threshold for what constitutes a health risk.
<br>
<br>In addition to the shoddy sampling, the study re-defines "trace or background levels" to be 55 times greater than they were previously.
<br>
<br>The authors of the study did an admirable job of supposing that tritium from consumer products (e.g., exit signs, weapons' sights) would leach into the water as HTO (tritiated or heavy water). Further, they succeeded in conveying the message that the lingering tritium was at benign levels with respect to human health.
<br>
<br>However, readers of the report must assume (a) that such consumer products existed in sufficient quantity within the WTC, (b) that the diluting HTO pathways to the scant few measuring locations were as they were so neatly story-boarded, and (c) that the measurements are complete and accurate.
<br>
<br>The bigger issue caused by this study is when it is later re-purposed by Dr. Steven Jones as the final word on tritium at the WTC: <i><b>unquestioned and unchallenged.</b></i>
<br>
<br>Aside from the tritium song-and-dance, the fiction of the WTC not having any radiation seemed to come from another shoddy report: <a href="https://archive.org/details/CharacterizationOfTheDustsmokeAerosolThatSettledEastOfTheWorldTrade_552"><i>"Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001"</i></a> by Paul Lioy et al.
<br>
<br>Among its flaws:
<br>
<br>- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
<br>
<br>- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
<br>
<br>- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
<br>
<br>- Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). The Lioy report only mentions "Uranium" twice: once in the methodology section and once in table 2 indicating metals found. Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
<br>
<br>The <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/sample.location.html">USGS collected dozens of dust samples</a> with a methodolgy more rigorous and systematic than those of the tritium study, the Lioy report, or Dr. Jones. The USGS samples had Thorium, Lanthanum, and Yttrium, which Lioy et al do not tabulate.</p>
<p>The following image depicts how a nuclear reaction with Uranium creates other elements (Barium and Strontium) and that then decay quickly into other elements.</p>
<img alt="" src="http://www.911history.de/images/911nn072_en.png" width="90%">
<p>Source 1 (modified): <a href="http://www.nucleardemolition.com/">http://www.nucleardemolition.com/</a>
<br>Source 2 (half lives): <a href="http://www.internetchemie.info/chemiewiki/index.php?title=Barium-Isotope">http://www.internetchemie.info/chemiewiki/index.php?title=Barium-Isotope</a>
</p><p>The tables in the USGS analysis of their WTC dust samples are noteworthy, because not only were these expected by-product elements and their decay elements measured in the dust, but also they are presented in the tables practically in the sequence of their decay. More importantly is the omission of any explanation for these elements in the dust. The first image of a table snippet documents the Barium and its decay elements as having been present in the dust.</p>
<figure>
<img src="http://www.911history.de/images/911nn334.png" width="663" height="304">
<p class="caption"><i>Source: <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html">http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html</a></i></p>
</figure>
<p>The second image of a table snippet documents strontium and its decay elements as having been present in the dust.</p>
<figure>
<img src="http://www.911history.de/images/911nn336.png" width="663" height="304">
<p class="caption"><i>Source: <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html">http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html</a></i></p>
</figure>
<p>Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed this USGS data in <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html"><i>Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]</i></a> {mcb: Link no longer works.}
<br>
</p><blockquote><p>Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
<br>
<br><b>Thorium and Uranium:</b> These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
<br>
<br><b>Lithium:</b> With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
<br>
<br><b>Lanthanum:</b> Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
<br>
<br><b>Yttrium:</b> The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
<br>
<br><b>Chromium:</b> The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
<br>
<br><b>Tritium:</b> A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes. </p></blockquote>
<p>The following is based on Mr. Prager's conclusion.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance.
</p><p>The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.
<br>
<br>The USGS report shows Barium and Strontium present and in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships.
<br>
<br>The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship and to other radionuclide daughter products.
<br>
<br>The dust samples provide an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. Nuclear weapon scientists, such as Dr. Jones, should have seized this data to analyze it and determine exactly what type of device produced it.</p></blockquote>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x9">9</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_9');">
Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras</a></h2>
<div id="sect_9" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: new information and a different nuclear analysis.}</p>
<p>A startling discovering from Mr. Heinz Pommer's work (<a href="www.911history.de">www.911history.de</a>) was real-time evidence of radiation in the immediate after-effects of the towers' destruction. This evidence is in the form of camera scintillation (flashes or sparkles of light) as a result of radioactive particles in the dust cloud. At about 0:52 in the following <a href="https://youtu.be/uGaiSrxhRhU?t=52">video of the South Tower Dust Cloud, the camera is over-run by the dust cloud. Suddenly the video camera, that worked perfectly before, starts registering small flashes in the dust cloud.</a></p>
<div style="position:relative;height:0;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uGaiSrxhRhU?ecver=2" style="position:absolute;width:100%;height:100%;left:0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" width="600" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe></div>
<p>Mr. Pommer discusses this camera scintillation at about 57:46 in <i><a href="https://youtu.be/Ry4UWQjJnSc?t=3466">9/11: a nuclear war crime [Re-Upload; A&E logo removed] 2017-01-09</a></i>. </p>
<p>Here is another example of camera scintillation, <a href="https://youtu.be/xScpRFVVx4w">9/11 - World Trade Center Recovery and debris removal part 4 of 6</a>. At around 6:00 as the camera pans up and down, whenever it aims down, more scintillation appears in the lower half of the image that depicts the pulverized debris pile. Other instances in the video (such as around 12:00), the camera will have relatively few glitches, but as it pans over areas of the destruction, the lower portion of the image with the debris pile (and not the upper portion with standing structures) begin to have more white flashes or camera anomalies. When the camera pans over other areas of equipment and workers, not such scintillation.</p>
<p>Yet another example from <a href="https://youtu.be/p4HOCf7WK3g?t=291">Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10</a>. Notice how it affects the lower portion of the image where the debris is piled up and not the structure in the upper portion.</p>
<p>As a side note to validate camera's susceptibility to radiation, <a href="https://youtu.be/ebpscjKRCqo">applications for mobile phones</a> exist that turn them into radioactivity counters. One such company is <a href="http://www.rdklein.de">www.rdklein.de</a>. Cover the lens of the camera with normal black tape which blocks the light while letting radioactive emissions penetrate. The application initiates a form of long-term exposure, collects the radioactive occurrences, and provides statistics and analysis on them.</p>
</div><!-- section 9 -->
<a name="x10"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x10">10</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">
First Responder Ailments</a></h2>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: none;">
<p>From <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/911-responders-plagued-cancer-asthma-ptsd/story?id=14427512#.T_2i1fXD_mE">9/11 First Responders Plagued by Health Problems From Toxic Dust and Debris</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Those who worked at the WTC site seem to be at increased risk of cancer, especially thyroid cancer, melanoma and lymphoma. According to a study released of nearly 10,000 New York firefighters (half of whom worked at the WTC site), those from the site are 32 percent<b> more likely to have cancer.</b> </p></blockquote>
<p>From <a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/04/04/911-nuke-demolition-proof-firefighters-radiation-cancers-off-the-scale/">9/11 NUKE DEMOLITION PROOF: Firefighters Radiation Cancers "Off the Scale" (2011-04-04)</a>:
</p><blockquote><p>Firefighters who recovered bodies at Ground Zero are developing cancer at a faster rate than those who worked before the atrocity, medical officials have revealed. ... A seven-year study by the New York Fire Department has claimed that there are "unusual rises" in the number of cancer cases among firefighters who worked in the aftermath of 9/11. Some types of cancer among 9/11 firefighters are even "bizarrely off the charts," according to sources who have seen the as-yet-undisclosed federal-funded study. ... Dr. David Prezant, the Fire Department's chief medical officer, has reportedly said that cancer cases across "all ranks" of the FDNY who worked at Ground Zero are "up significantly". ... The New York state Health Department has confirmed that 345 Ground Zero workers have died of various cancers as of June 2010.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder, rescue worker, counselor, and FEMA consultant has made <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305newrevelations.htm">many remarkable statements related to the nuking of the WTC</a>.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The rescue people - when our clothes got so contaminated, we were told not to bring our clothes off that site. Don't wear anything on the site you're not prepared to leave there because it's contaminated. ... <b>My teeth are falling out.</b> ... Most everybody has chronic sinusitis. They have ringing in the ears. Some people's teeth and gums are bothering them. In the last year, I've lost seven teeth. They have just broken while I was eating. I have three or four more teeth that are just dying. And my dentist says, "I've never seen anything like this in someone who's healthy. There is something wrong with you but I cannot find what it is. And I can't stop it either." ... The doctor said to me, I have - 97% of the population in American breathes more efficiently than I do. And that most of the people who are in that 3% are the people from Ground Zero. It's this debilitating, death-bed type of lung problems.</p> </blockquote>
<p><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pxVbXyB9OLeWJCOElMMWgxbHc/view">Source</a>
</p><blockquote><p>The magnitude of the disaster was unprecedented. The amount of people needing decontamination was enormous.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html">Officer Sue Keane:</a>
</p><blockquote><p>I had burn marks, not like you'd have from a fire, but my face was all red, my chest was red.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.albany.edu/news/15948.php">UAlbany Alumna and 9/11 First Responder Dr. Terri Tobin</a>:
</p><blockquote><p>Since 2001, Tobin has had surgery each year and had two-thirds of her teeth replaced.</p></blockquote>
<p></p></div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x11">11</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_11');">
Audio Evidence</a></h2>
<div id="sect_11" style="display: none;">
<p>
Games have been played with the audio of many videos of the WTC annihilation, maybe on purpose. Some video survives that have the boom-boom-boom, and first responders also report hearing such controlled demolition cadence. However, they don't describe it sounding like a machine gun which would be the case of explosions at every floor timed to go off at accelerations greater than gravity. No, the first responders describe the demolition at a countable cadence, such as once every 1/2 second and underscore the notion of 6-12 devices (for the 110 stories.)
<br>
<br>Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST, in debunking conventional chemical explosives, stated that if they were used (and certainly to achieve observed pulverization), the explosions would have been deafening. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of first-responder survivors.
</p><blockquote><p>NIST concluded the following:
<br>- [T]he minimum charge (lower bound) required to fail a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have produced a pressure wave that would have broken windows on the north and east faces of the building near Column 79. The visual evidence did not show such breakage....
<br>- [T]he noise level at a distance of 1/2 mile would have been on the order of 130 dB to 140dB... People on the street would have heard 9 lb of RDX go off a mile away....
<br>- Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection...<sup>1</sup>
<br><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/"><i>Beyond Misinformation</i></a> page 39</p></blockquote>
<p>When conventional chemical explosives (shaped-charges) are mounted on a structure, that's the location that gets zapped, but a shockwave is transmitted through the air as massive changes in air pressure that -- depending on goals/techniques -- can violent destroy other structure and content. Shockwave through air means "very loud." 9/11 booms were loud, but muted from expectations about chemical explosives.
<br>
<br>The detonation of a FGNW does not have to be extremely loud at its ignition point, because neutron emission is a different process compared to chemical reactions, is heating the air, but isn't generating massive changes in air pressure. Destroying shock waves originating in the materials from penetrating highly energetic neutrons would have a vastly different audio signature than shock waves transmitted through air and able to achieve the same destruction.
</p></div><!-- section 11 -->
<a name="x12"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x12">12</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">
Video Evidence</a></h2>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: none;">
<p>
Plenty of videos exist of the annihilations of WTC-1 and WTC-2. They demonstrate best of all that FGNW were deployed. Only a few representative videos are presented here.
<br>
<br><b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xGAofwkAOlo">WTC-1 North Tower Collapse</a></b>
<br><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xGAofwkAOlo" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<br>
<br>At the start of the video about the WTC-2, pay attention to the language used by the newscaster in the early days after 9/11: <i>"large portions simply vaporized into the dust that rained down on New Yorkers immediately after the collapse. It was that powerful."</i> This was before OCT messaging came down and all media began voicing the same unified messages.
<br>
<br><b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y7DqWLSkzIU">WTC-2 South Tower Collapse</a></b>
<br><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y7DqWLSkzIU" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<br>
<br>Also in the WTC-2 video (at about 0:22), observe how the upper stories began to tilt and had angular momentum that should have toppled them out of the path of greatest resistance. Instead, their angular momentum was arrested as they were turned to dust.
<br>
<br>Consider number 4 of the <i>10 Demolitions Gone Wrong</i> video (at 2:25). It is from <a href="https://youtu.be/XHcCbY2wY38?t=145">Cankiri, Turkey 2009</a> and demonstrates what a cohesive upper-story block with angular momentum can do.
<br>
<br><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XHcCbY2wY38?t=145" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<br>
<br>Theoretically, the leaning upper stories of WTC-2 -- particularly when OCT describe it as a <i>"pile-driver"</i> -- could have acted more as a cohesive block and rolled over and fallen onto other buildings.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/msUbJILO1BE">9/11: getting the physics right; Part 1: [nuclear] yield & Silverstein's glacier formations </a>
<br><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/msUbJILO1BE" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" width="854" height="480" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jswvSrNtdc">9/11: getting the physics right; Part 2: the nuclear 9/11 weapon's design (pulsed neutron bomb)</a>
<br><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4jswvSrNtdc" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" width="854" height="480" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p></div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x13">13</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_13');">
Debris Pile Evidence</a></h2>
<div id="sect_13" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 12</p>
<blockquote><p>Most detrimental to the team's ability to conduct forensic analysis was the City’s recycling of the buildings' steel, which continued despite requests from the investigators — and outcry among the victims' families and the fire safety community — for the steel to be saved.<sup>3</sup> Although investigators were eventually granted access to the scrap yards, nearly all of the steel, including most of the steel from the upper floors of WTC 1 and WTC 2, was destroyed before it could be inspected.<sup>4</sup></p></blockquote>
<p>Quotes from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378743767&sr=1-1&keywords=Kevin+R.+Ryan">Kevin R. Ryan's <i>"Another Nineteen"</i></a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>... Evidence Recovery Teams (ERTs) involved in the sorting process stole pieces of debris, and kept or disposed of them. This removal of debris was condoned and encouraged by the FBI agents in charge. ... The claim that these were merely souvenirs seemed unlikely considering the volume of materials stolen, and considering the WTC building 7 was the focus of much of the theft.
<br>
<br>... shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel -- including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns -- were gone. ... bargain price, the WTC debris was considered highly sensitive. ... The recycling of the most important steel evidence was done in a hurry, ... done so fast that the City took much less than market value for the scrap metal.</p></blockquote>
<p>The wall assemblies and core columns are well represented in the debris pile. What stymied the original OCT explanation of "pancaking" is that the steel pans and supporting truss beams that held the concrete floors were not stacked up like "pancakes" but were under-represented in the pile (in cohesive forms) and the concrete was pulverized.
</p></div><!-- section 13 -->
<a name="x14"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x14">14</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">
Security and Controlling the Evidence</a></h2>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: none;">
<p>The WTC after 9/11 was <b>~not~</b> a place that just anyone could walk right into. From Kevin R. Ryan's <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378743767&sr=1-1&keywords=Kevin+R.+Ryan">Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects</a></i>. [Use the endnote number to locate the exact position in the book.]
</p>
<blockquote><p>During the five-month cleanup effort, there were unprecedented measures taken to control access to the site. The site was restricted, and photographs were banned, by order of Rudy Giuliani. [808] Anthony Mann of E.J. Electric, one of the contractors for the WTC towers, said that "Security is unbelievable. It's really on a need-to-be-down-there basis."[809]
<br>[808] Jim Hoffman, Access Restrictions: The Closure of Ground Zero to Investigators, 911Research.WTC7.net
<br>[809] Amy Florence Fischbach, CEE News, September 20, 2001.
<br>
<br>The restrictions on FEMA investigators and photographers and the extensive site security are all indications that something was being hidden.
<br>
<br>... highly secure site, as well as the authority to <b>hire suspected crime syndicate companies</b> to perform the actual cleanup.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Another scene setting quote from <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305newrevelations.htm" rel="nofollow">Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia</a>, a WTC responder and FEMA consultant:</p>
<blockquote><p>They would tackle you and take your camera away. ... When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn't go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. ... If you spoke to civilians, you actually were reprimanded by not being allowed to go back to the pile per hour, per occurrence. So if you talked to four people, they wouldn't say anything to you on the pile. But when you got back, to come back and got ready at the Port Authority, got showered, dressed and ready to return, they'd say, "Tartaglia, you have to hold up a second, we need to talk to you for a second." And then you would have nonsensical conversations for two or three hours. [Alex Jones: Now we know that by day two, they arrested anybody with cameras. They said no over-flights, no cameras.] First of all they didn't take cameras away from everybody. They took them away from people they couldn't control. ... </p></blockquote>
<p></p></div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x15">15</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_15');">
Why Pulverization?</a></h2>
<div id="sect_15" style="display: none;">
<p>Gravity alone didn't pulverize the structure through its path of greatest resistance. Energy was added.
<br>
<br>Was pulverization: an accidental side-effect? A goal of the operation? Both?
<br>
<br>Whether we are talking (a) actual external terrorists or (b) patsy terrorists framed by the government, the alleged aims would have been achieved with airplane impacts alone. Destruction of towers would have been a nice bonus for actual terrorists. With the goal of destroying the towers -- actually, the whole WTC complex -- and under the ruse of framing patsy terrorists, the destruction could have been staged with conventional demolition techniques to make it look physics compliant and believable. Specifically: demolition not at constant acceleration, not in elapsed times close to free-fall, much less pulverization, large chunks falling outside the path of greatest resistance, more collateral damage to the WTC bathtub and outside the WTC, and large portions of the towers remaining standing.
<br>
<br>New York City has gone through many eras of re-generation, when neighborhoods and areas had their old structures demolished and new & grander built in the space. Among the city planning lessons learned -- particularly as the skyline rose -- was the eventual end-of-life demolition needs to be considered at the beginning. Supposedly by the 1960's, construction permits for skyscrapers required not just building plans but also demolition plans. According to the Russian agent/defector (who promotes the disinformation of deep underground nukes at the WTC), Russian agents learned that the WTC demolition plan suggested whatever were state-of-the-art (low radiation) nuclear devices when their end came.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood's work provides a motivation for pulverization being a design goal. The "bathtub" is a massive concrete structure in the basin of the WTC complex that kept the Hudson River from flooding the underground parking structures and those of neighboring buildings connected by the subway lines. Large chunks of building (e.g., the structure in <a href="https://youtu.be/XHcCbY2wY38?t=145">Cankiri, Turkey 2009</a>) falling great distance would have sufficient energy to damage neighboring buildings but especially this critical bathtub, thereby extending the damage area well beyond the WTC. However, if decimated in the earliest phases, pulverized chunks of building falling great distances would reduce damage at ground level and to the bathtub.
<br>
<br>Before Larry Silverstein acquired the entire WTC complex in the summer of 2001, the WTC towers were white elephants for two main reasons: asbestos and corrosion between the aluminum cladding and the underlying steel wall assemblies. [The latter resulted in aluminum-iron flakes in the dust; Dr. Jones uses these flakes to support his nano-thermite theory.] Both flaws would have been extremely expensive to remedy, and the presense of asbestos ruled out getting permission for conventional controlled demolition. Very prudent of Mr. Silverstein to immediately insure the complex against terrorist attacks, owing to the failed 1993 WTC bombing that showed just how tough and resiliant the structures were.
</p></div><!-- section 15 -->
<a name="x16"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x16">16</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">
Manipulation of Public Perceptions</a></h2>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: none;">
<p>Philip Zelikow was executive director of the 9-11 Commission. According to Wikipedia:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"Prof. Zelikow’s area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, 'public myths' or 'public presumptions' which he defines as 'beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known with certainty) and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.' In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called 'searing' or 'molding' events (that) take on 'transcendent' importance and therefore retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. . . . He has noted that 'a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make the connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all.'"
<br>(“Thinking about Political History”, Miller Center Report, Winter 1999, pp. 5-7) </p></blockquote>
<p>In 1998, Philip Zelikow co-authored a <a href="http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/ct-tnd.htm"><em>Foreign Affairs</em> article</a>, "<i>Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger</i>," which warned of a possible catastrophic attack on the World Trade Center and accurately predicted the governmental aftermath of 9/11. Before he was selected as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, he authored the Bush administration's <a href="http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?lng=en&id=7086"><em>National Security Strategy of the United States of America</em></a> for 2002. This document for the first time asserted a national policy of pre-emptive war (the "Bush Doctrine"), and paved the way for the war on Iraq. [<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218157">abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218157</a>]</p>
<p>The <i>9/11 Commission Report</i> could be viewed as Dr. Zelikow's crowning achievement in manipulating public perceptions.</p>
<p><b>9/11 Commission Report</b></p>
<blockquote><p>Didn't mention WTC-7. Saudi Arabia redacted from report. Senator Max Cleland resigned from the commission over White House stonewalling and lack of cooperation, calling the investigation <i>"compromised."</i> The Commission's Staff Director, Philip Zelikow, had conflicts of interest. Senator's Thomas Keen and Lee Hamilton from the 9/11 Commission have since said it wasn't the full and complete accounting of 9/11; they were frustrated with repeated misstatements from the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration; much of the operational information into the terrorist network was obtained through torture, was unreliable, and has been proven wrong. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed. Refer to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission">Criticism of the 9/11 Commission</a>.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>NIST Report on WTC-1/2</b></p>
<blockquote><p>Pre-concluded that the aircraft impacts with jet fuel & office furnishing fires combined with gravity was the reason for the sudden transition into their destruction. Out-of-scope was considering any type of controlled demolition or other mechanisms of destruction. Was scope-limited to possible causes for the <i>"initiation of the collapse,"</i> where analysis stopped. It did not mention any of the anomalies present in the destruction process after <i>"collapse initiation,"</i> such as the glaring energy sink of structure and content pulverization at free-fall speeds. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>NIST Report on WTC-7</b></p>
<blockquote><p>The draft version did not note the observable free-fall. The final version broke the observable portion of the collapse into three stages, acknowledged that stage 2 happened at a rate indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration (e.g., free-fall), but then in its conclusion it averaged together the three stages so that it could state truthfully that combined stages fell at speeds slower than free-fall. The computer model was never made public, and its simulation -- besides over-driving parameters -- did not resemble what was observed. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>EPA</b></p>
<blockquote><p>Issued false proclamations into the "healthiness" of the NYC air regarding all of the pollutants released in the WTC destruction. Downplayed the toxicity of the dust.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/toc/2008/09/index.html">"A Return to Reason"</a> by Chris Mooney states:</p>
<blockquote><p>For eight long years, the Bush administration has trashed and politicized the government science agencies. How to kick out the hacks and flat-Earthers and let the geeks reign.
<br><br>This also means that by assaulting the science infrastructure, you can hobble government itself, and during the Bush administration, science abuse has been not only epidemic, but endemic. ...
<br><br>Nearly 100 EPA scientists surveyed by the UCS pointed the finger directly at the White House. As one scientist put it, 'They truly interfere and want to stamp the White House Agenda over every document that is sent to them for review. They have hired their own scientists and play the >>my scientist is better than yours<< game. The EPA has to accept a lot of shit from them to get any documents out.'
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The roots of government-controlled messaging are deep, but have been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions for well over a decade. A more recent embodiment of this is <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585">a 2008 Harvard paper</a> co-written by Cass Sunstein formerly in the Obama administration who proposed that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites - as well as other activist groups - which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.</p>
<p>The above represent data points in the trend line of <i>"politics outweighing science"</i> in terms of how government reports were manipulated. Government reports related to 9/11 cannot be trusted at face value.
</p></div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x17">17</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_17');">
Controlling the Opposition</a></h2>
<div id="sect_17" style="display: none;">
<p>An aspect of all large psychological operations is the concerted effort to lead public thought away from the truth. Information about 9/11 (like JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. before it) has been well seeded with disinformation to confuse and frustrate the public into giving up.
<br>
<br>
President Bush <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-3.html">announced</a> shortly after 9/11/2001, <i>"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th."</i> Its dual purpose was to shutdown alternative thinking about the 9/11 events and to kick sand into the eyes of those who would otherwise recognize that the official U.S. Government version of 9/11 is the most <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/index.html">outrageous conspiracy</a> of them all.
<br>
<br>
Lenin wrote: <i>"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."</i> Such a strategy has been well known and followed for decades by various government agencies. 9/11 is no exception. Here are intial data points.
<br>
<br>Thus it was that the US government was able to steer the public's perceptions -- and particularly that of the 9/11 Truth Movement -- away from nuclear involvement in 9/11 with a small group of PhDs: <i>"Scholars for 9/11 Truth"</i> composed of Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood, and Dr. James Fetzer. [What a circus their nasty break-up was!]
<br>
<br>All disinformation has two common traits: (1) a solid foundation of truth; (2) a self-destruct or self-discredit element for later, aimed at #1 to take valid truths out of further consideration.
<br>
<br>To be fair, Dr. Fetzer (via Mr. Donald Fox) embraces today a version of nuclear involvement on 9/11. However, Dr. Fetzer is also prone to championing most conspiracy theories & dubious evidence that cross his plate, because this is his market branding that he capitalizes on, augments his retirement with, and gives him fame and notariety. To put it gently, the Dr. Fetzer persona has many discrediting elements across his stable of conspiracy theories from JFK through the moon landings to 9/11 to Sandy Hook and beyond. [Case in point: Dr. Fetzer's no plane theory (NPT) at the WTC relies on mal-framed physics of the towers & aircraft, video manipulation, poor understanding of camera frame rates, misinterpretting two sets of radar data, and unproven holograms at the scale required.]
<br>
<br>Of the three scholars for 9/11 truth, Dr. Judy Wood has suffered the most consequences from employment to reputation. One of Dr. Wood's students, Michael Zubuhr, was killed in a mysterious manner in 2006. It is easy to speculate that she was <i>"sent a message"</i> that is reflected in her work in research avenues started but abruptly stopped that would have converged on nuclear sources, such as the radiation mitigation techniques involving soil. She doesn't give any ink to FGNW on her website or book [<a href="http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/">Where Did the Towers Go: The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology</a>], even though Dr. Andre Gsponer has 15 years of public, published articles into FGNW before Dr. Wood's book publication in 2010, such as <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071"><i>"Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"</i></a> [2006].
<br>
<br>More so than any individual or group inside or outside the 9/11 Truth Movement, Dr. Steven Jones, BYU professor of nuclear physics, has done the most to steer public thought away from 9/11 nuclear involvement. Damning for 9/11 Truth and AE9/11Truth: the omission of Dr. Andre Gsponer's FGNW work from Dr. Steven Jones' peer-reviewed "letter" [<a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf"><i>"Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers"</i></a> (2007)] that supposedly explains why 9/11 was not nuclear. Too bad that his letter relied on shoddy and incomplete reports that he accepted unquestioned and unchallenged; too bad he frames the nuclear devices incorrectly in terms of yield and side-effects; too bad he later filled the energy void with nano-thermite that has never been proven capable of the pulverization of content or maintaining the duration of under-rubble hot-spots (without obscenely huge quantities that would have presented an insurmountable logistics challenge.) Unlike Dr. Wood, Dr. Jones was placed on paid leave and then later received full retirement benefits and all honors and access afforded institution retirees.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood with her DEW theories are closer to the truth than Dr. Jones with NT. But in a disinformation bent, Dr. Wood don't connect dots and purposely avoided valid detailed nuclear considerations. One thing her book does well is collect all of the imagery of 9/11 be a nuclear event.</p>
<p>Among the 9/11 researchers to write about a nuclear involvement:</p>
<ul>
<li><b>William Tahil:</b> <a href="http://www.nucleardemolition.com/"><i>“Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC”</i></a> (2006). Tahil believes that two nuclear reactors-- not nuclear bombs-- were employed to demolish the two towers.</li>
<li><b>A Finnish military expert</b>. He believed a single nuclear bomb was used on each tower, via a focused, nuclear shape charge in the basement. It was a single, fission-free, 4th generation thermonuclear device.</li>
<li><b>The Anonymous Physicist:</b> <a href="https://anonymousphysicist.com/"><i>The Nuclear Destruction of the World Trade Center and The China Syndrome Aftermath</i></a> (2009). He believed that numerous mini- or micro-nukes were employed in the towers, and in all the other WTC buildings. He further highlighted that great redundancy was employed, and that numerous nukes either were sabotaged, fizzled on their own, or were impacted (without being triggered themselves), by other exploding nukes. And so many nukes did not go off as planned, and their unused fissile material later gave rise to the China Syndrome. Owing to ill-health as a result of murcury poisoning, he has not been active in defending and enhancing his theories.</li>
<li><b>Dimitri Khalezov</b>: He is a former Russian agent who proposed for each tower a single, deep underground nuclear device per tower creating what he calls. <a href="http://www.911thology.com/nexus1.html"><i>"Ground Zero – Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Center."</i></a></li>
<li><b>Heinz Pommer:</b> He enhanced the hypothesis of William Tahil by suggesting a neutron colliater, one per tower and deep underground. His <a href="http://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch02_en.html">Melting Pot</a> topic also uses information from Mr. Khalezov.</li>
</ul>
<p>Although there is evidence of underground explosions, the first ones were coordinated with the airplane impacts high in the towers. This work does not support the premise of deep underground nuclear devices (one per tower) and a <i>nuclear chimney</i> going up the elevator shafts, because destruction would have been observed starting either (a) low in the towers or (b) at all levels of the tower at once.</p>
<p>A "single shot" from the basement up the nuclear chimney has difficulties explaining why the top block of both towers "dissolved" first. The energetic neutrons from the basement would affect all levels at once and wouldn't be seen doing the top by itself first. If it was a single shot, we'd expect (a) a fountain effect possibly at the top, but more importantly (b) why would there be later phases [after the top has dissolved] where the fountain effects happen?</p>
<p>Further, Mr. Khalezov suggests that the glassy rock formation below WTC-4 is attributed to nuclear devices on 9/11 and hints it may have resulted from the devices used on the towers. This work disagrees. </p>
<p>The WTC-4 structure had a tiny overlap with the area covered by the slurry wall where it could have had deep basements. The other side took advantage of old subway lines. Two-thirds of WTC-4 were flattened at a neat line with its North Annex and where the hot-spots are in WTC-4.</p>
<blockquote><p>"But engineers and recovery officials say that large parts of the underground perimeter are undamaged, even though the buildings above them are partly collapsed. One area is below 4 World Trade Center, where more than two decades ago, Swiss Bank built a huge vault and storage area. The vault was reached from the Swiss Bank offices by a private elevator. To reach the vaults, armored trucks would drive through what had once been the tunnels for the Hudson and Manhattan railroad, the predecessor of the PATH system. These tunnels had run as far east as Church Street, but were not needed when the trade center was built and the PATH terminal was set closer to the river."<br>
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>"Large amounts of gold are stored in vaults in the massive basement below the WTC, and some of this is being transported through the basement this morning. Several weeks later, recovery workers will discover hundreds of ingots in a service tunnel below WTC 5, along with a ten-wheel lorry and some cars (which were, presumably, transporting the gold) (see (Mid-October-mid November 2001)). The lorry and cars had been crushed by falling steel, but no bodies will be reported found with them, so presumably they were abandoned before the first WTC collapse, at 9:59 a.m."<br>
https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any</p></blockquote>
<p>It has been proven from many angles that money was a huge motivator for 9/11. Mr. E. P. Heidner, a former employee of the DIA branch of the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) wrote <a href="http://newslog.cyberjournal.org/ep-heidner-collateral-damage-u-s-covert-operations-and-911/"><i>"Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001"</i></a> (2008) which connects a much longer money trail. With regards to finding the true perpetrators, it is important to <a href="https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-308-911-trillions-follow-the-money/"><i>Follow the Money</i></a>, which the Corbett Report did and tied in Israeli involvement from other angles (not just bank-rolling President Trump.)</p>
<p>Owing to the vaults and that 9/11 had extensive monetary motivation, this work concludes that the glassy rock formation should be attributed to God millions of years ago, and isn't related to WTC-4's hot-spots or the towers' destruction.</p>
</div><!-- section 17 -->
<a name="x18"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x18">18</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">
Trump's 9/11</a></h2>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: none;">
<p>The following two videos (2017-09-10) do a great job of collecting Donald J. Trump's statements regarding 9/11. They also tie him to Israel and covering for Mossad after 9/11. It is rather curious how Trump's book predicts the 9/11 event. Certainly as the event unfolded, Trump was eager to step forward and for the most part toe the official 9/11 story-line. Although the <i>9/11 dancing Arabs</i> were proven to be Israeli [and later Mossad agents tasked with documenting the 9/11 event that they knew would happen], Trump purposely called them <i>"dancing Muslims"</i> to further the disinformation about 9/11.</p>
<ul>
<li>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl294zrYLzk">Donald Trump, 9/11, CASE CLOSED<br>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl294zrYLzk</a>. Of particular interest are 6:46 and 27:44 in the video.
</li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d47oH8PS_QY">Donald Trump, 9/11, CASE CLOSED 2<br>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d47oH8PS_QY</a>
</li>
</ul>
<p>In is beyond the scope of this work to pursue all of the content of the two videos, except to point out that Trump, with his foreknowledge of 9/11 and championing the official story, is not completely innocent about 9/11. <i>"You knew I was a snake before you took me in."</i> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSrOXvoNLwg">[Trump reading the poem "The Snake" at his campaign rallies.]</a></p>
<p>Alarming are President Trump's statements before his State of the Union Address (2018-01-30):</p>
<blockquote><p>I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity... <i><b>Without a major event</b></i> where people pull together, that’s hard to do. But I would like to do it without that major event because usually that major event is not a good thing."</p></blockquote>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#x19">19</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_19');">
Why? What is at stake?</a></h2>
<div id="sect_19" style="display: none;">
<p>If wide-spread public revelation were to come to fruition that the US Government (possibly with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the "figurative" nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo.
<br>
<br>This risk could be and was significantly reduced by controlling the message away from themes nuclear, or into skewed nuclear variants that do not address the evidence correctly (e.g., deep underground nukes, beams from space) and are thus easily debunked in classic straw-man fashion.
</p></div><!-- section 19 -->
<!-- End the page here -->
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Subsections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Subsections</a></p>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-85678544520738701702017-12-31T09:09:00.000-08:002018-02-17T12:38:01.684-08:00Trend line to shut down 9/11 nuclear considerations
<p>Objective & rational thinkers know that if theory X is missing pieces,
then further research into X is required before it can be deemed complete.
If theory Y has X's missing pieces, then maybe X & Y ought to shack up
for a bit to see if they are compatible.
</p>
<p>The following are discussions to persuade Woodsian DEW supporters that
shacking up with nuclear FGNW might complete and validate their theory.
</p>
<p>These discussions add more data points to a particular trend line in the 9/11 realm.
The trend line (exhibited even on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com">Truth & Shadows</a>)
dictates that any attempts at objective & rational discussion into nuclear methods
must be shutdown using any and all of the available disinformation techniques,
up to and including banishment.
</p>
</p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<a name='more'></a>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Expand All</b> Parts</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All</b> Parts</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Sections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Sections</a></p>
<hr>
<hr>
<a name="x25"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part3');">Part 3: FB, Andrew Johnson, and Woodsian Followers</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part3" style="display: block;">
<p>Andrew Johnson is arguably the most influential champion of Dr. Wood's theories,
because of his Facebook groups, websites, and means of production & distribution for various conspiracy materials.
Below Mr. Johnson demonstrates rather quickly that he is unable to acknowledge the limitations of Dr. Wood's work,
much less to pursue nuclear theories that could validate some of her premises.
</p>
<a name="x26"></a>
<h2><a href="#x26" class="tiny">x26</a>
Andrew Johnson, Atahan Ganduu, Tom Farrar Talley, Julia Ratsey : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">what problem are you trying to solve?</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/911TruthMovement/permalink/1472085532899003/?notif_id=1510151928432032¬if_t=group_post_approved&ref=notif">2017-11-08</a>
<br/>
<br/><b>Andrew Johnson</b>
<br/>Group Admin
<br/>So what problem are you trying to solve? I think your statements are not really accurate. Can you give a summary of what you are talking about? Do FGND's work silently and invisibly? Or are you just pushing an bogus explanation which has already been ruled out - as long ago as 2008 when Ed Ward started to promote it?
<br/>
<br/>
<br/><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> In another group a Tracy Blevins has a mission to replace the placeholder words with known words for known phenomenon, so this is really a fourth-generation truther, they couldn’t challenge the research in any legitimate way so it seems at this point they wish to piggyback on it and put junk around it.
<br/>
<br/><b>Tom Farrar Talley</b> Tracy Blevins = 100% Turbo-charged FrOOTKake.. and is a radicalized Feminazi, too.. and I wasted a lot of time with her before I realized it..
<br/>
<br/><b>Julia Ratsey</b> Maxwell Bridges APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA), and SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.(SAIC) - both researchers into and manufacturers of Directed Energy Weapons, were amongst the Defendants when Dr Judy Wood took her case to Court citing evidence for the use of a Directed Energy Weapon to commit the crime of the destruction of the Towers at the WTC .
<br/>SAIC personnel were present at Ground Zero soon after 9/11. SAIC are also Psychological Operations consultants.
<br/>What is your explanation for the involvement of SAIC, a Directed Energy Weapons manufacturer, in both the securing of the crime scene after 9/11 and the defence case against claims made in Court by Dr Wood of a DEW having been used to commit that crime?
<br/>
<br/>http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
<br/>
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a>
<h2><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x27</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_27');">the problem being solved is defining what is the next level</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_27" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Andrew Johnson, any objective truther championing Dr. Wood's work should recognize that she never claimed it was the end-station on 9/11, never connected her dots, can't power her innuendo-ed devices with anything real-world, and left huge research gaps; objective and honest Woodsian truthers would see these short comings and should continue researching the viable mechanisms. Therefore, the problem being solved is defining what is the next level.
<br/>
<br/>The summary is fourth generation nuclear devices. I've read Dr. Wood's work many times. Your questions lead me to believe you haven't read my work -- linked above -- even once. Puts you at a disadvantage.
<br/>
<br/>To answer your questions about FGND working silently and invisibly, this is red herring, because the 9/11 WTC evidence documents the observed events as being neither silent nor invisible. And to be sure, FGND would be significantly quieter and relatively subdued in its visuals as compared to chemical-based NT (mixed with whatever). Why? RTFM above.
<br/>
<br/>In a nutshell, FGND would not be relying on air & pressure changes as a medium to inflict pulverizing damage that in turn would be deafeningly loud and have many observable flashes. FGND (say, 6-12 per tower) might have an initial flash but would then deposit highly energetic neutrons deep within the building material, so high that impact surfaces would vaporize so quickly (e.g., "ablate"), it'd send a shock-wave into the rest of the material decimating it. As observed.
<br/>
<br/>Further more, if you do not point out what exactly is "not really accurate" in the article (in part because you haven't read it), then you fail in providing a convincing counter argument.
<br/>
<br/>Finally, Dr. Ed Ward did the math & chemistry to prove some of the various games played by "official reports" (and Dr. Steven Jones), such as re-defining background levels to match their haphazard measurements for traces nuclear.
<br/>
<br/>FGND is different (but close) from my understanding of what Dr. Ward promotes today.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 27 -->
<a name="x28"></a>
<h2><a href="#x28" class="tiny">x28</a>
Atahan Ganduu : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">piggyback on it and put junk around it</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> In another group a Tracy Blevins has a mission to replace the placeholder words with known words for known phenomenon, so this is really a fourth-generation truther, they couldn’t challenge the research in any legitimate way so it seems at this point they wish to piggyback on it and put junk around it.
</p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<a name="x29"></a>
<h2><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x29</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_29');">are you an artificial intelligence, or bot?</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_29" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Atahan Ganduu, in my previous discussions with you, I was lead to believe that you are an artificial intelligence, or bot. And your incoherent comment does nothing to dissuade me from that view.
<br/>
<br/>FTR, I have and can easily challenge "the research" (e.g., Dr. Wood's work) in ~many~ legitimate ways. On my blog, and you were one of the actors who helped me hone my furtherence of "the research" beyond Woodsian cul-de-sacs.
<br/>
<br/>The following link represents discussions (in part with you, Mr. Ganduu) before I took the final leap into FGND and wrote it up. At the time, though, I was hot on the trail and exposed your bottish ways. Do an "Expand All" at the link and search for your name.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html
<br/>
<br/>It is why I won't have much patience for you. Prove you are human, and objective, and sincere: RTFM and ask questions related to the subject of FGND. You're welcome to participate on my blog under either URL. (Comments are moderated on a very loose schedule, so don't fret if your comment doesn't appear immediately. I promise to be fair and reasonable.)
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 29 -->
<a name="x30"></a>
<h2><a href="#x30" class="tiny">x30</a>
Tom Farrar Talley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">a radicalized Feminazi</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: block;">
<p><br/><b>Tom Farrar Talley</b> Tracy Blevins = 100% Turbo-charged FrOOTKake.. and is a radicalized Feminazi, too.. and I wasted a lot of time with her before I realized it..
</p>
</div><!-- section 30 -->
<a name="x31"></a>
<h2><a href="#x31" class="tiny">x31</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_31');">she sort of gave up</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_31" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Dear Mr. Tom Farrar Talley, you sound scared of Dr. Tracy Blevins. I do credit her with getting me to re-think some of my premises and helped get me to FGND. The only issue I had with her is that she sort of gave up. She could neither debunk specifics of my premise, nor provide an alternative, and exited the discussion well before it had any meat to the bones.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 31 -->
<a name="x32"></a>
<h2><a href="#x32" class="tiny">x32</a>
Julia Ratsey : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">SAIC personnel were present at Ground Zero soon after 9/11</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_32" style="display: block;">
<p><b>Julia Ratsey</b> Maxwell Bridges APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA), and SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.(SAIC) - both researchers into and manufacturers of Directed Energy Weapons, were amongst the Defendants when Dr Judy Wood took her case to Court citing evidence for the use of a Directed Energy Weapon to commit the crime of the destruction of the Towers at the WTC .
<br/>SAIC personnel were present at Ground Zero soon after 9/11. SAIC are also Psychological Operations consultants.
<br/>What is your explanation for the involvement of SAIC, a Directed Energy Weapons manufacturer, in both the securing of the crime scene after 9/11 and the defence case against claims made in Court by Dr Wood of a DEW having been used to commit that crime?
<br/>
<br/>http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
</p>
</div><!-- section 32 -->
<a name="x33"></a>
<h2><a href="#x33" class="tiny">x33</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_33');">no surprise to see the involvement of SAIC</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_33" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Dear Ms. Julia Ratsey, please be careful, otherwise a learned and experience participant might get the impression that you, like Mr. Ganduu, are a bot.
<br/>
<br/>I have no issues with what you wrote above, except that you also demonstrate that you didn't RTFM. How can I make this assessment?
<br/>
<br/>FGND are by definition "directed energy weapons".
<br/>
<br/>Therefore, it is no surprise to see the involvement of SAIC, a DEW manufacturer, at Dr. Wood's faux Qui Tam Complaint. Faux, because she had no standing to even make the claim and could have know it would be thrown out for that very reason. And double-jepordy style, her case makes it harder to bring the same to trial again (a) when the nature of the DEW weapon is better understood and (b) when someone from inside really does have standing.
<br/>
<br/>Furthermore, I did the research into the turn of the century capabilities of DEW and nuclear devices. [Dr. Wood did a poor job of it.] If we limited the DEW discussion to Dr. Wood's loose descriptions, she NEVER SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED IT TO BE FRAMED BY OTHERS AS "BEAMS FROM SPACE" OR "FREE ENERGY FROM SPACE". How so?
<br/>
<br/>Optics is the first crippling hurdle that Woodsian DEW can't overcome. The energy wavelengths most conducive to transmission through the atmosphere would be inadequate to the task.
<br/>
<br/>Second, space-based DEW can destroy missiles, mostly because it can concentrate energy at a tight surface area and then take advantage of volitile attributes of the target, such as explosive payloads or fuel. The energy requirements to decimate a tower without such on-board explosive cheats is mind-boggling huge.
<br/>
<br/>Third, the evidence (on WTC-1 and WTC-2) does not depict "tippy-top-down" destruction as would be evident from space-based DEW. Instead, destruction begins within the towers (about the height of the plane impacts). It indicates earth-bound destructive DEW, not space-based DEW.
<br/>
<br/>Fourth, if earth-bound, then "free-energy from space" doesn't apply, and rational Woodsian supporters should be looking for other energy sources. And wouldn't you know it, nuclear is something that the USA has had more than half a century to tweak. Tritium and Dr. Cahill's studies should have been huge clues to go down the nuclear rabbit-holes.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>http://www.maxbridges.us/111_rant/2015_DewFgnwResearch.php
</p>
</div><!-- section 33 -->
<a name="x34"></a>
<h2><a href="#x34" class="tiny">x34</a>
Andrew Johnson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">not watched the 7 hours of video</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_34" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>
<br/><b>Andrew Johnson</b>
<br/>Group Admin
<br/>Maxwell I see. So have you any photos of bright flashes commensurate with the level of destruction observed. As with the poster above, it appears you have not studied the "About" section of this group and watched the 7 hours of video, nor have you read my free book. What you are saying is based on speculation. Additionally, you are forgetting something "stormy" Hurricane Erin. So, as I said to the previous poster, watch the videos and come back with questions or post elsewhere. You have nothing new to offer. You have essentially acknowledged you are promoting a disproved theory. Also, I understand Ward is an MD not a materials specialist etc. Has he submitted a court case?
</p>
</div><!-- section 34 -->
<a name="x35"></a>
<h2><a href="#x35" class="tiny">x35</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_35');">Stop moving the goal posts</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_35" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Johnson, Stop moving the goal posts. The true prerequisite is a thorough understanding of Dr. Wood's work; not a re-hash of the same in a 7 hour video. Unless you can tell me anything in your 7 hours of video (with preferably a time-stamp) that is new and substantial, then all you are doing is attempting to park understanding at a lesser, unripe level.
<br/>
<br/>The discussion under this thread in your "Real 9/11 Truth Movement" group is FGND, not your 7 hour video. It brings new information and correlation to the table that builds on Dr. Wood's work.
<br/>
<br/>I made many passes through Dr. Wood's textbook and website. You owe me the courtesy of the same with my much shorter (but still long) article.
<br/>
<br/>As for your graphic image, are Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices even listed? No. In fact, she doesn't even mention neutron nuclear devices, which is the nuclear technology on which FGND are built. So your graph isn't even applicable. Just you trying to distract from the real question: are FGND the holy grail and the next level to Dr. Wood's research?
<br/>
<br/>I should also point out that in making this graph and the parts of her book where it is found, Dr. Wood falls into the same trap as Dr. Jones. Namely, she accepts unquestioned "official" reports that supposedly measured certain things like tritium, reports that were very wanting in their thoroughness, systematicness, and completeness.
<br/>
<br/>My article provides many tools for researching my premise, including the collapsed "table of contents" view and the "expand all" view that allows searching on terms.
<br/>
<br/>Oh yeah, and now that I see in the table header "Toasted Cars at a Distance", it should be pointed out a major error in Dr. Wood's work involving police car 2345(? or whatever number it was). Armed with pictures of the toasted police car at the bridge, she claims the energy of her hand-wavey device (that may or may not have been powered from space according to her) torched the car AT THE BRIDGE. The truth is other pictures not in her book show the same police car STILL ON FIRE and NOT at the bridge, somewhere else.
<br/>
<br/>What remains relevant, however, are the cars in the parking lot documented by Dr. Wood. The EMP side-effect of a FGND (and all nuclear weapons) can explain these. It is in my article that you have yet to read. Search on it. Search on Dr. Wood's name.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 35 -->
<a name="x36"></a>
<h2><a href="#x36" class="tiny">x36</a>
Atahan Ganduu : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_36');">prove I am human lol</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_36" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> prove I am human lol. What concern should I have if someone doesn’t believe I am human.
<br/>
<br/><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> I viewed your link, wow, you’ve been busy! Incredible amount of energy spent on an unknown problem. Have a great day.
</p>
</div><!-- section 36 -->
<a name="x37"></a>
<h2><a href="#x37" class="tiny">x37</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_37');">pre-programmed algorithms can never be expected to ever change its mind</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_37" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ganduu, The concern is that you aren't genuine (because you might not even be human), and therefore owing to your pre-programmed algorithms can never be expected to ever change your mind when proven wrong. As a bot, you'd just keep repeating the same text; you'd have infinitely more patience in cranking carousels and distracting the discussion.
<br/>
<br/>Your two comments would have served everyone better (in a non-spamming way) if they would have been combined together. Multiple spamming comments in a row not saying anything specific about anything being discussed (refer to the URLs) does nothing to make you more genuine.
<br/>
<br/>To overcome this, go to a section in my article and identify the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Given that it uses Dr. Wood's work, you'll fail if you can not identify any good.)
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 37 -->
<a name="x38"></a>
<h2><a href="#x38" class="tiny">x38</a>
Andrew Johnson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_38');">questions about Hurricane Erin</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_38" style="display: block;">
<p><br/><b>Andrew Johnson</b>
<br/>Group Admin
<br/>
<br/>Oh dear. It seems we have someone who won't answer questions (about Hurricane Erin) and just wants to re-hash 9-year old stuff, while pretending it's new. We know hot nukes didn't do it. People survived in stairwell B. We know there were no bright flashes as the towers turned to dust. We know the towers weren't cut into chunks. We know field effects were involved. We know all this. Why are you here? To waste our time?
</p>
</div><!-- section 38 -->
<a name="x39"></a>
<h2><a href="#x39" class="tiny">x39</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_39');">Nowhere does it mention "hot nukes"</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_39" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Johnson, your integrity is being tested and is failing. Nothing you have written proves you even looked at the article that is the foundation of this thread. Nowhere does it mention "hot nukes".
<br/>
<br/>Nowhere does it re-hash 9-year old stuff. And if it did (which it doesn't) you could simply point out the specific places where it does. But because you haven't read the article, all you can do is play games.
<br/>
<br/>Hurricane Erin has nothing to do with the article or FGND on 9/11, so you are being disingenuous in even bringing it up. More game playing.
<br/>
<br/>Why am I here?
<br/>
<br/>Any astute follower of Dr. Wood's work KNOWS that she purposely left gaps, put in red-herrings, and had other issues. To her credit, she never claims to be the end station.
<br/>
<br/>Therefore, I am here to get us closer to the end-station of the 9/11 mechanisms of destruction. And if you don't want to go there and point out its errors (or acknowledge its truths), then it paints a pretty clear picture of WHAT YOU ARE DOING: wasting the time of sincere seekers of truth.
<br/>
<br/>The assignment is clear. Stay on topic, please. Defeat it legimitately, or recognize its validity.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 39 -->
<a name="x40"></a>
<h2><a href="#x40" class="tiny">x40</a>
Julia Ratsey : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">irrefutable evidence in WDTTG</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_40" style="display: block;">
<p>
<br/><b>Julia Ratsey</b><b></b> Maxwell Bridges
<br/>There is irrefutable evidence in "Where Did The Towers Go" that the destruction of the WTC buildings was a COLD nuclear event. Are you now refuting that evidence or not ?
<br/>Could the FGDN directed energy weapon, of which you speak, be de-commissioned and the nuclear reaction developed for peaceful purposes to provide free energy for the world?
<br/>From what I have read of your blog it doesn't appear to mention that possibility or indeed show any interest in the subject of free-energy ... maybe this is why you depart from the work of Dr Wood with your theory whilst damning both her and her evidence with faint praise?
<br/>Finally, why do you leave it until now to approach this group with your theory. Why now? Have you timed it to coincide with a campaign to muddle up and discredit Dr Wood and her evidence that is spreading on the internet?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 40 -->
<a name="x41"></a>
<h2><a href="#x41" class="tiny">x41</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_41');">grossly mistaken in your alleged "irrefutable evidence"</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_41" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Dear Ms. Julia Ratsey, you are grossly mistaken in your alleged "irrefutable evidence in 'Where Did The Towers Go' that the destruction of the WTC buildings was a COLD nuclear event." No such evidence of a COLD nuclear event was present. It was all innuendo and hand wavey.
<br/>
<br/>I, on the other hand, did research it. I even provided my raw research. Cold fusion (which I assume is your COLD nuclear event) is just barely a real thing and certainly has never been operational. Had you bothered to go to the library of your institution of higher education and done just a little bit of research into the matter, this glaring weaknesses of a COLD nuclear event" (which Dr. Wood never really claimed, another of your errors) would be self-evident in Dr. Wood's work.
<br/>
<br/>FGND are a different matter.
<br/>
<br/>Google Dr. Andre Gsponer. He's never written anything about 9/11. But he has written lots about FGND. His research was available to Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones. Yet neither mention it. Too close to the truth, I guess.
<br/>
<br/>My blog doesn't mention "free-energy"? So what? Dr. Wood either at the time of writing or today has never proven it operational at the scale it would need to be to come close to exhibiting what she credits it for on 9/11. My research proved to me that DEW alone (as in beams from space) doesn't cut it. If you want to move the goal posts into "COLD fusion", the operational aspect of it is still lacking. I researched it; you didn't; you just accept Dr. Wood's work at face value. Shame on you, because she even tells you to look at what the evidence is telling you (not what she is telling you.) You've been duped.
<br/>
<br/>"Damning both her and her evidence with faint praise?" Credit where credit is due, but not more than what is due it. You need to get your nose out of her book's crack and admit what she said: she's not an end-station. Do some research on your own and you'll see where crafty Dr. Wood was right and also where she leads astray.
<br/>
<br/>The timing of my entrance? My schedule, my interest, nothing to do with anything else. I've been around awhile and been leveling the same criticism of Dr. Wood for years now. Open your eyes.
<br/>
<br/>With my banishment and your groups' weak responses, you all fail except at being cowards and shills for disinformation.
<br/>
<br/>If you are sincere in your search for truth, you know where my research is and how to reach me (outside of Facebook.)
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 41 -->
<a name="x42"></a>
<h2><a href="#x42" class="tiny">x42</a>
Larry Mallette : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">ad hominem attack with an ad non-hominem attack</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_42" style="display: block;">
<p><br/><b>Larry Mallette</b>
<br/>Ah-ha! Replace the ad hominem attack with an ad non-hominem attack! Good work!
</p>
</div><!-- section 42 -->
<a name="x43"></a>
<h2><a href="#x43" class="tiny">x43</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_43');">the alleged "Real 9/11 Truth Movement"</a></h2>
<p>2017-11-08</p>
<div id="sect_43" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Dear Mr. Mallette, you wrote under a discussion started by me: "Ah-ha! Replace the ad hominem attack with an ad non-hominem attack! Good work!"
<br/>
<br/>To what are you referring? If it is me calling Mr. Ganduu "a bot", what you fail to acknowledge is that I have a long history with Mr. Ganduu (follow the link) and he has never failed to be a wishy-washy, copy-&-paster, weak, Woodsian troll. Couldn't argue specifics to defend Dr. Wood's work, except in what he copy-and-pastes and didn't understand.
<br/>
<br/>True to his bot trend line, did he mention one specific thing from the article that was the foundation for the discussion? Nope. General, innocuous, and meaningless all accurately describe his engagement, as would be fitting a bot.
<br/>
<br/>As for the rest of your wonderful group, the alleged "Real 9/11 Truth Movement", can't even stand up for some good old fashioned rational, reasoned, researched discussion.
<br/>
<br/>I'm banned already. Consider that a huge red flag about the weakness of the Woodsian followers (in particular Mr. Andrew Johnson). Cowards.
<br/>
<br/>You know where to find my work and how to contact me off-list. If I'm wrong, point out where. I hate being the sole duped useful idiot. I have a track record of admitting when I'm wrong when faced with convincing, rational counter-argument.
<br/>
<br/>Have a good day.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 43 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part3 -->
<hr>
<a name="x44"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part4');">Part 4: "Debunker vs Truther", "Fair and Civil Debate"</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part4" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb:
The following were snippets of discussion in four Facebook groups on 9/11. The main group was "Debunker vs Truther", and it had overlapping membership with "Fair and Civil Debate" and "the actual truth".
The debunker participation proved (a) existence of web-bots; (b) existence of paid-to-post debunkers; (c)_ existence of a concerted online campaign to steer 9/11 messages.
} </p>
<table summary="">
<tr><th>Debunker</th><th>Truther</th></tr>
<tr>
<td>
<ul>
<li>Adam Fitzsimmons</li>
<li>Eric Conley</li>
<li>Conor Eaton-Smith</li>
<li>William Daniel Burgett</li>
<li>Laurence Hopkins</li>
<li>Elizabeth Tague</li>
<li>Jordan Dale</li>
<li>Bill Paisley</li>
<li>Sam Haschets</li>
<li>George Secher</li>
<li>Calvin Kovatch</li>
<li>Leslie Crofford</li>
<li>Sam Beeson</li>
<li>Jone Lailai</li>
<li>Rob CA</li>
<li>David F. Kyte</li>
<li>Andy Campbell</li>
<li>Ado Osborn</li>
<li>Mike Phillipowsky</li>
<li>Bob Weber</li>
<li>Tone Westervoll Hansen</li>
</ul>
</td>
<td>
<ul>
<li>Maxwell C. Bridges</li>
<li>Alex Gillis</li>
<li>Daniel M. Plesse</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<a name="x45"></a>
<h2><a href="#x45" class="tiny">x45</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_45');">Debunking the official fabel.</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/">2017-12-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_45" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Maxwell Bridges shared a link.
<br/>New Member · 1 hr
<br/>
<br/>The official fabel about the World Trade Center (WTC) towers' destruction on 9/11 claims (1) that the building stories above the impact levels became massive pile drivers that acted solely under the forces of gravity to pulverize the underlying structures to the ground and (2) that no extra energy was added from unknown sources.
<br/>
<br/>However, many videos of the destruction of the WTC towers expose anomalies in the form of (1) destruction at free-fall speeds, (2) content pulverization, and (3) content ejection that defy physics, unless energy was added from other sources.
<br/>
<br/>Assuming the damage and fires from the impacting planes could have initiated the collapses of the towers (for which they were designed), the structure underneath the falling upper stories would have and should have resisted & slowed the destruction wave, if the collapse wasn't arrest completely well above ground level.
<br/>
<br/>The pulverization of content and the ejection of content are energy sinks that take away from the kinetic energy of a "pile driver" and logically would have further slowed the destruction from free-fall speeds. Moreover, as observed in many videos and discussed by physics teacher David Chandler, the "pile driver" of upper stories accordianed in on themselves and weren't a cohesive mass anymore by the time the wave of destruction progressed below the levels where the airplanes impacted.
<br/>
<br/>This article makes the case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGND) were used on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center. In doing so, it discusses why the leading theory of Nano-Thermite proposed by many influential leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement does not go the whole distance and is therefore wrong.
<br/>
<br/><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot championing a form of nuclear weapons being deployed on 9/11. I wish to be set straight. Alas, in my trips around the 9/11 block, rational discussion has not swayed me from these beliefs (in part because wannabe debunkers don't often exhibit rational discussion). Rational discussion is what I desire. Reasoned, researched, thoughtful.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 45 -->
<a name="x46"></a>
<h2><a href="#x46" class="tiny">x46</a>
Adam Fitzsimmons : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">met with laughter, and lots of it</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_46" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Adam Fitzsimmons
<br/>Adam Fitzsimmons Nuclear device claims should be met with laughter, and lots of it.
</p>
</div><!-- section 46 -->
<a name="x47"></a>
<h2><a href="#x47" class="tiny">x47</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_47');">Devoid of anything specific</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_47" style="display: block;">
<p>Not a very good rebuttal. Devoid of anything specific. And posted with clearly not enough time to read and contemplate the source article. For shame, Mr. Adam Fitzsimmons. Let's see if you can't remove this deficiency in your future correspondence, please and thank you.
<br/>
<br/>I've posted enough rabbit holes about my 9/11 efforts over the last decade or more. My game plan is exposed and laid out: write words worthy of preservation, collect, and re-publish them. Document my evolution in thought.
<br/>
<br/>In short, you know who you are up against ("an industrial strength conspiracy theorist", religiously fanatical about Truth), my tactics (high-road, collecting my efforts elsewhere) and my goals (TRUTH).
<br/>
<br/>Unlike you, I'm not on a tag-team; I don't have a government agenda to defend that makes it impossible to change my opinion.
<br/>
<br/>Take the high road and take me seriously, and we'll have a great time learning from each other.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 47 -->
<a name="x48"></a>
<h2><a href="#x48" class="tiny">x48</a>
Adam Fitzsimmons : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_48');">wont be taking you seriously</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_48" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Adam Fitzsimmons
<br/>Adam Fitzsimmons I am not a debunker nor truther, and i wont be taking you seriously with your suitcase nuclear devices. And i most likely never will.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 48 -->
<a name="x49"></a>
<h2><a href="#x49" class="tiny">x49</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_49');">no CD assistance was needed</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_49" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley Maxwell Bridges << if you are interested in reasoned honest and serious discussion I can explain the twin Towers collapse mechanisms and show why no CD assistance was needed.
<br/>
<br/>It would be a moderately lengthy process and requiring your honest reasoned input in discussion of my explanation.
<br/>>>
</p>
</div><!-- section 49 -->
<a name="x50"></a>
<h2><a href="#x50" class="tiny">x50</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">Go for it</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_50" style="display: block;">
<p>Go for it, Mr. Eric Conley, here or on my blog.
<br/>
<br/>Fair warning, if you want to debunk controlled demolition (CD) and my belief it was FGNW, my efforts are divided into 31 sections. Set me straight section-by-section, please.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 50 -->
<a name="x51"></a>
<h2><a href="#x51" class="tiny">x51</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_51');">post your starting premises and an outline of your reasoning</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_51" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley My offer was that "I can explain the twin Towers collapse mechanisms and show why no CD assistance was needed". I don't need to debunk CD to achieve that goal - or more accurately I dont need to rebut CD or debunk a pro-cd argument.
<br/>
<br/>However if you want a critique of your reasoning I'm prepared to start a process and see how far we can progress reasoned discussion.
<br/>
<br/>Here - this group - in full view of the members. Why not post your starting premises and an outline of your reasoning - then we can see if there may be grounds for discussion?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 51 -->
<a name="x52"></a>
<h2><a href="#x52" class="tiny">x52</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_52');">nice try at assigning me busy work</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_52" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eric Conley, nice try at assigning me busy work. My premise and its outline is already published and available. It is the article that anchors this discussion. 31 sections. Go to town. Set me straight. Make me a believer in miracles. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 52 -->
<a name="x53"></a>
<h2><a href="#x53" class="tiny">x53</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_53');">snigger</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_53" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague See he is ONLY looking for traffic to his blog.
<br/>
<br/>Must be starved of attention.
<br/>
<br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague *published* ... snigger !!!
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 53 -->
<a name="x54"></a>
<h2><a href="#x54" class="tiny">x54</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">devoid of anything that could get me to change my mind</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_54" style="display: block;">
<p>Elizabeth Tague, as with many things, you error. And without specifics, and therefore devoid of anything that could get me to change my mind from the supposed errors in my beliefs. If that is going to be your only consistency, please go elsewhere. Kindly ignore me.
<br/>
<br/>Here is the title of Section 1: "Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices & 9/11"
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 54 -->
<a name="x55"></a>
<h2><a href="#x55" class="tiny">x55</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_55');">self-absorbed attention whoring blog page</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_55" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague Your self-absorbed attention whoring blog page is NOT "publishing" Bridges ... you are NOT some expert or someone special ... you are JUST another dumb twoofer spewing shite and achieveing NOTHING.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 55 -->
<a name="x56"></a>
<h2><a href="#x56" class="tiny">x56</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">Beyond Misinformation</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_56" style="display: block;">
<p>That first section quotes from "BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7":
<br/>
<br/>Looks like you'll have to debunk it, too.
<br/>
<br/>http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 56 -->
<a name="x57"></a>
<h2><a href="#x57" class="tiny">x57</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_57');">Meme: I SPOT AN ATTENTION WHORE</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_57" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<br/>Image may contain: one or more people, meme and text
<br/>{mcb: Meme shows an older woman holding her glasses to her eyes with the words "I SPOT AN ATTENTION WHORE."}
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 57 -->
<a name="x58"></a>
<h2><a href="#x58" class="tiny">x58</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">You do not disappoint in your ability to fail</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_58" style="display: block;">
<p>Oh, Mrs. Elizabeth Tague. You do not disappoint in your ability to fail in a rational discussion. Address specifics, or ignore me and go elsewhere.
<br/>
<br/>And the name-calling? While permitted in this forum, it really only marks your weak mind and your even weaker 9/11 arguments.
<br/>
<br/>Go away and let the adults (Eric Conley and I) have a worthy discussion.
<br/>
<br/>thanks you in advance. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 58 -->
<a name="x59"></a>
<h2><a href="#x59" class="tiny">x59</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_59');">your OPINION means FUCK ALL</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_59" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague YOu are NOT an expert ... your OPINION means FUCK ALL
<br/>{mcb: Meme contains a common image of a man -- I believe a famous commedian -- in a suit and tie, beard and with hair fluffed out in a funny fashion and the words "MALE ATTENTION WHORE". }
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 59 -->
<a name="x60"></a>
<h2><a href="#x60" class="tiny">x60</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">I came down in the last stor</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_60" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley Darn - just lost my response before I posted it.
<br/>
<br/>Here goes again:
<br/>Elizabeth Tague " See he is ONLY looking for traffic to his blog.
<br/>
<br/>Must be starved of attention."
<br/>
<br/><<
<br/><< He must think I came down in the last storm. Never the less my offers still stand for him:
<br/>
<br/>And for others I am prepared to explin why "the Twin Towers collapses did not need CD assistance" to any person who is:
<br/>1) interested;
<br/>2) prepared to take part in coherent and honest reasoned discussion;
<br/>3) At high schooll level physics or higher.
<br/>
<br/>Since Maxwell Bridges has now shown his true colours I doubt he wil take up the offer.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 60 -->
<a name="x61"></a>
<h2><a href="#x61" class="tiny">x61</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_61');">Don't feed his trolling</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_61" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague Don't feed his trolling Eric, he truly is only hoping to entice you to his blog ...he needs the number and is too far gone to learn how wrong he is.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 61 -->
<a name="x62"></a>
<h2><a href="#x62" class="tiny">x62</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">I do NOT feed trolls</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_62" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley No worry Elizabeth. I have his measure and I do NOT feed trolls.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 62 -->
<a name="x63"></a>
<h2><a href="#x63" class="tiny">x63</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_63');">earnest and sincere truth seeker</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_63" style="display: block;">
<p>Eric Conley Good to hear! Because I am not a troll. I am an earnest and sincere truth seeker. I'm not a bot, either. (I'm on the fence about whether or not Ms. Elizabeth Tague is a bot from the promptness of her replies, lack of depth in her reasoning, and her unchanging algorithms.) Can you please turn her off for our coming rational discussion? Tell her to take a break. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 63 -->
<a name="x64"></a>
<h2><a href="#x64" class="tiny">x64</a>
Alex Gillis : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');">seems low even by...</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_64" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Alex Gillis
<br/>Alex Gillis Elizabeth Tague it is actually 'snicker' Due to your error I had to check to see if there was any indication of Maxwell Bridges color on his Facebook. That seems low even by
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 64 -->
<a name="x65"></a>
<h2><a href="#x65" class="tiny">x65</a>
Sam Haschets : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_65');">will be watching</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_65" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Sam Haschets
<br/>Sam Haschets I will be watching
</p>
</div><!-- section 65 -->
<a name="x66"></a>
<h2><a href="#x66" class="tiny">x66</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">polluted the other branch</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/">2017-12-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_66" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Eric Conley, seeing how Mr. Elizabeth Tague has so polluted the other branch with her off-topic rants, let us continue our fine discussion here.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote,
<br/>+++ quote
<br/>"And for others I am prepared to explin why "the Twin Towers collapses did not need CD assistance" to any person who is:
<br/>1) interested;
<br/>2) prepared to take part in coherent and honest reasoned discussion;
<br/>3) At high schooll level physics or higher.
<br/>+++ end quote
<br/>
<br/>Please begin here, Mr. Conley. (1) I am interested in your explanation of the WTC annihilation not requiring CD assistance; (2) I am prepared to take part in coherent and honest reasoned discussion; and (3) I am at high schooll level physics or higher.
<br/>
<br/>Because it seems that you want to take on ALL of the 9/11 Truthers with this boast, then maybe your valiant and beneficial efforts should get more birds at once: my premise of FGNW and A&E911 Truth.
<br/>
<br/>For example, A&E911 Truth wrote the article "BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7." I quote them in section 1 of my work.
<br/>
<br/>+++ quote
<br/>A number of papers ... have measured the fall of WTC 1’s upper section and have observed that it never slowed down in the four seconds before it disappeared from view. Rather, its acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall, and there was never an observable deceleration, which would be required if the upper section had impacted and crushed the lower structure. A lack of deceleration would indicate with absolute certainty that the lower structure was destroyed by another force before the upper section reached it. ... One of the most noticeable features of the two buildings’ destruction was the near-total pulverization of... approximately 8.8 million square feet of 5.5-inch-thick lightweight concrete flooring. ... [T]he buildings’ steel structures were almost entirely dismembered... [V]irtually all of their steel skeletons were broken up into small pieces, with the core structures separated into individual members and the exterior columns broken up into three-story, prefabricated sections. ... As the concrete was being pulverized and the structures were being dismembered, a large percentage of the buildings’ materials was ejected upwards and laterally in an arclike manner far beyond the perimeters of the buildings... as far as 400 to 500 feet from each tower’s base.
<br/>+++ end quote
<br/>
<br/>http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/
<br/>
<br/>Please discuss the above.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 66 -->
<a name="x67"></a>
<h2><a href="#x67" class="tiny">x67</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_67');">nano-thermite crowd has been a tough one to shake a stick at</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_67" style="display: block;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/">2017-12-08</a>
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Conly,
<br/>
<br/>As a 9/11 Debunker, I imagine that the nano-thermite (NT) crowd has been a tough one to shake a stick at. Then you'll be happy to see the ammunition I give you in section 2 through 5 in debunking it (as the primary means of annihilation.)
<br/>
<br/>2. Slaughtering the Nano-Thermite Sacred Cow
<br/>3. Running the numbers on NT
<br/>4. Test the Samples
<br/>5. Sleight of Hand
<br/>
<br/>But starting in section 6, "Maintaining the Under-Rubble Fires", evidence from various sources are presented that have to be addressed by any 9/11 conspiracy theory-du-jour -- including your (assumed) premise of no controlled demolition, no added energy whatsoever.
<br/>
<br/>Hint: gravity and jet fuel (and diesel gas tanks) cannot explain those pesky under-rubble hot-spots.
<br/>
<br/>Take your time. My computer time will be limited to certain periods over the weekend, if at all. Not running away; just forewarning about not to expect prompt replies. I have a life.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 67 -->
<a name="x68"></a>
<h2><a href="#x68" class="tiny">x68</a>
William Daniel Burgett : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">No physics has ever been defied</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_68" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>William Daniel Burgett
<br/>1. Free fall isn't a speed, it's a Newtonian mechanic of acceleration.
<br/>2. Falling buildings tend to crush things, go figure...
<br/>3. No physics has ever been defied. It's literally impossible.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 68 -->
<a name="x69"></a>
<h2><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x69</a>
Alex Gillis : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_69');">slow due to resistance of lower floors</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_69" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Alex Gillis
<br/>Alex Gillis Falling buildings tend to slow due to resistance of lower floors... Physics... Falling objects tend to slow or stop due to resistance of lower objects.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 69 -->
<a name="x70"></a>
<h2><a href="#x70" class="tiny">x70</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">No physics on 9/11 was defied, because energy was added.</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/">2017-12-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Burgett,
<br/>
<br/>You misquote. It should be "free fall speeds", plural. Acceleration is the change velocity (speed).
<br/>
<br/>True that falling buildings tend to crush things. The issue is that this is an energy sink. Ejecting content is an energy sink (and also takes away mass of the pile driver.) The observed 9/11 pulverization is a huge energy sink (and the pile driver's mass is no longer a cohesive whole.) Crushing pulverization subtracts from the energy that is available for a portion of a building to fall at free-fall, or gravitational acceleration. Therein lies the rub on 9/11, because NIST admits this happened. (Refer to WTC-7; 100 feet of symmetric collapse indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration.)
<br/>
<br/>No physics on 9/11 was defied, because energy was added.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<a name="x71"></a>
<h2><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x71</a>
Alex Gillis : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_71');">Piledriver is a euphemism</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_71" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Alex Gillis
<br/>Alex Gillis Piledriver is a euphemism much like dustification. The top floors cannot turn into a Piledriver... That is against the laws of physics. what did the top floors do? Jump up and down to assume this Piledriver stance. That is against the laws of physics.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 71 -->
<a name="x72"></a>
<h2><a href="#x72" class="tiny">x72</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">top floors were not a pile driver</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_72" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Alex Gillis, I agree. Those defending the OCT need to answer to the fact that the top floors were not a pile driver. In fact, they were decimated before the wave of annihilation passed the floors where the aircraft impacted.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 72 -->
<a name="x73"></a>
<h2><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x73</a>
Jordan Dale : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_73');">present the demonstrable evidence</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_73" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Jordan Dale
<br/>Jordan Dale I’m still waiting for someone, anyone to present the demonstrable evidence, wether tangible or physical of deployed nuclear device. I haven’t yet without being called an “idiot” or “stupid” or even blocked. Perhaps one day
</p>
</div><!-- section 73 -->
<a name="x74"></a>
<h2><a href="#x74" class="tiny">x74</a>
Alex Gillis : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">easily found on in the web</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Alex Gillis
<br/>Alex Gillis I have seen theories. easily found on in the web. Israelis utilize them. Backpack nukes have been around for a long time. Smaller than that is possible. What would the effects of a 2L bottle sized nuke be...and would we recognize it?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a>
<h2><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x75</a>
Jordan Dale : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_75');">a device that leaves no trace</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_75" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Jordan Dale
<br/>Jordan Dale “We” should considering that those things leave all kinds of evidence of the physical and tangible kind unless we’re talking about a device that leaves no trace
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 75 -->
<a name="x76"></a>
<h2><a href="#x76" class="tiny">x76</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">read the homework assignment</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/">2017-12-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_76" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Jordan Dale, I won't call your attention to your intelligence when I remind you that the top level article -- written by yours truly -- is the STARTING POINT for this discussion. You will not get passing grades if you don't read the homework assignment.
<br/>
<br/>In your reading, "seek and ye shall find." I'll not waste everyone's time here re-hashing the base FGNW premises. I'm here to defend FGNW or become convinced of something else through the rational discussion.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 76 -->
<a name="x77"></a>
<h2><a href="#x77" class="tiny">x77</a>
Sam Haschets : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_77');">not doing the home work</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_77" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Sam Haschets
<br/>Sam Haschets How do explosives in the bottom of the building, no matter the type, start the collapse at the top
<br/>
<br/>(and yes, I am not doing the home work, you can explain it here)
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 77 -->
<a name="x78"></a>
<h2><a href="#x78" class="tiny">x78</a>
Jordan Dale : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">the same thing</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_78" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Jordan Dale
<br/>Jordan Dale I was just going to say the same thing. If you’re going to defend it, it should be rather easy to explain it right?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 78 -->
<a name="x79"></a>
<h2><a href="#x79" class="tiny">x79</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_79');">you lazy students</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_79" style="display: block;">
<p>Ho-hum. Skip to the conclusion or summary of the above article, you lazy student.
<br/>
<br/>+++Quote
<br/>A "standard" nuclear weapon typically has a heat wave, a blast wave, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and radiation. All of these are features that can be tweaked or mitigated in the implementation (e.g., EMP inside a steel box). To be sure, an FGNW is designed with the trade-off of sacrificing much of its heat wave and blast wave in order to release energy at given wavelengths in a targeted fashion.
<br/>
<br/>The multiple tactical FGNW of 9/11 each were small directed energy weapons that were aimed where they wanted the energy: up. This can be observed in the "fountain" effects of the debris mid-way through the towers' pulverization. [Some of the damage to neighboring buildings and vehicles could be attributed to FGNW becoming misaligned in the destruction.]
<br/>
<br/>The radiation signature of a FGNW? Primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived - contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.
<br/>+++End Quote
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 79 -->
<a name="x80"></a>
<h2><a href="#x80" class="tiny">x80</a>
Alex Gillis : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">radiation sniffing dogs</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_80" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Alex Gillis
<br/>Alex Gillis Were Geiger counters used at ground zero? Maybe they had radiation sniffing dogs too. lol. Some people believe there were bomb sniffing dogs used to look for survivors at ground zero... to look for survivors...!!! Some in this group use that as proof there was no explosives in the debris.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 80 -->
<a name="x81"></a>
<h2><a href="#x81" class="tiny">x81</a>
Sam Haschets : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_81');">energy travel up</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_81" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Sam Haschets
<br/>Sam Haschets How does the energy travel up (only) for 1000 feet and then travel outward?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 81 -->
<a name="x82"></a>
<h2><a href="#x82" class="tiny">x82</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">Please read section 14. FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_82" style="display: block;">
<p>For shame, Mr. Sam Haschets, for not having read the assignment (top-level article). You try to mal-frame this to be like the Russian disinfo peddler, Dimitri K., who boasts of deep under-ground nukes, but one per tower.
<br/>
<br/>My premise is 6-12 per towers, close in design theory to a neutron bomb, which is also mostly fusion.
<br/>
<br/>Energy only has to travel up from its destination point some small time period after the one above it detonated and directed its energy up.
<br/>
<br/>Please read section 14. FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 82 -->
<a name="x83"></a>
<h2><a href="#x83" class="tiny">x83</a>
Leslie Crofford : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_83');">1.5 kiloton would leave a size hole</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_83" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Leslie Crofford
<br/>Leslie Crofford Maxwell Bridges You're saying 6 to 12 nukes per tower? Thats too many. A 1.5 kiloton would leave a size hole that was left at the towers. There was a 250 and a 300 foot diameter, 30 foot depth or so overlapping there and I got that from this site. I don't know the exact page that info is on.
<br/>
<br/>https://archive.org/stream/CapabilitiesOfNuclearWeapons1964/Capabilities%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons%201964%20edition#page/n57/mode/2up
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 83 -->
<a name="x84"></a>
<h2><a href="#x84" class="tiny">x84</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">none of you can RTFM</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_84" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Leslie Crofford, please inform me if I guessed improperly in your gender, and I will correct it.
<br/>
<br/>What is it with all of you wannabe debunkers that none of you can RTFM!
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "You're saying 6 to 12 nukes per tower?"
<br/>
<br/>NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING! Such sloppy use of language together with your link proves that you and the other debunking half-wits are still trying to frame the nuclear means inappropriately into big and grand nukes.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW - Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons. Read the article. Or just read section 14. Dive deeper into my supporting links. If you have issues with FGNW, it isn't with me, it is with Dr. Andre Gsponer (and all of the silent nuclear physicists on the government payroll who developed them.)
<br/>
<br/>This is not about debunking nukes. It is about debunking FGNW. Can't do that legitimately if you don't know what the premise is. Please rectify this deficiency in your argument before you post again.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 84 -->
<a name="x85"></a>
<h2><a href="#x85" class="tiny">x85</a>
Adam Fitzsimmons : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_85');">isn't anywhere near the truth</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_85" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Adam Fitzsimmons
<br/>Adam Fitzsimmons Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>What you are proposing, isn't anywhere near the truth. It's called fiction.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 85 -->
<a name="x86"></a>
<h2><a href="#x86" class="tiny">x86</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">good at hypnotic suggestion, but not good at debunking an argument</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_86" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Fitzsimmons, you're good at hypnotic suggestion, but not good at debunking an argument because you continue to avoid becoming well versed with your discussion opponent's substantiating material.
<br/>
<br/>Because FB keeps munging the on-page URL targets, I'll just give you the reference of section 14, "FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift" and expect that you are smart enough to go to the URL of the article that anchors this whole episode of "Debunkers vs Truthers."
<br/>
<br/>At section 14 (and throughout) you'll find not only my words, but references to other sources. They clearly put what I'm proposing into the realm of "non-fiction."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 86 -->
<a name="x87"></a>
<h2><a href="#x87" class="tiny">x87</a>
William Daniel Burgett : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_87');">did lose velocity</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_87" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>William Daniel Burgett
<br/>William Daniel Burgett Alex, by definition, the building did lose velocity as it struck each floor, however the change is so small that your human eyes cannot perceive it. Those floors were not designed to withstand the upper portion of the building falling on top of them. Since the loss of velocity was so small, all you can see with your human eyes is the much greater effect that gravity had in increasing the falling object's velocity toward the ground.
<br/>
<br/>Nothing about the twin towers falling due to the impact of the planes and the fires defies physics.
<br/>
<br/>William Daniel Burgett
<br/>William Daniel Burgett Maxwell, I wasn't quoting you. Speed is not acceleration, and making the word 'speeds' doesn't change that. The two are an order of magnitude apart in terms of meaning. There is no such thing as free fall speeds, it's free fall acceleration. This I'd an important distinction. The buildings didn't accelerate at free fall, not even controlled demolitions do that. The only way to fall faster than free fall is to have thrust, so unless you believe there were rockets at the top of the building burning and pointed toward the ground or that there was a vacuum or mechanical pulling device below the building, there is no physically possible way for the building to fall faster than free fall.
<br/>
<br/>The ejection is purely because of air displacement.
<br/>
<br/>The crushing did very little in terms of reducing the energy potential of the falling building since the floors were not designed to withstand the upper floors falling together onto them.
<br/>
<br/>WTC-7 did not fall symmetrically, it fell from North to South at a slight tilt, this is due to the damage that the North Tower imposed in WTC 7.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 87 -->
<a name="x88"></a>
<h2><a href="#x88" class="tiny">x88</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">is to have thrust</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_88" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Burgett, Contrary to your hypnotic suggestions, the WTC towers fell at accelerations very close to gravitational acceleration, and is observable & measureable in most videos. If you are stupid enough to argue this point, then your beef isn't with me but with NIST (not a very noted "Twoofer") because they are the ones reporting the number of seconds it took for each tower to be decimated.
<br/>
<br/>You write: "The only way to fall faster than free fall is to have thrust..."
<br/>
<br/>Agreed, Mr. Burgett. They did have thrust in rocketing towards the ground. My premise is that the FGNW were affixed 10-20 floors apart on alternating sides of what later has become identified as "the spire." The destructive force -- emission of neutrons -- was aimed upwards and can be thought of as "rocket thrust".
<br/>
<br/>Please refer to section 14, because therein you will become familiar with some of the different tweaking that can be done to FGNW for different design output goals. And here is a term you should look up: "ablate."
<br/>
<br/>When the highly energetic neutrons would hit the leading edge, of say, the face of a steel beam, that edge (and then some) would vaporize so quickly that a shock wave is induced into the rest of the steel beam that violently destroys the rest of it. And because the shock wave originates within the material (and isn't transmitted through air like much of the destructive shockwave of conventional explosives), it would be surprisingly quiet.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Dear Mr. Burgett, you wrote more hypnotic suggestion with: "WTC-7 did not fall symmetrically, it fell from North to South at a slight tilt,..."
<br/>
<br/>Game playing. You look at the roof line of WTC-7 and watch as it accelerates to the ground as a cohesive whole that has over 100 feet (8 floors) that is indinguishable from gravitational acceleration; this comes from NIST, so direct your ire accordingly.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 88 -->
<a name="x89"></a>
<h2><a href="#x89" class="tiny">x89</a>
William Daniel Burgett : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_89');">close to gravitational acceleration is exactly what one would expect</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_89" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>William Daniel Burgett Maxwell, close to gravitational acceleration is exactly what one would expect of any falling object. NIST is correct, they haven't reported the wrong fall times. You are expecting more resistance than what is there, which suggests to me that you are no familiar with the designs of the twin towers specifically.
<br/>
<br/>Let's say, for example, that a newer skyscraper collapsed in the same manner. We would expect a great deal of resistance given the robust concrete view of the building, meaning that the building should only partially collapse. This is the difference as the twin towers didn't have a robust concrete core. In fact, the tube-in-tube design of the buildings allowed for a minimum use of materials such as concrete and steel. The arrangement of the columns allowed for large and open office spaces, but when the planes hit, they knocked out dozens of structural columns and stripped fire proofing from the trusses thanks to the lack of resistance from what would otherwise have been more of a honeycomb of columns rather than the tube-in-tube design we observe in the twin towers. Since the core of the building wasn't particularly substantial, the concrete crumbled under the weight of the upper building.
<br/>
<br/>There was no nuclear weapon, I address your silly claim in a different comment.
<br/>
<br/>The video you are referring to of tower 7 is taken from the North facing side of the building, making it difficult to observe the tilt. It did not fall symmetrically.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 89 -->
<a name="x90"></a>
<h2><a href="#x90" class="tiny">x90</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">Allah breaking his own laws of the universe</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_90" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. Burgett wrote: "...close to gravitational acceleration is exactly what one would expect of any falling object."
<br/>
<br/>True for objects falling in air. When we're talking THREE over-designed steel structures that were the path of maximum resistance and then observing portions of annihilation exhibiting anything "close to gravitational acceleration" (or WTC-7 "indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration" according to NIST) through the path of maximum resistance, only adding energy makes it less of "a miracle from Allah proving his supreme greatness, you damn infidel."
<br/>
<br/>Did you see our glorious leaders switching to Islam for what Allah enabled his (coke-snorting, woman chasing) true believers to accomplish against the mightiest of nations? No. They propped Muslims up as the boogie-man to get the public fearful.
<br/>
<br/>No, they knew it wasn't Allah breaking his own laws of the universe, because they were the ones who dictated that energy be added.
<br/>
<br/>Pulverization has always been an unexplainable issue for the debunkers. Alone, flying airplanes into the towers would have been sufficient to meet the aspirations of external terrorists against the mighty demon empire. Internal terrorists, though, had complete destruction as a goal, though, particularly for the WTC-7 that held irreplaceable SEC records such as on active cases ultimately dismissed (can you say "payoff"). And geez, that was a secure facility.
<br/>
<br/>Still, that pesky pulverization. Didn't have to happen; Las Vegas demolition experts with sufficient time can get buildings to do remarkable things in their demolition. For starters, they could have made it look NOT like a controlled demolition, slowed it down, larger pieces, asymmetrical, etc. They didn't, because bomb sniffing dogs only had a few days holiday before 9/11, insufficient to plan.
<br/>
<br/>Pulverization could not have been a goal of operation; it is such a giveaway. Pulverization was a side-effect of the mechanisms chosen.
<br/>
<br/>And by golly, the US military has more than its share of itchy trigger-fingered majors on up, practically literally dying to test real-world some of the wonders in the US arsenals. And just how low-radiation were these new FGNW really? Let's find out.
<br/>
<br/>But this will only be successful unless we apply propaganda techniques on the US citizens and the world. "Of course it wasn't nuclear weapons! The pulverization in a controlled fashion at near free-fall acceleration was a result of gravity alone."
<br/>
<br/>"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they've been fooled."~Mark Twain
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 90 -->
<a name="x91"></a>
<h2><a href="#x91" class="tiny">x91</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_91');">have been debunked repeatedly</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_91" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Any and all Truther arguments about the twins towers have been debunked repeatedly including these ones here but each believer of their skewed thinking and rational feels that their words will say it better so they each "toot their own horn" starting the cycle al over again. Much of it defies mechanical common sence as they rationalize their victimhood into their arguments. The good news is how we've learned the mechanics of all conflicts and wars so in the future we will be better able to avoid views developed from our egos.
</p>
</div><!-- section 91 -->
<a name="x92"></a>
<h2><a href="#x92" class="tiny">x92</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">Cough up links</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/">2017-12-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_92" style="display: block;">
<p>Humor me, Mr. George Secher. Cough up links to all of your reference material that debunks my premise. Hell, why don't you read my premise so that you are familiar with all of the evidence that good old OCT needs to address.
<br/>
<br/>I'm a fan of Section 7, "Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies." How were they achieved by jet fuel and gravity....See More
<br/>LikeShow more reactions
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 92 -->
<a name="x93"></a>
<h2><a href="#x93" class="tiny">x93</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_93');">all throughout these discussions</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_93" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher The links? It's debunked all throughout these discussions - they are there to be read. I don't understand your lingo in your remark just above but I did read your post which was what prompted me place my remarks here as I did, it's much the same recycled stuff that has been repeatedly debunked but each person that states it feels they nailed it better and so it goes on ognosium .
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 93 -->
<a name="x94"></a>
<h2><a href="#x94" class="tiny">x94</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">I'm not even sure you know what "it" is</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_94" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Secher, you write: "It's debunked all throughout these discussions - they are there to be read."
<br/>
<br/>I'm not even sure you know what "it" is. The subject of this discussion is Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons. If indeed FGNW have been discussed and debunked in these very forums, then by golly it ought to be an easy task for you to find them and plop their URLs into your next comment. I'm not going to do your busy work.
<br/>
<br/>I seriously doubt that anybody (a) published a link to my article here and (b) then had the debunkers do a rational take-down. And therefore, these (a) & (b) data points might become the first in the trend line of your dishonesty.
<br/>
<br/>Furthermore, whether in this forums or elsewhere on the internet, please cough up the links where the OCT mentions evidence from Section 7, "Horse shoes, arches, and steel doobies" and explains how gravity did it.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 94 -->
<a name="x95"></a>
<h2><a href="#x95" class="tiny">x95</a>
William Daniel Burgett : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_95');">so disconnected from reality</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_95" style="display: block;">
<p>William Daniel Burgett
<br/>William Daniel Burgett Your proposition of a nuclear device is so disconnected from reality that it's hard to tell if you're a Poe or not. Given that some might initially believe this, here's a few problems:
<br/>
<br/>A fourth generation nuclear weapon is a fusion based weapon with no fissile trigger, such as a laser or a fission bomb. Such a weapon does not exist since we do not currently have any method of fusing deuterium with tritium without the use of a fissile trigger.
<br/>
<br/>Ignoring the fact that fourth-gen nukes don't exist, there is also the issue that if one was used, NYC would have been almost completely destroyed. The buildings would not have been crushed, burned, or pulverized. You wouldn't see ash and dust and rebar and such. The buildings would have been vaporized, essentially. The byproducts of such an event would be hydrogen, helium, oxygen, water, and a small amount of iron.
<br/>
<br/>Ignoring the destructive capability, the cost of building such a weapon would far exceed the price of flying planes into it, ergo no shadow government would waste such a valuable weapon to start a war if they can just fly planes into the buildings.
</p>
</div><!-- section 95 -->
<a name="x96"></a>
<h2><a href="#x96" class="tiny">x96</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">grossly mal-framing the capabilities of FGNW</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_96" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Burgett, unless you are a paid-to-post agent of the realm, you are under no obligation to fling insults at me as your opening gambit, or period for that matter. Rational discussion; not flame wars. In fact, it makes you look intellectual weak, pokes readers in the eyes, and causes them not to want to read any more thereby removing the opportunity of subsequent words to change an unworthy assessment of you. Kindly remove this deficiency from your future comments, shall we.
<br/>
<br/>Although FGNW are primarily fusion based, this does not mean that they didn't have a fission trigger. In fact, section 11 Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al talks about what was found in the dust samples. USGS had the most comprehensive, although still wanting. Low and behold another research Jeff Prager look at those reports and highlighted all of the measure trace elements of some form of fission happening.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Ignoring the fact that fourth-gen nukes don't exist..."
<br/>
<br/>This is not a fact. Google the name "Andre Gsponer". Save yourself some time and read my section 14. What is a fact, is that government has always been hush-hush about its exact nuclear capabilities. I believe that they were used several times since 9/11 in various places, attributed to other actors. They might have even been first deployed in Oklahoma City.
<br/>
<br/>You continued: "... the issue that if one was used, NYC would have been almost completely destroyed."
<br/>
<br/>RTFM, Mr. Burgett. You are grossly mal-framing the capabilities of FGNW, trying to conflate it with large nukes. Do your research. (And if you're astute, you might even find my raw research into it.) The whole point of neutron based devices is that by allowing the neutrons to escape in a targeted fashion, it greatly reduces the side-effects of heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. So, no. NYC would not have been completely destroyed with just one.
<br/>
<br/>You continue to speculate without substantiation: "... the cost of building such a weapon would far exceed the price of flying planes into it, ergo no shadow government would waste such a valuable weapon to start a war if they can just fly planes into the buildings."
<br/>
<br/>First of all, read section 27 that says: "The US Government took the position many decades ago to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available in publications, because publishing such could enable those with bad intentions against us. Those who wish to study, and have professions involving, nuclear science in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties, or they are left out of all of the interesting research."
<br/>
<br/>The US Government nuclear program was not some "jobs creation program for the overly educated PhD" and had no expectation of ever producing anything usable.
<br/>
<br/>You keep saying FGNW don't exist, based solely on what is publicly available. I say that what is publicly available is the tip of the iceberg to what is out there.
<br/>
<br/>Secondly, we're talking about a dozen per towers. Not one. Stop malframing things. Makes you look dishonest.
<br/>
<br/>Thirdly, the government has had plenty of funding for black operations, thanks to the Black Eagle and Marco gold reserves never repatriated with their rightful owners after WWII.
<br/>
<br/>Fourthly on September 10, 2001 (not a typo, the tenth), Donald Rumsfeld announced in a press conference that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 Trillion in transactions. Coincidentally, the only group to have moved into the newly renovated Pentagon wing was the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) who was investigating these missing funds. All of their agents and records were casualties on 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>I could go on, but suffice it to say, they had plenty of money both for airplanes and a few dozen FGNW that they had 60 years to tweak.
<br/>
<br/>You continue to speculate without substantiation: "... no shadow government would waste such a valuable weapon to start a war if they can just fly planes into the buildings."
<br/>
<br/>You cannot prove that the TWO plane impacts caused the THREE towers to implode so spectacularly. The NIST report on the towers was limited in scope to explain a remote possibility of jet impacts and jet fuel & office furnishing fires being sufficient to INITIATE their annihilation. Their report did not address any of the anomalies in the subsequent annihilation, like the energy sinks of content pulverization, content ejection, and destructive wave at near gravitational acceleration. Or the under-rubble hot-spots that burned for literally months.
<br/>
<br/>To your point, ~yes~, a shadow government would and did waste a few dozen FGNW to start several wars of acquisition, such were the huge profits to be gained. Just a business decision. Got to spend money to get it.
<br/>
<br/>Moreover, all allies and enemies know or suspect the truth, not just of the FGNW weapons used, but on the willingness of the radical US government to deploy them on themselves and then blatantly lie about it. Other nations opposing the US would not far well.
<br/>
<br/>The good news in all of this was that the reports proved the weapons had relatively low radiation, made even lower by complicit agencies. Pity about the good hearted first responders who later suffered from it. See sections 19 and 20.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 96 -->
<a name="x97"></a>
<h2><a href="#x97" class="tiny">x97</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_97');">a newer element of 4th generation "atomic weapons"</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_97" style="display: block;">
<p> OK, seeing that you did add a newer element of 4th generation "atomic weapons", (far fetched as it may be), Maxwell Bridges, I will explain why the disbelieved simple gravity is in fact the sound logical cause: Mechanical dynamics Maxwell are always simple but we seem to usually complicate things within our minds by needlessly putting "microscopes" to simplicity causing appearances of complexity when none actually exists. It is established that for every 12 feet decent of a falling object the impact weight it develops is an additional aprovmate 4 times is standing weigh till it gets to close to maximum free fall speed of around 112 MPH. at which point its impact weight starting at around the 115 feet point would be around 55 times its standing weight. Then when you factor in the additional weight added with each falling mass every 12 feet, (per floor), as well as its increasing inertia, the structures resistance of floors, walls, framing etc only slowing it down by 15% or so was about right - (negligible considering the weight, speed, and inertia developed). Thus all other explanations are eliminated because the result could have only been as weight, gravity and velocity dictated. If we wish to be anal I suppose I could get exact figures and do the computations but even without them it becomes plain that it only ould chave been that simple logical way.
</p>
</div><!-- section 97 -->
<a name="x98"></a>
<h2><a href="#x98" class="tiny">x98</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">Your analysis match neither the observable evidence nor the known structural over-design</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_98" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Secher, you wrote: "It is established that for every 12 feet decent of a falling object the impact weight it develops is an additional aprovmate 4 times is standing weigh till it gets to close to maximum free fall speed of around 112 MPH. at which point its impact weight starting at around the 115 feet point would be around 55 times its standing weight..."
<br/>
<br/>I'm going to cut your distracting and ignorant ramble off right there.
<br/>
<br/>It is established that the architects, designers, and engineers who worked on the WTC were even better versed in the underlying physics than you (or I). Not only did they understand all of the ramifications of your statement, they implemented this into their finished product.
<br/>
<br/>The towers were grossly over-designed for both static and dynamic loads (e.g., wind, things falling).
<br/>
<br/>Case it point, the wall assemblies were composed of three hollow box columns connected together by spandrals. Each hollow box column had four sides made out of sheets of steel, say, 1.5 feet wide by 30 feet long by a certain thickness. The thickness of the metal in the assembly varied depending on where the assembly was to be installed: from thick in the lower levels to much thinner at upper floors, because the upper wall assemblies didn't need to support as much weight.
<br/>
<br/>Your analysis match neither the observable evidence nor the known structural over-design.
<br/>
<br/>The upper block of both towers was torn apart by other forces before its now-pulverized and no-longer-cohesive mass could act on floors below the impact point, which were designed stronger.
<br/>
<br/>Go to section 7 and explain how gravity created the horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies".
<br/>
<br/>If your official conspiracy theory (OCT) doesn't address all of the evidence, or does so in a shitty and shoddy way, then if you were an honest and sincere truth seeker, you would be looking into the real explanation.
<br/>
<br/>Oh, and before I forget. Don't bother with the computational analysis. The government already had that done. The issue is, they refuse to make their computer models public. Why? Because they had to grossly over-drive parameters in their model to come close to matching the observable evidence. You can think of "over-drive" as being equivalent to "energy added."
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 98 -->
<a name="x99"></a>
<h2><a href="#x99" class="tiny">x99</a>
William Daniel Burgett : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_99');">Poe is not an insult, it's a type of parody</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_99" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell, Poe is not an insult, it's a type of parody.
<br/>
<br/>Fourth gen nuclear weapons, by definition, do not have a fissile trigger. If you are talking about a thermonuclear weapon, that would be second gen.
<br/>
<br/>We literally do not have a method of triggering fusion without fission, ergo fourth gen weapons don't exist.
<br/>
<br/>If you fuse one gram of tritium with one gram of deuterium, it would output 1.79751036 × 10^17 Joules of energy, which is the equivalent of 42.9615287 megatons of TNT. For reference, the bomb at Hiroshima output the equivalent of a mere 15 kilotons of TNT.
<br/>
<br/>So if you used the bare minimum amount of fuel and detonated this fusion weapon and got 10% of the yield capability, the bomb would still be more destructive than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
<br/>
<br/>Your assumption that a fourth gen nuke was used is just wrong by several orders of magnitude.
<br/>
<br/>A neutron bomb is not fourth gen. A neutron bomb also has more destructive capability than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
<br/>
<br/>The method for enriching radioactive substances is well-understood and freely available information to the public. Happy to share a video demonstrating the process, but in short enriched radioactive material costs millions of dollars per gram to make.
<br/>
<br/>Rumsfeld was referring to a sum total of transactions. The entire budget for the US government was less than $1 trillion in 2001, don't be dumb.
<br/>
<br/>The towers didn't implode, implosion requires a vacuum. Again, it's genuinely difficult to tell if you're trolling or you really are that misinformed.
<br/>
<br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley William Daniel Burgett "Poe is not an insult, it's a type of parody..."
<br/><< Agreed. And one which arguably demands better intellectual skills than simply arguing the facts.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 99 -->
<a name="x100"></a>
<h2><a href="#x100" class="tiny">x100</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">tweaked depending upon the design goals</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/?comment_id=2025646684348871&reply_comment_id=2025932284320311¬if_id=1512857801518534¬if_t=group_comment_mention&ref=notif">2017-12-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_100" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Burgett, what I know is that "Po" in some languages refers to "ass".
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Fourth gen nuclear weapons, by definition, do not have a fissile trigger."
<br/>
<br/>Kindly provide your sources for this misinformation. Please review the material in Section 14 yet again.
<br/>
<br/>Your mal-framing of FGNW is a cheat. FGNW come in a wide variety, tweaked depending upon the design goals, such as:
<br/>
<br/>- Generate a fireball (in air or a material).
<br/>- Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).
<br/>- Heat the surface of a material.
<br/>- Accelerate or compress a material.
<br/>- Transfer momentum to a material.
<br/>- Heat the volume of a material.
<br/>- Energize a working material.
<br/>- Forge and project missiles.
<br/>- Form and send high-velocity jets.
<br/>- Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it. If surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "A neutron bomb is not fourth gen."
<br/>
<br/>While it is true that neutron bombs are not fourth generation in the strict history of when certain things were achieved, deploying them in a different manner with different controls starts to put them there.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "A neutron bomb also has more destructive capability than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima."
<br/>
<br/>It depends on how you look it at and many other factors that you are trying to munge together in an inappropriate way WITHOUT SOURCES. In terms of a destructive heat wave, blast wave, and EMP from a neutron device, you would be wrong. The whole point of releasing the neutrons was to stop them bombarding the core and making huge detonations. In terms of highly energetic neutrons being impacted on targets, then you might be right, because they can achieve any of the bulleted design goals from above.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>+++Quote
<br/>FGND are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can product direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response.
<br/>
<br/> Let us suppose that the yield from an idealized DT-based FGNW consists of about 20% in soft X-rays and 80% in 14 MeV neutrons. Let us also take into account that relative to a surface at some distance from the point of explosion, 50% of each of these radiations will flow forwards, and 50% backwards.
<br/>
<br/> If we suppose that this weapon has a yield in the range of a few tons, and is detonated in air at a relatively short distance from a target, say a few meters, most of the forwards going X-rays will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
<br/>
<br/> The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
<br/>
<br/> A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
<br/>+++End Quote
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 100 -->
<a name="x101"></a>
<h2><a href="#x101" class="tiny">x101</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_101');">a victim mentality</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_101" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges, I'm am not concerned with your comparing my evaluation with the official ones. I'm sure that the towers were as would be expected, over built to handle 2, 3 , 4, even 10 times normal occupied weight loads with what ever very sound designs they used but we are talking at least 50 multiples its occupied weight and so at that point the souundness of design becomes inconsequential. We must bear in mind that since the jet fuel/ carbon fire exacerbated by the large vent, (caused by the collisions), inside a containment encouraged release of much of its BTU CONTENT all a once in its short 20 minute burn causing far hotter flames and conditions as would other wise happen under conventional circumstances. The result was very weakened red hot steel for the 4 to 6 floors affected allowing the descending load a head start to build up the speed and inertia required to bust the lower floors as well, that were not not as affected by heat. It is very clear in my mind - nothing fancy was needed to perpetuate the collapse. As far as my producing the debunking examples its there throughout for all to see just as this is but they are ignored by the crowd that is so very effected by their victim mentality that their judgment is greatly affected. What I just explained is but one mere example, (there are many others here), and in my judgment should be theoretically sound enough to overcome all the disbelief of the doubters here and a far more likely scenario than an exotic theory requiring the genocidists to jump through unlikely hoops. Tell me if there is anything I overlooked that suggests otherwise and I will address it, I'm open to any sound views. :)
<br/>
<br/>And by the way Maxwell Bridges, I am not that impressed with "the architects, designers, and engineers who worked on the WTC" as you seem to be for they are all "pencils guys" that think inside of the box of their training. There are no real experts for the occurrences regarding the mechanics and dynamics of the disaster, only ones who designed the buildings and of course the design did not factor in the jet fuel factor so they as well would want it to be a controlled demolition.
<br/>
<br/>In my opinion, anyone who feels that 9/ 11 was an inside job Leslie does to at least some extent have a victim mentality but no I don't aim that at people individually, I try to be respectful to all people.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 101 -->
<a name="x102"></a>
<h2><a href="#x102" class="tiny">x102</a>
Leslie Crofford : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">what are your calculations when pieces of the tower get ejected</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_102" style="display: block;">
<p>So what are your calculations when pieces of the tower get ejected horizontally before the collapse starts?
<br/>
<br/>George Secher You tend to use that on me quite often. Are you saying that it only happens to truthers? Like no debunkers ever had victim mentality happen to them? Maybe it happened to you.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 102 -->
<a name="x103"></a>
<h2><a href="#x103" class="tiny">x103</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_103');">all subject to all sorts of negative influences</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_103" style="display: block;">
<p>Trip catapulting. From those heights even a 45 degree angle would take items perhaps 600 to a 1000 ft way from the sight. Simple - but not south those posessing much negativity.
<br/>
<br/>We are all subject to all sorts of negative influences - we are all different.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 103 -->
<a name="x104"></a>
<h2><a href="#x104" class="tiny">x104</a>
Leslie Crofford & Goerge Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">so exceptional</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_104" style="display: block;">
<p>Leslie Crofford
<br/>Leslie Crofford George Secher But George, you're so exceptional with your words of wisdom, you bestow upon us. You'd give Ghandi or Buddha a run for their money.
<br/>
<br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher My efforts are to show that no one has license to the truth - that we each have our own and that our negative polarities effect clarity as demonstrated in the example of 9/ 11. The ACTUAL terorists "came from" victim mentality as well causing them to ...See More
<br/>
<br/>Leslie Crofford
<br/>Leslie Crofford George Secher The actual hijackers were used as patsies, probably from their victim mentality. Or maybe its from a foreign power who interferes with their religion, home. Or sides with the enemy. After all what do you think their justification was to attack the towers?
<br/>
<br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher OK, the ones they were patsies for then.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 104 -->
<a name="x105"></a>
<h2><a href="#x105" class="tiny">x105</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_105');">making statements that don't agree with the evidence</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_105" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Secher, I agree that you and other OCTers have a "victim mentality" (because that was the aim of the propaganda), exhibit copious levels of blind patriotism, and got suckered into desiring revenge against "them" (the Muslim boogey-men) even though no valid case was made.
<br/>
<br/>You have several problems with discussing 9/11 here, starting with making statements that don't agree with the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>Tell us, oh wise one in physics, how did the upper 20 stories accordion in on themselves, going SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY from 100% resistance to only 36% resistance (as calculated by David Chandler and others for the acceleration being 64% gravitational acceleration)?
<br/>
<br/>Where did the energy come from? What pile-driver acted on those 20 stories to accomplish this? Whereas a solid mass falling from a given height generates lots of kinetic energy (numbers you calculated), what solid mass fell onto the upper 20 stories?
<br/>
<br/>Pulverization and ejection of content are observed in the earliest moments of the destruction wave passing the level of impact. Pulverization is a huge energy sink greater than the potential energy of the upper 20 stories regardless of whether they are considered a solid cohesive mass or a shredded pancaked accordion. The issue remains that if the roof line is going to hit the level of the street through the path of greatest resistance in times within the error margin for gravitational acceleration (as per NIST) while also ejecting and pulverizing things...
<br/>
<br/>Well, gee, Mr. Secher, surely your physics equations would detect a gross imbalance in energy requirements that can't be explained by the stored potential energy of the 20 stories. I don't see you scratching your head and muttering "energy had to be added." I also don't hear you proclaiming the greatness of Allah or recommending conversion to Islam for Allah's ability to bend his own laws of the universe THREE times on that fateful day.
<br/>
<br/>"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 105 -->
<a name="x106"></a>
<h2><a href="#x106" class="tiny">x106</a>
Jone Lailai : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">patently an irrationally absurd premise</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_106" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges, your opinion doesn’t warrant “rational debate” as it’s patently an irrationally absurd premise.
<br/>
<br/>It is analogous to me claiming that a group of highly trained elves with tiny metalworking tools snuck into the buildings and chiseled their little hearts out until the structure failed. Please engage in a rational debate about this.
<br/>
<br/>Your “opinion” does however exhibit all the hallmarks of paranoid delusion. I would counsel that you seek professional medical advice. Your condition can be treated and responds well to therapy and medication where appropriate.
</p>
</div><!-- section 106 -->
<a name="x107"></a>
<h2><a href="#x107" class="tiny">x107</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_107');">no links to substantiate the statement</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_107" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Lailai, Bravo! Keep up the good work.
<br/>
<br/>But under some other article from now on. Although you provided no links to substantiate the statement that FGNW on 9/11 is "patently an irrationally absurd premise", I will take you at your word that this is your belief.
<br/>
<br/>As such, you have nothing more to contribute here without engaging opinions that "exhibit all the hallmarks of paranoid delusion." Wouldn't want to inflict that upon you. So, kindly STFU and stop trying to instigate a distracting flame war. Ho-hum.
<br/>
<br/>Rational debate involves studying your debate opponents work, its sources, etc. and discovering the weaknesses (and strengths). This is the assignment, and your pre-dispositions make you unfit for the task. Out of your league. Run along now. Buh-bye.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 107 -->
<a name="x108"></a>
<h2><a href="#x108" class="tiny">x108</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">They suffer</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_108" style="display: block;">
<p>They suffer from victim mentality Jone Lailai, best to be understanding. <3
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 108 -->
<a name="x109"></a>
<h2><a href="#x109" class="tiny">x109</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_109');">remove the unproductive distractions</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_109" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. George Secher, please delete your comment (and this reply). Let's remove the unproductive distractions from the task of legitimately taking FGNW out of contention the good old fashion way: with research, reason, logic, data, math, science, and rhetoric. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 109 -->
<a name="x110"></a>
<h2><a href="#x110" class="tiny">x110</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">Control issues</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_110" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher Control issues Maxwell Bridges?
<br/>
<br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher I'll read and respond to you comments latter when I get back from shopping.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 110 -->
<a name="x111"></a>
<h2><a href="#x111" class="tiny">x111</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_111');">purge your efforts that aren't worthy</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_111" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. George Secher, I'm doing you a favor by giving you the wise counsel to purge your efforts that aren't worthy of the discussion that this thread is nobly trying to legitimately debunk or accept as Truth. This fork in the discussion about victim mentality isn't worthy of pursuing here. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 111 -->
<a name="x112"></a>
<h2><a href="#x112" class="tiny">x112</a>
William Daniel Burgett : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">don't have to debunk nonsense</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_112" style="display: block;">
<p>William Daniel Burgett
<br/>William Daniel Burgett Maxwell, I don't have to debunk nonsense, especially when your own words do it for me.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 112 -->
<a name="x113"></a>
<h2><a href="#x113" class="tiny">x113</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_113');">you have nothing more to contribute</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_113" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Burgett, Although you provided no links to substantiate the statement that FGNW is "nonsense", I will take you at your word that this is your belief.
<br/>
<br/>As such, you have nothing more to contribute here without engaging these nonsense opinions. Wouldn't want to inflict that upon you. So, kindly STFU and stop trying to instigate a distracting flame war. Ho-hum.
<br/>
<br/>Rational debate involves studying your debate opponents work, its sources, etc. and discovering the weaknesses (and strengths). This is the assignment, and your pre-dispositions make you unfit for the task. Out of your league. Run along now. Buh-bye.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 113 -->
<a name="x114"></a>
<h2><a href="#x114" class="tiny">x114</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">largely debunked in the course of conversation</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_114" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher Correct William Daniel Burgett but it not just that, 9/ 11 was over 16 years ago and we still don't employ the technology beyond testing and now due to most of the other questionable logic of te Truthers have been largely debunked in the course of conversation, here we come with complex alternative rational all due to their not trusting "family". And that William is the lesson of 9/ 11 - we allow our internal negativity to direct our thoughts and then ultimately actions.
</p>
</div><!-- section 114 -->
<a name="x115"></a>
<h2><a href="#x115" class="tiny">x115</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_115');">premise: largely debunked in the course of conversation</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_115" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Secher, please make a top level posting stating your premise that "most of the other questionable logic of te Truthers have been largely debunked in the course of conversation."
<br/>
<br/>It does not belong here.
<br/>
<br/>The comments here should be attacking section-by-section, source-by-source the referenced article above, because the goal is to legitimately debunk (or validate) FGNW used on 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Once you have your new posting up, please come back and delete your comment (and this one), because it not only distracts from both our goals, it casts you in a bad light as being incapable of staying on topic and taking FGNW out of commission legitimately.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 115 -->
<a name="x116"></a>
<h2><a href="#x116" class="tiny">x116</a>
Calvin Kovatch : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">No trace or Hard radiation was found</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_116" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Calvin Kovatch
<br/>Calvin Kovatch No trace or Hard radiation was found no Gamma at
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 116 -->
<a name="x117"></a>
<h2><a href="#x117" class="tiny">x117</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_117');">foundation for the no-nukes premise</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1449086582078917/permalink/1943547549299482/?comment_id=1943582582629312&reply_comment_id=1943592912628279¬if_id=1512948165914586¬if_t=group_comment_reply&ref=notif">2017-12-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_117" style="display: block;">
<p>Dude! Mr. Calvin Kovatch! The basis for discussion is given above in the article. You obviously didn't read it. I'll give you this time not only a pass, but also a hint. Read sections 9-12. They effectively shred the reports that are the foundation for the no-nukes premise.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 117 -->
<a name="x118"></a>
<h2><a href="#x118" class="tiny">x118</a>
Calvin Kovatch : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">Strontium smoke detectors</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_118" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Calvin Kovatch
<br/>Calvin Kovatch It you Mean the Strontium that came from the 1000's of smoke detectors all over the site...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 118 -->
<a name="x119"></a>
<h2><a href="#x119" class="tiny">x119</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_119');">rely on shoddy or non-existent reports</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_119" style="display: block;">
<p>Calvin Kovatch Show me the reports where they attribute Strontium to only smoke detectors! In fact, show me the reports that measured promptly, systematically, thoroughly all over the WTC site that definitively show no radiation.
<br/>
<br/>Too much "debunking" tries to rely on shoddy or non-existent reports to make their claims.
<br/>
<br/>Debunk my sources. (Although I think Jeff Prager may have moved is analysis of the USGS dust samples from what I linked.)
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 119 -->
<a name="x120"></a>
<h2><a href="#x120" class="tiny">x120</a>
Calvin Kovatch : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">Smoke detectors contain Strontium</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_120" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Calvin Kovatch
<br/>Calvin Kovatch Do you deny that Smoke detectors contain Strontium
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 120 -->
<a name="x121"></a>
<h2><a href="#x121" class="tiny">x121</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_121');">Barium and Strontium</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_121" style="display: block;">
<p>Do you deny:
<br/>+++ Quote
<br/>Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
<br/>
<br/>Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
<br/>
<br/>Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
<br/>
<br/>Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
<br/>
<br/>Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
<br/>
<br/>Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
<br/>
<br/>Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.
<br/>+++ EndQuote
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 121 -->
<a name="x122"></a>
<h2><a href="#x122" class="tiny">x122</a>
Calvin Kovatch : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">carbon monoxide detectors</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_122" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Calvin Kovatch
<br/>Calvin Kovatch Barium and Strontium are elements found it smoke a carbon monoxide detectors .. of which there where 1000's to discount them is pure nonsense
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 122 -->
<a name="x123"></a>
<h2><a href="#x123" class="tiny">x123</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_123');">where are the government reports that speculated into smoke alarms</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_123" style="display: block;">
<p>One possible explanation, but where are the government reports that speculated into smoke alarms as the source for the Barium and Strontium that the USGS measured in significant quanties in all of its dust samples?
<br/>
<br/>Oh wait! You'll find the reports where they tabulate what they measured, but no commentary on these and many other anomalous heavy elements. Also no "ah-ha moment" or "ain't that a dandy coincidence" side-bar that these are also the finger prints of nuclear involvement. Go figure?
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 123 -->
<a name="x124"></a>
<h2><a href="#x124" class="tiny">x124</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">the debunkment was my chosen form</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_124" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges, my statement regarding the debunkment was my chosen form, sorry my form displeases you but it also seems to be all you are capable of disparaging and I'm sure most here see through it. We feel that the Truthers arguments have been categorically debunked, you guys think not apparently due to a premiss of victimhood that drives you guys. Of course I am not going to engage you on others words but what's holding you back from engaging me on my words? Go ahead, I dare you!
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 124 -->
<a name="x125"></a>
<h2><a href="#x125" class="tiny">x125</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_125');">Run along if you can't stay on topic</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/?comment_id=2026411360939070&reply_comment_id=2026436560936550¬if_id=1512958610038510¬if_t=group_comment_mention&ref=notif">2017-12=11</a></p>
<div id="sect_125" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Secher, Regardless of whether or not you ~THINK~ you can substantiate your punk-ass statement that "the Truthers arguments have been categorically debunked," such a discussion does not belong here... unless you can cough up educational links to such happenings relating to FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>What's holding me back from engaging you on your boastful words? (a) They don't belong here under a discussion about FGNW. (b) You can make your own top-level posting with such boastings. (c)_ I know you are "all hat, and no cattle."
<br/>
<br/>Run along if you can't stay on topic. Buh-bye.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 125 -->
<a name="x126"></a>
<h2><a href="#x126" class="tiny">x126</a>
David F. Kyte : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">real controlled demolition</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_126" style="display: block;">
<p>Truthers don’t know how real controlled demolition is done
</p>
</div><!-- section 126 -->
<a name="x127"></a>
<h2><a href="#x127" class="tiny">x127</a>
Sam Beeson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_127');">Not buying it</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_127" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. Bridges. BS. Colleges and University professors have been standing up to the government since the 60s. Further, not everyone who graduates with engineering degrees or physics degrees work in any manner for the government. But I understand why you have to assert this. Otherwise the lies that truthers tell each other don't hold up. So the fact that the more educated a person is (in any field), the less likely to believe in your nonsense, your only real recourse from that embarrassment is to say, "They're scared."
<br/>
<br/>Not buying it.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 127 -->
<a name="x128"></a>
<h2><a href="#x128" class="tiny">x128</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">If those goals are no longer part of the objective...</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_128" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Kyte, "real controlled demolition", as in, "what is conventionally done to demolish a structure" is a red-herring distraction. You see, they have the goals of safety, using as little explosives as possible and then relying on gravity, and planning it for as little clean-up as possible. As such, they start the charges at basement levels. at low points and try to put the debris into that footprint.
<br/>
<br/>If those goals are no longer part of the objective, if money for explosives isn't an issue, then in Las Vegas & Hollywood fashion, they can do anything.
<br/>
<br/>The problem with debunkers is they are toting an agenda, so they can never admit to any errors in anything to do with their premise, and as a result get regularly mocked as idiots for their "poor understanding of physics" in defending the OCT miracles.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 128 -->
<a name="x129"></a>
<h2><a href="#x129" class="tiny">x129</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_129');">politics and money -- not the merits of science -- control things</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_129" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Beeson, Liberal arts and history professors have been standing up to the government ON SOCIAL issues since the 1960's, but not necessarily the engineering and science professors on issues that creep into their areas of studies and when they are reliant on the government for their funding.
<br/>
<br/>The more education you get, the more you recognize how much you don't know. And the more you see how politics and money -- not the merits of science -- control things.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 129 -->
<a name="x130"></a>
<h2><a href="#x130" class="tiny">x130</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_130');">discussion is out of your league</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_130" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mrs. Tague, three separate comments each with ONE sentence and within minutes of each other is an indication of spamming. Kindly combine all three into one comment, and delete the two superflurious comments.
<br/>
<br/>Secondly, seeing how you and Mr. Secher are of the belief that "Twoofer claims HAVE been debunked", then you both should be motivated to make that a top level posting AND FUCKING PROVE IT. Let's have the links.
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, that discussion HERE remains off-topic and another deceitful trick made all the more obvious that neither of you OCT miracle believers has coughed up ONE link to document FGNW having been previously addressed here. And in your case, Mrs. Tague, you have not coughed up one paragraph or sentence that (a) demonstrates you read the article that is the foundation for this discussion, and (b) demonstrates that you debunked it.
<br/>
<br/>This discussion is out of your league, Mrs. Tague. Stop polluting it. Run along elsewhere to your posting that summarizes with substantiating links all "Twoofer claims HAVE been debunked." Buh-bye.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 130 -->
<a name="x131"></a>
<h2><a href="#x131" class="tiny">x131</a>
Rob CA : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_131');">the making of Star Trek</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_131" style="display: block;">
<p>Read the making of Star Trek and in the weapons section they explain this 4th generation theory and why it was rejected. As the video explains 3rd generation is also unachievable. If this was possible we'd know about it. But the Pencil Bomb Star Trek almost used was a cool concept
</p>
</div><!-- section 131 -->
<a name="x132"></a>
<h2><a href="#x132" class="tiny">x132</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">a link to the fictional show Star Trek?</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_132" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Rob CA, how about you providing a link to the fictional show Star Trek? What I know is that the military often gets involved with Hollywood: best recruiting tool ever. And also the best propaganda tool.
<br/>
<br/>Here's what I wrote in Section 27 "Nuclear Scientific Research".
<br/>
<br/>+++Quote
<br/>The US Government took the position many decades ago to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available in publications, because publishing such could enable those with bad intentions against us. Those who wish to study, and have professions involving, nuclear science in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties, or they are left out of all of the interesting research.
<br/>
<br/>...
<br/>
<br/>If the US government wanted to steer the public's perceptions regarding nuclear involvement in 9/11, it could be achieved with a small group of PhDs and experts who balanced the requirements of the "message-controlling" assignment with their own personal ethics. The mistakes that they made might have been purposeful with the intent of being discovered, precisely so an article could raise public awareness to "what is really going and has been going on!"
<br/>
<br/>Although most nuclear research does not get a wide public viewing, some of it does, particularly if it is only offering an overview, speculation, and omissions of details that would help others' implementation. The work of Dr. Andre Gsponer fits into such requirements. Noteworthy is also (A) nothing has been published over many years to contradict, discredit, or debunk Dr. Gsponer's "speculation" into where nuclear research was headed, and (B) Dr. Gsponer continually improved his work over many editions prior to 2001; then-current and re-enforcing information was gathered to refine the direction of his nuclear speculation.
<br/>+++EndQuote
<br/>
<br/>In other words, what the fictional show Star Trek rejected -- because maybe they were told to with it being too close to the truth -- does not have to dictate the feasibility and truth of nuclear development.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 132 -->
<a name="x133"></a>
<h2><a href="#x133" class="tiny">x133</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_133');">How do nuclear weapons fit into 9/11?</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_133" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith So... Err what?
<br/>
<br/>How do nuclear weapons fit into 9/11?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 133 -->
<a name="x134"></a>
<h2><a href="#x134" class="tiny">x134</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">They dont</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_134" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley They dont.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 134 -->
<a name="x135"></a>
<h2><a href="#x135" class="tiny">x135</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_135');">logistics of controlled demolition</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_135" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Dear Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, according to the disinformation from former Russian Agent Dimitri K (who promotes singular deep under ground nukes), NYC went through so many periods of scrape and build-anew, they had rules on granting building permits for very large structures that required end-of-life demolition plans. According to what the Russians acquired, nukes were part of the WTC plan.
<br/>
<br/>Further, if we look into the disinformation of Dr. Wood (albeit not so completely full of disinformation as her detractors decry), she hints that the pulverization of content was a design goal of the demolition. Comparing large chunks of cohesive mass to pulverized mass, the latter do less collateral damage to neighboring structures, but particularly to the concrete "bathtub" that surrounded the WTC complex, kept the Hudson out, and consequently kept such flooding for going through the subway lines and damaging other areas.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW fit into 9/11, because the logistics of controlled demolition using conventional chemical-based explosives would have been huge (three skyscrapers) and could not be completed in the few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday prior and up to 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Of course, if they would have used conventional explosives, they could have made the event appear "natural" or believable. The overkill pulverization and ejection of content from the earliest moments of annihilation was a give away of something else.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 135 -->
<a name="x136"></a>
<h2><a href="#x136" class="tiny">x136</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">deranged moron</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_136" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague Yep, the deranged moron that is Bridges is getting upset that his "snigger" "work" isn't getting taken seriously.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 136 -->
<a name="x137"></a>
<h2><a href="#x137" class="tiny">x137</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_137');">not an earnest seeker of truth</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_137" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mrs. Elizabeth Tague, I'll not make a habit of addressing you, because you offer NOTHING of value to the discussion. Don't have the smarts to debunk it, all you can do is mock it.
<br/>
<br/>Testament that you are an agent with an agenda and not a sincere seeker of truth on 9/11, you would be taking this task seriously of legitimately debunking 9/11 FGNW. And guess what? As an earnest seeker of 9/11 truth myself, I'd even be assisting you. I'm not married to FGNW, and properly applied science to the evidence can convince me of the errors in my premise; I'd recant and apologize publicly.
<br/>
<br/>But you are not an earnest seeker of truth. You aren't going to legitimately tackle this topic even ignoring you are too lazy and intellectually challenged. Too many nuggets of truth that you can't explain.
<br/>
<br/>Because of your mental deficiencies, even as a paid agent, you are screwing the pooch. The best play for agents has always to STFU. Sure, an opening dismissive comment, but then truly not engaging. When it can't be resisted (because they call it paid-to-post for a reason), the summation of your efforts should not amount to mockery and insults. That exposes you.
<br/>
<br/>At this point in time, please play your best card STFU. Go away. Buh-bye.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 137 -->
<a name="x138"></a>
<h2><a href="#x138" class="tiny">x138</a>
Laurence Hopkins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');">isn't your page</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_138" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Look Bridges, this isn't your page, and your not an admin, thank christ. So you will take points that counter your points, such as they are. Since you deal with long debunked arguments, which we have dealt with many, many, many times before, you are not offering anything new, or even interesting. You are merely retching up stale vomit, and that is not appealing.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 138 -->
<a name="x139"></a>
<h2><a href="#x139" class="tiny">x139</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_139');">under a posting made by me</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_139" style="display: block;">
<p>Look, Mr. Hopkins. Your comment appears under a posting made by me. My posting and the anchoring article are about fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) on 9/11. The posting was made to a FB forum called "9/11 Debates - Debunkers vs Truthers," where one could assume that rational and legitimate discussion is to transpire. As a 9/11 truther, it is my earnest desire that FGNW get some rational and sincere discussion. I would be overjoyed if it were LEGITIMATELY debunked.
<br/>
<br/>Theoretically, "Debunkers vs Truthers" in the title implies evaluation and scoring, if only in the minds of objective and impartial present and latter-day lurker readers. They will know which side had the better argument, the better tactics, the better analysis, and came out ahead and were the most convincing.
<br/>
<br/>You said: "So you will take points that counter your points, such as they are."
<br/>
<br/>Indeed I will. And when those counter points consist entirely of mockery, it will be so credited to your score.
<br/>
<br/>But I do ~NOT~ have to accept comments that do not relate in the least to my points, something that can't even be called a "counter point." I do ~NOT~ have to accept spam (two or more comments in row by the same participant.)
<br/>
<br/>Such distractions dilute your fellow Debunkers' more rational, valient efforts to legitimately take on FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Further more, more than a couple participants (including you) have alluded to just about every damn 9/11 conspiracy theory having been debunked ALREADY at some point in this group. You make the claim; you defend the claim.
<br/>
<br/>If FGNW were discussed, it is your responsibility as the one making the claim to proved it -- like with a FB link. Nobody has, so it unravels first as playing games: "making claims that can't be substantiated" and "assigning busy work having opponents research the claim." Then it unravels as a lie when nobody posts a link. [And I'm fair enough to accept not only FB links, but elsewhere on the internet.]
<br/>
<br/>When a participant calls an opponent a name (e.g., "liar") without substantiation, the statement is an ad hominem attack, can be pointed out as such, and ultimately reflects poorly on the participant. But when the claim can be substantiation, the statement becomes a validated character assessment of the opponent.
<br/>
<br/>I suspect that FGNW have never been discussed in this FB group. Therefore, these very discussions may become the defining debunking statements on FGNW for all future encounters with truthers having a nuclear bent. You do yourselves AND this forum no favors when you do a shitty job of it and let it become polluted with off-topic tangents or debunking consisting entirely of mockery and empty claims.
<br/>
<br/>I'm giving you solid advice on better tactics that achieve short and long term goals. Pay attention.
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, I still request that Mr. Fitzsimmons make his Silverstein comment where it belongs (under Fracois Dulude comment).
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 139 -->
<a name="x140"></a>
<h2><a href="#x140" class="tiny">x140</a>
Laurence Hopkins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_140');">You talk derp</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_140" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges You talk derp, so it ill matters what you post or where, it all gets dealt with the same.
<br/>You are new here. This isn't an echo chamber or a place where you can post derp unchallenged. This is a science-based page. Now, step out of your pissy knickers and stop being a cry baby.
<br/>Point me to peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing, such as Science or Nature, and NOT uploads, memes, opinion pieces, blogspots that endorses your derp, and you might have a ghost of a chance here.
<br/>
<br/>MIGHT have.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 140 -->
<a name="x141"></a>
<h2><a href="#x141" class="tiny">x141</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_141');">premise wrong and expose game-playing</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_141" style="display: block;">
<p>Oh snap, Mr. Hopkins! You wrote in reference to this FB forum: "This is a science-based page."
<br/>
<br/>Please run the statistics over the comments to this posting to determine:
<br/>1) How many talked about specifics in the FGND premise.
<br/>2) How many simply mocked the FGND primise.
<br/>3) How many side-track the discussion into things that are off-topic.
<br/>
<br/>I think the results will prove your premise wrong and expose game-playing.
<br/>
<br/>How many participants are too chicken-shit to dive into any of the 31 sections of my article that anchors this posting? (Don't forget to count yourself, Mr. Hopkins.) It is science-based and has references that are science-base. I even posted a link to one of them.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
<br/>
<br/>Bravo for the attempt at moving goal-posts: "peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing, such as Science or Nature..."
<br/>
<br/>Double-fucking snap, Mr. Hopkins! I would think that the Dr. Andre Gsponer and his publications to Cornell University Library fit into that category (see arxiv.org).
<br/>
<br/>I stand "a ghost of a chance here", but I'm not so sure about you. Too fucking lazy to read what anchors this discussion, let alone "peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing" that substantiates it.
<br/>
<br/>You could have fooled me when you wrote: "This isn't an echo chamber or a place where you can post derp unchallenged."
<br/>
<br/>I'm sorry, I just don't see it. What I see is you being an echo chamber of others to dismiss this FGNW premise with ~mockery~ not science.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 141 -->
<a name="x142"></a>
<h2><a href="#x142" class="tiny">x142</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_142');">victim mentality</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_142" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Secher, I agree that you and other OCTers have a "victim mentality" (because that was the aim of the propaganda), exhibit copious levels of blind patriotism, and got suckered into desiring revenge against "them" (the Muslim boogey-men) even though no valid case was made.
<br/>
<br/>You have several problems with discussing 9/11 here, starting with making statements that don't agree with the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>Tell us, oh wise one in physics, how did the upper 20 stories accordion in on themselves, going SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY from 100% resistance to only 36% resistance (as calculated by David Chandler and others for the acceleration being 64% gravitational acceleration)?
<br/>
<br/>Where did the energy come from? What pile-driver acted on those 20 stories to accomplish this? Whereas a solid mass falling from a given height generates lots of kinetic energy (numbers you calculated), what solid mass fell onto the upper 20 stories?
<br/>
<br/>Pulverization and ejection of content are observed in the earliest moments of the destruction wave passing the level of impact. Pulverization is a huge energy sink greater than the potential energy of the upper 20 stories regardless of whether they are considered a solid cohesive mass or a shredded pancaked accordion. The issue remains that if the roof line is going to hit the level of the street through the path of greatest resistance in times within the error margin for gravitational acceleration (as per NIST) while also ejecting and pulverizing things...
<br/>
<br/>Well, gee, Mr. Secher, surely your physics equations would detect a gross imbalance in energy requirements that can't be explained by the stored potential energy of the 20 stories. I don't see you scratching your head and muttering "energy had to be added." I also don't hear you proclaiming the greatness of Allah or recommending conversion to Islam for Allah's ability to bend his own laws of the universe THREE times on that fateful day.
<br/>
<br/>"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 142 -->
<a name="x143"></a>
<h2><a href="#x143" class="tiny">x143</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_143');">many layers of disconnected tangents</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_143" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges, to many layers of disconnected tangents for me to keep up with. Before exotic alternative theories should be brought in, the primary original understanding should be ruled out and it has not been so I'll tell you what; you wanted me to produce the debunking comments herein so I will - ONE. I will write it because it is easier for me to do that then put together enough to paint the full picture since they generally only speak about one aspect each. I'll try to do it tomorrow.
</p>
</div><!-- section 143 -->
<a name="x144"></a>
<h2><a href="#x144" class="tiny">x144</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_144');">eloquent bullshit</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_144" style="display: block;">
<p>George Secher You utter such eloquent bullshit. "Oh, it hurts my pwetty widdle bwain to think such things when OCT so consumes my mind."
<br/>
<br/>"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon
<br/>
<br/>NOT HERE, but in your own top-level posting, please go right ahead with your faulty premise that the OCT has never been debunked. Then I'll educate you that the government has NEVER made its case; most of what you are defending with the OCT has come about from the media and other debunkers, not from the horse's mouth.
<br/>
<br/>Worse, debunkers are only good for about one round of rebuttal. When the debunkers' sources are analyzed and thoroughly trashed, the debunker cannot acknowledge any validity of the counter-point or the ramifications on their beliefs (particularly when it isn't sincere but agenda-driven.) Rarely do they have anything to counter the counter-points.
<br/>
<br/>Whatever. You've got this entire FB forum to proclaim your beliefs in the righteousness and wonder of the OCT. But it is out of place here.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 144 -->
<a name="x145"></a>
<h2><a href="#x145" class="tiny">x145</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_145');">wining debates rather than finding truth</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_145" style="display: block;">
<p>You are only concerned is in wining debates rather than finding truth, and about as insincerely egotistical as they come - you already know that you we teach me a lesson? Are you at all aware of how you come off to others? I'm not sure I should even bother engaging someone as insecure as you are - I don't really need the juvenile uncalled for negativity around me….. and I was all set to converse with you.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 145 -->
<a name="x146"></a>
<h2><a href="#x146" class="tiny">x146</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_146');">expressed purpose of having my FGNW debunked legimately</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_146" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Secher, you wrote: "You are only concerned is in wining debates rather than finding truth..."
<br/>
<br/>Let us count this as a lie, because I came here with the expressed purpose of having my FGNW debunked legimately. I am religiously fanatical about Truth, even if it means losing the debate against someone with beter evidence and analysis.
<br/>
<br/>You continued: "... and (you are) about as insincerely egotistical as they come."
<br/>
<br/>Another way of saying "insincerely egotistical" would be "humble". Why, thank you Mr. Secher for the complement.
<br/>
<br/>Maybe what you meant was "sincerely egotistical." If so, so what? If so, then maybe you are projecting, as you pompously decry the looniness of my premise, and then when it is explained to you, you complain "(too) many layers of disconnected tangents for me to keep up with." It isn't me. It's you.
<br/>
<br/>You ask: "Are you at all aware of how you come off to others?"
<br/>
<br/>If you are Mr. James Bond aka Agent double-oh-seven, and I am your evil nemesis, I hope that I come across with an accent and with demonstrated respectful language, but leaving an aura of much power and danger (in debate); someone not to be trifled with or to play games around.
<br/>
<br/>You wondered: "I'm not sure I should even bother engaging someone as insecure as you are - I don't really need the juvenile uncalled for negativity around me... and I was all set to converse with you."
<br/>
<br/>Projecting your weaknesses on to me, yet again?!!
<br/>
<br/>But listen, if you express such doubts, GO WITH THEM!!! Follow your heart! Don't engage me. Please. If this so far is the best you can do, then "yes, Agent 007, now would be a good time for you to fold your hand and walk away from the table."
<br/>
<br/>I'll be gratious and let you call it a draw to all with whom you want to brag.
<br/>
<br/>But if you stay, let me give you some advice. Up your game.
<br/>
<br/>Write off-line. Save your work elsewhere; don't rely on FB to preserve your words. Take the time to research, contemplate; follow my links. Be objective. Be specific. Substantiate. Write words worthy of preservation; write for posterity, for the latter-day lurker-readers, for being re-purposed. My blog already exposes my tactics and how discourse with me (eventually, one day, when I get around to it, down the road) will be re-used; make your efforts worthy.
<br/>
<br/>If you take it as seriously and sincerely as I do, the efforts might become like the fabled Jefferson-Franklin correspondence of our day on FGNW that future generations will study. I'm God-damn religiously fanatical about Truth, and so it will be!
<br/>
<br/>I would love nothing more than to be able to say: "You convinced me; I was wrong; I apologize (not just here but through the "internets") for having spread misinformation; here is the correction and what I now believe."
<br/>
<br/>P.S. From our exchanges so far and if nothing changes on your end, I regret that I do not look forward to further conversation. I think you'll come off very badly here, and then later on my eternal blog, because you are unprepared and unwilling to do the requisite homework to get on the same page of understanding. It shows, and it'll continue to be a weakness that I'll exploit. I take no pleasure in besting or belittling you (and others) for the lame mockery in your arsenal. "Up your game" is solid advice you and others need to heed.
<br/>
<br/>Jeebus Kryst! Look at the length of this comment! Let that be a sign!
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 146 -->
<a name="x147"></a>
<h2><a href="#x147" class="tiny">x147</a>
Adam Fitzsimmons : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_147');">i know what to do with the likes of you</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_147" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>I think i know what to do with the likes of you, and it will help with my clarity.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 147 -->
<a name="x148"></a>
<h2><a href="#x148" class="tiny">x148</a>
Laurence Hopkins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_148');">dregs of the dead twoof movement</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_148" style="display: block;">
<p>The dregs of the dead twoof movement clutch at the final death throes, with increasingly elaborate (and absurd) hypotheses like fusion bombs, mini nukes, death rays from space...
<br/>
<br/>And yet they demand to be taken seriously. Ermm.....NO.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 148 -->
<a name="x149"></a>
<h2><a href="#x149" class="tiny">x149</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_149');">Talley-hoe and all that</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_149" style="display: block;">
<p>Laurence Hopkins Bravo! Quite right, old chat. Talley-hoe and all that. Righty then. You really hit the kangaroo on the bonnet with that one!
<br/>
<br/>What was the subject? If you know, please spell it correctly.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 149 -->
<a name="x150"></a>
<h2><a href="#x150" class="tiny">x150</a>
Adam Fitzsimmons : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_150');">Nothing says evidence than a blog</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_150" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>
<br/>Nothing says evidence than a blog.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 150 -->
<a name="x151"></a>
<h2><a href="#x151" class="tiny">x151</a>
Laurence Hopkins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_151');">having a stroke?</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_151" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges Sorry, but are you having a stroke? Or attempting wit? Because i would prefer it to be the former.
<br/>And a blogspot! How twee! I'd almost forgotten what they looked like! Which is why i stopped looking at them and switched to science-based factual sites instead! Nothing for you there: move along please and mind the gaps.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 151 -->
<a name="x152"></a>
<h2><a href="#x152" class="tiny">x152</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_152');">I stand "a ghost of a chance here"</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_152" style="display: block;">
<p>Good for you, Mr. Hopkins in your claim of: "i stopped looking at them and switched to science-based factual sites instead!"
<br/>
<br/>That being the case, how about Cornell Library (arxiv.org), its physics section, and this article in particular titled: "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
<br/>
<br/>I just have to gloat by repeating the following.
<br/>
<br/>====
<br/>
<br/>Bravo for the attempt at moving goal-posts: "peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing, such as Science or Nature..."
<br/>
<br/>Double-fucking snap, Mr. Hopkins! I would think that the Dr. Andre Gsponer and his publications to Cornell University Library fit into that category (see arxiv.org).
<br/>
<br/>I stand "a ghost of a chance here", but I'm not so sure about you. Too fucking lazy to read what anchors this discussion, let alone "peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing" that substantiates it.
<br/>
<br/>You could have fooled me when you wrote: "This isn't an echo chamber or a place where you can post derp unchallenged."
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 152 -->
<a name="x153"></a>
<h2><a href="#x153" class="tiny">x153</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_153');">a brief prima facie</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_153" style="display: block;">
<p>So Maxwell Bridges that's an awful lot of words to not be able to present even a brief prima facie as to nuclear weapons and 9/11.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 153 -->
<a name="x154"></a>
<h2><a href="#x154" class="tiny">x154</a>
Sam Haschets : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_154');">absolute unverified bullshit and completely impossible</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_154" style="display: block;">
<p>Group Moderator
<br/>Maxwell Bridges "According to what the Russians acquired, nukes were part of the WTC plan."
<br/>
<br/>This is absolute unverified bullshit and completely impossible
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 154 -->
<a name="x155"></a>
<h2><a href="#x155" class="tiny">x155</a>
Sam Haschets : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_155');">dogs never took a holiday</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_155" style="display: block;">
<p>'in the few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday prior and up to 9/11"
<br/>
<br/>The dogs never took a holiday, they were there the whole time, one even died in the collapse
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
</p>
</div><!-- section 155 -->
<a name="x156"></a>
<h2><a href="#x156" class="tiny">x156</a>
Bill Paisley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_156');">not even worth any serious effort to debunk it is so outlandish</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_156" style="display: block;">
<p>You don't really have to go far to discount this out of hand. Its not even worth any serious effort to debunk it is so outlandish - and indeed it hasn't taken any serious effort to debunk.
<br/>
<br/>Credentials and CVs mean nothing when examined in the context of common sense and science. There are some very "credentialed" people with seemingly impressive CVs who are members of the Flat Earth Society. Judy Woods, Jim Fetzer, John Lear, et al are just a few examples that have "impressive" credentials and CVs but can be mocked and ridiculed for the positions they take in this matter - DEW and No-Planer and Aliens on a base on the dark side of the moon. WTC nukes are in that same category.
<br/>
<br/>There are 9 members of the International Nuclear Regulators Association (INRA). Not a single one of them have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
<br/>
<br/>As of Feb 2016 there are 168 member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and not one, not even those that have had serious disagreements with the United States over the years, have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
<br/>
<br/>The Nuclear Energy Agency has 31 member states and not a single one, through that venue, have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
<br/>
<br/>As a US naval flight officer I was in and around naval aviation much of my life. While I never was involved with "special weapons" (as nukes were called) since I was a fighter radar intercept officer, I have many friends and acquaintances who were and/or were nuclear-trained engineers who work with and in the civilian or government nuclear power industry and they agree - "nukes at the WTC", in any way, shape or form, is as absurd a claim as has ever been made by anyone, right up there with Flat Earth, We never Went to the Moon or No-Planes.
<br/>
<br/>Sworn enemies of the US such as Iran and North Korea, both with robust and advanced nuclear programs, have not even accused the "Great Satan" of this "nukes at the WTC" claim. You'd think at least they would trumpet this loud and long, sticking it to the US high and hard, if there were any truth or veracity to it.
<br/>
<br/>Of course, as with most Trutrher claims, the entire world must be "in on it", a vast conspiracy of silence where all the nations of the world band together to keep this a secret. Balderdash is the most polite term I can come up with for this. Pure and utter balderdash.
<br/>
<br/>So you can keep on worshiping your "9/11 hero" as much as you like, touting his "credentials" and his CV to your heart's content. The sentient and critical thinking members of this spinning planet will continue to mock you and your "9/11 hero" and his ilk and we'll continue on in life, doing the things that we need to do to make this a better place for our friends, family, loved ones and everyone else on this rock.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 156 -->
<a name="x157"></a>
<h2><a href="#x157" class="tiny">x157</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_157');">five-fold fail</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1449086582078917/permalink/1943547549299482/">2017-12=11</a></p>
<div id="sect_157" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Paisley, you wrote: "9 members of the International Nuclear Regulators Association (INRA), 168 member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and 31 member states. Not a single one of them have come out in support of this 'nukes at the WTC' claim."
<br/>
<br/>Good try, Mr. Paisley, but five-fold fail.
<br/>
<br/>1) FGNW, not "nukes". Language is important particularly when the deep embedded connotations in the public's perception of a word ("nukes") can purposely mislead understanding.
<br/>2) Based on the media hype into what nukes are (e.g., very big, lots of radioactivity), even I don't support "nukes at the WTC" named as such. The premise is "FGNW at the WTC."
<br/>3) Owing to the largely successful Q-group disinformation campaigns to squash even the slightest whiff of "nuclear anything" involving among other personages a BYU professor of nuclear physics, I seriously doubt that "FGNW at the WTC" was ever presented to them and they were given an opportunity to voice their support of it. [Thanks for the idea.]
<br/>4) You try to discredit and disparage the reputation of man with your unwarranted CV comments.
<br/>5) You avoided analyzing the paper at the PDF link called "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
<br/>
<br/>Seeing how you were bragging about being a US naval flight officer with "many friends and acquaintances who were and/or were nuclear-trained engineers who work with and in the civilian or government nuclear power industry", let's make your supposition about their no-nukes beliefs a legitimate fact.
<br/>
<br/>Please send them all a friendly email:
<br/>
<br/>"Hey buddies. Got this wanker 9/11 Twoofer who thinks special nukes were used on the WTC. His premise is documented here [please provide link to my blog article anchoring this discussion] and has substantiation from the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer [please provide link to the PDF]. Could you please help me debunk (or validate) his bat-shit crazy premise? Does the science make sense? Does it explain better what was observed on 9/11? Thanks"
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 157 -->
<a name="x158"></a>
<h2><a href="#x158" class="tiny">x158</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_158');">a blogspot! How twee!</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_158" style="display: block;">
<p>Learning my lessons, like not to engage two 9/11 FB groups at one time, particularly one title "9/11 Debate - Debunkers vs Truthers."
<br/>
<br/>In order to turn off unproductive, repetitive carousels, a funny exchange there went as follows.
<br/>
<br/>MCB: [Posted a link to my blog article about FGNW.]
<br/>
<br/>Debunker: "And a blogspot! How twee! I'd almost forgotten what they looked like! Which is why i stopped looking at them and switched to science-based factual sites instead!"
<br/>
<br/>MCB: "One of the pieces of substantiating evidence for my blog article comes from Dr. Andre Gsponer who wrote 'Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects'." [Posted the link. https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf ]
<br/>
<br/>Debunker: "Point me to peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing."
<br/>
<br/>MCB: "arVix.org is Cornell University Library, their physics section."
<br/>
<br/>Crickets.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 158 -->
<a name="x159"></a>
<h2><a href="#x159" class="tiny">x159</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_159');">explain why you think nuclear weapons are required</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_159" style="display: block;">
<p>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Yawn.
<br/>
<br/>Could you explain why you think nuclear weapons are required please.
<br/>
<br/>I know it's quite a basic question, but it is fundamental. Start at the very beginning "I think that nuclear weapons are required because fire can't cause buildings to collapse" and start from there.
<br/>
<br/>You'll need to demonstrate how the buildings required anything other than fire and associated damage to cause the collapses.
<br/>
<br/>I think you've put the cart before the horse myself
</p>
</div><!-- section 159 -->
<a name="x160"></a>
<h2><a href="#x160" class="tiny">x160</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_160');">focus on the life work of Dr. Andre Gsponer</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_160" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eaton-Smith, your question: "Could you explain why you think nuclear weapons are required please."
<br/>
<br/>Your question is mal-framed, asks for speculation, is a detour, and could potentially lead to a FGNW strawman for you to knock down. I would prefer that you focus on the life work of Dr. Andre Gsponer.
<br/>
<br/>For the curious, here's why I think FGNW were required.
<br/>
<br/>- All other nukes would be too big and obvious.
<br/>
<br/>- There wasn't time for a full-scale planting of conventional explosives. Bomb-sniffing dogs only were on holiday for a few days prior to 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>- The scope of the operation (WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6, WTC-7). Operation goals include stealing gold from WTC-4 vaults and destroying SEC records.
<br/>
<br/>- Many generals and majors had itchy trigger-fingers and were just LITERALLY dying to try out some of the wonders of 60+ years of nuclear science and stashed away in the corners of the US arsenals.
<br/>
<br/>- Overkill to pulverization in the towers at the earliest phases of annihilation was required, because pulverized mass falling a great distance would cause less damage to other buildings and the bathtub holding back the Hudson from flooding the WTC and all neighborhood properties connected by subway tunnels, than large chunks of cohesive building mass falling a great distance.
<br/>
<br/>- They wanted to prove the might, ethics, and resolve of the US to other nations. For example, plus or minus, these were relatively clean nukes compared to the normal hysteria foisted upon nukes. The US was willing to nuke to itself to achieve its goals as outlined by the PNAC in 1999; the US would not and did not hesitate in deploying nukes against others (DU-munitions in Iraq). The US would nuke itself and then use the power over its media to tell the public and the world that it was "jet impact and fires from jet fuel and office furnishings" (except on WTC-7).
<br/>
<br/>- FGNW were ripe; it was time. They are tactical, low-yield, low-radiation, and can target their energy. They could be used in tandem. WHY NOT?!!!
<br/>
<br/>===
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "You'll need to demonstrate how the buildings required anything other than fire and associated damage to cause the collapses."
<br/>
<br/>For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the jet impacts and fires from jet fuel & office furnishings could INITIATE the collapse. The weasels in NIST sort of did just that; a sleight of hand distraction; one probable hypothesis that might be believable.
<br/>
<br/>The problem is: NIST stops there. Once the collapse INITIATES, they don't explain the symmetry, the suddenness, the pulverization & content ejections, and the near-free-fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance from the earliest phases after initiation. They don't address under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months. The don't address the torching of vehicles on West Broadway and the car park. They don't explain the sagging steal beams, the horseshoes, and the steel doobies. They don't address WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6, except to imply that pulverized content from one of the towers.
<br/>
<br/>Actually, you're the one who needs "to demonstrate how the buildings required only fire and associated damage to cause the collapses" AND all of the observed anomalies AFTER collapse initiation that defy physics. I've been on that carousel, don't want to ride it again, but am so looking forward to your lame efforts. Chop, chop.
<br/>
<br/>BUT DON'T DO IT HERE. Make your own posting.
<br/>
<br/>To quote you again: "I think you've put the cart before the horse myself" when you don't have explanations for the anomalies.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 160 -->
<a name="x161"></a>
<h2><a href="#x161" class="tiny">x161</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_161');">The MINIMUM requirement</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_161" style="display: block;">
<p>Conor Eaton-Smith >> The MINIMUM requirement for Maxwell Bridges to support his claim for nuclear CD is that he show at least in outline HOW single or multiple devices could have been used to cause the collapse mechanisms that actually occurred.
<br/>
<br/>He has not done that nor has he shown any comprehension of the actual collapse mechanisms.
<br/>
<br/>The relevant base facts - for the Twin Towers - are:
<br/>
<br/>The collapse mechanism involved at least three distinct stages:
<br/>
<br/>1) An "initiation stage" in which the main process was some columns initially cut by aircraft impact which caused damage but did NOT cause significant downwards movement of the "Top Block". That was followed after a period of about one hour until the start of a sequenced cascading failure of columns failing in axial overload which did result in tilting then falling of the TOP Block(s).
<br/>--simple logic makes it clear that -- IF there was any CD assistance by nuclear or conventional explosives or by incendiary devices it HAD to be in this stage whether or not it was also in later stage(s); AND
<br/>--the physics is also definitive - impact damage plus heat weakening causing accumulating damage was sufficient to cause "Top Block" to fall. "CD" assistance was not needed and would have been redundant;
<br/>
<br/>3) A "progression stage" in which falling debris missed the columns - landed on floor joists and core area floor beams with massive overloads causing rapid progression to global collapse. "CD" assistance again redundant in the face of overloads in the range of 30-50 times what could be resisted; AND
<br/>
<br/>2) (Second in time) the "transition processes from the "initiation" stage which set up the "debris missing the columns" key feature of the "progression stage".
<br/>
<br/>That is what happend - with or without "CD" whether by nuclear or any other device(s).
<br/>
<br/>There is ZERO proof that nuclear could be used to cause the WTC Twin Towers colapses....and a major problem in that NO CD help was needed. The "natural processes" were sufficient;
<br/>
<br/>There is anothr fatal argument - Maxwell Bridges needs to show how the nuclear device(s) achieved a slow process of progressive damage which was self sustaining once started -- which means he has to prove that nuclear was needed to start the first step whilst still leaving the building standing for many minutes of apparent deterioration. Does he propose that dozens of micro nuclear devices were used? And remember the actual "cascading failure" process was self sustaining - didn't need "help" from redundant explosives.
<br/>
<br/>Hence his claims are ridiculous -- they simply cannot fit into the scenario of the actual collapse mechanisms.
<br/>
<br/>There is ZERO proof that nuclear could be used to cause the WTC Twin Towers collapses....and a major problem in that NO CD help was needed.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 161 -->
<a name="x162"></a>
<h2><a href="#x162" class="tiny">x162</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_162');">So easily caught in a lie</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_162" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>+++ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025939060986300/">2017-12-12</a>
<br/>The tag-team of Mr. Eric Conley and Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith in one of the unproductive detours suggested: "The MINIMUM requirement for Maxwell Bridges to support his claim for nuclear CD is that he show at least in outline HOW single or multiple devices could have been used to cause the collapse mechanisms that actually occurred."
<br/>
<br/>That requirement will be met later in this comment. Stay tuned.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Conley continued: "He has not done that nor has he shown any comprehension of the actual collapse mechanisms."
<br/>
<br/>So easily you are caught in a lie easily exposed (a) by the article that anchors this whole discussion thread and (b) by the repeated links to the Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons paper by Dr. Andre Gsponer, like in the fourth top-level comment. I provide the link yet again for thoroughness. Don't want anyone to get caught in any more lies that they didn't see it. It's kinda important.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
<br/>
<br/>The above handily counters Mr. Conley's later boasts: "There is ZERO proof that nuclear could be used to cause the WTC Twin Towers collapses."
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Conley then goes on to explain a fiction about about three stage annihilation of the towers. Hardly worth my time, and we need to ask ourselves why Mr. Conley hasn't converted to Islam for the many Allah-law-breaking wonders and coincidences Allah enabled for his disciples on 9/11. Woo-hoo!
<br/>
<br/>At any rate, see my top-level posting down below for the desired MINIMUM requirement.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 162 -->
<a name="x163"></a>
<h2><a href="#x163" class="tiny">x163</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_163');">[Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers </a></h2>
<p>2017-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_163" style="display: block;">
<p>[Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers as desired by other participants as a minimum requirement.
<br/>
<br/>The FGNW in question are tactical and can have their energy targeted in the shape of a narrow cone fanning out upwards: a poster-child for directed energy weapons, or DEW. [For the sake of discussion, the "height" or "reach" of this inverted cone of energy was through 20 stories of material. Can be tweaked in the discussions.] The primary output is highly energetic neutrons, with reduced side effects of a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP.
<br/>
<br/>Many videos of both towers' annihilation show momentarily a spire of structure from the inner core after most of the buildings content hit the ground. Therefore I speculate that FGNW devices were placed every 20 floors or so and staggered on either side of the spire structure and aimed upwards but away from the spire.
<br/>
<br/>Aimed in this manner upwards and detonated top-most devices first, an upper FGNW is less likely to cause fracticide or fizzle with a neighboring FGNW. [Fracticide and fizzle did happen and is why the WTC had under-rubble hot-spots burning for months. Such may have saved the firemen. May have been the cause of WTC-7 not coming down as planned with the other structures.]
<br/>
<br/>When a single FGNW ignites, it sends its highly energetic neutrons upwards in an inverted cone of energy. When these neutrons hit the leading layer of metal of, say, the steel pans that held the poured concrete, the layer vaporized so quickly that it caused a violent shockwave through the rest of the material that explosively tears it apart. Same for the concrete and building content in the path of the FGNW beam. [The debris piles had a lack of these metal pans and supports, and the concrete was turned to dust.]
<br/>
<br/>When this inverted energy cone of energy hit more solid beams, such as other supports of the core, it was sufficient to cause volume heating end-to-end in these large pieces of steel, as if they had been in a foundary furnace and reducing their strength. [The debris pile had "arches/sags", horse-shoes, and what became known as "the meteor."]
<br/>
<br/>The inverted energy cone was aimed to miss mostly the outer wall assemblies. Video show wall assemblies being ejected to the sides and streaming smoke, steam, and dust, as if they were heated so much that they burned off whatever had been painted or attached to them. The debris pile and area had examples of another anomaly that I call "steel doobies," which are the three beams of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle (or joint, or doobie) and held together by their three spandrels. In other words, the spandrels were heated sufficiently to become pliable such that the destructive shock-wave forces could wrap the beams together. One of these "steel doobies" was augered into the ground and leaning against a building on Liberty street. The amount of augering and distance from the towers suggest its placement was high in the tower, and also that high heat and energetic lateral forces created it before it hit the ground. [The OCT doesn't explain this anomaly.]
<br/>
<br/>When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories, he calculated that the roof fell at 65% gravitational acceleraton. This meant, the 20 story structure went from 100% resistance to gravity, to only 35%... suddenly, symmetrically. They appear to accordion in on itself before the destructive wave gets much below the level of impact from the plane.
<br/>
<br/>WTC-1 upper 20 stories wasn't completely symmetric and started toppling over and out of the path of maximum resistance. Then suddenly, its angular momentum was halted and it accordioned in on itself. It was no longer a cohesive whole toppling to the side.
<br/>
<br/>Then the FGNW positioned slightly lower in the towers were ignited. Video evidence depicts upward fountaining destruction of pulverized content from lower levels, despite some content from upper levels also falling on it. Some content may have passed multiple times into the path of lower FGNWs, thereby resulting in smaller and smaller pieces.
<br/>
<br/>This sequence was continued with detonations staggered and lower on the spire, until at some point the final and clean-up FGNW knocked down the spire itself. You can see material formerly affixed to the spire suddenly turn to dust and linger in the air as the steel of the spire disappears downward.
<br/>
<br/>The reason the firemen in the stairwell survived has to do with aiming or with malfunction of the device that would have decimated their corner.
<br/>
<br/>Games have been played with the audio of many videos, maybe on purpose. Some video survives that have the boom-boom-boom, and first responders also report hearing such CD cadence. However, they don't describe it sounding like a machine gun, but at a countable cadence, once every 1/2 second to second, which would also underscore the idea of 6-12 devices (for the 110 stories.)
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST, in debunking conventional chemical explosives, stated that were they used (and certainly to achieve pulverization), the explosions would have been deafening. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of first-responder survivors. Furthermore, when conventional chemical devices are mounted on a structure, that's the location that gets zapped, but a shockwave is transmitted through the air as massive changes in air pressure that -- depending on goals/techniques -- violent destroys other content. Shockwave through air means "very loud." 9/11 booms were loud, but muted from chemical explosives. The detonation of a FGNW does not have to be extremely loud. Content ablating and being destroyed by shockwaves created deep within the content would have a different sound.
<br/>
<br/>Placement of FGNW in other buildings were different. WTC-6 crater shows really well how conical shaped FGNW spared the walls but couldn't help decimate all floors & roof AND content that supposedly fell onto it from WTC towers.
<br/>
<br/>Aircraft was restricted from flying over the WTC, and directly over the towers. All cameras and helicopters were far away, owing to the danger from these devices being aimed upwards.
<br/>
<br/>Electro-magnetic pulses (EMP) escaping through window slits and falling debris may have caused the vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car lot. It explains the experiences of an EMT who was running from WTC-6 (where the Feds had some sort of command center in the lobby) and was hit by the door of a parked car that popped out of its frame and off of its hinges to forcefully smack her into the wall.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood with her DEW theories are close, but in a disinformation bent don't connect dots and purposely avoid valid nuclear considerations. One thing her book does well is collect all of the imagery of 9/11 be a nuclear event.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 163 -->
<a name="x164"></a>
<h2><a href="#x164" class="tiny">x164</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_164');">address the fundamental premises of your hypothesis</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_164" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Manage
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith "The problem is: NIST stops there".
<br/>
<br/>So you must start there. It's all very telling that you have to revert to weasel terms yourself, like
<br/>
<br/>"Near free fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance".
<br/>
<br/>How fast actually was it Maxwell Bridges and why could that not have occured naturally and with one main force acting, in one direction how should the building have collapsed?
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell you need to start at the beginning and address the fundamental premises of your hypothesis.
<br/>
<br/>Otherwise it's simply crap in = crap out.
<br/>
<br/>Remove
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Oh and Maxwell Bridges that's another unsupported assertion from yourself.
<br/>
<br/>That I don't have any explanation for what you consider anomalies - what aren't anomalies at all.
<br/>
<br/>$This is your thread" to make a prima facie case that nuclear weapons were used. So far you've not been able to even show that the buildings didn't collapse by themselves...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 164 -->
<a name="x165"></a>
<h2><a href="#x165" class="tiny">x165</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_165');">where you need to start is in reading what I write</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1449086582078917/permalink/1943547549299482/">2017-12-13</a></p>
<div id="sect_165" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Eaton-Smith, The basis for your faulty beliefs are NIST reports that STOP before anomalies in the WTC annihilation became too glaring.
<br/>
<br/>You write: "So you must start there."
<br/>
<br/>I did start there, and you didn't read it. Therefore, where you need to start is in reading what I write.
<br/>
<br/>You continue: "It's all very telling that you have to revert to weasel terms yourself, like 'Near free fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance'. How fast actually was it Maxwell Bridges"?
<br/>
<br/>I take back my previous statement. You need to start by reading the NIST report who claims annihilation times at about 11 and 13 seconds, which is within the margin of error of free-fall for an object dropped from either roof.
<br/>
<br/>You continue: "... and why could that not have occured naturally and with one main force acting, in one direction how should the building have collapsed?"
<br/>
<br/>Damn, Mr. Eaton-Smith. You need a refresher on physics 101. Because I think you're assigning busy work to keep me distracted and won't review it, I'll be brief. The laws of conservation of energy. If a mass falls without resistance, the maximum acceleration it can achieve is gravitational acceleration. No energy is available to pulverize or eject content from the path of maximum resistance, which was over-designed to support mass above. Yet NIST documents the towers' destruction times through the path of maximum resistance close to free-fall times, and also pulverization and ejection of content.
<br/>
<br/>Energy had to be added.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "$This is your thread" to make a prima facie case that nuclear weapons were used."
<br/>
<br/>I've been doing that. You have been too obstinate to approach with objectivity and an open mind. You haven't even read what I posted or commented.
<br/>
<br/>You're just a big circus distraction.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 165 -->
<a name="x166"></a>
<h2><a href="#x166" class="tiny">x166</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">quote the NIST collapse times please</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_166" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Manage
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith You have not started there Maxwell :). You've skipped go and gone straight to FGNW :).
<br/>
<br/>"Within the margin of error of free-fall"... What does that even mean? Oh an an object dropped from either roof? Well apart from 'your' margin of error apparently being 20% despite the hours being the same height - the collapses didn't start from the roof!
<br/>
<br/>Oh and quote the NIST collapse times please. I think you've got them wrong.
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Oh and "Energy had to be added" - show this Maxwell! It's all very good saying it, but since you brought up physics... You'll know that you'll need to show your working :).
<br/>
<br/>Over designed for the mass above? Sure. What is the difference in force that a 1 kg static load presents and the impact load of the same mass dropped from 4 metres. Assume that it takes less than 0.1mm to come to a complete stop.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 166 -->
<a name="x167"></a>
<h2><a href="#x167" class="tiny">x167</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_167');">pawning onto me the busy work needed to defend your OCT claims</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_167" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, Don't be pawning onto me the busy work needed to defend your OCT claims. You make the lame claim, you defend it.
<br/>
<br/>And when you show the physics calculations for the impact load of the 1 kg mass A dropping from 4 metres onto mass B, your work must prove that weaker mass A can pulverize stronger mass B ~and~ that the acceleration of combined mass A+B after impact remains at gravitational acceleration (no slowing after impact) when they travel the next 4 meters to mass C.
<br/>
<br/>I'm feeling fair. Although strength of mass C > mass B > mass A, you can assume A=B=C. Also, although mass A (the upper 20 stories) was pulverized and wasn't a cohesive whole anymore before it approached mass B, I'll let you assume a solid mass A.
<br/>
<br/>Remember that according to your premise, energy cannot be added and the combined masses cannot slow from gravitational acceleration after impact.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 167 -->
<a name="x168"></a>
<h2><a href="#x168" class="tiny">x168</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">over designed for the mass above</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_168" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith So Maxwell Bridges, you are, after claiming that the structure was "over designed for the mass above" - 'your claim' (a "lame" one at that lol) you are unwilling to demonstrate this.
<br/>
<br/>Firstly you can show the order/s of magnitude difference in force exerted by an mass when static, and in motion and coming to a complete stop in minimal distance.
<br/>
<br/>And then you can show us how the structure was over designed for this.
<br/>
<br/>It is very telling that you refer to "mass" in both stronger and weaker mass - when structural and civil engineers refer to force.
<br/>
<br/>:)
<br/>
<br/>Got to start with the fundamentals Maxwell Bridges...
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Crickets
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 168 -->
<a name="x169"></a>
<h2><a href="#x169" class="tiny">x169</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_169');">way out of your depth in simple logic</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_169" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley I'm genuinely sorry that you are way out of your depth in simple logic.
<br/>
<br/>You made this statement as a lead in to a "Gish Gallop" of irrelevancies:
<br/>
<br/>"Maxwell Bridges [Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers as desired by other participants as a minimum requirement.
<br/>
<br/>The FGNW in question are tactical and can have their energy targeted in the shape of a narrow cone fanning out upwards: a poster-child for directed energy ....."
<br/>
<br/>READ this S-L-O-W-L-Y.
<br/>"WE" dont need convincing of the capabilities of any technology including FGNW BECAUSE they are irrelevant. Do you comprehend "irrelevant"?
<br/>
<br/>..This is the status of (non) debate in these threads where you have posted your ridiculous claims which you do not support with legitimate argument.
<br/>
<br/>You claim that FGNW was somehow used at WTC on 9/11. It is your burden of proof which you are evading by standard truther debating tricks.
<br/>
<br/>Time to "put up or shut up"
<br/>
<br/>There are two fundamental issues of true fact that you need to demonstrate or rebut BEFORE your claim is worthy of consideration. They are:
<br/>
<br/>1) YOU need to demonstrate:
<br/>(a) that assistance of FGNW was needed; AND
<br/>(b) How it was used.
<br/>
<br/>2) YOU need to falsify (AKA "rebut") the simple fact of physics a\that that there was no need for any form of CD assistance for the Twin Towers collapses. << So you have to show that assertion false BEFORE your claim warrants consideration.
<br/>
<br/>I doubt that you are up to the challenge. Prove me wrong. :)
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 169 -->
<a name="x170"></a>
<h2><a href="#x170" class="tiny">x170</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_170');">can't dismiss as "irrelevant" without proving it such</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_170" style="display: block;">
<p>Good one, Mr. Eric Conley. I did what you requested, and you didn't even read it. That makes your original request "busy work" and you a game player.
<br/>
<br/>You can't dismiss something as "irrelevant" without proving it such. That would require diving into and reading it.
<br/>
<br/>And if you're going to stick with Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith about no energy being added, yet the towers practically free-fell in the pulverization... Then, ya. We're done here. Buh-bye.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 170 -->
<a name="x171"></a>
<h2><a href="#x171" class="tiny">x171</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_171');">Jumping straight to the largest vapourware</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_171" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>
<br/>Manage
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Bye-bye Maxwell Bridges. Enjoy getting nowhere.
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith It always interesting when somebody bypasses the fundamental issue that the collapses after the plane crashes either happened or did not happen by themselves.
<br/>
<br/>Jumping straight to the largest vapourware appears to be a case of avoiding the hardest, but most important of them all.
<br/>
<br/>If they could show the latter, then it matters relatively little what mechanism is used.
<br/></p>
</div><!-- section 171 -->
<a name="x172"></a>
<h2><a href="#x172" class="tiny">x172</a>
Laurence Hopkins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_172');"> prove they were used on 9/11</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_172" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Laurence Hopkins
<br/>Laurence Hopkins Maxwell Bridges So what? We all know nuclear weapons exist. Your job is to prove they were used on 9/11. Jesus....
<br/>First off, you have to explain the lack of a EMP , that inevitably byproduct of a nuclear blast, that would knock out electronic equipment all over NYC. Then explain the absence of fission byproducts such as Strontium 90.....
<br/>
<br/>Laurence Hopkins
<br/>Laurence Hopkins Oh, Bridges, if you think this an echo chamber, feel free to fuck off to a twoofer one.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 172 -->
<a name="x173"></a>
<h2><a href="#x173" class="tiny">x173</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_173');">My "job" was finished before I ever graced this establishment</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025939060986300/">2017-12-13</a></p>
<div id="sect_173" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Hopkins, you wrote: "if you think this an echo chamber, feel free to fuck off to a twoofer one."
<br/>
<br/>Most excellent advice! Your loss. I mean, every good story -- from novels, to movies, to stage, to gossip columns -- needs a bit of conflict to keep the audience interested. It can't all be "yes-man" backslapping, "I agree, bruh."
<br/>
<br/>I'm the best "twoofer" you've had, and snowflake that I am, you bully me and cause me to run away. *Whine* *Sniff* *Sob*.
<br/>
<br/>Before telling me to take a hike, Mr. Hopkins wrote: "So what? We all know nuclear weapons exist."
<br/>
<br/>The "so what" is that the paper talks about fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) that this echo chamber believes don't even exist. Thank you for agreeing with that they exist!
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Hopkins continues: "Your job is to prove they were used on 9/11."
<br/>
<br/>Here's where I prove my boasting that I'm the best "twoofer" you've had. My "job" was finished before I ever graced this establishment. Due to me posting links to my article -- one in this very branch discussion --, it sheds light on why I'm taking your advice "to fuck off."
<br/>
<br/>I desire rational, reasoned, intelligent discussion that would take my FGNW legitimately out of contention. You are obviously incapable of meeting my expectations if you don't RTFM. Insincere.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Hopkins continues: "First off, you have to explain the lack of a EMP , that inevitably byproduct of a nuclear blast, that would knock out electronic equipment all over NYC."
<br/>
<br/>Ho-hum. Got you covered in advance in my article. Section 21 "EMP and Electromagnetic Energy".
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Hopkins continues: "Then explain the absence of fission byproducts such as Strontium 90....."
<br/>
<br/>Ho-hum. Got you covered in advance in my article. Section 11. "Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al"
<br/>
<br/>The ball has been in your court, but you have fumbled spectacularly.
<br/>
<br/>If and when you ever get off your high-horse agenda and want to demonstrate objectivity and sincerity in your search for truth, you know how to reach me.
<br/>
<br/>I'll not be participating in "Debunkers vs Truthers" anymore. This is in conformity with Mr. Hopkins excellent advice to "fuck off to a twoofer one" (although it remains to be seen if "Fair and Civil" is twoofer). Here's where I'm still participating:
<br/>
<br/>https://www.facebook.com/groups/1449086582078917/permalink/1943547549299482/
<br/>
<br/>P.S. It has a recent posting that begins: "[Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers as desired by other participants as a minimum requirement."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 173 -->
<a name="x174"></a>
<h2><a href="#x174" class="tiny">x174</a>
Laurence Hopkins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_174');">tl;dr. It was derp anyway</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_174" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Laurence Hopkins
<br/>Laurence Hopkins tl;dr. It was derp anyway.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 174 -->
<a name="x175"></a>
<h2><a href="#x175" class="tiny">x175</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_175');">nothing valuable to contribute</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_175" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Laurence Hopkins, such a witty comeback, old chap! Your logic and articulation were so overwhelmingly convincing, I'm surprised that I was ever able to live without that knowledge.
<br/>
<br/>It totally sums up your FB existence to a T: "tl;dr. It was derp anyway."
<br/>
<br/>Now go away. You prove that you have nothing valuable to contribute, and don't have the intellectual capacity to address FGNW anyway.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 175 -->
<a name="x176"></a>
<h2><a href="#x176" class="tiny">x176</a>
Daniel M. Plesse : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_176');">experts omitting Key structural elements</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_176" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Daniel M. Plesse
<br/>Daniel M. Plesse Maxwell Bridges what is your feelings on experts omitting Key structural elements on 9/11 ?
<br/>
<br/>I have only one example "9/11 Shameless Architect Omits The Existence Of Twin Tower Core"
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2W6wcVjeaM
<br/>
<br/>Are these experts part of the 9/11 crimes or just so happen to know what to omit to sell the Jet Fuel Theory? You have the floor.
<br/>Early Architecture Fraud: The Core Structures…
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 176 -->
<a name="x177"></a>
<h2><a href="#x177" class="tiny">x177</a>
Laurence Hopkins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_177');">Once more: unread</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_177" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Laurence Hopkins
<br/>Laurence Hopkins Maxwell Bridges Once more: unread. And i feel my witty comebacks are wasted on the likes of you. You go to a twoof echo chamber where they might revere you as a god. Here, you're just another dilettante regurgitating long debunked tripe.
<br/>You're not happy, and we don't want unhappiness here. Sooner the better, really; (whispers) "It's all for the best"....
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 177 -->
<a name="x178"></a>
<h2><a href="#x178" class="tiny">x178</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_178');">Omitting things is easy and common</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_178" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, my "feelings on experts omitting key structural elements on 9/11" is that it is par for the course.
<br/>
<br/>"If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon.
<br/>
<br/>Omitting things is easy and common in the 9/11 OCT realm.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 178 -->
<a name="x179"></a>
<h2><a href="#x179" class="tiny">x179</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_179');">no business replying</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_179" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Laurence Hopkins, if you aren't going to read the comments of others, then you have no business replying to them, much less bragging about not reading the comment that you are commenting on. The much stronger presence would have been exuded by simply STFU. //
</p>
</div><!-- section 179 -->
<a name="x180"></a>
<h2><a href="#x180" class="tiny">x180</a>
Laurence Hopkins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">two clowns to spam with their clickbait</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_180" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Laurence Hopkins Is admin going to allow these two clowns to spam with their clickbait?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 180 -->
<a name="x181"></a>
<h2><a href="#x181" class="tiny">x181</a>
Adam Fitzsimmons : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_181');">Is it Pleese?</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_181" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Adam Fitzsimmons
<br/>Adam Fitzsimmons Is it Pleese? I have him blocked.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 181 -->
<a name="x182"></a>
<h2><a href="#x182" class="tiny">x182</a>
Andy Campbell : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_182');">mutual masturbation</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_182" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Andy Campbell
<br/>Andy Campbell It’s mutual masturbation.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 182 -->
<a name="x183"></a>
<h2><a href="#x183" class="tiny">x183</a>
Laurence Hopkins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_183');">along with new tinfoiler Maxwell Bridges, a most unwelcome presence</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_183" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Laurence Hopkins
<br/>Laurence Hopkins Adam Fitzsimmons It is, along with new tinfoiler Maxwell Bridges, a most unwelcome presence. A proper dick, too.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 183 -->
<a name="x184"></a>
<h2><a href="#x184" class="tiny">x184</a>
Adam Fitzsimmons : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_184');">I knew it</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_184" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Adam Fitzsimmons
<br/>Adam Fitzsimmons Laurence Hopkins
<br/>
<br/>I knew it. Bridges i cannot block for i am a moderater in a forum he is in.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 184 -->
<a name="x185"></a>
<h2><a href="#x185" class="tiny">x185</a>
Laurence Hopkins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_185');">the Paganini of piffle</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_185" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Laurence Hopkins
<br/>Laurence Hopkins Adam Fitzsimmons Then you are familiar with his verbose waffle. He is the Paganini of piffle.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 185 -->
<a name="x186"></a>
<h2><a href="#x186" class="tiny">x186</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_186');">pure pish!</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_186" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague He does speak, as we say here in Scotland ... pure pish!
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 186 -->
<a name="x187"></a>
<h2><a href="#x187" class="tiny">x187</a>
Adam Fitzsimmons : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_187');">has a YouTube channel</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_187" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Adam Fitzsimmons
<br/>Adam Fitzsimmons Laurence Hopkins
<br/>
<br/>He has a YouTube channel, full of the usual conspiratorial nonsense.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 187 -->
<a name="x188"></a>
<h2><a href="#x188" class="tiny">x188</a>
Laurence Hopkins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_188');">refuse to go those derpfests</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_188" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Laurence Hopkins
<br/>Laurence Hopkins Adam Fitzsimmons I refuse to go those derpfests. You can feel your neurons dying en masse as you scan the bollocks there.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 188 -->
<a name="x189"></a>
<h2><a href="#x189" class="tiny">x189</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_189');">a true to life, honest to goodness, real-life CONSPIRACY</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-13</p>
<div id="sect_189" style="display: block;">
<p>By golly, I do believe I've discovered a true to life, honest to goodness, real-life CONSPIRACY, right under our noses here at "Debunkers vs Truther." Got a bunch of whiney losers who can't read, research, reason, or debate worth a damn CONSPIRING to ban my humble presense in this hallowed establishment.
<br/>
<br/>Tsk, tsk, Mr. Hopkins. Proving yourself a LIAR with your "spam with their clickbait" comment. My blog has no advertisement. It doesn't dole out information in a fix sequence of small chunks requiring clicks on the "next" button. And in all cases, the links substantiated my argument. Clearly from the lack of links you've posted here, substantiated debate is frowned upon as "spam."
<br/>
<br/>Loved your assessment of me, Mr. Hopkins: "a most unwelcome presence." Me? Unwelcome? Without me, you've got no debate, nothing to bite your rabid fangs into. You should show me more respect. Better "a proper dick" than the fake one you strap on to participate here.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Adam Fitzsimmons, please point me to my alleged YouTube channel so I can see what I'm accused of. If one exists that you can find, I can assure you it is entirely by accident. (Failure to cough up the link adds another data point to your LIAR trend line.) In the hopes that you get lucky and it is "full of the usual conspiratorial nonsense," sounds like something worthwhile to review.
<br/>
<br/>The only redeeming part of having been (past tense) a participant here was seeing how big the Q-group roster was of paid-to-post government shills. Later, when I get around to re-purposing our exchange from here, it'll be quite obvious that the government is still funding the 9/11 cover-up. Requisite for such a job is a gross ignornance of physics, some skills in mockery, and a soldier's ability to tote an agenda without thinking.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/ten-essential-elements-of-a-covert-op/
<br/>
<br/>Ten essential elements of a covert op
<br/>
<br/>by Jon Rappoport
<br/>
<br/>December 12, 2017
</p>
</div><!-- section 189 -->
<a name="x190"></a>
<h2><a href="#x190" class="tiny">x190</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_190');">Not "dustification"; "ablate."</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2027142920865914/?comment_id=2028044940775712&reply_comment_id=2028062120773994¬if_id=1513272240552111¬if_t=group_comment">2017-12-14</a></p>
<div id="sect_190" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Not "dustification"; "ablate."
<br/>
<br/>Ablating happens when the surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material vaporizes (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted on the rest of the material, launching a shock-wave into it that tears it apart.
<br/>
<br/>How can the surface get heated to such levels? The easy way is to use Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) that target highly energetic neutrons. These deliver tons of energy deep into materials.
<br/>
<br/>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br/>
<br/>My only issues with Mr. Ganduu is that he is stuck in a rut with Dr. Wood. She never claimed that her work was the end-station and certainly doesn't connect dots in the lingering innuendo of her book.
<br/>
<br/>Worst of all, she did a FUCKED UP CRAPPY JOB of research nuclear devices, as did her co-hort Dr. Steven Jones: on purpose. If it were otherwise, they both would have found tons of PUBLIC information from many sources about FGNW, but particularly Dr. Andre Gsponer (see the link above.)
<br/>
<br/>FGNW are technically DEW devices, so Dr. Wood is more correct than nano-thermite which can explain neither pulverization nor under-rubble hot-spots.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Ganduu, if he is genuine and not a shill to park understanding in dead-end alleys, needs to prove his objectivity, stand on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's work, and go to the next level. Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices. Follow the link.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>The above was written in response to a "busy work" charge of OCT agents (Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith and Mr. Eric Conley), who thought they they'd be done with me by say: "The MINIMUM requirement for Maxwell Bridges to support his claim for nuclear CD is that he show at least in outline HOW single or multiple devices could have been used to cause the collapse mechanisms that actually occurred."
<br/>
<br/>Like too many of their OCT agent cohorts, their reaction was either "tl;dnr" or mockery.
<br/>
//</p>
</div><!-- section 190 -->
<a name="x191"></a>
<h2><a href="#x191" class="tiny">x191</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_191');">anti-propaganda law</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-14</p>
<div id="sect_191" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>"For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences."
<br/>
<br/>And this is why so many OCT shills (like Mrs. Tague) are off-shore with respect to the USA.
<br/>
<br/>Seems to me, the "RAF" stands for the "Royal Air Force", a connection that Mrs. Tague admits.
<br/>
<br/>Paid-to-post. She doesn't add value, and being too clueless to talk specifics, all she can do is throw insults.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 191 -->
<a name="x192"></a>
<h2><a href="#x192" class="tiny">x192</a>
Dan Plesse : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_192');">scientists determined</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-14</p>
<div id="sect_192" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>FYI
<br/>Plesse
<br/>https://911truthout.blogspot.com/2017/03/scientists-determined-that-at-heat.html
<br/>
<br/>http://toxinews.blogspot.com/2013/11/25-rules-of-disinformation-and-8-traits.html
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
</p>
</div><!-- section 192 -->
<a name="x193"></a>
<h2><a href="#x193" class="tiny">x193</a>
Dan Plesse : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_193');">Sar-El</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-15</p>
<div id="sect_193" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>From Plesse
<br/>https://www.sar-el.org/
<br/>Sar-El
<br/>The National Project for Volunteers for Israel
<br/>
<br/>Laurent Hopkins Ozymandias
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2028073494106190/">2017-12-14</a>
<br/>
<br/>Organized and Professional Disinformation Operations
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 193 -->
<a name="x194"></a>
<h2><a href="#x194" class="tiny">x194</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_194');">Ms. Bridges is somewhat fixated on this crap</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-15</p>
<div id="sect_194" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague Wrong, for I do know what he is saying, heard it all years ago, for Ms. Bridges is somewhat fixated on this crap and it IS boring for it IS utter crap ... old boring crap ... simple fact.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 194 -->
<a name="x195"></a>
<h2><a href="#x195" class="tiny">x195</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_195');">the persona is not real</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-15</p>
<div id="sect_195" style="display: block;">
<p>To the online persona of Elizabeth Tague -- probably played in real life by a man given the choice of language and style -- has an agenda to defend that dictates squashing the notion of nuclear 9/11 by any means possible. Because she isn't real and has a script to follow, she'll never admit to being wrong, can't objectively review the material, and finds it easier for the paid-to-post money to combat a researched and reasoned debate position with shoot-from-the-hip mockery and bad behavior.
<br/>
<br/>Oh, and lying is acceptable to this entity because the persona is not real.
<br/>
<br/>No, Ms. Elizabeth Tague, does NOT know what I am saying. A few years ago with a pre-FGNW premise that was similar, she performed the acts of mockery, of middle-school insults, and of brush-off without objective consideration of the details.
<br/>
<br/>Worse, last time she demonstrated quite clearly a lack of morals and ethics when her other disinformationalist tactics weren't having any effect. But because she does it to help augment her retirement money, she does it with everyone and doesn't remember details.
<br/>
<br/>I do, because I don't trust FB to preserve my words.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/02/neutron-nuclear-dew-at-facebook-911.html
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2027142920865914/">2017-12-15</a>
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 195 -->
<a name="x196"></a>
<h2><a href="#x196" class="tiny">x196</a>
Ado Osborn : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_196');">Nuclear weapons? Seriously??</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-15</p>
<div id="sect_196" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Ado Osborn
<br/>Ado Osborn Nuclear weapons? Seriously?? I didn't know NY was an irradiated zone for the next 300 years.... Seeing as I was there in 2014 it does explain why bits of me are falling off..
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 196 -->
<a name="x197"></a>
<h2><a href="#x197" class="tiny">x197</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_197');">yes, fourth generation nuclear weapons! Really! Seriously!</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-15</p>
<div id="sect_197" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ado Osborn, yes, fourth generation nuclear weapons! Really! Seriously! You posted a comment under the thread started by me with " [Bat-shit crazy speculation]" and then linked to an article about me and then to a scientific research paper the supports the premise.
<br/>
<br/>You did not read anything I wrote, because radiation was discussed. You spread gross mis-information with your comment of "an irradiated zone for the next 300 years."
<br/>
<br/>After you read what substantiates the premise, you might be inclined to delete your ignorant comment above.
<br/>
<br/>Next time, let's remove from your discussion tactics that habits of not reading and following links. You can't give a book report on a book you haven't read, neither can you debunk / debate an opponent whose actual, truthful position you don't know, unless you are spreading disinformation purposely. [You wouldn't be the first to piss on nuclear 9/11 for disinformation purposes.]
<br/>
<br/>Geesh.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 197 -->
<a name="x198"></a>
<h2><a href="#x198" class="tiny">x198</a>
Ado Osborn : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_198');">Not sure I can remove enough IQ points</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-15</p>
<div id="sect_198" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Ado Osborn
<br/>Ado Osborn Not sure I can remove enough IQ points from my head to trawl though pages and pages of unsubstantiated rubbish with little or no basis in actual fact. Nuclear without radiation.. Righto.
<br/>
<br/>Ado Osborn
<br/>Ado Osborn And for the record, section 1 of your link above that deals with "FGND" has, as usual, a lot of words but says very little.
<br/>So explain, in your own words (if you can), how it's possible to have any form of nuclear reaction powerful enough to cause your fable (not fabel BTW) without any kind of residual fallout?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 198 -->
<a name="x199"></a>
<h2><a href="#x199" class="tiny">x199</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_199');">can't call it "unsubstantiated rubbish" if you admit that you haven't read it</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-15</p>
<div id="sect_199" style="display: block;">
<p>Fuck it, Mr. Ado Osborn. It you want to have the glory of legitimately debunking a nuclear 9/11, you have to put some effort into it. Dismissive comments from the bleachers don't cut it.
<br/>
<br/>You can't call it "unsubstantiated rubbish" if you admit that you haven't read it. Ironically, then, the only "unsubstantiated" words would be your opinion. Every section has reference links.
<br/>
<br/>As to your second comment because you are too lazy to see the case be built (and that has to take on and debunk core 9/11 concensus opinions as well), go to the summary and then to section 14.
<br/>
<br/>Clearly, you are assigning busy work that you will never read with your statement "So explain, in your own words (if you can), how it's possible to have any form of nuclear reaction powerful enough to cause your fable (not fabel BTW) without any kind of residual fallout?" Why? Because my comment with "[Bat-shit crazy speculation]" was posted as a top-level comment yesterday, and I told you to read it again today.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW are fission-triggered fusion devices most closely resembling a neutron bomb that can have its highly energetic neutrons released and targeted (upwards). Neutron radiation is non-lingering. And because the neutrons were released instead of contained within the core to create massive chain reactions, (a) the blast wave is reduced to tactical levels and (b) the bad alpha, beta, gamma radiation isn't built up in the chain reactions so doesn't linger 24-48 hours.
<br/>
<br/>"If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."~Thomas Pynchon
<br/>
<br/>In your case, you make a huge ass assumptions: "without any kind of residual fallout."
<br/>
<br/>PROVE THAT ASSERTION. Show me the reports that document prompt, systematic, and thorough measurement for radiation. (a) If this happened, (b) the data didn't make it into any reports that half-assed addressed radiation. Earliest time point for a measurement was 2 days after 9/11. Only two sample points were used, and they were in shaded protected areas.
<br/>
<br/>AND then there was tritium, tritium, tritium, which just so happens to be a building-block of all FGNW. Such a song-and-dance dog-and-pony show its report was that was scope-limited from the onset to not even consider nuclear devices. "Let's see if we can make a plausible case for airplane exit signs, weapons' sights, and time pieces for our most haphazard and delayed measurements for tritium."
<br/>
<br/>To recap, in your efforts to prove your contention of no radiation, you'll find reports that were juked but that did show some radiation -- sections of my document.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 199 -->
<a name="x200"></a>
<h2><a href="#x200" class="tiny">x200</a>
Ado Osborn : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_200');">utterly pointless</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-15</p>
<div id="sect_200" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Ado Osborn
<br/>Ado Osborn That's a lot of unnecessary words, most of that was utterly pointless, presumably to justify your "work"
<br/>Paragraph 5 would have sufficed.
<br/>
<br/>The rest is just smoke, mirrors, insults & bad language
<br/>
<br/>Have a day off mate, less is often more..
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 200 -->
<a name="x201"></a>
<h2><a href="#x201" class="tiny">x201</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_201');">have enjoyment this weekend</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-15</p>
<div id="sect_201" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ado Osborn, I graciously accept your worthy and timely advice: "Have a day off mate, less is often more."
<br/>
<br/>I think maybe I'll take more than a day, start with my weekend early, and purposely focus on off-line endeavors.
<br/>
<br/>Likewise, Mr. Osborn, have enjoyment this weekend.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 201 -->
<a name="x202"></a>
<h2><a href="#x202" class="tiny">x202</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_202');">already attempted that</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_202" style="display: block;">
<p>Ho-hum, Mr. Calvin Kovatch. They already attempted that. Refer to section 11. Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al
<br/>
<br/>Not only were they too lazy to contemplate Barium and Strontium coming from smoke detectors, they were too lazy to discuss a whole slew of elements in their table.
<br/>
<br/>+++Quote
<br/>... it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). The Lioy report only mentions "Uranium" twice: once in the methodology section and once in table 2 indicating metals found. Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
<br/>+++EndQuote
<br/>
<br/>While you are there, refer to the section 10 and 12. Same yourself some time. Bone up on what substantiates my argument. Then try to knock it down here. Forewarned is fore-armed.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 202 -->
<a name="x203"></a>
<h2><a href="#x203" class="tiny">x203</a>
Bill Paisley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_203');">don't make any sense whatsoever</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_203" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bill Paisley
<br/>Bill Paisley Yanno, there are some things in life that just don't make any sense whatsoever. Putting lipstick on a pig, is one. Braille menus at the drive-thru is another. Needing pilots with FAA certifications to crash an airplane would be a third. Going to the Un...See More
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 203 -->
<a name="x204"></a>
<h2><a href="#x204" class="tiny">x204</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_204');">judge on the merits of your posting</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_204" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bill Paisley, whereas it is not my place to judge on the merits of your posting, it is plain for all to see that it is OFF TOPIC and a distraction. You must be "all hat and no cattle" on the subject, because you didn't address a s.i.n.g.l.e item from the article. For shame, and how lame!
<br/>
<br/>Step up your game, or STFU. That simple.
<br/>
<br/>You are welcome to create a top-level posting of your own with anything from your comment. Maybe I'll participate to give you valuable feedback. Maybe I won't. (Probably the latter.)
<br/>
<br/>Because you didn't address the topic at hand, I kindly ask you to DELETE YOUR COMMENT (and subsequently this one).
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 204 -->
<a name="x205"></a>
<h2><a href="#x205" class="tiny">x205</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_205');">truther petulance</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_205" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague I love the smell of truther petulance ...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 205 -->
<a name="x206"></a>
<h2><a href="#x206" class="tiny">x206</a>
Bill Paisley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_206');">with the disdain and derision it demanded</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_206" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bill Paisley
<br/>Bill Paisley Maxwell Bridges, au contraire, mon ami! But I DID address the article -- I address the whole damn thing with the disdain and derision it demanded. Folly is what that is, folly and rubbish and as such will be mocked and looked at with the contempt it ...See More
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 206 -->
<a name="x207"></a>
<h2><a href="#x207" class="tiny">x207</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_207');">"folly and rubbish" without specifics</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_207" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bill Paisley, Far be it from me to point out your mistaken belief that simply calling something "folly and rubbish" without specifics somehow fits into the category of rational and reasoned discussion that LEGITIMATELY debunks the FGNW premise.
<br/>
<br/>Nope. You prove how you are a deceitful cheater with this circus you are trying instigate and are lacking in integrity.
<br/>
<br/>Kindly delete your comment that begins "Yanno,..."
<br/>
<br/>And if you can't come to the table with section-by-section, point-by-point, image-by-image specifics as to why FGNW is in error, then you obviously then have nothing valuable to contribute, so your participation isn't needed. STFU, run along, buh-bye.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 207 -->
<a name="x208"></a>
<h2><a href="#x208" class="tiny">x208</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_208');">riddled in petulance</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_208" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague Yep ... riddled in petulance.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 208 -->
<a name="x209"></a>
<h2><a href="#x209" class="tiny">x209</a>
Bill Paisley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_209');">nuke was detonated under the World Trade Center</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_209" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bill Paisley
<br/>Bill Paisley Lmao...Circus? Lacking in integrity?? "I'm" not the one claiming a nuke was detonated under the World Trade Center buildings. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and you simply handwaving away the absolute impossibility of detonating a nu...See More
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 209 -->
<a name="x210"></a>
<h2><a href="#x210" class="tiny">x210</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_210');">hallmark of agenda-bound Q-groupers</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_210" style="display: block;">
<p>Circus, Mr. Paisley, because I never claimed "a nuke was detonated." Your dishonesty is showing. My premise is (a) 6-12 (b) fourth generation nuclear devices (c) per tower. Were you not so lazy and deceitful, you would have read my opus -- hell, even just the Section 28 summary -- and been able to talk knowledgeably on the topic.
<br/>
<br/>It is becoming a hallmark of agenda-bound Q-groupers. You are ordered ~NOT~ to review substantiating material to any truther's claim. You are ordered never to change your mind, and reading something that connects together the dots better than (for sure) OCT will get you reprimanded. So you talk through your ass, and your argument consists of hypnotic suggestion with zip to substantiate it, and certain zip from the anchoring article of this discussion.
<br/>
<br/>I take my responsibility to Truth seriously. You do not, because you are a circus act. Haven't hit a single point from my opus.
<br/>
<br/>Read the article that anchors this discussion. Then let's discuss.
<br/>
<br/>If you want to cut to the chase, read Section 14.
<br/>
<br/>And here's is one of my substantiating documents.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 210 -->
<a name="x211"></a>
<h2><a href="#x211" class="tiny">x211</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_211');">tag-team</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_211" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley Maxwell Bridges 'The tag-team of Mr. Eric Conley and Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith in one of the unproductive detours suggested: "The MINIMUM requirement for Maxwell Bridges to support his claim for nuclear CD is that he show at least in outline HOW single or multiple devices could have been used to cause the collapse mechanisms that actually occurred." '
<br/>
<br/><< You got that much right Maxwell Bridges - YOU are claiming use of FGNW at WTC - so YOU have to show - NOT that they COULD be used but that they were used.
<br/>
<br/>Which - all your Gish Galloping of irrelevancies set aside - means that you:
<br/>1) Have to prove they were needed when the simple facts of physics are there was no need for ANY form of CD assistance; AND
<br/>2) Prove that they were used.
<br/>
<br/>And I'll take a bet that you are not up to the challenge.
<br/>
<br/>PLUS -BTW - I've been playing these games for many years. And childish insults will not influence me - so you may as well stop wasting energy posting them.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 211 -->
<a name="x212"></a>
<h2><a href="#x212" class="tiny">x212</a>
Bill Paisley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_212');">not even worth any serious effort</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_212" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bill Paisley
<br/>Bill Paisley You don't really have to go far to discount this out of hand. Its not even worth any serious effort to debunk it is so outlandish - and indeed it hasn't taken any serious effort to debunk.
<br/>
<br/>Credentials and CVs mean nothing when examined in the context of common sense and science. There are some very "credentialed" people with seemingly impressive CVs who are members of the Flat Earth Society. Judy Woods, Jim Fetzer, John Lear, et al are just a few examples that have "impressive" credentials and CVs but can be mocked and ridiculed for the positions they take in this matter - DEW and No-Planer and Aliens on a base on the dark side of the moon. WTC nukes are in that same category.
<br/>
<br/>There are 9 members of the International Nuclear Regulators Association (INRA). Not a single one of them have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
<br/>
<br/>As of Feb 2016 there are 168 member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and not one, not even those that have had serious disagreements with the United States over the years, have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
<br/>
<br/>The Nuclear Energy Agency has 31 member states and not a single one, through that venue, have come out in support of this "nukes at the WTC" claim.
<br/>
<br/>As a US naval flight officer I was in and around naval aviation much of my life. While I never was involved with "special weapons" (as nukes were called) since I was a fighter radar intercept officer, I have many friends and acquaintances who were and/or were nuclear-trained engineers who work with and in the civilian or government nuclear power industry and they agree - "nukes at the WTC", in any way, shape or form, is as absurd a claim as has ever been made by anyone, right up there with Flat Earth, We never Went to the Moon or No-Planes.
<br/>
<br/>Sworn enemies of the US such as Iran and North Korea, both with robust and advanced nuclear programs, have not even accused the "Great Satan" of this "nukes at the WTC" claim. You'd think at least they would trumpet this loud and long, sticking it to the US high and hard, if there were any truth or veracity to it.
<br/>
<br/>Of course, as with most Trutrher claims, the entire world must be "in on it", a vast conspiracy of silence where all the nations of the world band together to keep this a secret. Balderdash is the most polite term I can come up with for this. Pure and utter balderdash.
<br/>
<br/>So you can keep on worshiping your "9/11 hero" as much as you like, touting his "credentials" and his CV to your heart's content. The sentient and critical thinking members of this spinning planet will continue to mock you and your "9/11 hero" and his ilk and we'll continue on in life, doing the things that we need to do to make this a better place for our friends, family, loved ones and everyone else on this rock.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 212 -->
<a name="x213"></a>
<h2><a href="#x213" class="tiny">x213</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_213');">International Nuclear Regulators Association</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_213" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Paisley, you wrote: "9 members of the International Nuclear Regulators Association (INRA), 168 member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and 31 member states. Not a single one of them have come out in support of this 'nukes at the WTC' claim."
<br/>
<br/>Good try, Mr. Paisley, but five-fold fail.
<br/>
<br/>1) FGNW, not "nukes". Language is important particularly when the deep embedded connotations in the public's perception of a word ("nukes") can purposely mislead understanding.
<br/>2) Based on the media hype into what nukes are (e.g., very big, lots of radioactivity), even I don't support "nukes at the WTC" named as such. The premise is "FGNW at the WTC."
<br/>3) Owing to the largely successful Q-group disinformation campaigns to squash even the slightest whiff of "nuclear anything" involving among other personages a BYU professor of nuclear physics, I seriously doubt that "FGNW at the WTC" was ever presented to them and they were given an opportunity to voice their support of it. [Thanks for the idea.]
<br/>4) You try to discredit and disparage the reputation of man with your unwarranted CV comments.
<br/>5) You avoided analyzing the paper at the PDF link called "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
<br/>
<br/>Seeing how you were bragging about being a US naval flight officer with "many friends and acquaintances who were and/or were nuclear-trained engineers who work with and in the civilian or government nuclear power industry", let's make your supposition about their no-nukes beliefs a legitimate fact.
<br/>
<br/>Please send them all a friendly email:
<br/>
<br/>"Hey buddies. Got this wanker 9/11 Twoofer who thinks special nukes were used on the WTC. His premise is documented here [please provide link to my blog article anchoring this discussion] and has substantiation from the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer [please provide link to the PDF]. Could you please help me debunk (or validate) his bat-shit crazy premise? Does the science make sense? Does it explain better what was observed on 9/11? Thanks"
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 213 -->
<a name="x214"></a>
<h2><a href="#x214" class="tiny">x214</a>
Bill Paisley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_214');">deader than a bug squashed on the windshield</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_214" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bill Paisley
<br/>Bill Paisley No need to bring anybody else into this discussion. This is already deader than a bug squashed on the windshield of the real world. Yeah...that big *SPLAT* you heard was your mini-nukes/FGNW/EIEIO argument coming in contact with reality. Simply wishing something were true doesn't make it so and there is no evidence, at all, anywhere, ever, anytime, anywhere of any sort of nuclear activity in New York City, not conventional nuke, not mini, not fourth generation or fifth or sixth or tenth or any combination of numbers or anything other than a 767 traveling at the speed of a .45 caliber bullet with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.
<br/>
<br/>As far as contacting "experts" ...why don't YOU take these claims to Lawrence Livermore or Hanford or the NRC or any one of those aforementioned organizations and see if you can get their backing for this insane idea.
<br/>
<br/>I'm not arguing the generational development of nuclear weapons. I maintain there is no evidence whatsoever for their use on 9/11.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 214 -->
<a name="x215"></a>
<h2><a href="#x215" class="tiny">x215</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_215');">And a blogspot! How twee!</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_215" style="display: block;">
<p>Learning my lessons, like not to engage two 9/11 FB groups at one time, particularly one title "9/11 Debate - Debunkers vs Truthers."
<br/>
<br/>In order to turn off unproductive, repetitive carousels, a funny exchange there went as follows.
<br/>
<br/>MCB: [Posted a link to my blog article about FGNW.]
<br/>
<br/>Debunker: "And a blogspot! How twee! I'd almost forgotten what they looked like! Which is why i stopped looking at them and switched to science-based factual sites instead!"
<br/>
<br/>MCB: "One of the pieces of substantiating evidence for my blog article comes from Dr. Andre Gsponer who wrote 'Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects'." [Posted the link. https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf ]
<br/>
<br/>Debunker: "Point me to peer reviewed papers PUBLISHED in a science journal of professional standing."
<br/>
<br/>MCB: "arVix.org is Cornell University Library, their physics section."
<br/>
<br/>Crickets.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 215 -->
<a name="x216"></a>
<h2><a href="#x216" class="tiny">x216</a>
Mike Phillipowsky : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_216');">the spirit of civility</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_216" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Mike Phillipowsky
<br/>Mike Phillipowsky
<br/>Group Admin
<br/>Maxwell, while I do agree with your idea of point-by-point debate.... telling someone to “fuck off” isn’t in the spirit of civility.
<br/>
<br/>Please, edit your comment. Thanks.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 216 -->
<a name="x217"></a>
<h2><a href="#x217" class="tiny">x217</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_217');">Point-by-point debate. My earnest desire.</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_217" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Mike Phillipowsky Good advice. The offending phrase has been deleted. My only excuse is that I made the mistake of posting in two 9/11 forum, and I've been equating participants from one with that of another. (Mrs. Tague is however in both and adds her mockery to both.)
<br/>
<br/>Yes, please. Point-by-point debate. My earnest desire.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 217 -->
<a name="x218"></a>
<h2><a href="#x218" class="tiny">x218</a>
Mike Phillipowsky : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_218');">No harm, no foul</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_218" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Mike Phillipowsky
<br/>Mike Phillipowsky
<br/>Group Admin
<br/>Thanks, Maxwell. I appreciate it.
<br/>
<br/>No harm, no foul.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 218 -->
<a name="x219"></a>
<h2><a href="#x219" class="tiny">x219</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_219');">my 9/11 hero: Dr. Andre Gsponer</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_219" style="display: block;">
<p>Here you go, everybody. Dr. Andre Gsponer is my 9/11 hero, and he has never written one word that I am aware of about 9/11 or links FGNW to 9/11. Yet, he's the grand omission by all in the OCT, the 911 TM, A&E911 Truth, Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, ...
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
<br/>
<br/>For all you wannabe debunkers, now is your chance to debunk legitimately FGNW, nukes, DEW, the anonymous physicist, and Dr. Wood all in one go.
<br/>
<br/>Reading the above, and FGNW immediately falls into the category of non-fiction. So save your unicorn smears for elsewhere.
<br/>
<br/>Study it, and explain where it is wrong. Failing that, think out of the box about (a) if it were deployed, (b) what would it look like? sound like? leave behind?
<br/>
<br/>Take your time. Lots of it. Read it thoroughly. (Go back to my opus, too.) Compose your well researched, well reasoned, well articulated rebuttal off-line. You're paid to do it; I'm not.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 219 -->
<a name="x220"></a>
<h2><a href="#x220" class="tiny">x220</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_220');">Dr. Gsponer's CV</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_220" style="display: block;">
<p>Check out Dr. Gsponer's CV.
<br/>
<br/>http://isri.ch/wiki/_media/publications:ag-09-02.pdf
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 220 -->
<a name="x221"></a>
<h2><a href="#x221" class="tiny">x221</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_221');">How do nuclear weapons fit into 9/11</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_221" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith So... Err what?
<br/>
<br/>How do nuclear weapons fit into 9/11?
<br/>
<br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley They dont.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 221 -->
<a name="x222"></a>
<h2><a href="#x222" class="tiny">x222</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_222');">demolition plans part of building permit process</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_222" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, according to the disinformation from former Russian Agent Dimitri K (who promotes singular deep under ground nukes), NYC went through so many periods of scrape and build-anew, they had rules on granting building permits for very large structures that required end-of-life demolition plans. According to what the Russians acquired, nukes were part of the WTC plan.
<br/>
<br/>Further, if we look into the disinformation of Dr. Wood (albeit not so completely full of disinformation as her detractors decry), she hints that the pulverization of content was a design goal of the demolition. Comparing large chunks of cohesive mass to pulverized mass, the latter do less collateral damage to neighboring structures, but particularly to the concrete "bathtub" that surrounded the WTC complex, kept the Hudson out, and consequently kept such flooding for going through the subway lines and damaging other areas.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW fit into 9/11, because the logistics of controlled demolition using conventional chemical-based explosives would have been huge (three skyscrapers) and could not be completed in the few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday prior and up to 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Of course, if they would have used conventional explosives, they could have made the event appear "natural" or believable. The overkill pulverization and ejection of content from the earliest moments of annihilation was a give away of something else.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 222 -->
<a name="x223"></a>
<h2><a href="#x223" class="tiny">x223</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_223');">a brief prima facie</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_223" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith So Maxwell Bridges that's an awful lot of words to not be able to present even a brief prima facie as to nuclear weapons and 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Try again.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 223 -->
<a name="x224"></a>
<h2><a href="#x224" class="tiny">x224</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_224');">obviously getting desperate</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_224" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley As long as "they" disagree with both you and me they are obviously getting desperate.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 224 -->
<a name="x225"></a>
<h2><a href="#x225" class="tiny">x225</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_225');">falls at the first hurdle</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_225" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Yawn.
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges - what is the point of further debunking a post when it falls at the first hurdle?
<br/>
<br/>Why did the buildings require anything more than gravity, a plane crash, and fire in order to collapse?
<br/>
<br/>Answer: they did not. So why you talking about nuclear weapons?
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 225 -->
<a name="x226"></a>
<h2><a href="#x226" class="tiny">x226</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_226');">Newton's Laws of Conservation of Energy</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_226" style="display: block;">
<p>What is the point of you participating when clearly you flunked high school physics and weren't permitted to take it in college?
<br/>
<br/>You can't get over the first hurdle of Newton's Laws of Conservation of Energy. If an object (e.g., 20 stories above impact point) falls at gravitational acceleration, no energy is available for pulverizing or ejecting content. Given that all three were present, energy was added.
<br/>
<br/>My esteem goes down for you with each exchange, Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, because you fail this simple concept of physics.
<br/>
<br/>Although your argument doesn't merit it, I am perfectly happy making the big-ass ASSumption that a plane crash, fire, and gravity caused the initiation of collapse. Problem is, you stop there. So do your NIST sources. They don't explain gravitational acceleration, content pulverization, and content ejection. And neither do you.
<br/>
<br/>So in answer to your last question, balancing the laws of physics is why I'm talking about FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>In answer to your first question, the point of further debunking of my post is merited, because it clears by a wide margin the first hardle -- that of being compliant with physics and addressing all of the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>It is important, because if true, the FIGURATIVE nuclear fallout from such FGNW being discovered as having been used on 9/11 -- from the US government's own arsenals --, it could lead to a huge cleaning of the swamp in institutions, departments, and agencies.
<br/>
<br/>Damn, if FGNW don't explain the nature of GOP. They know what it was and it was on their watch. They know that it'll be eventually found out. So since Bush, they have callous as all get out, stealing and corrupting as much as possible.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 226 -->
<a name="x227"></a>
<h2><a href="#x227" class="tiny">x227</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_227');">We've addressed this</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_227" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Maxwell Bridges. We've addressed this.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 227 -->
<a name="x228"></a>
<h2><a href="#x228" class="tiny">x228</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_228');">flunking high school physics</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_228" style="display: block;">
<p>You flunking high school physics? So you admit to it.
<br/>
<br/>Turns out you can learn what you need to know online. Google "Newton's laws of conservation of energy."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 228 -->
<a name="x229"></a>
<h2><a href="#x229" class="tiny">x229</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_229');">margin of error</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_229" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Ok Maxwell Bridges. LOL.
<br/>
<br/>As above and below. Define your margin of error that has a collapse proceeding at an average acceleration of under 6 m/s^2, is within your "margin of error" of g. Being 9.81 m/s^2 of course.
<br/>
<br/>Your "margin of error" isn't meant to lead you to erroneous conclusions LOL.
<br/>
<br/>:D
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Lol. So what exactly is your margin of error? Your margin for error for comparing a predicted rate of collapse to a theoretical rate of collapse is 25-40%?
<br/>
<br/>LOL.
<br/>
<br/>Which university did you go to exactly? :).
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 229 -->
<a name="x230"></a>
<h2><a href="#x230" class="tiny">x230</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_230');">explains what Dr. Wood couldn't</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_230" style="display: block;">
<p>This article explains what Dr. Wood couldn't. Please give it a read and a download.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br/>
<br/>Sure, it is speculative. All of the really juicy how-to nuclear information sits behind "national security" firewalls and draconian non-disclosure agreements that include charges of treason.
<br/>
<br/>What is public on nuclear devices doesn't get there without vetting, without language being twisted from being "present state" to "what might be a future state."
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 230 -->
<a name="x231"></a>
<h2><a href="#x231" class="tiny">x231</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_231');">buildings could have collapsed by fire alone</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_231" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Maxwell Bridges... stop reposting the same retreads and deal with the fundamental issue.
<br/>
<br/>Why do you think the buildings could not have collapsed by fire alone?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 231 -->
<a name="x232"></a>
<h2><a href="#x232" class="tiny">x232</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_232');">Can't win by rational debate, so they resort to disinformation tactics</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_232" style="display: block;">
<p>Dude, this is my thread. The content is relative to the topic. Moreover, you haven't even looked into it to say "this is valid or this is bunk."
<br/>
<br/>Much better my reasoned repetition to egg on some legitimate discussion, than the spamming I usually get from others. Can't win by rational debate, so they resort to disinformation tactics.
<br/>
<br/>To your question, maybe the plane damage and fires COULD have initiated the collapse. For the sake of discussion, let's say they did. The issue is what happened after collapse initiation. Your energy equations for the evidence are way out of balance, and you're too much of an agenda-defender to acknowledge it.
<br/>
<br/>BTW, your assumption isn't true: the plane damage and fires COULD not have initiated the pulverizing destruction. Why? The jet fuel had burned off in the first 10 minutes. The fires observed had office furnishings as fuel which can't get hot enough -- in the time period in question -- to weaken the structure.
<br/>
<br/>Further, as designed, the load of the upper stories had already been transferred to sides without airplane gashes. Both towers were stable.
<br/>
<br/>Further, the collapse was sudden and symmetric. Fires are asymmetric; they traveled; they were waning in WTC-2 and oxygen starved in both (e.g., black smoke = incomplete combustion). Through the path of greatest resistance. At gravitational acceleration. While pulverizing and ejecting content.
<br/>
<br/>Your premise has been debunked. The only unresolved fundamental issue is your refusal to be compliant with the Newtonian laws of conservation of energy.
<br/>
<br/>If you want to further discuss your "no-energy-added gravitational acceleration through the path of maximum resistance while pulverizing and ejecting content" premise, you'll have to do it from your own post. It doesn't belong here.
<br/>
<br/>Even if you don't believe it, the expectation is that participants will make the big-ass assumption that FGNW were possible and were used, and explain how they don't match the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 232 -->
<a name="x233"></a>
<h2><a href="#x233" class="tiny">x233</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_233');">isn't worth examining</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_233" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Maxwell Bridges. If the fundamental issues aren't addressed - your "content" isn't worth examining :).
<br/>
<br/>As to your first actual claim - you've been repeatedly asked to show this. Yet you don't. Repeating the same claim ad naesum is not an argument, it's an opinion, demonstrably incorrect at that.
<br/>
<br/>As for "the office furnishings as fuel etc." Demonstrate that this is correct. You'll find it tricky, given plasco.
<br/>
<br/>Third statement - you're not addressing how the collapse is claimed to have started.
<br/>
<br/>Claims at sudden and symmetric - how else would a collapse have started? See plasco.
<br/>
<br/>Saying that the premise has been debunked - you have to show this Maxwell. You should know this. So why aren't you?
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Make a prima facie case for that and you win.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 233 -->
<a name="x234"></a>
<h2><a href="#x234" class="tiny">x234</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_234');">this thread is for FGNW</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_234" style="display: block;">
<p>Show me ON YOUR OWN POSTING how to make a prima facie case.
<br/>
<br/>But do it for OCT and its sudden and symmetric pulverizing collapse through the path of greatest resistance while ejecting content and not having any energy added.
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, this thread is for FGNW. Discuss the topic, or go elsewhere.
<br/>
<br/>BTW. BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. Beat you to it. The ole "making a prima facie case" for FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Duuuuuuuuuh? Refer to the blog posting that is the anchor for this discussion.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 234 -->
<a name="x235"></a>
<h2><a href="#x235" class="tiny">x235</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_235');">Crap In, Crap out</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_235" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Why so aggressive Maxwell Bridges? Is it because you know that you haven't addressed the fundamentals and thus all that 'work' you have done, based on a false underlying assumption is wrong?
<br/>
<br/>Crap In, Crap out my friend.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 235 -->
<a name="x236"></a>
<h2><a href="#x236" class="tiny">x236</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_236');">Too lazy and too stupid to address my sources</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_236" style="display: block;">
<p>Why do you post bullshit distractions? Too lazy and too stupid to address my sources -- point-by-point -- to debunk them?
<br/>
<br/>Come on. If it really was your lame-ass gravity without energy added, then you could go through point-by-point and explain where my analysis goes wrong.
<br/>
<br/>Here's the catch. Your premise can't explain the other anomalies given in my blog posting: steel doobies, steel arches, steel horseshoes. Go ahead. Explain them with gravity and no energy added.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 236 -->
<a name="x237"></a>
<h2><a href="#x237" class="tiny">x237</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_237');">wasnt enough energy</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_237" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith I'm dealing with the fundamentals, which you apparently ignore.
<br/>
<br/>You have repeatedly claimed that there simply wasnt enough energy - show this. :).
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 237 -->
<a name="x238"></a>
<h2><a href="#x238" class="tiny">x238</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_238');">Still don't have your own link to a go-to posting</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_238" style="display: block;">
<p>Fundamentals that you don't grasp. Still don't have your own link to a go-to posting that lays out your claim and defends it with real physics.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 238 -->
<a name="x239"></a>
<h2><a href="#x239" class="tiny">x239</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_239');">couldn't be bothered</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_239" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Lol.
<br/>
<br/>Firstly it's your claim and secondly don't forget that physics is physics. I don't need to "post a link" to prove your statements wrong lol.
<br/>Manage
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Since Maxwell Bridges couldn't be bothered to answer this post originally here we go.
<br/>
<br/>"You have not started there Maxwell :). You've skipped go and gone straight to FGNW :).
<br/>
<br/>"Within the margin of error of free-fall"... What does that even mean? Oh an an object dropped from either roof? Well apart from 'your' margin of error apparently being 20% despite the hours being the same height - the collapses didn't start from the roof!
<br/>
<br/>Oh and quote the NIST collapse times please. I think you've got them wrong."
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 239 -->
<a name="x240"></a>
<h2><a href="#x240" class="tiny">x240</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_240');">stop spamming this FGNW thread</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_240" style="display: block;">
<p>Take your OCT discussion elsewhere and stop spamming this FGNW thread with nonsense.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 240 -->
<a name="x241"></a>
<h2><a href="#x241" class="tiny">x241</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_241');">Life is hard</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_241" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Answer the points Maxwell Bridges. Don't be scared. You brought physics into this, so nut up or shut up.
<br/>
<br/>Are you all mouth and no trousers Mr anonymous?
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Oh my word, that is fabulous.
<br/>
<br/>Could you actually provide your definition of "margin of error". That's fabulous.
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith It is interesting that Maxwell Bridges claims that average acceleration of 5.7-6.8 m/s^2 are within the "margin of error" of 9.81 m/s^2.
<br/>
<br/>Beautiful.
<br/>
<br/>That's some margin of error Max.
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Lol, the last statement. That maybe your "margin of error", but generally margins of error are not between 25 and 40% of the observed reading lol!
<br/>
<br/>Come on Maxwell Bridges do explain what 'your' margin of error actually consists of :).
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Oh, and if you're talking about energy balances Maxwell Bridges, that's exactly what you can do. You claimed that the collapses proceeded at "freefall speed" and because of this there was no energy to do anything else. The collapses actually happened at least 25-40% slower than that, stating the obvious that energy was dissipated doing something else as well.
<br/>
<br/>I I know max. Life is hard!
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 241 -->
<a name="x242"></a>
<h2><a href="#x242" class="tiny">x242</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_242');">defending the OCT blatant lies and deceit</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_242" style="display: block;">
<p>Life is extremely hard for you. Always defending the OCT blatant lies and deceit. All you got is mockery and game playing.
<br/>
<br/>When considering the great strength of the WTC towers as the path of greatest resistance, you have yet to provide any force equations on the upper story mass to prove that gravity alone had sufficient energy to pulverize content & (stronger) structure below in a time within 2.7 seconds of free-fall.
<br/>
<br/>Worse, is that the "upper story mass" or "pile driver" was far from a cohesive whole. Just look at the Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower by David Chandler.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
<br/>
<br/>How did that originally solid "upper story mass" suddenly fall at 65% the speed of gravity? How did it suddenly loose 65% of its structural strength become "not" solid anymore, put pulverized?
<br/>
<br/>I'll save you some time. FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW deposit highly energetic neutrons DEEPLY PENETRATING into materials. Ablating is one effect. Volume heating is another. Heat supporting steel instantly to foundry levels, and they'll lose strength. A side effect of ablating, is that the instant vaporization of the leading surface can send a shock wave into the rest of the (heated & weakened) material, "dustifying" it. The steel pans for the concrete floors and their supporting trestle were woefully under-represented in the debris pile, while pulverized concrete was everywhere.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 242 -->
<a name="x243"></a>
<h2><a href="#x243" class="tiny">x243</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_243');">energy balances</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_243" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith It is interesting that old Maxwell Bridges still gets the basic physic wrong.
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Oh, and if you're talking about energy balances Maxwell Bridges, that's exactly what you can do. You claimed that the collapses proceeded at "freefall speed" and because of this there was no energy to do anything else. The collapses actually happened at least 25-40% slower than that, stating the obvious that energy was dissipated doing something else as well.
<br/>
<br/>I I know max. Life is hard!
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 243 -->
<a name="x244"></a>
<h2><a href="#x244" class="tiny">x244</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_244');">path of greatest resistance</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_244" style="display: block;">
<p>When considering the great strength of the WTC towers as the path of greatest resistance, you -- Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith -- have yet to provide any force equations on the upper story mass to prove that gravity alone had sufficient energy to pulverize content & (stronger) structure of itself in that first phase.
<br/>
<br/>The "upper story mass" or "pile driver" was far from a cohesive whole. Just look at the Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower by David Chandler.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
<br/>
<br/>How did that originally solid "upper story mass" suddenly fall at 65% the speed of gravity? How did it suddenly loose 65% of its structural strength become "not" solid anymore, put pulverized?
<br/>
<br/>I'll save you some time. FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW deposit highly energetic neutrons DEEPLY PENETRATING into materials. Ablating is one effect. Volume heating is another. Heat supporting steel instantly to foundry levels, and they'll lose strength. A side effect of ablating, is that the instant vaporization of the leading surface can send a shock wave into the rest of the (heated & weakened) material, "dustifying" it. The steel pans for the concrete floors and their supporting trestle were woefully under-represented in the debris pile, while pulverized concrete was everywhere.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 244 -->
<a name="x245"></a>
<h2><a href="#x245" class="tiny">x245</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_245');">Must be too hard</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_245" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Oh and since Maxwell Bridges is on one of those episodes here is another post left unaddressed. Must be too hard for Maxwell. Unsurprisingly.
<br/>
<br/>"Oh and "Energy had to be added" - show this Maxwell! It's all very good saying it, but since you brought up physics... You'll know that you'll need to show your working :).
<br/>
<br/>"Over designed for the mass above? Sure. What is the difference in force that a 1 kg static load presents and the impact load of the same mass dropped from 4 metres. Assume that it takes less than 0.1mm to come to a complete stop."
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 245 -->
<a name="x246"></a>
<h2><a href="#x246" class="tiny">x246</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_246');">Address the Cornell University article</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_246" style="display: block;">
<p>Address the Cornell University article on FGNW. That would be on topic. Otherwise, you're spamming this thread, and it is so noted (and your integrity in the eyes of objective readers gets appropriately dinged.)
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 246 -->
<a name="x247"></a>
<h2><a href="#x247" class="tiny">x247</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_247');">disparaged my physics credentials</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_247" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Lol. You made the statements.
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith You then disparaged my physics credentials.
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith And then you refuse to answer a simple question. Not a surprise Maxwell Bridges.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 247 -->
<a name="x248"></a>
<h2><a href="#x248" class="tiny">x248</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_248');">Don't be pawning onto me the busy work</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_248" style="display: block;">
<p>Distractions that have already been addressed. I'll copy and paste my original response:
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, Don't be pawning onto me the busy work needed to defend your OCT claims. You make the lame claim, you defend it.
<br/>
<br/>And when you show the physics calculations for the impact load of the 1 kg mass A dropping from 4 metres onto mass B, your work must prove that weaker mass A can pulverize stronger mass B ~and~ that the acceleration of combined mass A+B after impact remains at gravitational acceleration (no slowing after impact) when they travel the next 4 meters to mass C.
<br/>
<br/>I'm feeling fair. Although strength of mass C > mass B > mass A, you can assume A=B=C. Also, although mass A (the upper 20 stories) was pulverized and wasn't a cohesive whole anymore before it approached mass B, I'll let you assume a solid mass A.
<br/>
<br/>Remember that according to your premise, energy cannot be added and the combined masses cannot slow from gravitational acceleration after impact.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 248 -->
<a name="x249"></a>
<h2><a href="#x249" class="tiny">x249</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_249');">It is always funny to see 9/11 truthers</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_249" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith It is always funny to see 9/11 truthers disparage other people's abilities especially in regards to physics, yet be completely unable to work out simple forces.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 249 -->
<a name="x250"></a>
<h2><a href="#x250" class="tiny">x250</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_250');">You're the one making the case, you prove it</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_250" style="display: block;">
<p>Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, I don't need to work them out. YOU DO. You're the one making the case, you prove it. You cough up the physics.
<br/>
<br/>Were I to do it for you, I'd be a chump to perform busy work that you'll promptly ignore.
<br/>
<br/>The burden of proof is on you.
<br/>
<br/>But it shouldn't happen here, because it is off-topic. Make your own damn thread with your prima face case.
<br/>
<br/>You're a game player, otherwise that's were you'd be.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 250 -->
<a name="x251"></a>
<h2><a href="#x251" class="tiny">x251</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_251');">Life is hard.</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_251" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Actually Maxwell Bridges - you're the one who claims that collapse couldn't have happened because of the structure was over designed for "the mass above".
<br/>
<br/>Show this Maxwell. Your claim. But first you'll need to know the likely collapse mechanism and be able to work out forces.
<br/>
<br/>:). I know. Life is hard.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 251 -->
<a name="x252"></a>
<h2><a href="#x252" class="tiny">x252</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_252');">Energy was added</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_252" style="display: block;">
<p>According to David Chandler, the 20 stories= 200 ft (assuming 10 ft/story) fell a1 at 65% the speed of gravity. [Numbers can be tweaked, but the conclusion will be the same.]
<br/>
<br/>a1 = 6.31 m/s^2 = (6.31 m) * (3.28 ft/m)/s^2 = 20.7 ft/s^2
<br/>t1 = sqr[2 * d1/a1]
<br/>t1 = sqr[2* 200 ft/ (20.7 ft/s^2)] = sqr[400/20.7 s^2]
<br/>t1 = 4.4 seconds
<br/>
<br/>The top 20 stories took 4.4 seconds to pulverize through to the impact zone, which is d2 = 1100 - 200 ft = 900 ft.
<br/>
<br/>NIST says total collapse took 11 seconds. Time for d1 was t1, 4.4 seconds. Therefore, time to fall remaining d2=900 ft is given by t2.
<br/>t2 = 11 - 4.4 seconds = 6.6 s.
<br/>
<br/>a2 = 2*d2/(t2^2) = 2*900/(6.6 s)^2
<br/>a2 = 41.32 ft/s^2.
<br/>
<br/>Bad new for you OCTers.
<br/>
<br/>Conclusion: This simple calculation says that the acceleration from the impact level down to the street was FASTER than gravitational acceleration (32 ft/s^2).
<br/>
<br/>You can tweak the number of stories, etc. but the conclusion will be the same. Downward acceleration FASTER than gravity while pulverizing and ejecting content.
<br/>
<br/>If you admit right now that Allah is great and can break his own laws of the physical universe, maybe I'll give you a pass.
<br/>
<br/>But because you probably aren't Muslim, the proper answer is: Energy was added.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 252 -->
<a name="x253"></a>
<h2><a href="#x253" class="tiny">x253</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_253');">Answers on a post card</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_253" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Old Maxwell Bridges appears to have made another fundamental "ASSumption". AND IT IS DELICIOUS. For some strange reason, Old Maxwell Bridges has assumed that the collapse 'immediately' reduces in velocity from 27.8 m/s to zero and the collapse commences from zero velocity again. Which is plainly incorrect!
<br/>
<br/>If we actually plug in Maxwell Bridges time & distance figures, as well as derived velocity at the end of Bridge's first stage (27.8 m/s or 91.1 ft/s) into: a = 2s/t^2 - 2u/t
<br/>
<br/>a= average acceleration
<br/>s= Displacement
<br/>t= Time
<br/>u= Initial velocity
<br/>
<br/>we'll find that the collapse rate is much slower (4.2 m/s^2 or 13.1 ft/s^2). So clearly something is wrong with Max's use of s = ut + ½at^2, as well as there is likely something wrong with at least some of Maxwell Bridges underlying assumptions.
<br/>
<br/>However what'll we also note is the Maxwell Bridges does not explain how his 'hypothesis' explains how the rest of the building managed to descend faster than gravity would provide on it's on, despite having nuclear bombs applied force, below it :).
<br/>
<br/>Answers on a post card.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 253 -->
<a name="x254"></a>
<h2><a href="#x254" class="tiny">x254</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_254');">v1 was not included</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_254" style="display: block;">
<p>Congratulations, Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith. Indeed v1 was not included, and v1=91.1 ft/s is what I get, too. And indeed, it does reduce the acceleration a2. Yes, a2 is slower than gravity.
<br/>
<br/>Alas, we put the cart before the horse if you don't analyze how the upper 20-stories -- without the benefit of a pile-driver on top -- could decimate themselves suddenly such that the roof's acceleration was a constant 20.7 ft/s^2, which is 65% gravity. Which implies the upper block lost a minimum of 65% of its internal strength instantly. (Given the over-design aspect, the actual strength lost was more.)
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
<br/>
<br/>My answer is the FGNW deposited highly energetic neutrons into the upper block, turning concrete to powder, vaporizing the steel plates that held the concrete floor slaps, and effecting volume heating (to foundry levels) on the other structural elements to make them lose strength.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Seeing how Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith keeps trying to distract us (spam us) with OCT disinformation about Allah breaking his own laws of physics, and seeing how I do desire rational discussion on the FGNW topic, here's what participants need to review.
<br/>
<br/>Here you go, everybody. Dr. Andre Gsponer is my 9/11 hero, and he has never written one word that I am aware of about 9/11 or links FGNW to 9/11. Yet, he's the grand omission by all in the OCT, the 911 TM, A&E911 Truth, Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, ...
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
<br/>
<br/>For all you wannabe debunkers, now is your chance to debunk legitimately FGNW, nukes, DEW, the anonymous physicist, and Dr. Wood all in one go.
<br/>
<br/>Reading the above, and FGNW immediately falls into the category of non-fiction. So save your unicorn smears for elsewhere.
<br/>
<br/>Study it, and explain where it is wrong. Failing that, think out of the box about (a) if it were deployed, (b) what would it look like? sound like? leave behind?
<br/>
<br/>Take your time. Lots of it. Read it thoroughly. (Go back to my opus, too.) Compose your well researched, well reasoned, well articulated rebuttal off-line. You're paid to do it; I'm not.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 254 -->
<a name="x255"></a>
<h2><a href="#x255" class="tiny">x255</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_255');">spamming</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_255" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Maxwell Bridges since you're spamming your own Thread, please address the following posts which you repeatedly fail to address.
<br/>
<br/>"You have not started there Maxwell :). You've skipped go and gone straight to FGNW :).
<br/>
<br/>"Within the margin of error of free-fall"... What does that even mean? Oh an an object dropped from either roof? Well apart from 'your' margin of error apparently being 20% despite the hours being the same height - the collapses didn't start from the roof!
<br/>
<br/>Oh and quote the NIST collapse times please. I think you've got them wrong."
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Oh and since Maxwell Bridges is on one of those episodes here is another post left unaddressed. Must be too hard for Maxwell. Unsurprisingly.
<br/>
<br/>"Oh and "Energy had to be added" - show this Maxwell! It's all very good saying it, but since you brought up physics... You'll know that you'll need to show your working :).
<br/>
<br/>"Over designed for the mass above? Sure. What is the difference in force that a 1 kg static load presents and the impact load of the same mass dropped from 4 metres. Assume that it takes less than 0.1mm to come to a complete stop."
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 255 -->
<a name="x256"></a>
<h2><a href="#x256" class="tiny">x256</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_256');">Ho-hum, spammer</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_256" style="display: block;">
<p>Ho-hum, spammer.
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, Don't be pawning onto me the busy work needed to defend your OCT claims. You make the lame claim, you defend it.
<br/>
<br/>And when you show the physics calculations for the impact load of the 1 kg mass A dropping from 4 metres onto mass B, your work must prove that weaker mass A can pulverize stronger mass B ~and~ that the acceleration of combined mass A+B after impact remains at gravitational acceleration (no slowing after impact) when they travel the next 4 meters to mass C.
<br/>
<br/>I'm feeling fair. Although strength of mass C > mass B > mass A, you can assume A=B=C. Also, although mass A (the upper 20 stories) was pulverized and wasn't a cohesive whole anymore before it approached mass B, I'll let you assume a solid mass A.
<br/>
<br/>Remember that according to your premise, energy cannot be added and the combined masses cannot slow from gravitational acceleration after impact.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Maxwell Bridges https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HNIIdpMhFg
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 256 -->
<a name="x257"></a>
<h2><a href="#x257" class="tiny">x257</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_257');">wittering about physics</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_257" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith That's brilliant. Maxwell Bridges wittering about physics and is unable to work out forces.
<br/>
<br/>Beautiful.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 257 -->
<a name="x258"></a>
<h2><a href="#x258" class="tiny">x258</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_258');">One link and be done</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_258" style="display: block;">
<p>Conor Eaton-Smith post a link to where you made your lame-ass speculation into gravity without added energy caused pulverization through the path of greatest resistance. You are making the claim; you provide the physics that validates it. Don't be pawning off on me the busy work to make your case (because I already know that it can't be done.)
<br/>
<br/>One link and be done. You've been championing it for years. Put up and shut up.
<br/>
<br/>Thereafter, the topic is FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 258 -->
<a name="x259"></a>
<h2><a href="#x259" class="tiny">x259</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_259');">unable to work out forces</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_259" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Lol.
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges. All those words and you're still unable to work out forces!
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 259 -->
<a name="x260"></a>
<h2><a href="#x260" class="tiny">x260</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_260');">fall back to spamming</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_260" style="display: block;">
<p>Debunk David Chandler. Still unable to address it point by point, so you fall back to spamming this forum.
<br/>
<br/>Why are you so concerned about attacking me and not my premise? Because you are an agenda-defender spammer whose only tools are distraction; not rational discussion.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 260 -->
<a name="x261"></a>
<h2><a href="#x261" class="tiny">x261</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_261');">appeal to authority</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_261" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith "Debunk David Chandler" - resorting to appeal to authority already Max? You're the poster who makes reference to physics - are you know telling us you're unable to back up your big words?
<br/>
<br/>Show your work Maxwell Bridges.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 261 -->
<a name="x262"></a>
<h2><a href="#x262" class="tiny">x262</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_262');">ASSume</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_262" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Let's start where you "ASSume" that the collapses required additional energy :).
<br/>
<br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley Maxwell Bridges "The discussion in this thread is about FGNW."
<br/>
<br/>WRONG - yet again Mr Bridges. It is YOUR OP in which YOU state:
<br/>" This article makes the case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGND) were used on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center."
<br/>
<br/>So - correcting your lie - "The discussion in this thread is about a claim that FGNW were used at wTC on 9/11" << Your claim - WERE USED - your burden of proof.
<br/>
<br/>I'll remind you once again that YOU have not posted any hypothesis supporting EITHER a claim that FGNW were used on 9/11 OR how FGNW were used.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 262 -->
<a name="x263"></a>
<h2><a href="#x263" class="tiny">x263</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_263');">not risen up to READ it, much less debunk</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_263" style="display: block;">
<p>I rose up to the burden of proof. You have not risen up to READ it, much less debunk. All you can do is drop hypnotic suggestion that I haven't.
<br/>
<br/>If you aren't willing to do legitimate work as a debunker, then you are a tool and agent of disinformation.
<br/>
<br/>RTFM, mo fo.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 263 -->
<a name="x264"></a>
<h2><a href="#x264" class="tiny">x264</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_264');">ASSumption</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_264" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Maxwell Bridges - your underlying "ASSumption" is that the buildings required something else to collapse. I'm challenging this fundamental "ASSumption".
<br/>
<br/>To which, you've demonstrated handily that your underlying argument is incorrect because you did not consider the initial velocity on your "second stage".
<br/>
<br/>Who were you calling a "Liar and a Idiot"? :).
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 264 -->
<a name="x265"></a>
<h2><a href="#x265" class="tiny">x265</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_265');">suddenly fall at 65% the speed of gravity</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_265" style="display: block;">
<p>Own what I was calling you. You earned it.
<br/>
<br/>Life is extremely hard for you. Always defending the OCT blatant lies and deceit. All you got is mockery and game playing.
<br/>
<br/>When considering the great strength of the WTC towers as the path of greatest resistance, you have yet to provide any force equations on the upper story mass to prove that gravity alone had sufficient energy to pulverize content & (stronger) structure below in a time within 2.7 seconds of free-fall.
<br/>
<br/>Yes, I left out v1 (the velocity after time t1), because it is your premise that upper blocks were a cohesive pile driver; under that assumption, v1 of the block is zero.
<br/>
<br/>Worse, is that the "upper story mass" or "pile driver" was far from a cohesive whole. Just look at the Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower by David Chandler.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
<br/>
<br/>How did that originally solid "upper story mass" suddenly fall at 65% the speed of gravity? How did it suddenly loose 65% of its structural strength become "not" solid anymore, put pulverized?
<br/>
<br/>I'll save you some time. FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW deposit highly energetic neutrons DEEPLY PENETRATING into materials. Ablating is one effect. Volume heating is another. Heat supporting steel instantly to foundry levels, and they'll lose strength. A side effect of ablating, is that the instant vaporization of the leading surface can send a shock wave into the rest of the (heated & weakened) material, "dustifying" it. The steel pans for the concrete floors and their supporting trestle were woefully under-represented in the debris pile, while pulverized concrete was everywhere.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 265 -->
<a name="x266"></a>
<h2><a href="#x266" class="tiny">x266</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_266');">what is my premise again?</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_266" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Sorry, what is my premise again? Making stuff up again Maxwell Bridges?
<br/>
<br/>You have caught out on basic physics - so own it Maxwell Bridges.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 266 -->
<a name="x267"></a>
<h2><a href="#x267" class="tiny">x267</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_267');">downward acceleration of WTC-1</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_267" style="display: block;">
<p>Conor Eaton-Smith apply your basic physics to the downward acceleration of WTC-1. Explain with gravity alone and no energy added how the pulverized content could be seeping out so soon, and without a block on top to make it so.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Maxwell Bridges The discussion in this thread is about FGNW. It is not gravitational acceleration without energy being added.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith, stop spamming this thread with your non-sense of gravity without energy being responsible.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 267 -->
<a name="x268"></a>
<h2><a href="#x268" class="tiny">x268</a>
Conor Eaton-Smith : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_268');">further more hilarious</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_268" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith Isn't it funny that the only person spamming this group is the anonymous poster who repeatedly cut and pastes the same posts onto different groups with 5 minutes of each other.
<br/>
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith
<br/>Conor Eaton-Smith It's further more hilarious - that old Maxwell Bridges uses terms like "path of greatest resistance". It's folk physics - and old Maxwell Bridges still spouts it like it means something.
<br/>
<br/>LOL
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 268 -->
<a name="x269"></a>
<h2><a href="#x269" class="tiny">x269</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_269');">I desire rational discussion</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_269" style="display: block;">
<p>Isn't it funny how my comments uses physics and validated papers on physics, and how I desire rational discussion. Yet those who respond do so by spam, by mockery or by assuming that the OCT and its physics is true. Therefore, those cowards foist up the strawman that FGNW can't be discussed until their gravity-only pulverizing collapse is debunked. They want me to do their work.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 269 -->
<a name="x270"></a>
<h2><a href="#x270" class="tiny">x270</a>
Bill Paisley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_270');"> the most insane, asinine, absurd and ridiculous things</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_270" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bill Paisley
<br/>Bill Paisley As far as I'm concerned, you have posted nothing but spam. The very idea of a nuclear device being set off in downtown Manhattan on Sept 11 is without a doubt the most insane, asinine, absurd and ridiculous things anyone has ever come up with in recorded history. The only people rallying around this crazy, nutz-o thing are fringe and beyond the fringe nut-jobs who have no grasp on the realities of this life. Any rational, sentient, breathing and upright human being with two brain cells to rub together understands that no nuke was used on 9/11. To claim so does nothing but advances the comical element of life.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 270 -->
<a name="x271"></a>
<h2><a href="#x271" class="tiny">x271</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_271');">repeated false claims and evasions</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_271" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley I agree Bill - and - in more formal language - he has simply failed to meet Burden of Proof and repeatedly uses lies and other debating tricks.
<br/>
<br/>In essence he makes two claims viz:
<br/>1) FGNW could have been be used to bring down WTC Towers; AND
<br/>2) FGNW were used.
<br/>
<br/>All his posting is directed at "1)" - the "could have been used" aspect of FGNW capability. Which may be true or false BUT is irrelevant - moot - until he proves "was used". (In a murder by shooting case the prosecution has to prove that the deceased was killed by a bullet deliberately fired by the accused with the intent to kill. Proving that many experts agree that bullets can kill does not make the case. It is irrelevant. Maxwell Bridges's "proof" is equivalent to multiple reposting/re-linking of proof that bullets can kill. Wow. ;) )
<br/>
<br/>AND - to prove "was used" he MUST show how it fitted into the actual observed collapse mechanism(s). AND - to do that - it MUST be the trigger for the "cascading sequenced failure" of columns which initiated the collapses of the two Twin Towers. That sequence took minutes of elapsed time. So he needs to explain how a single device acted unobserved over several minutes OR why a sequence of micro-mini devices were needed with staggered firing times -- when in reality the actual heat driven process did not need assistance
<br/>
<br/>Naturally he is not up to the challenge hence the repeated false claims and evasions.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 271 -->
<a name="x272"></a>
<h2><a href="#x272" class="tiny">x272</a>
Bill Paisley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_272');">Using the Reasonable Man's approach...</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_272" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bill Paisley
<br/>Bill Paisley We have a saying in the Navy that we use often - "Using the Reasonable Man's approach..." which, in my definition, is a head nod to a logical, practical, ethical, no-nonsense examination of the facts of a case and applying what any reasonable man/person would apply in those cases. It has not failed me in the years I have employed that approach to things and I would highly recommend it to anyone who is tempted by the Dark Side of Trutherism.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 272 -->
<a name="x273"></a>
<h2><a href="#x273" class="tiny">x273</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_273');">hypnotic suggestion and mockery</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_273" style="display: block;">
<p>Shit, you are the debunkers, yet your statements amount to hypnotic suggestion and mockery. "The very idea of a nuclear device being set off in downtown Manhattan on Sept 11 is without a doubt the most insane, asinine, absurd and ridiculous things anyone has ever come up with in recorded history."
<br/>
<br/>If it is really so "insane, asinine, absurd and ridiculous", then it should be easy for you to legitimately debunk it: section by section, source by source.
<br/>
<br/>Your problem is that you are paid to defend an agenda: that of the OCT and a gravity collapse. A fiction. Energy had to be added.
<br/>
<br/>Look closely at the analysis of the WTC-1 upper stories. Turn the volume off if you have to.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
<br/>
<br/>FGNW explains how those upper 20 stories could instantly lose symmetrically 65% of their strength (if not more) to fall at 65% gravity while indicating pulverization of content, yet another huge energy sink that gravity alone cannot account for.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 273 -->
<a name="x274"></a>
<h2><a href="#x274" class="tiny">x274</a>
Bill Paisley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_274');">stunning absurdity and insanity of that claim debunks itself</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_274" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bill Paisley
<br/>Bill Paisley It *is* easy for me to "legitimately debunk" anything you claim regarding nuclear weapons being detonated at the WTC on 9/11. How do I do it? Simply point to your posts. The stunning absurdity and insanity of that claim debunks itself. No question. I look forward to more of your Gish-gallop and tortured locution.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 274 -->
<a name="x275"></a>
<h2><a href="#x275" class="tiny">x275</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_275');">Sooooo-oooh convincing</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_275" style="display: block;">
<p>Bravo, Mr. Bill Paisley. That was just Sooooo-oooh convincing. You really got me with that comment. It is in a league by itself. Golly-geesh, I have never been so blown away with stellar intellect and articulation that simply makes my toes curl and my pubic hair stand up-right.
<br/>
<br/>The sunning absurdity and insanity of the debunkers debunks themselves with every weasel move to avoid. talking. specifics.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 275 -->
<a name="x276"></a>
<h2><a href="#x276" class="tiny">x276</a>
Bill Paisley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_276');">Yanno</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_276" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bill Paisley
<br/>Bill Paisley Yanno, whether or not I am convincing to someone who believes nuclear weapons were detonated in lower Manhattan on 9/11...well, let's just say I'm not really too concerned about that.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 276 -->
<a name="x277"></a>
<h2><a href="#x277" class="tiny">x277</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_277');">weasel cheater</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_277" style="display: block;">
<p>"FGNW," you weasel cheater. If you can even use the proper terminology, then you obviously know nothing on the subject.
<br/>
<br/>Worse, you don't even want to try to learn something about the subject. Here's a quote from a real scientist:
<br/>+++
<br/>Let us suppose that the yield from an idealized DT-based FGNW consists of about 20% in soft X-rays and 80% in 14 MeV neutrons. Let us also take into account that relative to a surface at some distance from the point of explosion, 50% of each of these radiations will flow forwards, and 50% backwards.
<br/>
<br/>If we suppose that this weapon has a yield in the range of a few tons, and is detonated in air at a relatively short distance from a target, say a few meters, most of the forwards going X-rays will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
<br/>
<br/>The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
<br/>
<br/>A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
<br/>+++
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Maxwell Bridges It talks about detonating in air. Now consider detonation from within a structure.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 277 -->
<a name="x278"></a>
<h2><a href="#x278" class="tiny">x278</a>
Bill Paisley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_278');">Reasonable man's approach</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_278" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bill Paisley
<br/>Bill Paisley "Reasonable man's approach": Detonate nuclear weapons "within a structure" and it collapses from the top down.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 278 -->
<a name="x279"></a>
<h2><a href="#x279" class="tiny">x279</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_279');">position of ignorance</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_279" style="display: block;">
<p>Arguing from a position of ignorance is not strength. RTFM. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 279 -->
<a name="x280"></a>
<h2><a href="#x280" class="tiny">x280</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_280');">lies about lies</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_280" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley Maxwell Bridges "Isn't it funny how my comments uses physics and validated papers on physics" << Which are irrelevant and have been falsified
<br/>
<br/>"...and how I desire rational discussion" << A lie - you have evaded debate by false counter-claims
<br/>
<br/>"Yet those who respond do so by spam, by mockery..." << False and partial truth respectively - the mockery of the stupid aspects of your claims is warranted.
<br/>
<br/>"...or by assuming that the OCT and its physics is true." << False - the fatal problem lies within YOUR claims in that you fail burden of proof to show how FGNW were needed and were used at WTC and you repeatedly lie by claiming you have met your BoP when you haven't.
<br/>
<br/>"Therefore, those cowards foist up the strawman that FGNW can't be discussed until their gravity-only pulverizing collapse is debunked." << Constructive lies...the legitimate demand made of you is that you prove FGNW was/were used. The extant hypotheses of the accepted narratives remain until you falsify them and produce better. You dishonest assertion of the strawman "their gravity-only pulverizing collapse" is an evasion by you.
<br/>
<br/>"They want me to do their work." << another lie - whatever true or errant claims debunkers may have made makes zero difference to the fact that YOU have not met your BoP. YOU have not "done YOUR work".
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 280 -->
<a name="x281"></a>
<h2><a href="#x281" class="tiny">x281</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_281');">foisting up a straw-man</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_281" style="display: block;">
<p>My premise is FGNW, not gravity-driven pulverization (your premise.) You've been foisting up a straw-man that I first have to debunk your premise first before you'll discuss details of FGNW. Game playing and cheating.
<br/>
<br/>But I did debunk your premise. I did it by first assuming gravity-driven pulverization was true, and then working out why the energy equations in the physics don't add up. The David Chandler videos, you've ignored.
<br/>
<br/>You have not done any similar favors of assuming my premise true, and then working out why it might not be.
<br/>
<br/>Everything you and your debunking team mates have asked, to your chagrin, I have delivered. You ignored it, which then categorizes the request as busy work and more game playing.
<br/>
<br/>Stop playing games. You want FGNW debunked? So do I. It can only be done legitimately, section-by-section.
<br/>
<br/>The reason you haven't done that: you'd have to acknowledge and rescue the nuggets of truth that gravity-driven pulverization cannot: like horse shoes, arches, steel doobies, vehicle damage, and meteors.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Isn't it funny how you have not once referenced and debunked any section in the document, that coincidentally uses physics and is a validated paper on physics?
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br/>
<br/>Gee, David Chandler is a high school physics teacher, and you haven't explained how gravity got the WTC-1 tower to pulverize itself.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Maxwell Bridges Quote:
<br/>Let us suppose that the yield from an idealized DT-based FGNW consists of about 20% in soft X-rays and 80% in 14 MeV neutrons. Let us also take into account that relative to a surface at some distance from the point of explosion, 50% of each of these radiations will flow forwards, and 50% backwards.
<br/>
<br/>If we suppose that this weapon has a yield in the range of a few tons, and is detonated in air at a relatively short distance from a target, say a few meters, most of the forwards going X-rays will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
<br/>
<br/>The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
<br/>
<br/>A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 281 -->
<a name="x282"></a>
<h2><a href="#x282" class="tiny">x282</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_282');">explain HOW FGNW could have been used at WTC</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_282" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley Why not stop the stupid speculations and simply explain HOW FGNW could have been used at WTC.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 282 -->
<a name="x283"></a>
<h2><a href="#x283" class="tiny">x283</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_283');">Why don't you RTFM</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_283" style="display: block;">
<p>Busy work, busy work, busy busy busy work.
<br/>
<br/>Why don't you RTFM, you weasel and cheater? You complain about me posting spam, but I've been posting URLs to the two articles that you are too chickenshit to wade into. Might hurt yur widdal bwaayne.
<br/>
<br/>You gave me that challenge before. I obliged. Multiple times. You go find it. I made it easy for you by putting in the leading tag "[Batshit crazy speculation]".
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 283 -->
<a name="x284"></a>
<h2><a href="#x284" class="tiny">x284</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_284');">FORTHCOMING</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_284" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague BETTER QUOTE ...
<br/>
<br/>(1 Introduction
<br/>Sixty years after the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, this paper is discussing
<br/>the elaboration and characteristics of a forthcoming generation of war-fighting
<br/>nuclear weapons which has been under serious consideration for more than fifty
<br/>years, and which may become a reality within a decade or two)
<br/>
<br/>I'll highlight the RELEVANT words for Bridges in case they flew over him
<br/>
<br/>FORTHCOMING
<br/>
<br/>MAY BECOME A REALITY WITHIN A DECADE OR TWO
<br/>
<br/>MAY ...short word ...BIG meaning.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 284 -->
<a name="x285"></a>
<h2><a href="#x285" class="tiny">x285</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_285');">I choose to NOT play his silly game</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_285" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley ^^^ Understood Elizabeth - BUT I'm sure you understand why I choose to NOT play his silly game. The fatal aspect is that - even if they were viable - they were not used AND could not be used.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 285 -->
<a name="x286"></a>
<h2><a href="#x286" class="tiny">x286</a>
Bob Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_286');">mini-nukes are real</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_286" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bob Weber
<br/>Bob Weber Everyone knows that mini-nukes are real! The NWO even announced them on the Japanese children's TV show STARMAN! Aren't kids TV shows where the NWO deliberately tips its hand? ??
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 286 -->
<a name="x287"></a>
<h2><a href="#x287" class="tiny">x287</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_287');">turned off commenting for this post</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_287" style="display: block;">
<p>Discussion here has run its course. If you want to further debunk it, I'd be happy for the efforts. On my blog. Follow the link to the article that anchors this posting.
<br/>
<br/>Meanwhile, by design of FB, you can let this thread slip lower and lower and out of view so that it practically disappears.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>{mcb: turned off commenting for this post.}
</p>
</div><!-- section 287 -->
<a name="x288"></a>
<h2><a href="#x288" class="tiny">x288</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_288');">Participants at Fair and Civil have been busy... Ignoring this post</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-18</p>
<div id="sect_288" style="display: block;">
<p>Participants at Fair and Civil have been busy... Ignoring this post. And then creating their own posts with a straw man interpretation of this premise and ad hominem attacks.
<br/>
<br/>I just want it legitimately debunked so I can stop being the sole duped useful idiot who believes it as truth and rabidly defends it. Make a convincing, rational argument so I can change my mind and be ushered like a lost sheep back into the fold of whatever it is I'm supposed to believe about 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 288 -->
<a name="x289"></a>
<h2><a href="#x289" class="tiny">x289</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_289');">Mizz Maxwell Bridges</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_289" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>
<br/>Mizz Maxwell Bridges is quite the little COWARD turning off comments.
<br/>
<br/>Fear riven she is !!!
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 289 -->
<a name="x290"></a>
<h2><a href="#x290" class="tiny">x290</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_290');">a persistent liar</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_290" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley Plus a persistent liar who will not accept burden of proof for the claim that FGNW were used at WTC.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 290 -->
<a name="x291"></a>
<h2><a href="#x291" class="tiny">x291</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_291');">spamming that link from Cornell</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_291" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague He keeps spamming that link from Cornell which CLEARLY shows such don't even exist yet ... yet the deluded whiner that is Ms. Bridges spews their use on 9/11.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 291 -->
<a name="x292"></a>
<h2><a href="#x292" class="tiny">x292</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_292');">not a bot</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_292" style="display: block;">
<p>Unlike you, I am not a bot who never tires of cranking over and over the same circus carousel spins.
<br/>
<br/>I do tire. I am also not a team, so multiple fronts is unproductive.
<br/>
<br/>Although both groups are chock full of disinformationalists, I deem this one as being more full of it.
<br/>
<br/>You want it? Go here.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.facebook.com/groups/1449086582078917/permalink/1943547549299482/
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 292 -->
<a name="x293"></a>
<h2><a href="#x293" class="tiny">x293</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_293');">turn all the commenting back on</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_293" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague Jimmy should just turn all the commenting back on ....
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 293 -->
<a name="x294"></a>
<h2><a href="#x294" class="tiny">x294</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_294');">points for the number of emoticons and irrelevant (ad hominem) memes you post</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_294" style="display: block;">
<p>You added nothing worthy to the discussion, anyway. Why do you care?
<br/>
<br/>Oh, I know why. You get points for the number of emoticons and irrelevant (ad hominem) memes you post. Factors into your paid disinformation position.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 294 -->
<a name="x295"></a>
<h2><a href="#x295" class="tiny">x295</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_295');">quite frankly DELUSIONAL self-absorption and ego</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_295" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague Thaty's the point you keep FAILING to grasp.
<br/>
<br/>I DON'T care ...NOBODY does for your rather inept and inane, and quite frankly DELUSIONAL self-absorption and ego
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 295 -->
<a name="x296"></a>
<h2><a href="#x296" class="tiny">x296</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_296');">sidetrack of definitional pedantry</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_296" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley If we sink to his (and "their") level every time they evade by playing ad hom against you - you win. "They" cannot support their claims on topic so resort to so called "ad homs"...
<br/>...most of which are not "ad hom" but that is a sidetrack of definitional pedantry ;)
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 296 -->
<a name="x297"></a>
<h2><a href="#x297" class="tiny">x297</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_297');">could have taken me seriously and legitimately taken on my premise</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_297" style="display: block;">
<p>Another disinformationalist tactic is projecting your weaknesses onto your opponents. I'm not the one (a) spamming threads with emoticons, (b) spamming threads with memes, (c) spamming threads with insults and mockery, (d) spamming this forum with what is clearly an ad hominem attack.
<br/>
<br/>"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
<br/>
<br/>You dumb fucks. Rather than egging me on and having me prove what agents you are, you had two choices, and you screwed the pooch on both of them.
<br/>
<br/>(1) You could have taken me seriously and legitimately taken on my premise. I would have even helped. Hell, I gave you a 31 section outline of the major points you have to debunk. I simplified and even gave you a scientific, peer-review paper on a reputable scientific web site; you couldn't be bothered to RTFM.
<br/>
<br/>(2) You could have STFU and not proven the coordinated agenda to silence all contemplation of nuclear-anything on 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 297 -->
<a name="x298"></a>
<h2><a href="#x298" class="tiny">x298</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_298');">tiny box of tissues</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_298" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague Here Mizz Bridges ...dry your eyes ...
<br/>
<br/>{mcb: meme of two fingers and a tiny box of tissues.}
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 298 -->
<a name="x299"></a>
<h2><a href="#x299" class="tiny">x299</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_299');">a deluded fucknugget</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_299" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague Take you seriously ... fuck off ... you are CLEARLY a deluded fucknugget and NOTHING but a deluded fucknugget.
<br/>
<br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague MORE FAIL for you Ms.Bridges ...NOBODY is paid to point and laugh at a deluded lunatic like you.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 299 -->
<a name="x300"></a>
<h2><a href="#x300" class="tiny">x300</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_300');">you look weak that you can't address specifics</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_300" style="display: block;">
<p>This ad hominem attack posting? Not very convincing in debunking FGNW. Makes you look weak that you can't address specifics, but have to go after the man. This can only degrade your integrity.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 300 -->
<a name="x301"></a>
<h2><a href="#x301" class="tiny">x301</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_301');">petulance is showing again</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_301" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague So many words from Ms.Bridges ... NOTHING said.
<br/>
<br/>As usual ...
<br/>
<br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague Your petulance is showing again ... its funny ...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 301 -->
<a name="x302"></a>
<h2><a href="#x302" class="tiny">x302</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_302');">you look weak that you can't address specifics</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_302" style="display: block;">
<p>This ad hominem attack posting? Not very convincing in debunking FGNW. Makes you look weak that you can't address specifics, but have to go after the man. This can only degrade your integrity.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 302 -->
<a name="x303"></a>
<h2><a href="#x303" class="tiny">x303</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_303');">Meme: I STILL DON'T GIVE A FUCK</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_303" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>{mcb: Meme of President Obama and the words "I STILL DON'T GIVE A FUCK".}
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 303 -->
<a name="x304"></a>
<h2><a href="#x304" class="tiny">x304</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_304');">many times debunked the claim "FGNW were used at WTC on 9/11"</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_304" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley Elizabeth I understand clearly that the viability/effectiveness of FGNW is "sus" BUT he claims they were used and wont support that claim. So the issue of viability is moot...it's the same problem as much argument about "thermXte" which also could NOT...See More
<br/>
<br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley ^^^ Lie - there is not a single comment there about the "man" - I once again challenged you claim AND showed why it is false.
<br/>
<br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley ^^^ And I have now many times debunked the claim "FGNW were used at WTC on 9/11"
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 304 -->
<a name="x305"></a>
<h2><a href="#x305" class="tiny">x305</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_305');">Nutcase4DaTwoof</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_305" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague He'a just another Nutcase4DaTwoof ...
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 305 -->
<a name="x306"></a>
<h2><a href="#x306" class="tiny">x306</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_306');">persiteant avoidance of debate and his lies</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_306" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley Elizabeth Tague Sure - and way beyonf my normal "two posts rule" with his persiteant avoidance of debate and his lies.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 306 -->
<a name="x307"></a>
<h2><a href="#x307" class="tiny">x307</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_307');">chickenshit idiot coincidence theorists</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_307" style="display: block;">
<p>Liar, liar, pants on fire. Follow the link.
<br/>
<br/>Or hell, go to my blog and debunk it there, chickenshit idiot coincidence theorists. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 307 -->
<a name="x308"></a>
<h2><a href="#x308" class="tiny">x308</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_308');">Meltdown noted</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_308" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley ^^^ Meltdown noted. get back to me if you decide to get serious....and HONEST.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 308 -->
<a name="x309"></a>
<h2><a href="#x309" class="tiny">x309</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_309');">Meme: STOP NOW NOBOY CARE</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_309" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>{mcb: Meme of 1950's era man in suit and tie, hand held up as a stop gesture, and the words "STOP NOW NOBOY CARES".}
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>{mcb: Meme in a mock-up of the 20th Century Fox logo with spot lights but with the words "NO ONE CARES".}
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 309 -->
<a name="x310"></a>
<h2><a href="#x310" class="tiny">x310</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_310');">Very convincing, but only of your agent traits</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_310" style="display: block;">
<p>Can't address the subject (FGNW), got to attack the man. Very convincing, but only of your agent traits that frame you as being agenda driven and lacking objectivity by orders. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 310 -->
<a name="x311"></a>
<h2><a href="#x311" class="tiny">x311</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_311');">your alleged cowardice</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_311" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley The actual OP topic of THIS thread Maxwell Bridges is your alleged cowardice. And the actual topic about FGNW is your claim that FGNW were used at WTC on 9/11. On which topic you persist in trying to prove FGNW have some capabilities BUT you will not try to prove "were used at WTC".
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 311 -->
<a name="x312"></a>
<h2><a href="#x312" class="tiny">x312</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_312');">an attention whore</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_312" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague He's just an attention whore desperately looking for someone to take him seriously and then he can get to pretend he is special.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 312 -->
<a name="x313"></a>
<h2><a href="#x313" class="tiny">x313</a>
Eric Conley : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_313');">measure of his claim</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_313" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Eric Conley
<br/>Eric Conley ^^^ I've had the measure of his claim for a long time and his motivations are reasonably obvious. ;)
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 313 -->
<a name="x314"></a>
<h2><a href="#x314" class="tiny">x314</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_314');">your agent traits frame you as being agenda driven</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_314" style="display: block;">
<p>Attacking the man in this posting? Very convincing, but only of your agent traits that frame you as being agenda driven and lacking objectivity. Under orders. //
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 314 -->
<a name="x315"></a>
<h2><a href="#x315" class="tiny">x315</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_315');">Meme: YO DAWG, I HEARD YOU LIKE SPAM.</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_315" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>{Meme of a black man, possibly famous, saying "YO DAWG, I HEARD YOU LIKE SPAM. SO WE PUT SPAM IN YO MEME SO YOU CAN SPAM WHILE YOU SPAMSPAMCOUDCONNECTSPAM".}
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 315 -->
<a name="x316"></a>
<h2><a href="#x316" class="tiny">x316</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_316');">projecting your weaknesses onto your opponents</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_316" style="display: block;">
<p>Another disinformationalist tactic is projecting your weaknesses onto your opponents. I'm not the one (a) spamming threads with emoticons, (b) spamming threads with memes, (c) spamming threads with insults and mockery, (d) spamming this forum with what is clearly an ad hominem attack.
<br/>
<br/>"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
<br/>
<br/>You dumb fucks. Rather than egging me on and having me prove what agents you are, you had two choices, and you screwed the pooch on both of them.
<br/>
<br/>(1) You could have taken me seriously and legitimately taken on my premise. I would have even helped. Hell, I gave you a 31 section outline of the major points you have to debunk. I simplified and even gave you a scientific, peer-review paper on a reputable scientific web site; you couldn't be bothered to RTFM.
<br/>
<br/>(2) You could have STFU and not proven the coordinated agenda to silence all contemplation of nuclear-anything on 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Elizabeth Tague turned off commenting for this post.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 316 -->
<a name="x317"></a>
<h2><a href="#x317" class="tiny">x317</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_317');">wonderful article that government agents here should "debunk".</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2029718393941700/">2017-12-19</a></p>
<div id="sect_317" style="display: block;">
<p>Here is wonderful article that government agents here should "debunk".
<br/>
<br/>For ease of reading, you can get the PDF download at this link too, so you can read and study it offline.
<br/>
<br/>If you can debunk the following source -- like through some other learned PhD to Cornell University --, why I'd be all ears.
<br/>
<br/>But it you can't, you need to be thinking whether or not some of it could apply to any aspect of 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>[physics/0510071] Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Maxwell Bridges [Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers as desired by other participants as a minimum requirement.
<br/>
<br/>The FGNW in question are tactical and can have their energy targeted in the shape of a narrow cone fanning out upwards: a poster-child for directed energy weapons, or DEW. [For the sake of discussion, the "height" or "reach" of this inverted cone of energy was through 20 stories of material. Can be tweaked in the discussions.] The primary output is highly energetic neutrons, with reduced side effects of a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP.
<br/>
<br/>Many videos of both towers' annihilation show momentarily a spire of structure from the inner core after most of the buildings content hit the ground. Therefore I speculate that FGNW devices were placed every 20 floors or so and staggered on either side of the spire structure and aimed upwards but away from the spire.
<br/>
<br/>Aimed in this manner upwards and detonated top-most devices first, an upper FGNW is less likely to cause fracticide or fizzle with a neighboring FGNW. [Fracticide and fizzle did happen and is why the WTC had under-rubble hot-spots burning for months. Such may have saved the firemen. May have been the cause of WTC-7 not coming down as planned with the other structures.]
<br/>
<br/>When a single FGNW ignites, it sends its highly energetic neutrons upwards in an inverted cone of energy. When these neutrons hit the leading layer of metal of, say, the steel pans that held the poured concrete, the layer vaporized so quickly that it caused a violent shockwave through the rest of the material that explosively tears it apart. Same for the concrete and building content in the path of the FGNW beam. [The debris piles had a lack of these metal pans and supports, and the concrete was turned to dust.]
<br/>
<br/>When this inverted energy cone of energy hit more solid beams, such as other supports of the core, it was sufficient to cause volume heating end-to-end in these large pieces of steel, as if they had been in a foundary furnace and reducing their strength. [The debris pile had "arches/sags", horse-shoes, and what became known as "the meteor."]
<br/>
<br/>The inverted energy cone was aimed to miss mostly the outer wall assemblies. Video show wall assemblies being ejected to the sides and streaming smoke, steam, and dust, as if they were heated so much that they burned off whatever had been painted or attached to them. The debris pile and area had examples of another anomaly that I call "steel doobies," which are the three beams of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle (or joint, or doobie) and held together by their three spandrels. In other words, the spandrels were heated sufficiently to become pliable such that the destructive shock-wave forces could wrap the beams together. One of these "steel doobies" was augered into the ground and leaning against a building on Liberty street. The amount of augering and distance from the towers suggest its placement was high in the tower, and also that high heat and energetic lateral forces created it before it hit the ground. [The OCT doesn't explain this anomaly.]
<br/>
<br/>When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories, he calculated that the roof fell at 65% gravitational acceleraton. This meant, the 20 story structure went from 100% resistance to gravity, to only 35%... suddenly, symmetrically. They appear to accordion in on itself before the destructive wave gets much below the level of impact from the plane.
<br/>
<br/>WTC-1 upper 20 stories wasn't completely symmetric and started toppling over and out of the path of maximum resistance. Then suddenly, its angular momentum was halted and it accordioned in on itself. It was no longer a cohesive whole toppling to the side.
<br/>
<br/>Then the FGNW positioned slightly lower in the towers were ignited. Video evidence depicts upward fountaining destruction of pulverized content from lower levels, despite some content from upper levels also falling on it. Some content may have passed multiple times into the path of lower FGNWs, thereby resulting in smaller and smaller pieces.
<br/>
<br/>This sequence was continued with detonations staggered and lower on the spire, until at some point the final and clean-up FGNW knocked down the spire itself. You can see material formerly affixed to the spire suddenly turn to dust and linger in the air as the steel of the spire disappears downward.
<br/>
<br/>The reason the firemen in the stairwell survived has to do with aiming or with malfunction of the device that would have decimated their corner.
<br/>
<br/>Games have been played with the audio of many videos, maybe on purpose. Some video survives that have the boom-boom-boom, and first responders also report hearing such CD cadence. However, they don't describe it sounding like a machine gun, but at a countable cadence, once every 1/2 second to second, which would also underscore the idea of 6-12 devices (for the 110 stories.)
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST, in debunking conventional chemical explosives, stated that were they used (and certainly to achieve pulverization), the explosions would have been deafening. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of first-responder survivors. Furthermore, when conventional chemical devices are mounted on a structure, that's the location that gets zapped, but a shockwave is transmitted through the air as massive changes in air pressure that -- depending on goals/techniques -- violent destroys other content. Shockwave through air means "very loud." 9/11 booms were loud, but muted from chemical explosives. The detonation of a FGNW does not have to be extremely loud. Content ablating and being destroyed by shockwaves created deep within the content would have a different sound.
<br/>
<br/>Placement of FGNW in other buildings were different. WTC-6 crater shows really well how conical shaped FGNW spared the walls but couldn't help decimate all floors & roof AND content that supposedly fell onto it from WTC towers.
<br/>
<br/>Aircraft was restricted from flying over the WTC, and directly over the towers. All cameras and helicopters were far away, owing to the danger from these devices being aimed upwards.
<br/>
<br/>Electro-magnetic pulses (EMP) escaping through window slits and falling debris may have caused the vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car lot. It explains the experiences of an EMT who was running from WTC-6 (where the Feds had some sort of command center in the lobby) and was hit by the door of a parked car that popped out of its frame and off of its hinges to forcefully smack her into the wall.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood with her DEW theories are close, but in a disinformation bent don't connect dots and purposely avoid valid nuclear considerations. One thing her book does well is collect all of the imagery of 9/11 be a nuclear event.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>Maxwell Bridges
<br/>Maxwell Bridges More details and substantiation sources.
<br/>
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 317 -->
<a name="x318"></a>
<h2><a href="#x318" class="tiny">x318</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_318');">LURVE the sound of his own voice</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_318" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague Somebody sure does LURVE the sound of his own voice !!!
<br/>
<br/>The rest of us just hear blah! blah! blah!
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 318 -->
<a name="x319"></a>
<h2><a href="#x319" class="tiny">x319</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_319');">How many times have to seen these links</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_319" style="display: block;">
<p>And your comment relates to arxiv.org how? How many times have to seen these links and made dismissive comments without details? You don't got it, not the intellect or the rhetoric. Even your mockery is worthy of being mocked. Lame. So lame. //
<br/>Manage
<br/>arXiv.org e-Print archive
<br/>Open access to 1,337,155 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance, Statistics, Electrical Engineering and Systems Science, and Economics
<br/>arxiv.org
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 319 -->
<a name="x320"></a>
<h2><a href="#x320" class="tiny">x320</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_320');">Meme: No</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_320" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>{mcb: Meme with fat Siamese cat, blue-eyed squinting, and text "NO."}
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 320 -->
<a name="x321"></a>
<h2><a href="#x321" class="tiny">x321</a>
Bob Weber : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_321');">No need to "debunk" anything that's pure speculation.</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_321" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Bob Weber
<br/>Bob Weber No need to "debunk" anything that's pure speculation.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 321 -->
<a name="x322"></a>
<h2><a href="#x322" class="tiny">x322</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_322');">easy to debunk on a personal level</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_322" style="display: block;">
<p>Written by someone who didn't go to the arxiv.org link. You Debunkers are easy to debunk on a personal level. Too lazy. //
<br/>
<br/>arXiv.org e-Print archive
<br/>Open access to 1,337,155 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance, Statistics, Electrical Engineering and Systems Science, and Economics
<br/>arxiv.org
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 322 -->
<a name="x323"></a>
<h2><a href="#x323" class="tiny">x323</a>
Elizabeth Tague : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_323');">Meme: Oh Girl</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_323" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>Elizabeth Tague
<br/>{mcb: Meme of Willy Wonka (actor Gene Wilder) leaning his head against his hand, and text: "OH GIRL YOU'RE SO DIFFERENT. TELL ME ABOUT THIS SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE AWARD WE SHOULD GIVE YOU".}
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 323 -->
<a name="x324"></a>
<h2><a href="#x324" class="tiny">x324</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_324');">see if FGNW doesn't answer it better</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_324" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Bob Weber, for the sake of discussion, please try to speculate using FGNW. Make the big-ass assumption that FGNW existed and were operational on 9/11.
<br/>
<br/>Go through a list of evidence from 9/11 and see if FGNW doesn't answer it better -- even down to the Tague meme-games.
<br/>
<br/>I'm trying to get FGNW legitimately debunked. You'd be a big hep if you could speculate.
<br/>
<br/>Lord knows Truthers have been cutting the OCT debunkers slack for years, making all sorts of big-ass assumptions about gravity and allowing the OCTers to speculate that no energy was added. (Now dat's kway-zee.)
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 324 -->
<a name="x325"></a>
<h2><a href="#x325" class="tiny">x325</a>
Daniel M. Plesse : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_325');">Falling For a War Game</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_325" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Daniel M. Plesse
<br/>Daniel M. Plesse "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects " my god
<br/>
<br/>Daniel M. Plesse
<br/>Daniel M. Plesse added to "Falling For a War Game "
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 325 -->
<a name="x326"></a>
<h2><a href="#x326" class="tiny">x326</a>
Tone Westervoll Hansen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_326');">asking a question and then turning off comments</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_326" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Tone Westervoll Hansen
<br/>Tone Westervoll Hansen
<br/>Group Moderator
<br/>Maxwell Bridges - asking a question and then turning off comments? Do you think that’s a good way to debate? I’ve turned the comments back on, allowing people to actually reply.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 326 -->
<a name="x327"></a>
<h2><a href="#x327" class="tiny">x327</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_327');">multiple discussion fronts</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_327" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms Tone Westervoll Hansen, I am a lone participant, religiously fanatical about truth. I am not a team. I made a couple of mistakes here.
<br/>
<br/>One in particular was opening up multiple discussion fronts. And then also experiencing postings from other trying to try me in and distract me, and give them home court advantage. I can't keep up.
<br/>
<br/>I can't control other people's postings. But I can control mine and limit where I play, being a single entity.
<br/>
<br/>And if participants are upset about me turning off the comments, they have ample links to be able to find me on the "interwebs" and engage me in reasoned dialog that I would eagerly welcome. Nothing is lost.
<br/>
<br/>FTR, this discussion was ended. My turning off comments helped us both; me for removing a playing field where I participate, and you for not having to worry about this inconvenient subject anymore. Inside of a day or two of your regulars posting their schlock, this article will get pushed down and down and down out of view.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 327 -->
<a name="x328"></a>
<h2><a href="#x328" class="tiny">x328</a>
Tone Westervoll Hansen : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_328');">people on this page are individuals</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_328" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Tone Westervoll Hansen
<br/>Tone Westervoll Hansen
<br/>Group Moderator
<br/>Maxwell Bridges - I have no idea about what “teams” you are talking about. AFAIK - people on this page are individuals, just as interested in the truth as you claim to be. However; I am a mod here, and as a mod, I will tell you again that asking a question, and straight away closing the thread for replies, is NOT the way to debate. Even a 5th grader knows that. Therefore; leave the comments open. Jimmy Quaresmini - your page - your call, but I stand for my action in this thread.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 328 -->
<a name="x329"></a>
<h2><a href="#x329" class="tiny">x329</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_329');">I see your point</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_329" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Ms. Tone Westervoll Hansen, Ok. I see your point. I will remove the comment with the rhetorical question that asked "Where are all the learned debunkers to mock FGNW and say they don't exist?"
<br/>
<br/>And then I will turn the comments off again, because I don't want to engage here.
<br/>
<br/>Please. Just let this posting die a quiet death. I don't want to come here to defend it. I'm a fan neither of the participants nor the rules that permitted the spamming and mockery.
<br/>
<br/>And if I error in the desire of participants to engage this topic, I am reachable and can change my mind.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>{mcb turned off commenting for this post.}
</p>
</div><!-- section 329 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part4 -->
<hr>
<a name="x330"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part5');">Part 5: Blue Sky NPT at WTC</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part5" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb:
The following were snippets of discussion in the Blue Sky Facebook groups on 9/11. It tried to be a truther page of the NPT @ WTC variety.
} </p>
<table summary="">
<tr><th>Debunker</th><th>Truther</th></tr>
<tr>
<td>
<ul>
<li>Ferd Farkle</li>
<li>Roy England</li>
</ul>
</td>
<td>
<ul>
<li>Maxwell C. Bridges</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<a name="x331"></a>
<h2><a href="#x331" class="tiny">x331</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_331');">planes at both towers were fake</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/">2017-12-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_331" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Farkle,
<br/>
<br/>I take issues with your statements: "(1) The planes at both towers were fake. Plenty of vidoe on this. (2) The debris at the base of the tower was planted. The video evidence showed that no debris fell from the plane impact."
<br/>
<br/>If you want to argue that the planes were not the alleged commercial planes, fine. But to call the fake in the wake of copious amounts of physical and video evidence is wrong (and its true disinformation purpose is to distract from the real instances of no planes at the pentagon and Shanksville.)
<br/>
<br/>I used to be a no-planer of the September Clues variety that focused on video/imagery fakery. I can point to valid instances of imagery manipulation, but my subsequent deeper research did not support it to the extent the September Clues promotes it. My research into holograms did not validate this either, and in fact exposed deceit in those who promote it.
<br/>
<br/>Two main items changed my belief. (1) The 3D analysis of NY overlayed by nearly every single amateur video that proved a co-linear flight path agreeable with each other and two sets of radar data. (2) The physical evidence of planes, in particular the images of the partial wheel assembly stuck between the box columns of a wall assembly that was ripped out of the back-side of WTC-1 and photographed lying in a parking lot near the towers before either came down.
<br/>
<br/>The following link takes you directly to the relevant portion of an earlier discussion I had on the subject.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html#x224
<br/>
<br/>Contrary to what you wrote, the video evidence shows lots of debris falling from the plane impact. Three aspects of physics needs to be considered when talking about that.
<br/>
<br/>(1) The distance between the camera and the towers has one under-estimate the size of debris. What looks like dust or smoke are in reality much bigger pieces.
<br/>
<br/>(2) The nature of the towers. The box columns (three per wall assembly connected by spandrels) were not solid steel. They were hollow. The face of the wall itself was made up of 50% window slits. Once the leading edges of the fuselage overcame these barriers, Penetration
<br/>
<br/>(3) The velocity-squared term in the energy equation. When velocities are very large, the resulting energy can be significantly greater than the structural energies of the materials involved. In other words, wings and tails won't bounce off as cohesive wholes, but will shatter. The videos document shattering and debris falling, although as mentioned from the camera distance, has the appearance of dust and tiny pieces. They weren't.
<br/>
<br/>I could go on, but a rabbit hole has been provided and debunking NPT at the WTC isn't my 9/11 hobby-horse.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 331 -->
<a name="x332"></a>
<h2><a href="#x332" class="tiny">x332</a>
Roy England : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_332');">indestructible engines shattered</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_332" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Roy England
<br/>Roy England you say that the indestructible engines shattered ??? how does that happen. you say a partial wheel assembly made it through the tower.. did they find that next to the slightly burnt passport of one of the so called hijackers.. this has got to be the year of miracles when 3 skyscrapers come down in a demolition controlled way and the cause was the fires from the jet fuel. it didn't take long to bring those towers down do you suppose the molten steel pouring out of the towers make it necessary to pull the plug earlier than what was planned...I mean seeing molten steel pouring out from a fire that wasn't hot enough to bend steel let alone melt it into flowing rivers of it. commercial planes did not hit the towers nor the pentagon nor a field in pennsylvania....they were military aircraft (drones). the people who planned 911 did a piss poor job of it..their biggest mistakes were getting rid of the evidence so fast and hiding what documentation they have about it from us the black boxes. what could possibly be a good reason to hide them from us. its simple they hide it because they dont want us to know what is hidden it would make their version of what happened even more harder to explain... oh by the way can you explain building #6 you know the one no one wants to talk about....the one that its core was missing ...this building tells it all..why would you remove the core from a building...need help....give you a hint.... controlled demolition.. its a sad world we live in when there are people who value the almighty dollar over people.. how can they be proud of profits made from killing people, maiming them destroying families HOW EFFING DOES ONE LIVE WITH THEMSELVES KNOWING WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO ACHIEVE FINANCIAL SUCCESS THE ONLY FRIENDS THEY HAVE ARE BOUGHT AND THOSE WHO CAN BE BOUGHT ARE NO BETTER THAN THEIR NEW MASTERS.. I RATHER BE POOR AND IN CONTROL OF WHAT I DO THAN TO BE SOMEONES BITCH
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 332 -->
<a name="x333"></a>
<h2><a href="#x333" class="tiny">x333</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_333');">velocity-squared term in the energy equation at high velocities</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1842559225990952/permalink/2025429114370628/">2017-12-09</a></p>
<div id="sect_333" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. England, Kindly take a breath... Breathe in. Hold it. Breath out. Repeat.
<br/>
<br/>Likewise, learn to SHIFT+ENTER that will insert a line break into your submission allowing the formation of paragraphs. (Pressing ENTER by itself pre-maturely posts your comment.) Or, you can write off-line like I do.
<br/>
<br/>You hyperventilated: "you say that the indestructible engines shattered ???"
<br/>
<br/>I did not.
<br/>
<br/>What I said was that the velocity-squared term in the energy equation at high velocities becomes sufficiently large to overcome structural energies and shatter materials involved in the collision.
<br/>
<br/>This would be most notable in the damage from wings (not engines or fuselage) against the steel of the hollow box columns in the wall assemblies. Wings shattered, but not before inflicting damage to the box columns.
<br/>
<br/>One can see where the engines hit how wall assemblies were pushed, some box columns bent, and some severed.
<br/>
<br/>Regarding WTC-6. Owing to the four (or more) separate operations, one can easily fall into the trap of saying, "if it was X here in instance A, then it was probably X in instance B." Such laziness in logic is used against us, like in the disinformation campaign NPT. This being said, I'll be lazy in saying FGNW were used on the towers and many of the buildings around the towers which are purposely left out of the limelight by OCTers: WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6...
<br/>
<br/>The towers had the benefit of aiming FGNW upwards into many floors of structure and content. They could be staggered in detonation with controlled overlap.
<br/>
<br/>The problem with WTC-6 is that it only had eight stories of building structure and content. Its several devices pulverized right through the roof. Shaped FGNW charge kept the sides, just like the towers each had spires that they didn't hit.
<br/>
<br/>To your rhetorical questions in all capital letters:
<br/>
<br/>The PTB (powers that be) were told early on of the consequences of disastrous policies, such as the use of plastics, or green house gases. Hard to stop. What is easy is to accelerate it and hope in the game of musical chairs that they'll be able to buy for them and their ancestors the highest, safest, most wonderful chair first before the music runs out on human life on this planet.
<br/>
<br/>Afghanistan was about natural gas and heroin. Iraq was about oil. Feed and promote the American addiction to fossil fuels that ruins their very environment.
<br/>
<br/>Trump and the Republicans in Congress are criminally corrupt and are doing their darnest in this short window of time to destroy as much as they can and grab for themselves as much as they can... before the music stops.
<br/>
<br/>Truth be told, public revelation of a nuclear 9/11 might inspire a figurative nuclear fall out to the leaders, institutions, and agencies... a true cleaning of the house, maybe even making government anew. This the PTB fear the most, so nuclear 9/11 (with FGNW) is a message they are still decades away from admitted. (Half century; have they admitted to JFK?) Hence the reason this FB group exists to squash rational thought away from such obvious conclusions.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 333 -->
<a name="x334"></a>
<h2><a href="#x334" class="tiny">x334</a>
Ferd Farkle : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_334');">if UA175 hit</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_334" style="display: block;">
<p>Ferd Farkle
<br/>Ferd Farkle
<br/>Group Admin
<br/>What would you expect to have happen if UA175 hit the South Tower?
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 334 -->
<a name="x335"></a>
<h2><a href="#x335" class="tiny">x335</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_335');">captured on many different videos</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_335" style="display: block;">
<p>What was captured on many different videos.
<br/>
<br/>No planes at the WTC is a crafty disinfo campaign designed to distract and discredit the actual instances of no planes.
<br/>
<br/>Crafty. You've been duped. I was, too, by September clues. Kept learning, was open-minded, and discovered their major flaws and dishonesty.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 335 -->
<a name="x336"></a>
<h2><a href="#x336" class="tiny">x336</a>
Ferd Farkle : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_336');">when "UA175" contacted</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_336" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Ferd Farkle
<br/>Ferd Farkle
<br/>Group Admin
<br/>What do yo think happened when "UA175" contacted the South Tower?
<br/>
<br/>Ferd Farkle
<br/>Ferd Farkle
<br/>Group Admin
<br/>I don't know much about September Clues. I have watched as much video as I can find
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 336 -->
<a name="x337"></a>
<h2><a href="#x337" class="tiny">x337</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_337');">happened when "UA175" contacted</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_337" style="display: block;">
<p>As far as propaganda disinformation goes that was foisted on the world, but particularly Americans, September Clues stands among the best. For this reason alone, it is worth googling and going down that rabbit hold. 9 or so episodes. Very crafty.
<br/>
<br/>To your repeated question, "What do yo think happened when "UA175" contacted the South Tower?"
<br/>
<br/>The nose cone of the fuselage crumpled in spots that weren't window slits in the wall assemblies. Then the nose landing gear came up through and pushed against the wall assemblies. Connecting bolts were severed and the wall assemblies were pushed inside. The fuselage interected two floors designed for vertical loads, not horizontal. Fuselage gets a scalping hair cut and amputating shoe shine initially from the floors. Given the space between floors, not too difficult for the incoming mass even if crumpling to get them to bend, accordian, or moved out of the way. All this before the engines hit.
<br/>
<br/>The engines with landing gear come along and does more of the same. Certainly by this point, the remaining fuselage doesn't have much except the inner core and other wall assembly to stop its forward momentum. One of the engines slowed down from its impact velocity (500 mph) to as little as 122 mph to go the distance to the Park Avenue roof it hit before bouncing to the streets.
<br/>
<br/>One fragment of the landing gear has so much energy after entering the towers, it was able to embed itself between hollow box columns of the other wall assembly and rip that whole wall assembly off of the backside.
<br/>
<br/>The box columns of the wall assembly were covered in aluminum cladding. Important for two reasons. First, this is what got knocked off and gave the wingtip-to-wingtip impression of an outline that NPT hype to all hell. The box columns themselves did not sustain the same decimating damage wingtip-to-wingtip.
<br/>
<br/>If I were to make any complaints about the WTC aircraft, the discovered parts purposely were not serial-numbered identified to match the alleged commercial aircraft. The government never made a case that proved all of the alleged hijackers got on all of the alleged planes and they all flew the full route. Meaning, the spead and precision are giveaways (along with the mysterious route, transponders off, in cases going off radar) that the impacting aircraft might not have been the alleged commercial aircraft. Suped-up could mean more penetration and damage, if this was a concern that they wouldn't have enough plausible damage to explain the initiation of annihilation.
<br/>
<br/>They were going to nuke the towers anyway and the planes within. The escaping aircraft pieces were not planned.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 337 -->
<a name="x338"></a>
<h2><a href="#x338" class="tiny">x338</a>
Ferd Farkle : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_338');">Are you adhering to the Official story from NIST</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_338" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>
<br/>
<br/>Ferd Farkle
<br/>Ferd Farkle
<br/>Group Admin
<br/>So you think that the 4 camera angles agree with your version of what happened, or do you think the the camera records are wrong? Are you adhering to the Official story from NIST and others that the plane made it to the core columns and severed up to 10 of them to cause the catastrophic collapse,
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 338 -->
<a name="x339"></a>
<h2><a href="#x339" class="tiny">x339</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_339');">each depict my version</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_339" style="display: block;">
<p>Actually, there were at least a dozen camera angles that were overlaid on a 3D rendering of NYC depicting flight paths in agreement with another and two different sets of radar data.
<br/>
<br/>Yes, I think they each depict my version.
<br/>
<br/>No, I am not "adhering to the Official story from NIST and others that the plane made it to the core columns and severed up to 10 of them to cause the catastrophic collapse".
<br/>
<br/>What I'm saying is that the aircraft achieved deep penetration and there was nothing physics defying or "cartoon-ish" about it. I was about to write "or CGI-ish about it." Despite my belief in real aircraft, I know there are instances (two for sure) of CGI being deployed. Leaves the door open for "enhancements" that might have been perpetrated for whatever reason on the imagery.
<br/>
<br/>Penetration was important for the ruse of the buildings collapsing. However, "initiation of collapse" is a different thing to speculate about than "anomalous features of the pulverization and free-fall that happened immediately after initiation of the collapse." The latter they don't go.
<br/>
<br/>The towers were stable after both impacts, indicative of the over-design and automatic load shifting of the structures. Firemen on WTC-2 made it to the impact floor and radioed how many (water) lines would be needed to control the fires: not that many. Destruction of WTC-2, which was hit second and had fewer and smaller fires, happened first for this reason shortly after that radio transmission. Can't have firemen stopping it.
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 339 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part5 -->
<hr>
<a name="x340"></a>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part6');">Part 6: Clear explanation on why WTC towers collapsed?</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part6" style="display: block;">
<p>{mcb:
The following were snippets of discussion in the Facebook groups on 9/11. It tried to explain everything with a "chimney effect."
} </p>
<table summary="">
<tr><th>Debunker</th><th>Truther</th></tr>
<tr>
<td>
<ul>
<li>George Secher</li>
</ul>
</td>
<td>
<ul>
<li>Maxwell C. Bridges</li>
<li>Rolando Fasetti </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<a name="x341"></a>
<h2><a href="#x341" class="tiny">x341</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_341');">errors in your thesis</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-19</p>
<div id="sect_341" style="display: block;">
<p>http://www.sarovic.org/blog/a-clear-explanation-why-the-twin-towers-collapsed
<br/>
<br/>Dear Mr. Aleksandar Sarovic,
<br/>
<br/>The first error in your thesis is this statement:
<br/>
<br/><i>"[The towers] were standing on massive steel columns located in the core and perimeters of the building. Steel columns were the strongest part of the twin towers. They were 3” thick at the bottom of the building and a ¼ inch at the top."</i>
<br/>
<br/>No, the perimeter was composed of wall assemblies, each consisting of three hollow box columns 30 ft tall connected together by spandrals. The thickness of the steel of the hollow box columns was thicker when used at the base of the towers than when used at the top.
<br/>
<br/>The second error in your thesis is this statement:
<br/>
<br/><i>"The planes’ impact of the twin towers made significant damage. It made big holes in the towers which disturbed the equilibrium of the construction. According to NIST the planes destroyed 14% of the columns. ... But some of the columns next to the destroyed part of the towers have certainly overpassed the safety factor and were in large danger to collapse."</i>
<br/>
<br/>The equilibrium of the construction was restored; the load had already been shifted by design to the intact wall assemblies and core. The towers were stable before they were annihilated by other forces.
<br/>
<br/>The fourth paragraph is a blatant exaggeration and over-statement having nothing to do with the WTC damage.
<br/>
<br/>The fifth paragraph is a blatant lie. <i>"Then fire from the planes’ kerosene further deteriorated the carrying capacities of the already damaged steel construction."</i> No, even NIST says that most of the jet fuel was consumed in the fire ball, and the remaining jet fuel burned off in the first 10 minutes. Thereafter, fires were fueled by office furnishings and building content which do reach temperatures sufficient to compromise the strength of steel were we to neglect the dark sooty smoke that indicates inefficient fires.
<br/>
<br/>Paragraph six beginning <i>"The fire damaged the weak floor construction first"</i> is a fiction. The fires were insufficient to cause significant expansion of trussle beams. You state in paragraph two: <i>"The trusses were the much weaker part of the buildings. They transferred their load to the columns connected by bolts."</i> The bolts were designed-in failure points. They would have severed before they could exert sufficient force to bend core columns.
<br/>
<br/>I'll not waste more time debunking your thesis, because it does not even explain the observable evidence. Namely, the fact that upper 20 stories were torn apart before their mass (now pulverized) could progress below the impact level.
<br/>
<br/>Downward Acceleration of WTC-1
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
<br/>
<br/>Observers didn't hear one boom, but a countable cadence of booms.
<br/>
<br/>I say that all of the evidence can be better explained by FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br/>
<br/>Here's some reference material for your research.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 341 -->
<a name="x342"></a>
<h2><a href="#x342" class="tiny">x342</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_342');">TWIN TOWERS MECHANICAL INSIGHT</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_342" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>George Secher
<br/>
<br/>9/ 11 TWIN TOWERS MECHANICAL INSIGHT
<br/>Before we can consider alternative explanations, that are complex, exotic casting blame on ourselves a thorough check of the "APPARENT" dynamics must first be explored. It is an established universal principal that invariably, in most cases mechanical realities are simple in nature but that we commonly seek out instead more complex unlikely explanations while the obvious correct reality may hide directly in our view in a "where's Waldo" type scenario often confusing immensity and depth with complexity.
<br/>
<br/>HOW FIRE MANIFESTED TO CAUSE STRUCTURAL FAILURE
<br/>Fire has been discounted by some from being the cause of structural failure for two reasons:
<br/>
<br/>1. IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT JET FUEL BURNS ONLY BETWEEN 800 TO 1,500 F:
<br/>Those numbers however were acquired through conventional open flame tests in an unenclosed environment making them misleading for in true reality under the right circumstances temperatures of jet fuel combustion can be far higher.-
<br/>
<br/>ESTABLISHED DYNAMICS ON SUPPER HEATED AIR AND STACK EFFECTS
<br/>The well known and studied "chimney effect" or "stack effect" consists of a combustion chamber with two adjacent vertical vents above it to both provide a passageway for the hot exhaust fumes of a fire to rise as well vent as well as a passageway for cold return fresh air to replace the heated air and feed the fire with oxygen. It is typically used with a furnace, boiler or fireplace with the use of a chimney. In addition to venting noxious fumes and replacing the out going air it also allows the fire to burn more effectively, (hotter).
<br/>
<br/>A MODIFIED STACK EFFECT
<br/>Unlike the well studied and documented vertical stack effect involving a vertical rise inside a chimney, the twin tower's conditions created a modified version of it. The tower's interior actually functioned as the burning chamber while a large vent opening caused by a plane crash entry into the towers substituted for a conventional stack effect vent or a "MODIFIED stack effect". It only varied in having a HORIZONTAL unenclosed path to the outside instead of a vertical vent line but still highly effective in moving air caused by great contrasting temperature air masses.
<br/>
<br/>NATURAL APPLICATION EXTRAPOLATION
<br/>Just as with the conventional vertical version, a rush of air was strongly induced through the temperature difference between outside and inside temperatures where by a hot layer of air from inside escaped at the top portion of the breach while the cooler outside air entered beneath by being drawn in by warm air's exit creating a rapid self perpetuating circulation. It caused the fire to become perpetually hotter due to an ever increasing oxygen supply while the building served as an enclosure trapping and continuously elevating the ambient heat level. All combined, in effect it became a stack effect with the building functioning as the combustion chamber or fireplace and the plane breech serving as the chimney. Because it allows toxic fumes into a living space, the method has no practical functional value and so the twin tower version is not the typically studied one, (it would be foolhardy to intentionally operate one), never the less a modified stack effect has the same basic combustion dynamics as the conventional stack or chimney effect in it ability to create supper heated air.
<br/>
<br/>ESTABLISHED COLOR RELATIONSHIP TEMPERATURE TO STRENGTH
<br/>Even within the 800 to 1500 degrees F level, steel is red hot. Starting at 800 F it already acquires a dull red hot condition and at 1500 it is relatively bright red to easily weaken a buildings structure enough to cause great damage and failure. There have been experimental demonstrations on the internet showing that at 1500 F steel can not even support a very light weight load. Much beyond 1500 F steel becomes very bright red and pliable so if fire hadn't already caused structural failure and collapse it would with certainty beyond that temperature range. We must bear in mind that steel already melts at only 2,500 F. but long before that point it will have very little strength CANCELING OUT THE STRONGEST STRUCTURAL DESIGNS. We must look at it this way; if the old time blacksmith could depend on the metal's red color to shape his steel, the same dynamic will also weaken a buildings structure allowing mechanical failure to occur - most assuredly at the higher levels.
<br/>
<br/>THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE RULE
<br/>Just as the laws of the universe that create these dynamics, they pay no heed to our building codes designed to keep us safe, likewise, it behooves us as well to favor the universal laws over our man made contrivances that entrap our thinking into paradigms … . when we do we may then achieve mechanical clarity. In the final analysis, the temperature in the towers combustion area, (entire floors), conservatively elevated to around 2,000 degrees F or more, especially in the fire's epicenter, (as opposed to the text book "conventional combustion" scenario of 800 to 1,500 F), hence only 20 minutes or so were required to bring down the towers.
<br/>
<br/>2. FALLACY OF SHORT BURN TIME FACTORING OUT FIRE AS CAUSE.
<br/>
<br/>All fuels contain a predetermined corresponding amount of heat measured in BTUs. The rate it is released while burning will dictate its temperature while burning. For example, it is established that a slow burn time will create a relatively cooler fire and ambient temperature compared a more rapidly burning fire with the same fuel quantity, thus creating a hotter fire with a subsequent hotter ambient temperature. This translates to meaning that the modified stack effect that caused a rapidly burning fire, elevated the fire's temperature to weaken the towers steel cores. Conversely, if it had burnt longer it may not have ever reached the needed temperature threshold to cause the chain reaction that took the towers down.
<br/>
<br/>PROFESSIONAL FALLACY THROUGH LINEAR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
<br/>The engineer's, designer's and scientist's linear tables and charts can actually interfere with otherwise clear mechanical vision by locking them into erroneous pre-determined heat transfer figures. The quantity of oxygen contained in the fuel mixture can make a very critical difference in burning temperatures. For example, acetylene gas's normal burning temperature is close to that of natural gas or jet fuel, no where close to bring steel to a cherry red temperature, let alone melt steel, and yet when oxygen is added through a manifold torch its flame can melt a line of steel efficiently enough to cut it to pieces. Another example is the 9/ 11 Pentagon incident itself. The fine misting of its fuel caused by its direct hit plane collision at relatively high speed, caused the fuel's full BTU content to release all at once creating a VERY SHORT DURATION BLAZE due to an ideal fuel to oxygen droplet mixture, as seen on a surveillance camera video while also explaining the plane's disappearance with little debris left over. The bulk of the plane was DIRECTLY exposed to temperatures of perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 degrees, (far above the 1,500 ceiling for jet fuel declared by the professionals), vaporizing most of it quickly out of perceivable existence, (and stymieing the so called experts). The example's purpose is not so much to explain what happened at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania sites as to demonstrate how the professionals standard textbook tables, charts and numbers can limit clear vision, dynamic assessment and an overview of true reality. By blocking this wisdom through their focus on standard linear numbers the professionals and subsequently the public deceive themselves.
<br/>
<br/>HOW FREE FALL MANIFESTED TO DEMOLISH AN OTHERWISE SOLID DESIGN,
<br/>It is established that at free fall, acceleration rates multiply around 3.2 times its original stationary weight every 10 feet. However the towers collapsed at 65% of free fall speed making the impact weight approximately 2.0 times its original weight for every 10 feet of decent. Maximum decent speed is reach at around 1,500 ft or around twelve floors. At that point the impact weight would add up to around 30 times its stationary weight. Being that fire was seen to be present in 18 to 21 floors caused by fuel flow, mostly below the planes impact heights, we can know that the fire affected steel was present for quite an expanse when desending affording far less resistance than the cooler floors below that. By the time the collective decent of the multiple floor grouping reached the cooler lower level floors, the falling mass inertia had reached its full gravity impact weight of around 30 times its stationary weight easily enabling it to smash through the cooler floors below it to complete the destruction. NOTE - it matters not how soundly engineered the building structure was, it was not designed to carry collective impact weights of those magnitudes - fancy math is not necessary to conclude what caused the towers structural failure, it becomes obvious - the towers were designed to carry perhaps at the most several multiples of its normal occupied weigh, not 30 times it, and especially when red hot do to its the stack effect dynamic during the pivotal first 12 floor decent acceleration.
<br/>
<br/>IN SHORT
<br/>The building's structural resistance did not possess adequate "breaking ability" to overcome an EFFECTIVE weight of 30 times its free standing weight, especially at the point where inertia began where its core was heated to very red hot temperatures . At best it could only slow it down marginally throughout its entire decent ….. as it did.
<br/>
<br/>REVIEW - SUMMERY:
<br/>A modified chimney effect incorporated the entire interior of both of crash areas into a combustion chamber with ample flew air through the planes entry breaches elevating the ambient temperature high enough to bring steel beams and supports to a red hot condition causing both towers to decend at ever increasing speeds with enough force and inertia to cause all floors to fail.
<br/>
<br/>While the scientists, designers, and engineers work from their "calculus instruction book" intended for their pre- designed engineering projects, clear mechanical insight and problem solving methods through simple deductive extrapolation can easily envision true mechanical dynamics and provide needed answers beyond the "text book".
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 342 -->
<a name="x343"></a>
<h2><a href="#x343" class="tiny">x343</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_343');">[Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1731229503823175/permalink/2035048400107949/">2018-12-21</a></p>
<div id="sect_343" style="display: block;">
<p>[Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers as desired by other participants as a minimum requirement.
<br/>
<br/>The FGNW in question are tactical and can have their energy targeted in the shape of a narrow cone fanning out upwards: a poster-child for directed energy weapons, or DEW. [For the sake of discussion, the "height" or "reach" of this inverted cone of energy was through 20 stories of material. Can be tweaked in the discussions.] The primary output is highly energetic neutrons, with reduced side effects of a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP.
<br/>
<br/>Many videos of both towers' annihilation show momentarily a spire of structure from the inner core after most of the buildings content hit the ground. Therefore I speculate that FGNW devices were placed every 20 floors or so and staggered on either side of the spire structure and aimed upwards but away from the spire.
<br/>
<br/>Aimed in this manner upwards and detonated top-most devices first, an upper FGNW is less likely to cause fracticide or fizzle with a neighboring FGNW. [Fracticide and fizzle did happen and is why the WTC had under-rubble hot-spots burning for months. Such may have saved the firemen. May have been the cause of WTC-7 not coming down as planned with the other structures.]
<br/>
<br/>When a single FGNW ignites, it sends its highly energetic neutrons upwards in an inverted cone of energy. When these neutrons hit the leading layer of metal of, say, the steel pans that held the poured concrete, the layer vaporized so quickly that it caused a violent shockwave through the rest of the material that explosively tears it apart. Same for the concrete and building content in the path of the FGNW beam. [The debris piles had a lack of these metal pans and supports, and the concrete was turned to dust.]
<br/>
<br/>When this inverted energy cone of energy hit more solid beams, such as other supports of the core, it was sufficient to cause volume heating end-to-end in these large pieces of steel, as if they had been in a foundary furnace and reducing their strength. [The debris pile had "arches/sags", horse-shoes, and what became known as "the meteor."]
<br/>
<br/>The inverted energy cone was aimed to miss mostly the outer wall assemblies. Video show wall assemblies being ejected to the sides and streaming smoke, steam, and dust, as if they were heated so much that they burned off whatever had been painted or attached to them. The debris pile and area had examples of another anomaly that I call "steel doobies," which are the three beams of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle (or joint, or doobie) and held together by their three spandrels. In other words, the spandrels were heated sufficiently to become pliable such that the destructive shock-wave forces could wrap the beams together. One of these "steel doobies" was augered into the ground and leaning against a building on Liberty street. The amount of augering and distance from the towers suggest its placement was high in the tower, and also that high heat and energetic lateral forces created it before it hit the ground. [The OCT doesn't explain this anomaly.]
<br/>
<br/>When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories, he calculated that the roof fell at 65% gravitational acceleraton. This meant, the 20 story structure went from 100% resistance to gravity, to only 35%... suddenly, symmetrically. They appear to accordion in on itself before the destructive wave gets much below the level of impact from the plane.
<br/>
<br/>WTC-1 upper 20 stories wasn't completely symmetric and started toppling over and out of the path of maximum resistance. Then suddenly, its angular momentum was halted and it accordioned in on itself. It was no longer a cohesive whole toppling to the side.
<br/>
<br/>Then the FGNW positioned slightly lower in the towers were ignited. Video evidence depicts upward fountaining destruction of pulverized content from lower levels, despite some content from upper levels also falling on it. Some content may have passed multiple times into the path of lower FGNWs, thereby resulting in smaller and smaller pieces.
<br/>
<br/>This sequence was continued with detonations staggered and lower on the spire, until at some point the final and clean-up FGNW knocked down the spire itself. You can see material formerly affixed to the spire suddenly turn to dust and linger in the air as the steel of the spire disappears downward.
<br/>
<br/>The reason the firemen in the stairwell survived has to do with aiming or with malfunction of the device that would have decimated their corner.
<br/>
<br/>Games have been played with the audio of many videos, maybe on purpose. Some video survives that have the boom-boom-boom, and first responders also report hearing such CD cadence. However, they don't describe it sounding like a machine gun, but at a countable cadence, once every 1/2 second to second, which would also underscore the idea of 6-12 devices (for the 110 stories.)
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST, in debunking conventional chemical explosives, stated that were they used (and certainly to achieve pulverization), the explosions would have been deafening. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of first-responder survivors. Furthermore, when conventional chemical devices are mounted on a structure, that's the location that gets zapped, but a shockwave is transmitted through the air as massive changes in air pressure that -- depending on goals/techniques -- violent destroys other content. Shockwave through air means "very loud." 9/11 booms were loud, but muted from chemical explosives. The detonation of a FGNW does not have to be extremely loud. Content ablating and being destroyed by shockwaves created deep within the content would have a different sound.
<br/>
<br/>Placement of FGNW in other buildings were different. WTC-6 crater shows really well how conical shaped FGNW spared the walls but couldn't help decimate all floors & roof AND content that supposedly fell onto it from WTC towers.
<br/>
<br/>Aircraft was restricted from flying over the WTC, and directly over the towers. All cameras and helicopters were far away, owing to the danger from these devices being aimed upwards.
<br/>
<br/>Electro-magnetic pulses (EMP) escaping through window slits and falling debris may have caused the vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car lot. It explains the experiences of an EMT who was running from WTC-6 (where the Feds had some sort of command center in the lobby) and was hit by the door of a parked car that popped out of its frame and off of its hinges to forcefully smack her into the wall.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood with her DEW theories are close, but in a disinformation bent don't connect dots and purposely avoid valid nuclear considerations. One thing her book does well is collect all of the imagery of 9/11 be a nuclear event.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>+++B
</p>
</div><!-- section 343 -->
<a name="x344"></a>
<h2><a href="#x344" class="tiny">x344</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_344');">most of Dr Griffin's book</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_344" style="display: block;">
<p>I have most of Dr Griffin's books and have been a big fan for years. He taught a lot about debunking OCT premises. Point by point, he went through his opponents' arguments, quoting them, and then providing references and reasoned analysis why it probably wasn't so.
<br/>
<br/>I have endeavored to do the same with regards to 9/11 having nuclear components: fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW). In my trips around the 9/11 block, it hasn't been debunked by 9/11 truthers or 9/11 debunkers. It is why Dr. Wood's work was prompted up; she collects all of the evidence of 9/11 having nuclear components and parks it under kooky umbrellas. Yet still, her disinformation work was closer to the truth than many would care to admit, which is why her work hasn't been legitimately debunked by other inside or outside the 9/11 TM, because it forces them to acknowledge nuggets of truth rescued from the disinformation that their premise would have to address and can't.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Griffin wrote a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br/>
<br/>Among other sections, section 7 stands out with evidence that the 9/11 TM doesn't.
<br/>
<br/>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../beyond...
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 344 -->
<a name="x345"></a>
<h2><a href="#x345" class="tiny">x345</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_345');">a glaring omission</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_345" style="display: block;">
<p>The above references the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer, who is a glaring omission from Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, and the entire 9/11 TM. Here is his relevant article on the Cornell University Library archives in physics.
<br/>
<br/>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br/>
<br/>I mined material from his work in section 14.
<br/>
<br/>I humbly and sincerely request that people review my work. I would be overjoyed to have it debunked, because I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot promoting it.
<br/>
<br/>With kind regards, a sincere and earnest truth seeker.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>[physics/0510071] Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral…
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 345 -->
<a name="x346"></a>
<h2><a href="#x346" class="tiny">x346</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_346');">applaud the effort, but not the analysis and reasoning</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_346" style="display: block;">
<p>The summary you were too lazy to read was in section 28.
<br/>
<br/>Mr. George Secher, I apologize if I confuse your participation with that of others encountered in 9/11 discussion groups. But it was your participation in one of them that brings me to this group and notifies me of your premise.
<br/>
<br/>(BTW I applaud the effort, but not the analysis and reasoning. I'll go into details in subsequent comments in a new thread, okay?)
<br/>
<br/>Indeed you are correct, I should be and will be addressing specifics in your premise that you kindly gave us in the long top posting.
<br/>
<br/>Consider the above *seemingly* unrelated postings from me as reference material. To tackle some of your points, I may use the above. Consider it also me heading off carousel spins asking me renewed for equivalent busy work.
<br/>
<br/>Oh, and the short summary you asked for: multiple fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) per tower caused their annihilations on 9/11. The evidence of such seeps out of every official government report as well as the 9/11 Truth Movement (TM) efforts to keep public awareness on limited-hangout theories; and the evidence is most glaring in the blatant omissions, delayed & restricted access to site, delayed & shoddy measurement methodology, under-funded analysis, skewed scopes, slow-walked delivery, etc. and in the derivative works by learned 9/11TM scholars who accepted such papers unquestioned as accurate and complete.
<br/>
<br/>To cut off a fruitless query, those who say "there was no measured radiation at the WTC" cannot prove it with analysis reports based on measurements taken promptly, systematically, thoroughly and tabulated in the report showing everything at or below expected background levels (see starting in section 8).
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 346 -->
<a name="x347"></a>
<h2><a href="#x347" class="tiny">x347</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_347');">way off base</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_347" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher To me Maxwell your writing is not reference material at all for its premiss is way off base. Please address, (aside from your own view on what caused the disaster), my contention and then we can go from there. And by the way, because the mechanics are actually simple, I expect a simple reason why you don't agree or I will: A conclude that your wordiness is merely a form of subterfuge and B won't respond nor will anyone take your words seriously. Please use clear thinking practices and clear out the clutter of irrelevancies. "Minds of mush" will never achieve clarity.
<br/>
<br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher One more try Maxwell Bridges.
<br/>
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 347 -->
<a name="x348"></a>
<h2><a href="#x348" class="tiny">x348</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_348');">will not disappoint you</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_348" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Secher, I will not disappoint you, and consider this my last comment on this thread.
<br/>
<br/>I just now copied your long posting into my editor, so that I can quote you accurately and address each and every point of contention in the coming days. It might take some time for me to compose my response(s) off-line, plus it is today the winter solstice. I humbly request your patience.
<br/>
<br/>Before I start posting my comments about your premise, please offer me some guidance on your preferences.
<br/>
<br/>[A] I address various points in your premise in a really long rebuttal posted at the top-level. You would reply to that posting creating a thread. Your replies each could also be very long, addressing my rebuttal points one by one.
<br/>
<br/>[B] I make one top-level posting for each point of contention in your premise, a much smaller chunk of verbiage per comment, but a multiplication of top-level comments & threads involving me. Your replies to my individual rebuttal points would go under the respective comment, creating lots of threads.
<br/>
<br/>Option [A] is better for serious and earnest discussion. Simply copy your debate opponent's comment and use it (off-line and in an editor) as the framework for a rational and reasoned rebuttal. It is also easier (a) to moderate and administer; (b) to skip over for all uninterested participants, (c)_ to read by latter-day lurker readers, because it is self contained. (d) Facebook does you the favor of compressing such hug comments into a few lines with "see more..." links, further uncluttering your discussion and thread.
<br/>
<br/>Option [B] gives the top-level poster control of the thread. It can be considered spam getting so many comments all at once. It can be perceived as a shot-gun distraction tactic. Tag-teams would function better with this, each taking a thread and then forcing individual partipants (like me) to divide my attention. Mockery and such thrive, but not so much reasonable dialog.
<br/>
<br/>I prefer option A. Keep me contained and behind "see more..." links. Time isn't of the essence.
<br/>
<br/>Please let me know your recommendations.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 348 -->
<a name="x349"></a>
<h2><a href="#x349" class="tiny">x349</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_349');">not going to read all of this</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_349" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher First of all Maxwell, your reference to my post being long, it was as long as was necessary to put out the thought devoid of any holes in it but no longer than a books preface or introduction whereas you post was the length of a full medium sized book containing much ramble and unnecessary side conversations. This that I ask for is not that difficult of a request.Perhaps go over some of the other non grandstanding convesations in the group here and you'll get the idea. The chimney effect is a standard concept hundreds of years old that I am saying will apply to other applications such as the fires in the twin towers. If you are unable to confine your dialogue to that specific topic I will immediately delete it.
<br/>
<br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher I am not going to read all of this my friend. Same pattern again. There is an old adage that says: If if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it". I got only as far as noticing where you went off subject at the very start and then of course...See More
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 349 -->
<a name="x350"></a>
<h2><a href="#x350" class="tiny">x350</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_350');">foist "tl;dnr" onto you</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_350" style="display: block;">
<p>Shit, Mr. George Secher, someone could foist "tl;dnr" onto you as well. The details of Truth isn't easy and isn't always a tweet. If you aren't going to do the homework, you can't legitimately debunk it.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 350 -->
<a name="x351"></a>
<h2><a href="#x351" class="tiny">x351</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_351');">"Form" is the mother of all paradgimes</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_351" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher The actual mechanics involved as in all things were simple as always, you are entering complexity into it because you are coming from your own writing. If you want to address it please address it with out the addition of your complex explanation of another completely different view point. I believe I made a valid point in the post and even summarized it at the very bottom under (REVIEW - SUMMERY). Please address the concept of the chimney effect or there won't be anything for us to discuss. The collapse part 2. we can then discuss latter, (but not in tweet form). All the best. :)
<br/>
<br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher Got to thinking about it Maxwell Bridges, in all due respect, even in your last response here, after I explained about "keeping it simple and concise" you again demonstrated how you are allowing form to rule function, (form over function). "Form" is the mother of all paradgimes that keep us away from perceiving true reality. I would say this at this juncture; please wait till all the innicial conversations have come through, (I don't expect many from the Truthers because of the sound thought behind my premiss), in perhaps 2 to three weeks and then let's cap it off with yours so I can dig through its tangents. :)
</p>
</div><!-- section 351 -->
<a name="x352"></a>
<h2><a href="#x352" class="tiny">x352</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_352');">modified chimney is clever, it does not address all of the relevant evidence</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_352" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Secher, Dr. David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
<br/>
<br/>While your premise of the modified chimney is clever, it does not address all of the relevant evidence nor does it match observations, as will be discussed.
<br/>
<br/>In your summary you write: "A modified chimney effect incorporated the entire interior of both of crash areas into a combustion chamber with ample flew air through the planes entry breaches elevating the ambient temperature high enough to bring steel beams and supports to a red hot condition causing both towers to decend at ever increasing speeds with enough force and inertia to cause all floors to fail."
<br/>
<br/>Your reasoning continues that although jet fuel burns between 800-1,500 F in an open flame, the conditions in both towers was that of a modified chimey. "In the final analysis, the temperature in the towers combustion area, (entire floors), conservatively elevated to around 2,000 degrees F or more, especially in the fire's epicenter, (as opposed to the text book "conventional combustion" scenario of 800 to 1,500 F), hence only 20 minutes or so were required to bring down the towers."
<br/>
<br/>Earlier in your premise you wrote: "Starting at 800 F [steel] already acquires a dull red hot condition and at 1500 it is relatively bright red to easily weaken a buildings structure enough to cause great damage and failure. There have been experimental demonstrations on the internet showing that at 1500 F steel can not even support a very light weight load. Much beyond 1500 F steel becomes very bright red and pliable so if fire hadn't already caused structural failure and collapse it would with certainty beyond that temperature range."
<br/>
<br/>Too bad for your premise that the NIST reports say that (a) most of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fire-ball and (b) what remained was burned off in the first 10 minutes. Your premise with the jet fuel allegedly requires 20 minutes. Can fires fueled by office furnishings reach temperatures in a chimney required for steel weakening? Failed already, but let's set this aside.
<br/>
<br/>The RJ Lee group analyzed the dust from the lobby of a neighboring building (Deutsches Bank), where they found 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust (see Table 3, p.28 in the 2003 Report). [Link to this report is in section 2 of my reference.] Section 13 "High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions" goes into details well worth reading including the very end with a table that lists "process and material" and the temperature that is required. To melt iron (spherule formation) would require 2,800 degrees F.
<br/>
<br/>According to your premise, "the temperature in the towers combustion area, ... conservatively elevated to around 2,000 degrees F or more" with the 20 minutes of unburned jet fuel that the premise requires. You have no substantiation for this hypnotic suggestion, but that doesn't matter because it is already 800 degrees short of reaching the 2,800 degrees F that had to have been present to generate the RJ Lee group's evidence. Failed again, but's let keep going.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "We must bear in mind that steel already melts at only 2,500 F. but long before that point it will have very little strength." For the sake of discussion, let's set aside the issue with not having 20 minutes of unburned jet fuel.
<br/>
<br/>The destruction of the upper stories happened in a symmetric fashion (see Chandler video Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower), but your premise says there was an epicenter of fire. Localized weaking of structure would be asymmetric. Worse, it happened on 20 floors at about the same time. Failed again.
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s
<br/>
<br/>So that's three major failures or strikes against your premise already. Premise is out and down for the count. Got done quicker than I thought and with fewer comments.
<br/>
<br/>Your lame calculations omit the tiny detail of how long a single piece of structural steel (like at the core) has to be kept at 1500 degrees F (in a controlled condition like at a foundary) to weaken. Such foundary conditions were not present for one, let alone the number of, simultaneous beam weakening required to match observation (recorded in video).
<br/>
<br/>Fires in both towers were giving off black sooty smoke, which is an indication of an inefficient fire and blows smoke in the face of the chimney effect. WTC-2 had waning fires in a few small pockets that firefighters radioed in and were preparing to put down. WTC-2 was hit second, had weaker fires, but was destroyed first shortly after this radio report. Probably forced the perps to accelerate their plans beginning with WTC-2 instead of WTC-1.
<br/>
<br/>The "dustification" of concrete at the earliest phases of annihilation are visible in Mr. Chandler's video. Mr. Chandler states at 2:30: "What we actually see here, is the falling section of the building turning to dust before our eyes."
<br/>
<br/>So exactly how does your "modified chimney" running on jet fumes and office furnishings achieve that? The roof fell at 65% gravitational acceleraton, meaning the 20 story structure went from 100% resistance to gravity, to only 35%... suddenly, symmetrically. They appear to accordion in on itself before the destructive wave gets much below the level of impact from the plane.
<br/>
<br/>To make this whole conversation worth my while as a sincere seeker of truth, I say that the first FGNW in the tower achieved the high temperatures and weakening of steel that Mr. Secher alludes to... suddenly, symmetrically, on all floors. The deep penetrating highly energetic neutrons created volume heating in the steel of the support core. It ablated the steel pans and trusses that held up the concrete floor into the iron spheres found in the dust; no prob reaching 2,800 degrees F. It caused rapid expansion of the concrete creating instant pulverization.
<br/>
<br/>FGNW addresses more of the evidence.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 352 -->
<a name="x353"></a>
<h2><a href="#x353" class="tiny">x353</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_353');">left off portions of what I said</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_353" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher Maxwell Bridges, You left off portions of what I said and misinterpreted me. While you re read it I have things to due but as my message just above mine please reserve your response for after the less convoluted responses had come through in two or three weeks so I could devote more time to your tangents. When I get back I'll decide if I wish to respond now or hide it and get to it latter in a couple of weeks or so.
</p>
</div><!-- section 353 -->
<a name="x354"></a>
<h2><a href="#x354" class="tiny">x354</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_354');">being a weasel, all around</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_354" style="display: block;">
<p>You post something yesterday, and with the first brass-tacks discussion that points out four significant failings, you say: "maybe I'll respond now, or maybe in a couple weeks. Or maybe not at all by hiding it" (or exercising admin privileges of deleting it.)
<br/>
<br/>That's being a weasel, all around. Bravo!
<br/>
<br/>You posted it in two locations, meaning you were trying to get discussion (... err, distraction) on it. For you to then scramble away...
<br/>
<br/>But I'm fine with that... assuming I don't catch you two-timing me by having discussions and flame wars with others here. As a chastity belt to keep you from cheating on me with others in this discussion (and because it resides in two places), you can turn off comments here until you're ready. I won't be holding my breath.
<br/>
<br/>You're right; I left off a whole bunch of your verbiage, because they were cotton-candy (mostly air and tooth rott) to the argument already handily debunked. If your premise doesn't address the evidence or even the facts from NIST to whom all debunkers pray, then it is incomplete.
<br/>
<br/>Sorry that you have to report to your superiors this stunning defeat. That'll hit your paycheck.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>+++ E
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 354 -->
<a name="x355"></a>
<h2><a href="#x355" class="tiny">x355</a>
Rolando Fasetti : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_355');">video of failed building demolitions</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_355" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>Rolando Fasetti
<br/>Rolando Fasetti 8:41pm Dec 21
<br/>http://ytcropper.com/cropped/XH5a3c7eb78538f
<br/>{mcb: video of failed building demolitions.}
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 355 -->
<a name="x356"></a>
<h2><a href="#x356" class="tiny">x356</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_356');">#4 video was awesome. The building just kind of rolls over as a cohesive whole.</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_356" style="display: block;">
<p>Oh man, that #4 video was awesome, Mr. Rolando Fasetti! The building just kind of rolls over as a cohesive whole.
<br/>
<br/>Well, when thinking 9/11, the upper stories of WTC-1 were rolling over and should have rolled off of the path of maximum resistance and out into thin air & the path of least resistance.
<br/>
<br/>Instead, my speculation (as seen in the Chandler video) is that FGNW arrested the angular momentum of the whole by making it lots of small, tiny, pulverized pieces.
<br/>
<br/>//
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 356 -->
<a name="x357"></a>
<h2><a href="#x357" class="tiny">x357</a>
George Secher : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_357');">haven't broken your habits</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_357" style="display: block;">
<p><br/>{mcb: Send via Messenger. Discussion forum no longer available to me.}
<br/>George Secher
<br/>George Secher You haven't broken your habits that I had warned you about. Nothing you write is relevant to the discussion of my post within your ego driven condescending form over function style. So I am blocking you, (I tried to just hide your comments but don't see the option for that any more.
<br/>
</p>
</div><!-- section 357 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part6 -->
<hr>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part7');">Part 7: Miscellaneous Exchanges</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part7" style="display: block;">
<a name="x358"></a>
<h2><a href="#x358" class="tiny">x358</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_358');">debunking Woodsian spew</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/roger.gloux/posts/1525010434261416?comment_id=1525197564242703&reply_comment_id=1525511144211345¬if_id=1514534089519134¬if_t=feed_comment_reply&ref=notif">2017-12-29</a></p>
<div id="sect_358" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gloux, (Part 1/2) I'll do you the favor of picking apart your comment line-by-line, even though you clearly haven't read my work despite having more than a couple years to do so. I'll be making references to specific sections from it.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Does a nuclear device of any type produce fire and heat?"
<br/>
<br/>The highly energetic neutron of the FGNW penetrate materials deeply and instantly create volumne heating in larger materials like steel support beams, raising them to temperatures that weaken their strength. Thinner materials like the steel pans and support trusses for the concrete floors experienced ablating. The leading surface vaporized so quickly, it caused a shock wave into remainder of the (already hot) material that destroys it. Refer to section 14.
<br/>
<br/>The implication of your question and one of the fallacies that Dr. Wood promotes is that the towers' destruction had no fire or heat. Video evidence shows a fireball buried in the structure upon initiation of annihilation of both towers. Under-rubble hot-spots burned for months, and fireman reported seeing molten metal running down the channels like lava. Refer to section 13.
<br/>
<br/>The significant quantities of tiny iron spheres in the dust from Deutsches Bank lobby (collected by the RJ Lee group); the arches (or sags) and horseshoes promoted by Dr. Wood; the "steel doobies": these are more easily created with the high heat sources of a FGNW. Dr. Wood doesn't explain their creation with anything real-world or discussed in the literature.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Does a nuclear device of any type produce radiation contamination?"
<br/>
<br/>The FGNW in question were fission-triggered-fusion. The vast majority of the radiation were the released and targeted highly energetic neutrons that do not linger. The other types of (alpha, beta, gamma) radiation from the FGNW were not produced in quantities that would linger in significant quantities beyond 48 hours. Coincidence that the earliest measurements for radiation (that we know of) happened more than two days after the event in a shoddy fashion?
<br/>
<br/>The other USGS dust samples show correlated evidence of the fission triggers. Although tabulated in the tables, their correlation wasn't discussed in reports.
<br/>
<br/>Furthermore, tritium was measured (albeit haphazardly and for a report with a serious scope limit) and is a fundamental component of all FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>Refer to sections 9-13.
<br/>
<br/>The implication of your question is that 9/11 at the WTC had no radiation contamination. You can produce no reports with prompt, systematic, and thorough measurements for such. Cameras and Geiger counters were forbidden from the area. You can't point to a single 9/11 report that didn't have issues, and this is after making the giant assumption that they were true and faithful in the measurements and reporting thereof.
<br/>
<br/>The nature of the health ailments of the first responders is another indication of some radiation contamination, coupled with asbestos and other badness in the debris. Refer to section 20.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Does nuclear devices of any type burn paper or does it only turn re-enforced concrete full of rebar and six inch steel to dust but not burn the paper?"
<br/>
<br/>The highly energetic neutrons from a FGNW would react more with materials having more complex atomic structures, such as metals. Think of it in terms of a microwave oven that doesn't heat the cardboard box of your Chinese leftovers, but would go bat-shit crazy if you left a metal spoon inside the box.
<br/>
<br/>Because I have studied Dr. Wood, I know that the basis for your question are the scattered & unburned pieces of paper and unburned leaves in trees depicted in pictures of, say, West Broadway that also showed many torched vehicles. The FGNW answer is EMP slipping out through window slits and falling debris. High amplitude EMP, like your microwave, won't be affecting paper but will be affecting things with a more complex atomic structure, like the metal in cars. EMP creates Eddy currents in metals; high enough currents can heat the metal to a point where it burns off things attached to it with lower combustion points (like paint, plastic door handles, etc.)
<br/>
<br/>Refer to sections 21-24.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "What kind of kinetic energy can turn a building to dust and powder but not heave steal into all directions across Manhattan?"
<br/>
<br/>This question about "kinetic energy" is a Woodsian distraction that has little to do with FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>// Part 1/2
<br/>
<br/>Part 2/2
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Those Towers were the highest buildings yet there is NO steel on the roof of the lower buildings around the Towers across those narrow streets. Only aluminum siding."
<br/>
<br/>The above statements are wrong. The wall assemblies are well represented, as are the steel from core columns. What is under-represented are the steel pans and truss supports for the concrete floors, and in general anything that one would normally expect to find in an office environment.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "What burned all those cars but not the buildings they were parked in front of."
<br/>
<br/>EMP from the FGNW slipping out through window slits. Refer to sections 21-24.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "What caused all the Scot Air Pacs to explode on the fire trucks when there was no fire near them?"
<br/>
<br/>First I've heard of this. Again, EMP.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "If there is a type of nuclear power that can destroy buildings without prior setting on the walls with people occupying the building up to the time of destruction, then they should be able to do it with any building set for destruction."
<br/>
<br/>First of all, (surviving) occupants of the buildings report on-going "construction" as well as extended power-down periods.
<br/>
<br/>Secondly, 6-12 FGNW per tower isn't quite the logistics effort into demolition that conventional explosives would be. Further, they wouldn't have the traces of chemical explosives that bomb sniffing dogs would trigger on (although they had holiday in the several days leading up to 9/11).
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Look at the series on TV when CD Inc prepares a building for destruction called "Blowdown". They have to gut the whole building then drill holes in the thick concrete set specific charges sufficient to cut the steel that has been cleaned off, but not so much that it would send it to adjacent buildings when exploding."
<br/>
<br/>Doesn't apply. Mixing apples with oranges. The subject is FGNW that are in the category of DEW. They are not chemical explosives, and don't require the same preparation.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "The glass on the buildings across the street were not broken with any explosive force, only falling debris broke some of the glass as it got closer to ground level."
<br/>
<br/>Indeed. The destructive shockwaves from the FGNW were not primarily carried through air, as would be the case for chemical explosives (to achieve the observed pulverization). The deeply penetrating, highly energetic neutrons of the FGNW created the destructive shockwaves within the materials they were aimed at.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Your using the ridiculous dig "beams from space" is meant to ridicule. No-one said it was from space. Whatever the energy that was used, was able to core out Building 6 without causing any damage to the rest of the offices still with furniture in them. No fire or anything that would destroy by explosive force."
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood is the one talking about getting "free energy", and part of her dangling innuendo was Hurricane Erin. How does that energy get to Earth to be destructive? Don't blame me if Dr. Wood purposely let her work be misconstrued as "beams from space."
<br/>
<br/>If you want to talk about WTC-6, I'm okay with that. Dr. Wood does well in raising questions about WTC-6. What is Dr. Wood's explanation? Hint: She doesn't have one.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "Whatever it was, it destroyed the eight stories right down to the main floor and stopped, leaving the exterior walls in place with part of the offices with their furnishings."
<br/>
<br/>It was FGNW in the category of DEW. Aimed upwards, just like in the towers.
<br/>
<br/>Know the limits of your source materials, my friend. Dr. Wood never claimed to be an end-station, never connected her dangling innuendo, never even powered such with anything real-world, and did shoddy research into nuclear topics.
<br/>
<br/>You think you are objective? Are an earnest seeker of truth? Then prove it.
<br/>
<br/>In my tenure in 9/11 truth, I've noticed a curious phenomenon. Wannabe debunkers of 9/11 nuclear involvement (be it outside or inside the 9/11 Truth Movement) always mal-frame the FGNW nature, making them to be too powerful, too much radiation, etc. such that they won't match the evidence. They do not ever go into FGNW except to mock it. Yeah, the supposed truthers who champion deep underground nukes? Disinformationalists trying to muddy the waters.
<br/>
<br/>And then we have the Woodsian 9/11 truthers, a special breed of disinformation agents (or idiots). How so? Woodsian DEW practically screams for marriage with nuclear means particularly if the talk is about "free energy technology." Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) is the natural offspring of the marriage between Woodsian DEW and nuclear methods.
<br/>
<br/>But can Woodsian followers ever recognize the limits of their matron saint's work? Can they prove their objectivity and open-mindedness by shifting their beliefs ever so slightly to FGNW, that can power their suspicions and generate the observed destruction? No, most can't, because they are paid to promote a disinformation agenda and limited hang-out. (Andrew Johnson, Atahan Ganduu, Emmanuel Goldstein, etc.)
<br/>
<br/>Where are you, Mr. Gloux? Can you change your mind, modify your beliefs, shift your position?
<br/>
<br/>// Part 2/2
</p>
</div><!-- section 358 -->
<a name="x359"></a>
<h2><a href="#x359" class="tiny">x359</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_359');">You want me to believe ...</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-30</p>
<div id="sect_359" style="display: block;">
<p>I'm not bad mouthing what you believe saying anything other then what the pictures reveal. The inside of Building 6 was destroyed, yet the remains are not touched by fire, kinetic energy like any kind of explosives because the offices still have their contents. If there was kinetic energy it would have blown those eight story walls outward, and it didn't.
<br/>
<br/>The upper picture I put in has a blue dome of a building next to Building 6 and Tower 1 and there is no damage to it. Obviously nothing fell on it.
<br/>
<br/>You want me to believe some kind of Fourth Generation Nuclear Device will explode and turn steel and concrete to dust but be selective by only taking out half a room and leave paper and desk in the other half.
<br/>
<br/>You also want me to believe that in one location in Stairwell B of Tower 1, where 14 people lived without getting burned or blown apart while everything beside them and above them disappeared. There isn't any radiation yet somehow an Atomic "fusion" (instead of fission) weapon in very small forms can explode in such a fashion without leaving radiation.
<br/>
<br/>What's the smallest device of such a thing without radiation?
<br/>
<br/>On top of that.... "no fire".
<br/>
<br/>On top of that you say there is ample steel on the ground and on top of the buildings.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "It was FGNW in the category of DEW. Aimed upwards, just like in the towers."
<br/>
<br/>The Towers came apart from the top downward not from the bottom and destroyed each floor in 1/10th of a second without making explosive sounds.
<br/>
<br/>In this photo Building 4 looks like a knife cut it down to the main floor and half of it disappeared. The only steel there is the outside facade of one of the towers and note it did't go across the street. Not only that, the lights are ON, under the building in the delivery garage. The steel didn't go underground to account for two Towers 110 stories high.....</p>
</div><!-- section 359 -->
<a name="x360"></a>
<h2><a href="#x360" class="tiny">x360</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_360');">alignment of FGNW with Woodsian DEW</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/roger.gloux/posts/1525010434261416">2017-12-30</a></p>
<div id="sect_360" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gloux, you wrote: "You want me to believe some kind of Fourth Generation Nuclear Device will explode and turn steel and concrete to dust but be selective by only taking out half a room and leave paper and desk in the other half."
<br/>
<br/>No, I want you to believe that an ignited FGNW will direct its highly energetic neutrons at material in a targeted fashion. Some of the material deeply penetrated by the neutrons ablates, gets vaporized. Shock waves created deep within materials tears them apart (like an egg in a microwave). Other material suffer volume heating. If not targeted -- like the exterior walls --, it gets selectively spared.
<br/>
<br/>Dr. Wood promotes DEW. FGNW takes it to the next level by being nuclear DEW.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "You also want me to believe that in one location in Stairwell B of Tower 1, where 14 people lived without getting burned or blown apart while everything beside them and above them disappeared."
<br/>
<br/>The reason for their survival may have been because of a malfunctioning FGNW. I believe such were the cause of the under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "There isn't any radiation yet somehow an Atomic "fusion" (instead of fission) weapon in very small forms can explode in such a fashion without leaving radiation."
<br/>
<br/>No, I want you to believe that the FGNW were low radiation devices, not "no radiation devices." Closer inspection of the reports that try to give the impression of "no radiation" were such shoddy efforts, you could drive a semi-truck with FGNW through their holes. [If you persist with the "no radiation at the WTC" claim, I'll turn this discussion around and make you prove that claim. For reasons already given, you'll discover that to be fruitless busy work.] Even with their shoddiness, traces of nuclear involvement slip out of all of them.
<br/>
<br/>You write: "On top of that.... 'no fire.'"
<br/>
<br/>WTC-6 had fires. If you ablate some material like steel, its fragments would be hot enough to burn other things. The issues are distances that could serve to cool super hot particles before they ignited things.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "On top of that you say there is ample steel on the ground and on top of the buildings."
<br/>
<br/>This was a mistake; I'm sorry. I meant to say that the debris pile of the towers had ample evidence of the wall assemblies and core columns. I did not mean to write or imply that the crater of WTC-6 and WTC-5 had ample evidence of material coming from the towers.
<br/>
<br/>I wrote: "It was FGNW in the category of DEW. Aimed upwards, just like in the towers."
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "The Towers came apart from the top downward not from the bottom and destroyed each floor in 1/10th of a second without making explosive sounds."
<br/>
<br/>True for both statements. What I meant was that the top-most FGNW in the towers was placed, say, about impact level. It was aimed upwards to decimate the upper stories. Then a FGNW some 20 stories below that went off, etc. Destruction happened top-down, yet the devices themselves (just like at the WTC-6) were aimed upwards.
<br/>
<br/>And yes, without making explosive sounds comparable to chemical explosives.
<br/>
<br/>When conventional chemical explosives (shaped-charges) are mounted on a structure, that's the location that gets zapped, but a shockwave is transmitted through the air as massive changes in air pressure that -- depending on goals/techniques -- can violent destroy other structure and content. Shockwave through air means "very loud." 9/11 booms were loud, but muted from expectations about chemical explosives.
<br/>
<br/>The detonation of a FGNW does not have to be extremely loud at its ignition point, because neutron emission is a different process compared to chemical reactions, is heating the air, but isn't generating massive changes in air pressure. Destroying shock waves originating in the materials from penetrating highly energetic neutrons would have a vastly different audio signature than shock waves transmitted through air and able to achieve the same destruction
<br/>
<br/>FGNW are not kinetic energy weapons.
<br/>
<br/>Bottom-line, FGNW are in the category of weapons labeled as DEW, explain the evidence, and should be where you take your research from Dr. Wood's effort. It is a natural extension and easy hop in understanding to make.
<br/>
<br/>[If not FGNW, then what? Dr. Wood's work by itself ain't an end-station. If anything, by itself it is a cul-de-sac and limited hangout designed to be debunked (by not being specific or conclusive enough) and to besmirch the evidence of 9/11 having nuclear components.]
<br/>
<br/>//</p>
</div><!-- section 360 -->
<a name="x361"></a>
<h2><a href="#x361" class="tiny">x361</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_361');">fostering rational discussion</a></h2>
<p>2013-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_361" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gloux, Thank you for the moments you take to assume my FGNW premise and to foster rational discussion.
<br/>
<br/>You asked, how is FGNW packaged and how big is it?
<br/>
<br/>Here allow me to be a bit of a weasel, because I by no means can give you exact dimensions as if I had access to one through employment. Were I in any way associated with the nuclear weapons industry, I could find myself facing charges of treason for revealing details and national secrets. "Whew", then that I'm not!
<br/>
<br/>I can only provide educated speculation based on data points that leaked into the public domain. I call your attention to Section 14, where Dr. Gsponer suggests: "A FGND using only 25 mg of deuterium-tritium (DT) could have a 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency." 25 mg of most things isn't very big in 3D space.
<br/>
<br/>Section 16 is also of interest, because it shows a picture of a Davey Crockett nuke and documents the W-54. The W54 was a micro-nuke that weighed 51 pounds and could be fired from a slightly modified ordinary bazooka. Different versions of the W54 ranged from .01 kt to 1 kt yield.
<br/>
<br/>Let's look at the picture of the Davey Crocket, get rid of the rocket stages, and have just the warhead portion. Rough guess is a cylinder 3 ft long and 2 ft circumference. This is 1960's packaging, but let's assume this is the worst case for FGNW and its tiny 25 mg of DT. You could find any number of ruses to get 12 (or more) of these in each building of the WTC, like in the boxes carried on the dolly pushed by the guy who re-stocks all of the pop & candy machines. I've read speculation that suggest some FGNW could be softball size. This is underscored by Hollywood movies having military advisors (e.g., permission from the Department of Defense) to help achieve technical accuracy. [The movies do a lot of conditioning of the public's mind.]
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 361 -->
<a name="x362"></a>
<h2><a href="#x362" class="tiny">x362</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_362');">dust cooler then the ambient temperature</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_362" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges So, say it is a softball size, how many per floor is needed to make steel and concrete turn to dust at 1/10th of a second per floor, but not send any steel across the street on top of all those domed buildings? Only two places have the outside facade steel hitting buildings but not on top of them. That means no interior big heavy steel that was covered by re-enforced concrete reached the other side of the street. In fact there was hardly any in the footprint of the buildings.
<br/>
<br/>Remember the dust was cooler then the ambient air of the day. Cold "fusion" means not as much heat as "fission", so if there is heat, why then was the dust cooler then the ambient temperature?
<br/>
<br/>I'm trying to visualize how heavy steel is torn apart on the molecular level. Large chunks were falling but never reached the ground because they were turned to dust as they fell. The only thing that fell to the street at the front doors of Building 1 was aluminum siding. Why did aluminum survive but not the heavy steel?
<br/>
<br/>OH yeah..... regarding the Scott Pacs in the fire trucks, you said you didn't know about that.
<br/>
<br/>If you still have "the book", look at page 110. If it was EMP, where did it come from because the buildings had already been destroyed? Cars, buses and firetrucks were also exploding after the event happened. Remember, it only took nine to eleven seconds to destroy the Towers but cars were still exploding after, especially one row in the Parking lot. And the cars that had aluminum blocks were destroyed more then the cars that had iron engines blocks. Why did this selecting occurrence happen?</p>
</div><!-- section 362 -->
<a name="x363"></a>
<h2><a href="#x363" class="tiny">x363</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_363');">defending Woodsian innuendo</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_363" style="display: block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Gloux, I fear you are not being sincere, and are putting too much effort into defending Woodsian innuendo.
<br/>
<br/>Case in point, I disagree with your assessment: "Large chunks were falling but never reached the ground because they were turned to dust as they fell." Yes, large chucks fell and seemed to be steaming, smoking, trailing dust. It wasn't the wall assemblies coming apart in the dust; it was things attached to them -- like asbestos, paint, drywall, etc.
<br/>
<br/>Look at the debris piles depicted in Dr. Wood's book. The wall assemblies and even core columns are well represented. They weren't "dustified."
<br/>
<br/>What is under-represented in the pile are the steel pans and trusses that supported the concrete floors. These were ablated: vaporized immediately. Probably accounted for the tiny iron spheres measured in large quantities in the dust (from the lobby the Deutsches Bank.) The deeply penetrating neutrons heated the concrete so fast, its rapid expansion blew it apart into concrete dust.
<br/>
<br/>Here is an important distinction of one FGNW with 25 mg DT and a 1 ton yield. 80% of that yield was the highly energetic neutrons. Although the neutrons traveled through the air, structure, and content, it wasn't as if a destructive shock wave of neutrons was creating massive changes in air pressure to destroy content. No. The neutrons deposit massive amounts of energy deep within materials instantly. Once it was inside the material, then the material reacted in some way.
<br/>
<br/>Only 20% of the 1 ton yield was in an actual blast wave, heat wave, and EMP. Sufficient to throw wall assemblies laterally and eject content, but insufficient (from its placement and alignment) to throw wall assemblies to the domed buildings.
<br/>
<br/>I have research cold-fusion. While a real concept, it was not and is not today operational, let alone at the scale required for 9/11. Don't be giving nuclear devices such a quick brush-off, particularly FGNW.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: "the dust was cooler then the ambient air of the day." I ask for substantiation. I disagree, although my disagreement isn't saying the dust was super hot either. I believe that when it initially by the neutrons and separated from its former cohesive self, it was hot. But now having more surface area, it could cool off. Ambient air of the day was elevated by the event. First responders report being enveloped by sudden heat, or being blown down the street by a heat way.
<br/>
<br/>I disagree with your statement: "Why did aluminum survive but not the heavy steel? The only thing that fell to the street at the front doors of Building 1 was aluminum siding."
<br/>
<br/>You're a Woodsian disciple, so I don't need to be lecturing you on the significance of directed energy weapons. What were the FGNW aimed at and what were they not? Answers your question.
<br/>
<br/>Thanks for the reference to page 110 and the Scott cylinders. I could see EMP causing that effect. Generated Eddy currents in the container heated the container and subsequently the gaseous content. Gaseous content expands causing an over pressure situation and safety value release. When they say they were "going off" and "exploding", it is unclear whether they mean "value exploded" or "tank exploded".
<br/>
<br/>Same situation with the cars, buses, and firetrucks. EMP hitting even a localized area can cause sufficiently large Eddy currents to heat that metal to a level that causes things with a lower combustion point (e.g., paint, seals, plastic handles) touching the metal to burn. Once a vehicle is on fire, volitile things (like fuel) explode.
<br/>
<br/>I have seen nothing along the lines: "cars that had aluminum blocks were destroyed more then the cars that had iron engines blocks." Cars on the road in 2001, what is the ratio of aluminum blocks versus iron block? What was the ratio of such blocks in the parking lot? Pretty important contextual information needed to understand the statistic you present.
<br/>
<br/>Here's an interesting video I just learned about. Whereas I don't agree that it was one device aimed upward, it does document design elements of the device(s).
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jswvSrNtdc
<br/>
<br/>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 363 -->
<a name="x364"></a>
<h2><a href="#x364" class="tiny">x364</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_364');">(Woodsian) is the most accurate of all the groups</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_364" style="display: block;">
<p>Maxwell Bridges your right, I think Dr. Wood (Woodsian) is the most accurate of all the groups. BUT... I still look at other points of view, such as yours.
<br/>
<br/>You said..... "Yes, large chucks fell and seemed to be steaming, smoking, trailing dust. It wasn't the wall assemblies coming apart in the dust; it was things attached to them -- like asbestos, paint, drywall, etc. "
<br/>
<br/>There wasn't any fire, so it wasn't smoking. All there is , is steel studs with drywall attached to it, concrete with rebar and heavy steel. Those big chunks never reached the ground because every street was photographed the very same day. It definitely was trailing dust, so what was it that made it turn to dust. If there was baseball size cold fusion in the building, this is steel and whatever was on it turning to dust outside of the building and it didn't reach the ground as you can see it disappears into dust.....
<br/>
<br/>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyM9y2xo4RQ
<br/>
<br/>That steel and the drywall wasn't exploding, it was turning to dust and disappeared. There wasn't that much steel on the ground. I used to haul that stuff on flat decks and it is very heavy and very hard. I also used to apply drywall in skyscrapers and there isn't very much in there, (except furniture and wooden doors) that can burn. What we see is steel turning to dust outside the building and virtually none of the big steel hit the street.
<br/>
<br/>Explosives don't work like that.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "Look at the debris piles depicted in Dr. Wood's book. The wall assemblies and even core columns are well represented. They weren't "dustified."
<br/>
<br/>Your looking at Building 7 which wasn't totally "dustified. Show me where in the two Towers you see drywall. There is nothing in the street or in the footprint except in Stairwell B. None on the steel or the Lobby that is sticking out.
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "Gaseous content expands causing an over pressure situation and safety value release. When they say they were "going off" and "exploding", it is unclear whether they mean "value exploded" or "tank exploded".
<br/>
<br/>Th Fireman said "sssssss boom" repeatedly. Oxygen tank used in welding will do that in a fire. The thing is the ambulance truck was not on fire. And the Towers were already gone. so what caused the EMP? Fuel tanks will explode as well but they have a vent to let the gases escape if expanded by heat, same with propane tanks on a pickup. When you burn out a scrap car, all you need is a cup of gas on the seat and it will burn but not the gas tank nor the tires. The only way tires will burn is if there is gas on the road,
<br/>
<br/>You said.... "I have seen nothing along the lines: "cars that had aluminum blocks were destroyed more then the cars that had iron engines blocks." Cars on the road in 2001, what is the ratio of aluminum blocks versus iron block? What was the ratio of such blocks in the parking lot?"
<br/>
<br/>Look at pages 224-228, the destroyed (toasted) cars in these pictures, 2 have engine blocks "eaten" out. Also one firetruck had it's engine, rad and grill gone but the rest of the truck was OK. The same with several other vehicles and others were not affected in this fashion.
<br/>
<br/>When you add all of these things together, it definitely wasn't controlled demolition or collapse because it turned to dust one floor at a time from the top down.
<br/>
<br/>If there was thousands of nuclear devises in those buildings, how did they manage to set them of at 1/10th of a second per floor with low EMP, but sufficiently strong enough to turn steel into dust, and then when it is over, having cars up and down the street starting on fire by EMP with nothing to produce it.
<br/>
<br/>The video you produced, the guy says planes started it all when none were used. He uses the word "collapse" when that really didn't happen. and you can't turn it up and down because the whole building was destroyed in 9 seconds.
<br/>
<br/>Also there wans't any pyroclastic cloud. because the dust was not hot. Everyone inside the dust cloud said it was cooler then the ambient temperature.
<br/>
<br/>It really don't fit.
<br/>
<br/>Also, since you have the book did you actually read it? Just the quotes from the people who went through it, clinches it.</p>
</div><!-- section 364 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part7 -->
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Expand All</b> Chapters</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All</b> Chapters</a></p>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');"><b>Expand All</b> Subsections</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');"><b>Hide All</b> Subsections</a></p>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-46334700718228356552017-12-31T08:08:00.000-08:002018-02-17T12:57:53.490-08:00Emails from T&S exile<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com">Truth & Shadows</a> run by Mr. Craig McKee has had me in exile.
Several postings or comments over the year rose to the level where I thought I should respond, generally via email
but sometimes by comments that have not been published. There is no small amount of irony between Mr. McKee's
experiences in various Facebook discussion groups (e.g., trolled, banished) and my T&S tenure. Mr. McKee articulates
his position on 9/11 nuclear devices (and by extension "me").
</p>
<p>These discussions sadly add more data points to a particular trend line in the 9/11 realm that
any attempts at objective & rational discussion into nuclear methods
must be suppressed.
</p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<a name='more'></a>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
</p>
<hr>
<a name="x8"></a>
<h2><a href="#x8" class="tiny">x8</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">a disinformation campaign in progress for a dozen years or more</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/911-truthers-must-focus-on-destroying-the-official-story-not-splintering-over-dozens-of-theories/#comment-46507">2017-05-02</a></p>
<div id="sect_8" style="display:block;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>I was "down" with the truths of your article, even with the extra <i>"downs"</i> that you might want to fix: <i>"...believes the official narrative down right down the line..."</i>
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p><blockquote><p>"I’ll admit that my thoughts on the issue are colored by my exposure to many brainless discussions about 9/11 within the intellectual wasteland that is Facebook. If I were to come across someone willing to take the plunge into examining the evidence, the last thing I would do would be to urge them to explore 9/11 groups on this social medium. I don’t mean to say all are bad; in fact I know there are some administered by good people who do their very best to ensure a fair discussion. But others are dominated by trolls and likely agents who will mock and ridicule any newcomer who dares to even ask a question about a supposedly taboo topic."</p></blockquote>
<p>With 20/20 hindsight, we know that a government operation has control of the message and public perceptions as military tactical goals. So it shouldn't surprise us that <i>Facebook</i> doesn't just have infiltration by government trolls, particularly in FB groups formed to discuss 9/11.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p><blockquote><p>"... I believe there has been a disinformation campaign in progress for a dozen years or more that seeks to use the Pentagon event to divide the movement and to disqualify the powerful Pentagon evidence. I don’t say that all who push the large plane impact are knowingly part of this campaign, but some clearly are."</p></blockquote>
<p>This would be one prong in a many-prong disinformation campaign. September Clues, no planes (@ the WTC), beams from space, deep underground nukes, etc. were also introduced.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p><blockquote><p>"I do realize that there are those who would claim that in my frequent voicing of the importance of the Pentagon event to the overall 9/11 story—and my strong opposition to the impact position—I am guilty of the very thing I criticize: focusing on what they would call a pet theory and battling it out with any Truther who doesn’t fall into line. But I think there is a big difference.
<br>
<br>"My focus on the Pentagon is entirely consistent with my approach to 9/11 as a whole. It’s also consistent with what I think the movement as a whole should be doing—showing the official story to be false."</p></blockquote>
<p>Indeed. Important is <i>"showing the official story to be false."</i>
<br>
<br>You later continue:
</p><blockquote><p>"Applying my approach to the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers is considerably less contentious but it still has areas of fierce debate. I think it makes no sense whatsoever for some to attack a group like AE911Truth for its contention that thermite played a part in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, instead arguing that mini nukes or directed energy weapons were responsible. We all agree that some form of explosive destruction took place and that the buildings did not come down as a result of plane impacts. Why would we want to split over the type of material used? Why re-fight a battle that AE and the movement have effectively won?"</p></blockquote>
<p>I am the first to point out how most of the mini-nuke and directed energy weapon promoters have been disingenous and even in part disinformation, and I write this as one who has championed separately both mini-nukes and DEW. The manner in which these were and are promoted in a mutually exclusive fashion and unable to marry them together flags the efforts as Exhibit A of government control of the message and steering of the truth movement. Rational people and non-trolls in both camps ought to find the kernels of truth in each and evolve their thought to FGNW (fourth generation nuclear weapons), the appropriate marriage of mini-nukes and DEW.
<br>
<br>Why do I persist? In an earlier passage, you wrote regarding the Pentagon:
</p><blockquote><p>"... no other entity than the U.S. government itself that could have staged this deception. Simply proving the official account of a crash to be false <i>proves</i> an inside job took place."</p></blockquote>
<p>By similar logic, when the evidence doesn't stack in favor of conventional chemical explosives but leans heavily towards FGNW involvement, it not only <i>proves</i> an inside job took place, no other entity than the U.S. government itself that could have staged FGNW as well as the deception to point the public <i>AND THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT</i> away.
<br>
<br>The following is a great paragraph that needs to be read with FGNW in mind.
</p><blockquote><p>"And AE does not claim that thermite did the whole job. In fact, Niels Harrit, one of the authors of the research paper, “Active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” told me in an interview that while nanothermite was used, it was not the primary cause of the destruction of the buildings. In other words, something blew them up, and we don’t know what it was. But the controlled demolition position is a solid one, backed by overwhelming evidence, and it is essential to our efforts to educate others."</p></blockquote>
<p>Parking the discussion -- as A&E9/11 does -- at thermite when they admit that thermite did not do the whole job, is disingenuous. Whatever happened to <i>"follow the truth where ever it may lead"</i>?
<br>
<br>The reason is that the public whiff of anything nuclear would have had an uncontrollable reaction. Instead of looting Afghanistan for natural gas and opium and Iraq for oil, the hot-headed would have been advocating nuking in response... and there goes the spoils of war? And this assumes suspicion onto our own government (or Israel) can be thrown off. The figurative nuclear fall-out to institutions and alphabet-soup agencies could have been "tremendously yuge."
<br>
<br>Returning to an earlier statement of yours:
</p><blockquote><p>I think it makes no sense whatsoever for some to attack a group like AE911Truth for its contention that thermite played a part in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers...</p></blockquote>
<p>Here's where it make sense <i>to attack a group like AE911Truth for its contention that thermite played a part of the destruction of the WTC</i>: thermite is a limited hang-out, doesn't go the entire distance to truth -- and they know it and now so do you --, and shows how even their group was infiltrated and controlled.
<br>
<br>I love the work of David Chandler on the physics of the WTC. You legitimately call him and others on their unsatisfactory Pentagon positions. Hello, Mr. McKee?! Their unwillingness to faithfully and rigorously explore mini-nukes, DEW, and the offspring of their marriage -- FGNW -- fits into the trend line of how the infiltration and steering of the 9/11 Truth Movement happened.
<br>
<br>You want a rallying cry for the public to march behind so that truthful 9/11 lessons can be learned and not repeated? Look no further than the U.S. government used weapons from its nuclear arsenal on itself.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a>
<h2><a href="#x9" class="tiny">x9</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_9');">"had to have been created by the use of thermite or nano-thermite"?</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/911-lies-continue-to-kill/#comment-46853">2017-05-11</a></p>
<div id="sect_9" style="display:block;">
<p>Remember sitting in a circle as a child and whispering a message to your neighbor, and then hearing how the message had changed by the time it made it around the circle? The following passage from your article is no different.
<br>
</p><blockquote><p>"For example, says Weisbuch, the iron microspheres that have been identified by a team of scientists in the Ground Zero dust had to have been created by the use of thermite or nano-thermite in the controlled demolition of the towers — and possibly led to the symptoms found in many victims of 9/11-related illnesses."</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, iron microspheres were found in the dust.
<br>
<br>But what is this crazy notion that the iron microspheres "had to have been created by the use of thermite or nano-thermite"?!! Talk about bullshit and non-sequitors, Mr. McKee! Thermite does not any exclusivity on the creation of iron spheres.
<br>
<br>And given that the same team of scientists has also equivocated and back-peddled over the years: "NT was mixed with something else like RDX." "Something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." "NT may have been responsible for several spikes in the release of certain gases."
<br>
<br>Please take this swearing the way it was intended, Mr. McKee. GOD DAMN IT, would you please grow a pair of science balls and do some fact-based research?!!
<br>
<br>NT does not explain all of the observable evidence (e.g., duration of under-rubble hot-spots, molten steel, steel sags, steel doobies, etc.), while other nuclear options (FGNW) do. You already know this, Mr. McKee, because it has brought to your attention many times and should have inspired you to do some gumshoe study and research of your own.
<br>
</p><blockquote><p>"But in September 2016 [Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman] apologized for the first time to those who have become ill, admitting that the information she had been given was incorrect."</p></blockquote>
<p>It says a lot about the powers at play that the EPA could be fed incorrect information which they they propagated to the nation and world. Ground Zero wasn't that healthy, no doubt. But we've seen the same manipulation of scientific findings in the NIST reports.
<br>
<br>The world at large has experience with fires and destruction that laid waste to structures built with (by today's standards) hazardous materials. Sometimes ill-health rained down on the first-responders. But not to the degree of 9/11. The onset and proportional numbers of such indicate other mechanisms at play.
<br>
<br>I call your attention to sections 19 "Dr. Thomas Cahill and the Continually Regenerated Fine Particles" and 20 "Decontamination and First Responder Ailments".
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#19
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 9 -->
<a name="x10"></a>
<h2><a href="#x10" class="tiny">x10</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">Facebook experience</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/journalists-dismiss-reason-on-911/#comment-48387">2017-09-22</a></p>
<div id="sect_10" style="display:block;">
<p>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>Your Facebook experience brings back memories of my own 9/11 exchanges, seven to ten years ago. Same topics, same sources, same spiel. Glad to see that maybe you learned something from me in how you skillfully re-purpose conversations from other venues. You wield the high road like a Master Jedi Force-User; quite effectively.
<br>
<br>The shallowness of their arguments and trying to best you with rhetoric rather than facts from actual details, together with the repetition and re-tread arguments, pegs them as agents if not potential bots. With borrowed names and reputations, your Facebook nemisis might not be who you think.
<br>
<br>When you discuss the evidence of molten metal and hot fires the buildings requiring three months to extinguish, you should be careful. This is precisely where NT and Dr. Jones' theories go off of the rails of truth and where <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">fourth generation nuclear devices</a> better explains what was observed.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a>
<h2><a href="#x11" class="tiny">x11</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_11');">the "best-of Facebook" on T&S</a></h2>
<p>2017-09-28</p>
<div id="sect_11" style="display:block;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>Bless you for your truth efforts on Facebook, and for re-purposing the "best-of" on T&S.
<br>
<br>Would you care to enlighten me as to if and when I might participate on T&S again?
<br>
<br>Mr. David Hazan seems like an intelligent fellow. Would you please relay to him my desire for conversation by passing along my email address: maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us ? Thank you.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, I'm curious as to why you let Dr. James Fetzer have such breadth in his peddling. He plays his role very well. He proves that if you purposely scoop up disinformation and spread it in your truth message, you protect yourself from (deathly) retribution by those powers who might feel uncomfortable by truths. A limitation to the persona is not being able to admit to the errors, correct the message, and cut out the exposed disinformation, in part because that is the insurance. And he isn't the only one to seemingly be forced into a limiting persona with buried elements of blatant disinformation (Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Steven Jones).
<br>
<br>If you were curious, case in point of disinformation with Dr. Fetzer: NPT at the WTC. Dr. Wood: beams from space and sophomoric nuclear research. Dr. Jones: sophomoric nuclear research based on shoddy reports that he accepted as valid without question.
<br>
<br>I have Dr. Fetzer's book on nuclear 9/11, but it is a tough read. Partly because it re-purposes Fetzer passages I may have already read, don't want to read again, but am forced to in the hopes of improvements from the original that rarely come. I don't think he gets nuclear 9/11 completely right, but his aspirations are on that path of uncomfortable truth, so must be tempered with lots of boasting into the other conspiracies that he mastered.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, please remember to reach out to David Hazan on my behalf regarding conversing with me? Thank you.
<br>
<br>All the best
<br>// mcb
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 11 -->
<a name="x12"></a>
<h2><a href="#x12" class="tiny">x12</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">this discussion has become counter-productive</a></h2>
<p>2017-09-29</p>
<div id="sect_12" style="display:block;">
<p>Max,
<br>
<br>The main reason I have not reinstated you is that I don't want to encourage more discussion on my blog about nukes, mini-nukes, fourth-generation nukes, or directed energy weapons. Whether it is right or fair, the introduction of these hypotheses into the discussion will destroy any discussion because it leads to an inevitable fight over why I am allowing "disinformation."
<br>
<br>And further, I have gone on record as saying that I think this discussion has become counter-productive. We know the towers were blown up/destroyed, and we know this was not the result of plane impacts and fires. This is what is important to me. I am more concerned with how we spread this truth than I am about internal intellectual debates. If others wish to focus on these things, then I can't tell them not to.
<br>
<br>If I thought you would comment on the topics being posted without looking for excuses to slip in your favorite subject, then I might feel differently. But you haven't shown much of a willingness to do this in the past. In fact, as I recall, you admitted that you were trying to see what you could get away with.
<br>
<br>I told Fetzer and others to drop the nuke topic on the latest thread and when they posted things on this later I deleted them. A whole bunch of comments were removed. Sometimes I don't see things as they're posted, so that can lead to a whole discussion taking place before I've caught up.
<br>
<br>Mostly, I get tired of being told by others who I should and should not give the boot to.
<br>
<br>So, that's where I stand.
<br>
<br>Craig
</p>
</div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a>
<h2><a href="#x13" class="tiny">x13</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_13');">parallelism in large disinformation efforts</a></h2>
<p>2017-10-06</p>
<div id="sect_13" style="display:block;">
<p></p><p>Dear Mr. McKee,</p>
<p>Thank you for the courtesy of a reply. Testament that I am a reasoned, measured thinker who takes the time to compose well thought-out commentary, this is the third completely revamped version on my response. It should be noted that this contemplative habit has always been evident in my participation and makes me a valued contributor. I don't shoot from the hip or toss out invectives in the heat of the moment that cause discussions to spiral down.</p>
<p>Allow me to present an analogy related to the nuclear topic. When you are elsewhere on the internet discussing the deceit in more current events, you may purposely let slip at the right moment various factoids of 9/11 and relate them to more recent affairs. Why? Because <i>truth</i> is <b><i>truth</i></b>, and 9/11 truth is your earnest belief! To your God, no apologies need be made even if leaking such truthful 9/11 statements costs you in the esteem of others.</p>
<p>The parallelism is that my extensive 9/11 research leads me to the conclusion that FGNW were involved at the WTC. You of all people should know that I sincerely sought out from many sources/participants rational discussion to dissuade me from this nuclear theory; I desire truth more so than any theory-du-jour I might champion. I admit to being naive and to being open to considering seriously even the craziest of theories, because I am religiously fanatical about truth; if it has even tiny nuggets of truth, they have my attention. When further research and reason uncover (un)truth, I re-evaluate my opinions and change conclusions accordingly.</p>
<p>Here is a second related and parallel analogy. Your (and my) earnest belief is that a plane neither impacted the Pentagon nor crashed in Shanksville for many reasons you already know, have already written about extensively, and don't need me to bore you with. In the case of the WTC with significantly more irrefutable evidence of aircraft involvement (from eye witnesses, to videos, to radar data, to wheel assemblies & engines), ask yourself: WHY the clever and elaborate "NPT" disinformation campaign was spun up for the WTC? </p>
<p>As with all disinformation vehicles, NPT@WTC (via September Clues, holograms, cloaked planes) was designed to eventually be discredited. The true purpose of the NPT@WTC disinformation -- in a guilt by association ploy -- was to discredit and distract from the true NPT instances at the Pentagon and Shanksville (and also to remove from consideration truths, such as valid instances of media manipulation.)</p>
<p>The parallelism is that large disinformation efforts were actively deployed to the explanation of destruction of the WTC buildings. I don't need to bore you with details about the styming of investigations, shoddy sampling, stilted reports, etc. on the official side. But on the 9/11 Truth side in a manner similar to NPT@WTC, many instances of disinformation were purposely seeded: beams from space, deep underground nukes, and [as can be proven] nano-thermite (NT). The age old Stalinism: <i>"the best way to control the opposition is to lead it."</i></p>
<p>Ask yourself: <i>"~WHY~ does the introduction of 9/11 nuclear or exotic weapons destroy discussions and lead to fights?"</i> You know from experience (e.g., on FB) that when a (truthful) premise can't be defeated with facts & reason, then the disinformation playbook recommends negative behavior. Taking a discussion into the weeds avoids having to vet or debunk the actual premise! Thomas Pynchon: <i>"If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."</i></p>
<p>Not for my isolated & infrequent comments was I banned from T&S, but FOR YOUR FEAR OF THE OVERBLOWN REACTION OF MY DETRACTORS (since clearly proven cheats, liars, and blowhards.) </p>
<p></p>
</div><!-- section 13 -->
<a name="x14"></a>
<h2><a href="#x14" class="tiny">x14</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">disappointment in non-journalism</a></h2>
<p>2017-10-06</p>
<div id="sect_14" style="display:block;">
<p>
</p><p>As a journalist, supposedly you should be striving to uncover truth and following truth where ever it leads you. You haven't been. And I'm calling you on that <b>SHIT</b>.</p>
<p>Let's set aside for a moment your moderating and censuring activities on T&S. I approached you many times off-list to get feedback on what became my FGNW premise: one author to another, one 9/11 truth seeker to another, one valued T&S contributor to another. You said you didn't have the scientific background; many in the truth movement lack this, but it isn't as if it can't be explained or that you are incapable of learning what you needed to know. Learned about gravitational acceleration? You can learn about nuclear weapons. I provided my raw nuclear research that supported my FGNW opus, would have been readily available for detailed email correspondence, and even offered to converse by telephone. Like with many people before you -- David Chandler, Jon Cole, LeftRight (9/11 blogger), Simon Shack, Willy Whitten, Adam Ruff, etc. -- I earnestly sought a reasoned discussion: <i>"Convince me (it's wrong), or let me convince you (it's right)"</i>. Legitimately take out (or vet) a premise; no problem. </p>
<p>To the extent you are sincere, this shouldn't have been an issue. </p>
<p>To the extent that Mr. Whitten and Mr. Ruff were (over time proven) totally insincere, it became huge issues for them and their reputations, and this is before, or even instead of, engaging in specifics that could destroy my "substantiating" material and analysis that consequently would have me alter my conclusions. (I had been fiercely duped by September Clues and NPT@WTC, but came around & jettisoned such belief upon deeper researched and analysis that found the flaws in the "substantiating" material.)</p>
<p><b>Truth</b> is <i><b>truth</b></i>. Which is why, even when I haven't been participating on T&S for two years now, many other participants have over time brought up 9/11 nuclear involvement. (Albeit some aren't quite correct in the framing of the nuclear devices, and some -- like obtuse Dr. Wood supporters -- are outright wrong. No way they can be right if their source explicitly states that her efforts aren't the end station, and they aren't willing to consider the premises that build on Dr. Wood's work.)</p>
<p>When the T&S discussion is about topic A, I don't fault you for moderating and censuring nuclear detours (and the associated dirty tricks of disinformation agents.)</p>
<p>What I do fault you for is: <b>NOT HAVING A PLACE WHERE SUCH DISCUSSIONS CAN TRANSPIRE.</b> Maybe your golden A&E9/11 handcuffs prevent you from writing your own article. But you couldn't even see fit to link readers to my blog, and thereby spare T&S all manner of detours and bad behavior. </p>
<p>What you have been doing is parking understanding at a lesser truth (controlled demolition) while giving lip service to desiring something that might provide greater public awareness. As if the headline <i><b>"USA nuked itself on 9/11"</b></i> wouldn't be the desired bombshell truth revelation to inspire that greater public awareness!!!</p>
<p>So, yes, Mr. McKee, I am very much disappointed in you (in this area).</p>
<p>On the 9/11 nuclear front, you've been a weasel. <i>"I don't think it is important."</i> You can't even proved you've researched it sufficiently to make the determination of its importance. You've had no discussions with me into details, and never acknowledged evidence for FGNW and against NT. </p>
<p>Regardless of whether or not you think it is important, I and many others think it is important; and it keeps slipping into your blog. You've had plenty of guest authors. The one piece from me that you published isn't my view completely anymore (because I was being duped.) </p>
<p>You've been a weasel in not letting me author a piece, co-authoring a piece with me, or writing your own. You underestimate the benefit to the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world to have this theme confronted & discussed legimately (vetted or debunked), let alone the benefit to you to be able to keep the discussion under other postings on their topics.</p>
<p>Sure as shit draws flies, such a nuclear 9/11 work will draw disinformation agents & their playbook of nasty tactics that necessitate you being more active in moderating the comments to keep discussion on task and out of the weeds. But it is your blog. Truthfully, your limited time & efforts are better spent on this, than in unproductive Facebook exchanges. Facebook is transient; your blog is not. It is your legacy, and this theme is a glaring omission.</p>
<p>You need to be a lion, not a weasel. Muster the courage to confront & discuss 9/11 nuclear means legitimately. And let me back into the discussion.</p>
<p>If you were sincere about spreading truth to the larger public, nuclear 9/11 is the ice-damn that holds back the flood of the desired greater public awareness. </p>
<p>// mcb
</p>
</div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a>
<h2><a href="#x15" class="tiny">x15</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_15');">... except fourth generation nuclear devices</a></h2>
<p>2017-10-06</p>
<div id="sect_15" style="display:block;">
<p>{mcb: email to Dr. Fetzer and Mr. Fox.}
<br>
<br>Dear Dr. James Fetzer and Mr. Donald Fox,
<br>
<br>Just got done watching your interview with Don Fox (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfJ7IcPoImU). Pretty dry, and reading the text displayed on the screen makes it dull.
<br>
<br>However, kudos.
<br>
<br>In its short span, it covers most of the relevant information about nuclear devices (as far as I know from my research) except fourth generation nuclear devices. It relies on sources that I used, namely Jeff Prager's work and Dr. Ed Ward.
<br>
<br>I also have a copy of your book, Dr. Fetzer. Haven't finished it, though. A little repetitive based on my familiarity with things you published in various places.
<br>
<br>My nuclear 9/11 efforts, particularly in its earlier forms, pre-dates yours. Don't worry; not like I'm promoting myself or that the bragging rights will net me any income. It just warms my heart to see our two independent efforts were very much parallel.
<br>
<br>Both of you have gaps in your nuclear research. Google "Dr. Andre Gsponer". He never wrote anything about 9/11, but he did write about Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons. You can learn what you need to know in my work, linked below.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br>
<br>Aside from pulling in information learned from Dr. Gsponer as to what the observed effects of FGNW would be, it also brings in many other pieces of evidence, such as air samples and rescued truths from Dr. Wood. Just as importantly, if identifies the flaws in Dr. Jones' "no nukes" premise.
<br>
<br>I've pointed Dr. Fetzer to it before. It inspired him to send me links to various real deal vidoes that I then offered critique on. Because Dr. Fetzer didn't respond to the substance and differentiation of my work, it indicates to me he still hasn't read it. But given the promotion of the interview with Don Fox, maybe he should try.
<br>
<br>BTW, Dr. Fetzer, the ball is still in your court in our NPT discussion.
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html
<br>
<br>My recommendation is that you earnestly look at the many ways your NPT position has been defeated, acknowledge defeat in this matter, and start making your apologies to the world for having promoted so vigorously such misinformation. Otherwise, you just undermine other areas of your conspiracy work.
<br>
<br>Have a great weekend,
<br>
<br>// mcb
</p>
</div><!-- section 15 -->
<a name="x16"></a>
<h2><a href="#x16" class="tiny">x16</a>
David Chandler : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">a popularity contest</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-49521">2017-11-30</a></p>
<div id="sect_16" style="display:block;">
<p>I guess it’s a good thing I’m not into this as a popularity contest. All of you who declare there is “not a shred of evidence” for large plane impact have not looked at the mountain of evidence that’s out there. See it here: http://911speakout.org/the-pentagon/ for starters (and follow the links and read the articles), and see the plane that did it here: http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/BlinkedPentagonPlane.html
<br>
<br>I recognize that those of you who insist on agreement with your conclusions (to avoid being labelled as a debunker) will sweep aside any evidence I put forward to the contrary. Be careful what you sweep aside. The search for truth is all about following the evidence, not adherence to approved beliefs.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a>
<h2><a href="#x17" class="tiny">x17</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_17');">Dr. Judy Wood never claimed to be the end-station</a></h2>
<p><a href="http://911justicecampaign.org/911-who-really-did-it/#comment-933">2017-12-01</a></p>
<div id="sect_17" style="display:block;">
<p>Dear Mr. Galen M.,
<br>
<br>You recently posted on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-49533">T&S</a> in response to David Chandler, and sort of mention in passing Dr. Wood.
<br>
<br>It is part of the life-cycle of all disinformation to eventually be discovered, debunked, and discredited with the secondary disinfo purpose of having foundational & still valid truths in the faulty premise swept away together with the disinfo. In fairness to the peddlers of such, maybe the disinfo elements or bat-shit crazy were foisted upon them and serve as "get-out-of-assassination" free cards.
<br>
<br>In the specifics of Dr. Judy Wood, she never claimed to be the end-station. Her book does not connect the dots of many concepts that she presents. She doesn't draw any conclusions purposely, which itself should be a moderating & braking factor in the zeal of her rabid supporters. Only with extracurricular study does one find the blatant gaps and omissions in her work. A complaint from the Anonymous Physisist paraphrased was that Dr. Wood collected all of the evidence that 9/11 was a nuclear event(s) and parked it under kooky umbrellas (e.g., beams from space, energy from hurricanes, Hutchison effects).
<br>
<br>David Chandler and other instrumental players in the 9/11 TM had the opportunity to legitimately debunk Dr. Wood. He and they didn't. Why? Because even if beams from space have issues with optics through the atmosphere, of massive energy requirements at the source, and of the observed evidence (e.g., destruction starting within) not matching the expectation from such beams (e.g., destruction starting at very top), Dr. Wood's work still contains many valid nuggets of truths that rightful need to be explained by any comprehensive theory-du-jour. A huge clue about (some) validity in Dr. Wood's work is the lack of scholarly rebuttal AND rescuing of truth nuggets.
<br>
<br>Paraphrased from the Kevin Costner movie "Fields of Dreams": Ain't nobody gonna come if you rebuild the WTC with any lingering whiff of 9/11 being nuclear. (Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices, not "deep underground mini-nukes" ala Dimitri K.)
<br>
<br>The extent to which all within and without the 9/11TM have gingerly danced around the nuclear evidence without stating the obvious demonstrates the control over the message.
<br>
<br>If you're curious, I did the research that Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, and Mr. Chandler (and too many minions in the 9/11 TM) were incapable of -- whether out of ignorance or threat.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW</a>
<br>
<br>// mcb
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 17 -->
<a name="x18"></a>
<h2><a href="#x18" class="tiny">x18</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">gingerly danced around the nuclear evidence</a></h2>
<p><a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/about/contact/">2017-12-01</a></p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display:block;">
<p>It is part of the life-cycle of all disinformation to eventually be discovered, debunked, and discredited with the secondary disinfo purpose of having foundational & still valid truths in the faulty premise swept away together with the disinfo. In fairness to the peddlers of such, maybe the disinfo elements or bat-shit crazy were foisted upon them and serve as "get-out-of-assassination" free cards.
<br>
<br>Dr. Judy Wood has disinformation. She never claimed to be the end-station. Her book does not connect the dots of many concepts that she presents. She doesn't draw any conclusions purposely, which itself should be a moderating & braking factor in the zeal of her rabid supporters. Only with extracurricular study does one find the blatant gaps and omissions in her work. Beams from space have issues with optics through the atmosphere, of massive energy requirements at the source, and of the observed evidence (e.g., destruction starting within) not matching the expectation from such beams (e.g., destruction starting at very top). A complaint from the Anonymous Physisist paraphrased was that Dr. Wood collected all of the evidence that 9/11 was a nuclear event(s) and parked it under kooky umbrellas (e.g., beams from space, energy from hurricanes, Hutchison effects).
<br>
<br>A huge clue about (some) validity in Dr. Wood's work is the lack of scholarly rebuttal AND rescuing of truth nuggets.
<br>
<br>David Chandler and other instrumental players in the 9/11 TM had the opportunity to legitimately debunk Dr. Wood. He and they didn't. Why? Dr. Wood's work still contains many valid nuggets of truths that rightful need to be explained by any comprehensive theory-du-jour. Her works comes closer to the truth than NT, which can't explain pulverization or duration of under-rubble hot-spots, nor tritium, and much more.
<br>
<br>Paraphrased from the Kevin Costner movie "Fields of Dreams" for Larry Silverstein: Ain't nobody gonna come if you rebuild the WTC with any lingering whiff of 9/11 being nuclear in the public's mind. (Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices, not "deep underground mini-nukes" ala Dimitri K.)
<br>
<br>The extent to which all within and without the 9/11TM have gingerly danced around the nuclear evidence without stating the obvious demonstrates the control over the message.
<br>
<br>If you're curious, I did the research that Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, and Mr. Chandler (and too many minions in the 9/11 TM) were incapable of -- whether out of ignorance or threat.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW</a>
<br>
<br>Although it doesn't rule out that NT could have played a participatory role, it debunks from the onset why NT can't be the primary mechanism of WTC destruction. Dr. Steven Jones even said 2012 "Something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." Sincere truth seekers have been parked into the NT limited-hang-out cul-de-sac, which dissuaded open-minded research into mechanisms of destruction that can address ~all~ of the evidence.
<br>
<br>Time to change that. And the beauty is, the figurative nuclear fall-out to real mechanisms of destruction could still lead at this late date to much greater public awareness and cleaning house of the institutions and agencies that perpetrated this event, the cover-up, and the willful public manipulation into wars and loss of freedoms.
<br>
<br>// mcb
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a>
<h2><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x19</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_19');">CHALLENGE TO A DUEL OF WORDS</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_19" style="display:block;">
<p>{mcb: email to Mr. McKee 2017-12-06}</p>
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,</p>
<p><i>*Taking my gloves off and using them to (figuratively) smack you across your face, first from the left and then from the right.*</i> </p>
<p>I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL OF WORDS, Mr. McKee!!! Step up, and be all that you supposedly claim: 9/11 truther, journalist, truth seeker... </p>
<p>Take me and my hobby-horse seriously. Interview me. Discuss rationally and intelligently FGNW with me. [Co-author a FGNW article.] For Truth's sake, stop being a gate-keeper and legitimately take on FGNW, which will do for the world and the 9/11 truth movement a most excellent and glorious service whatever the outcome: validated or debunked!</p>
<p>While my 9/11 efforts may be circumscribed small, you would do well to remember me targeting one-by-one influential people in the 9/11 Truth Movement (or in the T&S discussions) to discuss "the forbidden topic": 9/11 nuclear involvement. Hay was made from non-responses. I reached out to David Chandler, Jon Cole, A&E 9/11 Truth, Mr. Wright (of 9/11 Blogger), Phil Jayhan (Let's Roll Forums), Simon Shack (September Clues), HybridRogue1, RuffAdam, Andrew Johnson (Dr. Wood's surrogate), more than a few Facebook 9/11 groups, and many others by extension or happenstance. 9/11 Blogger banned you, but wouldn't even let me in, because my research was heading into nuclear domains. Mike Collins couldn't argue facts and recommended my banishment from Ken Doc's FB affair in just a few days. Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff earn my thanks for strengthening the FGNW case; too bad it was at the expense of their integrity and character.</p>
<p>What does it say about such "leaders" when they are won't even review the material as a starting point for rational and reasoned discussion?</p>
<p>More importantly, what does it say about the nuclear topic -- FGNW -- when it constantly gets the "bum's rush" and isn't permitted to be discussed... except in disinformation frameworks?</p>
<p>Every once in awhile as exhibited above, I go back and review my old writings after they were collected and re-posted on my blog but sometimes where they were originally posted, such as on your blog. I have to say, the discussion under your piece on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/">Dr. Judy Wood</a> is awesome particular when the discussion is viewed with today's knowledge of the depths of Mr. Rogue's and Mr. Ruff's deceit to avoid rational discussion. </p>
<p>No need for us to argue our different perspectives regarding you putting me into T&S exile in <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html#x210">February 2015</a>.</p>
<p>You should review your article and subsequent discussion <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/">"To Ken Doc: You’re an anti-truther when you tell lies about truthers" (2016-01-01)</a>, eleven (11) months into my exile. Old and new trolls (to T&S) came out of the wood-work. More spectacularly and pretty ironic given the theme of the Ken Doc article, Mr. Rogue implodes.</p>
<p>Mr. McKee, your Pentagon activities and my FGNW have many parallels. </p>
<p>My, how time flies. My exile is now over two-and-a-half years old. But in <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/censure-on-t.html#x172">June 2016</a> when it was shy of six months in, I emailed you:</p>
<blockquote><p>Why don't just you and I have a Jefferson-Franklin style conversation, something that we'll both ultimately publish? You could interview me and ask all sorts of questions. [Joke] "Herr der Elf, you seem to be the sole duped-useful idiot championing nuclear weapons were used on 9/11. Why? What evidence do you have?" [/Joke] I'll respond to the questions in the batch, then you can ask another batch of question. You could debate me and point out flaws in my position, and I vice versa.</p>
<p>You and I would be doing a great service to the 9/11 Truth Movement and world, if we could hash this out as reasonable, rational, articulate adults without the interference of agents... at least until it gets published and you open it up for comments.</p>
<p>Convince me or let me convince you. I'll even <a href="http://www.maxbridges.us/111_rant/2015_DewFgnwResearch.php">share my raw research</a> with you obtained recently from my T&S time-out about DEW in the era leading up to 9/11 to help you get a leg up in asking intelligent questions and defending your beliefs. Take down legitimately what I champion, if you can and God bless you in your efforts!!!</p>
<p>IT IS TIME FOR SUCH A DISCUSSION TO TRANSPIRE !</p>
<p>You know it, too. You've been fence sitting and avoiding it for years. An added benefit for doing this project with me is that I look at it as my last hurrah in championing the bat-shit-crazy. Neither you nor I will have to do it again. This could be the definitive word on my hobby-horse. </p>
<p>...</p>
<p>I respect you and your views, Mr. McKee. Always have. You do what I can't. Your 9/11 efforts are laudable. You and I are aligned on so many things, even most things 9/11. Nuclear DEW is the only outlier (except for sports, where I have little interest). As a writer yourself, you ought to be able to hold your own in any discussion with me. As a journalist, you ought to be able to ask appropriate questions and lead a discussion. Ultimately, you'll get to publish your edited version.</p>
<p>So, Mr. McKee, after your immediate commitments are met, let's you and I respectfully go toe-to-toe. Ask me questions (prefaced with your views.) Save up the exchange; publish it as a blog post at the end.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><i>*Smacking (figuratively) your face with my gloves from the left and then from the right again.*</i></p>
<p>I do declare, Mr. McKee; make my FGNW hobby-horse a legitimate project. Don't shirk Truth's duties when called upon as ~WE~ are now. We should think positively in terms of eternal rewards for doing what is right.</p>
<p>P.S. Doesn't have to be a rigorous schedule; we just need to make continual progress. My previous work will be merely a reference when I author something fresh in response to your queries. Unless passages are flagged private, consider future our correspondence fair game for public consumption. I'll give you wide latitude in determining the format, length of responses to each question, and overall length for the piece. You could even play the role of "bad cop" interviewer in your questions.</p>
<p>// mcb</p>
<p></p>
</div><!-- section 19 -->
<a name="x20"></a>
<h2><a href="#x20" class="tiny">x20</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">won’t respond to valid criticisms</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_20" style="display:block;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-49725">December 8, 2017 at 4:35 am</a>
<br>
<br>Well I am perfectly fine stepping aside if I am the impediment to Mr. Chandler responding to the rest of you. I think his position on the pentagon is completely untenable and obviously so in a number of ways some of which I outlined above. He won’t respond to those valid criticisms yet any real truther would feel compelled to respond to serious challenges simply to prove to his or her self that he or she was in fact telling the truth and presenting the best possible evidence. A real truther would have to know if he or she was right or not and would do everything they could to find the truth even if it showed them to be wrong.
<br>
<br>I think having his feelings hurt because I have been “mean” to him is an utterly lame excuse for refusing to address the vast gaping holes in his untenable position. This is 9/11 we are talking about here not some abstract little patty cake game, the whole world has been plunged into endless war over this and hundreds of thousands have died. Grow the hell up man and get to the damned truth about the crime even if it means admitting you are wrong (which you are). Your feelings are no excuse for delaying the progress of this monumentally important task.
<br>
<br>I don’t care if you like me or not David you are blocking progress toward the truth of 9/11 and that is totally unacceptable especially because of hurt feelings on your part. Someone should slap you in the face to snap you out of that petty crap. You are delaying the truth from coming out and you are misleading people about the pentagon still to this day when you could have done the right thing years ago.
<br>
<br>If you are so damned sure you are right then debate it once and for all in public on the record. Debate Craig Ranke, Be a man and get this crap over with. While you are at it get Jenkins to debate it as well so we can end his bullshit. You both should have done that long ago. With that I have no need to speak to you ever again.</p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a>
<h2><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x21</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_21');">hypocrisy runs deep</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-21</p>
<div id="sect_21" style="display:block;">
<p>{mcb: email sent to Mr. Adam Ruff, Mr. Craig McKee, and Mr. David Chandler.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
<br>
<br>Your hypocrisy runs deep, as shown when I change a few words in your opening paragraph to Mr. David Chandler on the Pentagon plane:
</p><p>
</p><blockquote><p>I am fine with you {Mr. Ruff} not wanting to debate me {SEO ak MCB}, in fact if I were you I would not want to debate me either. My point was that you refused to debate {FGNW} even though they carefully and thoroughly eviscerated your {unsubstantiated opinions about FGNW} which CLEARLY calls for either a response on your part or a retraction of your {unsubstantiated opinions about FGNW} along with an apology. {...}</p></blockquote>
<p>Although quite fun, the reason I'm writing isn't to rub your nose in your hypocrisy. It is to point out the parallelisms between the Pentagon and FGNW.
<br>
<br>Back when I was a more rabid Woodsian follower, I gifted Dr. Wood's textbook to several people including some influential in the 9/11 TM. Mr. David Chandler was one. I asked for assistance in legitimately debunking it. Mr. Chandler declined. As my beliefs circled back around to nuclear means, he still declined to participate, saying that nuclear physics was outside his area of expertise. Career wise, sure; but with respect to what he had to learn to become a high school teacher of physics, he had already been taught once and could easily brush up on what he needed to know. [At least he was forthright and not quite the lying weasel that Mr. Rogue was, claiming for years that he defaced his gift of Dr. Wood's rather than get at the good, the bad, and the ugly.]
<br>
<br>Deja vu when you wrote:
<br>
</p><blockquote><p>It has nothing to do with me, you won’t debate anyone David. You will not lift a finger to resolve this issue and in my book that makes you highly suspect to say the least.</p></blockquote>
<p>Here is a video on WTC-1 from David Chandler.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Vc_QjR-2s</a>
<br>
<br>He makes specific mention how SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY the top section had a downward acceleration that was constant at 65% gravitational acceleration. He states in another way, this meant that the entire structure suddenly lost 65% of its strength to resist the mass.
<br>
<br>Mr. Chandler in later efforts gets on the NT bandwagon, but NT really doesn't make sense in explaining the pulverization in the videos at the earliest earliest stages of annihilation. If NT were used, why was pulverization a goal so early? How would NT have been positions to achieve the observed effects? Why was it so quiet compared to what would be expected of NT necessarily mixed with RDX or something else, according to Dr. Jones?
<br>
<br>One of the debunking points of the OCT is that office fires don't get hot enough to weaken steel. However, those who champion NT don't explain positioning of NT that can achieve the horseshoes and arches anomalies of the large steel beams of the core. In the real world to create, the steel beam has to be heated end-to-end in a blast furnace for a non-trivial period of time. Although NT burns hot, how much would be required to achieve volume heating in an instance of time? And why would that even have been an operational goal?
<br>
<br>My FGNW premise explains easily the observed anomalies with "ablating" and "volume heating". FGNW deposits ~HIGHLY~ energetic neutrons deeply penetrating into all of the materials. For large materials, this can result in volume heating instantly. In other words, the inner temperatures of large core steel beams can be raised to the requisite temperatures for weakening.
<br>
<br>Why are the steel pans and supporting truss beams that held the concrete floors not present in the debris pile? (NT can't explain this.) When the materials are relatively thin (and/or close to the ignition point), FGNW ablates them. The highly energetic neutrons impacting the leading surface causes it to vaporize so quickly, a shock wave generates within the rest of the (heated) material destroying it. (Shock waves through air like from conventional chemical explosives are deafening; these shock waves were within the material and would have comparably a muted audio signature.)
<br>
<br>The high percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust of neighboring buildings were from these floor pans. I speculate that the highly energetic neutrons penetrating the concrete would induce immediate rapid expansion from massive heating and breaking apart into fine concrete dust. (What overkill configuration of NT with RDX can achieve this? And why would it even be a design goal of the operation?)
<br>
<br>The "dustification" of concrete at the earliest phases of annihilation are visible in Mr. Chandler's video. Mr. Chandler states at 2:30:
</p>
<blockquote><p>What we actually see here, is the falling section of the building turning to dust before our eyes.</p></blockquote>
<p>I legitimately debunked Dr. Wood: she drops lots of dangling innuendo; doesn't connect her premises; doesn't power her DEW suggestions with anything real world that could meet the massive energy requirements of the observed outcomes; let her DEW premises be mal-framed as "beams from space"; gives nuclear considerations the bum's rush; blatant FGNW omissions which by description are DEW; etc.
<br>
<br>This being said, Dr. Wood's work collects together most of the glaring evidence of FGNW being used. She is closer to the Truth than NT.
<br>
<br>David Chandler -- your foil at the Pentagon -- knows that Woodsian DEW is closer to the truth than NT. So does Dr. Jones, who states: "Something maintained those hot-spots, not just NT." They don't debunk Dr. Wood's work, because then they'd be forced into acknowledging nuggets of truth that NT can't explain and naturally points to FGNW.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff, while you moan about the Pentagon and the 9/11 TM gatekeepers who refuse to study objectively all of the evidence and debate it rationally, coincidence that FGNW is in the same camp and worse with respect to its treatment? I'd even say that the concerted effort to stamp out 9/11 nuclear connections is greater.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>// mcb
</p>
</div><!-- section 21 -->
<a name="x22"></a>
<h2><a href="#x22" class="tiny">x22</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">set me straight about FGNW</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-14</p>
<div id="sect_22" style="display:block;">
<p>{mcb: Email to Dr. Andre Gsponer.}
<br>
<br>Dear Dr. Andre Gsponer,
<br>
<br>I am a big fan of your work, in particular "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" (2008).
<br>
<br>Nuclear information falls into two categories: private and public. What is private is vast in comparison, and protected by national state secret laws and incarcerating-stiff non-disclosure penalties. What is made public is usually of a speculative nature and forward looking, general without specifics, neglects implementation details, and rarely touches upon the operational state of the art.
<br>
<br>I am contacting you in the hopes that you can set me straight about FGNW and point out the errors in my speculation about FGMW involvement on 9/11. (Section 14 is based on your work.)
<br>
<br>My humble efforts are happy to be limited to that public sphere. Many of your published works were reviewed and approved as fitting into the guidelines imposed on nuclear themes for public consumption, which is why I'm contacting you. If there are important public articles or documents about FGNW that I missed in my research, I would appreciate you mentioning them.
<br>
<br>I'll not ask you to betray any of your oaths or non-disclosure obligations. But speaking of which and as an aside, I would be interested in seeing some non-disclosure documents for those doing nuclear research if any examples could be sent my way, in whole or parts redacted. My plan is to data-mine general information from them and use such extracts to explain why more nuclear scientists across the globe, and particularly the US, have not stepped forward on the subject of 9/11.
<br>
<br>To my knowledge, you have never written anything about 9/11. (If you have and can share it, I would be an eager audience.) Still, my associating your FGNW work with "9/11 conspiracy theories" might make you uncomfortable, if for no other reason US Presidents have been saying "You are with us, or against us." This caused patriots across many disciplines to shut up and march with, or get rolled over.
<br>
<br>But it also caused 7 illegal wars of aggression to secure resources at the loss of hundreds of thousands civilian lives. The lying and deceit that drummed the US into wars has in many ways been taken to a record high in the intervening years and with his highness Trump.
<br>
<br>It would be an honor to exchange emails with you, and to have my 9/11 FGNW premise validated, corrected, or debunked. I am open-minded and objective, and consider myself "religiously fanatical about Truth." My two super powers are persistence and naivity. If the rabbit-holes on my blog don't give you clear enough picture of me, I'll share more of my details. For starters, though, you should know "Maxwell C. Bridges" is my pen-name, practically demanded by my Argentine wife many years ago if I was going to write about politics. My real name doesn't take much IT skills to discover but never fixed, because ultimately I do stand behind my words. It is one matter to know Batman's "Bruce Wayne", but quite another to disclose it publicly.
<br>
<br>I look forward to my discussions with you in the hopes of some sanity brought to my premise of FGNW on 9/11.
<br>
<br>With kind regards,
<br>
<br>// mcb
</p>
</div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a>
<h2><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x23</a>
David Hazan (@Lilaleo) : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_23');">well meaning people</a></h2>
<p>2017-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_23" style="display:block;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2017/12/29/chandlers-failed-pentagon-methodology/#comment-50250">December 31, 2017 at 12:13 pm</a>
<br>Especially when it comes to exchanges about contentious subjects like politics, conspiracies or disinformation and the like, we often overlook one very simple fact; that the person we are talking about or talking to is nothing more than just that… A person…
<br>
<br>A wo/man of flesh and blood… someone with a past, a family, a childhood… a person with feelings, virtues, vices, strengths and weaknesses… a person like me… like you… like Chandler.. like McKee…
<br>
<br>In a world where there are well meaning people who may unknowingly spread disinformation while sinister schemers actually spread truth, I feel it is important to first and foremost understand and decipher the person in order to be able to put their words and their deeds into the correct context.
<br>
<br>For a group of well meaning people who are presumably working towards the same end goal, no matter how contentious the subject, there are always ways either come to an agreement, or ultimately agree to disagree and move on to trying to establish or discover aspects of the event in question that everybody can get behind.
<br>
<br>Many here and elsewhere from both sides of the pentagon impact analysis have correctly diagnosed that a feud over if and what hit the pentagon is essentially serving as an extremely divisive exercise, and consequently as one of the major road blocks preventing progress in the so called “movement”.
<br>
<br>Would it then be a fair assumption that one of the two parties is essentially creating and feeding this disagreement intentionally and purposefully in order to manufacture these road blocks? One could certainly jump to that conclusion and start dismissing the other side’s arguments. It is one of the easiest cop outs, and is the outcome desired by the deceivers. But, most importantly, it is a knee jerk reaction that ultimately prevents debate and possible resolution.
<br>
<br>Since the pentagon “attack” is not a singular event within the larger context of the entirety of the 9/11 false flag, I am failing to understand the significance of knowing what exactly happened there, let alone this level of polarization between those who harp on the issue to no end, spending (wasting) valuable time, brain power and energy on an issue that can be easily resolved through asking the right questions and not trying to answer them, let alone insisting that you have the right answer and the “others” don’t…
<br>
<br>As most people here, I have my issues with Chomsky’s attitude and approach towards 9/11. But, the man has written and said some damn smart words:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…." ~ N. Chomsky</p></blockquote>
<p>In this context, I speak to those of you who are not conscious agents and deceivers: Snap the fuck out of it!!!!! You are all fighting and racing to get to the end of a dead end street.
</p>
</div><!-- section 23 -->
<a name="x24"></a>
<h2><a href="#x24" class="tiny">x24</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">spreading this 9/11 truth</a></h2>
<p>2018-01-01</p>
<div id="sect_24" style="display:block;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>I hope that you enjoyed your holidays and have a good start into the new year.
<br>
<br>I was well into composing an end-of-the-year email to you when two things happened. Mr. David Hazan posted his wonderful comment. And I learned about <a href="http://www.911history.de">http://www.911history.de</a> and how close & parallel (& in some ways further along) it is to my own FGNW premises.
<br>
<br>At any rate, Mr. Hazan wrote many fine words about the Pentagon discussions and its participants, many of which could be applied to FGNW.
</p>
<blockquote><p>For a group of well meaning people who are presumably working towards the same end goal, no matter how contentious the subject, there are always ways either to come to an agreement, or to ultimately agree to disagree and move on to trying to establish or discover aspects of the event in question that everybody can get behind.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>Would it then be a fair assumption that one of the two parties is essentially creating and feeding this disagreement intentionally and purposefully in order to manufacture these road blocks? One could certainly jump to that conclusion and start dismissing the other side’s arguments. It is one of the easiest cop outs, and is the outcome desired by the deceivers. But, most importantly, it is a knee jerk reaction that ultimately prevents debate and possible resolution.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, exactly! Apply the above to FGND!
<br>
<br>You wrote yourself in your last correspondence (2017-09-29):
<br></p><blockquote>Whether it is right or fair, the introduction of these [nuclear 9/11] hypotheses into the discussion will destroy any discussion because it leads to an inevitable fight over why I am allowing "disinformation."<p></p></blockquote>
<p>This game is right out of the 25 rules of a disinformationalist. Notice how the field of battle has been shifted from the merits/demerits of the actual premise, assumes it is disinformation, and parries into accusing you of allowing disinformation. And a good portion of that criticism/pressure would come at you off-forum.
<br>
<br>It would be one thing to then and there prove something wrong with specifics and/or substantiating links and have leeway to justify calling it "disinformation." It is quite another to have hypnotic suggestion and nothing else as to the disinfo label. [This is why "conspiracy" brand Dr. Fetzer is so important to the PTB. His "get-out-of-assassination" strategy -- similar to Alex Jones -- is to embraces as wide a spectrum of conspicy theories as possible and to have several bad disinfo premises (like NPT @ WTC, holograms) to discredit himself and by association all other conspiracy premises in his stable of hobby-horses.]
<br>
<br>Dr. Fetzer's embracing of 9/11 having nuclear components is both good news and bad news for me. The good news is that the topic has become important enough with enough details collected by others to merit having it steered by an agent. The bad news for me is that association with Dr. Fetzer gives it a black eye.
<br>
<br>Mr. Hazan added the following quote to his posting on your blog.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…." ~ N. Chomsky</p></blockquote>
<p>You were kicked out of 9/11 Blogger for the Pentagon stance; I was not even granted admission when my (unripe) nuclear suspicions were made known to the approving admin.
<br>
<br>While it should be true that postulating the existence of FGNW, I offer the paid disinfo agents an attack point. In practice, it is not true. Nuclear 9/11 is the topic they are not allowed to talk about, period. They'll mock it, attack me, but they will never go into specifics, quote from one of my sources, and have a reasoned explanation for why it is wrong. Their attack point is limited to Dr. Gsponer only being able to write "speculative forward-looking" FGNW, not about what is current day state-of-the-art & operational.
<br>
<br>In fact, this "nuclear discussion avoidance" is so wide-spread inside and outside 9/11 Truther camps that it becomes an anomaly it and of itself. Every where I went to have a reasoned and rational discussion -- disciplined by taking the high road, using respectful honorifics, substantiating my views, researching into their sources & discovering errors --, my discussion opponents went to greater and greater efforts not to. It is as if: "To even venture into my (Gsponer) source, validates it." So they don't go into it beyond mockery and flame wars, and they'd just as soon ban me.
<br>
<br>Among the many fronts and tactics that I'm fought on, I have the NT agenda-defenders, the OCT gravity agenda-defenders, the Woodsian agenda-defenders too stilted to admit she wasn't an end-station, and the mal-framers of nuclear means (e.g., deep underground nukes). If the participants were earnest:
<br>
<br>- There would be significantly more alliances and marriages, like Woodsian DEW with nukes (FGNW).
<br>- There would be more rescuing and re-purposing of nuggets of truth.
<br>- There would be more acknowledgment of weaknesses in even our own premises.
<br>- There would be more changing of opinions based on new analysis.
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee, Two of my super-powers are (1) persistance and (2) being naive & trusting [until given reason not to be.] Obviously, my persistance super-power coupled with being an earnest seeker of Truth has brought my research to FGNW conclusions that I doggedly defend [until given reason not to.] Alas, my second super-power seems to have given you too much benefit of the doubt and misjudged you.
<br>
<br>In your last communication with me (2017-09-29), you claimed: <i>"I am more concerned with how we spread this truth than I am about internal intellectual debates [e.g., on the WTC destruction.]"</i> Exactly how do you prove this concern? Facebook battles. And an obsessive compulsive promotion of no planes at the Pentagon that out-does and overshadows my humble FGNW efforts. Who's the crazy one?
<br>
<br>We both are, Mr. McKee. Crazy fanaticals about Truth fighting the nobel online intellectual battles to influence hearts & minds to bring positive change to the world.
<br>
<br>[BTW: Here is a major red flag. ~THE~ David Chandler who gave us so many videos of high school physics on 9/11 proving controlled demolition. ~HE~ is the one (with a reputation) given you difficulties as he agenda-defends OCT Pentagon. Well, ~HE~ is also the one given a free-copy of Dr. Wood's textbook in hopes that he would help me debunk it -- good, bad, and ugly (before Mr. Rogue screwed the same pooch) -- and he with the qualifications refused. Why? Again, closer to the truth. He doesn't even go there and with specifics prove it wrong.]
<br>
<br>I took a page out of your playbook and spent a couple months in various 9/11 Facebook groups (like Debunkers vs Truthers, Fair and Civil Debates, Andrew Johnson's Woodsian group). Talk about infestation with agents, bots, and multiple personas! To the degree that you received resistance and attacks in your hobby-horse Pentagon area, my FGNW hobby-horse got it worse... but weak, without specifics, nothing to make me doubt.
<br>
<br>Is my FGNW disinformation? El-oh-eh, if Dr. Fetzer is practically in that nuclear camp, maybe it is.
<br>
<br>Seriously, you can't answer that question, Mr. McKee, and this is the area where I've misjudged you. I thought you more of an objective journalist, an eager learner, and sincere seeker of truth as I am. I was wrong. Given our parallel political outlooks and agreement on so many things [except sports and FNGW], our love of language, and superior abilities in holding rational, reasoned, researched debates, I was hoping for a Franklin-Jefferson style intellectual exchange. You disappoint.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br></p><blockquote>And further, I have gone on record as saying that I think this discussion has become counter-productive. We know the towers were blown up/destroyed, and we know this was not the result of plane impacts and fires. This is what is important to me. I am more concerned with how we spread this truth than I am about internal intellectual debates. If others wish to focus on these things, then I can't tell them not to. <p></p></blockquote>
<p>Your Pentagon hobby-horse is only going to go so far in <i>"spreading this 9/11 truth"</i>. The Elephant hobby-horse in the room that would become the hot-button issue to spread the truth like a California wild-fire is (as a starting point) sincere, rational, reasoned discussion of FGNW. The US government needed a threshold of civilian casualties to nudge the American public into supporting its global agenda. Well, 9/11 nuclear anything in the public consciousness is the threshold needed to change things on a large scale.</p>
<p>// mcb</p>
</div><!-- section 24 -->
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-20939074885469607422017-12-31T07:07:00.000-08:002018-02-17T13:13:57.775-08:00Minor points about 9/11<p>{mcb: Below are 9/11 discussion points of view that I am tired of repeating.
Being a lazy hue-mahn, the carousel rides over repeated territory may now cause me to regurgitate the following.} </p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<a name='more'></a>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
</p>
<hr>
<a name="x3"></a>
<h2><a href="#x3" class="tiny">x3</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_3');">aluminum-iron flakes</a></h2>
<p>2017-03-09</p>
<div id="sect_3" style="display:block;">
<p>Your article states (http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-5/):
<br>
<br>"Unreacted nanothermitic material, 'which can be tailored [3] to behave as an incendiary (like ordinary thermite), or as an explosive,” [4] was found in four independently collected [5] samples of the WTC dust (as reported [6] in a multi-author paper in a peer-reviewed journal).'"
<br>
<br>To quote President Trump: WRONG! No such thing was found in the dust. Period.
<br>
<br>What they found in the dust samples given to Dr. Jones were aluminum-iron flakes. They attributed these as coming from NT. The other explanation for them is the corrosion between the aluminum cladding and the steel wall assemblies, which -- together with the asbestos problem -- contributed to the WTC being a white elephant to maintain and renovate.
<br>
<br>Dr. Jones et al did not test the dust samples for explosives -- even years later when brought to their attention. When NT was said to not have the brissance needed for the observed pulverization, he claimed it was mixed with RDX or some thing (which I repeat, he didn't test for.) The numbers don't work with NT mixed in any combination with conventional explosives.
<br>
<br>No other group (RJ Lee Group, USGS, etc.) found explosives or NT in their dust samples either. This is important, because NT was also meant to explain the duration of hot-spots. Doing the math on quantities required for the hot-spots, we're talking massive amounts UNSPENT from the original pulverizing purposes.
<br>
<br>Further, when Dr. Harrit considered the iron spheres in the dust of a neighboring building (as reported by RJ Lee Group), he claimed this was the result of the NT chemical reaction. The only problem was that the percentage of iron spheres calculates backwards to indicate, again, MASSIVE amounts.
<br>
<br>Were nuclear physics professor Dr. Jones not trying to dissuade the world from considering any form of nuclear devices, his research would have found Dr. Andre Gsponer and fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND).
<br>
<br>FGND can explain the iron spheres, the duration of hotspots, the energy of the destruction, the pulverizing nature, the relative "softness" of the explosions, etc.
<br>
<br>Please read my paper on the subject.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 3 -->
<a name="x4"></a>
<h2><a href="#x4" class="tiny">x4</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">I don't think '9/11' means what you think it means.</a></h2>
<p><a href="https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/comment-page-1/#comment-1009">2017-04-12</a></p>
<div id="sect_4" style="display:block;">
<p>You make a lot of appeals to authority in your article, and lots of "9/11 Justification." My era was on the tail end of the "Question Authority" generation, so your appeals to authority don't fly.
<br>
<br>Secondly and more importantly -- to paraphrase from the "Princess Bride" -- "I don't think '9/11' means what you think it means."
<br>
<br>There is a reason that 9/11 Truth Movement exists and why it isn't going away any time soon. To put it mildly, the government and their complicit media has not made a convincing case to prove their assertions about any of the MANY coincidences that happened on 9/11. Not a one.
<br>
<br>Geez, have some objectivity and look up "all sides" of 9/11 to see what the truthers (and the coincidence theorists) are really saying. 9/11 is full of lies and knee jerk reactions which quickly had everybody removing shoes and suffering other FSA attrocities to our civil rights.
<br>
<br>Because you're interested in airlines, let it be known that the government has not produced convincing and thorough evidence (a) that the alleged hijackers even got on the planes [video surveillance has been in airports for decades], (b) that the alleged planes even took off or flew the routes attributed to them, (c)_ that mobile phone calls could be made from aircraft in flight, (d) that the serialed numbered parts found matched those of the alleged aircraft, (e) that any plane crashed into the Pentagon & Shanksville... 1960's Operation Norwood presented but rejected by JFK proves that such false-flag planning happens.
<br>
<br>For me, the above is just one government dog on 9/11 that don't hunt. What got my attention and should all science literate people -- according to the official version -- were two steel skyscrapers with minor aircraft damage and waning office fires falling at near gravitational acceleration while pulverizing themselves and spewing content laterally hundreds of yards WITHOUT allegedly ENERGY BEING ADDED. If such were the earnest belief of our government officials, rather than persecuting Muslims all over the world with bombs and drones, this very act of breaking Allah's laws of physics on 9/11 should have inspired them to recommend to the nation the conversion to Islam. (Joke.)
<br>
<br>Since 9/11, anybody justifying wars or civil rights infringement based on those 9/11 events is an opportunistic con-man and huckster.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 4 -->
<a name="x5"></a>
<h2><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x5</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_5');">*Written with a British accent*</a></h2>
<p>2017-04-20</p>
<div id="sect_5" style="display:block;">
<p>*Written with a British accent*
<br>
<br>Superior debate tactics does not equate with being superior. Unless, of course, the debate opponent has an inferiority complex and is therefore prone to "feeling" being condescended to. In which event, it won't matter what or how a message is conveyed, offense will always be taken.
<br>
<br>Whether the condescension is real or mostly perceived, you lose the discussion if you make perceived tone the focus of your rebuttal, snowflake.
<br>
<br>The Z. in a nutshell: "*Whimper* It isn't WHAT he wrote... *sob*, but HOW he wrote it *sniffle* that makes me feel like I'm such an inferior human being. *Wah!* So I will henceforth endeavor to ignore any salient points that made up the meat & cheese of his condescension sandwich, and instead focus on sour pickles."
</p>
</div><!-- section 5 -->
<a name="x6"></a>
<h2><a href="#x6" class="tiny">x6</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">points of physics that the NPTers like to malframe</a></h2>
<p>2017-06-12</p>
<div id="sect_6" style="display:block;">
<p>
<br><a href="https://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html?showComment=1497282377800#c2927491551762054605">2017-06-12</a>
<br><a href="https://nomoregames.net/2010/09/01/plane-deceit-at-the-world-trade-center/comment-page-1/#comment-127278">2017-06-12</a>
<br>
<br>Video frame rate versus speed of object are important, because it introduces sufficient error to mask deceleration. For example, assuming a frame rate of 24 frames per second, an aircraft length of 155 ft, and V1=600 mph and V2=525 mph, both velocities (and those in between) would have the aircraft travel its length in the same number of fames.
<br>
<br>The physics of the building should also be properly described. The tower walls were not solid steel. The wall assemblies had window gaps with little resistance. The wall assembly was composed of three hollow box columns connected together with spandrels, and with the built-in failure points of the bolts that connected the assemblies together. The wall assemblies were covered with aluminum cladding.
<br>
<br>When studying the actual damage of the building, the aluminum cladding demonstrates wingtip-to-wingtip damage. Behind that, you'll observe areas where entire wall assemblies were pushed out of the way (owing to the bolt failure points), where box columns were bent, and in some cases severed. The floors were (approximately) 13 feet apart.
<br>
<br>The points are that wall assemblies did not offer 100% resistance, and that once the walls were breeched by the leading mass of the aircraft, the resistance to subsequent mass of the aircraft would have been reduced significantly.
<br>
<br>Another point of physics that the NPTers like to malframe. They harp that the wings and tail should have bounced off of the structure. To a certain degree, they did but not as cohesive wholes. They tend to purposely misunderstand the physics involved by applying observations of relatively low velocity collisions (e.g., parking lot speeds, autobahn speeds) with what would be observed (in the MythBusters Rocket-slide videos and the Sandia F4 crash) at really high velocities. The energy available at very large velocities (velocity squared term) is sufficient to overcome internal structural energy of the material of the vehicle and therefore get shattered first before any bouncing may or may not occur. Close observation of the video and recognizing that from the distance to the camera, what appeared to be tiny pieces were actually much larger and were shattered wings and such.
<br>
<br>Included in the evidence of real aircraft are 10 different instances of fragments of aircraft wheel assemblies found in various locations. My favorite is an aircraft wheel embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped out of the back-side of WTC-1 (remember the bolt failure points), was lying in the parking lot below, and was photographed from several angles before either tower was destroyed.
<br>
<br>My second favorite is the engine that rocketed out of the corner of WTC-2, hit a roof of a Park Place building, and then landed near Church & Murray.
<br>
<br>Let's be clear that none of the larger parts were ever serial numbered identified to match the alleged aircraft. For many other reasons including curious flight paths, incomplete take-off records, turned off transponders, speed & precision of flights, etc., some reasonable doubt exists whether or not the aircraft were the alleged commercial aircraft. But the evidence is there of physical aircraft being involved.
<br>
<br>// MCB
</p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-27990224329795214402016-06-09T11:11:00.000-07:002016-06-17T07:53:56.466-07:00Debunking NPT@WTC<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Show All Parts</b></a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All Parts</b></a></p>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Show All</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All</a></p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
areaShowAll("sect_part");
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<p><b>Rabbit-Hole Warning!</b> This entry publishes part 2 through part 4 as a continuation of Facebook (and email) discussions on the theme of NPT@WTC (no plane theory at the WTC on 9/11). As I wrote to Dr. James Henry Fetzer: </p>
<blockquote><p>Debunking NPT at the WTC is not my 9/11 hobby-horse; FGNW is. I only do it as a favor to a fellow duped useful idiot who prides himself on being objective enough to let himself get duped another way with new informaion and/or properly applied science and logical analysis.</p></blockquote>
<a name='more'></a>
<p>Patterns are evident, which includes: <br />
(1) Purposeful insufficient understanding of physics. <br />
(2) Not grasping the significance of velocity-squared in the kinetic energy equation. <br />
(3) Malframing the outcomes of high velocity physics in terms of low velocity vehicle crashes. "Shatter then bounce" versus "bounce as cohesive whole" <br />
(4) Malframing the structural nature of the towers, energy required for tower penetration, and resistance to penetration once outer walls were breeched.<br />
(5) Not acknowledging deficiencies & attacking the messenger. </p>
<p>For references purposes, here is published <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html">Part 1</a> that isn't included with this set.</p>
<a name="x72"></a><hr>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part2');">Part 2: FB Rosalee Grable's NPT</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part2" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb:
<br>
<br>Rosalee Grable claims that she was the first to discover NPT @ WTC. It was interesting trying to learn what held her to this belief, and if she would change her view when confronted with new information.
<br>
<br>mcb: end}
</p>
<a name="x73"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x73</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_73');">September Clues, a very slick (dis)information effort</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/976609269045107/">2015-09-21</a></p>
<div id="sect_73" style="display: none;">
<p>I used to be a no-planer and a very dangerous debater on the topic, influenced heavily by September Clues, a very slick (dis)information effort. But this duped useful idiot over time was convinced otherwise through evidence and reasoned arguments.
<br>
<br>I now believe that "No Planes" (at the WTC) is a limited-hangout to distract from truly "No Planes" in Shanksville and "plane flyover" at the Pentagon.
<br>
<br>I'll try to be brief in what turned me into "planes at the WTC."
<br>
<br>- Someone used 3D graphics to model most of the video footage of the 2nd WTC aircraft against NY map. It determined that all perspectives represented a single flight path, which also agreed with two sets of radar data.
<br>
<br>- The radar data even with the 1,800' offset between the two sets were in agreement, could not have been easily faked, and represented a real, physical object in flight.
<br>
<br>- Google around for wheel assemblies of the WTC aircraft. Eventually, you'll find a picture that shows an aircraft wheel embedded into a wall assembly ripped out of the backside (with respect to impact) of a tower. It is in a small parking lot close to the towers. Two pictures provide two perspective that make it clear it was a wall assembly and it was part of a wheel assembly from an airplane. Also, these pictures were taken before either tower is demolished. Other pictures show the tower backside with the hole from the wall assembly. The point is: extremely difficult to fake; a real aircraft.
<br>
<br>- Ten or so such examples of aircraft parts can be found.
<br>
<br>- No-planers try to make hay out of the engine landing at Church & Murray. Doing the high school physics associated with an engine being launched from the towers, hitting another building, and then bouncing to the street, proves that an exit velocity of 120 mph could go the distance. Based on video evidence, tower entrance velocity was 400+ mph. Energy was consumed in hitting entrance and exit walls. The point is: the physics can support an engine going the distance to Church & Murray.
<br>
<br>The no-planer-theory (NPT) could be modified to be NCPT (no commercial plane theory) and receive my endorsement. In other words, the velocity at low-altitude and accuracy of the aircraft hint that the plane may not have been the alleged commercial aircraft. The pod on the planes may have been an ABL (airborne laser) whose flash at entrance was recorded by multiple cameras and for both planes may have softened the impact point to further support aircraft penetration. No parts found have been definitely identified by serial number as belonging to the alleged commercial aircraft. The government hasn't proven that the alleged commercial aircraft had their manifests and flew the route.
<br>
<br>- Another major reason why I find September Clues disinformation comes from its creator and its regular Clues Forums participants. I went out there to discuss my hobby-horse. At the time, it was info being mined from Dr. Wood. Wanted them to help me legitimately debunk it. They said Dr. Wood was disinfo because she included tainted images. Out of five or seven images presented from her book, only two did they come close to raising doubt as to voracity before they banned me. (Not for bad behavior.) Their stilted position was "all 9/11 imagery was faked, none of it could be trusted." Even all images of pulverizing towers. They had nothing to fill the void. If it was faked, why? What was being covered up? Mundane and lame answers about chemical explosives (not even NT) that they couldn't support.
<br>
<br>SC couldn't even entertain the notion that a tainted image is easier to come by if most of it is reality and the part you're hiding is the fake. Creating stuff from scratch can be hard. Therefore, what percentage of a given "faked" image is real and what part was manipulated? No, SC wouldn't go there.
<br>
<br>My discussions with them exposed holes in their agenda. Turns out that even Mr. Shack himself wasn't so knowledgable about imagery technology as implied by his videos.
<br>
<br>Don't get me wrong. There are at least two cases of valid imagery manipulation that I can point to. Much about the coordination of footage and imagery between competitor News stations is valid. Media coordination did happen. Dr. Wood talks about how Hurricane Erin became instantly "no news" even while still affecting air travel and other cities. I'm sure that even the "simVictims" meme isn't so far-fetched, given that Operation Norwood proposed the equivalent for its day (1960).
<br>
<br>Despite these nuggets of truth (and probably more), doesn't mean that SC as a whole stands up. "Nothing was real, all was faked" is just too much of a brain-dead, agenda-toting, disinfo position to defend. And they can't defend it, and they'll ban you before trying.
<br>
<br>Mine SC for nuggets of truth, but don't accept the whole thing as true.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 73 -->
<a name="x74"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x74" class="tiny">x74</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">digital images extracted from video</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-21</a></p>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Brian S Staveley,
<br>
<br>The images that you are calling into question were not taken from a film camera. Not only were they digital images, they were extracted from video.
<br>
<br>Digital video has all sorts of issues that makes the video image much less the extracted images unequivalent to reality, having to do with frame rates, raster line rates, digital compression, digital error correction, fast moving object, etc. In short, the technology.
<br>
<br>It is one thing to video a talking head; quite another to video a fast moving object.
<br>
<br>It is not unusual for digital to carry forward information from previous frames, like when glitches happen and data is dropped. The technology does its best to error correct.
<br>
<br>What does common-sense tell me about those images? It tells me that digital technology is not perfect; it is just good enough for most purposes.
<br>
<br>This discussion proves more deceit from SC. Those video experts should have known that the technology has issues making 100% exact video/digital replicas of reality at all frames. Errors are introduced and attempts are made to correct, which can lead to wings disappearing on isolated frames.
<br>
<br>Don't take my word for it. And certainly don't take SC's word for. Do some research into the technology. We've known for years how imperfect video recordings were. We've been living with video and digital glitches for decades now. Call it what it is. Video fakery it ain't.
<br>
<br>BTW, my hobby-horse has morphed into FGNW. It used to be nukes and it used to be DEW, ala Dr. Wood. In researching this on my own, I learned what part of DEW was valid for 9/11 and what wasn't.
<br>
<br>ABL stands for airborne laser. These were operational before 2001. They could zap missiles and other limited things of wonder. They could NOT have destroyed the towers as observed. BUT they could have been air plane mounted. Various videos show flashes just prior to airplane impact; they also show in cases (pods on planes). Ergo, ABL on the non-commercial planes could have softened the entrance point to allow for more further plane penetration.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x75</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_75');">digital manipulation extent</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-21</a></p>
<div id="sect_75" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Brian S Staveley,
<br>
<br>I do not rule out that digital manipulation happened. But research and analysis has me rule out the EXTENT of digital manipulation that SC and the no-planers peddle.
<br>
<br>Specifically, I believe sufficient evidence exists -- from landing gear to engines -- to definitely prove that real aircraft hit the WTC. This being said, they do NOT prove the alleged commercial aircraft hit the WTC.
<br>
<br>Therefore, if I were to speculate into what AMOUNT of digital manipulation did happen at the WTC, it would be to say that maybe they tried to digitally cover over the real aircraft with a digital mock-up in certain views, possibly to hide pods, hide flashes, or other things.
<br>
<br>Further, the point made in SC about various networks seemingly showing the same image but with chromatic shifts? I speculate that this was done to hide the fact that all competing networks were obtaining some of their footage from the same exact source [involved in the event], but color-shifted it to mask this re-use.
<br>
<br>The ability to filter colors would be helpful in hiding unusual "events" in the destruction, like unusual flashes, particularly if any delay were possible to give the CPU cycle times to mask such things out when auto-detected.
<br>
<br>A valid instance of imagery manipulation were the four helicopter shots: one with nothing except the 2nd explosion; one with a pod heading to the tower and 2nd explosion; one with a plane heading to the tower and 2nd explosion; one with the background masked out but same perspective of tower and showed a faked 2nd plane and then 2nd explosion.
<br>
<br>I went through the hoops on a second valid instance of imagery manipulation, but I forgot its details. I'll look it up later.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 75 -->
<a name="x76"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x76" class="tiny">x76</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">MythBuster's video is very useful</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-22</a></p>
<div id="sect_76" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Brian S Staveley,
<br>
<br>If you aren't looking for nuggets of truth from all sources -- even those deemed disinformation --, then you are falling right into the hands of disinformation. Disinformation has no traction unless built on a solid foundation of truth -- before they crank the skew.
<br>
<br>The Mythbuster's video is very useful and gives much understanding. You just have to look beyond their commentary and the goals of that particular episode. It turns out to be very instructive to 9/11 researchers.
<br>
<br>You mention the 9/11 Commission Report? Indeed, despite having many omissions and misdirections, it does contains nuggets of truth. I like to use their WTC tower collapse times, because they are within the margin of error of free-fall.
<br>
<br>Any more comments from you in the peanut gallery that tries to smear valid information in a guilt-by-association manner will be dealt with by me in an unfriendly, mocking manner. You have been warned.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 76 -->
<a name="x77"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x77" class="tiny">x77</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_77');">WTC plane parts not planted</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-22</a></p>
<div id="sect_77" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Thomas Digan, I disagree with your assessment that WTC plane parts were planted. I'm okay with you making hay out of the engine at Church & Murray not being the correct engine for the alleged commercial aircraft. However, this fact does not negate the reality of the involvement of real aircraft. All it should do to rational thinkers is disprove the premise that the aircraft was the alleged commercial, thereby calling into question hijackers, inside involvement, etc.
<br>
<br>Not being one who desires re-hashing old debates, I encourage you to look into the following FB discussion. In particular, scroll down to postings from me on:
<br>
<br>- March 27, 2014 at 11:10am
<br>- March 31, 2014 at 10:47am
<br>
<br>You'll find the other postings from me in between informative, because they address the physics of a smoking object exiting the towers and flying the distance to around Church & Murray. If this wasn't the engine that many videos capture, what was it and where did it go?
<br>
<br>In particular, though, I want you to study closely the pictures given in the March 31 posting. It shows a tire from an aircraft embedded into a wall assembly ripped out of the backside of the tower before either towers demolition. (Images from other sources show the hole created from this missing wall assembly.)
<br>
<br>https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1433256366919343/
<br>
<br>The two pictures of this wheel in a wall assembly as well as the 3D overlay analysis of most videos that demonstrate them all representing the same flight path (and in agreement with 2 sets of radar data) are what finally convinced me that NPT at the WTC was disinformation.
<br>
<br>If you can't get to the FB link, then you can read the same information (from me) that I re-purposed on my blog.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html#x224
<br>
<br>Why re-purposed on my blog? Because FB can't be relied upon to preserve my words. Hell, once a discussion has scrolled down your newsfeed, if you haven't been noting off-line the URLs to such discussions, you'll never be able to find them. [Rest assured that at our trials for entertaining such conspiratorial thoughts, the FBI and other agencies will not have a problem locating, collecting, and organizing all of our comments.]
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 77 -->
<a name="x78"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x78" class="tiny">x78</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">wall assembly with aircraft wheel embedded</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-22</a></p>
<div id="sect_78" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Thomas Digan,
<br>
<br>Your rebuttal to two images showing a wall assembly on the ground with part of an aircraft wheel embedded in it has two parts.
<br>
<br>The first part claims that there are no images of the towers that show this exit hole. I disagree. Go to any of the footage taken from helicopters circling the WTC, and you will find images that show this exit hole still smoking.
<br>
<br>The second part claims "the bends on the steel are wrong if in fact this came from the towers." Prove it. I think you're just blowing hot air.
<br>
<br>Tell us how this was planted? How did they get the wall assembly to the ground? You should go through all of the images at cryptome.
<br>
<br>Then you ask, "How can a plane crash into a steel framed building with central steel columns and still parts of it come flying out the other side. The towers were and acre square."
<br>
<br>The tower walls were not solid. 50% of the face of the wall assemblies were window slots, empty of anything resistive except shatterable glass. In addition, the verticle beams of wall assemblies were not 14"x14"x40' of solid steel (from memory; more accurate measurements does not defeat this point). No, they were 1/4"x14"x40' steel plates that were fashioned into boxes 14"x14"x40' that were then connected with spandrels into the wall assemblies hoisted up and bolted into place. This changes the dynamics of any collisions between airplane and wall.
<br>
<br>If we say for the purposes of discussion that each floor was 13' tall, how much of that was the floor/ceiling concrete boundary? Let's say 3' to be generous. Therefore, ten vertical feet of each floor was empty space (except for weak office cubicles and except for the central core) and not resistive at all to a plane. Furthermore, the towers' walls had built in failure points; namely, the bolts that connected the wall assemblies together.
<br>
<br>When the aircraft damage is studied, it will be found where (a) wall assembly beams were in tact, even if the aluminum cladding got sliced, (b) wall assemblies severed at the bolts, (c)_ wall assemblies pushed out of the way, (d) beams of wall assemblies bent.
<br>
<br>The point is: a neat outline of an aircraft did ~not~ slice wing-tip to wing-tip into the towers. No. Fuselage and landing gear areas exercised the most damage. Wing-tips? Not so much.
<br>
<br>The aircraft impacting WTC-2 (2nd one) did not hit perpendicular to the wall. It hit at an angle, such that moving mass once inside the tower (and not at the level of the floor/ceiling boundary) would travel and miss the core area. Indeed, one engine went through a backside corner and flew to Church & Murray.
<br>
<br>I believe that the wheel-in-wall-assembly came from WTC-1. Something it demonstrates is that the assembly connecting bolts were indeed a weak link. It is one thing crashing into the building where floor/ceiling boundaries would push opposite direction, but completely another when a heavy mass with much momentum wants to exit the building. The whole wall assembly was ripped right from the building.
<br>
<br>The bottom line is that the central core did not consume the whole acreage of a WTC floor; just a central area. Office furnishings would not have been resistive; the window slits were not resistive; the air space between floor/ceiling junctures were not resistive. Plenty of non-resistive space for mass with momentum to travel through unhindered until it hit the backwall and made its exit.
<br>
<br>The above should answer your questions.
<br>
<br>However, at this point the MythBuster Rocket-Snowplow video as well as the Sandia F4 Jet Crash video are instrumental. Why? Because the energy in a collision is dependent on a velocity-squared factor. The larger the velocity, the more exponential energy available in the collision. This higher energy is seen in the videos with the decimation of the colliding objects.
<br>
<br>Even though the car (think aircraft wings) was sliced by the rocket-snowplow (think box columns of wall assembly), it exhibited enough energy to also decimate the steel snowplow. Newton's laws: equal and opposite. A decimated wing could still do a number on the wall assemblies, even slicing them (for sure at the bolts) and bending them and pushing.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 78 -->
<a name="x79"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x79" class="tiny">x79</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_79');">backside of WTC-1</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-22</a></p>
<div id="sect_79" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Thomas Digan,
<br>
<br>If you need an hour to read my posting, then woes unto you. Meanwhile, here is an image that I believe is from the backside of WTC-1 and shows the missing wall assembly that other images of mine show on the ground with the aircraft tire.
<br>
<br><img alt="" src="http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict41.jpg" />http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict41.jpg
<br>
<br>BTW, you wrote: "Jet fuel. Melts steel and brings down buildings. Can't melt a tyre."
<br>
<br>I can only guess at your purposes for such a ridiculing comment.
<br>
<br>In order for something to be affected by fire, temperature isn't the only factor but "duration at temperature." In other words, if something is really really hot, it doesn't take as much time for it to burn other things. If something however isn't very hot, then more time is required for it to burn things. If you are moving very fast through a hot-spot -- like your finger through a candle flame --, you might not get burned.
<br>
<br>You write as if you've never seen Evil Knievel or other daredevils on motocycles or in vehicles pass right through flaming hoops or other flaming obstacles unscathed! How could this be? How could Hollywood stuntmen endure such treatment in movie after movie? Because they weren't in the vacinity of the intense heat for very long; they were in motion.
<br>
<br>Your agenda is being exposed.
<br>
<br>NPT does not stand up to the evidence. "Tyre" in wall assembly: how was it created? How was it planted? Before either tower came down?
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 79 -->
<a name="x80"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x80" class="tiny">x80</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">backside hole got explained</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-22</a></p>
<div id="sect_80" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Brian S Staveley and Mr. Thomas Digan,
<br>
<br>I was not talking down to you in a condescending tone when I entered this discussion. I was using honorifics to show respect. But now I am. You're a couple trolls.
<br>
<br>The ball is in your court. Explain how a hole got in the backside of WTC-1 and one of its wall assembly got to the ground with an aircraft "tyre" stuck in the window slit portion. How was this planted? How was it achieved? Remember. You're the idiots who believe that no aircraft were involved. So explain.
<br>
<br>Me? I'm fine with the truism that the planes were not the alleged commercial aircraft, which is why no parts have been serial number identified to the alleged commercial aircraft. Maybe the actual aircraft were souped up to explain their low-altitude velocities and accuracy. Maybe they even had an ABL (airborne laser), which softened the entrance into the towers. Why? Because maybe the PTB feared not getting enough penetration which is used as the justification for collapse, so they stacked the deck.
<br>
<br>NCPT = no commercial aircraft theory
<br>
<br>NCPT holds water and can be substantiated. But flat-out NPT? NPT is a limited hang-out that doesn't support the evidence. If you were anything other than trolls, you might have an "ah-ha" moment with what I have been presenting and change your minds (like I did). But I won't be holding my breath.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 80 -->
<a name="x81"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x81" class="tiny">x81</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_81');">why did the NPT meme get started?</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-22</a></p>
<div id="sect_81" style="display: none;">
<p>Oooo. Many words put together to make a logical case. Too many to follow. But that doesn't stop you from making stupid flame-bait comments.
<br>
<br>Mr. Brian S Staveley and Mr. Thomas Digan, you can send me a FB message ~if~ you can defend NPT reasonably, ~if~ you can explain how the aircraft evidence spotted by many witnesses and 1st responders is not from aircraft that hit the towers.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, I'll let you two trolls continue your backslapping and have the last words in your disinformation postings. You'll be remembered for the idiots and trolls that you are.
<br>
<br>Good day, sirs.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>Mr. Brian S Staveley, you speak from both sides of your mouth when you write: "[T]he US Govt cant get their hands on a cpl empty airliners if they wanted to?" Yes, they can, and they did.
<br>
<br>You write: "If they were gonna hit the towers with real planes they wouldnt show us fake video and have all thse questions raised."
<br>
<br>Hold your horses! What videos exactly are you referring to as fake? Quite the contrary, most were deemed legit, and SC has been debunked and trashed for their purposeful stupidity.
<br>
<br>They had to use real planes (but not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft), because they wanted it recorded by lots of cameras and eye witnesses. Planes were needed to lamely explain the destruction of the entire WTC, which involved among other things an honest to goodness gold heist as well as destruction of important SEC and Pentagon records.
<br>
<br>The real question is: why did the NPT meme get started?
<br>
<br>Because there was no plane at Shanksville, and no plane crashed into the Pentagon (it flew over). Therefore, the very stilted and doomed-to-fail NPT meme was started at the WTC to distract and overwhelm uncritical thinkers. It was purposely made with many holes SO THAT IT WOULD BE DEBUNKED (as I have just done), precisely so that uncritial thinkers will then somehow validate actual plane crashes at Shanksville and the Pentagon.
<br>
<br>Shit, you write: "I dont know exactly when the tire was planted but that area was controlled anyways so it doesnt really matter much if it was 5 min beforethe atttack or 30 min after the ALLEGED attack."
<br>
<br>It does too matter. It wasn't just the tire; it was the entire wall assembly. Was it seen on a flatbed truck being moved around Manhattan before or immediately after the attack? Was there a crane to lift it into place?
<br>
<br>Can you be honest enough to admit that the wall assembly did indeed come from WTC-1? Maybe you'll explain that as a planned explosion.
<br>
<br>How many vehicles were needed to transport around the various airplane parts? How did they get the wheel into the jacuzzi?
<br>
<br>Admit your doubt in the face of this solid PLANE evidence. Or carry on as you have been to discredit yourselves.
<br>
<br>// </p>
</div><!-- section 81 -->
<a name="x82"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x82" class="tiny">x82</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">Rosalee Grable cartoon universe</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/976609269045107/">2015-09-23</a></p>
<div id="sect_82" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Rosalee Grable</b> It wouldn't matter if they could or couldnt substitute military planes. No plane made of matter is allowed to flaunt Newton's Laws of Motion. Any kind of plane faces the same natural laws. The fasrer the plane, the bigger the energy exchanged at the point of impact. Then gravity takes over.
<br>The "plane" behaves in ways only possible in a cartoon universe freed from Earth's natural laws. Fictional, imaginary and not real.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Rosalee Grable, In our discussions, you have not made the case that the WTC planes "flaunted Newton's Laws of Motion." I have noted in our exchanges that you are a "believer" and optimistically want to believe in many things as true. But that desire for a belief does not always translate into reality.
<br>
<br>For the sake of discussion, I will entertain your belief briefly. The assumption is that the crash of the WTC planes somehow defied Newton's Laws of Motion.
<br>
<br>I am already on board with the concept that the alleged commercial planes weren't used. The impact velocity and accuracy were two indicators of such as well as issues with flight manifests, serial numbered parts, and many other anomalies of the alleged hijackers. Pods-on-planes were speculated as being observed. Flashes are recorded on multiple perspectives of the impacting aircraft.
<br>
<br>To which I answer ABL: airborne laser. This was the one DEW technology that was ready for prime time in 2001. The laser's light would not necessarily be visible. Given the precision of the flights and the ABL technology itself, it could very well have softened the very entrance holes the aircraft pushed into the towers for the several concluding seconds of their flights.
<br>
<br>If the perpetrators were paranoid and wanted to be extra sure that planes achieved penetrations into towers that were designed to withstand aircraft as justification for the towers later demolitions, then ABL could very well be the element that makes the WTC crashes seem physics defying. We know the perpetrators were paranoid and wanted extra assurances, because the overkill nature of the towers' pulverization demonstrates this quite handily. The ends didn't require this; their chosen means [FGNW] did.
<br>
<br>Me personally? I believe that ABL would not have been needed; for that matter ground-based DEW could have assisted and not wasted the ABL asset in the destroyed aircraft.
<br>
<br>The anomaly in question is maybe how the aircraft seemed to create cartoon impressions of themselves on the towers' faces; maybe for how they seemed to enter the towers effortlessly.
<br>
<br>From afar where most cameras actually were, there does seem to be a cartoon impression of the planes through the towers faces. Upon closer inspection using zoomed in images, this is not the case. Sure, the aluminum cladding did get the aircrafts profile wingtip-to-wingtip. But the steel box columns of the wall assemblies did not. Inspection of their damage shows where they were severed at weak junctions (e.g., bolts connecting them together), where in cases entire assemblies got pushed in, where in cases the ends got bent. The actual instances of severing were at fuselage and engine locations.
<br>
<br>As for the planes entering the towers, I'll repeat what was mentioned above.
<br>
<br>+++ begin repeat
<br>
<br>The tower walls were not solid. 50% of the face of the wall assemblies were window slots, empty of anything resistive except shatterable glass. In addition, the verticle beams of wall assemblies were not 14"x14"x40' of solid steel (from memory; more accurate measurements does not defeat this point). No, they were 1/4"x14"x40' steel plates that were fashioned into boxes 14"x14"x40' that were then connected with spandrels into the wall assemblies hoisted up and bolted into place. This changes the dynamics of any collisions between airplane and wall.
<br>
<br>If we say for the purposes of discussion that each floor was 13' tall, how much of that was the floor/ceiling concrete boundary? Let's say 3' to be generous. Therefore, ten vertical feet of each floor was empty space (except for weak office cubicles and except for the central core) and not resistive at all to a plane. Furthermore, the towers' walls had built in failure points; namely, the bolts that connected the wall assemblies together.
<br>
<br>When the aircraft damage is studied, it will be found where (a) wall assembly beams were in tact, even if the aluminum cladding got sliced, (b) wall assemblies severed at the bolts, (c)_ wall assemblies pushed out of the way, (d) beams of wall assemblies bent.
<br>
<br>+++ end repeat
<br>
<br>So when a fast moving aircraft impacts these towers, equal-and-opposite forces are at work. Yes, aircraft wings can get sliced, but not without imparting energy into the box columns of the steel wall assemblies to push them, distort them, or break them.
<br>
<br>I'll also risk mentioning again the MythBuster videos with the Rocket Snowplow and the F4 Sandia crash. Both are unique to our personal experiences, because they demonstrate the exponentially large energies stemming from the velocity-squared term in the equation.
<br>
<br>If any of the 9/11 cameras had been high-resolution with a high frame rate and much closer to capture more details, the WTC aircraft crashes would exhibit similar Newtonian physics. For example, aircraft debris didn't ~all~ enter the towers. Hard to see on the low-resolution videos, but debris did break off on the impact side of the towers, and many 1st responders testify to this fact.
<br>
<br>I repeat again: the WTC towers' walls weren't solid with respect to a horizontally impacting object. I'm convinced by actual numbers and seeing velocity-squared in action.
<br>
<br>If doubts of the massive velocity-squared energy of the aircraft persist and its ability to give us the observed outcomes, then you should research ABL and other DEW technology and add this as a reasonable explanation for what appears to be physics-defying.
<br>
<br>NPT? Holograms? They do not hold up, particularly with the overwhelming evidence of aircraft debris, many videos, radar signatures, etc. NPT is a limited hangout to dupe the public six-ways-from-Sunday so that the reality of no aircraft debris at Shanksville and the Pentagon gets smeared.
<br>
<br>// </p>
</div><!-- section 82 -->
<a name="x83"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x83" class="tiny">x83</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_83');">when velocities are small</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-23</a></p>
<div id="sect_83" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Rosalee Grable</b> Newtons Laws of Motion are not selective. All matter must abide. These 'planes" don't.
<br>So you are saying a perfectly timed directed energy ray duspatched them to kingdom come, eh?
<br>An ill placed bird can bring down a plane, so the idea the building is Only 50 percent solid matter gets irrelevant fast. Both the building and any projectile are subject to Newtons laws, if they are real and not fake.
<br>The forces would be equal and opposite. Deflection would occur, leaving the plane pretty much intact on the ground directly below the point of impact
<br>Nada. Instead we have guys in a truckmarked "plane parts" seeding the area with mystery debris and an undamaged passport.
<br>Directed energy weapons worked fine without any imaginary planes.
<br>The second hit "planes" shown 'live' have duplicate frames, common in animation but impossible in real life.
<br>In real motion video, each frame is broken into 2 fields.
<br>There should be 60 unique fields, not 10-12 unique and the rest duplicates.
<br>Later renderings of the scenes manage better frame rates, which also shows these planes were artistic renderings, cos later reproductions cannot be better than their originals if they are real in the first place.
<br>Heh. And a reminder the first hit 'plane' is completely missing from the first hit footage, where it would have been the dominant feature if it was there at all.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Rosalee Grabble, you malframe my words and misunderstand physics.
<br>
<br>I did not write that "a perfectly timed directed energy ray duspatched them (airplanes) to kingdom come"? No, I was saying that a perfectly timed DEW ray ~could~ soften the entrance hole to the towers. I can cough up many references that this was real-world and operational by 2001, whether aircraft mounted (ABL) or land-based.
<br>
<br>I put emphasis on "could", because this isn't my belief. I believe that high-velocity physics changes how materials will react, and that nothing with the 9/11 WTC crashes leads to NPT.
<br>
<br>You write from your misunderstanding of physics: "The forces (acting on the plane and tower) would be equal and opposite. Deflection would occur, leaving the plane pretty much intact on the ground directly below the point of impact."
<br>
<br>When velocities are small, velocity-squared term in the energy equation is also relatively small and can act on a whole vehicle leaving it and its materials in tact.
<br>
<br>When velocities are very large, the velocity-squared term in the energy equation is huge. When that energy is significantly greater than the structural energy required to hold material of the vehicle (or target) together as a cohesive whole, then the structure and materials shatter. Physics act on the smaller pieces, but not on an in-tact, whole vehicle (or impacted wall) anymore.
<br>
<br>This should be the take-away truth you get from the MythBusters Rocket-Snowplow or the Sandia F4 crash that can be applied to 9/11 airplanes at the WTC.
<br>
<br>Deflection can't happen to a large degree or to a whole vehicle/structure if the energies involved are large (coming from the velocity-squared term) and those energies exceed structural and in cases localized material strength.
<br>
<br>Specifically as was already mentioned, the walls were not solid! 50% of the walls' face had no-resistive window slots. No deflection can happen there, but with the higher energies involved, the impact on the box columns could for sure slice-and-dice (shatter) the ligher airplane's materials whose momentum would take them the path of least resistance into window slots and into the building. Equal and opposite, the box columns would also be impacted by the same energy, which resulted in assembly bolts breaking, assemblies getting pushed, and box columns getting bent and in some cases sliced.
<br>
<br>How can you be sure the trucks marked "plane parts" weren't picking up the debris? (So they could cart them away and not have any investigation into matching serial numbered parts with the alleged aircraft).
<br>
<br>I have no clue where you're getting your "duplicate frame" nonsense. Provide a reference.
<br>
<br>I'm not saying that some form of imagery manipulation did not occur on 9/11. A nugget of truth from 9/11 was that all media outlets who were competitors with one another were utilizing the exact same source feeds, but may have been slightly color shifting them to disguise this fact.
<br>
<br>Acknowledge this correction to your understanding of physics involving high-velocities. Otherwise, you out yourself as a shill trying to muddy truth from the direction of unsubstantiated bat-shit crazy, and I won't attempt further rational discussions with you.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 83 -->
<a name="x84"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x84" class="tiny">x84</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">laws of motion only with low velocity</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-23</a></p>
<div id="sect_84" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Rosalee Grable</b> Nowhere does Newtons Laws of Motion claim to only work with low velocity or little stuff.
<br>halexandria.org/dward126.htm
<br>Universal laws are universal laws because they are universal.
<br>Trying to weasel out just falls back into the realm of cartoon physics, where anything goes for schnookies and minions.
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Rosalee Grable, you are not understanding those very same universal laws of physics. Let me give you some perspective.
<br>
<br>Assume V1=5 mph, where V1 is velocity. At that speed, your plastic bumper will probably deflect your vehicle from an impacted object. It might get slightly deformed, but probably won't break.
<br>
<br>Now assume V2>>V1 and V2=50 mph. Squaring this velocity V2 results in significantly greater energy at impact:
<br>
<br>E(V2)=100*E(V1)
<br>
<br>Sufficient to break the plastic bumper into some pieces, shear bolts that attach it to the car, and deform many metal components of the car. You can find any number of automobile accidents where this is demonstrated.
<br>
<br>What happens when V3>>V2>>V1 such as a V2=500 mph? Squaring this velocity V3 results in exponentially greater energy at impact:
<br>
<br>E(V3)=100*E(V2)=10,000*E(V1)
<br>
<br>Look at the damn MythBuster Rocket-Snowplow to see what will happen, BECAUSE SUCH ENERGIES ARE NOT READILY OBSERVED IN OUR DAY-TO-DAY EXISTENCE AND LIVING WITH PHYSICS. Not just the bumper, but the solid engine block and other elements of the car are shattered.
<br>
<br>This V3 doesn't change the laws of physics. What happens is that the impact energy overwhelms the inherent structural energy of the materials. Energy is consumed in breaking or shattering the materials, before other laws of conservation of momentum throw them around. YOU CAN'T OBSERVE THIS AT LOWER VELOCITIES/ENERGY.
<br>
<br>This is also demonstrated by many slow motion videos of bullets. I recall one in particular of a bullet shot at a metal plate. Upon impact with the plate, the lead bullet shatters to pieces and is deflected on the impact side. However, at impact, the bullet transfers its energy into the metal plate. That energy is sufficiently great enough to push a "plug" of the metal plate out the backside, leaving a jagged hole with the general outline of the bullet. The bullet did not penetrate the plate, but it did make a bullet hole.
<br>
<br>Let's talk the impacting planes. The wings weren't bullets, but like the bullets they did begin to shatter upon impact with the steel box columns. Aircrafts are made of light materials. However, that shattered leading edge of wing still had intact wing material following it. Something your agenda won't admit: but some shattered wing material did get deflected off of the towers on impact and is captured on videos, but is hard to recognized owing to the distance and scale. If you were there and below it falling, you could have been killed. However, more wing material was behind the leading wing material, and the walls weren't 100% solid, so much material -- shattered, sliced, etc. -- was able to keep its forward momentum, follow the path of least resistance, and get deflected into the window slots and hence the building.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, equal-and-opposite, the energy of the materials hitting the towers' wall assemblies did there number and in a few cases did even slice box columns (which again was ~not~ 14"x14"x40' of solid steel), when it didn't shear connecting bolts and push wall assemblies out of the way or bend box columns.
<br>
<br>The bottom line is that your understanding of the laws of physics is not taking into consideration the higher energy involved and how it acts locally on materials, such that they no longer react as a cohesive whole.
<br>
<br>As for the videos, I stand by my assessment(s) and you should view them with the new understanding given above. The designer of the WTC stated that an impacting plane would act like a pencil piercing a screen door. For the most part, it did this, because the tower walls weren't solid, because much empty air was in the towers between floors to allow room for an entering aircraft. And were you to study those videos, you'd see how shattered material was deflected in part and can be seen falling to the ground on the impact side.
<br>
<br>I've had enough ignorance from the participants of this thread.
<br>
<br>Real planes hit the towers. Maybe not the exact alleged commercial aircraft, but real.
<br>
<br>No shame in admitting that you were duped by the slick September Clues and NPT. Hell, I was myself for a few years too; only difference was that I knew the slick production was conning me, only I didn't know how at the time. Over time and much discussion & analysis and being open-minded, the deceit became clear.
<br>
<br>The radar data, 3D analysis of most of the 9/11 videos of the 2nd plane, plus aircraft debris were the tipping points for me. You left-over NPTers have no viable explanation for the aircraft wheel embedded in a wall assembly (below) or the engine at Church & Murray -- both found before either tower was demolished -- or many other documented aircraft pieces except to say "They were all planted!" Look, passports were planted; bandanas were planted; flight instruction manuals with Korans were planted (in rental cars). But observers saw the engine exiting the towers, and it was found along the path of its trajectory.
<br>
<br>http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict7.jpg
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 84 -->
<a name="x85"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x85" class="tiny">x85</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_85');">most you can logically conclude about alleged planes</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-23</a></p>
<div id="sect_85" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Rosalee Grable</b> The wheel is the same sort found near the pentagon. Doesn't match either alleged plane.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Rosalee Grable, I honestly do not know if the wheel is the same or not as what was found near the Pentagon. As far as I know, no wheels were found there; and if they were, they were inside and not "near the Pentagon." You should research and find the exact place where it was found, because otherwise you are making things up (which I've been observing you doing.)
<br>
<br>More importantly, when you write "(Airplane wheel) Doesn't match either alleged plane", what is the most that you can logically conclude from this fact?!!
<br>
<br>I'll give you a hint: it ain't "no planes."
<br>
<br>It is: "plane probably wasn't either alleged plane."
<br>
<br>This is a damning fact and undermines the official story on many levels.
<br>
<br>Twisting this fact about not matching into there being no planes, letting the deceitful slick September Clues con you still, not listening to the evidence and proper analysis of the physics,... why that just makes you a pawn of the disinformation, a stooge, a shill, and worse than a duped useful idiot. (A duped useful idiot can be duped a different way, with better evidence and analysis.)
<br>
<br>I'm losing my respect for you.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 85 -->
<a name="x86"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x86" class="tiny">x86</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">Rosalee Grable predates Simon Shack by at least 5 years</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/">2015-09-23</a></p>
<div id="sect_86" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Rosalee Grable</b> Ooooih! So much namecalling because Newtons Laws remain universal laws of Matter regardless any body's pontificating and obscurance. Faster would just make bigger boom at point of impact.
<br>My work predates Simon Shack by at least 5 years. The true parts he stole from me.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Rosalee Grable, repeating ad nausium some truism "Newtons Laws remain universal laws of Matter" does not enhance your understanding of physics, or what the proper application of physics to 9/11 would be.
<br>
<br>What crock: "Faster would just make bigger boom at point of impact."
<br>
<br>Sound has nothing to do with it except as a potential side-effect from the movement of air.
<br>
<br>Faster means more energy. Slow speeds might not have sufficient energy to overcome internal structural energy to break and fracture materials. At faster speeds, this does not have to hold true. You don't have to look any further than fender benders in parking lots (slow speeds) versus accidents at highway speeds.
<br>
<br>Look up elastic collisions versus inelastic collisions. A tennis ball hit against a tennis racket might be considered an elastic collision: neither the ball nor the tennis racket are deformed. Put the racket into a vice and launch the tennis ball at it from a cannon at a high velocity, and you'll observe an inelastic collision. The head of the racket will probably get broken right off the handle, while the tennis ball itself is found later split at its seams, and probably never did a bounce backwards from its direction of travel.
<br>
<br>Higher velocity, more energy, more deformation in the objects. Deal with it.
<br>
<br>Study those MythBuster's video's some more for the deformation that comes to steel when great velocities are involved.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Brian S Staveley, you have my sincere apologies for associating you with September Clues and their brand of NPT. Indeed, their unsupportable premise is 100% fake and nothing is real in ~ANY~ of the imagery.
<br>
<br>But I still call you an idiot for defending "no planes at the WTC" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You have no explanation for the wheel in the wall assembly or the engine except "some vast conspiracy that was well coordinated and unobserved by 1st responders and bystanders to plant airplane debris." You have no explanation for the two sets of radar data that were in agreement to their tolerances. You have no explanation for most of the videos being in alignment with the radar data. Except it was all coordinated and faked Hollywood style. The FAA was in on it too as they watched on their radar.
<br>
<br>I could agree that the planes were not the alleged commercial ones for many reasons, including no effort to correlate serial numbered parts with the alleged aircraft as well as the high velocities at low altitudes flown with precision.
<br>
<br>You and Ms. Rosalee Grable won't even admit to known defects and glitches in the video recording technology, which you both misappropriate and claim was part of the same conspiracy to fool us into thinking there were planes.
<br>
<br>I seem to have more clue than you what I'm talking about.
<br>
<br>You can go ahead and block me now so that you never have to see my comments again.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 86 -->
<a name="x87"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x87" class="tiny">x87</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_87');">4 planes of some kind crashed at the 4 location</a></p>
<p>2015-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_87" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/?comment_id=979187055453995
<br>
<br>2015-09-27
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Norma Rae, You asked: "do you believe 4 planes of some kind crashed at the 4 location."
<br>
<br>I do not believe that an aircraft crashed in Shanksville. I do not believe that an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon; the CIT flyover argument is rather convincing.
<br>
<br>I believe that real aircraft crashed into both towers, but do not believe they were the two alleged commercial aircraft. No matching of serial numbered parts to the alleged aircraft even attempted. The engine found at Church & Murray is a different make and model.
<br>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Philip Joy, You wrote that "Ms. Norma Rae's point that a piece of flying debris does not neatly 'snuck' down into the scaffolded gap between two buildings and then set up corndoned off tape barriers around it; I think this rather than her discussion of the physics was the most convincing piece of research regarding the Church and Murray debate."
<br>
<br>First of all, I do not share your opinion about Ms. Rae providing the "most convincing piece of research regarding the Church and Murray debate." She didn't convince me in our exchanges; just the opposite. I found errors in her assumptions that led to errors in her images that led to errors in her conclusions. Because she was in the no-planer camp, she was predisposed to say the physics did not support an object flying from the towers to Church and Murry. I proved this assumption wrong.
<br>
<br>In the real-plane argument: the plane did not hit WTC-2 square on and missed the central core; the corner where the engine exited was on a floor that did not have vertical bar in the middle; an exit velocity of 122 mph (reduced from impact of 500 mph) was calculated as being sufficient to go the distance to the building roof that it initially hit before bouncing to street level.
<br>
<br>The engine in question is not a neat, spherical billiard ball. It is solid metal engine the shape of a can. I seem to recall some end-over-end action in its smokey flight, but if that recollection is in error, it certainly would have picked up such after impact with the tower. We've all been amazed in our personal lives when oddly shaped object that are accidentally dropped take on weird bounces and end up in locations unexpected.
<br>
<br>I don't have any problems believing the engine bounced to its found location under the scaffolding.
<br>
<br>Now if Ms. Rae is talking about the airplane debris that was relatively recently discovered in the gap between two buildings where the engine bounced. I could see the scenario of it having got there on 9/11, but I can also suspect without substantiation that an inattentive person at some much later date on the roof not recognizing the trash for what it was, kicked it into the gap. I could also suspect without substantion that it was planted there at a much later date to be used as an emotional reminder to the public.
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Thomas Digan, I assume that your comment refers to me when you write: "Hes a no planer who became a planer, massive pain in the arse." If the pain is in your arse, then that must be where your brain also resides, and the hurt comes from mulling the evidence and proper analysis of physics that duped this useful idiot back into the planer camp. That airplane wheel lodged between the box columns of a wall assembly that was knocked out of the backside of the towers and was pictured lying in a parking lot with other vehicle fires in the area... this is pretty damning and hard to fake.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Brian S Staveley, You addressed me directly. Hence here is your response addressed to you directly. Before reading my "5000 word essays", you should note that they came in response to others addressing me directly.
<br>
<br>As a matter of fact, I do have better things to do with my Sunday. Where I am, it still isn't noon yet and this intermission didn't take very long. I'll be about my other Sunday family business presently. No need to respond to this promptly (proving that you have nothing better to do), because I'll be offline and probably won't read it until tomorrow anyway, when it'll be noon at work again before I'd have time to compose a response, if one is needed.
<br>
<br>Seems to me that your disruptive nature as already been exposed. No need to solidify that image in the readers' minds. Just don't engage, don't respond, go on your way, let this be the last word until someone else jumps in. Have some fortitude in your promises, my good man.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br><b>Brian S Staveley</b> blah blah blah
</p>
</div><!-- section 87 -->
<a name="x88"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x88" class="tiny">x88</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">agents to pick up errant identifiable pieces</a></p>
<p>2015-09-27</p>
<div id="sect_88" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/979372295435471/?comment_id=979530122086355
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Donovan Christie, Your image and wording are disingenous. The airplane engine was found and photographed before either tower came down. All of the images you show are after one (or both) towers was demolished based on the dusting we all see.
<br>
<br>I do not doubt that agents were around. Other than planting passports, their job might have been to pick up errant pieces of aircraft that upon close inspection could undermine the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Norma Rae, I believe that engine from an impacting aircraft that is depicted in many videos exiting a corner of the tower, trailing smoke, and flying in the direction of Church & Murray is the more likely story, particularly when combined with many other validated accounts and pictures of aircraft debris and the actual engine.
<br>
<br>As our previous discussions proved, the physics involved wasn't out of realm of being believable. An exit velocity of 122 mph (reduced from impact of 500 mph) could have gone the distance.
<br>
<br>Because I've made my case several times and you have blinders-on with regards to the evidence (of aircraft wheels lodged in wall assemblies and found in [9] other places) and the physics, something else is going on with you. I do not wish to engage on your carousels.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Norma Rae, WTF is right?
<br>
<br>Are you adverse to a well thought-out, well reasoned, well writen response? Or are you more partial to Mr. Brian S Staveley's highly intellectual "blah blah blah"?
<br>
<br>Your "simple question" was answered appropriately, and my esteem for you has not improved after our vacation. Hitting me from two thread with the same shit? Pick one.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Norma Rae, your powers of reading comprehension are weak. Case in point, I just derided another trolling participant for his spamming comments in a row that has the dubious intent of pushing other participant's comments into the nether region of "See More...", and then you go doing the same thing with your three in a row, none of them containing images.
<br>
<br>I'll see your calling me "a disinfo agent" and raise you one by pointing out that your commenting actions do not differentiate you from being one. Can't win with rational arguments, so you start flame wars and call the forum authorities! Woo-hoo!
<br>
<br>Specific to your NPT meme, nothing was recorded that shows what happened to the engine after it collided with roof of a neighboring Church & Murray building. Nothing tells us what spin and skew it might have had in coming to the ground. Nothing tells us what portion of the engine might have clipped your "precious sign pole" and where, or if coming down or after a bounce.
<br>
<br>You assume too much by saying the "sign pole caused the engine to come to complete stop". You assume too much by implying that the pole should have been knocked down. As if clipping or "kissing" the pole (like a cue ball kissing ball in billiards) is out of the question and not plausible!
<br>
<br>Please, Ms. Rae. Do not engage me. I do not desire it, and your arguments for NPT cannot stand up to my reasoned analysis... without you coming unhinged.
<br>
<br>FYI, I was invited to participate here, despite deep reservations about the nature of FB and how the trolls mis-use it to push inconvenient comments out of view. I was also asked directly to make comments both others and then by you yourself.
<br>
<br>Put me on block, or go back to your other lame-ass FB groups. I don't need the bother.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br><b>Norma Rae</b> Dear Mr. Maxwell Bridges if I thought you weren't a disinfo agent, I would read through your essays. But I don't have amnesia. I still remember that you spew lies.
<br>
<br>"Yo bitch. This is certainly in your Disinformation Handbook. Never admit that you are wrong. Never amend your theories. Provoke your opponent. But avoid the evidence and analysis that proves you wrong. Kudos. You lose in more than one way. //"
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Dear Ms. Norma Rae, it is well that you remember that comment from me, because I still hold it to be valid. I stand behind it.
<br>
<br>In the future, try to consolidate your spamming comments into the least number possible. Thank you.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/976609269045107/?comment_id=979543492085018
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Matthew J Loader, Repeating nonsense -- and that without any form of substantiation except your cryptic "me-too-ism" comment -- does nothing to help the case for NPT.
<br>
<br>Worse, Mr. Loader, is that if you view all of the comments in this thread, you'll see my earlier ones that have images of an airplane wheel lodged in between the beams of a wall assembly ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 before either tower came down. Your "End of Story" is premature, because you, personally, have no "story" for this, and neither do your disinfo teammates...
<br>
<br>Nothing, zip, nada, that is more believable than the real, honest-to-goodness aircraft that really wouldn't have been all that difficult to come by.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 88 -->
<a name="x89"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x89" class="tiny">x89</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_89');">on board with some fabrication and staging</a></p>
<p>2015-09-29</p>
<div id="sect_89" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Ms Norma Rae, you said you weren't going to tag me any more, yet here is my name -- not even in response to something I wrote -- at a top level posting trying to drag me and distract me into a conversation that I don't want to participate in, because I find all of the adherents of NPT to be dubious and deceitful and too stupid to acknowledge errors in their work even when spelled out.
<br>
<br>I expect you to adhere to your promises.
<br>
<br>The flight of the engine is one thing.
<br>
<br>Making assumptions about what damaged it caused to street signs versus what damage might have already existed (or been staged) is another. You neglect that the engine itself broke apart, where individual pieces could have contributed to different areas of damage.
<br>
<br>Whereas I am on board with some fabrication and staging -- some possibly even unwitting --, I am not on board with your stupid conclusions: namely, "there was no aircraft involved; all was faked; nothing real here at all folks."
<br>
<br>// </p>
</div><!-- section 89 -->
<a name="x90"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x90" class="tiny">x90</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">on board with no-planes until discovered holes, worms, and rot in the material</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/980106838695350/?ref=notif¬if_t=group_comment_follow">2015-09-29</a></p>
<div id="sect_90" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Ms. Norma Rae,
<br>
<br>There was absolutely no reason why your last two comments could not have been post-edited into one. You completely discount how your personal actions not only SPAM the forums that you participate it, but also SPAM the email boxes of all who have FB notifications turned on from the discussion. This is in addition to the juking trick of pushing comments into nether region of "View more comments..." prematurely.
<br>
<br>How about you exhibit some common COURTESY in this regard! Rest assured that if you wrote off-line first and spent more time in contemplating your responses, you would improve your output.
<br>
<br>Yes, Ms. Rae, I used to be on board with elements of no-planes until I discovered the holes, worms, and rot in the material that I was using to substantiate my beliefs then. It was primarily September Clues related, and nothing about holograms ever made it into my camp -- but it wasn't as if my mind wasn't vastly open to the premise and my gullible nature eager to accept it, because it was.
<br>
<br>SC made a big stink that I smelled & even huffed righteously about different videos having completely flight paths: swooping down, level in, swooping up, etc. I bought into their reasoning hook, line, and sinker. The very slick SC did have (and still has) valid nuggets of truth, like the complicity of competitive news organizations in using a single feed (from the government) or like validated instances of imagery fakery associated with four versions of the helicopter shot.
<br>
<br>However, there came to my attention a video that did 3D analysis of NYC and inserted most of the videos that I thought were different flight paths and proved them to be ONE. And not just any single flight path, but the one co-linear (within tolerances) to two sets of radar data.
<br>
<br>By then from personal interaction with Mr. Shack and SC forum, I knew to distrust them mightily and their unsupportable premise "all (9/11 imagery) is fake, nothing is valid." When put to the test, they could not deliver (and I was banned).
<br>
<br>The same image of the "tyre embedded in a WTC-1 wall assembly" on the ground together with 9 other reports of major aircraft debris being found, together with 1st responder statements of what they saw all around the towers and then around the WTC,... became overwhelming physical evidence in my mind that real aircraft were involved.
<br>
<br>I saw how I was duped erroneously and publicly apologized for having led others astray. In my defense and the real danger that I posed to my opponents, I was upset with the brisk dismissal based on 3rd pary half-hearted reviews that labeled various genre's disinformation. Disinformation those sources may have been, but a concerted effort was always made by my opponents to avoid considering any of the VALID nugget of truths: "All or nothing" they said. This wasn't right.
<br>
<br>So I was indeed a bad-ass, left- and back-handed champion of many things disinformation -- from September Clues to Dr. Wood. I was just as unafraid to acknowledge the blatantly bad and wrong as I was to doggedly stick by the truth nuggets and rescue them. This was not appreciated by those with an agenda.
<br>
<br>My discussions with you, Ms. Rae, well after my conversion back into a planer about the physics of engine at Church & Murray?!!! Shit, when I first encountered you, you were making bold statements about how the physics didn't work for an engine going the distance; I proved that premise wrong by doing the calculations that you avoided, by showing how an engine could have made it out the corner, by showing how multiple perspectives of video and still imagery show a large object rocketing out of the tower at the time of the fireball,.
<br>
<br>Shit again, the only way NPT can win is to say all images of the plane and its impact are forged, to say that all eye witnesses to the 2nd plane were mistaken, to say all major and minor pieces of debris were planted, to say that nobody observed the planting of debris, and to have NOTHING to explain the truly extraordinary pieces of evidence like the "tyre embedded in a WTC-1 wall assembly". Worse, once you have caste doubt on all of the above, what is your conclusion? Holograms is it? Video fakery? Each can be torn apart.
<br>
<br>You need to wake up -- if you are a sincere seeker of truth -- and change your tune.
<br>
<br>As far as I'm concerned, the only remaining disinfo purposes for shills like you to battle on with NPT (at the WTC) is to caste doubt on the valid instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville. Yes, at the Pentagon, all eyewitnesses to an airplane are NOT eyewitnesses to it actually crashing; they heard an explosion and saw smoke and munged together with an observed aircraft, but they really didn't see it crash, and none of 85 videos were ever released to prove it crashed. Yes, at the Pentagon owing to the observed plane flying a different route, it really did have airplane debris planted, light poles planted, etc.
<br>
<br>P.S. I am not a so-called Mr. Steve De'ak, nor do I know who he is. This statement alone should be sufficient to stop your alias-ASS-ociating games.
<br>
<br>Based on the names I've been called, few people would be flattered to be mis-associated with me and the bad-shit nuclear hobby-horse that I ride; and I'm sure Mr. De'ak is no different.
<br>
<br>I have the integrity to stand behind my words and all of my aliases; I collect and re-purpose my words on my blog. You'll find nothing from Mr. De'ak (to my recollection). If in the off-chance that you do, it'll be some off-hand quote from him that maybe I was responding to; it won't be as if his quote is being attributed to me. If he were really me with my writer's ego, I'd be collecting all of his words and for sure by now would have published various anthologies of those efforts on my blog.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 90 -->
<a name="x91"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x91" class="tiny">x91</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_91');">hollow towers hollow</a></p>
<p>2015-09-29</p>
<div id="sect_91" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/979830675389633/?ref=notif¬if_t=group_comment_reply
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Yes, that is a real picture, complete with the limitations of the video recording technology trying to capture a high-speed event; glitches.
<br>
<br>Rest assure that if this was going to be CGI faked, there would have been no glitches and the plane would have had no anomalies (e.g., pods, not being the alleged plane). They could have corrected all of those errors well before they became "video reality."
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br>2015-09-29
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>Good response, Mr. Steve Grage. I, too, believe that the supporting arguments for "hollow towers" has been a bit "hollow". Under-occupied? I can by that. Pre-demolished on unused floors? I can by that.
<br>
<br>The reason I got banned from LRF (where Mr. Brian S Staveley got most of his info) is that I was doggedly trying to get Dr. Wood debunked legitimately; and if that couldn't happen, then I was making sure that none of her nuggets of truth were lost.
<br>
<br>Below is the most important thread here today. Should get you both to pause, re-evaluation, and modify opinions. Because Dr. Wood was never the end-station, this seems to offer a valid connection that can take us places.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/978225105550190/?comment_id=980064618699572&offset=0&total_comments=8</p>
</div><!-- section 91 -->
<a name="x92"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x92" class="tiny">x92</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">We only support twitter-style sound-bites & hypnosis in our comments</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/980106838695350/">2015-09-29</a></p>
<div id="sect_92" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Norma Rae</b> Holy F@ck. How many times are you going to tell us to consolidate our comments and we tell you to cut the fluff and frills out of your posts?
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Holy F@ck, is right, Ms. Rae! In answer to your question, I am going to tell you to consolidate your comments every time discussions that I am following are spammed by such discourteous tactics.
<br>
<br>Shit, if all you remember is SHIFT-ENTER (instead of ENTER), you might prevent yourself from posting your comments before they are ripe.
<br>
<br>As for your wish for me "to cut the fluff and frills out of my posts," if that doesn't ring the bell on a disinfo agenda!
<br>
<br>Mocking Ms. Rae: "We only support twitter-style sound-bites & hypnosis in our comments. The more individual comments, the merrier. We're paid to post! To hell with the spamming effect it has both in the discussion or in the email boxes of those receiving notification. We don't know how to click on 'See more...' links, and we won't read it even if we did."
<br>
<br>But hey! I didn't have to do squat for Facebook to implement your deepest desires. Or didn't you notice how all my "fluff and frills" got cut down to about three lines and "See more..." link? How consolidated is that?
<br>
<br>You're problem, Ms. Rae, is that you do not like details. You can't be bothered to read them. You would rather have sound-bites and tweats under the mistaken assumption that such is capable of carrying on a meaningful discussion. A more accurate description of your twitter tactics is "hypnosis."
<br>
<br>You are further crippled by the fact I am right: It is more courteous to spend just a bit more time off-line in contemplation over the composition of ~ONE~ longer comment... Than it is to shoot-from-the-hip with machine-gun tweats directly into the reply field.
<br>
<br>I have a legitimate complaint against any spamming twitter-hypnosis tactics. You do not have a legitimate complaint against my longer comments, because (a) Facebook compresses them and (b) my content is germaine.
<br>
<br>My tactics do not juke the thread, nor do they spam the email boxes of those who receive notifications: this makes them much nicer and courteous. Not true with your disinfo spamming twitter-hypnosis tactics that you sound ludicrous even in advocating.
<br>
<br>If you aren't going to take my comments seriously -- point-by-point --, then you should simply block me.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 92 -->
<a name="x93"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x93" class="tiny">x93</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_93');">other factors were in play to help enable complete penetration</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/979830675389633/?comment_id=980154662023901¬if_t=group_comment_reply">2015-09-29</a></p>
<div id="sect_93" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Michael Moyes, Your simulation video [which is <10 seconds out of a full wasted minute] doesn't prove squat. Without details about the simulation parameters and assumptions made, it's just a fine piece of animation without any real-world applicability.
<br>
<br>It is so lame, it doesn't even document what speed the plane was flying at impact.
<br>
<br>Just for the sake of discussion, if we assume that this simulation was the pure, golden truth, it does not prove no planes. It would just hint that other factors were in play to help enable complete penetration.
<br>
<br>If I were a betting man, I would put money on ABL (airborne laser) which was indeed tested and operational by 2001. ABL had been used to accurately shoot things down, but with the caveat that laser typically targetted explosive payloads or fuels to have that assist the destruction.
<br>
<br>ABL on 9/11 for as little as a few final seconds of its flight could maybe have weakened structure at the entrance point. Multiple perspectives of the 2nd plane do show a sudden flash prior to entry. Most of the ABL energy would not have been visible; but maybe it was configured with a final purge for impact that would have been visible and was recorded.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 93 -->
<a name="x94"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x94" class="tiny">x94</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">discounting the velocity-squared term</a></p>
<p>2015-10-01</p>
<div id="sect_94" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/976609269045107/?comment_id=981126701926697&ref=notif¬if_t=group_comment
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Kevin James, The analysis by Ace Baker and others had one leg in physics and the other in imagery manipulation.
<br>
<br>The problem with their physics is discounting the velocity-squared term in the energy at really high velocities and its localized effects in overwhelming structural energies. Meaning, material gets shattered locally; physics acts locally; and you don't get whole sections of wing bouncing off the building. It took the Mythbusters and F4 Sandia videos for this to become clear to me.
<br>
<br>The problem with their imagery manipulation premise is discounting limitations of the recording technologies that often introduced glitches. They interpreted those glitches to be the finger-prints of imagery manipulation, instead of what they were. I also believe that if true imagery manipulation were applied (to the aircraft), the computers would have gotten it right, wingtip-to-wingtip, in every frame.
<br>
<br>On the one hand, real planes would not require CGI manipulation. On the other hand, if the real planes were depicted too specifically and exposed them not being the alleged aircraft, then minor CGI manipulation could improve (e.g., blur).
<br>
<br>We have valid instances of imagery manipulation: Pentagon car park 4 video frames, and the 4 versions of a helicopter shot. We have the collusion of the competitor media outlets all using the same single source footage. We have news collectively ignoring the hurricane. We have media complicity.
<br>
<br>But all of the nose-in/nose-out, missing wings, supposedly the different flight paths: these become the bullshit. All the more so when it leads to NPT at the WTC in the face of overwhelming physical evidence.
<br>
<br>I've exchanged emails with Ace. When you try to get him to scratch the surface about "why CGI?" and "what is it hiding", he comes up short.
<br>
<br>NPT at the WTC as a circus act was required to distract from actual NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 94 -->
<a name="x95"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x95" class="tiny">x95</a>
FB Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_95');">cling to impossible lies, whine or caterwaul</a></p>
<p>2015-10-08</p>
<div id="sect_95" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/982641178441916/
<br>
<br>2015-10-07
<br>
<br><b>Rosalee Grable</b> Maxwell Bridges is a pathetic creature caught in an elastic universe where planes fly thru buildings like jello thru a tennis racket.
<br>But all in all, he's less of a nuisance and bother than some.
<br>If he's chased off, its because he cant accept that the universe has natural very few immutable natural laws, and Newtons Third Law of Motion is one of them.
<br>
<br>The plane hits the building like the building hits the plane.
<br>The building is bigger, so like a bat hitting a ball or a ball hitting a bat, the ball is deflected. The plane would have deflected if it were real.
<br>Real planes do not act like jello thru a tennis racket, and poor Maxwell can't grok that, so he lies and makes up stuff til his facts fit his theory.
<br>He thinks there is a loophole that says its not a lie as long as you believe it.
<br>Too many people believing too many lies is the biggest problem we face.
<br>Perhaps in heaven Newton's Third Law won't apply since ghosts can float through walls.
<br>Like · Reply · 1 · 16 hrs · Edited
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>Daniel M. Plesse Rosalee Grable lets be civil please.. That was the idea of the post. But all we have is teams.. Its not good..
<br>Like · Reply · 16 hrs · Edited
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>Daniel M. Plesse I don't think Max is not gone.. We both have lots of work to do.. Release 29 for example..
<br>Like · Reply · 16 hrs
<br>
<br>Rosalee Grable
<br>Rosalee Grable As long as people cling to impossible lies, whine or caterwaul or tell fat fibs, of course there is disagreement.
<br>Much is well beyond proof.
<br>Newtons Third Law of Motion is one of very few things we can know as axiomatically true. It is not negotiable as a property of matter.
<br>Like · Reply · 16 hrs
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>Daniel M. Plesse Rosalee Grable disagreements are fine but lets be civil while disagreeing..
<br>Like · Reply · 16 hrs
<br>
<br>Rosalee Grable
<br>Rosalee Grable I am entirely civil. I can't help pointing and giggling when I run up against someone who does not believe in laws of nature, or thinks he can make up his own.
<br>Like · Reply · 2 · 15 hrs
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>Daniel M. Plesse Rosalee Grable He can't see your comments and he is blocking you, so why bother? Anyway this was about posting research not attacking other people.. Do you see the photo I just found and Video I just produced? Please go an attack those results.. Or do some 9/11 research.. If you have stopped, let us know what happened..
<br>Like · Reply · 14 hrs · Edited
<br>
<br>Brian S Staveley
<br>Brian S Staveley Actually no she was right this post was about not attacking ppl. I should know I wrote it. Then it turned into u attacking me and actually saying I was making excuses cuz I didn't read your posts as if u are the almighty and everyone should just drop w...See More
<br>Like · Reply · 7 hrs
<br>
<br>Brian S Staveley
<br>Brian S Staveley 75% of it was about how ppl in different groups need to work together. U turned that into that means everyone has to read your material when that was not what it said at all. U even made a reference how ppl respond to my posts. That's their prerogative. Maybe my posts r more interesting to them or cuz I treat them with respect they are more willing to look.
<br>Like · Reply · 7 hrs
<br>
<br>Brian S Staveley
<br>Brian S Staveley U even told me when I said I couldnt read ur post yet I was busy that I was making excuses. Oh I'm sorry Dan.sorry o have friends and they stopped by. Yea when that happens I usually slow up on the research tol they go home. I'll make sure to print out and pass out all ur posts to my friends next time since they are of the upmost importance and all of our posts are igsignifigant
<br>Like · Reply · 6 hrs · Edited
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>Daniel M. Plesse Brain, Your Actions don't match your words.. That is all I saying..
<br>
<br>Operation Cyanide 9/11 NIST FOIA Release 29
<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nxSRbaOj8k
<br>
<br>Reviews
<br>
<br>Shelby Zwiefelhofer said +danp5648 If that doesn't put a dent in their lies, I don't know what does.
<br>
<br>Glenn Zarmanov 3 hours ago · LINKED COMMENT
<br>what a great post! thanks dan
<br>
<br>Not United Airlines Flight 175 Witnesses, Photos Etc
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>Like · Reply · 1 hr
<br>
<br>Brian S Staveley
<br>Brian S Staveley yes they did.u twisted my words. Everyone in the thread saw it dude. U did EXACTLY what i siad ppl shouldnt. Be so damn confrontational. And you called me not reading your posts failures onmy part. Sounds like you have quit the ego. Failures??? And I told you I was just busy and you told me Im partof the problem. Gimmie a break. My post was about not fighting more than it was read all Dan Daniel M. Plesse's links
<br>
<br>You even commented how ppl comment on my posts. Maybe they like em better than yours. IDK. Thats not my fault tho
<br>Like · Reply · 55 mins · Edited
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>Daniel M. Plesse Did I twist your actions? Nope.. Anyway.. I start posting videos here too..
<br>
<br>Dean Warwick solves the No Plane Theory Physics Problem
<br>https://youtu.be/D_3HWLdRbQM
<br>
<br>Judy Wood is just a cover Dean Warwick's work
<br>YOUTUBE.COM
<br>Like · Reply · 53 mins
<br>
<br>Brian S Staveley
<br>Brian S Staveley with your atttiuce no one is going to read single post you make,. Why even take you serious. Usully pppl who atttck ppl like you do also have a agenda. They r gonna scroll right past your shit
<br>Like · Reply · 53 mins
<br>
<br>Brian S Staveley
<br>Brian S Staveley yea your teling everyone my post means something completely diferent than it does.and evensaid cuz of that i contradicted myself.if thats not twisting my words idk what is
<br>Like · Reply · 52 mins
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>Daniel M. Plesse This FB page is about posting research.. Philip Joy should enforce this rule.. ..
<br>Like · Reply · 51 mins
<br>
<br>Brian S Staveley
<br>Brian S Staveley and only something from you is research correct?
<br>Like · Reply · 51 mins
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>Daniel M. Plesse yes
<br>Like · Reply · 50 mins
<br>Brian S Staveley
<br>
<br>Brian S Staveley see how much of a fuckin idiot you are??
<br>Like · Reply · 50 mins
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>Daniel M. Plesse Or my findings
<br>Like · Reply · 50 mins
<br>
<br>Brian S Staveley
<br>Brian S Staveley what makes you so much smarter than everyone else???
<br>Like · Reply · 50 mins
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>Daniel M. Plesse Please stop attacking me..
<br>Like · Reply · 49 mins
<br>
<br>Brian S Staveley
<br>Brian S Staveley Fuck this group. Im out. Philip or rosaleeor anyone else your welcome to join my group. Im done wasting time with this egomaniac asshole
<br>
<br>https://www.facebook.com/groups/166824303514465/
<br>The Real News Online.com
<br>Brian S Staveley's photo.
<br>Join Group
<br>Closed Group
<br>515 Members
<br>Like · Reply · 49 mins
<br>
<br>Brian S Staveley
<br>Brian S Staveley done with you bye
<br>Like · Reply · 49 mins
<br>
<br>Rosalee Grable
<br>Rosalee Grable Just block him and no more problem. No need the leave the group. We've got some arguing to do.
<br>Like · Reply · 1 · 24 mins
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>Daniel M. Plesse bye</p>
</div><!-- section 95 -->
<a name="x96"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x96" class="tiny">x96</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">outside the category of "civil debate"</a></p>
<p>2015-10-08</p>
<div id="sect_96" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/982641178441916/
<br>
<br>2015-10-08
<br>
<br>Ms. Rosalee Grable's clearly belligerent misunderstanding of "things" is not limited to physics, with a subsequent data point in her trend line being her definition of what constitutes civil debate and the false claim above: "I am entirely civil."
<br>
<br>Let me give her a hint. Outside the category of "civil debate" is calling another person "a pathetic creature" and a "liar" [e.g., "poor Maxwell ... lies and makes up stuff til his facts fit his theory."]
<br>
<br>Don't get me wrong. When substantiation is provided, a valid character assessment might indeed be "liar." However, substantiation is not what she has done; therefore, it falls into the category of "ad hominem" attack.
<br>
<br>At best, both of us agree that at least one of us has a major misunderstanding of physics leading to that person spreading misinformation. She hasn't pointed out the errors in my analysis. I have many times pointed out the errors in the NPT meme, and they haven't been countered except with mindless phrases demonstrating no true understanding: "the universe has natural very few immutable natural laws."
<br>
<br>If Ms. Grable had such true understanding of physics or wasn't promoting NPT disinformation, she could honestly appreciate the difference between kinetic energy when velocity v2>>v1.
<br>
<br>KE(v1) = (1/2)m(v1^2)
<br>KE(v2) = (1/2)m(v2^2)
<br>
<br>Do assemblies and/or materials in a collision react the same way and as a cohesive wholes when velocity (v) increases from v1 to v2? At what velocity does the impact stop resembling elastic collisions "of two billiard balls into corner pockets" and become inelastic decimation of the billiard balls into shards flying all directions?
<br>
<br>Garbage-in, garbage-out is the expression used by computer programmers, and documents very well Ms. Grable's gross misunderstanding of physics leading to her NPT misinformation. But because errors were pointed out and led to no course correction, it changes Ms. Grable's NPT misinformation into NPT disinformation.
<br>
<br>I'll briefly summarize those errors:
<br>
<br>- High-Velocity Physics: she learned nothing from the MythBuster's Rocket-Snowplow or the Sandia F-4 crash videos? No take-away-points and altering her understanding of material physics when the energy of the high-velocity crashes exceeds the structural energies holding materials together! High-energies from extremely high velocities no longer limits airplane assemblies to act as cohesive wholes and "bouncing as a unit" off of something else like a bat and ball, entire wing assemblies or entire tail assemblies.
<br>
<br>- Video frame resolution and distance from observation: These two factors greatly limit what can be observed. Compliant to physics, pieces of the aircraft did "bounce off of the tower" on impact; but as part of this much higher energy impact, these pieces were first shattered from their assemblies.
<br>
<br>- Physical evidence of aircraft: Not only were major pieces of aircraft found in numerous places immediately after the crashes (e.g., not before and not caught-in-the-act of planting), but they were in cases captured on video erupting from the towers with trails of smoke and going great distances to where they were found.
<br>
<br>Another example of physical evidence of aircraft that Ms. Grable can't account for: the damage to the building at Park Place. I say that a real aircraft engine from a real aircraft created this damage after impact and after exiting WTC-2 through a corner and before landing and wobbling under the scaffolding at Church & Murray.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable has no explanation that wouldn't be totally implausible: "While Agents X & Y were planting an engine of the wrong make-and-model at Church & Murray, Agents V & W were up on the roof of the Park Place building with sledge hammers to inflict damage without anybody fucking noticing."
<br>
<br>Of course, I am also very fond of the partial aircraft wheel assembly embedded between box columns of a WTC-1 wall assembly lying on the ground. What sort of lame-ass explanation does Ms. Grable have for this? "After our explosion high in WTC-1 separated this wall assembly at its bolts and flung it over 100 feet, our crack team of Agents P & Q unloaded the wheel and hammered it between the wall assemblies, unnoticed because all were observing the surrounding car fires."
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable writes: "Real planes do not act like jello thru a tennis racket."
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable discounts that towers were designed to allow penetration. I've already alluded to how the high-velocity physics acting very locally turns an aircraft's materials into something closer to jello (exaggeration) than to a tennis ball bouncing as a cohesive whole off of a racket. Still, the solid mass elements of the aircraft did inflict plausible damage, given that the wall assemblies were not solid (50% of their faces were gaps), the space between floor levels was not solid, and the aircraft had solid mass to push entire wall assemblies into the structure and in one case to yank an entire wall assembly off of the building backside.
<br>
<br>Because Ms. Grable claims to be the mother of NPT pre-dating September Clues (and I don't dispute it), she undoubtedly over that course of time come into debate with many others, some with a better understanding of physics. No one has been able to disabuse her of her misguided understanding of the laws of physics and the hard-to-fake physical evidence of aircraft debris, yeah,... to disabuse her of her NPT @ WTC lies. She self-reflectively wrote that she "thinks there is a loophole that says its not a lie as long as you believe it."
<br>
<br>Every once in awhile, Ms. Grable does write something reasonable: "As long as people cling to impossible lies, whine or caterwaul or tell fat fibs, of course there is disagreement."
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable wrote in reference to me: "I can't help pointing and giggling when I run up against someone who does not believe in laws of nature, or thinks he can make up his own."
<br>
<br>Au contraire! Not only do I believe in the laws of nature, my superior understanding of physics makes my belief stronger than Ms. Grable's, who purposefully and deceitfully can't admit to what high velocities do to the energies and the materials involved.
<br>
<br>An experiment with a dozen raw eggs and an egg shooter allowing variable mussle velocities ought to be instructive. Using a set of mussle velocities that are logorithmic, Ms. Grable should observe the difference in resulting fragment egg shell pieces at 0.01 feet per second (f/s), 0.1 f/s, 1 f/s, 10 f/s, 100 f/s, 1000 f/s, etc. How big are the egg shell fragments?
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable can't counter my arguments, therefore she should FB block me so that she is not tempted to respond stupidly and deceitfully ignorantly to anything I write.
<br>
<br>P.S. Mr. Brian S Staveley, one of two minions "liking" Ms. Grable's gable, wrote (a) "Fuck this group. Im out." and (b) "done with you bye". Let's hope that he can exhibit more fortitude with his promises than the last time not two weeks ago.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 96 -->
<a name="x97"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x97" class="tiny">x97</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_97');">explain the difference in kinetic energy when velocity v2>>v1</a></p>
<p>2015-10-08</p>
<div id="sect_97" style="display: none;">
<p>Dr. Grable with a PhD in physics,
<br>
<br>Kindly explain the difference in kinetic energy when velocity v2>>v1.
<br>
<br>KE(v1) = (1/2)m(v1^2)
<br>KE(v2) = (1/2)m(v2^2)
<br>
<br>Do assemblies and/or materials in a collision react the same way and as a cohesive wholes when velocity (v) increases from v1 to v2?
<br>
<br>At what velocity does the impact stop resembling elastic collisions "of two billiard balls into corner pockets" and become inelastic decimation of the billiard balls into shards flying all directions?
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable should reference actual experiments that include the Mythbuster Rocket-Snowplow and the Sandia F4 crash as examples of v2>>v1.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable is welcome to use v1 in the range of parking lot velocities. If she wants to crank v1 up to be autobahn velocities, that is okay to, but she should offer a comparison between v(parking lot) and v(autobahn) with regards to how assemblies and materials behave with respect to deformation and shattering. Then she should use v(commercial jet) or v(rocket-snowplow) from the videos and describe behavior of materials and how it differs.
<br>
<br>P.S. Looking forward to Mr. Staveley's exit. I'm "liking" it.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 97 -->
<a name="x98"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x98" class="tiny">x98</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">no easy way of testing or observing high-velocity physics</a></p>
<p>2015-10-09</p>
<div id="sect_98" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/984220261617341/?comment_id=984258454946855¬if_t=group_comment_reply
<br>
<br>Shit, Ms. Rosalee Grable,
<br>
<br>I discovered obviously, well before you, how inviolate Newton's Laws are. You aren't there yet.
<br>
<br>I'm not "denying 300 years of classical physics."
<br>
<br>What I am pointing out -- and you're too stubborn to gronk -- is that Newton had no easy way of testing or observing high-velocity physics. Therefore, just like atomic physics required different thinking in order for newly formed theories to agree with experimentation, high-velocity physics is similar but ought to be -- but isn't evidentally -- easy for you to understand.
<br>
<br>It doesn't negate anything. What it says is that the high-energy from high-velocities acts locally first to overcome material-energies in deformations, breakages, and/or shattering/fracturing. This activity, aside from consuming energy, then often precludes larger pieces of the material or assembly from remaining in tact or even existing as a cohesive whole to do what your (high school) sophomoric understanding of physics suggests: e.g., bounce as a whole assembly. Bounces happen, but the pieces bouncing are much smaller.
<br>
<br>Grow up.
<br>
<br>Go watch the MythBuster's rocket-snowplow videos again. They do have take-away points that you aren't even acknowledging.
<br>
<br>Or better yet, Mr. Grable should study the crash debris from accidents that happened at autobahn velocities. She should also observe slow-motion videos of crashes.
<br>
<br>When she observes the front bumper broken into several big pieces and lots of little shards, she should ask herself: Did the bumper as a cohesive whole first bounce off what the vehicle hit AND THEN break ihto pieces [the bottom-line of her faulty premises]? Or did the bumper upon impact break into pieces AND THEN those smaller pieces follow Newton's laws with regards to where they bounced to?
<br>
<br>If Ms. Grable isn't going to learn the subject thoroughly enough to talk without making fundamentals errors, if she isn't open-minded enough to be corrected and to amend her views accordingly, THEN she is no friend of TRUTH.
<br>
<br>She should STFU and stop misleading people with her disinformation. Yes, disinfo is what she's spreading, because nothing in her persona OVER ALL THESE YEARS OF NPT has let in an ounce of self-doubt that her beliefs are in error.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 98 -->
<a name="x99"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x99" class="tiny">x99</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_99');">clearly belligerent misunderstanding of things</a></p>
<p>2015-10-09</p>
<div id="sect_99" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/984228774949823/?ref=notif¬if_t=group_activity
<br>
<br>Yet another data point in the trend line of Ms. Rosalee Grable's "clearly belligerent misunderstanding of things not being limited to physics" is her tagging of me to this posting.
<br>
<br>She wrote: "These [Newton's Laws of Motion] forces were not out to lunch on 911."
<br>
<br>The interference is that what I've been describing for energies at high-velocities and their localized effects on materials are somehow out of compliance. They are not.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable's links to varous websites that discuss physics? If "zero knowledge of physics" were at the left-end of the understanding spectrum and "nuclear physics" were at the right-end, Ms. Grable's linked tutorials would be closer to the left-hand side, while high-velocity physics would be to the right of that and isn't covered by Ms. Grable's "introduction to physics" links.
<br>
<br>High-velocity physics is an advantanced concept. Ms. Grable isn't there yet.
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Grable should STOP trying to drag others DOWN to her level with her physics jingoisms.
<br>
<br>Instead, she should apply herself to understand more physics, so that my discussions of high-velocity physics -- complete with real-world examples, compliments of Mythbusters and Sandia -- doesn't go over her head and make her rebuttals sophomoric and even stupid.
<br>
<br>She still hasn't answered: "Do assemblies and/or materials in a collision react the same way and as a cohesive wholes when velocity (v) increases from v1 to v3?"
<br>
<br>v1 = velocities in parking lots
<br>v2 = velocities on an autobahn
<br>v3 = velocities of rockets (500 mph)
<br>
<br>At each, what deformed, what broke, what shattered? At each, how big were the fragments of the materials?
<br>
<br>Don't tag me any more, Ms. Grable. You're just playing games in a paid-to-post way.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br> </p>
</div><!-- section 99 -->
<a name="x100"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x100" class="tiny">x100</a>
Philip Joy : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">depends whether you treat the WTC walls as immovable solids</a></p>
<p>2015-10-12</p>
<div id="sect_100" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/984220261617341/?comment_id=984353164937384&offset=0&total_comments=12
<br>
<br>
<br>Philip Joy
<br>
<br>Seems to me Rosalee Grable in regard to Newton, that it depends whether you treat the WTC walls as immovable solids, like a cliff face. this of course would produce a virtually infinite counterforce to the crashing plane. But the WTC walls were not solid, they were a lattice of steel with joins and gaps. Hence what Maxwell Bridges says makes sense.
<br>
<br>But Maxwell Bridges was not the aeroplane also a tube lattice of alluminium plates with its own rivets, joins and weak points? Surely since steel is stronger than aluminium, forged steel joists will always beat an aluminium shell, shredding it, and given the sharing of the load of impact around the building cause much of the plane to disintegrate and come to a stop outside the building for all to see?
<br>
<br>PS Maxwell Bridges Please do not start your reply with "Mr Joy shows his ignorance..." or some such typical personal style remark; it doesn't get you an audience. E.g above:
<br>
<br>"Ms. Rosalee Grable. You don't appear to know what you are talking about, at all."
<br>
<br>This is just rude. Nevertheless I would be interested in your contribution.</p>
</div><!-- section 100 -->
<a name="x101"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x101" class="tiny">x101</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_101');">functional realities of the towers</a></p>
<p>2015-10-12</p>
<div id="sect_101" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/984220261617341/?comment_id=984353164937384&offset=0&total_comments=12
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Joy, you wrote: "Was not the aeroplane also a tube lattice of alluminium plates with its own rivets, joints and weak points? Surely since steel is stronger than aluminium, forged steel joists will always beat an aluminium shell, shredding it, and given the sharing of the load of impact around the building cause much of the plane to disintegrate and come to a stop outside the building for all to see?"
<br>
<br>The above statement regarding relative strength of steel versus aluminum does not take into consideration the functional realities of the towers and airplane. The partial wheel assembly that on exit and at a reduced speed ripped an entire wall assembly from the tower demonstrates that the connecting steel bolts of the walls were weak points to lateral attacks.
<br>
<br>To be sure, we see this same weakness exhibited on the impact side. Initially, yes, the steel box columns might have started to shred the fuselage into the pilot's cockpit. But the nose of the aircraft also had a solid wheel assembly buried within. Just like on the backside, this wheel assembly contributed to shoving laterally the solid wall assemblies, to shearing their bolts, and to pushing them out of the way for the remaining mass of the fuselage to enter. As designed.
<br>
<br>The engines also were heavy pieces of metal. Their energy on impact was sufficient in cases to bend, break, or severe individual box columns. The energy after impact was sufficient to send one engine out the corner window at ~120 mph to damage a roof at Park Place and land at Murray & Church.
<br>
<br>The wings were much lighter. The equal and opposite energy acting on them did shred them; it did fracture them.
<br>
<br>Equal and opposite, though: the box columns were also damaged individual by this high energy influx from the wings. Most of the wingtip-to-wingtip airplane outline is an optical illusion though from the aluminum cladding damage. When looking behind that at actual box columns, one learns the true extent of those that were cut, bent, etc.
<br>
<br>Among the misinformation that NPT peddles, they suggest that the wings & tails as whole units should have bounced off of the towers. The kernel of their purposeful misunderstanding is ignoring the static energy of materials that binds material into a cohesive whole. Why? Because basic physics tutorials limit themselves to low velocity crashes, where the associated collision energies is much less than the material structural energy, and can therefore be ignored. It is assumed at these low velocities that the bumper will only deform; that it won't break from the vehicle; that it wouldn't shatter into hundreds of pieces. Yet we know from autobahn velocities and their associated energies in crashes that this is what happens, unpredictably: car parts get torn off, metal is deformed, composite parts get shattered.
<br>
<br>At high velocities and the resulting high energies of collisions, the material's structural energy cannot be ignored and locally gets overwhelmed. To be sure, energy of collisions is consumed first in breaking assemblies, in breaking materials, in fracturing materials. The vehicle or its parts (e.g., wing, tail) no longer act as a cohesive whole.
<br>
<br>This phenomenon is compliant with Newton's laws and in-elastic collisions. What's more, when the direction and momentum of the resulting fragments are considered, they once again are compliant with Newton's laws of conservation of momentum.
<br>
<br>The resolution of the WTC aircraft videos is bad both from the zoom-in distance as well as the frame rate. However, these videos depict to the decerning eye wing fragments bouncing off the box columns.
<br>
<br>I stand behind my dings to Ms. Grable. She does not ~TRY~ to understand; she just parrots jingles about physics as if this is a sufficient counter-argument. She offers zero indication in her "analysis" that she truly comprehends. She has not run the numbers through those same physics equations either to validate her beliefs or to debunk mine [maybe because her assumptions aren't validated, nor are my statements debunked.] She's playing games.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 101 -->
<a name="x102"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x102" class="tiny">x102</a>
FB Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">Nothing counters those statements</a></p>
<p>2015-09-13</p>
<div id="sect_102" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br>Rosalee Grable
<br>Rosalee Grable Newton's Laws have no limits except for FICTIONAL forces do not apply. Any amount of mass and velocity will stay in accord with Newtons Third Law that says whatever amount of force will be equal and opposite upon collision.
<br>Like · Reply · 21 hrs
<br>Maxwell Bridges
<br>Maxwell Bridges Dear Ms. Rosalee Grable, I agree. Nothing I have written counters those statements.
<br>
<br>Nothing you have written counters my statements... Except that what you write is so pithy in a quote-mining sense, it exposes holes in your high school or college transcripts.
<br>
<br>//
<br>Like · Reply · 1 hr
<br>
<br>Rosalee Grable
<br>Rosalee Grable Much of the alleged plane parts were allegedly 'found' on the opposite side of the buildings. Apparently the ones who staged 911 didnt understand Newton's laws either.
<br>The cartoon footage shows absolutely no sign of deflection. No explosion, no wings breaking off, no sign of hitting any thing solid at all. Most show the nose of the 'plane' emerging intact.
<br>This is possible because animations do not have to follow Newtons laws on the behavior of matter because they are fictional.
<br>Your equations show how the amount of force is calculated, but any amount of force is subject to the same laws. The force becomes equal and opposite instantaneously or at the speed of light depending on whether you believe in Einstein, but no amount of velocity cancels Newtons law.
<br>Insulting me doesn't change the fact you stand in opposition to all of classical science with your jello planes.</p>
</div><!-- section 102 -->
<a name="x103"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x103" class="tiny">x103</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_103');">sufficient to fracture and shatter pieces of the aircraft</a></p>
<p>2015-10-13</p>
<div id="sect_103" style="display: none;">
<p>Ms. Rosalee Grable writes: "Much of the alleged plane parts were allegedly 'found' on the opposite side of the buildings. Apparently the ones who staged 911 didnt understand Newton's laws either."
<br>
<br>No, apparently Ms. Grable doesn't understand Newton's laws. When she did her tennis racket versus jello experiment, most of the jello ended up on the opposite side of the tennis racket. Countless real world instances of this happening exist.
<br>
<br>Several portions of aircraft wheel assemblies were sturdy enough to pass through the both sides of the tower. An engine passed through the towers as well.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable writes: "The cartoon footage shows absolutely no sign of deflection."
<br>
<br>This is proven wrong to those who study the footage. The energy of the impact was sufficient to fracture and shatter pieces of the aircraft. These smaller pieces are depicted in cases as deflecting off of the towers and raining down to street level.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable writes: "No explosion,"
<br>
<br>This is proven doubley wrong. First wrong area is that fuel and things that could explode were not in the fuselage nose cone. They were in the wings. The second wrong area is that once the fuel was freed from the wings AND THEN came in contact with an ignition source -- the engine exhaust --, explosions are recorded.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable writes: "no wings breaking off,"
<br>
<br>Newton's laws do not mandate that assemblies or materials remain and act as cohesive wholes. As already explained in several different ways, when the energy of the collision exceeds the strength of what holds assemblies or materials together, those same assemblies or materials are deformed and fractured first.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable writes: "no sign of hitting any thing solid at all."
<br>
<br>Another Grable malframing. The towers were designed to allow penetration. The wall assembly' box columns made up on 50% of the tower face; window slits were the other 50%. If a story is 13 vericle feet, what percentage of that were the floor pans with concrete versus what percentage was office furnishings and air?
<br>
<br>The velocity prior to impact was around 500 mph. The engine that escaped through the corner to bounce off of a Park Place building and land at Church & Murray is calculated to have an exit velocity of 122 mph. This difference in velocity is indicative of hitting something solid enough to slow it down. Ergo, this further disproves Ms. Grable's persistent disinfo notions.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable writes: "Most show the nose of the 'plane' emerging intact."
<br>
<br>Whether Ms. Grable "found" it first, or if September Clues did, this remains bullshit: a purposeful and deceitful misinterpretation of the explosive gas cloud exiting the building.
<br>
<br>I'll give Ms. Grable this acknowledgment: valid instances of 9/11 imagery manipulation exist. If Ms. Grable wants to say the "nose-in/nose-out" imagery was manipulated, then maybe it was. Among its purposes might have been to hide the true nature of the aircraft and to give fodder for a later deceitful NPT @ the WTC campaign. I believe, however, that it is just a hyped shaped of the explosive gas cloud.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable writes: "This is possible because animations do not have to follow Newtons laws on the behavior of matter because they are fictional."
<br>
<br>The above Grable words are an example of "garbage-in/garbage-out."
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable writes: "Your equations show how the amount of force is calculated, but any amount of force is subject to the same laws. The force becomes equal and opposite instantaneously or at the speed of light depending on whether you believe in Einstein, but no amount of velocity cancels Newtons law."
<br>
<br>I agree.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable's fundamental error (if we deem her sincere and honest), is continually discounting that the FORCE calculated acts INSTANTANEOUSLY locally. When great enough, the force deforms, fractures, and shatters INSTANTANEOUSLY materials. Therefore, when plenty of examples exist of this INSTANTANEOUS deformation of materials -- from the Mythbuster rocket-snowplow, to the Sandia F4, to bullets into plates, to autobahn-style accidents, to the jello-and-tennis-racket -- then all rational thinkers should have been disabused themselves of the notion of wings and tails acting as a cohesive whole when faced with the forces and energies applied.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable wants to frame all Newtonian actions as ELASTIC collisions, where none of the collision forces is consumed deforming or fracturing the collision objects. Ms. Grable needs to study INELASTIC collisions.
<br>
<br>Ms. Grable writes: "Insulting me doesn't change the fact you stand in opposition to all of classical science with your jello planes."
<br>
<br>Insulting Ms. Grable doesn't change the fact that she doesn't get it, although their purpose is jar her into getting out of her erroneous complaciency in her faulty understanding of physics. She can't admit being grossly WRONG in her analysis and conclusions. This, I attribute to her disinfo game.
<br>
<br>I repeat my earlier words: Nothing Ms. Grable has written counters my statements... Except that what she writes is so pithy in a quote-mining sense, it exposes holes in her high school or college transcripts in the sciences.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 103 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part2 -->
<a name="x104"></a><hr>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part3');">Part 3: FB Shiela Casey's NPT</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part3" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb:
<br>
<br>I have had on Truth & Shadows earlier discussions with Shiela Casey. After I went into exile, I'd seen several comments on T&S relating to NPT @ WTC but was unable to reply. She was Dr. Fetzer's "yes-man" on a stray comment about NPT.
<br>
<br>At one point on Facebook, she responded to something that Mr. McKee wrote and I was able to open a dialog.
<br>
<br>mcb: end}
</p>
<a name="x105"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x105" class="tiny">x105</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_105');">you seem to support NPT and 9/11 holograms</a></p>
<p>2016-01-11</p>
<div id="sect_105" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: incomplete, never sent.}
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Sheila Case,
<br>
<br>If you explored Truth & Shadows at all, you probably know me as Señor El Once. I believe we even exchanged comments awhile back.
<br>
<br>Mr. McKee put me on a "soft-ban" last March. Not for anything that I did nor for what I might do [with regards to my hobby-horse], but for reaction to what I might slip in by others, in particular Mr. Rogue (aka hybridrogue1, Mr. Whitten) and Mr. Ruff. It is a "soft-ban" because I'm still on cordial email communication with Mr. McKee, he lets me subscribe to the comments of his blog postings, but he hasn't allowed comments under my new alias "Herr der Elf." Further, unlike Mr. Rogue, I didn't go all ape-shit on my blog, burning bridges, and flaming Mr. McKee.
<br>
<br>I am writing you, because you seem to support some of the premises that Dr. Fetzer champions, namely NPT and 9/11 holograms. I would like to dissuade you of these notions.
<br>
<br>I am a duped useful idiot on most things 9/11. I used to be {mcb: incomplete}
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 105 -->
<a name="x106"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x106" class="tiny">x106</a>
Sheila Casey : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">shouldn't everything they've promoted be questioned?</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/craig.mckee.16/posts/1672935346300980?comment_id=1675158556078659&ref=notif¬if_t=comment_mention">2016-03-29</a></p>
<div id="sect_106" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Sheila Casey</b> I read this entire discussion, as I have a lot of respect for both of you. Maxwell Bridges, you make two points that I agree with.
<br>
<br>1) Once we've determined that certain people are deliberately lying about the Pentagon, shouldn't everything they've promoted be questioned? I would agree that yes, it should. Not that it's necessarily wrong -- they may have done excellent and sincere work before being compromised. Or they may have been compromised from the beginning.
<br>
<br>2) Nukes at the WTC drastically limits the number of suspects.
<br>
<br>However I haven't studied the evidence for nukes at the WTC and right now don't have the time to. I will bookmark your page Maxwell and return to it.
<br>
<br>I would be interested to hear Maxwell, why you changed your mind about no planes at the WTC. I feel certain that the video we were shown of a plane slicing into the south tower is fake. Given the dense web of steel beams and concrete floors that the plane would have impacted, it should have crumpled and fallen into the street. But it doesn't even slow down. Curious Maxwell whether you believe that video to be authentic.
<br>
<br>Note: I just took some time to try to locate a good video of that "impact" but cannot. At any rate, I'm sure you've seen it.</p>
</div><!-- section 106 -->
<a name="x107"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x107" class="tiny">x107</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_107');">why I changed my NPT position</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/craig.mckee.16/posts/1672935346300980?comment_id=1675158556078659&ref=notif¬if_t=comment_mention">2016-03-29</a></p>
<div id="sect_107" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Ms. Casey, Full-disclosure: I was an active participant on T&S under the "Senor El Once" alias. I was banned for a pre-crime; that is, not for anything that I had actually done at that point but for what I couldn't promise not to eventually do (bring up FGNW, because it is where truth leads me). But that itself wasn't the real reason IMHO; I was banned as a pre-crime of the bad behavior expected of my opponents (primarily hybridrogue1 & ruffadam) when I eventually would have snuck FGNW in side-ways. Since then, my posting privileges haven't been restored, but I am allowed to subscribe to the discussions.
<br>
<br>At any rate, you were one of the participants from a couple months ago or longer that I had been hoping to dialog with.
<br>
<br>When you look into nuclear weapons, make sure you bookmark my blog entry (and not this Facebook page). You can make comments there.
<br>
<br>On the nuclear front, recognize up front that a lot of disinformation has been spread: Dimitri K. with his deep underground nukes, Dr. Wood with "beams from space", and Dr. Jones by framing things as large nukes and never mentioning FGNW. To fill the void, he gave 911TM nano-thermite.
<br>
<br>I don't question the involvement of NT, because arguing mutually exclusivity of any mechanism of destruction is a fool's errand and aids disinformation. But I do question whether it was the primary mechanism, and doesn't address the nuclear residue that leaks out of all reports.
<br>
<br>Some might label my work "disinformation", but if it is wrong, it is "misinformation." I will gladly offer apologies and modify my views when new information or analysis (that correctly apply science, etc.) merits such.
<br>
<br>// Part 1/3
<br>
<br>Part 2/3
<br>Ms. Casey asked: "why you changed your mind about no planes at the WTC."
<br>
<br>I changed my mind for three reasons:
<br>
<br>(1) Ample evidence exist of real aircraft parts. The landing gear in particular that went through the impact side and then ripped an entire wall assembly off of the back side to land in the street, photographed before either tower came down: this would not have been so easy to fake. And if you were going to fake it or the ejecting engine that landed at Church & Murray, you would at least use something of the right make & model.
<br>
<br>(2) A deciding factor for me was the 3D model of New York that overlayed most of the amateur video perspectives and proved that they not only were co-linear with one, but in agreement (within their tolerances) with two sets of radar data from two different radar systems.
<br>
<br>(3) I went down the September Clues rabbit hole, and was duped something fierce. In my objective research, I found deceit at the core. They had disinfo objectives of making the 911TM look crazy and to doubt all imagery, but had nothing to fill the voids of why or how.
<br>
<br>All disinfo has one or more self-destruct mechanisms. Disinfo doesn't care about the numbers of believers it has, because all eventually become disbelievers when they discover the purposeful deceit. The goals of disinfo is to remove from public consideration various nuggets of truth that formed the valid and believable foundation of the disinfo premise.
<br>
<br>Took me awhile to discover what was wrong with NPT. I was really only in it from the perspective of "imagery manipulation." When I discovered #1 and #2 above, I was turned.
<br>
<br>Holograms I debunked with Dr. Fetzer right from the get-go. I objectively researched it and discovered that it has major technical issues that make it incapable of achieving the observed outcomes from many different perspectives. Were it as they stated, we'd have Holo-Santa and Holo-Elvis at the mall.
<br>
<br>Turns out that Rich Hall (someone Dr. Fetzer references and a disinfo agent in England with some highly produced show) deliberately misrepresents the radar data and their tolerances. He says there was a cloaked plane projecting a hologram plane. The cloaked plane was supposedly picked up by one set of radar data, but not the other. The hologram plane flew the other set of radar data, which would only be possible if the data was faked. The reality is that radar only gives readings from pings off of real objects. If one system picked up the cloaked plane, both would. Neither system should pick up the radar signature of a hologram. ASSUMING holograms could be projected (which they can't) and ASSUMING a plane could be cloaked to the level required.
<br>
<br>To sum up, not only did I eventually discover the technical limitations of such systems, but the proponents of such were also intractible: unable to admit error, became beligerent when their science was questioned, could not mold their beliefs beyond their disinfo message like a real person would when confronted new info & analysis comes to light.
<br>
<br>I went around with Dr. Fetzer (and harbor no ill will), but also on FB with disinfo trolls Norma Rae and Rosalee Grable. If you have my FGNW blog article bookmarked, you can look in the archives over the last year or so (not that many) to see my re-purposed discussions.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "I feel certain that the video we were shown of a plane slicing into the south tower is fake."
<br>
<br>I am not so certain. The Sandia F4 video and the MythBuster rocket-snow-plow were instrumental in also helping change my mind. When velocities are very high, the velocity squared term in the energy gets exponentially high, such that it can overwhelm the structural integrity locally of the materials in the vehicles (or towers).
<br>
<br>I don't doubt that a plane could achieve penetrating impact. What I doubt, from the sea-level velocity and precision of impact, is that the plane was the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Given the dense web of steel beams and concrete floors that the plane would have impacted, it should have crumpled and fallen into the street."
<br>
<br>This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation in all aspects.
<br>
<br>The walls were not solid; 50% of the face was composed of window slits. The floors were about 13 feet apart. The wall assemblies were not solid steel. Box columns were created from four steel plates (thickness varied) say 1.5 feet wide by 30 feet long. Three box columns were assembled into a wall assembly with spandrels. The wall assemblies were connected to one another by bolts, a designed in failure point.
<br>
<br>Yes, the beams of the wall assemblies and the floors could act to slice-and-dice the plane... until they themselves in an equal-and-opposite fashion were compromised. Once compromised (or if we're talking window slits), nothing really substantial except space hindered the progress of the aircraft (unless they hit the core columns).
<br>// Part 2/3
<br>
<br>Part 3/3
<br>Going back to the Sandia & MythBuster reference, they prove that if the velocity of the projectile is sufficiently high, the exponential resulting energy can exceed locally the structural integrity of the materials in question -- be they box columns, wings, or fuselage.
<br>
<br>A key point is that if the material's structure integrity has failed locally (e.g., shattered), the greater assembly made up of that material can no longer be expected to act as a cohesive whole. The laws of physics still apply, but "bouncing" would happen on shattered fragments (and did, when mass behind the shattered fragment didn't push it path of least resistence into the towers); bouncing would not be expected on wing or tail assemblies. Another area where the NPT misrepresent physics.
<br>
<br>Compare low velocity parking lot fender benders to single car accidents on highways to head-on car accidents on highways. Velocity square imparts more energy as the collision velocity increases, which then results in far more shattering and shredding of materials in the vehicles. The velocity of the 9/11 aircraft was >2.5 larger than some of the highest closing velocities of head-on crashes, which is >6 times the available energy.
<br>
<br>At this point, look closely at the damage. The aluminum cladding showed wing-tip to wing-tip damage, Road-Runner style. The box columns did not; it is a much smaller damange area. Areas with heavy engines and landing gears were sufficient to push wall assemblies out of the way, break bolts, bend box columns, and in some rare cases sever box columns. The NPTers like to malframe this information with their "cartoon-outline" comments.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "But it doesn't even slow down."
<br>
<br>This is a misstatement. The aircraft does slow down, but the frame rate of the videos is insufficient to detect this. Further, even in getting shattered, the leading edges imparted sufficient energy to move, bend, or cut tower structure out of the way of material in the aircraft behind that leading edge.
<br>
<br>You asked: "Curious Maxwell whether you believe that video to be authentic."
<br>
<br>This is a different question. I do not put it past disinformation sources like September Clues to not have multiple agendas. I may have already mentioned the goal of taking off of the table of future consideration valid instances of no-plane-crashes, such as at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
<br>
<br>A secondary agenda of September Clues -- once it imploded or was discredited -- could have been taking off of the table of future consideration all valid instances of imagery manipulation. I believe nuggets of truth still exist there. I know of two such valid instances: (1) The Pentagon frames; (2) The four different versions of the helocopter shot of the 2nd plane hitting the tower: (a) nothing then explosion, (b) orb flying path then explosion; (c) plane flying path then explosion; (d) sky / background masked and plane inserted flying different trajectory then explosion. [Disinfo agent Rich Hall, from above, prior to his hologram song-and-dance, tried to tilt the orb videos into advanced weaponry based on UFO technology. What a hoot!]
<br>
<br>An additional nugget of truth from September Clues was the unprecedented sharing -- or single-feed from agency sources with foreknowledge -- of action shots of the towers between competing television networks, although seemingly differentiated by color hue and artificial tilting.
<br>
<br>Imagery manipulation may have been actively deployed for two reasons, both stemming from foreknowledge of mechanisms chosen. (1) If the plane wasn't the alleged commercial aircraft, they could have post-doctored the imagery to fit their story. (2) Nuclear devices might have been even more energetic or "flashy" than they were, so being able to contain or edit some of that would have been part and partial to controlling the message.
<br>
<br>// Part 3/3
</p>
</div><!-- section 107 -->
<a name="x108"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x108" class="tiny">x108</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">flippant or worse</a></p>
<p>2016-03-30</p>
<div id="sect_108" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Ms. Sheila Casey, I stand by my assessment that your response was "flippant", if not worse when looking at the totality of our efforts.
<br>
<br>We had NPT exchanges on T&S, and you ran off before "convincing me or letting me convince you". You are doing the same here. (I won't dwell on how your appearance on T&S was timed with participation by Dr. Fetzer.)
<br>
<br>Doesn't bother me, because (a) NPT is off-topic from FGNW, and (b) you need serious time to prepare. To refute my arguments -- which pretty much address everything that any NPTer has ever thrown out there for fodder --, you have to know what my arguments are, which means reading my blog postings that re-purpose earlier exchanges. (Such a rabbit-hole it is, I lament.)
<br>
<br>Stated another way. If you want to convince others of NPT, put together your bulleted list of what convinces you. I'll do you the favor of finding the published locations in my writing where those items were addressed.
<br>
<br>And if your argument boils down to touchy-feely "video looks fake to me" and "wings should be bouncing back off of wall", these subjective opinions don't stand up to physics. The biggest mistake is that the velocity-squared term in the energy equation isn't being properly taken into consideration and how it overwhelms structural integrity of materials. The second biggest mistake is mischaracterizing the towers.
<br>
<br>Forewarned is forearmed.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 108 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part3 -->
<a name="x109"></a><hr>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part4');">Part 4: Dr. James Fetzer's NPT</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part4" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb:
<br>
<br>Dr. James Henry Fetzer already has a reputation. Some of it deserved, and some of it not.
<br>
<br>mcb: end}
</p>
<a name="x110"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x110" class="tiny">x110</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">update on my evolution in thought regarding the WTC destruction</a></p>
<p>2015-05-18</p>
<div id="sect_110" style="display: none;">
<p>Hey 9/11 Internet Acquaintances!
<br>
<br>I've corresponded with you in the past on topics related to 9/11. I wanted to give you an update on my evolution in thought regarding the WTC destruction. My hobby-horse is fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW).
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br>
<br>The above work addresses concerns raised by those (a) who say "no radiation = no nukes" and (b) who say "it was DEW" ala Dr. Judy Wood.
<br>
<br>++++ Boring details ++++
<br>
<br>Common games in the concerted disinformation effort to keep public awareness from landing on FGNW were:
<br>
<br>(1) Incomplete & malframed premises. Applies to Dimitri K.'s "deep under ground nuke" as well as Dr. Judy Wood's directed energy weapons (DEW) from "Where did the towers go?". The former doesn't match the observed destruction; the latter doesn't power DEW with anything real world and ignores wavelength optics through the atmosphere as a limiting factor. Applies to Dr. Jones & Dr. Wood with regards to how they frame nuclear devices: big yields, lots of radiation.
<br>
<br>(2) Glaring omissions. Applies to Dr. Steven Jones in (a) his "no nukes" paper and (b) his nano-thermite (NT) premise. FGNW and work by Dr. Andre Gsponer were missing from the former; the latter doesn't provide the explanation for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. The math is missing that shows NT in any combination with conventional chemical based explosives implying huge quantities & a major logistics challenge to account for the observed overkill & unnecessary pulverization; but then becoming massively unrealistic & improbable quantities when getting the same to account for the duration of the hot-spots.
<br>
<br>(3) Faulty assumptions and arguments. A chief error is assuming mutual exclusivity in destruction mechanisms. A related error is assuming one explanation for all observed destructive features & WTC buildings.
<br>
<br>(4) Blatant unobjectivity & attempted book reports without having or reading the book. "Content" is probably more applicable than "book". A given is that, in order to succeed even for a short time, all disinformation has to have a solid foundation of truth before introducing the disinfo skew. The belligerent refusal to venture into the maw of disinformation sources to retrieve still valid nuggets of truth is a sign of unobjectivity in the participant, if not a disinfo agenda.
<br>
<br>(5) Building on #3 and #4, the inability to form alliances and marry. Because Dr. Wood's DEW needs power (and because she stops short of make & model), the natural grow path for DEW is towards nuclear power sources. Likewise, the natural growth path for nuclear devices is towards DEW. In fact, all FGNW are technically classified as DEW. Yet do you see objective supporters of DEW or nuclear devices borrowing nuggets of truth from the other? Do you see them modifying their views based on new analysis and information? No.
<br>
<br>I repeat: nearly all FGNW are technically DEW. FGNW are designed for tactical yields. Being fusion based and closely related to neutron devices, their radiation side-effects are short-lived. However, tritium is a signature trace element, and lo and behold the song-and-dance & stilted reports that lamely tried to explain away tritium being measured (even haphazardly) and necessitating redefinition of "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than previously.
<br>
<br>Targeted neutron emissions from FGNW has a significantly higher & deeper coupling of energy to the target. Energy coupling is the reason why the WTC didn't have conventional chemical-based explosives (even mixed with nano-thermite) as the primary mechanism of destruction. Conventional controlled demolition uses shockwaves through the medium of air and such over-pressurization of air would be very LOUD, particularly for the observed pulverization. Didn't happen on 9/11. FGNDs do not have this problem, because the deeper & direct coupling of energy creates the shockwave within the material (target).
<br>
<br>It has amazed me that the 9/11 nuclear camp and the 9/11 DEW camp have been unable to tie the knot and get married, and how no learned PhD's on the 9/11 TM payroll ever made the love connection, most of them insisting on parking understanding in the nano-thermite cul-de-sac that can't even go the distance on the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>
<br>The reason for such obstruction? The whiff of "nuclear anything" on 9/11 would have had, could have had, should have had massive figurative nuclear fall-out in our government and its institutions, as well as with the ill-got gains expected at home and abroad.
<br>
<br>What you do with this is up to you. Such figurative nuclear fall-out from 9/11 nuclear revelations is still possible.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 110 -->
<a name="x111"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x111" class="tiny">x111</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_111');">The Real Deal Ep #100 gets its NPT debunked</a></p>
<p>2016-05-19</p>
<div id="sect_111" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65H8XbrQHBg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65H8XbrQHBg</a>
<br>The Real Deal Ep # 100 The 9/11 Crash Sites with Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine (ret.)
<br>
<br>Dear Dr. Fetzer,
<br>
<br>I am most of the way through The Real Deal Ep # 100. I was intriqued with the Pentagon dumpster fires billowing smoke to mask what was really going on (e.g., no plane). I am completely on board with the premise that neither the Pentagon nor Shanksville exhibited real plane crashes. The real plane at the Pentagon did a low flyover. Of those who observed the plane, few actually saw it hit; they merely extrapolated low-flying plane and subsequent smoke/explosion at the Pentagon (and WTC plane impacts) into being a plane crash. Further from my research efforts, I suspect that a construction trailer at the Pentagon housed the missile that bore holes through several walls of the Pentagon rings.
<br>
<br>In my opinion, Episode #100 starts going into the weeds at 1:14:00, because you have your physics wrong and are not extrapolating the important lessons from both the Sandia F4 crash video and the MythBuster Rocket-Wedge video. Namely, the energy available at impact depends on a velocity-squared term. The higher the velocity, the exponentially larger the available energy.
<br>
<br>Your physics analysis of wing or tail assemblies bouncing off of the structure might be valid for parking lot speeds or even autobahn speeds. What happens in a collision between objects when -- owing to velocities two to five times autobahn speeds -- the available energy exceeds the structural integrity of the materials of the objects? The answer is that the materials shatter locally and no longer act as a cohesive whole. (The extent of localized material failure is true going from parking lot collisions to autobahn collisions.) In other words, wing and tail assemblies would not necessarily bounce off the structure as cohesive wholes, but rather would more likely shatter into smaller fragments that would and did bounce off of the structure. Camera distance from the impact and resolution doesn't make this shattering clear, but is captured on video and first responders made numerous observations about debris around the towers. (Actual large aircraft parts are discussed later.)
<br>
<br>Your physics analysis mischaracterizes the damage to the buildings as a "cartoon outlines" as well as the structure of the building. Specifically, the wall assemblies were covered with aluminum cladding. Wingtip-to-wingtip, the aluminum cladding was damaged and got the cartoon outline of the plane profile, as expected. When studying the damage closer, the steel wall assemblies behind the aluminum cladding did ~NOT~ have a wingtip-to-wingtip profile.
<br>
<br>The verticle beams of the wall assemblies were not solid. The beams were box column consisting of 4 steel sheets (measurements approximate) 30 feet long, 18 inches wide, and 1 inch thick. (Thickness actually varied from base to top but were about 1 inch thick at level of impact.) Three box columns were connected together with three spandrels. The wall assemblies were connected together by bolts that were designed-in failure points.
<br>
<br>Studying the damage closely: how many wall assemblies exhibited failures at the connecting bolts and thus were pushed out of the way of the entering mass? How many hollow box columns were bent but from a distance might appear severed? How many hollow box columns were actually severed? The energy required to sever bolts, push assemblies, and bend & sever hollow box columns is significantly less than your mischaracterization of a wingtip-to-wingtip cartoon outline cut through the structure.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, 50% of the vertical face of the tower were windows that would not have offered measurable resistance to the impacting and shattering mass. The horizontal slabs of concrete that you mention over 8 stories (WTC-2) that the plane impacted? If we were to say that floors were (measurement approximation) 12 feet apart, how much of that were the concrete slabs? Even if I'm generous in the approximation and say 6 to 12 inches, that still leaves a good 11 feet of horizontal space that, once the wall assemblies were breeched, would not have offered significant resistance: empty air space.
<br>
<br>Another pillar in your no plane premise has to do with videos. You say the aircraft "sliced like butter without resistance" into the towers. This cannot be determined by the frame rate & resolution of the videos in question. It was insufficient to measure deceleration. And as was mentioned, the towers were not as solid as you imply, therefore allowing the thorough penetration observed.
<br>
<br>Putting this altogether. The velocity-squared term in the energy equation of the impacting aircrafts provided sufficient energy to sever connecting bolts, push wall assemblies, bend & sever hollow box columns, and (equal & opposite) shatter aircraft materials such that they wouldn't act as cohesive assemblies but would have shattered fragments (as observed) that in part bounce off of the structure and in part enter the structure through paths that were determined to have near zero resistance.
<br>
<br>Two cherries can be put on top of this analysis. The first cherry are the 10 instances of landing gear pieces that were recovered from various locations and very hard to stage. The one that impressed me the most was the wheel embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly that was ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 (proving again the weakness of the connecting bolts). This would not have been easy to fake or stage. Photos of this appear before either tower was destroyed.
<br>
<br>The second cherry is the engine found at Murray & Church. Videos show the 2nd plane impacting WTC-2 and a large, billowing-smoke fragment exiting a corner and going a significant distance. It bounced off of a building before being found (or just photographed) under a scaffolding at Murray & Church. Varous photographs of the engine with & without a trash can, shoe, and street signs suggest that some staging for photographs was undertaken. I speculate that maybe they were trying to dispose of the errant engine, but only managed to get it under the scaffolding before looky-lou's discovered it.
<br>
<br>I did the physics calculations. An exit velocity as little as 122 mph (significantly reduced from an impact velocity of 500 mph) would have been sufficient for the engine to go the distance to where it was found: entirely plausible and video taped.
<br>
<br>I have seen sufficient evidence to believe that real aircraft hit the towers. However, I have not seen sufficient evidence that the aircraft were the alleged commercial aircraft, because they purposely never matched serial numbered parts to identify the plane. This then fuels my speculation about them trying to hide the engine, because they knew it did not match the make & model of the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br>
<br>I was an ardent no planer. What convinced me to change my mind was (1) the aforementioned aircraft debris like the wheel inbetween the beams of the wall assembly on the ground, (2) proper analysis of the high speed physics and how excessive energy acts locally to shatter, and (3) the 3D analysis of NY with overlay of many amatuer videos of the 2nd impact that showed all perspectives equating to a singular flight path that also aligned with two sets of radar data that were within tolerances of one another.
<br>
<br>Speaking of radar data, Rich Hall purposely mischaracterizes the tolerances of these two systems -- one more accurate than the other -- and suggests that a cloaked plane was one radar set projecting a hologram that the other set of radar data was faked to depict. (Very ludicrous.)
<br>
<br>Dr. Fetzer, I followed your supporting links on holograms and did my own further research into the same (2012). Holograms have stark limitation (like a medium on which they are projected) that would have made such a show impossible to accomplish at the scale and from so many perspectives. (If it were possible, we'd have had holoSanta and holoElvis at the mall 15 years ago.) This is in addition to believing there was a cloaked plane and that one set of radar data (the more accurate one at that) was faked.
<br>
<br>Here is a concession I will make. From their precision, low-altitude high speed, and lack of effort to identify via serial numbered parts (and flight paths, etc.), we have reason to believe the impacting planes were not the alleged commercial aircraft. As such, some degree of imagery manipulation may have happened to doctor or obscure the imagery of the plane to depict something closer to the alleged commercial aircraft. This doctoring, in turn, may have played a minor role in what the no planers have hyped as a cartoon crash.
<br>
<br>After the discussion on Truth & Shadows (you against hybridrogue1) from July & August of 2012 that didn't convince me of of NPT (remnants on my blog), I have had the opportunity to ride two carousels of NPT on Facebook. Those NPTers made blatant mistakes; used improper physics; did not characterize correctly the buildings, the planes, or the energies of the velocities; and were intractible in a very disinfo way not even able to admit errors in their math. Very much disinformation trolls.
<br>
<br>One such exchange is re-purposed at this link. Salient points are summarized already in this email, but there might be elements I missed. It could be worth you scanning the article. In particular, there are discussions and images linked
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html
<br>
<br>In conclusion, I believe real aircraft hit the towers. The aircraft may not have been the alleged commercial aircraft, but were real nonetheless. I believe the whole "NPT at the WTC" disinformation ploy was started as a distraction from the real instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville. NPT at the WTC (via video fakery and/or holograms) was designed from the onset to be discovered as bullshit so as to remove further consideration from Pentagon & Shanksville issues.
<br>
<br>P.S. You and the general are wrong about the debris. People mostly entered the towers from the underground station and parking garage. Not as many people as you think would be milling around the streets (at 9 am on a Tuesday.) Be this as it may, I do recall a couple of people being hit by debris. At 1:19:53 you talk about no debris, implying aircraft debris. Your error is assuming in tact aircraft debris, not shattered debris of which there is copious amounts. Further, you don't show the aircraft wheels. Maybe I'll send those as attachments.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 111 -->
<a name="x112"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x112" class="tiny">x112</a>
James Fetzer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">A few replies to your arguments supporting real planes having hit the towers</a></p>
<p>2016-05-19</p>
<div id="sect_112" style="display: none;">
<p>Fascinating, Maxwell. Tell me about you. Why are you so elusive about your own identity? I can think of several possible reasons; which ones are real? I regard you as very smart but not quite as smart as you think you are. A man of mystery, to be sure, who writes more sensibly about the use of nukes. A few replies to your arguments supporting real planes having hit the towers:
<br>
<br>(1) We have done frame-by-frame analysis of several of the South Tower videos, where the plane passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length in air. But that would be possible only if a massive 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the path of an aluminum aircraft than air. Therefore, it cannot have been a real plane.
<br>
<br>(2) Had a real plane intersected with the South Tower or a real plane hit the North, there would have been substantial debris falling to the ground--such as bodies, seats, luggage, wings and tail--where the engines could have passed into the buildings, but not most of the rest of those planes. Since there was no such debris, it follows that we are not dealing with real planes.
<br>
<br>(3) Had a real plane hit the South Tower and one of its engines passed all the way through the building and landed at Church & Murray, there would have been extensive damage to the sidewalk and the engine would have been of a type that was currently in use. But the sidewalk was not damaged and the engine was not of a type in current use. Moreover, we have video of something heavy being unloaded from a white van by several persons who are wearing FBI vests. It is overwhelmingly probable the engine was a plant.
<br>
<br>I have no idea why you are engaged in this pretense. No real planes hit the North or the South Towers. You could argue against (1) by denying that the videos are real, in which case the frame-by-frame analysis is unavailing. But then there is even less reason to believe that real planes hit either building.
<br>
<br>Your argument regarding (2) would presumably be that the plane was turned into many tiny pieces of debris, which was the case for the Sandia crash with a plane made of composite material run into a concrete resistant bunker. But there is no good reason to believe that would be the case with an aluminum aircraft of the kind under consideration here. So your analogy is quite faulty.
<br>
<br>In relation to (3), I am at a loss as to how you would propose to defeat the points I have made about it. I suppose you could claim that it was an older plane with outmoded engines, where one was found at another location and moved in a white van to Church & Murray. You might find someone to fall for such a tale, but that would not be me. Nice try, all around. I grade this at B+. </p>
</div><!-- section 112 -->
<a name="x113"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x113" class="tiny">x113</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_113');">Countering the NPT frame analysis rebuttal</a></p>
<p>2016-05-20</p>
<div id="sect_113" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Dr. Fetzer,
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Tell me about you. Why are you so elusive about your own identity?"</i>
<br>
<br>I am slapping my hands to avoid typing a cutting barb about your mental facilities, because I am not and have not been elusive. You asked similar questions a few years ago when you first flattered me by inviting me onto your show (but didn't happen.) I revealed to you my identity via email as a pre-requisite for an agreement that on-air and in public you would refer to me with my pen name. I'm pretty sure you googled my Bruce Wayne and many truthful nuggets about me fell out of the shaken internet tree including my real personage as well as pedigree. Several years ago I was brutally outed by a Cass Sunstein agent on internet forums: criminal libel worthy but the legal advice boiled down to "winning a judgement doesn't mean collecting" or even having legal fees covered. I extrapolated the google-reaching personal potential negative effects of the smear of having a real-name associated with such colorful adjectives as "bat-shit crazy," "kooky", "loony," and more, on a google-style half-assed employment background check. It isn't just me whom I must think about, protect, and provide.
<br>
<br>Debunking NPT at the WTC is not my 9/11 hobby-horse; FGNW is. I only do it as a favor to a fellow duped useful idiot who prides himself on being objective enough to let himself get duped another way with new informaion and/or properly applied science and logical analysis.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"(1) We have done frame-by-frame analysis of several of the South Tower videos, where the plane passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length in air. But that would be possible only if a massive 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the path of an aluminum aircraft than air. Therefore, it cannot have been a real plane."</i>
<br>
<br>You over-estimate the nature of the WTC with your phase: <i>"if a massive 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the path of an aluminum aircraft than air."</i>
<br>
<br>You imply that the entire wall-to-wall interior of the towers should have been a resistive entity. It was not. Between the concrete floors, the not-so-resistive entities were cubicle walls, desks, and lots of air in the areas between the external wall assemblies and the inner-core.
<br>
<br>I have already discussed the nature of the wall assemblies. They were not solid steel; they were three hollow box columns connected together with spandrels. The bolts connecting them were a designed-in failure point. Many of the wall assemblies exposed in the impact gash show separation at the bolts.
<br>
<br>Once the leading mass of the aircraft had pushed, bent, or severed an entry hole through the wall assemblies, there truly wasn't much structure or content to resist or hinder the remaining fuselage mass coming behind from entering.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><i>"We have done frame-by-frame analysis of several of the South Tower videos, where the plane passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length in air."</i></blockquote>
<p>Because I provide the math, assumptions that I make in my numbers can be tweaked later and will not affect the trend or salient points. I'm going to prove that sufficient tolerance or error exists within your analysis to invalidate it.
<br>
<br>Assumption #1 is that the velocity of the aircraft was between 500-525 [miles/hr]:
<br>[A1] 500[miles/hr]=733.3[ft/sec]
<br>[A2] 505[miles/hr]=740.6[ft/sec]
<br>[A3] 507[miles/hr]=743.6[ft/sec]
<br>[B] 510[miles/hr]=748[ft/sec]
<br>[C] 525[miles/hr]=770[ft/sec]
<br>
<br>Assumption #2 is that video frame rate of cameras and technology likely used on 9/11/2001 was at the low end 24 [frames/sec].
<br>
<br>Assumption #3 is that a Boeing 757 is 155 [ft] long.
<br>
<br>An aircraft 155 [ft] long traveling perpedicular across a camera's direction of view would travel its length in this many frames:
<br>
<br>[A1] 155[ft]*(24)[frames/sec]*(1/733.3)[sec/ft]=5.07[frames]
<br>[A2] 155[ft]*(24)[frames/sec]*(1/740.6)[sec/ft]=5.02[frames]
<br>[A3] 155[ft]*(24)[frames/sec]*(1/743.6)[sec/ft]=5.002[frames]
<br>[B] 155[ft]*(24)[frames/sec]*(1/748)[sec/ft]=4.97[frames]
<br>[C] 155[ft]*(24)[frames/sec]*(1/770)[sec/ft]=4.83[frames]
<br>
<br>There so such thing as a fractional frame. Therefore, velocities between at least 507 and 525 mph would require 5 frames to render the aircraft traveling its own length.
<br>
<br>Stated another way, the impact into the towers could have slowed the tail of the fuselage by 18 mph (or more) and the video technology of the day would not have registered this deceleration.
<br>
<br>In summary, stating that <i>"the plane passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes its whole length in air"</i> may be true but doesn't have to accurately describe the real-world event, nor does it have to imply no resistance or no deceleration.
<br>
<br>Further, in your frame-by-frame analysis, it was unlikely that you had an exact frame where the nose first touched the WTC wall. Remember that in the span of a single frame, the distance traveled in air for example [A] 500 mph and [C] 525 mph.
<br>
<br>[A] 733.3[ft/sec]*(1/24)[sec/frame]=30.5[ft/frame]
<br>[C] 770[ft/sec]*(1/24)[sec/frame]=32.08[ft/frame]
<br>
<br>The last frame that depicts the aircraft before impact introduces an error represented by the distance between the nose and the wall. In a similar manner, you have the last frame showing a portion of the tail outside the WTC wall followed by a frame without the tail. This also introduces an error.
<br>
<br>This introduces wiggle room to your false conclusion: <i>"Therefore, it cannot have been a real plane.</i>"
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><i>(2) Had a real plane intersected with the South Tower or a real plane hit the North, there would have been substantial debris falling to the ground--such as bodies, seats, luggage, wings and tail--where the engines could have passed into the buildings, but not most of the rest of those planes. Since there was no such debris, it follows that we are not dealing with real planes.</i></blockquote>
<p>Hold it right here, because you make some false statements and assumptions.
<br>
<br>The false assumption starts from a misunderstanding of physics that the wings would act as cohesive whole assemblies. You neglect the lessons of high-velocity physics (from Sandia F4 & MythBuster Rocket-Wedge). The velocity-squared term in the energy equation suggests energies in a high-velocity collistion that could be sufficient to overcome the internal structural energy holding an assembly or material together. In other words the relatively light-weight material of aircraft wings could shatter first and then not even be a cohesive whole to bounce.
<br>
<br>The Evans Fairbanks video among others shows precisely such shattering happening, and many of the fragments bouncing off of the towers and falling to the ground. Other videos show this as well, but from their distance, it is easy to dismiss the framents as "dust", but the pieces were much bigger than that.
<br>
<br>You falsely assume that tail assembly or even just the vertical tail fin should get separated from the fuselage and bounce to the ground. It is wrong, because the fuselage (with landing gear) and wings (with engines) already plowed an entrance hole. No structure or blockage would have been at the entrance for the trailing horizontal tail wings. The verticle tail fin? Plenty of opening and momentum to get carried into the plowed path. Even if some of the fin did hit against intact hollow box columns of a wall assembly, shattering has already been explained, and aircraft fragments would AND DID fall to the ground.
<br>
<br>Because none of the serial numbered aircraft parts (wheel assemblies, engines) to the alleged commercial aircraft and lots of other pieces of your research leaves room for planes being swapped, your assumption of (passenger) bodies, seats, luggage doesn't have to hold.
<br>
<br>This being said, in the set of pictures that included the aircraft wheel embedded between two box columns of a WTC-1 wall assembly that it ripped out of the backside, were pictures that shows many fragments that couldn't necessarily be considered as "native" to the WTC-1.
<br>
<br>And the set shows body parts (from people employed in the WTC at the impact levels? And/or passangers?)
<br>
<br>You falsely conclude: <i>"Since there was no such debris, it follows that we are not dealing with real planes."</i> There was "such debris", therefore it does not have to follow that the air planes were not real.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><i>"(3) Had a real plane hit the South Tower and one of its engines passed all the way through the building and landed at Church & Murray, there would have been extensive damage to the sidewalk and the engine would have been of a type that was currently in use. But the sidewalk was not damaged and the engine was not of a type in current use. Moreover, we have video of something heavy being unloaded from a white van by several persons who are wearing FBI vests. It is overwhelmingly probable the engine was a plant."</i></blockquote>
<p>Hold it right here, because you make some more false statements and assumptions. The first false assumption is that the engine hit the sidewalk. What is known is that it hit the roof of the building at Park Place: damage that would have been hard to fake (and you haven't acknowledged or explained). Impact at Park Place would have been energy consuming impact reducing damage to street or sidewalk. After bouncing off of Park Place, the engine could have hit the street before rolling, tumbling, or even spinning like a top to some other location. We don't know, but these are within the realm of possibilities and raise doubt to your statement about "extensive damage to the sidewalk." Nobody photographed the street to see if it hit there first; maybe a sizeable divit was present.
<br>
<br>Further, given the known staging of photographs of the engine (with and without trash can, shoe, street signs), the very crews that you assume were "planting the engine" could actually have been crews that were trying to "disappear an engine", but didn't succeed; they only managed to drag it under the scaffolding before looky-lou's happened upon them. Here's why my scenario is more probable than yours: if planting a banged up engine were part of the detailed plan, the perpetrators ought to have had the wherewithal to use an engine of the proper make & model of the alleged commercial aircraft. If it wasn't going to be the proper make & model, why even bother?
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><i>"I have no idea why you are engaged in this pretense. No real planes hit the North or the South Towers. "</i></blockquote>
<p>I am engaged in "my pretense" of real aircraft, because I am a religious fanatic: I'm fanatical about truth.
<br>
<br>You do not have an explanation for how the damage to Park Place was achieved. Your video analysis has wiggle room for error regarding entrance velocities of the tail into the tower. You continue to ignore how physics of ordinary materials changes when high-velocities are involved; fragmentation and shattering precludes assemblies from acting as cohesive whole. You are not telling the truth regarding the amount of fragmented aircraft debris (and body parts, etc.) that surrounded the towers. You do not have an explanation for the aircraft tire embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly ripped out of the backside of WTC-1.
<br>
<br>Your statement about "no planes hitting the towers" is flat out wrong.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><i>"You could argue against (1) by denying that the videos are real, in which case the frame-by-frame analysis is unavailing. But then there is even less reason to believe that real planes hit either building."</i></blockquote>
<p>I did not deny that the videos were real. I said that the speed of the aircraft combined with the frame resolution of recording technology as well as proper structural characterization of the towers (once the outer wall was breached) has inherent flaws that leave wiggle room for real planes in a physics compliant impact, which, by the way, was how the towers were designed in the first place: <i>"a pencil piercing a mosquito mesh"</i> was how one WTC designer described how an airplane impact would be.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><i>"Your argument regarding (2) would presumably be that the plane was turned into many tiny pieces of debris, which was the case for the Sandia crash with a plane made of composite material run into a concrete resistant bunker."</i></blockquote>
<p>Correct you are. The wings are observed being turned into many tiny pieces, and then some of those pieces did indeed bounce off of the towers and fall to the ground. Of course, the window slits allowed many of the shards of the wings to enter unhindered into the towers.
<br>
<br>You have absolutely no basis for the following false conclusion:
</p>
<blockquote><i>"But there is no good reason to believe that would be the case with an aluminum aircraft of the kind under consideration here. So your analogy is quite faulty."</i></blockquote>
<p>Here's where your 35 years of teaching logic failed you, Dr. Fetzer. I have Evan Fairbank's video showing bouncing fragments and many pictures of debris around the towers. My analogy is right on, and your understanding of physics is quite faulty.
<br>
<br>You tried to think for me by writing:
</p>
<blockquote><i>"In relation to (3), I am at a loss as to how you would propose to defeat the points I have made about it." </i></blockquote>
<p>I defeated your points by pointing out your false assumptions and your negligence in looking at all of the evidence, with the damage to the roof Park Place being paramount.
<br>
<br>You try to speculate for me by writing:
</p>
<blockquote><i>"I suppose you could claim that it was an older plane with outmoded engines, where one was found at another location and moved in a white van to Church & Murray."</i></blockquote>
<p>No, I claim that they fucked up in their pre-event analysis. On the grand scheme of things, real aircraft (but not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft) were cheap. They calculated that the plane had to go very fast to achieve penetration, which may have ruled out the alleged commercial aircraft. They hoped all of the aircraft & parts would remain within the towers, but had clean-up available to attempt to disappear errant parts that might not serial number identify properly. This backstop failed; too many large parts escaped. The second & third backstop, however, did not fail: they may not have attempted to serial number identify parts and correlate to the alleged commercial aircraft; they certainly didn't publish any results of such effort.
<br>
<br>You conclude:
</p>
<blockquote><i>"You might find someone to fall for such a tale, but that would not be me. Nice try, all around. I grade this at B+."</i></blockquote>
<p>Oh, Dr. Fetzer. Debunking NPT isn't even my hobby-horse, and I do it as a gentleman's favor to you so that you can correct your assumptions, correct your understanding of physics, and correct your opinions, so that ultimately you can publicly apologize for this error and stop misleading the public. Prove that you are objective: NPT at the WTC is debunked. Further promotion of this disinformation (a) discredits you and (b) distracts from the true instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville. [It is another illogical and false assumption on your part that all four events would be the same modus operandus and NPT.]
<br>
<br>Because you did not acknowledge or respond to the images of the aircraft tire in the wall assembly on the ground, because you haven't addressed my high-velocity phyics, and because you aren't even "for the sake of discussion" trying on my analysis to see if it makes sense, my grading of your effort would not nearly be as generous as your grade to me. False assumptions and false bellicose statements? I expect much more from a professor who taught logic for 35 years.
<br>
<br>I'm not going to tell you to try again. Debunking NPT ain't my hobby-horse. It is a distraction from my nookie-doo (FGNW) hobby-horse.
<br>
<br>Lordy, I hope that the Real Deal #103 isn't more of the same NPT crap!
<br>
<br>Thank you for the exchange, Dr. Fetzer. Have a good weekend.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 113 -->
<a name="x114"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x114" class="tiny">x114</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">Real Deal Episode #103 had not major issues</a></p>
<p>2016-05-20</p>
<div id="sect_114" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Dr. Fetzer,
<br>
<br>I had the opportunity to view your Real Deal Episode #103. For this choir member, very repetitive. No major issues with it. Here are some things I noted.
<br>
<br>1:11:59 shows the explosion after impact. It shows aircraft debris (and building debris) falling. The distance between the tower and camera does not do justice to the scale of the debris.
<br>
<br>1:14:00 regarding the engine at Church & Murray. You say it was a plant. I disagree as given in earlier emails, because if it was planted, they would have used the correct engine. Plus, a real engine from a real aircraft escaping the towers and caught on video explains the damage to the roof of Park Place.
<br>
<br>1:16:00 you talk briefly about mini or micro nukes. This is where I say that you need to research fourth generation nuclear devices and Dr. Andre Gsponer.
<br>
<br>I learned about the EMP affecting the helicopter electronics/camera that I didn't know before. Also learned about the explosions and water in the basement that drained the sprinkler system.
<br>
<br>I agree with AE9/11 Truth being a limited hang-out (on NT) and Dr. Judy Wood and her groupies being a distraction. Part of this is that the former has never reviewed the latter and identified the good, bad, and ugly. Part of this is that the later boasts about ideas in Dr. Wood's work but also that she makes no claims. If no claims are made (and they aren't; she doesn't connect dots), then she can't be the end station.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Here is something that you might not know regarding FGNW. Traditional conventional explosives as well as 1st through 3rd generation nuclear devices require a medium (typically air) with which the destructive shockwave is transmitted to the target. Any time you have over-pressurization of air to generate the shockwave, you've got large, deafening sound waves. This was evident on 9/11.
<br>
<br>FGNW from the directed energy & highly energetic neutrons can ablate the surface of their target, which means instantly vaporize. This then causes a shockwave ~within~ the target's material, not in air. The result is explosions and decimation of targets but without the deafening shock/sound waves through air.
<br>
<br>This is fitting, because when Dr. Shyan Sunder of NIST tried to explain why conventional explosives weren't used (and they weren't), he brought up valid points regarding the decibel levels resulting from the amount of explosives needed to destroy the towers. He was right, and he could prop up this point because such explosives weren't used. However, he failed to convince us that energy wasn't added and that something different (from explosives) was involved.
<br>
<br>Another side effect is that such a FGNW would not necessarily produce large events that the Richter scale would capture.
<br>
<br>The FGNW were aimed upwards, because this helped prevent fracticide between devices. I suspect that they were mounted on alternating sides of what became the spire to further separate devices. Emission was conical, because it missed the spire and also didn't kill other devices (that we know of) or bring them into fizzle. Although the hot-spots were another indication of the job not being perfect and some nuclear fizzle happening.
<br>
<br>This should be a refinement to your premises.
<br>
<br>In summary, Episode #103 was hearing you drone about things I don't have issues with.
<br>
<br>Have a good weekend.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 114 -->
<a name="x115"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x115" class="tiny">x115</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_115');">Convinced yet that NPT @ WTC is bunk?</a></p>
<p>2016-06-13</p>
<div id="sect_115" style="display: none;">
<p>from: Maxwell C. Bridges <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>to: James Fetzer <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>
<br>date: Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:24 PM
<br>subject: Convinced yet that NPT @ WTC is bunk?
<br>
<br>Dear Dr. Fetzer,
<br>
<br>As the date stamps show, I had attended to watching your Real Deal episodes 100 & 103 and gave you appropriate responses. No major issues with 103 (in another email.) Had bigger issues with 100 (below).
<br>
<br>A few simple questions for you, Dr. Fetzer.
<br>
<br>(1) Did my reply and my NPT debunking convince you of the errors of NPT @ WTC? Are you ready to change your tune?
<br>
<br>(2) If the answer to #1 is "no", then what evidence & analysis (not yet shredded by me) keeps you bound to the NPT @ WTC premise?
<br>
<br>FYI, just for kicks and giggles, I determined that an aircraft at 618 mph or the same aircraft at 507 mph would both travel their 155 foot length and be rendered by common video recording technology (24 frames/second) in the exact same number of frames.
<br>
<br>Thus, your oft repeated pompous statement that "the aircraft passed its length entering the towers in the same number of frames as it took for the aircraft to travel its length through thin air" may be technically true, but does not have to represent anything out of compliance with physics. Deceleration happened and wouldn't be noted if all you counted were number of frames.
<br>
<br>I'm in the process of re-purposing our exchanges for publication on my blog as part of a longer piece on NPT.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 115 -->
<a name="x116"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x116" class="tiny">x116</a>
James Fetzer : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">I know you are an op.</a></p>
<p>2016-06-13</p>
<div id="sect_116" style="display: none;">
<p>from: James Fetzer <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>
<br>to: "Maxwell C. Bridges" <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>date: Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:10 PM
<br>subject: Re: Convinced yet that NPT @ WTC is bunk?
<br>
<br>Max,
<br>
<br>I know you are an op. There was nothing "pompous" about the fact that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through air, which would be possible only if a massive 500,000-ton steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistant to a plane's trajectory than air.
<br>
<br>Thanks for writing!
<br>
<br>Jim
</p>
</div><!-- section 116 -->
<a name="x117"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x117" class="tiny">x117</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_117');">if I'm the "op", lean your truth against me and see what happens</a></p>
<p>2016-06-13</p>
<div id="sect_117" style="display: none;">
<p>from: Maxwell C. Bridges <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>to: James Fetzer <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>
<br>date: Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:08 PM
<br>subject: Re: Convinced yet that NPT @ WTC is bunk?
<br>
<br>Dear Dr. Fetzer,
<br>
<br>You have my real identity, and you googled me, I think. If you didn't do your legwork or have since lost my identity, that fault lies with you. It doesn't make me an op, though. I might be inclined to pass my identity along to you again (because it really isn't hidden that well to someone with even middling IT skills).
<br>
<br><b>Now if you want to play such silly "op" & "agent-naming" games, I'll play along for <i>"shits and giggles"</i> as my cowboy uncle used to say. How about you listing everything about me that has you so suspicious of me as an op? Compare me with other known disinfo agents.</b>
<br>
<br>The old saying: better the devil that you know than the one you don't. This is what I told Mr. McKee regarding hybridrogue1 and why he shouldn't be banned from Truth & Shadows (at the time several years ago). "Ops" can be "leaned against" and through such "leaning" discussion, truth revealed.
<br>
<br>So if I'm the "op", lean your truth against me and see what happens. It's what I'm doing with you.
<br>
<br>You wrote (broken up): <i>"the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through air, ..."</i>
<br>
<br>What is this idiotic refusal on your part to recognize the video sampling resolution limits of your statement? Who gave you this bunk to spout, or did you come up with it on your own? While true, it is practically irrelevant and doesn't say much, and therefore dings your intelligence.
<br>
<br>Properly applied math to your statement is what makes it so stupid, professor. I did the math for you, but maybe this time, you should do it on your own so that you can see the errors in your ways.
<br>
<br>Assume 24 frames a second, aircraft length of 155 ft, velocity V1 of 600 mph and velocity V2 of 525 mph. (Frame rate, aircraft length, and V1 & V2 can be tweaked later after this exercise into more applicable ranges for the 9/11 aircraft.)
<br>
<br>The simple three-part math problem for you to solve is:
<br>
<br>(a) Calculate V1 and V2 in feet per second.
<br>(b) Calculate how many milliseconds it would take to travel 155 ft at V1 and V2.
<br>(c) Calculate how many frames are required to render V1 & V2 going 155 ft in #b.
<br>
<br>There is no such thing as a partial frame, so you'll have to round up for #c. Let me give you a hint about the answer: V1 and V2 should require the exact same number of frames to travel the aircraft's length.
<br>
<br>The significance is the difference V1-V2 could just as easily represent deceleration from V1 to V2 upon impact & penetration with the tower, yet could <b>result in the same number of frames to pass through thin air as it takes to penetrate its length into the building.</b>
<br>
<br>This is a glaring weakness to your NPT rhetoric. On top of this, we have aircraft parts (such as the wheel in the wall assembly, the engine at Church & Murry, the damage to the building's roof at Park Place) that you have yet to address. We also have two sets of radar data that within tolerances are co-linear with themselves as well as many versions of the amateur video as proven by 3D analysis. (Pay attention, because Rich Hall does a good job of disinfo skewing this.)
<br>
<br>And your alternative to real planes is what? Holograms? Full of even more holes, and that your scholarly research at your institutions of higher education never ran down to learn of their true limitations. That dog don't hunt for Occam Razor, Dr. Fetzer. You don't have to go into holograms in your response, because your NPT argument is already destroyed in the math (that you'll dutifully do and acknowledge, or risk having your scientific intelligence seriously questioned) and in the airplane parts.<br>
<br>
<br>You wrote: "<i>... which would be possible only if a massive 500,000-ton steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistant to a plane's trajectory than air.</i>"
<br>
<br>In other words, you didn't read my email, and if you did, you didn't understand it. I'll briefly summarize.
<br>
<br>You are mischaracterizing the strength and nature of the towers, and are completely glossing over the fact that resistance to penetration of outer wall assembly (R1) by leading mass of fuselage does not remain R1 for any following mass of fuselage once an opening is created and a path plowed.
<br>
<br>For the sake of discussion, we could say that after outer wall assembly was pushed out of the way, the fuselage experience a scalping and a neutering by the intersecting floors. But those floors had weaknesses. What energy does it take to crack concrete? To bend rebar in that concrete? To zipper rip the rebar from the wall assemblies? <b>This is not R1, and ~NOT~ a 500,00-ton steel-and-concrete blog.</b> Once concrete is cracked and its rebar bent, the scalping and neutering floors can be carpet-rolled out the way preventing further such scalping & neutering of fuselage and becoming a much reduced resistance from R1 to the penetrating remaining mass of the fuselage.
<br>
<br>You always point to the towers as <i>"a massive 500,000-ton steel-and-concrete building"</i> as if penetrating resistance would be constant and equal for all entering aircraft mass, even after a legitimate, physics-compliant path had been snow-plowed into the towers. This is a gross mistake and not at all factual. Together with the purposefully misleading statements about "<i>the same number of frames</i>", it sheds a vastly different light on your NPT... and your "op."
<br>
<br>Debunking NPT isn't my hobby-horse. Championing truth is. As such, the religious fanatic in me won't let up with you and your wrong statements. If you are as open-minded and objective as you are quick to boast, then acknowledging (after study) the validity of my math and my more accurate characterization of the physical properties of the towers won't hurt you. You'll be able to offer public apologies and move on from your NPT @ WTC disinformation. But if you are not open-minded, objective, honest, or if you are the true op, you won't, and that will be to your discredit. <br>
<br>
<br />Here's something for your "op" checklist about me. I ain't gonna let this NPT @ WTC misleading crap from you go. I'll be a persistent thorn in your side and reputation, even if it only ever gets published to my hardly-read blog. Why? Because your championing of such proven blatant error (disinformation) does a guilt-by-association discrediting to my true hobby-horse (FGNW); and this I cannot abide.
<br>
<br>Alas, the lengthy history of my blog itself and how it was created -- drop-by-drop one re-purposed forum / email comment after another -- is a huge strike against me being an op. Agents don't long-term preserve their own words, because the lies and deceit become obvious when collected & amassed and the goals of publication effort falls under the weight of so much dishonesty.
<br>
<br>Give me a few days to re-purpose the history of our discussions.
<br>
<br>At any rate, Professor Fetzer, I give you a F on your mid-term, because you have expended little effort to validate or debunk my analysis; zero effort to even acknowledge it. You think you can weasel out of your duty to truth by calling me an "op" ala <i>"the best defense is to be offensive."</i> That pig don't fly.
<br>
<br>The fair and honest debate opponent that I claim to be, I'll let you take a make-up mid-term in the hopes that your grade improves. Gee, I'm so naively fair and honest, I'll encourage you to be sincere and above-board and to take me seriously. Otherwise anything less, and you'll discredit yourself like Mr. Hybridrogue1 and Mr. Ruff before you.<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 117 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part4 -->
<hr>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Show All Parts</b></a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All Parts</b></a></p>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Show All</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All</a></p>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-64405240328412091492016-06-08T11:11:00.000-07:002016-06-17T07:53:37.851-07:00Censure on T&S<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Show All Parts</b></a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All Parts</b></a></p>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Show All</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All</a></p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
areaShowAll("sect_part");
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<p><b>Rabbit-hole warning!</b> Re-purposes discussions on Truth & Shadows that were of interest to me, even though I was in exile. Sometimes comments were authored by me even knowing that they might never be published until now. </p>
<a name='more'></a>
<hr>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part4');">Part 4: What Happened While I Was on T&S Vacation</a></p>
<div id="sect_part4" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Several new T&S Participants appear in this section. Their words are copied for fair-use for the purposes of education and commentary. I do not take credit or responsibility for their words. Re-publication of their words here does not make them my aliases. <b>Herr der Elf</b> and <b>Señor el Once</b> are my aliases.}</p>
<a name="x165"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x165" class="tiny">x165</a>
T&S Newcomers : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_165');">Dr. Wood is the only topic in this article which is subjected to special rules</a></p>
<p>2015-03-21</p>
<div id="sect_165" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Although re-posted here, these are not my writings; those were not my aliases. Collected here becaue of their interesting theme.}</p>
<p><b>Sitting_Duck</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-30798">March 17, 2015 at 12:46 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I see I’ve stumbled upon another disinformation site masquerading as a forum of people looking for and discussing the “truth”.
<br>
<br>It’s very telling that Dr. Wood (not Woods) is the only topic in this article which is subjected to special rules about what can and can’t be discussed. If you’ve uncovered some evidence that refutes the evidence and CONCLUSION (not theory) that that evidence supports – then present it as an introduction as to WHY the topic of Dr. Wood is being censored. Else, don’t present yourself as someone who’s first loyalty is to the truth.
<br>
<br>“Her work doesn’t fit with other theories” is a woefully insufficient explanation.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>veritytwo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-30799">March 17, 2015 at 1:53 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Mercy! Another one. The BS meter needle has already been bent on the top peg past any kind of redemption. You’re way late in the game to be pushing Dr. Judy Woo Woo nukie Doo Doo
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-30800">March 17, 2015 at 1:54 pm</a>
<br>
<br>The topic of Judy Wood has not been censored on this site as a whole (I did a post on her in 2012 that features hundreds of comments). But I have prohibited it on certain comment threads because there are people who contribute here who would derail any discussion by raising the DEW issue. It is my right as the creator of this blog to stop that from repeatedly happening. I don’t see the benefits of the Truth Movement fighting over Wood’s non-theory since we all agree that the three World Trade Center towers were brought down in some type of demolition. I feel the same way about the mini-nuke position. Anyone who supports Wood or the nuke theory is welcome to publish articles on their own blog or any other site that is open to that.
<br>
<br><b>Sitting_Duck</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-30809">March 18, 2015 at 12:04 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Thanks for the reply.
<br>
<br>I respect your right to run the blog as you see fit and for you allowing me to criticize it. I was pointed here by a member of the truth movement. We were engaging on a different site and he was unable to debunk the fact that Dr. Wood’s evidence refutes traditional CD.
<br>
<br>He wanted me to come here and debate because he thought I would find more formidable opponents here. But, it appears the book is closed on Dr. Wood’s work here.
<br>
<br>I have read through several dozen comments critical of Dr. Wood – both here and on the one other article (for which comments are closed) but did not find anything compelling enough for me to dismiss her evidence.
<br>
<br>I would be grateful, and I would consider my time here well spent, if you could provide the most compelling argument / evidence that convinced you that Dr. Wood should be dismissed or at least diminished.
<br>
<br>I vow not to use this as a launching pad for a debate on Dr. Wood’s work. Thanks in advance for anything you care to offer.
<br>
<br>I seek the truth, peace.
<br>
<br><b>Nikogriego</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-30810">March 18, 2015 at 1:18 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Have you checked out the link to Dr. Gregory Jenkins’ paper on the implausibility of DEW being used on Nine Eleven? I think you will find the arguments and science irrefutable.
<br>
<br><b>Nikogriego</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-30801">March 17, 2015 at 2:08 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Have you ever investigated the amount of energy required to “dustify” steel? And the fact is, as I saw myself when I was at the site in 2001, there was a tremendous amount of steel, not “dustified,” that was being carted away by hundreds of trucks, so the premise that all the steel was turned to dust is simply wrong.
<br>
<br>Why not read this article about the amount of energy required, and other issues, with DEWs such that it is impossible for that technology to have been used. And I love that Judy Wood supporters resort to the description of all others who do not believe in the DEW hypothesis as “disinfomation” when clearly Wood’s hypothesis itself is provably disinformation designed to discredit the movement to find truth, and cause it to be ridiculed by others not willing to do a little independent research.
<br>
<br>http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
<br>
<br><b>deboldt</b>
<br>March 17, 2015 at 2:32 pm
<br>
<br>Here is my strategy: I try not to stay wedded to any one interpretation of the cause of the 9/11 events, including some of what I regard as likely ones, like controlled demolition of 1, 2, &7. Most people have been scared off of even looking at the evidence. What I do instead is question the biggest and most improbable conspiracy theory of all–that 19 guys with box cutters brought the greatest security system in the modern world to its knees. I simply ask if my interlocutor buys the Official 9/11 Report. That usually gets them. No rational person can possibly buy the conclusions of the Report. Then I ask them to support a new investigation by a truly independent, powerful, unbiased committee. No honest person can refuse that. I especially try to push this idea at any appropriate opportunity I find to comment on the writings of my progressive heroes who ought to know better. Folks like, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Glen Greenwald, Michael Moore, Chris Hedges, etc. These folks have to understand that we will support them if they at least call for an investigation.
<br>
<br>Look up “Gaslighting” sometime. We have a whole society that has been gaslighted with regards to 9/11!
<br>
<br><b>Nikogriego</b>
<br>March 17, 2015 at 3:17 pm
<br>
<br>I agree with that, except that WTC7 is so obvious that it is hard not to use it. Here is a statement, actually written by Paul Craig Roberts, along the lines of what you wrote, that I often use:
<br>
<br>“Let’s take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing conspiracy. The official truth is that a handful of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, which is believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.
<br>
<br>In addition to outwitting every intelligence agency of the United States and its allies, the handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times in the same hour on the same morning, air traffic control, caused the US Air Force to be unable to launch interceptor aircraft, and caused three well-built steel-structured buildings, including one not hit by an airplane, to fail suddenly in a few seconds as a result of limited structural damage and small, short-lived, low-temperature fires that burned on a few floors.
<br>
<br>The Saudi terrorists were even able to confound the laws of physics and cause WTC building seven to collapse at free-fall speed for several seconds, a physical impossibility in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolition.”
<br>
<br>Paul Craig Roberts
<br>
<br>http://www.opednews.com/articles/Conspiracy-Theory-by-paul-craig-roberts-110620-169.html
<br>
<br><b>deboldt</b>
<br>March 17, 2015 at 3:26 pm
<br>
<br>I really admire Paul Craig Roberts. I’ll bet he has paid a price for his candor.
<br>
<br><b>Sitting_Duck</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-30878">March 21, 2015 at 10:17 am</a>
<br>
<br>Yes I’ve looked at this. And I promised the owner of this blog that I would not launch into a debate about Dr. Wood’s research.
<br>
<br>I will say this, I have looked at Dr. Jenkin’s attempt to discredit Dr. Wood’s research. It follows the same pattern of all the other attempts I’ve seen to debunk her work. Step 1. Ignore the salient point of Dr. Wood’s research: There is evidence that clearly refutes the possibility that either a gravitational collapse or conventional CD were responsible for the destruction of the towers. Step 2. Misdirect. Get folks caught up in doing calculations that are irrelevant to the evidence and conclusion supported by Dr. Wood’s work. Step 3. Dig in and become indignant.
<br>
<br>I’ve also come to the conclusion that Alex Jones and his crew have been part of this PsyOp since the beginning. “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” – V.I. Lenin.
<br>
<br>Peace and Truth.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-30879">March 21, 2015 at 11:03 am</a>
<br>
<br>“I will say this, I have looked at Dr. Jenkin’s attempt to discredit Dr. Wood’s research. It follows the same pattern of all the other attempts I’ve seen to debunk her work…. 2. Misdirect. Get folks caught up in doing calculations that are irrelevant to the evidence and conclusion supported by Dr. Wood’s work.”~Sitting_Duck
<br>. . . . . . .
<br>Dr. Jenkins, calculations are hardly “irrelevant to the evidence”. They in fact explain the physics of 9/11 by the evidence at hand. The problem is that you don’t grasp physics well enough to understand Jenkins’ explanations. He has addressed all of Wood’s assertions and shown the blundering errors of her “non-conclusions”.
<br>
<br>As I have pointed out before Mr Duck, the best rebuke to Wood’s pseudoscience is the full grasp of the physics of chemical explosive demolition. As I have directed you to that information posted on my blog, I won’t repeat it here for the umpteenth time.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Sitting_Duck</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-30884">March 21, 2015 at 1:10 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I don’t believe you’ve ever pointed me personally to information on your blog regarding the physics of chemical explosive demolition. You took the the time to pen two paragraphs of ad hominem attacks against Dr. Wood and myself, surely posting a link is not an arduous task by comparison.
<br>
<br>Good NLP, though – attempting to de-credential Dr. Wood for example.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-30893">March 21, 2015 at 7:07 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Here you go Mr Duck;
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/disinformation-dew-nuke/
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 165 -->
<a name="x166"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x166" class="tiny">x166</a>
T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">wrong approach</a></p>
<p>2015-03-29</p>
<div id="sect_166" style="display: none;">
<p>
<b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/aia-green-lights-building-7-vote/#comment-31037">March 28, 2015 at 9:15 pm</a>
<br>
<br>In my opinion the truth movement in general and AE911TRUTH in particular are taking the absolute wrong approach in their attempts to get justice and truth for 9/11. This effort to get the AIA board to vote on this resolution is just the latest of many examples of the wrong approach in action.
<br>
<br>So what will happen with this vote? Let’s evaluate it. If the resolution were passed, which it definitely will not be, what does it mean for our goal of justice for 9/11? It would mean that even more architects are saying “hey there is a problem with the way building 7 came down”. It would mean those architects and probably the entire AIA organization would be attacked and ridiculed as crack pots and every attempt in the world would be made to silence them, discredit them, or even eliminate them. OK but so what if they did pass the resolution? We already have architects and engineers, a lot of them, saying it was blown up with explosives, which it was, but them saying this has not led to justice has it? No it hasn’t led to justice. So why hasn’t it let to justice? This is the crux of the issue, why haven’t the truth movements efforts over 14+ years led to justice? BECAUSE WE HAVE TAKEN THE WRONG APPROACH!
<br>
<br>This resolution is the best possible example of the wrong approach. Essentially this resolution is saying hey we need these “official guys” at AIA to support our movement because only when these “official guys” say there is a problem with building 7 will the rest of the world listen. FALSE!!! Totally false premise and totally counterproductive. Why you might ask? Well the answer is simple and right in your face. The reason the “official guys” will not approve this resolution and the reason it would not matter if they did is because it was the “official guys” that did the crime in the first damn place! Isn’t that obvious to everyone at this point that the entire establishment is in on the crime up to it’s eyeballs? Isn’t it obvious that the AIA board full of “official guys” intentionally ignored their responsibility to expose the obvious controlled demolition of the WTC buildings? Haven’t they already shirked their responsibility for 14+ years now? Just like the MSM shirked their responsibility to tell the truth for 14+ years. Just like the entire government of the United States has treasonously shirked their responsibility to investigate and tell the truth about 9/11 for 14+ years? When is the truth movement going to “get it” that the “official guys” are the problem not the solution?
<br>
<br>Going to the “official guys” like the AIA board with our hats in our hands and saying “hey will you guys support us in exposing the fact that you all totally shirked your responsibility, as architects and as human beings, to expose the truth about the WTC demolitions?” “Please guys will you support us and show the world what establishment shills and pigs you really are?” “Pretty please with sugar on top.” My God man it really makes me sick. When in the hell is the truth movement going to “get it”? The media isn’t going to investigate or report the truth! The AIA isn’t going to admit that they knew all along that the WTC was blown up. The government isn’t going to even survive if it admits any part of it’s roll in perpetrating 9/11 so they sure as hell will NEVER help us. In fact all the groups I just mentioned have a vested interest in preventing the truth of their complicity and negligence from coming out!
<br>
<br>We are NEVER going to make any real progress until we face the truth about what it really is we are up against here. We are up against the entire establishment including the AIA board. They will fight against us tooth and nail because their very survival depends on it. Have any of you in the truth movement ever really considered what would have to happen for 9/11 justice to even occur? The entire government of the United States would have to be removed from office and replaced somehow without the country collapsing into anarchy. Many officials would have to be prosecuted for treason up to and including the president(s) that have presided over the cover-up and crime itself. The entire banking system would have to be dismantled and a new system would have to be put in place and many banking elites would have to be prosecuted. The entire MSM would have to be dissolved and many of it’s controllers prosecuted. The whole legal system would have to be radically changed and most of it’s top judges and AG’s would have to be prosecuted for misprision of treason. In short people the whole damn thing has to come crashing down before we will see justice for 9/11.
<br>
<br>In other words we have to have a full blown revolution to get justice for 9/11. Just get that straight in your mind and think about that and then ask yourself if we as a movement are pursuing the right strategy with efforts like this one. Hell ask yourself if you even want justice for 9/11 considering the monumental consequences of actually getting it.
<br>
<br>My strategy is simple but Jim Garrison said it for me a long time ago. “Let justice be done though the heavens fall!”
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/aia-green-lights-building-7-vote/#comment-31038">March 28, 2015 at 9:22 pm</a>
<br>
<br>We are hacking at the small branches instead of taking an axe to the trunk and that is why we have failed for 14+ years.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/aia-green-lights-building-7-vote/#comment-31039">March 28, 2015 at 10:03 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Amen Adam, you nailed it.
<br>
<br><b>A.Wright</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/aia-green-lights-building-7-vote/#comment-31042">March 29, 2015 at 4:43 am</a>
<br>
<br>@ruffadam A big thank you to Barrie Zwicker, David Ray Griffin, Dave Von Kleist, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, Dylan Avery, Kevin Barrett, Richard Gage, Keith Dewdney, Fran Shure, Jesse Ventura, Barbara Honegger, Rebekah Roth, Alex Jones, and any others I’ve forgotten to mention. Good job.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/aia-green-lights-building-7-vote/#comment-31043">March 29, 2015 at 8:09 am</a>
<br>
<br>“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
<br>~John F. Kennedy
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>fremo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/aia-green-lights-building-7-vote/#comment-31041">March 29, 2015 at 3:10 am</a>
<br>
<br>the heavens have already fallen. thats what 911 was. free fall bang bang . the heavens falling.
<br>Atlanta may well end in epic fail; its a known known the guns will be out. But AE are at least putting it to them. Giving those AIA fucks a bit of a go. I live a long way away from the nuts and bolts of any chance of seeing a trunk, let alone taking a swipe at it. I take my hat off to AE, but cannot disagree with adam’s overall….
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 166 -->
<a name="x167"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x167" class="tiny">x167</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_167');">comfortable with my position</a></p>
<p>2015-04-04</p>
<div id="sect_167" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth#comment-6138">2015-04-04</a>
<br>
<br>Some of the readers/commentators here do not seem to understand what I have already said. So I will make it clear one more time;
<br>
<br>I am comfortable with my position and the conclusions I have come to on these matters.
<br>
<br>All of these issues have been argued over too many times already.
<br>
<br>Others are free to come to any conclusions that they feel to be reasonable. And they can express such positions as they will. Although I will remark that I see many instances that I do not find at all reasonable.
<br>It is unreasonable to insist that only their “experts” are legitimate, especially when such experts have been found lacking. My critics may argue that this is a two way street, claiming they have found a lack in the experts I find viable. But these are arguments already made and acknowledged.
<br>
<br>I let all concerned stand their ground. I am now speaking to the general readership of this blog. I consider them the important audience here. I am happy to let the candid world decide who is right and who is wrong in these matters.
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 167 -->
<a name="x168"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x168" class="tiny">x168</a>
T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">pointless to argue about things that we cannot know for certain</a></p>
<p>2015-04-22</p>
<div id="sect_168" style="display: none;">
<p><b>dji9424</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-31445">April 22, 2015 at 9:29 pm</a>
<br>
<br>It’s unfortunate this commentary is degenerating into speculations about Mrs. Roth, implying that somehow she is less than genuine and can be readily dismissed because she has declined to dialogue about others’ positions for which she disagrees. Seriously, do you actually think that resolution of any differences would result from such an exercise? I sincerely doubt it, not unless there was iron-clad, irrefutable information and we all know there is nothing of the sort.
<br>
<br>Simply stated, I believe Mrs. Roth’s position is the pieces add up, namely that the planes were taken over by remote control (FTS), flown to a non-public air base, flight crew/passengers were selected to make calls and eliminated once the message was communicated. It’s certainly plausible, even though there are potential time discrepancies with the official time of the calls and the estimated flight times from the flight calculator software.
<br>
<br>I do not pretend to know Mrs. Roth’s full position but I have heard her state in several interviews that she is not willing to discuss ideas that the airline crews were complicit, that the planes never took off, that the flight attendants’ voices were “morphed”, that all crew and passengers were loaded onto one plane, etc. I can only surmise that she is unwilling to discuss these ideas because they reflect poorly on the airline pilots and crews and she has not known anyone in the industry she worked in for 30 years to be less than professional, and by doing so, she would be extremely disrespectful. I can respect such a position and am willing to leave it at that.
<br>
<br>Lastly, I will state that we will never know all the details of how it was done so it is pointless to argue about things that we cannot know for certain. Furthermore, anyone that refuses to engage in such discussions should not be dismissed out of hand. Just because they do not want to debate an issue does not mean they are mistaken, all it may mean is they do not see it accomplishing anything worthwhile.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-31450">April 23, 2015 at 9:00 am</a>
<br>
<br>“Furthermore, anyone that refuses to engage in such discussions should not be dismissed out of hand. Just because they do not want to debate an issue does not mean they are mistaken, all it may mean is they do not see it accomplishing anything worthwhile.”~dji9424
<br>
<br>It is my opinion that when someone refuses to engage in such discussions, it most likely means is they do not see it accomplishing their agenda.
<br>
<br>In my view it is the responsibility of someone who has enjoyed uncritical promotion, to step forward and address criticisms and questions. I see no reason whatsoever to trust Roth in anyway on anything she has said at this point.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>dji9424</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-31453">April 23, 2015 at 11:05 am</a>
<br>
<br>Thank you to those who responded to my comment, I understand your position(s). The most troubling thing for me is this: How does anyone determine what is good (reliable, truthful) information from what is not? Are the FBI reports 100% reliable? I sincerely doubt it given their history for badgering people about what they saw with their own eyes (TWA 800 is just one example). So then, what do you do with their reports? If you trust them to be accurate and then find out after further examination that something does not add up, where does that leave you in your investigation?
<br>
<br>I contend that is exactly what their reports are designed to accomplish, i.e. a coherent picture of what actually happened cannot be put together without throwing out some of the “official” information. But have you disregarded the right information? Without indisputable forensic evidence to support your hypothesis, whatever you postulate can easily be made to look foolish by those in the know.
<br>
<br>When it comes down to it, all we have is evidence of a questionable nature; however, given the manner of the official investigation(s) and their implausible conclusions, we can be safe in saying the official story is a pack of lies. Does that mean we should try to ferret out what is true from what is false? Sad to say, that is what the perpetrators are happy to see us do because they know it will never be fruitful, at least not in the sense of bringing everyone involved to justice. It is quite depressing to think that even with rock solid evidence against anyone involved, who could you count on to fairly try the case? (Look at the farcical trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and what was offered as his “defense”,)
<br>
<br>I certainly don’t want to discourage anyone from trying to expose what happened but realistically the best we can hope for is for widespread public awareness of the corrupt nature of what is purported to be our government.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-31454">April 23, 2015 at 12:58 pm</a>
<br>
<br>dji9424,
<br>
<br>I appreciate the points made in your comment. However, there is forensic evidence and visual evidence in the 9/11 case that can be analysed and firm conclusions drawn.
<br>For example, see the following:
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>dji9424</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-31456">April 23, 2015 at 1:29 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Thanks for the link. Just so you know, I was confining my thoughts to what Mrs. Roth was primarily investigating, i.e. what happened to the planes and the passengers.
<br>
<br>I believe her explanation is quite plausible, but I caution everyone to be careful about being absolutely adamant about any position because you leave yourself wide open to challenges. Mrs. Roth may have a lot of things right, but if someone can demonstrate that something she thought was absolutely true is not, then her entire explanation may be questioned.
<br>
<br>Unfortunately, the investigative game is not fair, and anyone that steps into the fray will quickly realize that you are on your own when it comes to confirming information.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-31457">April 23, 2015 at 1:44 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Oh, I’m sorry dji9424, I am taking Mrs Roth at her word that she has written a novel.
<br>I’m not interested in fiction at this time.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>April 23, 2015 at 1:01 pm
<br>
<br>Also dji9424, there is a huge selection of articles on this very site that you can browse through for solid analysis and information, in particular articles on the event at the Pentagon.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>dji9424</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-31465">April 23, 2015 at 5:29 pm</a>
<br>
<br>If anyone really wants to know what she thinks, ask her directly, via her website. She has offered to answer any questions or provide the information she is using to support her position. I believe she is genuinely offering to do just what she says, regardless of what anyone may infer from her declination to participate in this blog’s discussion.
<br>
<br>I commend Mr. Zarembka for speaking with her directly, although I am saddened to say I cannot unequivocally support him for publishing his points of contention on this blog, not unless he informed her of his intentions to do so when he first spoke with her. Frankly, Mrs. Roth may not have fully appreciated just how seriously 9/11 information and analysis is evaluated by other independent researchers and thus her responses may have been too glib – I’m sure she now knows how high a standard has been set. It’s so ironic that the government does not have to abide by the same standard.
<br>
<br>As I have previously said, her explanation of what happened to the commercial passenger planes is plausible, even though there are pieces that may not perfectly mesh. But given the FBI’s history in (mis)handling evidence in many other significant cases, I am more inclined to believe the circumstantial case that Mrs. Roth has assembled over the veracity of the FBI’s reports. It’s a sad commentary on what masquerades as our federal governmental investigative agency and what makes any re-investigative work so problematic.
<br>
<br>Finally, I’m not so much interested in the “how” as I am in the “who” and given the pathetic whitewash investigation conducted by our(?) government, it’s clear they are determined not to tell us who was actually involved. That is the main contribution of Mrs. Roth’s book as I see it, she is not afraid to name the people and corporations she found in her investigation. Although she may not have been the first to do so and cloaked it behind the historical novel genre, she has not been afraid to state what she believes to be true in all the interviews she has given to date and I commend her for it. Furthermore, if her book is reaching people beyond the typical 9/11 research groups, she will have made a significant contribution.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-31467">April 23, 2015 at 8:31 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Well I offered some possible explanations above to resolve some of the time discrepancies so those are not my major issue at this point. I could see those being ironed out in a discussion. In fact if Roth simply said you know the call times and departure arrival times can’t be trusted as accurate because the only source for those times is the government then I would have to say “you know what Rebekah I can’t argue with that” and the issue would be resolved as far as I am concerned.
<br>
<br>My issue now is the gut feeling I get when someone refuses to discuss issues and throws up the stone wall of silence. My gut tells me not to trust that person. My gut is usually right. I did try to contact her by the way and sent a very nice e-mail which she has not replied to. So to suggest that we are not doing enough to reach out to her is not fair. Paul’s article should be enough to prompt a conversation at least. If not that then Craig’s invitation to discuss it should be enough. Added to that is my invitation. So we have reached out to her.
<br>
<br>This scenario is playing out just like others have in the past.
<br>
<br>Kevin Ryan – stone wall of silence
<br>David Chandler – stone wall of silence
<br>Barbara Honegger – stone wall of silence
<br>Consensus panel – stone wall of silence
<br>911Blogger – stone wall of silence
<br>Ken Doc – stone wall of silence
<br>
<br>I am just tired of this BS that we have to go begging people to discuss their 9/11 position or research. I feel at this point that if you can’t face questions about your work then maybe there is something wrong with it.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 168 -->
<a name="x169"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x169" class="tiny">x169</a>
T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_169');">this being a fools errand</a></p>
<p>2015-05-25</p>
<div id="sect_169" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/two-docs-reveal-war-on-terror-mirage/#comment-31820">May 19, 2015 at 6:29 am</a>
<br>
<br>I hate it that I was right about this being a fools errand. I know that we as a movement need to vastly improve our strategy and plan of action. These “fools errands” are getting us nowhere really fast and I submit it is time to change things in a big way or simply quit. I for one will no longer be limited in my actions by the “consensus” of the group consciousness. I am no longer going to stand on a corner with a damn sign that says “investigate 9/11? or “Google Building 7? because it is impotence at this stage. We either put on our big boy shoes and start kicking some ass (figuratively speaking) or we pack up our marbles and go home. There isn’t time left to do this the slow as molasses in winter time way. We need to grow up as activists and admit what doesn’t work and start taking actions that do work.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/two-docs-reveal-war-on-terror-mirage/#comment-31865">May 21, 2015 at 6:32 pm</a>
<br>
<br>We are waiting for you Adam! Don’t be late, it’s YOUR party!!!!
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/moon-landing-hoax/
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/two-docs-reveal-war-on-terror-mirage/#comment-31866">May 21, 2015 at 6:44 pm</a>
<br>
<br>There will undoubtedly be a similar discussion right here at some point, when I get around to writing about this subject. And I agree with Adam.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>May 21, 2015 at 6:59 pm
<br>
<br>“And I agree with Adam.”
<br>
<br>Yup I know Craig. Tweechizone!!
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>May 21, 2015 at 7:36 pm
<br>
<br>And the little clip on your blog about computer simulating the lighting makes more than one reference to “the conspiracy theories.” Not a point in its favor (although this is admittedly not the substance of the piece).
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>May 21, 2015 at 7:43 pm
<br>
<br>Yea, I know you are sensitive to the term Craig, but some people see the moon hoax as a ‘conspiracy theory’. There are some wacky conspiracy theories!
<br>I have argued against them myself, the bullshit from Shack about video fakery, the nonesense from Judy Wood, the nuking the WTC. As far as I am concerned those are all pseudoscience nonsense.
<br>And I know you’re not convinced of that yourself.
<br>That is why I am not interested in making those arguments here anymore.
<br>But if you want to post on HR1blog, go ahead, I will look for it and approve your commentary.
<br>I am interested in reading what you think is persuasive evidence, just like I am interested in what Adam thinks is.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/two-docs-reveal-war-on-terror-mirage/#comment-31870">May 21, 2015 at 7:55 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I have no problem with arguing against nukes at the WTC or Judy Wood’s DEW – both of which I do not agree with (so to imply that I am undecided on those would not be accurate). I do, however, feel that excessive “debunking” ends up giving disinformation the power to dominate the discourse. But beyond that, I believe that those who challenge officials stories of all kinds should never use the language of those who would seek to marginalize us.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>May 21, 2015 at 8:15 pm
<br>
<br>“I believe that those who challenge officials stories of all kinds should never use the language of those who would seek to marginalize us.”
<br>
<br>I do to Craig, but not everyone is as tuned into the massive conditioning played on the people, that does not mean they are irrational in their analysis.
<br>I don’t like the CT jibe anymore than anyone else here, I understand the psychology of using such doublespeak.
<br>But the analysis of the lighting is another matter isn’t it?
<br>I wasn’t entirely sure of your opinions on the nukes and DEW issue. I try to keep up with all of this, but I am keeping up with a lot of things, just like all of us.
<br>But I am glad you have firmed up your position on those issues.
<br>
<br>Getting back the moon hoax thing, I would really like to hear a persuasive argument put to it!
<br>I’ve never been on the moon, I don’t know for absolute certain that those landings took place – but I haven’t seen an alternative that convinces me. And now that there are satellite images of the sites coming in… well…
<br>Sure, it could be an ongoing coverup. Those are certainly going on. The recent bin Laden limited hangout by Hersh is a good reminder of that. But those are words. It is a larger program to continue generating fake imagery.
<br>
<br>So if you have an argument for the moon hoax that you think is solid, you are invited to make it on my blog.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jimbo</b>
<br>May 23, 2015 at 11:55 am
<br>
<br>“Getting back the moon hoax thing, I would really like to hear a persuasive argument put to it!”
<br>
<br>Dave McGowan has done a brilliant and hilarious job of showing how we never went to the moon in “Wagging the Moondoggie.” He shows that moon rocks have been faked and that key documents are missing but at the core of his argument is that there was technology so advanced back then like batteries that could cool, heat and drive space buggies and yet today we still don’t have such good batteries. McGowan offers up a plethora of startling examples that has me nearly convinced. http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/index.html
<br />
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>May 23, 2015 at 12:23 pm
<br>
<br>Sorry Jimbo, but I simply cannot stand to read McGowan yap about his personal life and then throw in a few tidbits of what he thinks are proofs of his bizarre theories.
<br>
<br>I suffered through his Laural Canyon bullshit enough to catch the drift of what a dolt this sucker is.
<br>
<br>It’s like Fetzer, for me if Fetzer says it, it is automatically bullshit. Same with McGowan.
<br>
<br>Now, if someone were able to take what McGowan is saying and give a no nonsense presentation of just the facts, without all the hohoho & colored balloons provided by the McGowan clown I would appreciate that.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br />
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/two-docs-reveal-war-on-terror-mirage/#comment-31896">May 23, 2015 at 4:31 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Automatically bullshit? Wow. This is an usual lapse on your part, HR. Discounting any information because you don’t like the source is not logical. Information stands or falls on its own merits.
<br />
<br />
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>May 23, 2015 at 4:42 pm
<br>
<br>“Discounting any information because you don’t like the source is not logical.”
<br>
<br>Ii is not illogical when I have found the source to be consistently unreliable. The choice of what each of us finds to be valid or not is a right we all have in common.
<br>There are many diverse sources of information to chose from. Like I said, I read McGowan’s, Laurel Canyon series, I found it utterly ludicrous. I don’t find him a clear thinker, I don’t think he knows what he’s talking about.
<br>\\][//
<br />
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>May 23, 2015 at 3:07 pm
<br>
<br>Has it ever occurred to anybody that Dave McGowan is a satirist and his whole shtick is spoof blended in with an overdose of daily autobiography?
<br>
<br>Take the film Dark Side of the Moon, as an example. It is a spoof, and yet the Moon Hoax crew took it as serious.
<br>\\][//
<br />
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>May 23, 2015 at 4:25 pm
<br>
<br>No. No one who has read his stuff would think that. And I have a SERIOUS problem with your reference to the “Moon Hoax crew.” This is exactly the kind of thing a debunker would say to anyone engaged in conspiracy research. You might as well call them conspiracy nuts.
<br>
<br>I’ve seen many people fooled by satirical articles, but that has nothing to do with whether they are correct in their beliefs or not.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 169 -->
<a name="x170"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x170" class="tiny">x170</a>
Herr der Elf : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_170');">My T&S Time-Out</a></p>
<p>2015-06-11</p>
<div id="sect_170" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: <i>"Herr der Elf"</i> is an old alias of mine, but never used on <i>Truth & Shadows</i>. It was re-called and deployed to create subscription comments to T&S. As of 2015-09-09, no comment from Herr der Elf has made it out of moderation, some of that on purpose by including three URLs. This comment was never published.}</p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-32255">2015-06-11</a>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-32257">2015-06-11</a>
<br><b>Herr der Elf</b>
<br>
<br>
<br>I've been using my time-out from T&S for many purposes. One such endeavor -- at a very low priority and still incomplete -- has been some academic research at my local institution of higher education into the state of weapons technology leading up to 2001, particularly as it relates to my hobby-horse. I've already gathered information from over 100 technical articles from the lead-in decade. To give me a better grasp of fundamentals, I've patiently read several highly technical books cover-to-cover, and several others are checked out and to be read soon... when I get around to it.
<br>
<br>Others in this discussion above brought up Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood, not always in a good light and filled with much ignorance. This applies to both their supporters and detractors. Everything else weighing in its favor, a poorly argued case can still lose the argument.
<br>
<br><b>My opinion: Real aircraft hit the towers.</b> Period. All it should take to convince honest and open-minded no-planers of this is the many images of the landing gear, some taken before either tower was deciminated. The ones I like the best are Figure 9-123 from NIST NCSTAR 1-2B and also a different perspective of same damage:
<br>
<br>http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict1.jpg
<br>
<br>http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict7.jpg
<br>
<br>The two pictures show lying on the ground a portion of an aircraft wheel assembly embedded in a wall assembly that had been ripped out from the matching and still-smoking exit hole on one tower (towers still standing.) Very hard to fake. Ten differet reports exist of landing gear being found: on Vessey Street, West Street, in a parking lot, in a Jacuzzi, on top of a woman, Rector Street. I've done the physics math and proven at least to myself that pieces of the landing gear could have <i>"gone the distance"</i> to get to Park Place (roof) and then Church & Murray. [Goal achieved with an exit velocity of 122 mph, after being reduced from the impact velocity for +400 mph.]
<br>
<br>On top of this, those like Rich Hall or his fan, Dr. Fetzer, who promote things like holograms completely misconstrue the technology, its limitations (even today), and purposely & disingenously malframe the radar data. The latter by itself demonstrates disinformation in its purest form.
<br>
<br>So, real aircaft.
<br>
<br><b>Real aircraft, however, does not have to equate to the alleged commercial aircraft.</b>
<br>
<br>This is where some of Dr. Fetzer's earlier work comes into play ("pods on planes") as well as concepts from Dr. Wood (DEW). From my recent research, <b>many articles about DEW prior to 2001 talk about the practicality and high likelihood of mounting DEW devices on aircraft!!!</b>
<br>
<br>For the sake of discussion, let's say that the towers were built redundantly solid (as designed), such that a comparatively light aircraft might just in part bounce off, in part decimate itself (ala the Sandia F4 crash videos), and in part pass through like a pencil through a mesh screen (as designed), and thereby not create sufficient damage to the structure to make plausible the <i>"initiation of collapse."</i> A risk known at the onset and one where steps could be taken in the planning and execution to mitigate.
<br>
<br>Also for the sake of discussion, let's say that the no-planer's have a point that the crash physics is a bit hokey with the planes entering too easily, too completely into the towers. And remember that the official story has never definitely mapped serial numbers of plane parts found in NYC to the alleged commercial aircraft. It is a deliberate black hole.
<br>
<br><b>The deviant point here</b> is that <b>DEW "pods on planes"</b> could account for these anomalies. They could have softened the way somewhat in the entrance holes. Many different perspectives shows an anomalous flash on the towers' face prior to impact.
<br>
<br>As an aside, my research into DEW of that era convinces me (again) that DEW from space could not have achieved the decimation of the towers. The power source was typically chemical-base, and would require massive amounts; not trivial to get into space. Optics from space-to-ground further compounds being able to get sufficient energy per square surface area to do the decimation deed. In all of the Star Wars testing of DEW from ground-based systems, they <b><i>"cheated"</i></b> in the sense that they aimed a tight beam (small surface area, lots of energy per square inch) at <i>"explosive"</i> areas of their targets, e.g., fuel tanks or explosive payloads. Such cheating wasn't available in the towers, thereby making astronomical the source of power to account for the observed pulverization over many orders of magnitude larger surface area. The observed decimation was not tippy-top down as would be expected from space-based DEW. (It initiated 20 some floors within the tower.)
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood's PhD should have been able to calculate ball-park estimates to prove (or disprove) applicability and practicality. Missing in action. Her very shoddy research into nuclear sources for her DEW elements mounted within the towers is a glaring deficiency.
<br>
<br>Despite me shooting down Dr. Fetzer's work (e.g., holograms) and Dr. Wood's work (e.g., beams from space), doesn't mean that such sleight of hand disinfo detours into inapplicable space isn't masking tangential nuggets of truth from their work.
<br>
<br>For my loyal fans, my incomplete research has yet to dismount me from my hobby-horse, although it has been raising some doubts. So far, I attribute this to my research being limited to PUBLIC information and just the boarded-up entrance to what is a very deep CLASSIFIED rabbit-hole.
<br>
<br><b>Before either of my two main T&S detractors chimes in, don't.</b> I repeat, DO NOT!
<br>
<br>[*] The discussion has run its course; a new T&S article already has an active discussion.
<br>
<br>[*] They've already had their say (over many months), with nary a word edgewise from me.
<br>
<br>[*] This isn't aimed at them, and doesn't disagree with their views (e.g., <i>"real aircraft but not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft."</i>)
<br>
<br>[*] Their <i>"I agree"</i> or <i>"me-too-ism"</i> isn't sought. I do not desire engagement with them.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 170 -->
<a name="x171"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x171" class="tiny">x171</a>
Lilaleo : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_171');">everyone seems to have more of a problem with you than you have with them</a></p>
<p>2013-11-22</p>
<div id="sect_171" style="display: none;">
<p>Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/variation-on-milgram/#comment-569">November 22, 2013 at 10:05 pm</a>
<br>
<br><i>“I think Scott has more of a problem with me, than I do with him.”</i>
<br>
<br>Willy,
<br>
<br>If I may say as a friendly note, everyone seems to have more of a problem with you than you have with them. I am not even gonna go in to why I feel this may be so, because I sense that you already know… And, as you have expressed on a few occasions in the past, you don’t really “give a shit” about what people think about you… :-]]
<br>
<br>So, when you adopt a tone deaf argumentative persona and ignore people’s reactions to (mostly) your language, and you don’t give a shit, It just creates a cycle of feedback inhibition that gets out of hand on hot topic discussions. Especially with people who have steadfast with their convictions and don’t easily get intimidated by “language”.
<br>
<br>On a side note, I did get a notification email this morning when you posted your JFK article(s). So, seems like new post notifications seem to be working, but comment posting notifications don’t.
<br>
<br>And yes, I do stop by occasionally to sniff around, but haven’t had much time lately to participate in any discussions.
<br>
<br>Until next time, take care.</p>
</div><!-- section 171 -->
<a name="x172"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x172" class="tiny">x172</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_172');">discussing the ongoing time-out</a></p>
<p>2015-06-16</p>
<div id="sect_172" style="display: none;">
<br>On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Craig McKee wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Dear Mr. Bridges,
<br>
<br>So I gather you would like to resume posting comments on Truth and Shadows?
<br>
<br>There are some issues I would like to address with you before I decide whether to permit this. However, this will have to wait for a week or so because I am up against a couple of deadlines - one for AE and another that actually pays.
<br>
<br>I will tell you this, however. I have been enjoying the comment streams in recent weeks because more resemble conversations than many that went before. This is achieved at least partly because of the fact that comments have generally been not longer than 350 words or so. These relatively short comments allow for much more back and forth and make it easier and more pleasant for the reader to make sense of. Your last comment was about 1,000 words, and you've had others that go as high as 3,000. This kills the conversation, without me even addressing <i>what </i>the comment is about. This a whole other subject.
<br>
<br>I will pick this up with you again as soon as I have met my two pressing deadlines.
<br>
<br>Craig
<br></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br><span class="im">You wrote:
<blockquote><p>So I gather you would like to resume posting comments on Truth and Shadows?</p></blockquote>
<p>More than anything, I wanted to be able to subscribe to the discussions, but you did not re-enable this with my old alias. Subscription mission accomplished. Whether or not you take me off of moderation or desire me to assure at least 3 links in my comments to force them into the moderation queue for your review are other questions. I'm patient, and will save and later re-publish my words regardless. Although my last comment was 1,000 words, you're probably not moderating my comment from an actual view of the discussion in context, but from a queue of out-of-context comments awaiting your approval (or even your email inbox). Context ought to make a difference in your assessment. That comment was placed on a thread whose conversation had already stopped and the participants moved on. My comments were very much on-topic and researched.
<br>
<br>I don't do Twitter, Mr. McKee. Although you say long postings are a conversation stopper, I say that they are easier to skip over or for you to moderate. 1,000 words was what I had to say after much contemplation, review, editing, and revision, whether in a single comment or multi-part comments posted within seconds of one another verging on "forum flooding". If my detractors are going to get thrown into a hyped, over-reacting tizzy at the sight of one comment, what are they going to do when I blast relevant chunks of my bigger message as lots of little comments across the blog? I'm trying not to enrage them.Moreover, my long postings make valid points. They hold participants accountable for their words. I take time to compose my comments and don't post until finished, which, with interruptions, could take more than a couple calendar days and generate multiple versions. Such thought and contemplation invested in a single comment to your blog ought to be encouraged. The length of my comments isn't the issue. The issue is how my detractors engage me. Without me as a target to wind up these last months, participation trends are still evident and point to others as the bad apples.
<br>
<br>In movies and fiction -- and blog discussions --, <b>conflict breeds interest.</b> This maybe explains why you tolerate Mr. HR and Mr. RA to engage Mr. AW... with their trademark surly, shoot-from-the-hips and eye-poking back-hands. Worse is the discussion itself! Talk about carousel rides!
<br>
<br>
<br>++++
<br><b>Not too long ago, you revealed oh-so-briefly your views, Mr. McKee. Now you are firmly in the camp that nuclear weapons and DEW weren't involved, no? </b> Obviously, I would be curious about the evidence and analysis that convinced you, as well as the perceived flaws in my work that then didn't convince you.
<br>
<br><b>Why don't just you and I have a Jefferson-Franklin style conversation, something that we'll both ultimately publish? You could interview me and ask all sorts of questions.</b> [Joke] <i>"Herr der Elf, you seem to be the sole duped-useful idiot championing nuclear weapons were used on 9/11. Why? What evidence do you have?"</i> [/Joke] I'll respond to the questions in the batch, then you can ask another batch of question. You could debate me and point out flaws in my position, and I vice versa.
<br>
<br><b>You and I would be doing a great service to the 9/11 Truth Movement and world, if we could hash this out as reasonable, rational, articulate adults</b> without the interference of agents... at least until it gets published and you open it up for comments.
<br>
<br>Convince me or let me convince you. I'll even share my raw research with you obtained recently from my T&S time-out about DEW in the era leading up to 9/11 to help you get a leg up in asking intelligent questions and defending your beliefs.<b> Take down legitimately what I
<br>champion, if you can and God bless you in your efforts!!!</b>
<br>
<br><b>IT IS TIME FOR SUCH A DISCUSSION TO TRANSPIRE !</b>
<br>You know it, too. You've been fence sitting and avoiding it for years. An added benefit for doing this project with me is that I look at it as my last hurrah in championing the bat-shit-crazy. Neither you nor I will have to do it again. This could be the definitive word on my hobby-horse.
<br>
<br>To you, I have a tendency to reveal too much about me in my emails. This is to underscore that I am a real person, if I haven't already demonstrated that when I conceded points and modified my beliefs when presented with convincing evidence and analysis. I would hope that you don't consider me a troll on your blog as my detractors hype in their efforts to derail ideas and conversations.
<br>
<br>Alas, if I am a troll, I am certainly in a very different class of trolls from the Dr. Wood's supporters, the NPTers, the A.Wright's, the Albury's, the HR's, and the RA's, many of whom have been proven seriously wanting, if not dishonest and integrity-challenged, despite many fresh opportunities to rectify character deficiencies and defeat what I champion in a logical, researched, thoughtful manner.
<br>
<br>What makes me a different kind of troll, Mr. McKee, is that I am a true believer. I am indeed a religious fanatic: fanatical about Truth with a capital T and a synonym of God. I am sincere. If I error in my beliefs, I earnestly seek correction.I have been a reasonable, consistent, well-researched, well-organized, articulate discussion participant. {mcb: snip.}
<br>
<br>I respect you and your views, Mr. McKee. Always have. You do what I can't. Your 9/11 efforts are laudable. You and I are aligned on so many things, even most things 9/11. Nuclear DEW is the only outlier (except for sports, where I have little interest). As a writer yourself, you ought to be able to hold your own in any discussion with me. As a journalist, you ought to be able to ask appropriate questions and lead a discussion. Ultimately, you'll get to publish your edited version.
<br>
<br>So, Mr. McKee, after your immediate commitments are met, let's you and I respectfully go toe-to-toe. Ask me questions (prefaced with your views.) Save up the exchange; publish it as a blog post at the end.
<br>
<br>{mcb: snip.}
<br>All the best, Mr. McKee.
<br>
<br>// Herr der Elf, formerly Señor El Once
<br>
</div><!-- section 172 -->
<a name="x173"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x173" class="tiny">x173</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_173');">Maxifuck has been effectively silenced</a></p>
<p>2015-07-14</p>
<div id="sect_173" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-7345">2015-07-14</a>
<br>July 14, 2015 at 11:23 pm
<br>
<br><b>I just felt it was a good time to point out how pleasant it is on the web now that Maxifuck has been effectively silenced.
<br>
<br>Bravo!</b>
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 173 -->
<a name="x174"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x174" class="tiny">x174</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_174');">aren't getting enough <b>"fight"</b></a></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-7369">2015-07-15</a></p>
<div id="sect_174" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Posted but not published.}
<br>
<br>Ah, Mr. Rogue, you're such a persistent liar. Guess you aren't getting enough <b>"fight"</b> from the remnants on T&S (and the "yes-men" you've recruited) that you've got to level a dig at the only opponent who bested you -- big time and with your own petards -- to see if I can be re-animated.
<br>
<br>I'm around. I'm subscribed to T&S. Just not engaging. Hell, even Mr. McKee doesn't participate nowadays. And don't ask me why he puts more time into Facebook.
<br>
<br>Been using my time away from participating in T&S to good effect. Thankfully my new employment is another damn good reason to avoid the time-sucking temptation of commenting. But before I landed this job, I was doing what you were incapable of doing: fair and objective research at my institutions of higher education into my hobby-horse themes.
<br>
<br>You would find the book <i>"The E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Future Wares Will Be Fought"</i> by Doug Beason, Ph.D. 2005 an interesting read.
<br>
<br>My research is incomplete but far enough along that -- were I so inclined -- I could destill a new <b>"position statement"</b> on my hobby-horses. The fact that I can change my views based on research and analysis, proves my sincerity, humanity, and lack of disinfo agenda.
<br>
<br>I detest the treatment of Dr. Wood and of her themes. The former because it is unprofessional and low. The latter because people echo-chamber supposed debunking points without any real research or understanding.
<br>
<br>Proof, I suppose, of me being sincere in my search for 9/11 Truth, I could probably do now what you & Mr. Ruff were so <i><b>spectacularly</b></i> unable to do: <b>debunk Dr. Wood's themes LEGITIMATELY. </b>
<br>
<br>My learned opinion is that the only form of directed energy weapons that <i>might</i> have been involved (and <b><i>might not have</i></b>) with 9/11 would have been associated with the crashing planes at the towers, whereby <i>"pods on planes"</i> and the <i>"sudden flashes on WTC facade immediately prior to WTC planes"</i> recorded by many camera could hint at the very real ABL (airborne lasers). If used, they would have mitigated the risk that possibly the planes would not have penetrated sufficiently into the towers to make plausible their demise.
<br>
<br>Alas, it is one thing to sacrifice a couple of planes; quite another to sacrifice a couple of ABL system within the planes, a very costly endeavor. So even while I entertain with research the possibility of this, I don't champion it.
<br>
<br>My research also has me debunking all forms of <i>"beams from space"</i> today, even if the source were actually a ground-based laser bouncing its beams off of the mirrors of satillites. It is one thing to aim a high-powered laser at the fuel tanks or explosive payload of a missile, whereby a tiny breach takes advantage of the make-up of the target. It is quite another to muster sufficient energy density over a large surface area (e.g., WTC-6 crater) without explosive payloads to achieve what was observed on 9/11.
<br>
<br>Maybe because nuclear information is classified so heavily, my research into the public information about anything resembling <i>nuclear DEW</i> as I envisioned it has <i>not</i> been as fruitful as hoped. Hasn't been debunked, but hasn't been proven definitely, either.
<br>
<br>Truthfully, it is the anomalies that nano-thermite (NT) can't easily explain (e.g., duration of under-rubble hot-spots, brissance) and the major holes in the data collection & analysis of supporting documents to <i>"no-nukes"</i> (e.g., sampling delays, small sample sets, lack of explanation into elements in the samples, etc.) that inspire me to persist in my half-hearted research, where I seem to be the lone nut-case.
<br>
<br>These very areas are indeed where you, sir, error in your beliefs. <b>You don't admit to the failings!</b> NT didn't do it by itself, Dr. Jones said himself and an open-minded analysis of the evidence suggests. Yet nobody is looking into other sources. From all of your other readings & postings, I'm surprised that you can't see that the NT circus is just another propaganda/disinformation stunt.
<br>
<br>One of the detours in my hobby-horse research was in reading a book (mid-1990's) about Psychological Operations over the years: WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Russia, etc. Written by military people about military efforts. 9/11 fits the trend-line, particularly in the realm of lessons learned (e.g., "You need to have a coordinated message on all fronts.") Funny how the official word has never varied even in the face of blatant contradictions.
<br>
<br>But it's been nearly 14 years. My humble efforts -- if successful -- aren't going to change the world. Too much water under the damn. I've reached the point of diminishing returns. So even though I had 8 months when I had the time to really research and hone my newly aligned <b>"position statement"</b>, to what end? Rarely can I openly discuss this with friends and neighbors. So I circumscribed my efforts smaller, and avoided time sucking destractions (like Facebook).
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, Mr. Rogue, you should know that you were always the weaker. Not that you couldn't have been the stronger and bested me by something you might have dug up to get me to change my mind, but more important than your weak research & analysis skills, <b>you lacked integrity</b>, and still do. [Proven by your approach to Jimbo on T&S today.] About the only thing worthy you post is (poorly) quoted from others. Certainly, there is nothing honorable on your blog pertaining to me without your unhingement poking a reader in the eye and shooting yourself in the foot.
<br>
<br>Take a lesson from that. Improve your tactics going forward.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br> </p>
</div><!-- section 174 -->
<a name="x175"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x175" class="tiny">x175</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_175');">early stages of Alzheimer's?</a></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-7373">2015-07-15</a></p>
<div id="sect_175" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Posted but not published.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>Are you in the early stages of Alzheimer's? It appears so, and I'm sorry for you. Such a miserable way to go.
<br>
<br>How so?
<br>
<br>No where in my unpublished message did I state or infer that you were <i>"a bum ... for not giving [me] voice on [your] blog."</i> That you ascribe such to my clearly worded posting paints you either (1) a liar or (2) in age-related senility.
<br>
<br><b>I made and make no such requests to have my words published on your blog.</b>
<br>
<br>To set the record straight, I care not one little bit about getting my words published on your blog. Not necessary.
<br>
<br>However, since you brought it up, the very fact that you are too chicken-shit to publish my comments on your blog does illustrate from a different direction how you lack integrity, how weak your arguments, and how much you fear me in debate.
<br>
<br>Geez, FYI and for what it's worth, I already made tons of hay on my blog in the lofty status you've bestowed on me of <b>NOT</b> being permitted to comment and respond on your blog. Badge of honor that dings your character. Compared to you, I have been vastly fairer on my blog in the treatment of your words with accurate quotations and links to the source, although you've never made a comment there and made no attempts either. (Again too chicken-shit to take me on directly.) Objective readers finding both our blogs will suss this out.
<br>
<br>Despite my valid <i>"chicken-shit"</i> taunts, I do <b>NOT</b> desire publication, debate, discussion, or discourse with you. You were the one pinging me to life.
<br>
<br>Alas, another (1) lie or (2) <b>"senile wishful thinking"</b> in your comment is that my unpublished message to you was in vain.
<br>
<br><b>The 2005 book <i>"The E-BOMB"</i> by Doug Beason gives you the ammunition (and understanding) to debunk Dr. Wood <i>legitimately</i>.</b>
<br>
<br>Check it out from your local library, even if it requires an inter-library loan from an institution of higher education.
<br>
<br>When championing Truth with sincerity, honesty, and respect, banishment can back-fire.
<br>
<br>Do endeavor to <b>NOT</b> respond to this. Your readers will never be the wiser (until lazy old me one of these days possibly months from now gets around to re-purposing these words for my blog. But by then, who will care? Only the sincere seekers of Truth.)
<br>
<br>All the best in your remaining days of lucidity, Mr. Rogue. Be happy, because for all I know at my present age more than a decade your junior, I have the beginning signs of the casualty or disease which will terminate my earthly existence.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 175 -->
<a name="x176"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x176" class="tiny">x176</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_176');">written in vain yet again</a></p>
<p>2015-07-15</p>
<div id="sect_176" style="display: none;">
<p>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-7370
<br>
<br><b>Maxitwat has written me to say that I am treating Jimbo poorly on T&S. He has written to tell me what a bum I am for not giving him voice on my blog.
<br>He has written in vain yet again.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br><img alt="" src="http://41.media.tumblr.com/5e07d395b0af1cb8cc4d4bcf9180b507/tumblr_mo1px5fz611qau6bdo1_500.jpg" />
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 176 -->
<a name="x177"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x177" class="tiny">x177</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_177');">the difference between quoting someone and characterizing what they say</a></p>
<p>2015-07-15</p>
<div id="sect_177" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-7375">July 16, 2015 at 2:49 am</a>
<br>
<br>What a dumbfuck Maxitwerp, you still do not understand the difference between quoting someone and characterizing what they say…like my saying you wrote to tell me I am a bum for not giving you a voice here… whining about it for a whole page of mindless verbosity … pretending it does not anger you to have no voice on the web but for your seldom viewed blog that no one gives a shit about.
<br>
<br>No my memory is just fine toots, go gobble some more dick.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 177 -->
<a name="x178"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x178" class="tiny">x178</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_178');">stop polluting your smear job on me</a></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-7401">2015-07-16</a></p>
<div id="sect_178" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Posted but not published.}
<br>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>Stop polluting your despicable, vile, disinfo smear job on me with <i>meaningful</i> but inapplicable dribble from others!!! It's just a lame attempt to get their wisdom to rub off on you. Focus, asshole, and don't water down your efforts! As probably the one and only subscriber to this thread, I do not need the constant reminders that your wisdom isn't so wonderful, necessitating you borrowing from others.
<br>
<br>Go fuck around on your other threads. This one should be purer in its Rogue-ian poison.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 178 -->
<a name="x179"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x179" class="tiny">x179</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_179');">the difference between quoting someone and characterizing what they say</a></p>
<p>2015-07-16</p>
<div id="sect_179" style="display: none;">
<p>hybridrogue1
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-7375">July 16, 2015 at 2:49 am</a>
<br>
<br>What a dumbfuck Maxitwerp, you still do not understand the difference between quoting someone and characterizing what they say…like my saying you wrote to tell me I am a bum for not giving you a voice here… whining about it for a whole page of mindless verbosity … pretending it does not anger you to have no voice on the web but for your seldom viewed blog that no one gives a shit about.
<br>
<br>No my memory is just fine toots, go gobble some more dick.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-7402">July 16, 2015 at 7:46 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Señor El Once aka Maxitwat, etc…
<br>2 minutes ago
<br>“Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>Stop polluting your despicable, vile, disinfo smear job on me with meaningful but inapplicable dribble from others!!! It’s just a lame attempt to get their wisdom to rub off on you. Focus, asshole, and don’t water down your efforts! As probably the one and only subscriber to this thread, I do not need the constant reminders that your wisdom isn’t so wonderful, necessitating you borrowing from others.
<br>Go fuck around on your other threads. This one should be purer in it’s Rogue-ian poison.” //
<br>. . . .
<br><b>So now this arrogant son-of-a-bitch is trying to tell me how to manage my own blog, my own threads!! He wants everything on this thread dedicated to himself only!!
<br>Hahahahaha!!</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 179 -->
<a name="x180"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x180" class="tiny">x180</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">reminds me of Maxitwat</a></p>
<p>2015-07-26</p>
<div id="sect_180" style="display: none;">
<p>hybridrogue1
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/the-warren-commission-cult/#comment-7658">July 26, 2015 at 6:21 pm</a>
<br>In his usual disingenuous manner Bill Clarke prevaricates, minces words, and plays rhetorical games on JFKfacts. Clarke’s distinction between “Classification” and “Clearance” is not only meaningless, but irrational. He slurs Fletcher Prouty, making claims that he can only backup with bullshit accusations. Bill is the one who is a liar and arrogant know-nothing when it comes to deep knowledge of covert affairs. He reminds me of Maxitwat from T&S in many ways.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 180 -->
<a name="x181"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x181" class="tiny">x181</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_181');">very consistent with my online aliases</a></p>
<p>2015-07-27</p>
<div id="sect_181" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Posted but not published.}
<br>
<br>Señor El Once
<br>Your comment is awaiting moderation.
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/the-warren-commission-cult/#comment-7671">July 27, 2015 at 4:40 am</a>
<br>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>You have the freedom to have your memory jogged in many ways. But please be careful who you equate with me. I’m very consistent with my online aliases, taking credit for them, re-publishing my efforts, etc. Bottom line is that I have been enjoying an internet hiatus; stop re-animating me.
<br>
<br>You heard it first from “the Maxitwat” himself. I am not any those other people with whom you’ve been debating on other forums of which I know nothing. I do not like being equated with them. And based on your PR smear campaign against me, I’m sure they don’t want to be associated with me or as me, either. Don’t make stupid mistakes, asshole.
<br>
<br>And as long as I’m tipsy from a weekend fiesta, let me say… Regardless of what others (e.g., Bill Clarke) may write, ~I~ have substantiated why I found you to be a “liar, cheat, and a weasel” in your discussions with me. Intractable you are, as well as unconvincing in your arguments and substantiation (*cough, cough*) to most of which is meant to get me to change my mind.
<br>
<br>I am not going to waste my time following links (if they exist) to where you are having this passionate love-affair with Bill Clarke, who it seems has also pegged you a liar for reasons that I remain ignorant of. Mr. Clarke’s hobby-horse ain’t mine. And I am very much a one-trick pony and out of the picture. Don’t bring me in needlessly, to have me “me-too” my negative experience with you that builds up Mr. Clarke.
<br>
<br>Finally, I sympathize with your problems. Once you start playing the “alias ASS-ociating” game, it is easy to get carried away. Hell, I have half-a-mind that pegs you with sockpuppets as diverse as: VerityTwo, A.Wright, and AdamRuff. And that mulit-player software you use… What’s it called? “Persona Management System? Ain’t perfect, is it? I’ll be it as bugs, like the ones that cause you to post in the wrong place and imperfectly helps you monitor the forums.
<br>
<br>Leave me out from now one.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 181 -->
<a name="x182"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x182" class="tiny">x182</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_182');">right where I want you Maxiturd, bound and shackled in the cellar with your mouth taped shut</a></p>
<p>2015-07-27</p>
<div id="sect_182" style="display: none;">
<p>hybridrogue1
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-7682">July 27, 2015 at 4:46 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I got you right where I want you Maxiturd, bound and shackled in the cellar with your mouth taped shut, you pathetic impotent cunt. Thanks for your latest drunken squalling whine.
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 182 -->
<a name="x183"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x183" class="tiny">x183</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_183');">don't give me the notion to send you emails</a></p>
<p>2015-07-27</p>
<div id="sect_183" style="display: none;">
<p>{email}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>Evidently "bound and shackled in the cellar with mouth taped shut" is the only way you can hope to "win" a discussion. Probably a variant thereof is how you like your sex with Mr. Ruff, Mr. VerityTwo, and Mr. A.Wright. I'm sure Ernie and Ruth and your kids don't approve [not of your sexual orientation but of your deviant skew.]
<br>
<br>Clearly this email disproves your premise about my mouth being taped shut. What I've written to you on your blog (and you've left unpublished) does get published on my forums. I am not without voice. Just slow to consolidate and re-purpose. Because I am fair with your words, readers get a more accurate impression of you, if your one-sided foul rants didn't already poke them in the eye.
<br>
<br>I know you don't want emails from me. I've held to your request, but you haven't to mine.
<br>
<br>Stop pinging me back to life on your blogs dedicated to me or off-hand references to me on other blogs you run or participate in... unless I've written something that merits it.
<br>
<br>Stop your speculation into alias-ASS-ociating me with others (more unwarranted pings on your blog), because they aren't me. I don't have time or inclination for such games. I'm doing you a favor by telling you this, so you aren't proven the fool. Don't give me the notion to CYBER-stalk you into those forums and tag-team with your debate-partner to really frag your ass, but good.
<br>
<br>Shit, don't give me the notion to send you emails. I know you don't want them.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 183 -->
<a name="x184"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x184" class="tiny">x184</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_184');">cunt Maxiturd stalked me through the Internet</a></p>
<p>2015-08-01</p>
<div id="sect_184" style="display: none;">
<p>hybridrogue1
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-7830">2015-08-01</a>
<br>
<br>For years this cunt Maxiturd stalked me through the Internet, harassing me at every website i commented on, called me a weasel and a cheat and a liar with serious intent to defame my good name, and Now he wants me to leave him “out of it”. Just as late as 2015/07/27 at 4:40 am, I got another whining complaint that poor little twatdog Max wants me to leave him alone.
<br>
<br>Well maybe if you would shut your lying fucking mouth and stop badgering me here on my own blog I might just forget about you Bridges. But no! you have to snivel and bitch like some whining cunt – STILL harassing me. If you don’t like what you read here, you stupid motherfucker, then don’t drop by and read it! It’s that easy you silly chump!
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 184 -->
<a name="x185"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x185" class="tiny">x185</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_185');">a pretty big set of venues</a></p>
<p>2015-08-03</p>
<div id="sect_185" style="display: none;">
<p>{email}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>Clearly, I've been your only worthy debate opponent, which is why you feel compelled to constantly re-animate me in discussions with your antics that do little to dissuade people of my assessment of you: <b>liar, cheater, and weasel.</b>
<br>
<br>Case in point, you wrote on your blog in response to my email request to stop re-animating me:</p>
<blockquote><p>For years this cunt Maxiturd stalked me through the Internet, harassing me at every website i commented on, ...</p></blockquote>
<p>You can't even get half-way through your first sentence -- a run-on sentence at that -- without uttering your first lie. <i>"Every website [you] commented on"</i> is a pretty big set of venues.
<br>
<br>How about you list all of the websites and therein specific articles (or blog entries) where you have been active since 2012? Then using my website, where I very much OCD-style take credit for ~all~ of my internet commentary (and aliases), determine a similar list for me. [I'm such a gracious and fair fellow, I'll even let you restrict internet activities to just 2014 or 2015 to avoid busy work into those other years' analysis that undoubtedly lead to the same conclusions: you're lying about "every website".]
<br>
<br>PSYCHIC PREDICTION: The Venn-Diagram of overlap between us will be small. Outside the overlap, we can ignore the few venues in which I participated and you didn't (e.g., Facebook), because they don't factor into your premise. However, because it's your premise, we cannot ignore the very large number of venues in which you participated and I didn't that frags you as a liar.
<br>
<br>Case in point, I don't know the URLs, but (1) you and Adam Ruff were active this last year (?) on a psychology website attacking 9/11 conspiracies, and (2) you are presently involved in multiple JFK conspiracy discussions. Neither website (nor any specific articles contained therein) have had any comments from me whatsoever, much less comments harassing you. Failure right there, Mr. Rogue. Liar, liar.
<br></p>
<blockquote><p>... called me a weasel and a cheat and a liar with serious intent to defame my good name.</p></blockquote>
<p>I still call you a weasel, a cheat, and liar -- with substantiation renewed in your recent blog comment --, but it has zero to do with any intent on my part to defame your good name (which may have never been good, for all I know and for what your track record has been.) Shit, I've given you ample fair and objective opportunities to correct the record and your ongoing behavior. You are oblivious to your own failings and continue to ding your own reputation yourself.
<br></p>
<blockquote><p>..., and Now he wants me to leave him "out of it". Just as late as 2015/07/27 at 4:40 am, I got another whining complaint that poor little twatdog Max wants me to leave him alone.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>It was not sent at 4:40 am.</b> It was sent at 2015-07-27 4:26 pm (MST) in response to your 10:46 am (MST) blog comment [that has the July 27, 2015 at 4:46 pm time stamp, because your blog doesn't know what time zone it is in.]
<br>
<br><i>"Unfaithful in the small, unfaithful in the large..."</i>
<br></p>
<blockquote><p>Well maybe if you would shut your lying fucking mouth and stop badgering me here on my own blog I might just forget about you Bridges.</p></blockquote>
<p>Including this message, my last two communications with you was via email. Ergo, it unravels as yet another recent bold-face lie from you that I'm <i>"badgering [you] on [your] own blog."</i> <b>Email is not your blog.</b>
<br>
<br>If I have written lies, you have yet to identify them nor defend them as such in open debate. Quite the contrary; your accusations have been beaten back, and you've received in-your-face renewed substantiation of you being a liar, a cheat, and a weasel.
<br>
<br>Worse still, it unravels as an ongoing cheat and weasel move from you to utter such nonsense about me allegedly badgering you when ~nothing~ from me has ever been approved for publication on your weasel blog. In other words, you can't point lurkers readers to a single instance of my participation on your blog, thereby making null-and-void any claims of such instances being badgering. [I'd give you half-credit if you can cough up the blog comment numbers of my dastardly deeds, but, alas, without publication, half-credit is still only 50% and a failing "F" in substantiating your premise.]
<br>
<br>Furthermore, you have the technical ability to filter my emails into the trash unread and to ban me from your blog such that you won't even be aware of <i>"another whining complaint [from] that poor little twatdog Max"</i>... EVER AGAIN! Lurker readers might very well question why such actions weren't taken already much much earlier, particularly if my activities communicating with you were in truth so out of line.
<br></p>
<blockquote><p>But no! you have to snivel and bitch like some whining cunt - STILL harassing me. If you don't like what you read here, you stupid motherfucker, then don't drop by and read it! It's that easy you silly chump!</p></blockquote>
<p>I'm subscribed. I don't have to drop-by and give you the satisfaction of +1 to your pageview count. As soon as you post and I check my email, I see it. And of course I'm going to stay subscribed, because it's under one of the two blogs that<b> you have dedicated to me!</b>
<br>
<br>I was going to make you a deal, Mr. Rogue. It was: If you don't re-animate me with stupid comments about me to your lame-ass blog, then I won't make a project out of you. A project, how so? One option. I could take you up on your back-handed on-going invitations and show you what internet stalking is really about. Unfortunately for you, you won't be able to claim to others <i>"I told you about Maxiretards cyber-stalking! SEE!"</i> Why not? Because today a mark is put in the sand for everything that transpired in the past that already proves you a liar for claiming such about me. Anything "cyber-stalking and harrassing" by me going forward from today's mark in the sand fits into a new category and will be explained away as you having regularly badgered me into it (e.g., link to your last blog comment).
<br>
<br>And you can bet, I'll have URLs and accurate quotations at-the-ready, and you won't.
<br>
<br>Eh, who am I kidding? You aren't worth the trouble. I changed my mind well before finishing the text on the deal.
<br>
<br>Nah, you can and should continue <b><i>"jabbering with yourself"</i></b> and raving like a lunatic to no one in particular on your blog (about me or about whomever). In fact, rather than me taking the tact of respectfully asking you to stop your re-animation efforts, I'm now doing just the opposite. I encourage you to publish more of your raving, flaming, coo-coo unhingement about me anywhere on your blog, but especially under those dedicate to me. Make all manor of unfounded alias-associations with me that you want.
<br>
<br>How can I be so encouraging and cavalier about the libel that you produce about me? Because it is just that. Very little substance even about topics of substance.
<br>
<br>I know that the poor overall quality of your blog will shoot you in the foot if you try to include the URL to even a single entry from your blog as "substantiation" in a comment to any debate elsewhere involving me (... the real me, and not some schmuck that you alias-ASSociate to be me.) A lurker reader following the URL and scrolling up/down for context won't be nearly as convinced as you were in writing it. Subsequent Googling of me from your blog takes them to my blog and will further undermine your case. I'll be vindicated. You? Not so much. Shoot, the only way your blog can re-deem itself and you is to flush what's there and start again, el-oh-el!
<br>
<br>My blog and website don't have that problem, because they were written from the high-road at the onset, Mr. Rogue. I learned from my mistakes in my earlier debates and improved my tactics accordingly. My words don't poke lurker-readers in the eye. Not only do I include well-formatted and accurate quotations from you, I link to the source discussions. Whether context of my blog or context of the source discussion, my efforts stand up and stand the test of time even where I was wrong and had to apologize and amend my views later.
<br>
<br>It should already be evident who the stupid silly chump has been.
<br>
<br>You keep on keeping on, Mr. Rogue. El-oh-el.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 185 -->
<a name="x186"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x186" class="tiny">x186</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_186');">public accolades</a></p>
<p>2015-08-19</p>
<div id="sect_186" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>You deserve some public accolades from me, for you have done me a great service these many years by permitting (until last Spring) my comments and attempts at rational discussion about bat-shit crazy themes in validating them or legitimately taking them out. The debates have honed my research and opinions. And my infrequent participation on T&S -- once extracted, collected, and re-purposed in the new OCD context of my website & blog -- owe their very existence and quality to the high standards set by your blog.
<br>
<br>I've offered public apologies for when I was wrong, September Clues and NPT being the big ones. I'm not as rabid about Dr. Wood anymore either. I should also count therein the crazy piece that I authored for T&S that was an open letter to Richard Gage and Jonathon Cole about energy requirements. I don't hold to those same views completely anymore, but I was sincere in them at the time and you were nice enough to give me larger megaphone on the subject. No hard feelings on my end that my subsequent work was not the right fit (*way* too long) to merit publishing on T&S.
<br>
<br>Under your recent blog, I fear publication on my grateful words could inspire my detractors negatively and derail the honors & praise clearly you deserve and that I echo here. So I won't be using this message to respectfully request a return of my commenting abilities. Testament to your work and the forum you've fostered, I subscribe even from exile.
<br>
<br>I purchased one of the A&E packages of A&E 9/11 "Beyond Misinformation" so that I can distribute them, but haven't received them yet. I'm sure I'll be in agreement with 90% of it or more. I'll keep at least one for my 9/11 library.
<br>
<br>If you worked on "Beyond Misinformation," would it be possible for you to send me an electronic version? A PDF could work, or even just a text-export from the source files. I don't need the source files, but if it is in a format from a common application, why not? I give you herewith my promise not to abuse or copyright infringe upon the work, or make any look-a-like derivative works. I'm just trying to save myself from having to manually re-type passages from the printed version that I'll get any day now when I want to quote it accurately for fair-use in my future commentary.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, I'm hoping to get over my procrastination soon by authoring a definitive piece on my hobby-horse topic, maybe by 9/11. The research is done, and much can be mined from my previous works. But you know how real-life can get in the way. I've been burned out and disillusioned with 9/11, and calculating the diminishing returns from voicing my deviant 9/11 views when juxtaposed with obtaining employment, managing retirement investments, coaching kids soccer, attending to the needs of the family, and performing lodge work, etc.
<br>
<br>I suppose I'm also saddened by your silence in communicating with me, an indication that I might have lost your respect. I apologize for putting you into the position where you had to exercise your editorial control against my comments and participation.
<br>
<br>With continuing gratitude to your 9/11 efforts, I thank you for your blog and the discussion venue. As always, I wish you well.
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>// Herr der Elf</p>
</div><!-- section 186 -->
<a name="x187"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x187" class="tiny">x187</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_187');">proposal isn’t something I want to devote a lot of time to</a></p>
<p>2015-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_187" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>Thank your for your nice reply.
<br>
<br>You wrote regarding my proposal:
<br></p>
<blockquote><p>I know you proposed a discussion (debate) about the nuclear theory some time back, and I did think about what that would involve. But for me, the time it would require for research makes it a low priority for me. It’s not that I don’t think it’s worthwhile, it’s that it isn’t something I want to devote a lot of time to.</p></blockquote>
<p>Would it change your opinion if I've already done the research for you? I've gone to great lengths to format such research for web publication and navigation. Wouldn't take that much time to skim and then find the nuggets worth detailed reading.
<br>
<br>As always, I'll be too candid. I've included everything, even those articles that don't completely make my case and suggest that such things are still down the road. Also based on this research, I don't believe traditional lasers (as one form of DEW) could have accomplished 9/11 at the WTC. Not even space-based ones.
<br> </p>
<blockquote><p>I know the towers were blown up, and respect anyone who wants to, and can, enlighten us as to how they were blown up. But that’s not likely to be me. And frankly, I don’t really see the pressing need for the debate. And I see nothing to be gained from people like Fetzer attacking AE as being “thermite sniffers.”</p></blockquote>
<p>I'm unaware of that particular Fetzer-ism.
<br>
<br>Still, AE does have several legitimate avenues for attack that does center around the weight and importance placed on thermite. AE has purposely left out the detailed math that would justify NT meeting the requirements needed for pulverization as well as the duration of hot-spots. NT doesn't add up. The samples given to Dr. Jones are the only ones supposedly containing it. (Can you say, <i>"chain-of-custody issues?"</i>) The USGS sampling of the dust was more thorough and reveals probably many elements in the data tables that it probably shouldn't have (which is why no discussion is made of it). Still, that report -- together with the RJ Lee report, Lioy et al., and others -- do no substantiate the NT claim.
<br>
<br>If you've read thoroughly any of my evolving articles, you'd know where the whole no-nukes work presented by Dr. Jones also has major holes in it.
<br>
<br>Others could say the same as you, but regarding CIT: <i>"I don’t really see the pressing need for the debate."</i> They'd elaborate that we're never going to get any Truth out of the Pentagon or govt agencies, otherwise we'd already have the confiscated videos. You were obviously able to overcome this, explain why it was important, and press-on in support of Pentagon fly-over. (BTW, on this front, I owe you an apologize, and it serves as another area where I've changed my tune. As you recall when it first came up, I was skeptical and was cautioning you against going into it too deeply. I was wrong.)
<br>
<br>However, I think the justification for going into the details on the Pentagon and the towers' destruction aren't just parallel, they are re-enforcing of one another. Revelation of these two together could inspire revolution (at the ballot boxes or more).
<br>
<br>You wrote: </p>
<blockquote><p>I would certainly read any essay you posted on your blog, however. Or any debate you might organize with an opponent. And I would find a way to inform readers that you had posted it.</p></blockquote>
<p>That's wonderful, were it not for the LOL-fact that my would-be debate opponents (HR and AdamR) have proven themselves dishonorable.
<br> </p>
<blockquote><p>You mentioned your hobby horse. And this is where I think things went off track in terms of your participation on TS. I think to participate in discussions on different topics, you have to be willing to set the hobby horse aside and comment on different things.</p></blockquote>
<p>First of all, my hobby-horse is ~not~ where things went off track. You even said as much yourself (paraphrased): <i>"It isn't the topic itself that is bad, but the bad behavior it creates in some participants."</i> I won't regurgitate the details, because my blog has been documenting my negative treatment pretty well.
<br>
<br>Secondly, I have proven my ability to discuss many other subjects, other than my one remaining hobby-horse. Case in point, I read Kevin Ryan's book when HR and ARuff both refused; but that didn't stop them from making disparaging comments. Owing to my naive open-minded nature (and having been a shirt-tail punk), I have readily explored many different sources, even when labeled as disinfo at the onset. On the whole, I discovered why they were labeled disinfo, but also why they still merited study and consideration. September Clues, No Planes, deep underground nukes, Holograms, and Dr. Wood fall into this category.
<br>
<br>Thirdly, owing to bad blood from getting pwned so badly by me, it isn't ~what~ I write anymore but ~that~ I write, which will throw my detractors into a tizzy. I've got example after example of HR's first shoot-from-the-hips reply to one of my comments being derogatory and ad hominem.
<br>
<br>With me silenced, it is easy to see that I'm not the only one he does this to. It is his nature, if not his agenda.
<br>
<br> </p>
<blockquote><p>But it seemed that as things went along you became more concerned with slipping in the nuke topic whenever you thought you could. That became a problem.</p></blockquote>
<p>Truth is truth, Mr. McKee. It wasn't me slipping in nuclear topics in a valid way relevant to the discussion at hand that became the problem. The problem was with those whose agenda it is to make a scene about it. They could have just easily ignored me, and many times were encouraged to do just that. Had that been heeded, my comments would have been one-hit-wonders for the latter-day lurker readers, and nothing more.
<br>
<br>A.Wright, Tamborine Man, and Emmanuel Goldstein are probably far worse in this regards, mostly because their minds will never be changed. Yet they are tolerated, as are the unhinged over-reactions.
<br> </p>
<blockquote><p>And it had a noticeably negative effect on the discussion.</p></blockquote>
<p>Like I said, it doesn't matter ~what~ I write. I believe that because I was proven to be naively open-minded and intelligent in pursuing evidence and truth, I was targeted and remain so. Does HR have blog entries devoted to any of the three trolls mentioned above? No.
<br>
<br></p>
<blockquote><p>As I’ve mentioned before, you were the one who used to tell me to tell those with their own hobby horses to start their own blogs rather than using mine for that purpose.</p></blockquote>
<p>Indeed, I've had my website for over a decade, and my blog longer than yours. Different goals and purposes. I've had no issues with my comments being deleted from your blog when you felt they were out of line. I stood behind them and re-purposed them.
<br>
<br>What I've had issues with is you not being as heavy-handed with HR and not cutting as deeply into his obnoxious replies.
<br>
<br>Also, I've had issues in not letting me post links to my blog. Geez, even today, I read HR posting links to his lame-ass blog as if it were the definitive authority. The links go to blog entries that I have thoroughly trashed. Some recently (today) are in response to a Wood-follower (Roger Gloux).
<br>
<br>... And damn if AdamR doesn't out himself as related to HR in some sock fashion!
<br>
<br>The thing is, unlike HR and AdamR, I can now debunk Dr. Wood legitimately.
<br>
<br>It is well that I remained silenced, though. I don't need the time suck or HR's ~and~ AdamR's circus.
<br>
<br><b>Tell you what, though. Contact Roger Gloux off list with my contact information. I'll be happy to attempt to set him straight off-list and debunk Dr. Wood legitimately.</b>
<br>
<br>I have half a mind to encourage you in debate with HR on the Moon Landing Hoax. The parallelisms between your experience and mine will be striking. You'll find him intractable and in capable of changing his mind. He'll be unfaithful in the small things, and thus untrustworthy in general.
<br>
<br>The main thing you'll have going in your favor, Mr. McKee, in debating HR will be "kiss-up." In other words, HR needs your blog more than you need his. He has a habit of so provoking others on their own blogs to the point of an inharmonious parting of ways. He won't be doing that to you, owing to his dependence on your blog. And if I am wrong and he does, ... well, I'll be vindicated by you in my assessment of HR.
<br>
<br> </p>
<blockquote><p>So that’s where things are now. I’m open to hearing any other thoughts you may have on the subject. I appreciate your ongoing interest and the fact that you found this site before just about anyone else.</p></blockquote>
<p>In summary, I've done a ton of leg-work. Of all the related articles captured in my research, I can point to maybe two or three sources that really make the case which further reduces your effort, in addition to my shredding of the NT case. Doesn't really mean that I can't still be wrong, but that those who argue one thing (e.g., NT) should be able to support it "the whole 9 yards."
<br>
<br>Returning to a point you made up top (regarding research) and to you being open to hear other thoughts from me. For a <b>DEBATE</b> between you and I, your research concerns are well-founded. Even if I give you the totality of my sources, you'll want your own.
<br>
<br>But you are a skilled journalist.
<br>
<br>I'm sure you've written about many things that you didn't know well, and may have even walked into an interview (totally or even somewhat) ignorant on the subject. To a certain degree, you probably let the interviewee "school you." Your role was to ask interesting, leading questions, and then afterwards to distill this down into a Q&A interview piece. You may be even let the bent of the interviewee persist in the final article, unless there were some aspects to the story that your gut questioned and you felt the need to second-source. Ultimately, what was published may have been flattering to the interviewee, and only subsequent articles and efforts would challenge and take-to-task issues discovered in it later.
<br>
<br>My point is: <b>INTERVIEW ME</b>. Maintain your up-front ignorance, but use your interviewing skills to get out of me what needs to be said. You don't have to take sides, and you can even write disclaimers regarding your beliefs.
<br>
<br>I've given you my telephone number in the past. I don't mind having some conversations with you on the telephone.. But I would prefer being able to write my responses, because I can put more thought into it. You can set some guidelines regarding response length, etc.
<br>
<br>Maybe a legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood's will slip out, which the Truth Movement sorely needs and you'll get accolades for making happen.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, pleasure discoursing with you, Mr. McKee.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 187 -->
<a name="x188"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x188" class="tiny">x188</a>
T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_188');">the power to flabbergast</a></p>
<p>2015-08-27</p>
<div id="sect_188" style="display: none;">
<p>Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33335">August 19, 2015 at 11:41 pm</a>
<br>I’m glad I still have the power to flabbergast. I seem to be slipping in so many other areas. I don’t know if I’ll write about this someday. We’ll see. But it’s not a priority just now.
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33299">August 18, 2015 at 11:21 pm</a>
<br>Thanks, Adam. And there’s lots I can relate to in your journey, although you were involved well ahead of me. I was a big Michael Moore fan, and I think you are right when you say that it opened that door a bit even though he doesn’t go nearly far enough. I think Moore has helped a lot of people to open up to the idea that the world portrayed by the mainstream media isn’t the real story. Of course, I wish he’d get into 9/11, but I imagine he is concerned about his career.
<br>
<br>Thanks for participating and for your two excellent contributions. Maybe you should start thinking of an idea for number three?
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33330">August 19, 2015 at 10:04 pm</a>
<br>“Minds that dismiss NASA”? Willy, this comment is so far below your usual high standard. Are you sure a “debunker” didn’t slip behind your computer when you weren’t looking?
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33336">August 19, 2015 at 11:44 pm</a>
<br>It doesn’t surprise me, and I have no problem that you take the position you do. I object to the comparison between those who question the Apollo missions and people who believe the Earth is flat. It really sounds more like an ad hominem attack.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 20, 2015 at 9:44 pm
<br>I know you and others here will be insulted by the term “conspiricist” used at the Clavius site. Unfortunately if you want to confront the real science here you are going to have do deal with it.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33359">August 20, 2015 at 10:16 pm</a>
<br>I’m not insulted by the term. The term is what debunkers like Jonathan Kay use to attack the messenger while not responding to the message. Anyone who uses the term has no credibility with me.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 20, 2015 at 10:38 pm
<br>“…to attack the messenger while not responding to the message.”~Craig
<br>But the Clavius site does respond in detail to the ‘message’.
<br>
<br>“Anyone who uses the term has no credibility with me.”~Ibid
<br>So you will ignore the science because you don’t like the term ‘conspiracist’ – is that your position Craig?
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33367">August 20, 2015 at 11:26 pm</a>
<br>Of course not. But I don’t think we’ve established that your side of the debate represents the scientific view while mine does not.
<br>
<br>The term is disinformation, in my opinion. That doesn’t mean it’s always used deliberately to deceive; some people who are honest will fall for this bogus “scientist/conspiracist” contrast. But it’s like people who mock positions by trotting out the “conspiracy theory” label. They might be correct in one statement or another, but an argument that employs these labels is suspect.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 20, 2015 at 11:41 pm
<br>Frankly Craig, I don’t think there is any reason to continue this discussion on this thread.
<br>If the term “debunkers” is acceptable, while the term “Conspiracist” is verboten, then we will simply spin in a vortex of rhetorical semantics.
<br>
<br>I am a conspiracy theorist, regardless of the attempt to slur that term. I am not quailed by the term conspiracist. I am not quailed by the term debunker. I am interested in the substance of a proposition or a critique.
<br>
<br>So far I have encountered little substance but rather arguments over language on this topic.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33371">August 21, 2015 at 12:15 am</a>
<br>Willy, you are not obligated to continue with any thread, of course. That’s your call. What I choose to comment on is my call.
<br>
<br>I don’t see the vortex you speak of. I reacted to the term in question (because I believe language is very important, particularly in the “conspiracy” area), and you engaged me on that. And I don’t see the relevance of the comparison with “debunkers.” No one, to my knowledge objects to that term. “Conspiracist” is not verboten; that is not what I said. But it is a made-up word used to take attention off of what is being questioned and onto the person doing the questioning.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 19, 2015 at 11:54 pm
<br>The reason I brought up the flat earth subject is because I came across that site from a YouTube video trying to debunk the new findings on Pluto, that was mainly a full frontal attack on NASA. The person that posted that video is the same as the one with the flat earth site.
<br>
<br>Perhaps it is because I was so interested in astronomy as a youngster, and have studied it and space travel from an early age, that I have a fuller understanding of the science involved in this issue. And yes, I was very much interested in science fiction in the same era when growing up. Perhaps that is why I find it easy to distinguish between fact and fiction on these matters.
<br>
<br>Some may fault me for “trusting NASA” on this topic. It is not a matter of “trust” it is a matter of basic knowledge of physics, and astronomy. I think there are problems when it comes to NASA revealing what they have found in their space explorations as pertaining to ET’s. I do believe they are hiding what they have actually discovered on the Moon and Mars and perhaps elsewhere.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br>August 20, 2015 at 12:54 am
<br>Is that why no one has left low Earth orbit since 1972?
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 20, 2015 at 8:58 am
<br>Quarantined by ET? That would be speculative. I can’t say definitively. I doubt it.
<br>
<br>I think it is more to do with funding. War is more profitable to the military industrial complex. Near earth orbit is all that is needed for military control of of the planet (the High Ground).
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br>August 22, 2015 at 5:20 pm
<br>I am like Adam R. in a couple of ways. First, I do not wish to make the time commitment to get into a serious debate about the Moon, at least not at this time. I would not get into it without a complete effort, and I have far too much on my plate these days to do that. But I must also say that I am troubled by your approach to those who do not believe the Apollo missions were what was claimed. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I fail to see why legitimate questions and legitimate points must be described as “absurd.” That is an indirect attack on those who raise those questions. And it weakens your credibility on the issue, in my opinion.
<br>
<br>Were questions about the lack of dust on the legs of the LM or a blast crater below it really “absurd”? Are questions about why no human has travelled more than 400 miles from the Earth’s surface in 43 years absurd? I think it’s a damn good question. And chalking it up to a lack of funding verges on the absurd to me. Is it absurd to question why NASA to this day appears quite concerned with overcoming the dangers of radiation to astronauts who will have to travel through the Van Allen belts to go to Mars?
<br>
<br>Is it absurd to wonder about why some shots of the lunar rover appear to missing tire tracks both in front and behind the wheels? And what about the footage that shows an astronaut appearing to be lifted to his feet by some unseen force? No, I’m not getting into making a detailed case for anything just now for reasons already stated, I am just saying that there is a real discussion to be had. You may feel you have logical, “scientific” explanations for all of these, but the questions are, I feel, very reasonable, and serious doubts about this supposedly miraculous event in human history are anything but absurd.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 22, 2015 at 5:38 pm
<br>“but I fail to see why legitimate questions and legitimate points must be described as “absurd.”
<br>
<br>Craig I make that statement because I don’t find any of the questions or points to be “legitimate”. It is as simple as that. Every one of these “questions & points” I have investigated have turned out to be based on fundamental misunderstandings of science and data.
<br>
<br>“supposedly miraculous event in human history”~Craig
<br>
<br>No one is framing this event as “miraculous” except those who argue that the lunar landings were impossible. The event was achieved by scientific endeavor, no ‘miracles’ are sighted for the success of the missions.
<br>
<br>I am trying very hard to let this issue go here. If you want to discuss it, you have the opportunity to comment on my blog entry on the issue. That is up to you.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br>August 22, 2015 at 5:48 pm
<br>Indeed, it is up to me whether I accept your invitation to debate on your blog, and perhaps I will do that at some point. But it is also my choice whether to comment on anything said on this blog, including your previous comment. When I respond to your characterization of these questions as absurd, you have the choice whether to “let the issue go here” or not.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 22, 2015 at 5:53 pm
<br>Craig,
<br>If you would rather I will let the issue go here. If you wish no more responses at all, say so. If you want to discuss the issue here on this page, say so.
<br>My sole purpose in trying to disengage here is so that this page is not hijacked by a separate issue from the one you posted this page about.
<br>It is your call.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33419">August 22, 2015 at 6:12 pm</a>
<br>Willy,
<br>
<br>I don’t want you to do anything in particular. I won’t tell you not to respond, but I did feel it necessary to respond to your use of “absurd.” I’m quite happy to leave it there for the time being. I appreciate your concern about hijacking the thread.
<br>
<br>\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br>August 23, 2015 at 3:26 pm
<br>I actually don’t have a problem with the topic, and I don’t mind you raising this or any other point at all. Personally, I just don’t want to have to commit to an intensive and time-consuming debate on the subject unless I have the time to do it justice. Your point is a good one, I think. The fact that we haven’t left lower Earth orbit since the last Apollo mission is damned odd and hard to explain for those who believe we actually went. I think we might learn a lot more in the next couple of decades about our ability to go to the Moon.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 23, 2015 at 3:50 pm
<br>“I actually don’t have a problem with the topic..”~Craig,
<br>
<br>Okay then I will say this much more:
<br>
<br>Mr Syed’s point was about lack of funding. I addressed that in the link to comment # 8302 in the link above.
<br>
<br>There have been no manned flights beyond lower Earth orbit since the Apollo missions, but radiation has dire effects on electronics as well, and plenty of spacecraft have made it through the Van Allan Belts since that time.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br>August 23, 2015 at 4:45 pm
<br>Well, the NASA engineer shown in the video previously linked to specifically says that the Mars Orion craft has shielding to protect the electronics from the “extreme radiation.”
<br>
<br>“Shielding will be put to the test as Orion cuts through the waves of radiation.” But he adds that taking humans safely through the belts is something else altogether.
<br>
<br>“We must solve these challenges before we take people through this region of space.”
<br>
<br>What’s to solve if passing through the belts is safe? Why are they worried about it now when they didn’t appear to be back in 1969?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 23, 2015 at 5:10 pm
<br>I addressed this in a comment to Mr Syed here already Craig.
<br>
<br>As you yourself point out the NASA engineer was addressing the Orion project. His comments had nothing to do with the Apollo missions.
<br>If you will read about the shielding used in the Apollo missions you will see they were specifically designed for the time spent in the Belts for those particular flights.
<br>This idea that feet of heavy lead shielding would be necessary is based on ignorance of the different types of radiation encountered in space compared to that used to shield against atomic blasts.
<br>Again The Clavius site has the factual answers to these questions.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Sherif Shaalan
<br>August 23, 2015 at 5:36 pm
<br>“Government is a racket” . . . except for NASA?! Say it isn’t so!
<br>
<br>Coming from someone so experienced in the study of global platonic theater, your staunch defense of the common knowledge understanding of the Apollo missions is especially perplexing to this student.
<br>
<br>Seems to me this example of the language from the Clavius site you refer us to reeks of blatant disinformation:
<br>
<br>http://www.clavius.org/why.html
<br>
<br>Are you playing a joke on us Willy?
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 23, 2015 at 5:43 pm
<br>“Seems to me this example of the language from the Clavius “~Sherif Shaalan
<br>
<br>Get over the term “conspiracist” and read the science.
<br>
<br>No I am not playing a joke on anyone Sherif. If you don’t want to confront the information that is your choice.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br>August 23, 2015 at 6:31 pm
<br>It’s more than just the term “conspiracist,” that Sherif refers to; it’s a whole page on your favored web site that talks about why there are so many darned conspiracy theorists and how flimsy their evidence usually is. Regardless of the scientific claims (this is a separate point), this is exactly the kind of disinformation so commonly found in the mainstream media.
<br>
<br>From the page: “Real life is boring. We constantly seek to embellish it, whether formally through media such as motion pictures or fictional literature, or informally through the exaggeration of our personal experiences. It’s more exciting to believe that strange lights in the sky are visiting aliens and not an airliner’s landing lights. As astounding as the moon landings were, it’s even more astounding to suppose that the entire thing was falsified.”
<br>
<br>I hate arguments like this. And, whether rightly or wrongly, they make me question the site. I will read more from it, however.
<br>
<br>Adam Syed
<br>August 23, 2015 at 7:34 pm
<br>The gambit about reality being boring, and how belief in a conspiracy is more exciting, is exactly the same kind of rhetoric that anti-9/11 truth hatchet job pieces lob again 9/11 truth activists and seekers.
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br>August 23, 2015 at 7:37 pm
<br>Exactly.
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br>August 23, 2015 at 6:08 pm
<br>Yes, he was commenting about Orion and about the challenge of getting astronauts through this area of extreme radiation. I will certainly explore this further but I’m not sure I see why it would be a greater challenge now than it was for Apollo. And I’m certainly curious to find out why the time spent in the belts by the Apollo astronauts would be not apply to those travelling on Orion. I’ll check to see if your site has these answers.
<br>
<br>I will also see if I can find the quotes I remember from at least one of the astronauts that the Apollo crafts had no radiation shielding at all. That NASA engineer in the video also said that unmanned missions would be equipped with sensors so that radiation levels can be studied by scientists. I guess they don’t know everything about the levels, even now.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 23, 2015 at 7:08 pm
<br>“I hate arguments like this. And, whether rightly or wrongly, they make me question the site. I will read more from it, however.”~Craig
<br>
<br>I am no more fond of general conspiracy bashing than you are. But there are some goofy “theories” out there. I have pounded on “other conspiracy theorists” that I disagree with, and you have too. We have many differences with people who do not hold the same “conspiratorial view” that we personally hold to.
<br>
<br>You know I have had strong disagreements with many people on this site, that the mainstream would lump in with my own views. I distinguish between what I find reasonable arguments and what I find to be spurious arguments. I agree the labels are unproductive. But we can often draw from sources that we have some disagreements with.
<br>
<br>The main point I want to make is, you MUST understand your opponents arguments to successfully counter those arguments. Whether we like it or not, the best arguments I have found on space science is found in articles on space science! And to be able to tell the difference from a bogus argument and a rational one is to get grounded in the basics of whatever field you are going to involve yourself with.
<br>
<br>As I have indicated, I have been into astronomy and space studies since I was a kid. Out of my own curiosity I dug into this stuff. I know a lot about it now.
<br>
<br>Of course one can make the counterargument that I have been “brainwashed” from an early age. But I will counter here and now, that I would not be here on T&S now, if I couldn’t see through such programming. And I am not making a “hey you know me” argument here. I am just trying to explain my perspective and why it is different from so many that are the regulars here.
<br>
<br>Lastly let us not be dogmatic and insist that we all maintain the “proper” attitudes of a Truther. We already know that the consensus formed is temporary, that views will inevitably vary from topic to topic. You Craig, have suffered from slurs and defaming remarks by those who disagree with the Pentagon event.
<br>
<br>Whether you come to understand my point of view on the moon landings, we will always have Paris.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33453">August 23, 2015 at 7:21 pm</a>
<br>I don’t have a problem with anything you’ve written here. And I agree that allegiances will change as the topic changes. But I don’t think it is dogmatic to vigorously criticize trite arguments about what makes conspiracy theorists tick. And I believe we have to have a consistent approach and consistent standards whether we are touting a theory or attempting to debunk it.
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br><a href="">August 24, 2015 at 1:45 am</a>
<br>Dare I drop in to make another comment on language? Yes, let’s throw caution to the wind.
<br>
<br>On the subject of the term “conspiracist.”
<br>
<br>“The term is used for ease of discourse. What other generic term would you use if you were in his place?”-HR
<br>
<br>I would say that it is not necessary to come up with a single word to describe someone who uses research to challenge the official version of an event. Not for ease of discourse or for any other reason. Should we call someone who really likes television a televisionist? The word “conspiracist” is insidious because it implies that there is something different about those who question – perhaps different on a psychological level. This plays right into the dominant mainstream view about those who believe in conspiracy theories. It’s attacking the messenger; it’s a way of marginalizing dissent. Like you, Willy, I think that we believe in theories that are backed by evidence.
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br>August 24, 2015 at 2:35 pm
<br>This is exactly how I feel. I encourage anyone to do whatever research they wish on the destruction of the towers but it is hardly central to the issue – as you point out.
<br>
<br>Roger Gloux
<br>August 26, 2015 at 6:09 pm
<br>When you hear an explosion what makes you think it is a bomb? Did you ever hear a steam tank let go? How about an oxygen bottle the firemen use when the air is toxic. Just because it goes “boom” doesn’t mean it is a bomb.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 26, 2015 at 6:25 pm
<br>There are signature characteristics of various types of explosions. Many of the first responders were very familiar with the characteristic of a bomb blast, and made that point when questioned about it:
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33570">August 26, 2015 at 6:39 pm</a>
<br>I supposed it’s my fault for allowing the Moon discussion. That’s why people think there’s no problem with switching to Judy Wood. There is a Judy Wood thread, and comments on the subject are welcome there – although I’d be surprised if something can be added that isn’t already there.
<br>
<br>But on this thread it’s enough. I’m not blaming anyone for responding to Roger’s points, but I’m asking all to either drop the subject or move the discussion over to the other thread. Also, no ad hominem insults please. And no fuck offs. Thank you.
<br>
<br>P.S. Since it’s my blog, I’ll allow myself this one remark. If we all agree that the towers were intentionally destroyed by other than plane impacts and office fires then is it really worth fighting over how they were brought down? What concerns me is how we can awaken people to the fact that the destruction of the towers was a deception and that it was not achieved by terrorist pilots with excellent aim.
<br>
<br>Adam Syed
<br>August 26, 2015 at 6:24 pm
<br>Craig,
<br>
<br>Isn’t it “an honor to be the target of the war machine’s disinformation program?”
</p>
</div><!-- section 188 -->
<a name="x189"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x189" class="tiny">x189</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_189');">very disingenuous</a></p>
<p>2015-08-26</p>
<div id="sect_189" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>I'm just lurking in this thread, because I have no permissions to participate. I could set Mr. Gloux straight on what he supports.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, though, your response to the blog discussion was <i><b><big>very disingenuous</big></b></i>. You wrote:
<br></p>
<blockquote><p> There is a Judy Wood thread, and comments on the subject are welcome there... but I’m asking all to either drop the subject or move the discussion over to the other thread.</p></blockquote>
<p>BULLSHIT, Mr. McKee! <i><b><big>Comments are not welcome there,</big></b></i> because those discussions have been closed for quite some time. You probably know this, otherwise you could have provided a link.
<br>
<br>The Wood discussion was closed for two reasons. (1) They have tons of comments with videos and image baggage that make it slow and unresponsive to render. (2) BAD BEHAVIOR OF PARTICIPANTS, in particular Mr. Rogue.
<br>
<br>Shit, I was lobbying you for a long time for a new thread for deviant Wood/nuke discussions, and you declined, mostly from the BAD BEHAVIOR OF PARTICIPANTS.
<br>
<br>Because you have NO PLACE for such a discussion, post the link to this blog:
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html</a>
<br>
<br>I'll be happy to discuss things with Mr. Gloux and Mr. Syed. (As for Mr. Rogue, he is a no-show chicken-shit. As for Mr. Ruff, he's a blow-hard hypocrite.)
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>// Herr der Elf</p>
</div><!-- section 189 -->
<a name="x190"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x190" class="tiny">x190</a>
Roger Gloux : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_190');">what deceptions are we going to talk about</a></p>
<p>2015-08-26</p>
<div id="sect_190" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33572">August 26, 2015 at 8:07 pm</a>
<br>I agree with you Craig McKee 100 % when you said… “the towers were intentionally destroyed by other than plane impacts and office fires” . I didn’t know there was a separate “Judy Wood” thing. I’m only responding to what “the experts” are dishing out. Hard to swallow.
<br>
<br>So if Dr.Judy Wood’s forensic information is not allowed what exactly are we discussing. The deception made by Government???? Since this thread is supposed to be on 9/11 if the fires were so hot in the Tower, why is it a woman is standing in the gaping hole of the explosion.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>We know it is an explosion because we see the damage, Since there is no proof a plane hit the Towers even when we all see the same picture on every News Channel as if sent by e-mail like you do on this subject when you send it to all of us.
<br>
<br>If you want to find information that planes hit the Towers, you can focus just on that subject.
<br>
<br>If you want to show only the interviews, you can focus just on that.
<br>
<br>If you want to focus just on iron and aluminum in the dust we can talk about that.
<br>
<br>I like to know the details if we are going to discuss this subject. What deceptions are we going to talk about, the 2,000 degree heat in the pile of rubble that the firemen are walking on and in the gaping hole where a woman is waving her coat? Like you said, ” it was not achieved by terrorist pilots with excellent aim.”, especially when professional pilots say it is impossible to do.
<br>
<br>So that closes the door to any more discussion.</p>
</div><!-- section 190 -->
<a name="x191"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x191" class="tiny">x191</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_191');">I don’t believe I closed any doors</a></p>
<p>2015-08-26</p>
<div id="sect_191" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33575">August 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm</a>
<br>I don’t believe I closed any doors. I said we have a Judy Wood thread with more than 500 comments (I think comments may be closed on that because the number of comments was making the page load very slowly) where all the forensic evidence has been discussed at great length.
<br>
<br>Just because this thread is about 9/11 does not mean that I want one element of 9/11, especially one so thoroughly dealt with on other threads already, to dominate the current one. When this comes up, it usually ends up being a battle between two people while everyone else tunes out because they have seen the same debate played out many times. I have yet to see a strong argument made for why this debate is of value. I hesitate to automatically call it disinformation, as many have, but I don’t see why it should be a priority for the movement to fight acrimoniously over which means were used to blow up the towers.
</p>
</div><!-- section 191 -->
<a name="x192"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x192" class="tiny">x192</a>
T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_192');">I find the persistence extraordinary</a></p>
<p>2015-08-26</p>
<div id="sect_192" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 26, 2015 at 11:32 pm
<br>Craig,
<br>
<br>All I can say is I find the persistence extraordinary. I thought you were clear on your request, but maybe something has gone over my head here?
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Roger Gloux</b>
<br>August 27, 2015 at 8:25 am
<br>From the very first day it happened we were deceived into thinking what we saw on TV was what actually happened and slowly people who are specialist in every field come out and say this, that and the other thing is a lie.
<br>
<br>Now that’s a deception on a grand scale.
<br>
<br>Craig you created this format to find out more “stuff” and you are categorizing things on what can and cannot be talked about. That’s like putting a leg brace on a marathon runner. Can you imagine a cop trying to find out who killed a person but not being able to look at every possibility because it is too volatile to look at? How was the person killed? Not allowed to think the person was killed.
<br>
<br>Oh!
<br>
<br>You said….. “I don’t see why it should be a priority for the movement to fight acrimoniously over which means were used to blow up the towers.”
<br>
<br>Why do you think the Towers were blown up? You can only say they were destroyed.
<br>
<br>Oh!
<br>
<br>Besides, no plane hit the towers.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 27, 2015 at 11:44 am
<br>Roger Gloux,
<br>
<br>It is disingenuous for you to pretend that you haven’t noticed that this is a 5 year anniversary thread. By that I don’t just mean it is the topic of the thread, I am also pointing out that in those five years there have been countless threads and topic addressed on those threads.
<br>The onus is therefore upon you yourself to go through the titles of past T&S articles and see for yourself how the topics were addressed by Craig’s initial article, and who had what views on the topics, and what the arguments were that have already been hashed out here.
<br>
<br>It is a sign of ignorant arrogance for you to come on here as a newbie criticizing Craig for you being allowed to come on and criticize him. It is rude and unacceptable in my personal view.
<br>
<br>You Roger, take umbrage at this from Craig:
<br>
<br>“I don’t see why it should be a priority for the movement to fight acrimoniously over which means were used to blow up the towers.”
<br>
<br>I have a different view myself personally, but it needn’t be made in the combative confrontational way that you use. I disagree with the whole concept of ‘consensus’, and the idea that there will be one central dogma that ALL TRUTHERS will come together on.
<br>I study the issues to find out the truth of what happened in every aspect of the events of 9/11.
<br>I don’t think a “Truth Movement” is ever going to convince the bewildered herd to give a damn about the truth. All they want is bread and circuses.
<br>
<br>Now you have come on here with hard nosed bluster about your views, which I personally find to be a product of scurrilous speculation and rhetorical nonsense, and you have now added to the anti another of these screwball ideas that have been argued to death on these pages; the –No-Planes gambit–, which then leads into the Video Fakery nonsense, and even the lunatic Holograms fairytale. You seem to come bearing the whole bag of tricks manufactured by some central scrip office.
<br>These pages on my own blog address some of these issues:
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/911-disinformation-no-planes-theory/
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/disinformation-video-fakery/
<br>
<br>And of course there are countless articles right here on T&S to go through.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>August 27, 2015 at 2:37 pm
<br>Willy,
<br>
<br>I agree that we don’t want a 9/11 dogma that all must follow. I also agree that anyone should feel free to pursue the truth wherever it leads. And I don’t think I was suggesting we must reach consensus on everything and toss out our best information. I said I didn’t see the value in fighting ACRIMONIOUSLY over something that virtually everyone in the Truth Movement agrees on – that the towers were blown up in some fashion and that the issue of planes was a trick to fool us into thinking that terrorists brought down the buildings.
<br>
<br>I am more optimistic than you are about getting to the masses with the truth. I couldn’t do this if I didn’t have hope it would lead to something. Otherwise, it’s just a hobby. If I am talking to a newbie (in the event that they are willing to listen for more than 10 seconds – a rarity) then I don’t say that we have lots of theories about the towers: thermite, nukes, directed energy weapons, and lots more, and we just can’t decide what the truth is. How would that help to open that person’s mind to the possibility that they’ve been lied to? I would point to the massive amount of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the towers. I don’t know what kind, although I do know that there is conclusive evidence that thermite or nanothermite was part of the equation. But even Niels Harrit makes it clear that this was a small part of what brought the towers down. Even he does not claim to know what type of explosive did most of the work.
<br>
<br>I don’t agree with the consensus approach when it means that we accept the lowest common denominator and toss out all the best information. That’s why I oppose this approach as it pertains to the Pentagon. The 9/11 Consensus Panel has failed to come up with the “best evidence” on the Pentagon, in my opinion. But with the towers, we have incontrovertible evidence that the buildings were blown up by other than planes and fires. Therefore, for me, it’s not the best use of my time to look for ways to undermine that evidence. That doesn’t mean that weaknesses should not be pointed out and that opposing views should be censored, but I always ask myself whether a looking at a particular subject might lead to increased understanding within the movement that might be used to raise awareness outside the movement. If not, then I choose to focus my energies elsewhere.
<br>
<br>Imagine if the vast majority of the movement that understands that an airliner did NOT hit the Pentagon spent all their time fighting over whether the plane that flew over the building was white or silver. Would that be worth the acrimony? Would that advance the cause in any way? I would say no.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>August 27, 2015 at 3:26 pm
<br>Thank you for your well considered reply Craig,
<br>
<br>I understand and have a great appreciation for your point of view.
<br>
<br>I don’t consider my position as that of a “hobbyist”, I think history is important for all of us to grasp, and I think a detailed and full an understanding of that history is essential. But in saying that, I also recognize that most people are not going to study history beyond what is fed to them on the plate of the “Official Narrative” — so alternative histories must be made available and maintained as long as they can be in this era of grand deceit.
<br>
<br>Whether our dissident views will last, or be wiped away by official censors is something only to be seen in the future. Until then I can only call it as I see it. I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as far as I can determine it to be.
<br>
<br>As far as the greatest danger, I see it as autonomous technology. That is Technology as a self directed entity beyond human control.
<br>See both Ellul, THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY, and Kaczynski, TECHNOLOGICAL SLAVERY. Also David Skrbina, The METAPHYSIC of TECHNOLOGY.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>August 27, 2015 at 1:50 pm
<br>Roger, I have to agree with Hybridrogue1 that you are being disingenuous. No one is stopping you from looking into anything you want to. You can do as I did and start your own blog for the purpose, if you wish. Or you can come here and participate in discussions that are already underway. There are many to choose from.
<br>
<br>I actually don’t have a problem with any subject as long as I believe the person bringing it to our attention is doing so sincerely and they are not trying to hijack a discussion that is otherwise moving along productively. Would you think you could go over to the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum and join a discussion about the Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder and then bring up directed energy weapons?
<br>
<br>Unfortunately, past discussions about Judy Wood and no planes always end up obliterating whatever else was being discussed. If I say no more on this thread, somebody will cry “censorship!” If I don’t, then others will question why I am allowing disinformation to be discussed or why I am allowing something that is off topic.
<br>
<br>This site is different from a general forum where you can start your own discussion thread. This is a blog where comments are allowed under each article. The idea is for people to discuss the actual topic addressed in the article. I do allow a lot of leeway, particularly if I find a side topic to be interesting. I guess that’s where it’s good to be king.
<br>
<br>So, to be clear, I did not create this format “to find out more stuff,” exactly, although I certainly do want all of us to learn from the experience. I created it in the hope that awareness would be raised about the most destructive deceptions that occur – like 9/11 – and the Matrix-like dream world that keeps us from seeing through those deceptions. I hope we all learn something. I know I have learned a tremendous amount, as I indicate in the article. But the articles must be more than just an excuse to bring up your preferred 9/11 subject.
<br>
<br>You’ve had an opportunity to express your views very freely, but I don’t want to continue down this road on this thread.
<br>
<br>Thank you.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 192 -->
<a name="x193"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x193" class="tiny">x193</a>
T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_193');">Outing of Agent W.</a></p>
<p>2015-08-27</p>
<div id="sect_193" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33599">August 27, 2015 at 7:34 pm</a>
<br>Does the name Colin Doran ring any bells for you Agent Wright? Dunkin’ Donuts? Lol
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Adam Syed</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33604">August 27, 2015 at 10:45 pm</a>
<br>I know that name from FB. I believe I banned him from one group as I found him to be a troll.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33605">August 27, 2015 at 10:50 pm</a>
<br>Agent Smith is a nom de plume of Colin Duran \, who is a manager at Dunkin’ Donuts in a small country in Central America. Supposedly this character was born in Moscow.
<br>\\][//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 193 -->
<a name="x194"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x194" class="tiny">x194</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_194');">the honorably thing to do</a></p>
<p>2015-08-27</p>
<div id="sect_194" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Some in the 9/11 Truth community believe Osama bin Laden died in 2002 or so. Thus, the Obama Administration orchestrated a farse in recent years with the operation to capture Osama bin Laden, kill him, bury him at sea, etc.
<br />
<br />
In a similar vein of false cues, if A.Wright is a sockpuppet of Mr. Rogue, then outing Mr. A.Wright is an orchestration to deflect attention.}
<br />
<br />
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>Whether or not Mr. Rogue has hit paydirt with his naming of Mr. A.Wright, I believe the honorably thing for you to do is:
<br>
<br>(1) Purge the unethical outing comments and
<br>(2) Reprimand Mr. Rogue for his immoral actions.
<br>
<br>If Mr. Rogue wants to out Mr. A.Wright, let him use his blog for that endeavor.
<br>
<br>Alas, at the moment, Mr. Rogue has no place to do that. Despite literally hundreds of comments over the years aimed at Mr. A.Wright to get the carousel cranking, Mr. A.Wright has never risen to the level of being a blog article that could then neatly contain comments underneath.
<br>
<br>Part of me still believes that A.Wright is Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet, in which case Mr. Rogue is playing a game with a faux-outing.
<br>
<br>But given that I could be wrong on the sock-puppet suspicions, then Mr. Rogue might be revealing some real and hurtful information to a real individual...
<br>
<br>In either event, it shouldn't be transpiring on your blog, and it reveals some underlying ethical and moral flaws in Mr. Rogue.
<br>
<br>P.S. Your participation on the thread has been refreshing.
<br>
<br>// Herr der Elf</p>
</div><!-- section 194 -->
<a name="x195"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x195" class="tiny">x195</a>
Philip Joy : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_195');">FB grassroots primary researchers</a></p>
<p>2015-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_195" style="display: none;">
<p>Hi Maxwell, hope you are well. I am considering setting up a sort of shopfront FB group which allows grassroots primary researchers and bloggers such as yourself to share their latest in an ongoing way, and where joe public can come and read, sample, and if desired go over to the source URL. Of course there will be fireworks where views collide, but unlike some I'm not afraid of that kind of heated debate. Interested?</p>
</div><!-- section 195 -->
<a name="x196"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x196" class="tiny">x196</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_196');">rather coincidental the grassroots primary</a></p>
<p>2015-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_196" style="display: none;">
<p>FB mail
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Joy,
<br>
<br>Rather coincidental your flattering invitation to join a new FB group, as I tried recently two attempts at another avenue for a reasoned interview piece and was meeting with silence.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "[I am setting up...] a shopfront FB group which allows grassroots primary researchers and bloggers such as yourself to share their latest in an ongoing way, and where joe public can come and read, sample, and if desired go over to the source URL."
<br>
<br>I don't think you can achieve what you desire if FB is your only tool. FB completely sucks as a venue for serious discussion. What you see is ~not~ what anyone else will see, in terms of postings, owing to the "organization by algorithm." When you make a comment to a posting, subsequent comments trigger that posting to appear where you see it in your feed. However, those who have never commented may never see that posting "rank high" in the news feed, because the algorithm pushed it out of view.
<br>
<br>The above hints at one way in which FB can be juked. Namely, if a given posting does have a lively, worthy discussion, making a few throw-away postings can effectively push the important posting down, down, down, such that it may never get on Joe Public's radar.
<br>
<br>Another way that FB can be juked is with the automatic collapsing of comments to the last three or four, hiding the rest behind "more comments" links. I've experience trolls doing precisely this. They put three or four comments in a row -- regardless of what the comments actually were [ad hominem or fluff] --, then the rest of the discussion gets buried particularly for Joe Public who is scrolling through and scanning the postings & the few exposed comments at the top level.
<br>
<br>Other than at your trial what the FBI/CIA will pull out extensively organized and categorized (by FB itself), FB has no permanence. Notifications by email are about the only way to snag a permanent URL to a posting and its comments. FB has no overlay to organize postings by date, theme, or other criteria. This contributes to FB being a time-sucking memory hole, and a very repetitive one at that, because postings that might have covered a theme are difficult to locate directly, difficult to acquire the URL, and thus difficult to put the URL within new discussions to shut down another spin on the carousel.
<br>
<br>For the above reasons, serious commenters need to preserve their words themselves. Otherwise, they're just throwing them away on FB. If they get banned from a group, they can't even lurk, let alone retro-actively save their efforts.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, FB requires you to log in. No lurkers. No google indexing.
<br>
<br>If you are serious about your endeavor, then establishing for free a blog on WordPress or Blogger will get you much farther. FB would only be used secondarily and infrequently to advertise what is on your blog. A good example is Craig McKee who has the blog "Truth & Shadows."
<br>
<br>I wish you well in your endeavor. When I get over my procrastination and have a new output article to my latest research, I might be inclined to throw some tidbits into your FB group. Owing to FB's time-sucking nature, I've been extremely limiting the number of times a week and the amount of time that I'm logged into FB. It is well so.
<br>
<br>All the best,
<br>
<br>// Maxwell C. Bridges
</div><!-- section 196 -->
<a name="x197"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x197" class="tiny">x197</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_197');">scurrilous allegations against me</a></p>
<p>2015-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_197" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33693">August 31, 2015 at 2:39 pm</a>
<br>
<br><i>"In the [Dr. Wood's] Book pages 188 and 189 reveal there are no beams under the main floor of those buildings. You are therefore not telling the truth."</i>~Roger Gloux
<br>
<br>In fact pages 188 and 189 show scenes from under buildings 4 and 5, not under either tower. You are therefore quite confused and making scurrilous allegations against me.
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 197 -->
<a name="x198"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x198" class="tiny">x198</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_198');">Patience is a virtue</a></p>
<p>2015-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_198" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br>Patience is a virtue. Lying is not.
<br>
<br>How is it that Mr. Rogue knows what pages 188 and 189 show in Dr. Wood's book? Such a stellar memory, he does not have. If his memory were really that good, he wouldn't have been caught in so many "misstatements" in our discussions in the past.
<br>
<br>Therefore, the memory aid in use must be the book itself, the very one that Mr. Rogue repeatedly claimed that he physically destroyed with his own two hand in order to line his bird cage. Why? To avoid the assignment of reading the book with an expressed purpose of identifying the good, the bad, and the ugly.
<br>
<br><b>I should get major-league kudos for my restraint in the discussions with Mr. Gloux.</b> I could certainly set him straight on his Woodsian beliefs that don't quite hit the mark.
<br>
<br>I'll be damned if Mr. Gloux didn't make an interesting point aimed at Mr. Rogue:
<br>
<br><i>"You appear to be a “spook” working for the Government trying your best with your articulate manner to ridicule everything that points to the truth."</i>
<br>
<br>Instead of links to Mr. Rogue's lame blog entries whose commentary cannot make up its mind on what it wants to be, use this link.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html">Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices</a>
<br>
<br>Its whole purpose was for off-list discussions relating specifically to Dr. Wood and other fringe topics. Mr. Ruff is familiar with it, and Mr. Rogue was invited (but has been a no-show.)
<br>
<br>Win-win-win for all the things that it spares T&S of. Yep, send Mr. Gloux my way.
<br>
<br>Yep, I knew if I was patient enough, Mr. Rogue would pwn himself with Dr. Wood's book. El-Oh-El.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 198 -->
<a name="x199"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x199" class="tiny">x199</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_199');">Take me off your mailing list, nut case</a></p>
<p>2015-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_199" style="display: none;">
<p>Adam Ruff wrote 2015-08-31 10:01 PM
<br>+++begin
<br><i>Take me off your mailing list, nut case. Wood is full of shit and so are you.</i>
<br>+++end
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>You seem a little touchy. You wrote:
<br><i>"Wood is full of shit and so are you."</i>
<br>
<br>I honestly do not know how you could come up with such an assessment, because you have never provided any substantiation for either, despite your blow-hard bragging. Seems to be a re-occurring theme with you [<a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/prelude-to-nookiedoo.html#x29">1</a>] [<a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html">2</a>]. Not that I won't ultimately agree with certain points, it is just that you are a no-show and fumbler.
<br>
<br>After much weaseling, I finally got you to agree to the playing field of <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf">fourth generation nuclear devices</a>. How is your assessment of that document going? And how does its detailed analysis then by extrapolation related back to Dr. Wood? This is important, because it illuminates where she was wrong and right.
<br>
<br>Here is <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16674">a great link from March 7, 2013</a> addressed to you. You should read the whole comment, but particularly the P.S. which has major significance today in light of Mr. Rogue's recent detailed knowledge of various pages in Dr. Wood's book.
<br>
<br>+++ begin
<br><i>P.S. I’m so confident that Mr. Rogue was “lying about the small things” when he wrote that he defaced his copy of Dr. Wood’s book to line his bird’s cage that I suggest you contact him so that he can send you his copy. Admission of this lie will be a small price for him to pay to “get the monkey off of his back” that expected him to have some integrity in following through with that which he promised in terms of the objective good, bad, and ugly review. Passing-the-book on to you could help him fulfill obligation and prevent the book from bloodying his nose further.</i>
<br>+++ end
<br>
<br>With regards to your assessment of me being a nut case, I plead guilty. The very definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again yet expecting different results. For literally years, I've been trying to have a reasoned, rational, researched discussion with you (and Mr. Rogue) about my hobby-horse (<a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf">fourth generation nuclear devices</a>). You can imagine my disappointment to learn that you both are incapable of such.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 199 -->
<a name="x200"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x200" class="tiny">x200</a>
T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_200');">commentary far afield</a></p>
<p>2015-08-24</p>
<div id="sect_200" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33501">August 24, 2015 at 10:35 am</a>
<br>Roger Gloux,
<br>
<br>This thread has already been waylaid by a complex topic that has led the commentary far afield from the topic Craig posted his article about.
<br>
<br>If you want to celebrate the pseudoscience of Judy Wood, be my guest. I have burnt out on the topic after so many years. But I will offer this article by a qualified physicist that you might perhaps at least attempt to understand:
<br>
<br>The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, February 2007
<br>
<br>http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
<br>
<br>Good luck Roger. I will give you a break and save actually saying, “kiss off” until you have adequately provoked me.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33503">August 24, 2015 at 10:47 am</a>
<br>Roger, I am posting these links in seperated comments so that the comment isn’t held up in moderation.
<br>
<br>Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, October 2007
<br>
<br>http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33505">August 24, 2015 at 10:58 am</a>
<br>And when you’ve finished reading that, bring in the dog and put out the cat.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33507">August 24, 2015 at 11:56 am</a>
<br>“It couldn’t be controlled demolition because the evidence is not there.”~Roger Gloux
<br>
<br>Au contraire Monsieur Gloux;
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33512">August 24, 2015 at 2:20 pm</a>
<br>Roger,
<br>
<br>Judy Woods theory has been thoroughly debunked and two links were provided above by HR1 to a small sampling of those debunks. I will add to that however by pointing out a false belief you have expressed here twice already. You insist that controlled demolitions would have to employ miles of wire to set off the charges when that has been proven false. Radio controlled remote detonators not requiring any wiring could have been used and were available in 2001. This has long been known yet years after this was proved here you are still pushing the misinformation that the explosives all had to be wired. This is also the problem with Judy Wood supporters they continue to repeat misinformation years after it has been exposed as such. It becomes an endless merry go round where Wood supporters repeat again and again long debunked material.
<br>
<br>For example: If a DEW were to have destroyed the towers how could the particle beam or energy beam or whatever kind of beam NOT destroy the top floor first and instead skip 20+ floors and destroy it from the middle? (Provided it was a space based DEW) Same question applies if it was a ground based DEW except the question becomes how could the DEW destroy all four sides simultaneously instead of first slicing through or disintegrating the closest side first and blasting through to the other side? A beam is a beam after all and it cannot pass through some material while destroying the same kind of material behind it. It cannot logically work no matter how you look at it.
<br>
<br>Greg Jenkins also exposes another massive issue with the DEW theory which no one has ever addressed to my knowledge and that is the massive power requirements for such a weapon. Where did the enormous energy needed to power such a weapon come from? Especially if it was a space based weapon, where did the power come from? Do you have any idea how much power would have to be pumped through such a weapon in order to “dustify”(not a real word I know but Wood uses it) the towers? Too much! and neither Wood nor you have any explanation for what provided the power to such a weapon. On and on the issues with the DEW theory pile up and Wood supporters never address them but rather just keep coming back again and again repeating the same claims and never addressing the problems with the theory.
<br>
<br>By the way just saying “Hutcheson effect and hurricane” does not address the question of where the energy came from to power the supposed DEW that Wood claims destroyed the WTC. That is a bogus argument since she cannot and does not explain what the “Hutcheson effect” is or how it works.
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33514">August 24, 2015 at 2:35 pm</a>
<br>
<br>This is exactly how I feel. I encourage anyone to do whatever research they wish on the destruction of the towers but it is hardly central to the issue – as you point out.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33511">August 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm</a>
<br>Roger Gloux,
<br>
<br>I have the BOOK. I have read every article on her web site, I understand the case Wood makes. Her proposition of a directed energy device as the mechanism of destruction is bogus.
<br>That is what “pseudoscience” is, bogus science.
<br>
<br>While there are many outright falsehoods you repeat here, I will not address them again. I have been at this for at least 8 years of counter argument. If all you want to read is things that reinforce your biases, then by all means handwave Dr Jenkins, Dr Jones, Dr Niels Harrit, and many other physicists. By all means ignore my page on the demise of the WTC. Because frankly I don’t care what people like you think.
<br>
<br>So to close, you charge: “I know you are not going to look because you are a glib armchair expert and got it all figured out.” Is not so, I have looked, and my opinions are formed by knowing the argument Wood makes, and my counterarguments reflect that. If you aren’t going to actually read my counter argument, then don’t fuss with me here. I have said what I have to say in print, in public, on view at my blog. I refuse to repeat it here.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33513">August 24, 2015 at 2:33 pm</a>
<br>Roger you are making all sorts of false claims in your post. Here are some of them:
<br>
<br>“Whatever the energy is, it was obviously under control because it turned steel into dust” – False the steal was NOT turned to dust.
<br>
<br>“It didn’t bust the tub the complex was in. It is 70 feet under the Hudson River yet it wasn’t damaged at all. Not even a crack.” – False the bathtub was damaged.
<br>
<br>“None of the buildings speared down into the basement.” – False much of the basement was filled in with debris from the towers.
<br>
<br>“just the steel alone is such a big pile of metal and all supposedly cut, yet it isn’t there.” – False the steel is there both in and around the WTC complex.
<br>
<br>This is why it is so difficult to deal with Wood supporters because they make so many false statements about what actually happened that to address those alone would take an entire discussion unto itself. Nothing “dustified” at the WTC it was simply blown up and much of the softer material were blown into small particles we call dust just like in ANY controlled demolition.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33515">August 24, 2015 at 2:43 pm</a>
<br>Very succinct comment Mr Ruff. You have put the problem with Wood and her supporters in a nutshell.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33558">August 26, 2015 at 5:43 pm</a>
<br>COMMENT REMOVED
<br>
<br>{mcb: retrieved from email}
<br>How about fuck off Roger, does that suit you better?
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 200 -->
<a name="x201"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x201" class="tiny">x201</a>
T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_201');">Caught in a Bird Cage: Then and Now {repeats}</a></p>
<p>2013-03-04 and 2015-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_201" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16642">March 4, 2013 at 7:10 pm</a>
<br>But seriously folks…if I can maintain ‘serious’ for any length of time after the latest from el Sinyor Grande Plops…ahem.
<br>
<br>Okay, the actual truth of the matter is I told Sinyor I would send his stupid book back to him. Sinyor refused. I supposed at the time that it had to do with his paranoia, that he didn’t want me to know his address.
<br>
<br>Well, the shelf life of even this offer has expired. I decided to pull the pages out of this stupid book and use them in the bottom of my bird’s cages. At least some good use was put to the paper.
<br>
<br>Speaking of papers…shouldn’t you be grading your student’s work rather than making up stupid bullshit here on the forum Sinyor Sheetfarts?
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Señor El Once</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16656">March 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Agent Rogue wrote yesterday:
<br></p>
<blockquote><p>I decided to pull the pages out of this stupid book and use them in the bottom of my bird’s cages.</p></blockquote>
<p>My money is betting that the above is just another fucking lie from Agent Rogue. I can wait a very long time before this lie is exposed, so for today let’s assume that it’s true.
<br>
<br><b>Señor El Once</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16666">March 6, 2013 at 12:14 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue admits to not having finished reading Dr. Wood’s textbook. In fact, he admits to violently defacing the contents of this hardcover book so that his bird could have pretty, high quality pictures for the bottom of his cage.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16672">March 7, 2013 at 10:57 am</a>
<br>
<br>If anyone around here is an agent it is you SEO for pushing this crap and trying to bait us into wasting our valuable time doing a line by line debunk of her book. HR1 was absolutely right to line his bird cage with the pages of her shitty book.
<br>
<br><b>Señor El Once</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16674">March 7, 2013 at 4:10 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff, first of all, I’m still betting money that Mr. Rogue was lying to us when he said he used it to line his bird cage. Keep that in mind as but one example of his character, someone willing to pass little lies as truth.
<br>
<br>P.S. I’m so confident that Mr. Rogue was “lying about the small things” when he wrote that he defaced his copy of Dr. Wood’s book to line his bird’s cage that I suggest you contact him so that he can send you his copy. Admission of this lie will be a small price for him to pay to “get the monkey off of his back” that expected him to have some integrity in following through with that which he promised in terms of the objective good, bad, and ugly review. Passing-the-book on to you could help him fulfill obligation and prevent the book from bloodying his nose further.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33511">August 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm</a>
<br>Roger Gloux,
<br>
<br>I have the BOOK. I have read every article on her web site, I understand the case Wood makes. Her proposition of a directed energy device as the mechanism of destruction is bogus.
<br>That is what “pseudoscience” is, bogus science.
<br>
<br>While there are many outright falsehoods you repeat here, I will not address them again. I have been at this for at least 8 years of counter argument. If all you want to read is things that reinforce your biases, then by all means handwave Dr Jenkins, Dr Jones, Dr Niels Harrit, and many other physicists. By all means ignore my page on the demise of the WTC. Because frankly I don’t care what people like you think.
<br>
<br>So to close, you charge: “I know you are not going to look because you are a glib armchair expert and got it all figured out.” Is not so, I have looked, and my opinions are formed by knowing the argument Wood makes, and my counterarguments reflect that. If you aren’t going to actually read my counter argument, then don’t fuss with me here. I have said what I have to say in print, in public, on view at my blog. I refuse to repeat it here.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33570">August 26, 2015 at 6:39 pm</a>
<br>I supposed it’s my fault for allowing the Moon discussion. That’s why people think there’s no problem with switching to Judy Wood. There is a Judy Wood thread, and comments on the subject are welcome there – although I’d be surprised if something can be added that isn’t already there.
<br>
<br>But on this thread it’s enough. I’m not blaming anyone for responding to Roger’s points, but I’m asking all to either drop the subject or move the discussion over to the other thread. Also, no ad hominem insults please. And no fuck offs. Thank you.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33575">August 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm</a>
<br>I don’t believe I closed any doors. I said we have a Judy Wood thread with more than 500 comments (I think comments may be closed on that because the number of comments was making the page load very slowly) where all the forensic evidence has been discussed at great length.
<br>
<br><b>Roger Gloux</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33665">August 30, 2015 at 11:31 pm</a>
<br>
<br>It is as clear as mud for anyone to say this was controlled demolition when you look at this one photo on page 114 and Figure #109 in her [Dr. Judy Wood's book.
<br>
<br><b>Roger Gloux</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33690">August 31, 2015 at 1:08 pm</a>
<br>
<br>In the Book pages 188 and 189 reveal there are no beams under the main floor of those buildings. You are therefore not telling the truth.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33693">August 31, 2015 at 2:39 pm</a>
<br>“In the Book pages 188 and 189 reveal there are no beams under the main floor of those buildings. You are therefore not telling the truth.”~Roger Gloux
<br>
<br>In fact pages 188 and 189 show scenes from under buildings 4 and 5, not under either tower. You are therefore quite confused and making scurrilous allegations against me.
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 201 -->
<a name="x202"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x202" class="tiny">x202</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_202');">Facebook: Dr. Wood</a></p>
<p>2015-09-01</p>
<div id="sect_202" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F965700833469284%2Fpermalink%2F966888853350482%2F
<br>
<br><b>Steve Grage</b>
<br>Please be advised, Any serious researcher needs to review the content of the 500 page book "Where did the Towers Go". The author is not important as the book is a scholarly presentation of evidence complete with references. Naturally, if one hasn't read this book, ones opinion as to its content is of little value. I am not aware of any evidence in this book ever being false or misleading. Is there any serious researcher (defined as must of read "Where did the Towers Go") that can reference any false or misleading statement (page#). If not, this book should be the basis of knowledge of what happened (to WTC complex).
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Regarding Steve Grage's posting. I agree that WDTG is worth reading. However, I have found several instances of its content being false or misleading. (One example is the "torching of cars at the bridge." The cars were torched elsewhere and then towed to the bridge. Still an anomaly for how they got zapped where they were originally parked, but not the gross one that Dr. Wood implies had happened at the bridge. Pictures are available of the torched police car 2346 (?) parked elsewhere.)
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood doesn't go into details about the energy source for her speculations, let alone make or model number. She doesn't connect a lot of things, on purpose. Some shoddy research she exhibits into nuclear methods. (Hell, she doesn't even address in her 2010 book the valid 2007 criticism by Dr. Jenkins, which also has invalid points.)
<br>
<br>This PDF from 2005 (and earlier books by the author from 1999) into Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices will enlighten you as to the areas where Dr. Wood got it right and wrong.
<br>
<br>http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> If you'd like other instances, Dr. Wood accepts the satellite images unchallenged regarding hot-spots. All it would take is someone in the original report putting the wrong date on the 2nd image to imply how there weren't hot-spots, or that they cooled before September was over. Many accounts contradict that assumption from Dr. Wood of there being no hot-spots. The last ones were not put out until December.
<br>
<br>As already mentioned, she did shitty research into nuclear devices. For example, she makes no study into the types of such weapons, even though much is publicly available. Her dirt analysis -- although wonderful -- stops short of nuclear conclusions, although those are classic radiation mitigation techniques.
<br>
<br>USGS samples of the dust (see Jeff Prager) prove nuclear hijinx. The tritium report proves nuclear hijinx (and efforts to cover-up). The delays in taking samples and not being thorough are other indications of nuclear means. Refer also to Professor Cahill's air sampling.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood also states there was no damage to the bathtub. Actually there were cracks that needed repair. Dr. Wood misleads us with information about the power stations that were destroyed, implying that an energy weapon did it.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> I agree partly that Hutchison is misleading in Dr. Wood's work. However, when you study fourth generation nuclear devices [FGND] (as given in the PDF), that's when you learn about what might be possible.
<br>
<br>Nuclear energy is much easier to come by than Tesla energy from space (or any notion that space beams were involved.) In fact, any DEW devices not co-located within the towers would have a hard time delivering the requisite energy needed for destruction.
<br>
<br>FGND are about channeling specific wavelengths of the nuclear output, which in turn reduces many side-effects of your "standard" nuclear devices (e.g., blast wave, heat wave, EMP). Even aiming the neutrons of a neutron bomb upwards would scale back energy; call this using a device in an application different from design or the PR.
<br>
<br>At any rate, if the wavelengths of energy are on the scale of the molecular distances of materials, in a very Hutchison sort of way, materials truly could be disassociated and "dustified" to appearances.
<br>
<br>But there would still be those aforementioned side effects, like the intense instantaneous heat at ignition which would account for the bent and twisted beams. EMP slipping through window slits could explain some of the cars catching fires. EMP generates Eddy currents in metal it hits line-of-sight; large Eddy currents in the metal can cause things on the metal, like paint, plastic door handles, rubber seals, to ignite.
<br>
<br>http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Ms. Grable, I have researched cold fusion. It isn't quite real world to the extent that would have been required for 9/11. Not even today. That is a red-herring.
<br>
<br>Fission-triggered fusion FGND are what the evidence points to, particularly the tritium and the song-and-dance to explain away tritium as "air plane exit signs, sights on weapons, personal time-pieces.") Such shoddy measurements of it, too. And even then it slips out and required them to re-define trace levels of tritium to be 55 times larger than expected.
<br>
<br>Evidence in the dust sampled extensively by USGS and put into their data tables proves minor fission involvement due to the correlated quantities of certain elements. Although in the data tables, they don't explain those elements' presence, or that they are sample-to-sample in correlated quantities, or that they are remnants of nuclear recipes. Refer to Jeff Prager's work.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 202 -->
<a name="x203"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x203" class="tiny">x203</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_203');">many birds with one stone</a></p>
<p>2015-08-28</p>
<div id="sect_203" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Syed,
<br>
<br>Just refreshing your memory that you also know me as "Señor El Once" on Truth & Shadows, although "Herr der Elf" will probably be my new alias when I start commenting again.
<br>
<br>On August 18, 2015 at 11:10 pm, you praised the work of Craig McKee. I sent my kudos to Mr. McKee off-list. It doesn't seem to matter ~WHAT~ I post; the fact ~THAT~ I post will inspire my detractors -- Adam Ruff and hybridrogue1 -- to come unglued and exhibit bad behavior [not unlike Mike Collins.] So I lurk. I've had plenty of concerns in my personal life, so I've been enjoying my break.
<br>
<br>In response on August 18, 2015 at 11:21 pm, Mr. McKee gave you praise right back: "Thanks for participating and for your two excellent contributions. Maybe you should start thinking of an idea for number three?"
<br>
<br>Your reply on August 19, 2015 at 8:23 pm was: "I’ll be delighted to write a third piece for you, Craig."
<br>
<br>If you do one article, right there you've knocked down two birds: Mr. McKee's need for content and your need to publish.
<br>
<br>What if that were turned into an opportunity to knock down with the same stone, two-three-or-four more birds: big birds, at that, labeled "turkey, goose, or fowl/foul" (play on words) by some, but sorely needing to be legitimately addressed for the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world?
<br>
<br>Would you be interested? Depends on the birds, right?
<br>
<br>The bird up on trial and hanging over a vat of hot oil will be fourth generation nuclear devices. My task in our rational and intelligent exchanges will be to convince you of its viability to 9/11. Of course, I want it exonerated and spared of getting its goose cooked. Regardless of that outcome as more of a side-effect, though, the generic micronuke premise and Dr. Wood DEW would get their carcass cooked ~legitimately~. Also, Nano-Thermite would get its feathers plucked.
<br>
<br>You wrote to Mr. Rogue about yourself on August 20, 2015 at 10:31 pm: "[I have] no expertise in science in general, and certainly not radiation in particular."
<br>
<br>I can teach you what you need to know. I have already done extensive research, collected information, and formatted it to be web-friendly that I will make available to you (before generally publishing it.) I've got hundreds of references with abstracts, if not entire articles, that you can skim through to come up to speed. Only two or three of them really require extensive study.
<br>
<br>The format of the article could be you asking intelligent questions and me responding. Send me a batch of questions; give me time to draft my responses; another batch of questions; another set of responses; etc.
<br>
<br>I'll also give you full disclosure regarding me (maybe even send you my current resume) as a token of my sincerity. I trust you not to reveal my identity and will secure your word before I impart it. When I retire or when I'm dead, those are the dates I'm aiming for to unmask myself. Any unveiling prior to that is more than likely unethical and immoral, and will backfire on the revealer. Mr. McKee has known who I am; so does Dr. Fetzer, because he was considering me for a radio interview or a conference; but that isn't the lime-light I seek. Mr. Rogue does ~not~ know (or acts like he does not), and he wouldn't act responsibly with the information if he had it; Mr. AWright is recent proof of Mr. Rogue's ethics. (My identity really isn't that deeply hidden.) I do stand behind my words, but have very good personal reasons for not outing myself today.
<br>
<br>At any rate, I'd be willing to have some telephone conversations with you (if you agree to conditions), but would prefer writing my responses because it affords me more time to think about it and write something worthy.
<br>
<br>My three main conditions are: (1) My pen-name or its alias is used. (2) I author my responese -- subject to trimming by you. (3) I reserve the write to preserve and publish what I deem fit from our raw exchanges. I fully expect us to generate more content than what Mr. McKee will allow.
<br>
<br>You can choose how we communicate. We both have under-utilized WordPress blogs; it has the advantage that a blog entry and its discussion could be made password protected and private between just you and me (or who has the password) until you remove the password. (My public Blogger blog does not have that feature.) Email is my recommendation. (Facebook, no way. It completely sucks.)
<br>
<br>At the end, you mine our discussion for the salient information and produce your article for Mr. McKee.
<br>
<br>Maybe I don't convince you. But a rational discussion will be had that will advance the understanding of the 9/11 Truth Movement, because legitimately Wood and generic nukes will be taken down.
<br>
<br>As part of my full disclosure, let me give you my assessment of certain players. The alias Mr. Rogue may have been NSA's infiltrator to T&S: target me and my wild-ass ideas. Although Mr. Rogue seemed to out the identity of Mr. AWright recently -- a very unethical act regardless of its accuracy [he's been inaccurate trying to out me] --, I suspect that Mr. AWright is Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet. [I've asked Mr. McKee to remove that outing info; uncalled for and immoral.] Mr. Rogue is one of the few who regularly engage Mr. AWright; Mr. Rogue has invested hundreds of comments addressing Mr. AWright; yet Mr. Rogue has never re-purposed these exchanges on his blog and doesn't have anything dedicated to Mr. AWright. [Plus, Mr. Rogue's mother's middle initial and last name are "A.Wright".] I can legitimately call Mr. Rogue "a liar, a cheat, and a weasel" based on my experience with him, and can substantiate it.
<br>
<br>The problem with alias-ASS-ociating one participant to another is that you never know when to stop your suspicions. Although I think of Mr. Rogue as one person, I have much weaker suspicions of Mr. Rogue being Mr. Adam Ruff's sock-puppet and thereby also related to Mr. AWright. They're so weak, I could be wrong; just lots of subtle clues.
<br>
<br>It shouldn't surprise either of us if the NSA infiltrator was using Persona Management Software. Not all personas would be back-slapping in agreement. In fact, conflict breeds interest. Manufactured conflict allows a discussion to controlled and pre-ordained (like a WWF match), and gives truther street-cred to those (Ruff/Rogue) who engage the manufactured troll (AWright).
<br>
<br>Whatever, let's set this aside.
<br>
<br>What you need to know is that I recently pwned Mr. Ruff in a major way. You'll see that it didn't happen all at once. But when our interactions over years are compiled into one, the disengenuous nature of Mr. Ruff becomes apparent.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html
<br>
<br>I can legitimately call Mr. Ruff "a blow-hard hypocrite" if not what I call Mr. Rogue "liar, cheat, and weasel." Those outcomes were not my intent. Didn't have to be that way, if they just would have taken the assignment more seriously.
<br>
<br>Should you be worried, Mr. Syed? No, because you have a truth agenda and more ethics than either of those two. (Geez, neither could be bothered to even read Mr. Kevin Ryan's book or Dr. Wood's book before issuing their disparaging remarks.)
<br>
<br>I don't know all about you, but what FB reveals and your words on T&S. Reasonable. After all this time, I can not recall a single point of contention between us... except your unwillingness to wade into nuclear topics based on your weaker science background.
<br>
<br>Are you going to get pwned?
<br>
<br>I am a respectful discussion partner. My goal is to reveal truth, or to have my understanding enlightened and altered on what I previously believed was truth. I don't like being damn near the only duped useful idiot on my hobby-horse (that deviates from generic nukes and Dr. Wood, because they have disinformation.) I want to be set straight.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue ran into problems, because they have "cognitive dissonance" from the other side. The Truth Movement was infiltrated, and NT is a limited hangout (to be proven in our exchanges). Just like the general masses have cognitive dissonance regarding any beliefs that the government had a hand in 9/11, the two Mr. R.'s have cognitive dissonance regarding any beliefs that PhD's in the 9/11 Truth Movement could have led us astray (with NT). My nuclear premises (to be proven in our exchanges) are why.
<br>
<br>I don't believe that you will get pwned, Mr. Syed, because you are not the Mr. R.'s with their stilted agendas, their belligerent ignorance, and unwillingness to admit where holes exist in their arguments necessitating re-evaluation of previously held beliefs. They won't go there.
<br>
<br>It has happened to me in the past that when arguing something, I discover an error in my premise that together with other weak elements has me change my mind. I am not a no-planer at the WTC anymore; I've been convinced otherwise. I wasn't in the CIT camp until Mr. OSS's discussions on T&S. Video faker did happen (that even Mr. Rogue admitted instances of, to his chagrin), just not to the over-blown and unrealistic extent that September Clues and Let's Roll Forums hype it; so I don't promote it like I once did, except in those valid instances of it. I could have been suckered into holograms, but the case was never sufficiently made nor proven to convince me; worse, it relied on blatantly and disingenuously false interpretations of the radar data. I used to believe that NT was the primary cause of destruction, until the math and science proved it coming up short.
<br>
<br>The point is, I do change my mind when facts warrant a re-evaluation. Could even happen on my hobby-horse topic.
<br>
<br>Whichever way the discussion goes, it will be win-win for the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world. And could be done under your byline.
<br>
<br>Tell me of your willingness to take this on, or your concerns for such an endeavor.
<br>
<br>All the best.
<br>
<br>P.S. FB can be an addiction and time-suck that I don't need. I try to limit my entrances. Email is better.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 203 -->
<a name="x204"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x204" class="tiny">x204</a>
T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_204');">Ruff Gets Wood</a></p>
<p>2015-09-01</p>
<div id="sect_204" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33729">September 1, 2015 at 10:19 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I echo your words here about the CIT response devastating Chandler and Cole’s sloppy paper. I agree 100% that their complete lack of response to it speaks volumes! What amazes me is that Chandler is still apparently respected by many even though he has CLEARLY lost the debate about the pentagon due to forfeit. He made his points in his paper, CIT smashed them utterly and decisively and now Chandler and Cole haven’t a word to say about it but rather flee from any and all debate. David Ray Griffin and the consensus panel should really consider long and hard if someone like Chandler belongs on the panel at all. He refuses to acknowledge the truth so what is he doing on a 9/11 truth panel huh?
<br>
<br>I’ll tell you what he is doing he is black balling the pentagon evidence which in my book is about the worst thing a truther can do. He needs to grow the hell up and acknowledge that his position on the pentagon is untenable and CIT debunked it with authority.
<br>
<br>So think about what Chandler has really done here, or better yet I will offer this analogy to what he has done.
<br>
<br>Suppose I disputed Chandlers calculations on the free fall of WTC 7 and I said well X, Y, and Z, clearly show that WTC 7 did not come down at free fall. Next Chandler writes a detailed response debunking all three of my points decisively. He shows my contention X to be false, he shows my contention Y to be false, and then he shows my contention Z to be false. Now how about if I refuse to acknowledge that he proved my contentions false and instead go on a truth tour giving presentations about how true X, Y, and Z are while the whole time pretending he never debunked them?
<br>
<br>Well THAT is exactly what Chandler is doing and I think it is despicable to the extreme. DRG tolerating this so called truther on the consensus panel really irks me to no end. If Chandler was a truther he could debate the pentagon in the open like a man.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33731">September 1, 2015 at 10:26 pm</a>
<br>
<br>“DRG tolerating this so called truther on the consensus panel really irks me to no end. If Chandler was a truther he could debate the pentagon in the open like a man.”~Adam Ruff
<br>
<br>I am afraid that i have to agree to your point about DRG as well. As I have previously argued, I think that the idea of “consensus” itself is flawed. I won’t repeat my argument here as I have done so many times in the past; other than the central point: Consensus is by its very nature temporary and fleeting.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>September 1, 2015 at 11:15 pm
<br>
<br>Yes the whole idea of a consensus panel is essentially a popularity contest and an appeal to authority about truth. Truth is still truth even if the consensus panel votes against it.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33732">September 1, 2015 at 10:46 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Roger here is the problem with your selective picture analysis. Tell us where exactly “under the complex” this “loading platform” is. Be precise. Also how long after 9/11 was the picture taken? Be precise. Was it a month after? Did work crews have time to remove debris and clean up the area?
<br>
<br>I am betting the area depicted in that photograph was NOT in a spot hit by a particularly large amount of falling debris OR it was protected from damage by structures above it that survived complete destruction. Or both. This picture proves NOTHING other than that this particular spot didn’t cave in or get filled with debris.
<br>
<br>This is the whole issue with Wood herself, she makes claims based on nebulous information and guess work. Her work and unfortunately yours is full of logical fallacies. For instance, it is a fallacy to suggest that because the area depicted in your picture above did not cave in or get filled with debris that the entire basement of the WTC complex therefore did not suffer cave ins or get filled with debris. Even though it is clearly false logic you are using here you keep on doing it as though it isn’t. It is really tiresome to keep pointing this stuff out to Wood supporters over and over again.
<br>
<br>Your logic goes something like this: Well because William Rodriguez survived even though he got out of the towers after people who perished he must have been in on the whole thing and had a special hideout purpose built to protect him. It is ridiculous.
<br>
<br>I expect you to either acknowledge my points here Roger or drop it completely because I am NOT getting on the merry go round again where you simply ignore valid counter arguments and just keep on spouting logical fallacies on and on and on.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33733">September 1, 2015 at 11:00 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Those who refuse to answer direct questions should be scrutinized closely. I notice A.Wright and other trolls refuse to answer direct questions, they simply deflect, ignore or redirect the conversation so that they ask all the questions and answer none from others.
<br>
<br>Direct questions for Roger:
<br>
<br>1. Where did the energy to power the supposed DEW which Wood contends destroyed the towers come from?
<br>
<br>2. How did Wood measure (quantify) the amount of debris left in and around the WTC complex in order to come to the conclusion that steel and other debris was “missing” that should have been there? Please explain how she accurately accounted for all the debris? Explain how much is “missing”.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 204 -->
<a name="x205"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x205" class="tiny">x205</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_205');">Just Another Stooge Marinated In Statist Indoctrination</a></p>
<p>2015-09-04</p>
<div id="sect_205" style="display: none;">
<p>hybridrogue1
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-8568">September 4, 2015 at 9:17 am</a>
<br>Just Another Stooge Marinated In Statist Indoctrination
<br>The Legend: ‘Simpleton’ Template (Subtle)
<br>Operative: Roger the Dodger
<br>School: Sunstein
<br>Team Leaders: James Fetzer, Maxwell Bridges
<br>Operative Cover Name: Roger Gloux
<br>Site of Engagement: Truth & Shadows
<br>
<br>Profile Clue: “Back to 9/11 and all the expertise everybody is expending. I’m just a truck driver”~Gloux – August 23, 2015 at 7:18 pm
<br>
<br>Clue # 1. “I stopped getting involved. That is until I saw what Willy Whitten was saying.”~Gloux
<br>
<br>Aggression Level: High, and revealed in very first comment: “All this crap about absurd and all the fine language letting on you are smart, explain some of these problems”
<br>
<br>Note; This is directed at me personally although Roger only hints at this by the mention of the term “absurd” (“but I fail to see why legitimate questions and legitimate points must be described as “absurd.”~Craig McKee) – so Roger subtly ingratiates himself with the site owner, and calls me out in the same subtle fashion.
<br>
<br>Progressing snippets of Gloux’s nomenclature:
<br>August 24, 2015 at 10:04 am:
<br>> “That sounds like a politician answering with a non-answer.”
<br>> “Your “kiss off” reveals you are stumped as to what I said in my previous post.”
<br>(I never told Gloux to ‘kiss off’)
<br>> “What are you smoking?”
<br>> “Your reply is foolish or you can’t reply because you have no clue.”
<br>. . . .
<br>> “Well buddy I’m provoking you, buy the book and look at the pictures. If your broke borrow it from Craig.”
<br>> “Why is it pseudoscience? Did you read the book? Your burnt out in more ways then one because you spout off as if your an expert and when you look at it more closely your like a politician answering with non answers.”
<br>> “I know you are not going to look because you are a glib armchair expert and got it all figured out.”
<br>> “Now I’m just a simple truck driver who hauled all sorts of steel..”
<br>> “You need to get the book. Buy the book.”
<br>> “Besides, no plane hit the towers.”
<br>> “I haven’t read all the posts since the inception of this site but I can see who dominates in this last part. The part I decide to step into the fray. Articulate verbal…. errrr expressions may intimidate some people but it don’t have that effect on me.”
<br>. . . . .
<br>August 31, 2015 at 1:08 pm:
<br>> “hybridrogue1 Well Mr. William Rodriguez you have everything to say about everything else yet one photo that shows there isn’t anything at ground level with an undamaged ambulance right outside where the front doors used to be and a fireman walking on the street reveals there is no material to say it was a controlled demolition using explosives.
<br>That leaves you speachless? You figure your a true believer. You appear to be a “spook” working for the Government trying your best with your articulate manner to ridicule everything that points to the truth.
<br>Again you tell an un-truth.”
<br>> “hybridrogue1: Mr. William Rodriguez…”
<br>> “But now your back tracking because you see absolutely no damage under Building 4 and 5.”
<br>> “I look past your articulation and see a guy who wants to be important and figures he can pull it off. I don’t buy it.”
<br>> ” You appear to be a “spook” working for the Government trying your best with your articulate manner to ridicule everything that points to the truth.”
<br>> “Only a spook would say the opposite of what these pictures say.”
<br>> “Either your blind or your a spook. Or maybe your to caught up with yourself and your sophistication.”
<br>> “I agree and that’s what your doing with your glib articulation. Considering all the people you choose as experts the list reveals your much like a spook who is trying to deflect any information that has truth in it.”
<br>> “I know you got the book … Only a spook would say this is full of debris when you can see all the floors except half of the first floor. All I can say to these folks is buy the Book and see what this spook Willy Whitten is saying.”
<br>> “So far you have been backtracking because you can’t explain why there isn’t the evidence you say there is, when the pictures are saying the opposite of what you say.”
<br>_____________________________________________________________
<br><b>Okay, enough of these quotes by Roger the Dodger for the moment. I will leave it to the beancounter Maxitwat to count how many times the Dodger calls me ‘a spook”. I wanted to clarify that what Gloux calls “backtracking” are my attempts to clarify his seeming misinterpretations of what I have said. I never backtracked once in our conversation. And it was at this point I began to realize that Gloux is only playing at being a simpleton “truck driver”.
<br>But when he said this; “You better read the Book Willy. You got it for nothing so make sure what you present doesn’t make you look like a fool,” it occurred to me that a needling suspicion I had that Maxifuckanus could be involved in the background sprung more forward into my thinking.
<br>\\][//</b>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-8572">September 4, 2015 at 2:19 pm</a>
<br>Almost everything Roger Gloux writes is, ad verecundiam and appeal to authority. And the worst part of that is this appeal is to a fucking lunatic, Judy Wood.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 205 -->
<a name="x206"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x206" class="tiny">x206</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_206');">Three items were I a team leader</a></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-8575">2015-09-04</a></p>
<div id="sect_206" style="display: none;">
<p>Three items:
<br>
<br>[Item 1]
<br>
<br>Dearest Mr. Rogue should stop polluting <b>~my~ thread</b> on his ~stellar~ -- *cough* *cough* *hack* *choke* *wheeze* -- blog with <a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-8568">items and people that are not associated with me.</a> I have denied such associations multiple times. His continuance in this foolery only makes him look stupid, stubborn, and vindictive. He'll know when I have an active role, because I take responsibility & credit for my work and all my aliases.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue should establish new threads to smear debate opponents individually.
<br>
<br>While we are on the subject of debate opponents and dedicated threads, where is Mr. Rogue's smear job for Mr. AWright? Mr. Rogue been debating him since 2012 as well, has amassed a ton of verbiage related to his carousel spins alone, and continues to drool related spittle. His total output dedicated to AWright is second probably only to output aimed at me. What gives? Is none of his effort taking down AWright worthy of preservation? For all the times Mr. Rogue has bemoaned renewed cranks on AWright's merry-go-round, had he been writing worthy entries and preserving his efforts together with source links, Mr. Rogue could have stopped those spin-cycles early in their revolutions with a link and quotation from his legacy.
<br>
<br>
<br>[Item 2]
<br>
<br>Were I a team leader for Mr. Roger Gloux or in any way in communication with him, I would set him straignt on Dr. Wood's work and disinformation contained therein. I find it worthy of study, but it was never the end station and never championed by me as such.
<br>
<br>This is brought to light more clearly by my new 9/11 hero, Mr. Andre Gsponer, who has never mentioned 9/11 in his work that I'm aware of.
<br>
<br>I've never read his book <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Fourth_Generation_Nuclear_Weapons.html?id=cjC9nQEACAAJ"><i>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion and the Quest for Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons</i></a>, which was in its fifth edition in March 1999. <b>But by golly, Dr. Jones, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Wood, et al should have!</b>
<br>
<br>The Executive Summary states:</p>
<blockquote><p>The fourth chapter is devoted to fourth generation nuclear weapons. These new fission or fusion explosives could have yields in the range of 1 to 100 ton equivalents of TNT, i.e., in the gap which today separates conventional weapons from nuclear weapons. These relatively low-yield nuclear explosives would not qualify as weapons of <b>{mass}</b> destruction. Seven physical processes which could be used to make such low-yield nuclear weapons, or to make compact non-fission triggers for large scale thermonuclear explosions, are investigated in detail: subcritical fission-burn, magnetic compression, superheavy elements, antimatter, nuclear isomers, metallic hydrogen and superlasers (i.e., ultrapowerful lasers with intensities higher than 1019 W/cm<sup>2</sup>).</p></blockquote>
<p>Even Mr. Gsponer's more accessible 2005 PDF <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071"><i>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects</i></a> would have given tons of insight. This pre-dates much of Dr. Wood's website and certainly Dr. Wood's book [2010], but also Dr. Jones' <i>Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers</i> [2007].
<br>
<br>As coincidence would have it, Mr. Rogue has never waded into this 54 page PDF file from Mr. Gsponer. Neither has Mr. Ruff who was challenged <i><b>directly</b></i> to do so in order to spare him a lashing to his integrity that his anticipated lame debunking of Dr. Wood's work would serve up. Debunking legitimately Mr. Gsponer's work would have been a two-fer with regards to debunking Dr. Wood! Mr. Ruff agreed, but then became a no-show... except for his pogo-horse romps on T&S chasing Dr. Wood's supporter, Mr. Gloux.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue wrote <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33800">September 3, 2015 at 1:06 pm</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>My opinion is that it is well established that the DEW issue is bogus, and is meant as a distraction as it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Lilaleo gave a witty response <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33804">September 3, 2015 at 1:26 pm</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Well, it is working quite well then, this distraction, isn’t it? ;-}]</p></blockquote>
<p><br>
<br>Indeed. Indeed.
<br>
<br>
<br>[Item 3]
<br>
<br>Were I a team leader for Mr. Roger Gloux or in any way in communication with him, I would him give him a silver bullet to fatally pierce Mr. Rogue's integrity in the perceptions of the thinking readers.
<br>
<br>Mr. McKee referred Mr. Gloux to the closed T&S blogs dedicated to Dr. Wood, where Mr. Gloux undoubtedly learned that, after much cajoling, Mr. Rogue received Dr. Wood's book for free [only in the monetary sense, el-oh-el.] The agreed barter exchange were that Mr. Rogue read the book cover-to-cover; provide an objective good, bad, ugly review; and in the end pass-it-along or pay-it-forward. No need to belabor this comment with specifics on how Mr. Rogue ran out the clock and spectacularly failed the three simple conditions.
<br>
<br>However, what is extremely noteworthy is how Mr. Rogue shut down further attempts at a rational discussion and legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood. On <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16642">March 4, 2013 at 7:10 pm</a> Mr. Rogue wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>I decided to pull the pages out of this stupid book [by Dr. Judy Wood] and use them in the bottom of my bird’s cages. At least some good use was put to the paper.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>For almost 2-1/2 years, this has been the official position of Mr. Rogue: he supposedly didn't have the book any more. A weasel move to avoid addressing specifics in the book. Even when his violent defacement of the book was mocked, Mr. Rogue never corrected the record. Until I go on a T&S vacation, that is. On <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33511">August 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm</a>, Mr. Rogue writes to Mr. Gloux:</p>
<blockquote><p>I have the BOOK [from Dr. Judy Wood].</p></blockquote>
<p>As proof that he has the book, other comments from Mr. Rogue in August 2015 reference specific pages and images to address certain points from Mr. Gloux.
<br>
<br>Whereas Dr. Wood's book is a distraction (from Mr. Gsponer and FGNW), it has served very well as an objectivity test and an integrity test that continues to bloody noses even today!
<br>
<br>The above blatant ~LIE~ from Mr. Rogue that he dutifully maintained for nearly 2-1/2 years in lieu of acknowledging any good in Dr. Wood's book?!!
<br>
<br>The silver bullet fatally pierces Mr. Rogue's integrity and character. <i>"Unfaithful in the small things..."</i>
<br>
<br>I wrote on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16656">March 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm</a></p>
<blockquote><p>My money is betting that the above [destruction of Dr. Wood's book for bird cage liner] is just another fucking lie from Agent Rogue. I can wait a very long time before this lie is exposed, ...</p></blockquote>
<p>Jackpot! Bingo! Full-house! Pay day! Woo-hoo!
<br>
<br>... And what a long strange trip it has been!
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 206 -->
<a name="x207"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x207" class="tiny">x207</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_207');">Oh yes, I still have the Book! the jokes on you</a></p>
<p>2015-09-04</p>
<div id="sect_207" style="display: none;">
<p>hybridrogue1
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-8576">September 4, 2015 at 4:58 pm</a>
<br>
<br><b>Lol, Maxitwat! How you spin your wheels responding to this blog when you know you will never ever <i>EVER</i> be published here. But I love smelling the desperate aggravation and frustration in your blathering rants!
<br>Fuck off monkeyboy, the jokes on you…the joke has <i>always</i> been on you! <i>Hahahahahahah!!!</i>
<br>Oh yes, I still have the Book! It would be stupid to destroy it, I told you that fib because I knew it would steam your stinking ass more than anything. Others know that I didn’t rip the pages out for cage liners as well – yea it was a joke on you, you stupid shit! I offered you the damned thing back and you refused, you have NOTHING to say about it beyond that point. Now stew in your own juice.</b>
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 207 -->
<a name="x208"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x208" class="tiny">x208</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_208');">a joke on your character</a></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-8582">2015-09-04</a></p>
<div id="sect_208" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>You may <i>think</i> that the joke has been on me. From any outsider's objective opinion, it was a joke on your character: <i>unfaithful in the small things...</i>
<br>
<br>Your attempt at a joke didn't affect me except to give me many opportunities to mock you for your alleged actions, if true, and you had take it, fool. I suspected from the onset it was a lie (with March 2013 comments that prove this), because destroying the book would have been indeed stupid. But you made that bed, so I made you lie in it. I knew your fib would be exposed one day. Until it was, you were punked and pwned on the theme and had to take it.
<br>
<br>The joke is on you that you thought/think your <b>~lie~</b> ever presented you in a favorable light to those in on the joke or those ignorant thereof. Even more so when it was all about you weaseling out of a good, bad, and ugly section-by-section assessment of Dr. Wood. Could have been your opportunity to legitimately debunk Dr. Wood and achieved fame and stardom in the 9/11 Truth Movement. You flumuxed that one in a major way. It isn't as if I would have been in disagreement with your assessments of the bad or the work as a whole. Quite the contrary, I would have been strengthening and supporting you. Alas, the issue would always have been the remaining good that you avoid like the plague -- or an agent with an agenda. With exposure of this fib as the cherry on top, we don't have to entertain any notions of you being a sincere seeker of truth.
<br>
<br>I already have a copy of the book, so sending it back to me would not have benefited the larger discussion. This was why it was never one of the initial options in the conditions. You could have sent it (or paid-it-forward) to Dr. Jones or Mr. Ruff or others and gotten this <i>monkeyboy</i> off your back. You refused. The record shows that your refusal to do any good-faith efforts into fulfilling the conditions of the agreement came first.
<br>
<br>What makes it funnier from my perspective, is that you knew before the offer was extended how I was using Dr. Wood's book as an objectivity test and how it would play against you if you defaulted. Who's the dumb-fuck, Mr. Autodictat Genius? El-oh-el.
<br>
<br>Instead, you stew in your juices about how all aspects of this long-play "joke" supposedly on me is really the epitomy of the depravity of your integrity. You have none. You discredit yourself.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, if I so desire <b>(but don't)</b>, I can cyber-stalk you all over the internet where ever you play and legitimately label you <i>"a liar, a cheat, and weasel"</i> ... complete with supporting links that now includes your admission here.
<br>
<br>I thank you for being my debate opponent. You helped me hone my arguments, improve my research, and build up my case. Too bad you didn't use the opportunity for the same.
<br>
<br>Have not only a great weekend but also life! And stop re-animating me.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 208 -->
<a name="x209"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x209" class="tiny">x209</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_209');">shown to be blathering</a></p>
<p>2015-09-04</p>
<div id="sect_209" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-8584">September 4, 2015 at 8:14 pm</a>
<br>Again aye Bridges? You are farting in the wind sending me your bullshit.
<br>
<br>The problem with your complaint and allegations that I “lied” about the book are shown to be blather, as you yourself admitted there is NOTHING of substance in the BOOK, that was not previously found on Wood’s web site. You conned me into accepting that Book. Well one con deserves another counter con.
<br>On top of that I offered to send you that Book back in pristine condition, you refused, hoping to con me into fulfilling a promise to review said book even though I discovered you pawned it off on me under false pretenses. This is all in the public record, in fact the quotes by yourself admitting the book had nothing of substance over the web site are somewhere in the stack of comments above. You claimed that even though there really wasn’t a spit worth of difference from the site to the book, that the plastic card with the layout of the WTC that came with the book was worth the price. Am I jogging your faulty memory monkeyboy?
<br>
<br>You call me a liar and a cheat and a weasel throughout your spurious slurs against me at any rate. You are the one that lied, and started this entire tempest in a thimble. I have proved that by quoting your own words.
<br>
<br>Now, it makes no difference to me if you rant and rave, scream and stamp your feet, because it is futile here. You will NEVER be given a voice on this blog because indeed it is you who are the depraved liar, and cheat and weasel.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-8585">September 4, 2015 at 8:26 pm</a>
<br>“The record shows that your refusal to do any good-faith efforts into fulfilling the conditions of the agreement came first.”~Maxitwat
<br>
<br>The record shows that the “agreement” was made under your false assertions that the book was different than the website. That annuls any agreement as it was false advertising and a con. I owe you no “good-faith efforts”, because you made bad faith efforts to con me into accepting that book.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="">September 4, 2015 at 8:47 pm</a>
<br>”The website was never completed. It even has notes from 2006 saying various pages are still under construction. Many errors from the website were fixed in the book, which is one reason why the book should be considered the final source. The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood (until addressed in version 2 of the book or something on her website.) This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts. But if you want to peg Dr. Judy Wood for saying or supporting anything as of today, the book is your nearest source. Go review my June 4 2012 at 1:55 pm posting. The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”~Señor – MAY 5, 2014 AT 3:19 PM
<br>http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-8587">September 4, 2015 at 9:16 pm</a>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/#comment-22668
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/#comment-22708
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/#comment-22709
<br>. . . . .
<br>I hereby reiterate and reaffirm that I have not purposefully told any lies on the blogs, and the entity still hasn’t proven a single one.
<br>
<br>Señor boasts:
<br>— “Not impossible; already done; link provided to more than one.”
<br>And then continues with:
<br>— “The lie that Mr. Rogue promoted was him (or other sources) having completely and entirely debunked Dr. Wood’s work, whether it is framed as her book or her website.”
<br>
<br>And here is the crux of the matter, the entity calling itself Señor is making a subjective case as to what a “lie” is. He defines a “lie” as that which he disagrees with. Whether Dr. Wood’s work is “debunked” entirely, in great part, for the most part, or not at all is OPINION.
<br>
<br>The entity obviously puts a great deal of faith in his own OPINION, in fact to the point of hubris, that vanity that blinds the senses and causes delusion.
<br>
<br>It is so obvious on inspection that the entity is just a context-shifting word twisting-shill.
<br>
<br>Example, the entity already did its Beancounter slink, numbering my comments of yesterday’s compared to his/her/its; but what is missing there? CONTEXT, the entity spewed how many thousands of words on the page yesterday? I am loath to even attempt a count, but one certain thing is that they overwhelm my word-count by a vast margin.
<br>
<br>And his every point is veiled in the same stinking cheesecloth. Just rhetorical spin jive bullshit. ARGUMENTUM VERBOSIUM to the max.
<br>
<br>Wood’s BOOK v Wood’s website according to the Señor entity:
<br>
<br>— “The website was never completed. It even has notes from 2006 saying various pages are still under construction. Many errors from the website were fixed in the book, which is one reason why the book should be considered the final source. The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood (until addressed in version 2 of the book or something on her website.) This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts. But if you want to peg Dr. Judy Wood for saying or supporting anything as of today, the book is your nearest source. Go review my June 4 2012 at 1:55 pm posting. The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”~Señor
<br>
<br>Parse this closely and what is really found in this spin?
<br>
<br>– “Many errors from the website were fixed in the book,” Well, which errors?
<br>
<br>Well deconstruct this:
<br>
<br>– “The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood …[BUT]… This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts.”
<br>
<br>That’s it; the most definitive statements are few and far between … WTF?
<br>
<br>The entity doesn’t say what is in the book that was left off the website that was “under construction”. He makes no mention of what is new of substance. The only thing Once can come up with here is, – “The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”.
<br>
<br>Is it? Part of what the entity refers to here is a plastic card, pretty durable, that has the layout of WTC as an areal view, with all the buildings numbered and the names of the streets. Is this “worth the price alone”? Preposterous. The card is handy no doubt, but the rest is more hyperbole. And I reiterate again; the entity cannot think of WHAT it is of substance that is revealed in the book, but missing from the website – he merely asserts that there is, and then offers these expansive remarks about a card with the Legend to the buildings seen from above.
<br>
<br>Can I say, ‘Whoopty-fuckin-doo’?
<br>Or should that read, ‘Whoopty-fuckin-DEW’? Lol
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/#comment-22716
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-8589">September 4, 2015 at 9:24 pm</a>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b> – May 14, 2014 at 8:48 pm
<br>Seenyor Once lied when he claimed there was a substantial difference between Judy Wood’s website and the BOOK. This becomes a ‘Damned Lie’ in that he continues to promote this falsehood despite clear prima facea evidence to the contrary.
<br>
<br>This is compounded by the fact that he uses this lie to make further lies concerning my honesty and character; slurs and defamation by false witness and perjury.
<br>
<br>Each and everyone of these false assertions are “Counts” – ones that Seenyor, being the beancounter that he is; should tally one day to illustrate what a lying cheating scoundrel he truly is.
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/#comment-22830
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 209 -->
<a name="x210"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x210" class="tiny">x210</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_210');">why hasn’t he just posted his complaints directly on Truth & Shadows?</a></p>
<p>2015-09-06</p>
<div id="sect_210" style="display: none;">
<p>hybridrogue1
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-8601">September 5, 2015 at 4:05 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Maxitwat is squawking to Adam Ruff via email and me here, and likely tweeting blather all over the social sites, why hasn’t he just posted his complaints directly on Truth & Shadows? Why does he pen these verbose woeful harangues and send them here where he KNOWS DAMNED WELL they will never see the light of day?
<br>
<br>Why does he claim that I “reanimate” him, when I don’t even let him speak here? Why doesn’t the asshole just disappear completely rather than haunting the HR1blog like some spook? Lol… because he has been a spook all along! — “Señor El Caspar the Fiendish Ghost”! Hahahahahaha!!!!!
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="">September 6, 2015 at 3:45 am</a>
<br>
<br>“DEW DEW DEW bla bla bla it’s all a bunch of ca ca ca”~The Police
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 210 -->
<a name="x211"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x211" class="tiny">x211</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_211');">{repeat} those who refuse to answer direct questions should be scrutinized closely</a></p>
<p>2015-09-01</p>
<div id="sect_211" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33733">September 1, 2015 at 11:00 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Those who refuse to answer direct questions should be scrutinized closely. I notice A.Wright and other trolls refuse to answer direct questions, they simply deflect, ignore or redirect the conversation so that they ask all the questions and answer none from others.
<br>
<br>Direct questions for Roger:
<br>
<br>1. Where did the energy to power the supposed DEW which Wood contends destroyed the towers come from?
<br>
<br>2. How did Wood measure (quantify) the amount of debris left in and around the WTC complex in order to come to the conclusion that steel and other debris was “missing” that should have been there? Please explain how she accurately accounted for all the debris? Explain how much is “missing”.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33781">September 3, 2015 at 1:24 am</a>
<br>
<br>May I point out here at this time that Roger has not answered the following direct question from my previous post:
<br>
<br>“2. How did Wood measure (quantify) the amount of debris left in and around the WTC complex in order to come to the conclusion that steel and other debris was “missing” that should have been there? Please explain how she accurately accounted for all the debris? Explain how much is “missing”.”
<br>
<br>This is an ongoing theme with Wood and her supporters, they make unsubstantiated claims such as there is material “missing” yet they refuse to answer as to how they know that and how they measured the material that is there and how much is “missing”. The whole basis of their flim flam is that there is something “missing”. So answer the above question or quit bothering us with unsupported (by evidence) claims. When you can prove there is a large amount of material “missing” I will reconsider your DEW theory. Until then it is pure BS based on speculation that isn’t even grounded in reality. I am tired of it frankly.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33857">September 4, 2015 at 8:35 pm</a>
<br>
<br>My purpose for entering into the DEW discussion is twofold.
<br>
<br>1. To expose the fact that Wood’s DEW theory is a bogus theory based on speculation and very poor analysis of the evidence and to make sure that people reading this discussion can see that some of us in the truth movement are exposing it as such. Mainly I am concerned about this aspect for people new to the truth movement who may be drawn in by Wood’s baffling buffoonery as Jesse Ventura unfortunately was. I want to nip that in the bud and prevent future truthers from falling prey to this misinformation. I consider it very likely but not 100% certain that the whole DEW meme is intention disinformation put out by professionals for the express purpose of weakening, dividing, and confusing the truth movement. From that standpoint I think it does help the truth movement to some degree to have people like myself and Willy counter this crap when it comes up. At least it is in print that we countered the spin. At least I challenged the basis for the whole thing which is the supposed “missing” steel. There is a danger though that engaging with disinformationists may accomplish one of their peripheral goals which is to derail productive discussions and slow progress in other areas. This has happened many times and is difficult to avoid because to do so we must necessarily allow the disinformationists the last word because they will not stop until they get it.
<br>
<br>2. I like to allow for the possibility that people like Roger are genuine truth seekers who have simply been sucked in by clever disinformation. He may “come around” and see it for the disinformation that it really is if my points are made well enough. I admit this is a remote possibility though and I am probably pissing in the wind. So the “benefit” of continuing these discussions may be little to none, you will have to judge that for yourself Craig. Sometimes I doubt the “benefit” myself as I do in this case with Roger. I seriously wonder in Roger’s case if he is a genuine truth seeker or not. When I see the characteristics of an OCD personality show up out of the blue and start down the DEW path I have to wonder if this is just another identity for someone like Senior El Once still attempting to accomplish his/her/its mission of diluting the quality of T+S.
<br>
<br>I am loth to censor anyone unless I am absolutely convinced they are NOT genuine truth seekers. In my own way I am trying to develop a test of sorts to identify the genuine people and expose the operatives. In the case of the DEW disinformation the test I have come up with is the question/challenge about the “missing” material. How a person responds to that speaks volumes about their authenticity. An honest truth seeker when asked that question about quantifying the “missing” material would have to respond that it is impossible to quantify how much material is in and around the WTC site and it is therefore impossible to say that any material is missing. A dishonest person or an operative will not admit that fact because it goes to the very hart of the entire disinformation meme. In other words admitting that truth that they have no way of quantifying the material that is there destroys their whole meme. An operative will not allow that to happen and CANNOT admit that fact. A genuine truth seeker can admit it. So my question is a litmus test of sorts. It is a way to identify the bad guys while not resorting to overt censorship which I detest. See now we can press Roger to answer the question OR admit that he has no idea how much if any material is “missing”. Once he admits it the DEW meme is destroyed. If he refuses to admit it there is a basis to remove him from T+S that is fair because he is then being disingenuous and not debating in good faith.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 211 -->
<a name="x212"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x212" class="tiny">x212</a>
T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_212');">sounds of explosions</a></p>
<p>2015-09-07</p>
<div id="sect_212" style="display: none;">
<p>Star Member William Seger (6,546 posts)
<br><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1135&pid=10494">Mon Aug 24, 2015, 01:28 AM</a>
<br>
<br><b>5. I can show you plenty of evidence</b>
<br>
<br>... that you don't need to be inside or immediately next to a building to hear demolition explosives. I can show you plenty of evidence that virtually all videos of actual demolitions capture those distinctive sounds. Furthermore, I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns: because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound. If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it. No, this video does not defend its bullshit, and neither do you, because it's indefensible.
<br>
<br>This is why the "truth movement" died, wildbill.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Jimbo
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33932">September 7, 2015 at 7:46 am</a>
<br>Over on the Democratic Underground site there is a segregated comment site in their “basement” called Creative Speculation where 9/11 truth views are welcome. One guy Wildbilling (?) puts up a good fight for our side but there is a Wright-type of guy, Segar (I think) who is a formidable foe. A big part of his skepticism is derived from the no explosive sounds indicative of a controlled demolition were heard on 9/11. Wildbilling has reached out to other sites asking for a good counter argument for this dearth of the typical boom boom boom boom of controlled demolitions. As Graham McQueen has showed us there are many witnesses who heard explosions but very few, if any heard the the typical controlled demolition sound. Since we seem to insist it was a controlled demolition Segar says no it wasn’t. This is where a Judy Wood or the nuke argument would help. I would speculate that there was some exotic device used that day.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33933">September 7, 2015 at 8:57 am</a>
<br>It is not true that there is a dearth of evidence for the sounds of explosions during the demolitions. In fact it has been shown that NIST edited the sound out of the videos that did have clear soundtracks of explosions. Further NIST made this spurious statement in the faq on Questions and Answers: “In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings.” — The fact is that the sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB would be at the source of the explosion and wound fall off substantially at half a mile from that source.
<br>
<br>225 decibels — Deafening — 12? Cannon @ 12' in front and below
<br>
<br>Q. So who was 12 feet away from the detonations in the towers when they went off?
<br>A. Dead people. They are always deaf.
<br>
<br>140 dB – Deafening — Artillery fire
<br>
<br>–”The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile.”
<br>–The conclusion from NIST
<br>
<br>This is nonsense; this sentence would only be true if restated: ‘At a level of 130-140 decibels at source, it would be audible at a distance of half a mile.’
<br>
<br>–“How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? Many first responders were all easily within 1/4 mile of the towers. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.”–Max Bridges
<br>
<br>This assertion is based on the misconception offered by NIST. Consider the table offered at the URL above; even at 225 decibels a 12? Cannon is deafening at 12 feet away in front or below the blast.Anyone that close to a demolition blast would not only be deafened, they would be killed. Even being some block or so away the volume of the blast would attenuate significantly. The loudness of dB falls off exponentially by distance.[*]
<br>
<br>The assertion that none of the first responders reported explosive blasts is simply a lie, as has been gone into in great detail.
<br>
<br>–“None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction” Because no one close enough to one of these blasts to be deafened survived to report it.
<br>
<br>The claim that “no blast was audible on recordings” is also untrue, as the recordings finally released by NIST due to Freedom of Information suits, clearly have such audible sound tracks on many videos.
<br>
<br>“Intensity and Distance
<br>• Sounds get quieter (less loud) the further you get from their source
<br>• Easy to see that in a free field, the power per unit area falls with square of
<br>the distance
<br>• Or in decibel terms, falls by 6dB every doubling of distance.
<br>
<br>Summary
<br>• Objective and subjective scale of sound quantity
<br>• Sound Pressure Level scale (dBSPL)
<br>– logarithmic ratio scale
<br>– with a reference at the threshold of hearing
<br>– which is convenient, standard, and closer to our perceptions of loudness.”
<br>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<br>It is also the case that dB cannot be measured from a sound recording:
<br>
<br>It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording. One can only measure the decibels of a live sound. Anyone that doesn’t get this is simply ignorant of the mechanics of sound recording.
<br>
<br>It is in the nature of any recorded medium, that it is in fact an artifact, it is not the thing itself. This artifact has only the relations to other artifacts contained in the medium the record was made in.
<br>
<br>With a sound recording these relationships are set and cannot be separated. The loudness or dB will then depend solely on the playback mechanism, the VU meter registering the settings on the playback. In a studio recording gleaning the true loudness of the drums compared to a guitar is impossible once the recording is mixed. One would have to then refer to the premix recording to adjust the levels.
<br>
<br>In a field recording where there is only the mix created by the circumstance of the set relationships at hand at the moment a recording is made, there is nothing but a mix recording to refer to, the levels are set and the dB of the entire recording is set in those relationships.
<br>
<br>One more thing about sound recording; those who have seen the films, ‘The Conversation’ or ‘The Good Shepherd’, may have seen the way EQ can be used to play with frequencies in a sound recording to mask or enhance a sound in a recording. These tricks are available to a talented recording artist. But it must be understood that
<br>‘frequencies’ and ‘decibels’ are separate issues. Thus, assuming that the dB is somehow being manipulated by such techniques in in error, what is manipulated is the frequencies.
<br>
<br>Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>Nikogriego
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33972">September 8, 2015 at 12:16 pm</a>
<br>HybridRogue1 why not go over to that forum and lend your expertise to counter Seger’s nonsense? He states he can show many films of controlled demolitions that have explosive sounds. He is a committed agent.
<br>
<br>” William Seger (6,546 posts)
<br>5. I can show you plenty of evidence
<br>
<br>… that you don’t need to be inside or immediately next to a building to hear demolition explosives. I can show you plenty of evidence that virtually all videos of actual demolitions capture those distinctive sounds. Furthermore, I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns: because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound. If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it. No, this video does not defend its bullshit, and neither do you, because it’s indefensible.
<br>
<br>This is why the “truth movement” died, wildbill.”
<br>
<br>http://www.democraticunderground.com/113510486
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33934">September 7, 2015 at 9:01 am</a>
<br>“no blast sounds were heard or reported by witnesses”~NIST, this lie is exposed in detail at this link:
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Daniel Noel
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33943">September 7, 2015 at 2:09 pm</a>
<br>That Segar is a formidable foe only to those who let her/him. With no offense meant, 9/11 activists will make little progress until they factually accept the background of 9/11’s teaching:
<br>* The Master 9/11 conspirators’ most formidable accomplishment is neither the technical prowess of the World Trade Center’s controlled demolition, nor the remarkable inter-agency cooperation into a complicated but transparent cover-up with Osama bin Laden’s air show and fraudulent reports. It is the poorly acknowledged process that has convinced the Syrian TV, the Russian professors of metallurgy, CodePink, the OathKeepers, etc., etc., to live the official 9/11 myth as an axiom.
<br>* As such, 9/11 Truth’s acceptance comes with the uncomfortable corollary of the commitment to the 9/11 censorship of just about all sources of information one has trusted. This is the unspoken meaning of the simplistic “but someone would have talked” argument.
<br>* Therefore, skeptics will be extremely reluctant to accept 9/11 Truth. They will–usually unconsciously and desperately–seek and cling to any reason to reject it.
<br>* 9/11 censors understand the above. So do 9/11 fanatics, albeit to a lesser extent. Accordingly, they try to debate 9/11 on topics where they can confuse the audience out of studying 9/11. Hence their obsession with secondary evidence like the acoustic noise.
<br>
<br>There may be a way to demonstrate the controlled demolitions based on the study of the acoustic noise alone. But even assuming that this is the case, the demonstration will be much too complex to be teachable in the midst of the 9/11 censors and the 9/11 fanatics, who hold all the bully pulpits denied to 9/11 scholars. It is usually an error to entertain an argument on this topic. Much more effective is to decline to enter it unless the other party has completed a cursory analysis of the video record, which inevitably yields overwhelming evidence to accept the criminal controlled demolition and reject the accidental destruction. At this point, the purpose of the noise analysis is to simply look for a compelling way to doubt the controlled demolition, along these ideas:
<br>* If it was a criminal controlled demolition, there would be thousands of explosions over the 10 seconds or so of destruction.
<br>* These thousands of explosions would yield explosive noises.
<br>* The demolition engineers may have taken some unusual–and presumably expensive–precautions to muffle these noises to some extent.
<br>* TV may have taken precautions to attenuate these noises in their records.
<br>* Witnesses may have been “convinced” to not spread their recollection of the noises.
<br>* Still, there would be some trace of these noises. A detailed analysis of sound records or a review of witness statements shortly after the buildings’ destruction would hint at explosions.
<br>* Therefore, if we find that the analysis of audio records shows no trace of explosive sounds and that almost all witnesses affirm in unison the absence of explosions, we will have, at last, a reason to doubt the controlled demolition. This would not disprove the controlled demolition, but call for a more detailed analysis.
<br>* The rest is straightforward.
<br>
<br>Love,
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33944">September 7, 2015 at 2:37 pm</a>
<br>Daniel Noel,
<br>
<br>It is already straight forward, right above you have a video with the actual sounds of explosions, you have videos of Firemen saying they witnessed explosions. At my blog I have page after page of hundreds of reports of explosions by ear witnesses, firemen, policemen, reporters and civilians near the site.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Jimbo
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33955">September 7, 2015 at 8:50 pm</a>
<br>Explosions are one thing, and your site shows that there were plenty which right there exposes the lie that it was only the planes and fire but if you look at a Las Vegas hotel going down you hear a staccato of boom-cracks which so far I have not heard on any 9/11 video. The firefighters in the video above talk of “floors popping out” and the “boom boom boom” a guy does mention seems more like the sound of floors coming down in a staccato way but no Las Vegas boom-crack boom-crack boom-crack boom-crack. The nano thermite found in the dust makes me think that there were these charges set at critical joints to fizz away with super-heat and super-speed rather than go boom. The random explosions we can hear in the video above maybe only aid in the destruction like William Rodriquez’s actual WTC basement explosion and the firefighters’ explosions in the lobby. In other words it looks like a typical controlled demolition but it doesn’t sound like one. And by no means would that deter me from believing it was a controlled demolition but the evidence tells me it was just not a typical one. It is too bad we don’t know for sure.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33956">September 7, 2015 at 9:07 pm</a>
<br>Fine Jimbo, if it helps, wallow in uncertainty for the next 14 years as well.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33959">September 8, 2015 at 1:03 am</a>
<br>Let me add Jimbo, that on the Controlled Demolition Inc. web site there is – or was, an explanation of how the company produced videos of their demolition, both for records, and as promotional materials.
<br>
<br>These productions are designed to present a totally professional presentation. The camera’s are set up at various distances and angles, with zoom and telephoto capabilities. The sound is produced separately using special shotgun mics that can be calibrated to capture a clear and finely equalized signal, so that every sonic detail is captured. The video and sound is edited together all synced to a time code for a pro production.
<br>
<br>And it is this difference in quality that makes the difference in what you here from news camera’s that are mainly designed to capture the dialog of the newsman on the scene. he is close to the mike and it is set to pick up his voice at conversational levels. the mics for such productions are attenuated to protect the diaphragm, and unexpected loud noises will drop out for the purpose of not causing diaphragm damage. Most commercial mics are set at a range of attenuation circuitry that drops out automatically when there are strong spikes in dB levels. This is why capturing the sound of thunderstorms can be difficult without specially attenuated mics.
<br>
<br>I used to do field recording when I was doing sound design to go with ambient music. I had spotty successes, ones that could be used with editing together the sounds and cutting out the dropouts when a surprise strike of lightning would hit nearby. It would take several seconds for the sound to fade back in after such events.
<br>
<br>And the point of this ‘tutorial’ (of sorts), is that it is not surprising that the sound in the videos from 9/11 have picked up spotty sound tracks during the bomb events. Many shots were from fairly good distances and would only pick up the reflected sounds produced in the “canyons” of buildings and streets. At great distances using telephoto lenses, very little to nothing would be picked up. At mid distances, fairly distinct sounds could be captured. At closer distances, the attenuation situation would occur and dropouts would be present.
<br>
<br>There are however several videos that were just at the right distance and settings that picked up good clear recordings of the explosions. On of them is posted on this page. Another is of a female reporter talking about secondary explosions on camera and they can be heart distintcly in the background. There is of course the video of the firemen at a phone booth making calls to their homes, when there are suddenly booms that totally freak them out.
<br>
<br>All together, with these recordings, plus the hundreds of ear witness testimonies, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that explosions are what took down the towers and #7.
<br>
<br>You may still have doubts Jimbo, you have the right to your own opinion just like anyone else does.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Jimbo
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33965">September 8, 2015 at 3:51 am</a>
<br>Unless it was space rays or a nuke, as has been proposed by some in the movement, I will agree that explosions are a good bet on what brought down the buildings but until we can find the smoking whatever, as long as we insist it was a “controlled demolition” we will be derided by skeptics. For if, as we like to say, a steel frame building has never been brought down by fire, Mr. Segar will counter and say that there has never been a more silent controlled demolition. Could it be that the buildings were brought down by some “secret weapon?” I know that sounds conspiracy-nutty but there are secret weapons are there not? My Navy SEAL friend confirmed this. Yes, turn the sound off and you get a reaction like that Dutch demolition expert Danny something who with one look knew it was a controlled demolition. Sound on and we hear deep rumbling and screams but no boom-crack. Maybe the typical controlled demolition sounds are muffled beneath the deep rumbling , hard to mike on an average video camera as you say, Hell we can see those squibs David Chandler shows in a video, the ones running down the edge of the building but do they have sound? Until we can isolate that sound then the skeptics will continue to say they’re air blasts.
<br>
<br>Indeed, just about all the sound from 9/11 sucks. (Turn your ear buds up for this.) So you could be right and the crack crack crack controlled demolition sound was wasted on the randomly placed lo-fi mikes.
<br>
<br>I don’t mean to be contrary but every time I go to that Democratic Underground site which is loaded with good American liberals (who locked me out ages ago) who should but don’t buy the 9/11 truth line, this Segar guy does a good job of making us look dumb, especially when it comes to the demolition of the buildings. Arguing that mikes were not placed well enough to hear every sound probably won’t cut it with him and his followers. Frankly, I get your point and maybe the demolition sound was lost, but I would need a stronger argument than this to confront Segar (if the bastards ever let me back in).
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33968">September 8, 2015 at 9:54 am</a>
<br>“this Segar guy does a good job of making us look dumb..”~Jimbo
<br>
<br>Well maybe that is not entirely Segar’s doing.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33971">September 8, 2015 at 11:57 am</a>
<br>That “Donny something” was one of the leading experts of large scale controlled demolitions in the whole wide world. You, or I, or the millions of ignorant (for the most part) “truthers” like us could not even begin to comprehend what Mr. Something was seeing in that “one look”. I doubt that anything this segar person can say could possibly trump that observation, especially in the absence of a similarly qualified CT expert who has come out and officially stated that it was NOT a CT.
<br>
<br>Sadly, Donny Jowenko’s expertise is now in the past tense, as he was killed when his car collided head on to a tree on his way back from church. He was a brave an honest man , who simply could not and would not stay quite when he saw what he saw, while many out there were (and still are) silenced simply with a threatening phone call or a quick visit to let them know what would happen to them and their loved ones if they keep talking.
<br>
<br>Please provide links for some examples of Segar’s arguments. I’d be very interested in reading a few.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33973">September 8, 2015 at 12:56 pm</a>
<br>Nikogriego,
<br>
<br>Thanks for the link to the democraticunderground site. I attempted to sign up, and as is usual, there is interference with this process that has something to do with my prior accounts in my name, that have my old email address. And I can’t get over that technical hurdle.
<br>
<br>Perhaps Jimbo could persuade the amazing William Seger to join us on Truth & Shadows.
<br>What I read of that thread, and Segar’s remarks there didn’t impress me as having much substance whatsoever. He says “I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns” And then those few words are:
<br>
<br>“because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound.” ~WS
<br>
<br>Well this is elementary, but what does it prove as far as the specific explosions that took down the towers?
<br>
<br>Mr Magical Debater then goes on to say: ” If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it.”
<br>
<br>And that is pure hyperbolic bullshit. As anyone who has taken the time to read the my blog page knows, there were hundreds of ear witnesses who reported hearing explosions.
<br>
<br>Again: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
<br>
<br>It is obvious to me that Mr Seger is an amateur in the topic of sound recording. He is mainly a fair rhetorician, but certainly not an expert in argumentation either. He may be able to talk circles around amateurs, but I see nothing particularly formidable in his arguments. Some, like Jimbo may have a bias that makes it easy for them to conclude that Seger has more than he actually has in his arguments.
<br>
<br>Now, like Wright hyperventilating on “angle cut beams”, other issues must be included in any discussion of the destruction of the towers; the other conclusive evidences of explosive demolition.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33934">September 7, 2015 at 9:01 am</a>
<br>“no blast sounds were heard or reported by witnesses”~NIST, this lie is exposed in detail at this link:
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
<br>\\][//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 212 -->
<a name="x213"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x213" class="tiny">x213</a>
Nikogriego : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_213');">exercise your rhetorical skills on a FB group called "911 Debates</a></p>
<p>2015-09-08</p>
<div id="sect_213" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Nikogriego</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33978">September 8, 2015 at 3:13 pm</a>
<br>Agreed. He is used to having his way with people who don’t have all the facts at their fingertips and can’t argue convincingly therefore.
<br>
<br>Another place you may want to exercise your rhetorical skills, and where they are needed, is on a FB group called “911 Debates”:
<br>
<br>https://www.facebook.com/groups/602197473157395/
<br>
<br>There are those on that group who are just intellectually dishonest and painfully limited in their thinking, but convinced of their righteousness. I gave up over a year ago. Watch out for Elizabeth Tague, Keoki (now Torres, but before something else), Sam Haschets, Ron Morales “Ron Morales- Silent explosions is a contradiction in terms. Explosions involve the rapid expansion of gasses, which subsequently push air away quickly, which subsequently causes loud sounds.” and a few others.
<br>
<br>One of the good guys who is really creating problems for them is Michael Woon.
<br>
<br>You will have lots of fun as long as you don’t use insults, as they are very thin skinned.</p>
</div><!-- section 213 -->
<a name="x214"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x214" class="tiny">x214</a>
Herr der Elf : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_214');">Excellent advice for Mr. Rogue</a></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33981">2015-09-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_214" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Nikogriego,
<br>
<br>Excellent advice for Mr. Rogue. Indeed, I found Elizabeth Tague, Keoki, and Ron Morales to be highly disingenuous.
<br>
<br>They did not like being held up to <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/02/neutron-nuclear-dew-at-facebook-911.html">their own rules.</a> Moreover, they needed some new rules to prevent the spamming that Keoki and Elizabeth Tague liked to perform.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 214 -->
<a name="x215"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x215" class="tiny">x215</a>
T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_215');">virtually all videos of actual demolitions capture those distinctive sounds</a></p>
<p>2015-09-08</p>
<div id="sect_215" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Star Member William Seger</b> (6,546 posts)
<br><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1135&pid=10494">Mon Aug 24, 2015, 01:28 AM</a>
<br>
<br><b>5. I can show you plenty of evidence</b>
<br>
<br>... that you don't need to be inside or immediately next to a building to hear demolition explosives. I can show you plenty of evidence that virtually all videos of actual demolitions capture those distinctive sounds. Furthermore, I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns: because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound. If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it. No, this video does not defend its bullshit, and neither do you, because it's indefensible.
<br>
<br>This is why the "truth movement" died, wildbill.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br><b>Jimbo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33932">September 7, 2015 at 7:46 am</a>
<br>Over on the Democratic Underground site there is a segregated comment site in their “basement” called Creative Speculation where 9/11 truth views are welcome. One guy Wildbilling (?) puts up a good fight for our side but there is a Wright-type of guy, Segar (I think) who is a formidable foe. A big part of his skepticism is derived from the no explosive sounds indicative of a controlled demolition were heard on 9/11. Wildbilling has reached out to other sites asking for a good counter argument for this dearth of the typical boom boom boom boom of controlled demolitions. As Graham McQueen has showed us there are many witnesses who heard explosions but very few, if any heard the the typical controlled demolition sound. Since we seem to insist it was a controlled demolition Segar says no it wasn’t. This is where a Judy Wood or the nuke argument would help. I would speculate that there was some exotic device used that day.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33933">September 7, 2015 at 8:57 am</a>
<br>It is not true that there is a dearth of evidence for the sounds of explosions during the demolitions. In fact it has been shown that NIST edited the sound out of the videos that did have clear soundtracks of explosions. Further NIST made this spurious statement in the faq on Questions and Answers: “In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings.” — The fact is that the sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB would be at the source of the explosion and wound fall off substantially at half a mile from that source.
<br>
<br>225 decibels — Deafening — 12? Cannon @ 12' in front and below
<br>
<br>Q. So who was 12 feet away from the detonations in the towers when they went off?
<br>A. Dead people. They are always deaf.
<br>
<br>140 dB – Deafening — Artillery fire
<br>
<br>–”The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile.”
<br>–The conclusion from NIST
<br>
<br>This is nonsense; this sentence would only be true if restated: ‘At a level of 130-140 decibels at source, it would be audible at a distance of half a mile.’
<br>
<br>–“How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? Many first responders were all easily within 1/4 mile of the towers. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.”–Max Bridges
<br>
<br>This assertion is based on the misconception offered by NIST. Consider the table offered at the URL above; even at 225 decibels a 12? Cannon is deafening at 12 feet away in front or below the blast.Anyone that close to a demolition blast would not only be deafened, they would be killed. Even being some block or so away the volume of the blast would attenuate significantly. The loudness of dB falls off exponentially by distance.[*]
<br>
<br>The assertion that none of the first responders reported explosive blasts is simply a lie, as has been gone into in great detail.
<br>
<br>–“None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction” Because no one close enough to one of these blasts to be deafened survived to report it.
<br>
<br>The claim that “no blast was audible on recordings” is also untrue, as the recordings finally released by NIST due to Freedom of Information suits, clearly have such audible sound tracks on many videos.
<br>
<br>“Intensity and Distance
<br>• Sounds get quieter (less loud) the further you get from their source
<br>• Easy to see that in a free field, the power per unit area falls with square of
<br>the distance
<br>• Or in decibel terms, falls by 6dB every doubling of distance.
<br>
<br>Summary
<br>• Objective and subjective scale of sound quantity
<br>• Sound Pressure Level scale (dBSPL)
<br>– logarithmic ratio scale
<br>– with a reference at the threshold of hearing
<br>– which is convenient, standard, and closer to our perceptions of loudness.”
<br>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<br>It is also the case that dB cannot be measured from a sound recording:
<br>
<br>It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording. One can only measure the decibels of a live sound. Anyone that doesn’t get this is simply ignorant of the mechanics of sound recording.
<br>
<br>It is in the nature of any recorded medium, that it is in fact an artifact, it is not the thing itself. This artifact has only the relations to other artifacts contained in the medium the record was made in.
<br>
<br>With a sound recording these relationships are set and cannot be separated. The loudness or dB will then depend solely on the playback mechanism, the VU meter registering the settings on the playback. In a studio recording gleaning the true loudness of the drums compared to a guitar is impossible once the recording is mixed. One would have to then refer to the premix recording to adjust the levels.
<br>
<br>In a field recording where there is only the mix created by the circumstance of the set relationships at hand at the moment a recording is made, there is nothing but a mix recording to refer to, the levels are set and the dB of the entire recording is set in those relationships.
<br>
<br>One more thing about sound recording; those who have seen the films, ‘The Conversation’ or ‘The Good Shepherd’, may have seen the way EQ can be used to play with frequencies in a sound recording to mask or enhance a sound in a recording. These tricks are available to a talented recording artist. But it must be understood that
<br>‘frequencies’ and ‘decibels’ are separate issues. Thus, assuming that the dB is somehow being manipulated by such techniques in in error, what is manipulated is the frequencies.
<br>
<br>Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Nikogriego</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33972">September 8, 2015 at 12:16 pm</a>
<br>HybridRogue1 why not go over to that forum and lend your expertise to counter Seger’s nonsense? He states he can show many films of controlled demolitions that have explosive sounds. He is a committed agent.
<br>
<br>” William Seger (6,546 posts)
<br>5. I can show you plenty of evidence
<br>
<br>… that you don’t need to be inside or immediately next to a building to hear demolition explosives. I can show you plenty of evidence that virtually all videos of actual demolitions capture those distinctive sounds. Furthermore, I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns: because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound. If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it. No, this video does not defend its bullshit, and neither do you, because it’s indefensible.
<br>
<br>This is why the “truth movement” died, wildbill.”
<br>
<br>http://www.democraticunderground.com/113510486
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33934">September 7, 2015 at 9:01 am</a>
<br>“no blast sounds were heard or reported by witnesses”~NIST, this lie is exposed in detail at this link:
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Daniel Noel</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33943">September 7, 2015 at 2:09 pm</a>
<br>That Segar is a formidable foe only to those who let her/him. With no offense meant, 9/11 activists will make little progress until they factually accept the background of 9/11’s teaching:
<br>* The Master 9/11 conspirators’ most formidable accomplishment is neither the technical prowess of the World Trade Center’s controlled demolition, nor the remarkable inter-agency cooperation into a complicated but transparent cover-up with Osama bin Laden’s air show and fraudulent reports. It is the poorly acknowledged process that has convinced the Syrian TV, the Russian professors of metallurgy, CodePink, the OathKeepers, etc., etc., to live the official 9/11 myth as an axiom.
<br>* As such, 9/11 Truth’s acceptance comes with the uncomfortable corollary of the commitment to the 9/11 censorship of just about all sources of information one has trusted. This is the unspoken meaning of the simplistic “but someone would have talked” argument.
<br>* Therefore, skeptics will be extremely reluctant to accept 9/11 Truth. They will–usually unconsciously and desperately–seek and cling to any reason to reject it.
<br>* 9/11 censors understand the above. So do 9/11 fanatics, albeit to a lesser extent. Accordingly, they try to debate 9/11 on topics where they can confuse the audience out of studying 9/11. Hence their obsession with secondary evidence like the acoustic noise.
<br>
<br>There may be a way to demonstrate the controlled demolitions based on the study of the acoustic noise alone. But even assuming that this is the case, the demonstration will be much too complex to be teachable in the midst of the 9/11 censors and the 9/11 fanatics, who hold all the bully pulpits denied to 9/11 scholars. It is usually an error to entertain an argument on this topic. Much more effective is to decline to enter it unless the other party has completed a cursory analysis of the video record, which inevitably yields overwhelming evidence to accept the criminal controlled demolition and reject the accidental destruction. At this point, the purpose of the noise analysis is to simply look for a compelling way to doubt the controlled demolition, along these ideas:
<br>* If it was a criminal controlled demolition, there would be thousands of explosions over the 10 seconds or so of destruction.
<br>* These thousands of explosions would yield explosive noises.
<br>* The demolition engineers may have taken some unusual–and presumably expensive–precautions to muffle these noises to some extent.
<br>* TV may have taken precautions to attenuate these noises in their records.
<br>* Witnesses may have been “convinced” to not spread their recollection of the noises.
<br>* Still, there would be some trace of these noises. A detailed analysis of sound records or a review of witness statements shortly after the buildings’ destruction would hint at explosions.
<br>* Therefore, if we find that the analysis of audio records shows no trace of explosive sounds and that almost all witnesses affirm in unison the absence of explosions, we will have, at last, a reason to doubt the controlled demolition. This would not disprove the controlled demolition, but call for a more detailed analysis.
<br>* The rest is straightforward.
<br>
<br>Love,
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33944">September 7, 2015 at 2:37 pm</a>
<br>Daniel Noel,
<br>
<br>It is already straight forward, right above you have a video with the actual sounds of explosions, you have videos of Firemen saying they witnessed explosions. At my blog I have page after page of hundreds of reports of explosions by ear witnesses, firemen, policemen, reporters and civilians near the site.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jimbo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33955">September 7, 2015 at 8:50 pm</a>
<br>Explosions are one thing, and your site shows that there were plenty which right there exposes the lie that it was only the planes and fire but if you look at a Las Vegas hotel going down you hear a staccato of boom-cracks which so far I have not heard on any 9/11 video. The firefighters in the video above talk of “floors popping out” and the “boom boom boom” a guy does mention seems more like the sound of floors coming down in a staccato way but no Las Vegas boom-crack boom-crack boom-crack boom-crack. The nano thermite found in the dust makes me think that there were these charges set at critical joints to fizz away with super-heat and super-speed rather than go boom. The random explosions we can hear in the video above maybe only aid in the destruction like William Rodriquez’s actual WTC basement explosion and the firefighters’ explosions in the lobby. In other words it looks like a typical controlled demolition but it doesn’t sound like one. And by no means would that deter me from believing it was a controlled demolition but the evidence tells me it was just not a typical one. It is too bad we don’t know for sure.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33956">September 7, 2015 at 9:07 pm</a>
<br>Fine Jimbo, if it helps, wallow in uncertainty for the next 14 years as well.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33959">September 8, 2015 at 1:03 am</a>
<br>Let me add Jimbo, that on the Controlled Demolition Inc. web site there is – or was, an explanation of how the company produced videos of their demolition, both for records, and as promotional materials.
<br>
<br>These productions are designed to present a totally professional presentation. The camera’s are set up at various distances and angles, with zoom and telephoto capabilities. The sound is produced separately using special shotgun mics that can be calibrated to capture a clear and finely equalized signal, so that every sonic detail is captured. The video and sound is edited together all synced to a time code for a pro production.
<br>
<br>And it is this difference in quality that makes the difference in what you here from news camera’s that are mainly designed to capture the dialog of the newsman on the scene. he is close to the mike and it is set to pick up his voice at conversational levels. the mics for such productions are attenuated to protect the diaphragm, and unexpected loud noises will drop out for the purpose of not causing diaphragm damage. Most commercial mics are set at a range of attenuation circuitry that drops out automatically when there are strong spikes in dB levels. This is why capturing the sound of thunderstorms can be difficult without specially attenuated mics.
<br>
<br>I used to do field recording when I was doing sound design to go with ambient music. I had spotty successes, ones that could be used with editing together the sounds and cutting out the dropouts when a surprise strike of lightning would hit nearby. It would take several seconds for the sound to fade back in after such events.
<br>
<br>And the point of this ‘tutorial’ (of sorts), is that it is not surprising that the sound in the videos from 9/11 have picked up spotty sound tracks during the bomb events. Many shots were from fairly good distances and would only pick up the reflected sounds produced in the “canyons” of buildings and streets. At great distances using telephoto lenses, very little to nothing would be picked up. At mid distances, fairly distinct sounds could be captured. At closer distances, the attenuation situation would occur and dropouts would be present.
<br>
<br>There are however several videos that were just at the right distance and settings that picked up good clear recordings of the explosions. On of them is posted on this page. Another is of a female reporter talking about secondary explosions on camera and they can be heart distintcly in the background. There is of course the video of the firemen at a phone booth making calls to their homes, when there are suddenly booms that totally freak them out.
<br>
<br>All together, with these recordings, plus the hundreds of ear witness testimonies, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that explosions are what took down the towers and #7.
<br>
<br>You may still have doubts Jimbo, you have the right to your own opinion just like anyone else does.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jimbo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33965">September 8, 2015 at 3:51 am</a>
<br>Unless it was space rays or a nuke, as has been proposed by some in the movement, I will agree that explosions are a good bet on what brought down the buildings but until we can find the smoking whatever, as long as we insist it was a “controlled demolition” we will be derided by skeptics. For if, as we like to say, a steel frame building has never been brought down by fire, Mr. Segar will counter and say that there has never been a more silent controlled demolition. Could it be that the buildings were brought down by some “secret weapon?” I know that sounds conspiracy-nutty but there are secret weapons are there not? My Navy SEAL friend confirmed this. Yes, turn the sound off and you get a reaction like that Dutch demolition expert Danny something who with one look knew it was a controlled demolition. Sound on and we hear deep rumbling and screams but no boom-crack. Maybe the typical controlled demolition sounds are muffled beneath the deep rumbling , hard to mike on an average video camera as you say, Hell we can see those squibs David Chandler shows in a video, the ones running down the edge of the building but do they have sound? Until we can isolate that sound then the skeptics will continue to say they’re air blasts.
<br>
<br>Indeed, just about all the sound from 9/11 sucks. (Turn your ear buds up for this.) So you could be right and the crack crack crack controlled demolition sound was wasted on the randomly placed lo-fi mikes.
<br>
<br>I don’t mean to be contrary but every time I go to that Democratic Underground site which is loaded with good American liberals (who locked me out ages ago) who should but don’t buy the 9/11 truth line, this Segar guy does a good job of making us look dumb, especially when it comes to the demolition of the buildings. Arguing that mikes were not placed well enough to hear every sound probably won’t cut it with him and his followers. Frankly, I get your point and maybe the demolition sound was lost, but I would need a stronger argument than this to confront Segar (if the bastards ever let me back in).
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33968">September 8, 2015 at 9:54 am</a>
<br>“this Segar guy does a good job of making us look dumb..”~Jimbo
<br>
<br>Well maybe that is not entirely Segar’s doing.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33971">September 8, 2015 at 11:57 am</a>
<br>That “Donny something” was one of the leading experts of large scale controlled demolitions in the whole wide world. You, or I, or the millions of ignorant (for the most part) “truthers” like us could not even begin to comprehend what Mr. Something was seeing in that “one look”. I doubt that anything this segar person can say could possibly trump that observation, especially in the absence of a similarly qualified CT expert who has come out and officially stated that it was NOT a CT.
<br>
<br>Sadly, Donny Jowenko’s expertise is now in the past tense, as he was killed when his car collided head on to a tree on his way back from church. He was a brave an honest man , who simply could not and would not stay quite when he saw what he saw, while many out there were (and still are) silenced simply with a threatening phone call or a quick visit to let them know what would happen to them and their loved ones if they keep talking.
<br>
<br>Please provide links for some examples of Segar’s arguments. I’d be very interested in reading a few.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33973">September 8, 2015 at 12:56 pm</a>
<br>Nikogriego,
<br>
<br>Thanks for the link to the democraticunderground site. I attempted to sign up, and as is usual, there is interference with this process that has something to do with my prior accounts in my name, that have my old email address. And I can’t get over that technical hurdle.
<br>
<br>Perhaps Jimbo could persuade the amazing William Seger to join us on Truth & Shadows.
<br>What I read of that thread, and Segar’s remarks there didn’t impress me as having much substance whatsoever. He says “I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns” And then those few words are:
<br>
<br>“because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound.” ~WS
<br>
<br>Well this is elementary, but what does it prove as far as the specific explosions that took down the towers?
<br>
<br>Mr Magical Debater then goes on to say: ” If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it.”
<br>
<br>And that is pure hyperbolic bullshit. As anyone who has taken the time to read the my blog page knows, there were hundreds of ear witnesses who reported hearing explosions.
<br>
<br>Again: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
<br>
<br>It is obvious to me that Mr Seger is an amateur in the topic of sound recording. He is mainly a fair rhetorician, but certainly not an expert in argumentation either. He may be able to talk circles around amateurs, but I see nothing particularly formidable in his arguments. Some, like Jimbo may have a bias that makes it easy for them to conclude that Seger has more than he actually has in his arguments.
<br>
<br>Now, like Wright hyperventilating on “angle cut beams”, other issues must be included in any discussion of the destruction of the towers; the other conclusive evidences of explosive demolition.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33934">September 7, 2015 at 9:01 am</a>
<br>“no blast sounds were heard or reported by witnesses”~NIST, this lie is exposed in detail at this link:
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
<br>\\][//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 215 -->
<a name="x216"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x216" class="tiny">x216</a>
Herr der Elf : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_216');">Beyond Misinformation</a></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/media-will-stick-to-emotion-while-911-anniversary-events-explore-real-evidence/#comment-33979">2015-09-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_216" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>{Publish at your discretion. Consider it "kudos" and an FYI even if not published.}
<br>
<br>I ordered copies of the <i>"Beyond Misinformation"</i> booklet. Because it wasn't going to arrive by 9/11, they have sent out a PDF version to those who ordered. I got a chance to read it.
<br>
<br>I'm in agreement with everything except the implied extent of the involvement of nano-thermite. Yes, it played a role, but no, it is not the end station.
<br>
<br>You wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p> Every word in the booklet was vetted by an expert panel put together by AE.</p></blockquote>
<p>I think that not enough attention was paid to the phrase <i>"controlled demolition"</i> versus <i>"controlled explosions."</i> The latter snuck out in places where the former would allow for more wiggle-room later.
<br>
<br>Ted Walter wrote on page 35.</p>
<blockquote><p>Published by Dr. Steven Jones and seven other scientists in early 2008, the paper <i>Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction</i> connected the dots between the earlier RJ Lee and USGS reports. It also provided new observations based on analysis of WTC dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones.</p></blockquote>
<p>Could Mr. Walter please provide more details on the WTC dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones?
<br>
<br>Likewise on page 35.</p>
<blockquote><p>In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal titled <b><i>Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.</i></b> This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-layered chips found <i>in multiple independent WTC dust samples</i>, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.</p></blockquote>
<p>Could Mr. Walter please provide more details on the <i>"multiple independent WTC dust samples"</i>? Where did they come from? Chain of custody? Are these the same as obtained by Dr. Jones?
<br>
<br>
<br>+++ page 39</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]he leading hypothesis is that an explosive form of thermite called “nano-thermite” — possibly in combination with some form of explosives and other incendiaries — was used to destroy WTC 7.</p></blockquote>
<p>Excellent use of the phrase <i>"the leading hypothesis."</i>
<br>
<br>+++ page 30</p>
<blockquote><p>As we will see below, NIST did not follow NFPA 921. Instead, it handled the evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions in much the same way it handled the evidence regarding the structural behavior of the buildings: either denying it, ignoring it, or providing speculative explanations not based upon scientific analysis. This is because there is no plausible, logical explanation for the occurrence of high-temperature chemical reactions other than controlled demolition using thermite-based mechanisms.</p></blockquote>
<p>Although you say that every word was vetted, what is really going on here in the last sentence is an assumption. All dust samples including those from USGS, Paul Lioy et al, and RJ Lee show a significant percentage of iron spheres. However, the assumption AE9/11Truth make is that these iron spheres were created by <i>"high-temperature chemical reactions"</i> when other more energetic mechanisms can achieve this as well. Further, as hinted at above, to my knowledge, only the samples attributed to coming through Dr. Jones had supposed remnants of <i>"thermite-based mechanisms."</i>
<br>
<br>+++ page 16</p>
<blockquote><p>To guide our evaluation of these competing hypotheses, we now turn to a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method. David Ray Griffin describes it as follows: “None of the relevant evidence should be ignored.”<sup>1</sup> This principle is of central importance in evaluating the official hypothesis.</p></blockquote>
<p>Exactly. This will be continued. For now, this <i>"Beyond Misinformation"</i> booklet is a good shoe-horn guide to get the uninitiated into 9/11 Truth folklore onto the same page.
<br>
<br>In the continuation (most likely off-list) is that -- for the scope limits of this document -- it ignores much evidence. Hot-spot duration, tritium, Dr. Cahill's air sampling, and images of bent and arched steel beams (collected by Dr. Wood) come to mind.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 216 -->
<a name="x217"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x217" class="tiny">x217</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_217');">did not intend for this blog to be a “public forum”</a></p>
<p>2015-09-10</p>
<div id="sect_217" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/the-argument-for-socialism/#comment-8686">September 10, 2015 at 3:29 am</a>
<br>As I have explained before a few times; I did not intend for this blog to be a “public forum”, it is more a journal of my own thoughts and ideas. I have allowed a few people that I consider trusted friends posting privileges here. I have had exchanges with them for a good many years, and know that they will abide by my wishes not to overwhelm any of the threads with huge verbose arguments.
<br>If anyone wishes to debate, another site that is specifically designed as a forum must be the venue. Not here in my living room.
<br>One forum I attend regularly is Truth & Shadows. The current thread at this time is at:
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/media-will-stick-to-emotion-while-911-anniversary-events-explore-real-evidence/
<br>
<br>Thank you, Willy Whitten – \\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 217 -->
<a name="x218"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x218" class="tiny">x218</a>
Adam Ruff, hybridrogue1, & Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_218');">I know Christopher Bollyn personally</a></p>
<p>2015-09-21</p>
<div id="sect_218" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34373">September 19, 2015 at 10:08 pm</a>
<br>Well I know Christopher Bollyn personally and have talked with him for hours about 9/11 and the Zionist connection to 9/11. Let me state now for the record that your points about Christopher are way off base and full of misinformation. He gives small talks all over the USA (except the state where the police tried to ruin his life which he avoids like the plague) and generally stays with friends while on the road. He makes some money by selling his books at the talks which by the way he published and printed himself. He is not a racist nor is he against Jewish people, he simply exposes the FACT of Zionists involvement in the crimes of 9/11. Now Christopher can speak for himself and I assure you he is not difficult to find or to talk to yourself.
<br>
<br>As to Steven Jones I find your suggestion that he was somehow in on the wrecking of the truth movement with Fetzer to be ridiculous. Fetzer did the damage all by himself and has always worked to undermine the strongest evidence in not only 9/11 but also in the JFK Assassination and Sandy Hook etc. In 9/11 Fetzer attempts to undermine the CD evidence by promoting mini nukes and other crap like that. In the JFK matter he attempts to undermine the Zapruder film. etc. Fetzer is the problem not Steven Jones.
<br>
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34376">September 19, 2015 at 10:18 pm</a>
<br>First of all Wikipedia is TOTALLY discredited and should NOT be used as a source for anything but especially not for anything related to 9/11 or Zionism. Literally Wikipedia is officially sanctioned propaganda and nothing more. I would not trust them to tell me the truth about who won the last Superbowl. I would have to cross check with other sources.
<br>
<br>Also Christopher Bollyn lays out compelling evidence of Zionist involvement in 9/11 in his books and articles that cannot be dismissed as “circumstantial”.
<br>
<br>Jimbo
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34386">September 20, 2015 at 12:09 am</a>
<br>“We are in fact divided amongst ourselves as a result of this tempest of bullshit coming from within the 9/11 Truth community itself.”
<br>
<br>And let’s look at two of the camps, the ones who vociferously insist Israel was behind the deed like Fetzer and Bollyn, the writers above and then writers like Tarpley, Griffin, Ryan, Corbett, Massimo Mazzucco and even Craig here, thoughtful, methodical and measured researchers who don’t let hackneyed biases cloud their thinking. I am thankful for the latter.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34388">September 20, 2015 at 12:22 am</a>
<br>Yes Jimbo, it is a tempest of bullshit. That is why I disingaged from this Martinez character on the other site. But Sockpuppet wanted to bring the argument here by reporting back to Martinez there, and giving the link to T&S.
<br>
<br>I have proposed the same solution be established here, that we drop the whole thing about who may or may not be an agent.
<br>
<br>I won’t say another word about it unless the sockpuppet persists.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34414">September 20, 2015 at 5:15 pm</a>
<br>Jimbo,
<br>
<br>I take exception to your characterization of Christopher Bollyn. Please show examples from Bollyn himself that illustrate how he suffers from “hakneyed biases” that “cloud his thinking” and how he blames Israel as opposed to a small group of Zionist supremacist scumbags. If you cannot back up your slanderous statements about Bollyn then I expect you to withdraw those statements and apologize.
<br>
<br>I won’t hold my breath for the examples that back up your statements about Bollyn because I know very well there aren’t any. I will also NOT hold my breath for your apology because I suspect you aren’t going to provide one. My assessment of you is that it is in fact yourself that is biased and has “clouded thinking”. In your case it appears to be the bias in favor of Zionists and in favor of the idea that Jewish people do not have any evil scumbags among them or in positions of power in Israel. I also suspect that you feel the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians is somehow justified.
<br>
<br><b>Jimbo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34357">September 19, 2015 at 3:56 pm</a>
<br>One final point. Placing Israel or Zionists or “dual-citizens” at the center of 9/11 is as much of a deception as much of a distraction as much of an obfuscation as Bob Graham’s mysterious 28 pages. That article above slapped Israel onto the discussion table like they are as sure of Israel being the mastermind behind 9/11 as Graham and co are saying its Saudi Arabia. 9/11 was an American (led) op. PNAC, Project for a New AMERICAN Century.
<br>
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34416">September 20, 2015 at 5:27 pm</a>
<br>Wrong Jimbo. There is plenty of evidence that a large number of powerfully placed Zionist supremacists were intimately involved in 9/11 and profited handsomely from it and to deny that truth is just plain wrong. Shielding the guilty wins you no points with me Jimbo and I think it is despicable to protect evil people like Larry Silverstein, Dov Zackheim, Frank Lowy, and the MANY other Zionist supremacist scum involved in 9/11. They are in it up to their eyeballs and Kevin Ryan is no hero pal for ignoring the obvious Zionist connections to 9/11 and neither is anyone else who protects the guilty. Lies are lies. I am a truther not a liar.
<br>
<br><b>Jimbo</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 5:15 pm
<br>How is it that speculation is bad when it comes to being a good 9/11 truther except when it comes to speculating about Israel’s motives and future moves? I though we are all about evidence, photos, documents, actual news reports, etc.,
<br>
<br>Come to think of it, this article about the 28 pages is speculating as to what it contains. The writers assume the pages contain damning info about SA and its active part in 9/11 but that is speculation. From interviews and articles I have read and seen prior to this one Graham and co. have been mum as to its specifics. And after the censor gets through with his or her black pen who knows what it will say?
<br>
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 5:41 pm
<br>There is no “speculating” at all about the evil shit Israel has done with America’s help. AIPAC controls American politics and so for all intents and purposes America provides the army that Israel commands. They have used that Army to destroy many “enemies” of Israel. Any evil deeds not done directly by America are done by Israel itself with the help of massive financial and military aid from America. Israels motives are clear they want to wipe out the Palestinians and take all of their land and property because they are “God’s chosen people”. Of course my opinion doesn’t matter since I am just a lowly goy.
<br>
<br><b>Jimbo</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 6:24 pm
<br>“For years the 9/11 Truth movement has been vainly pleading with mainstream media – and the “alternative” 9/11-Truth-rejecting media (which we’ll include for our purposes as mainstream) to cover any of the endless, obvious problems with any of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (OCT) tales we’ve been told.” (The opening line of the above article.)
<br>
<br>This line, I think, accurately expresses what 9/11 Truth is all about. Too bad, as it says, our pleading for getting the truth out has been in vain so far. One big criticism of our movement is that we are “anti-semetic.” Without getting into the weeds whether being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist means anti-Jewish as well, it is the perception that we are anti-Jewish. Nonetheless, David Ruff, by going off and ranting about “Zionist supremacists,” a term used freely I see on the David Duke and Stormfront sites, you are doing getting 9/11 truth’s message no favor. My intent is not to protect Israel but to promote 9/11 truth. Yes, there is evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11 but to froth over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and to meld that narrative into 9/11 truth’s message is a mistake. If you are upset over Zionist supremacists there is a forum on Stormfront you should consider joining.
<br>
<br><b>Jimbo</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 6:55 pm
<br>I mean ADAM Ruff. Sorry.
<br>
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 11:21 pm
<br>You see Jimbo I am not concerned about “getting into the weeds” by pointing out the obvious involvement of MANY Zionist Supremacists in the crime. Any person who rejects 9/11 truth because they can’t face the TRUTH of Zionists being involved is hopelessly lost anyway and will never embrace 9/11 truth. A real truther doesn’t care who does and doesn’t like the truth, he or she simply pursues the truth wherever it leads. Now your labeling me anti-semetic and trying to link me to Storm Front and David Duke is a perfect example of hate speech itself. This is a common and despicable tactic used by very unethical groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center to label ANYONE who criticizes Israel as “anti-semetic”.
<br>
<br>I got the term “Zionist supremacist” originally from my friend Jeremy Rothe-Kushel (Who is quite Jewish by the way) after a lengthy discussion of the possibility of Israeli agents being involved in 9/11. A conversation I had with him on the 5 hour road trip to interview Richard Gage about the Simon Wiesenthal Institute going before congress and labeling A+E as a terrorist group. I was the camera man and editor for the following video:
<br>
<br>
<br>Jeremy and I went to the Simon Wiesenthal Institute in Los Angeles to confront them about labeling A+E as a terrorist group and this video is the result of that encounter:
<br>
<br>
<br>So anyway Jimbo your hateful and despicable attempt to turn me into a racist Jew hater is a big FAIL buddy and fuck you very much for trying.
<br>
<br><b>jimbo</b>
<br>September 21, 2015 at 12:08 am
<br>I apologize for implying you are anti-semetic. And I do recall how the Palestinians dancing was cited over and over thus unfairly smearing them. Still you do get overly excited over this issue and your rhetoric and verbiage is not helpful IMO.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 8:03 pm
<br>“My intent is not to protect Israel but to promote 9/11 truth. Yes, there is evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11 but to froth over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and to meld that narrative into 9/11 truth’s message is a mistake.”~Jimbo
<br>
<br>It depends on if you can frame 9/11 Truth in a vacuum and leave other truth out of the matrix.
<br>To frame concern over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as “froth” is to imply that such treatment is in some way acceptable. As a person of conscience I have to disagree with you with some vehemence on this point. The treatment of the Palestinians by Israel is no less than a crime against humanity. No less a crime against humanity than the US bombing nations like Afghanistan to rubble, or the other wars of aggression the US military has waged for 60 plus years now.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>jimbo</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 8:34 pm
<br>As a “person of conscience” Willy, why not list all the other inhumane acts in the world and compare them with the 9/11 crime. Frankly, I think the Israel vs Palestinian conflict is related more to the founding of Israel and, except for their viciousness, totally unrelated to 9/11 . The current refugee crisis, however, is directly related to what happened on 9/11. Why not froth (yeah I said it) over countries who are not allowing in refugees or countries which harbor ISIS, or even over Israel’s part in the dismantling of Syria. Muddying a 9/11 Truth site with the Israel vs Palestinian conflict does not advance our cause here.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 8:42 pm
<br>“Muddying a 9/11Truth site with the Israel vs Palestinian conflict does not advance our cause here.”~Jimbo
<br>
<br>Speaking to the Israel vs Palestinian conflict does not retard our cause here at all.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 11:48 pm
<br>The link between 9/11 and the Palestinian issue is very simple. Zionist supremacists were deeply involved in orchestrating 9/11 for the specific purpose of getting America to destroy Israels enemies. One of those enemies is of course the Palestinians whom they are wiping out through genocide.
<br>
<br>Here is a fake news piece which came out right after 9/11 that claimed Palestinians were cheering that America was attacked. This was staged of course and the kids and woman are actually cheering for candy and cake being given away by the camera crew. Clearly Israeli agents trying to manipulate Americans into hating the Palestinians. Now why on Earth would they do that?
<br>
<br>
<br>That is Tom Brokaw saying and I quote “The Palestinians in the streets are cheering and celebrating these attacks”. So once again Jimbo your rabid defense of anything Israeli is a big fat FAIL. The Palestinian issue is intimately linked to 9/11.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 18, 2015 at 6:56 pm
<br>“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”~Marcus Tullius Cicero
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 18, 2015 at 7:18 pm
<br>I would note that this quote by Cicero, not only applies to nations, but also movements such as the 9/11 Truth Movement. And just who are the moles and traitors within our movement?
<br>This is a heady issue, for the intent of a mole is not so easily determined as the agenda would seem. The outright shills such as Agent Wright or Agent Smith, are easy to identify. But the mole, who pretends at presenting the truth, is more subtle, clever and ingenious.
<br>
<br>I have presented facts to do with some that I consider moles, the most noteworthy being; Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, and Frank Legge, the bulk of the contributors at Veterans Today, headed by Gordon Duff are certainly suspect. They promote the more outlandish “theories that are easily proven as disinformation by close study. But they have many followers in the movement who are not so careful in their analysis.
<br>
<br>I have long railed against the “Nukes at WTC” brigades, as well as those who propagate the Judy Wood DEW junk, the “No-Planes” at the WTC nonsense, and the related “Video Fakery” camp of Simon Shack. There are also those who promote the nonsense of “Projected Holograms”, another technical absurdity.
<br>
<br>Of course those of us here on T&S are well schooled in the chicanery of the moles and dupes of the anti-CIT cult.
<br>
<br>We are in fact divided amongst ourselves as a result of this tempest of bullshit coming from within the 9/11 Truth community itself. As Dorothy said, “I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore Toto.”
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Bardo76
<br>September 18, 2015 at 7:37 pm
<br>I’m thinking more along the lines of Jerome Hauer, and Paul Breemer, Rudy Giuliani , Bernard Kerick as agents of subterfuge and complicity. Speculation and Hypothesis after the fact, no matter if find them personally daft is no crime. Appearing on the news on 9/11/01, within hours of the events, knowing that fire was why the towers came down and by whom, discounting explosives in a news conference , prior knowledge of building destruction is who I prefer to be skeptical about.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 18, 2015 at 7:43 pm
<br>Yes Bardo76, those you mention are obvious shills and likely suspects. I was speaking to the moles within the movement itself, which is a much more subtle problem to address.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>curiousegypt123
<br>September 19, 2015 at 9:07 pm
<br>I totally concur with what you say hybridrogue1. Fetzer is, in my opinion, one of the main guys who brought down the 9/11 truth movement around 2007. He created an elite group, and then decimated it with help, possibly with Steven Jones.
<br>
<br>He is a master of bluster, and goes into infinite detail about things like the JFK assassination or 9/11 without going after the guys who did it. He distracts people from the real truth about these events. (Ignore what he now says about zionism. He never said a thing about that for years.)
<br>
<br>So, therefore, we also have to consider Kevin Barrett suspect as well. I feel that he has cosied himself into the Muslim community to keep an eye on them.
<br>
<br>Also suspect: Christopher Bollyn. How can someone go on the run from the police, but then apparently on next to no money swan around Europe (with his family) for years … and then come back to the US … and … nothing happens to him … at all.
<br>
<br>Also can speak Hebrew, lived on a kibbutz, and there just happens to be an “Elbert Bollyn” who lived in the same neighbourhood as him in Chicago (before he went on the lam) … who is Jewish and went to a local synagogue there. Hmmm.
<br>
<br>(I suspect Elbert was/ … if he is still alive … Bollyn’s father. I believe Elbert’s wife also went to the same synagogue).
<br>
<br>Anyhow, loads of people past and present are probably moles/agents/whatever. The 9/11 truth community was probably set up by the infamous powers that be in the first place, and set to self destruct after a few years.
<br>
<br>Best wishes
<br>
<br>H Price.
<br>
<br>ps also have to put Les Visible into the grey basket now. There is a post on the blog jeffrense.org where someone accuses him of being a Rosicrucian Freemason. It is purely one line, and Visible goes on a short rant … very touchy, I thought, and just a bit over the top for a guy so into love and peace.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 19, 2015 at 9:56 pm
<br>curiousegypt123, you say;
<br>
<br>“He created an elite group, and then decimated it with help, possibly with Steven Jones.”
<br>
<br>The only thing I would clear up for you here is that the original group of ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth” was uncle Fetzer’s idea. He contacted Jones when he read some of Jones’ papers and suggested an organization of ‘scholars’ to form a united front in the truth movement. It went okay for several months until Fetzer began promoting what Jones felt were ideas unsupportable by the science purporting to support them. The final straw for Jones seems to have been a dispute with Fetzer over his support of Judy Wood” Dew hypothesis., The rift grew and within a short while Jones decided to depart and form the Journal of 9/11 Truth, which shared a web address with Scholars for a short time. As we’vr seen, most of the serious scientists went with Jones. Now the gaggle of loons at Scholars is all that is left there. And they have a close relationship with Gordon Duff and Veterans Today; another nest of moles in the ever fragmenting movement.
<br>That is the general history as I recall it off the top of my head at this time.
<br>. . .
<br>As per Visible, I was a fan of his lyrical style of prose for quite some time, but I got bored with his “Mr Apocalypse” jango very quickly and lost interest years ago.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br>September 19, 2015 at 10:08 pm
<br>Well I know Christopher Bollyn personally and have talked with him for hours about 9/11 and the Zionist connection to 9/11. Let me state now for the record that your points about Christopher are way off base and full of misinformation. He gives small talks all over the USA (except the state where the police tried to ruin his life which he avoids like the plague) and generally stays with friends while on the road. He makes some money by selling his books at the talks which by the way he published and printed himself. He is not a racist nor is he against Jewish people, he simply exposes the FACT of Zionists involvement in the crimes of 9/11. Now Christopher can speak for himself and I assure you he is not difficult to find or to talk to yourself.
<br>
<br>As to Steven Jones I find your suggestion that he was somehow in on the wrecking of the truth movement with Fetzer to be ridiculous. Fetzer did the damage all by himself and has always worked to undermine the strongest evidence in not only 9/11 but also in the JFK Assassination and Sandy Hook etc. In 9/11 Fetzer attempts to undermine the CD evidence by promoting mini nukes and other crap like that. In the JFK matter he attempts to undermine the Zapruder film. etc. Fetzer is the problem not Steven Jones.
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>September 19, 2015 at 10:14 pm
<br>Thank you, Adam Ruff, for that breath of fresh air and sanity!
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 19, 2015 at 10:54 pm
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>,
<br>
<br>You will note that no one here denies the participation of Israel in the events of 9/11. I certainly do not deny the more than ample evidence of such, and the connections between Israel and the neocons. What I have consistently attempt to point out is that Israel is only one actor of many that participated in this event. The US military, especially the Air Force connected with the NORAD system, were certainly deeply involved. This event was perpetrated by what is essentially the deep state, which is a matrix of political, corporatist, and military interests, combining the Nazi faction of the Bush-Skull & Bones cabal, with the Zionist faction, and all with the object of Political Power as their main agenda.
<br>
<br>Again core of political Zionism has nothing to do with religious Judaism, that is a mask for what is in essence, Realpolitik, built upon the principles of “Might is Right” and “The Ends Justify The Means”, this meme transcends any ethnic or religious persuasion, and is the goal of any tyrannical objective: Hegel’s “the State as God” paradigm.
<br>
<br>Now to the matter of the different photo you used on the YouTube version of RethinkSeptember11 Global Interactive Broadcast. Was this some thinly veiled attempt to try to hide the fact that you are the same poster? Are you the girl, or are you the boy or in fact the girly boy… Lol
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>September 19, 2015 at 11:30 pm
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b> said:
<br>
<br>“Was this some thinly veiled attempt to try to hide the fact that you are the same poster?”
<br>
<br>No, you blind self-absorbed fool…..that’s just another figment of your imagination!
<br>
<br>I have had my YouTube account for seven years with my Avatar as the heroic Sylvia Stolz, the “German Joan of Arc”.
<br>
<br>On WordPress and other Forums I have another hero of mine as my Avatar, namely…..the heroic Danny Jowenko.
<br>
<br>“This event was perpetrated by what is essentially the deep state, which is a matrix of political, corporatist, and military interests, combining the Nazi faction of the Bush-Skull & Bones cabal, with the Zionist faction, and all with the object of Political Power as their main agenda”
<br>
<br>It’s the Nazis…..it’s the Nazis!!!
<br>
<br>You think Adolf Eichmann or Joseph Mengele had anything to do with it?…..how about Blondi?
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 19, 2015 at 11:43 pm
<br>“It’s the Nazis…..it’s the Nazis!!!
<br>You think Adolf Eichmann or Joseph Mengele had anything to do with it?…..how about Blondi?”~sockpuppet2012
<br>
<br>You react with hyperbole, read carefully I said:
<br>
<br>This event was perpetrated by what is essentially the deep state, which is a matrix of political, corporatist, and military interests, combining the Nazi faction of the Bush-Skull & Bones cabal, with the Zionist faction, and all with the object of Political Power as their main agenda.
<br>
<br>I did NOT say, “It’s the Nazis…..it’s the Nazis!!!”
<br>
<br>Are you Mossad Mr/Mrs Sockpuppet?
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 19, 2015 at 11:58 pm
<br>“Here’s Agent Whitten’s latest flash of brilliance”~Mrs Sockpuppet on RethinkSeptember11 Global Interactive Broadcast, YouTube forum
<br>
<br>So you want to continue this game of calling me “Agent Whitten”?
<br>
<br>An “agent” for who or what? Are you seriously going to contend that I am ‘Iranian Intelligence’?
<br>Saudi Intelligence? Qatar Intelligence? Perhaps Pakistani Intelligence?
<br>
<br>Who are the most numerous and deeply hidden agenteur in Amerika today? Who is more likely to be a Sunsteinian Cognitive Infiltrator? The answer is clear, the Mossad.
<br>So if one of us is an agent the odds are astronomically in favor that you are.
<br>Not expecting an admission, but I put it to you directly once again, are you Mossad?
<br>
<br>I guarantee I am not an intelligence agent of any sort, and only a lunatic or someone who actually is an agent would assert such. Your profile fits the bill much better than mine.
<br>Everyone here knows my real name. You are effectively anonymous, you could be absolutely ANYBODY.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 1:50 am
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b> said:
<br>
<br>“So you want to continue this game of calling me “Agent Whitten”?”
<br>
<br>“An “agent” for who or what? Are you seriously going to contend that I am ‘Iranian Intelligence’?
<br>Saudi Intelligence? Qatar Intelligence? Perhaps Pakistani Intelligence?”
<br>
<br>No, Willy…..this is just smoke and mirrors you’re throwing up here; when one is accused of being an “Agent” or a Gatekeeper” in the context of 911, it is clear to any imbecile that what is meant is an “Agent” or “Gatekeeper” for the mass murderers and world destroyers, not for the Eskimos or the midget basketball players.
<br>
<br>“Who are the most numerous and deeply hidden agenteur in Amerika today?”
<br>
<br>Jews…..hands down!
<br>
<br>“Who is more likely to be a Sunsteinian Cognitive Infiltrator? The answer is clear, the Mossad”
<br>
<br>Or a Hasbarat, or a JIDF Agent.
<br>
<br>“So if one of us is an agent the odds are astronomically in favor that you are”
<br>
<br>Nope, you struck out on that one, Willy.
<br>You bear all the marks of a Gatekeeper, whilst I bear none of the marks.
<br>
<br>I post very few comments…..I type with my right index finger.
<br>
<br>You post THOUSANDS of comments ALL hours of the night and day, every day…..year in year out!.
<br>You type very fast with not very many spelling mistakes, good grammar and punctuation.
<br>
<br>“Not expecting an admission, but I put it to you directly once again, are you Mossad?”
<br>
<br>No.
<br>
<br>“I guarantee I am not an intelligence agent of any sort, and only a lunatic or someone who actually is an agent would assert such”
<br>
<br>Only a lunatic would say that only a lunatic would say that.
<br>
<br>“Your profile fits the bill much better than mine”
<br>
<br>And what is my “profile”?
<br>
<br>“Everyone here knows my real name”
<br>
<br>No, they don’t…..no one knows your real name…..they only know the name you use on the internet.
<br>
<br>“You are effectively anonymous, you could be absolutely ANYBODY”
<br>
<br>And so could you.
<br>
<br>A person’s “profile” doesn’t mean squat…..what people are judged by is the content of their comments, articles, or books.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 12:16 am
<br>Now, I suggested disengagement between I and your Zionist pal, Martinez on the other site, because I didn’t want to go round’n’round on this type of carousel. So I am suggesting the same thing here Sockpuppet; let’s drop it, and waste no more space and time here.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 2:10 am
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b> said:
<br>
<br>“Now, I suggested disengagement between I and your Zionist pal, Martinez on the other site”
<br>
<br>“Zionist pal”?…..that’s pure projection, Willy.
<br>
<br>“because I didn’t want to go round’n’round on this type of carousel. So I am suggesting the same thing here Sockpuppet; let’s drop it, and waste no more space and time here”
<br>
<br>There’s plenty of time and space here, Willy.
<br>The reason you want to disengage is because you are being exposed.
<br>
<br>I have NEVER seen you want to disengage.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 11:16 am
<br>Sockpuppet claims that I have never offered to disengage from conversations here. This is not true, I have several times attempted to prevent one of these T&S threads from going too far, and overwhelming the original topic that the thread is about.
<br>
<br>However, it could be said that this topic we are involved with among ourselves here would fit nicely into the overall topic of the thread.
<br>
<br>My reasons for disengaging with your pal Mr Martinez, was not as you asserted, “because I was losing” the argument, but because Mr Martinez’s entire argument is based on ad hominem, his opening remarks against Graeme McQueen were accusatory, AT THE MAN; ad hominem.
<br>
<br>I refuse to be trifled with Sockpuppet, I will not be accused of being an “agent’ by you or anyone else. So we won’t be discussing the merits of the case one way or another of who were the perpetrators were who did 9/11, you and your smart-ass pal Martinez, have forfeited that argument by immediately launching into charges of that Mr McQueen, and I, and Webster Tarpley are “Zionist agents”.
<br>
<br>So now the point becomes just who is the more likely agent. You claim that nobody knows my real name. This is a complete lie. I have a web presence as a professional artist that is well established. I have been a special effects artist, and a fine art sculptor in bronze, and have many pieces of work that can be viewed on the Internet, just type my name Willy Whitten into your browser.
<br>
<br>However you as a sockpuppet are in fact anonymous. Unless and until you are willing to reveal your actual name you will admit that you are in fact posting anonymously on the internet or you are clearly lying. The point that you have the right to post anonymously on the web is not the issue – I agree that people have that right if they so choose it.
<br>
<br>The facts are then, you are an anonymous sockpuppet, and I am a known individual by the name of Willy Whitten. Is that clear to you now?
<br>….. ….. …..
<br>Now as per my counter charges that you and your comrade Martinez are the more likely Zionist agents, I offer this history:
<br>
<br>ZIONIST FALSE FLAGS
<br>A Historical Perspective
<br>
<br>What was the very first Zionist attack in Israel? The King David Hotel bombing was a false flag attack carried out on Monday July 22, 1946 by the militant Zionist underground organization Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.
<br>
<br>The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. The attack initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine). It was conceived as a response to Operation Agatha (a series of widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, conducted by the British authorities) and was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948).
<br>
<br>Disguised as Arabs, the Irgun planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, whose southern wing housed the Mandate Secretariat and a few offices of the British military headquarters. The Irgun sent warnings by telephone, including one to the hotel’s own switchboard, which the staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities. A possible reason why the warning was ignored was that hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time. From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day. Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm, and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion, he called an unknown British officer, but no evacuation was ordered. The ensuing explosion caused the collapse of the western half of the southern wing of the hotel. Some of the inflicted deaths and injuries occurred in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings. Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings and the reasons why the hotel was not evacuated.
<br>
<br>Yes Zionists in the guise of Arabs. This has continued to be the Zionist – Mossad MO, up to this very day. I submit that Brandon Martinez is a Mossad double agent using the same MO to disrupt the truth movement__coming on strong against “the Zionists”, when in fact he IS a Zionist himself. And perhaps this is the same game that the sockpuppet is playing on us at T&S.
<br>
<br>“Zios usually resort to ad hom attacks, insults and vulgarities when losing an argument. If you’re not an Israeli agent then you may wish to sign up as one because you’re doing their bidding.”~Brandon Martinez
<br>See: Brandon Martinez, on the RethinkSeptember11 Global Interactive Broadcast, YouTube forum.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>jimbo</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 12:09 am
<br>“We are in fact divided amongst ourselves as a result of this tempest of bullshit coming from within the 9/11 Truth community itself.”
<br>
<br>And let’s look at two of the camps, the ones who vociferously insist Israel was behind the deed like Fetzer and Bollyn, the writers above and then writers like Tarpley, Griffin, Ryan, Corbett, Massimo Mazzucco and even Craig here, thoughtful, methodical and measured researchers who don’t let hackneyed biases cloud their thinking. I am thankful for the latter.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>September 20, 2015 at 12:22 am
<br>Yes Jimbo, it is a tempest of bullshit. That is why I disingaged from this Martinez character on the other site. But Sockpuppet wanted to bring the argument here by reporting back to Martinez there, and giving the link to T&S.
<br>
<br>I have proposed the same solution be established here, that we drop the whole thing about who may or may not be an agent.
<br>
<br>I won’t say another word about it unless the sockpuppet persists.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34414">September 20, 2015 at 5:15 pm</a>
<br><b>jimbo</b>,
<br>
<br>I take exception to your characterization of Christopher Bollyn. Please show examples from Bollyn himself that illustrate how he suffers from “hakneyed biases” that “cloud his thinking” and how he blames Israel as opposed to a small group of Zionist supremacist scumbags. If you cannot back up your slanderous statements about Bollyn then I expect you to withdraw those statements and apologize.
<br>
<br>I won’t hold my breath for the examples that back up your statements about Bollyn because I know very well there aren’t any. I will also NOT hold my breath for your apology because I suspect you aren’t going to provide one. My assessment of you is that it is in fact yourself that is biased and has “clouded thinking”. In your case it appears to be the bias in favor of Zionists and in favor of the idea that Jewish people do not have any evil scumbags among them or in positions of power in Israel. I also suspect that you feel the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians is somehow justified.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/911-false-flag-psyop/#comment-8942">2015-09-21</a>
<br>
<br>The PSYOP of 9/11 continues now with cognitive infiltration agents swarming the Internet with counterfeit posers pretending to be part of the ‘Truth Movement’. And they join in on 9/11 forums and write things such as, “scientists tell you that the only way to turn a building into dust is mini-nuclear explosives.Testing at the site shows Thorium, a by product of nuclear fusion, and thorium only shows up after a nuclear device detonates,” which is of course anal hurlant spawned by pseudoscience.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 218 -->
<a name="x219"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x219" class="tiny">x219</a>
Adam Ruff, hybridrogue1, & Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_219');">Christopher Bollyn exposes the Zionist supremacist</a></p>
<p>2015-09-23</p>
<div id="sect_219" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34497">September 22, 2015 at 9:41 pm</a>
<br>Here in this next video Christopher Bollyn exposes the Zionist supremacists who perpetrated the destruction of 9/11 evidence. A heinous crime all unto itself.
<br>
<br>The following 10-minute video, Solving 9-11: Destroying the Evidence, explains how the FBI, under the supervision of Michael Chertoff, allowed the crucial steel evidence from the World Trade Center to be destroyed. Rather than conducting a forensic examination of the steel to determine how the buildings were destroyed, this crucial evidence was hastily cut up, mixed with other scrap, and shipped to steel mills in Asia.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/911-false-flag-psyop/#comment-8971">September 23, 2015 at 4:38 am</a>
<br>
<br>Christopher Bollyn
<br>The following 10-minute video, Solving 9-11: Destroying the Evidence, explains how the FBI, under the supervision of Michael Chertoff, allowed the crucial steel evidence from the World Trade Center to be destroyed. Rather than conducting a forensic examination of the steel to determine how the buildings were destroyed, this crucial evidence was hastily cut up, mixed with other scrap, and shipped to steel mills in Asia.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/911-false-flag-psyop/#comment-8972">September 23, 2015 at 5:03 am</a>
<br>I have discussed this before, but I will make clear again: I do not agree that Israel was the main perpetrators of 9/11. The perps were a combination of Zionist Israelis, Zionist Christians, and the US Military Industrial Complex, which has only strategic military goals. At the core of the whole network is the International click of financiers. The whole game is realpolitik, and their agenda is based in “Might makes Right” and “the Ends Justify the Means”. This is the guiding rule among psychopaths who have no religious ideology or even political ideology, only the insatiable lust for political power.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34500">September 23, 2015 at 1:04 am</a>
<br>I have discussed this before, but I will make clear again: I do not agree that Israel was the main perpetrators of 9/11. The perps were a combination of Zionist Israelis, Zionist Christians, and the US Military Industrial Complex, which has only strategic military goals. At the core of the whole network is the International click of financiers. The whole game is realpolitik, and their agenda is based in “Might makes Right” and “the Ends Justify the Means”. This is the guiding rule among psychopaths who have no religious ideology, only the insatiable lust for political power.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34504">September 23, 2015 at 3:34 am</a>
<br>I see where you are coming from by holding that position and I cannot really disagree with your overall assessment of who was really behind the dastardly deed. I will point out though that while “Christian Zionists” were surely involved they are about as pro Israel as you can get without being an Israeli. I will also point out that the “international click of financiers” are headed by the Rothchild cartel who control much of the worlds financial strings. As to the “strategic military goals” of our “military industrial complex” they seem to be very much in line with destroying the perceived enemies of Israel.
<br>
<br>May I also point out that virtually all of the MSM and Hollywood is controlled by Zionists and heavily promotes a false narrative about Israel (good) and the Palestinians(bad). Since the chief operator of the destruction of the evidence, namely the WTC steel, was Michael Chertoff a Zionist dual citizen we can safely say that the Zionists were certainly well placed to destroy the evidence and control access to it. Since the media is controlled by Zionists then we can safely say they were well positioned to cover-up the crime and control the narrative after the fact. We can also look at who benefited from 9/11 the most both financially and strategically and again we are right back to Zionists.
<br>
<br>Were these Zionists capable of orchestrating 9/11? In other words did they have the resources to actually do it and then cover it up and control the legal process afterwards? The answer is YES! In my opinion the Christian Zionists, Zionist Israeli’s, and the military industrial complex are one and the same thing and are all operating on behalf of this click of Zionist supremacists and at least inside their own twisted minds think they are operating on behalf of Israel. In my opinion this will all backfire and eventually destroy Israel and a whole lot of innocent Jewish people. It will backfire in the same way the Nazi’s burning down the Reichstag ultimately resulted not in them conquering the world but in the almost complete destruction of Germany.
<br>
<br>The average Jewish person is no more involved in 9/11 than the average American is involved in US aggressions all over the world. It is the sociopathic monsters at the top who are doing these things and it is they who must be stopped. In the case of 9/11 those sociopaths happen to be Zionist supremacists and their close allies the so called Christian Zionists. No other group was positioned to plan, execute, cover-up, destroy the evidence, control the narrative, and control the legal process after 9/11 but this cabal of Zionist supremacist monsters. They had the resources of both the USA and Israel at their disposal. They did it and they will pay for their crimes.
<br>
<br><b>Jimbo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34517">September 24, 2015 at 3:42 am</a>
<br>The Rothchilds did 9/11?
<br>
<br>No wonder they think we’re all nuts.
<br>
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34521">September 24, 2015 at 6:17 am</a>
<br>Who said that? Why are you trying to twist what I said?</p>
</div><!-- section 219 -->
<a name="x220"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x220" class="tiny">x220</a>
Adam Ruff, hybridrogue1, & Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_220');">A. Wright ignores Adam Ruff</a></p>
<p>2015-10-06</p>
<div id="sect_220" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-34969">October 5, 2015 at 7:57 pm</a>
<br>A.Wright,
<br>
<br>So you refuse to respond to this question posted in the previous thread?
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34632
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-34970">October 5, 2015 at 8:07 pm</a>
<br>Why are you allowed to even speak here A.Wright when you refuse to answer direct questions put to you?
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34632
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-34929">October 5, 2015 at 8:14 am</a>
<br>Yes Mr Syed,
<br>
<br>I thought of this last night after shutting down my workstation; the fact that this rebuttal by CIT has never been addressed by Chandler & Cole:
<br>
<br>http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/cit-response-to-david-chandler-and-jonathan-cole-pentagon-statement
<br>
<br>I suggest it is moe than reasonable to insist that before Chandler & Cole attempt one more step forward that they give a full answer to this well reasoned rebuttal by CIT.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-34933">October 5, 2015 at 8:42 am</a>
<br>They won’t address it. They won’t debate CIT or us.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-34973">October 5, 2015 at 8:32 pm</a>
<br>Well stated HR1 I agree completely. To me the fact that the “team” refuses all discussion of these issues indicates deception on their part. A truther (a real one) does not shy away from addressing challenges to his or her work. In fact real truthers relish the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove their hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>D Chandler</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-36380">October 29, 2015 at 1:00 am</a>
<br>…just a drive-by. If you want to know what I think, read what I have written.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-36396">October 29, 2015 at 8:32 am</a>
<br>David,
<br>
<br>A drive by and that is it huh? Pathetic. A genuine truther would face opponents in the open and if he was shown to be in error he would change his stance and embrace the truth regardless of personal considerations. That is what real truthers do.
<br>
<br>I for one am not going to beg you to debate this issue. As far as I am concerned the points made in this article and the points made in CIT’s response to your and Cole’s paper have gone UN-rebutted. The ball is in your court now. We have read your material and listened to what you have to say and we responded to it. Now it is up to you to either respond to our criticisms of your pentagon position or pretend they don’t exist and hide from the whole thing.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 220 -->
<a name="x221"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x221" class="tiny">x221</a>
Paul Zarembka, Elias Davidsson : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_221');">Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence</a></p>
<p>2015-10-08</p>
<div id="sect_221" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Paul Zarembka</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-35157">October 7, 2015 at 10:43 pm</a>
<br>I cited Elias Davidsson’s book ‘Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence’ in my review of Roth’s first book. I had asked Roth, in my phone conversation with her, about her opinion of Davidsson’s work but nothing concrete was offered, only that she had read it and there were problems.
<br>
<br>Today, Davidsson has a review of Roth’s book on Amazon. He has given it a one-star with a comment:
<br>
<br>“Due to the many raving commentaries on Amazon, I decided, myself an author of a book on 9/11, to read Rebekah Roth’s book, too. The first pages reminded me of old-fashioned pornographic novels, written by third-class authors. Sentences like the following abound: “Grace found her room, closed the door behind her and immediately began to wonder what she would wear. She hoped she had packed the right shoes and jewelry to accent her sexy blue silk top with her brand new linen pants.” (p. 15) …
<br>
<br>“It took quite many pages until the author began weaving 9/11 factoids into her narrative. Her book demonstrates that she studied some of the 9/11 critical literature. There is no evidence, however, that she carried out original research, let alone “mind blowing research”, the term used on the back cover. The book lacks literary value and is useless as a critical reference book on 9/11.”
<br>
<br>Davidsson could have mentioned that the book has a Tea Party political orientation that becomes very apparent at the end, going so far as to read like a John Birch Society produced novel. This, in spite of claims in interviews that she has no political agenda.
<br>
<br><b>Elias Davidsson</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11/#comment-35135">October 7, 2015 at 7:06 pm</a>
<br>I have been hesitant to engage in this discussion but feel compelled to do it here. It would be useful for 9/11 truthers to shed, once and for all, the illusion that a “true, independent and thorough investigation of 9/11” could be carried except after a U.S. “regime change”, in other words after a revolution. The U.S. ruling elite is intimately linked to upholding the myth of 9/11 and will never allow such an investigation. THe Nuremberg Trial could only take place after Nazi Germany was defeated.
<br>
<br>Instead, the 9/11 truth movement should – in my opinion – embed itself in the larger movement to weaken and ultimately defeat the criminal regime of the United States. The paradigm should be to think the U.S. as a post-modern version of the Nazi regime and slowly undermine the moral legitimacy of the institutions that maintain that regime. For that purpose, continuing to discuss about “how” the US regime carried out 9/11 is a waste of time. There is more than sufficient data to conclude on US responsibility for the crime.
<br>
<br>
<br>{mcb: Elias Davidsson in his book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence (Algora Publishing, New York, 2013).}
<br>
<br>Dr. Markus J. Schneider
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-35150">October 7, 2015 at 8:46 pm</a>
<br>It makes me sad to see how little the truth movement is able to reach the general public. Sad, to be honest, is putting it mildly: it makes me sick.
<br>A year ago, I started presenting extracts of books, websites, speeches and videos published by the truth movement to family, friends and colleagues (mechanical engineers). Material that – in my opinion – proves beyond reasonable doubt that the WTC buildings were brought down with controlled demolition, that no large aircraft ever hit the Pentagon or crashed in Shanksville. What reaction did my sample of the “general public” show? Well, it all seemed interesting and entertaining to my audience, but the conclusion that the official story is false was simply not accepted. The engineers were not convinced by David Chandler’s words “the upper portion of the building would not fall through the path of its greatest resistance”. The friends (well educated people with leading positions in their companies) were not impressed by watching the slow motion and analysis of the WTC7 collapse. Neither friends nor colleagues made life-changing discoveries through my presentations. I tried a few more times. Then I gave up. (By the way, the family members were the ones the most impressed. Why? Because they were convinced by my emotion, my sincerity, my engagement, my trust in the sources of which I took the material.)
<br>So how can the general public be convinced if not with facts? It can be convinced by the individuals who believe (and can defend) those facts on one hand and the number of the followers on the other.
<br>The 9/11 truth movement however appears to be split into dozens of groups and fractions, many of them contradicting (even insulting) or – at best – ignoring each other. Obviously, each and every prominent member has its own blog. Considering myself a representative of the “general public”, it looks pathetic. I felt relief when I discovered David Ray Griffin’s consensus panel. (It appeared weak to me, but it seemed like a start). Now I read in the exchange above that members of the truth movement pride themselves in saying “Fuck the consensus. The whole concept of it.” These individuals have not understood that the truth movement is (or must be) a political movement. And political power only stems from unity. The 9/11 truth movement reminds me of the loud and colorful but powerless oppositions one finds in many countries’ parliaments of this world where the dominant party keeps ruling only because the opposition can never agree on anything. Each member of the opposition opposes something else…
<br>Scientific (or less ambitiously: engineering) argument cannot defeat the official story in the view of the general public. Did Richard Gage not fail horrendously even in front of his peers? From more than 4,000 delegates at this year’s American Institute of Architects business meeting, only 160 voted in favor of a new WTC7 investigation, 3,892 voted against it. If the engineers cannot be convinced – not even about the limited subject of WTC7 alone – how should the common citizen be convinced that the entire official story about the four plane crashes is a lie?
<br>Those members of the truth movement who have to tell a somewhat truer story, to announce an all-important detail correction or to advertise their superior understanding (insight, overview, knowledge, philosophy, experience, authority, etc.) should do this behind closed doors. The public is not served by it in any way.
<br>David Chandler’s approach to the pentagon issue largely annihilates his achievements with the WTC towers. He has just lost his credibility. I can already see the logic in the heads of my friends: “What, all those who convinced me that AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon are wrong after all? So they did take me on a ride! Or is Chandler wrong? But if Chandler is wrong on the Pentagon, he is probably also wrong on the WTC towers… The government seems to be right, after all. The truth movement does not know itself. These guys are just conspiracy theorists. What a pity, I wasted my time on that.”
<br>I will still forward the “Beyond Misinformation” brochure to friends and colleagues. Hope they don’t google David Chandler.
<br>Mark Schneider, Ph.D. Physics, Germany
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 7, 2015 at 9:46 pm
<br>“Now I read in the exchange above that members of the truth movement pride themselves in saying “Fuck the consensus. The whole concept of it.” These individuals have not understood that the truth movement is (or must be) a political movement. And political power only stems from unity.”~Dr. Schneider
<br>
<br>I appreciate your passion. It is a conundrum, is it not, that the Truth movement, in order to become a “political movement”, demands acquiescence of ones personal principles as to what that truth is, by bowing to a ‘collective’, in the name of consensus?
<br>
<br>You say, “But if Chandler is wrong on the Pentagon, he is probably also wrong on the WTC towers” — clearly this is a non sequitur and as such a fallacious argument: “Sally can’t shoot straight, so she is a lousy shot, therefore she can’t cook’.
<br>
<br>It is a fact of the movement of time through space that all “consensus” is temporary. The only consensus that is not is one that is enforced by dogma. Shall we as members of a “truth community” then bow to the tyranny of dogma?
<br>
<br>I do appreciate your opinions and your input her Dr. Schneider. But my reservations to them have been registered here. You may respond as you will.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>dji9424</b>
<br>October 7, 2015 at 10:30 pm
<br>If a movement is not grounded in truth, there is no real hope that it will achieve anything worthwhile; certainly not by design. If consensus is held superior to truth, what makes you think that it won’t end up being sidetracked; willfully steered off course so that nothing good is accomplished, except for the agenda for which the dastardly actions were originally conceived?
<br>
<br>Your argument is exactly what the US government is doing – playing in their arena with their rules of engagement is never going to win any meaningful victory. The pursuit of truth is not for the majority, it genuinely is the devoted work of a relative few that will eventually win the day. The government’s case is crumbling with each passing month, now is not the time for compromise, now is the time to support those willing to fight where the battle is being waged.
<br>
<br><b>James Hufferd</b>
<br>October 7, 2015 at 11:35 pm
<br>I don’t think your professional colleagues (or Richard Gage’s, for that matter) would have rejected the scientific evidence you presented in the abstract, but that the problem was one of them being unready to violate the layered social compact of their allegiance to the social and political context providing them, in their perception, a place to operate, a context giving them the privilege of a shared purpose. And even more so, would they feel they owe allegiance and gratitude to their shared profession, so that they would not violate the perceived social contract within the principles of which they live and move and have their being. At this point, they are not ready to consider fundamentally opposing the consensus thus provided for their development, and they are not ready to consider facing the likely consequences of meaningfully doing so.
<br>
<br>As for your family members, you occupy a more prominent position and thus have more leverage and persuasiveness with them. But don’t get discouraged! We can eventually change the conventional wisdom on this subject if we can continue to plant seeds, one person at a time, and look for things to come up in the news and otherwise to cause those seeds of awareness to germinate across the society and cause the shift in perception that must happen. Hang in there!
<br>
<br>Dr. James Hufferd
<br>http://www.911grassroots.org
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 221 -->
<a name="x222"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x222" class="tiny">x222</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_222');">exile seat comments to McKee</a></p>
<p>2015-10-20</p>
<div id="sect_222" style="display: none;">
<p>2015-10-20 {mcb email}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>From my seat in exile, I ping your consciousness to remind you of where my zig-zag path to Truth has landed me: 9/11 nuclear involvement. Lots and lots of data points, mined from the most reliable sources and the unreliable ones, lead me there.
<br>
<br>You may not recollect details of my exchanges with HR1. When we were debating whether NT could go the distance in achieving the pulverization as well as the hot-spot duration, HR1's go-to source was Dr. Legge. For quite some time now, HR1 has been pegging Dr. Legge as a mole. However, it has not caused HR1 to re-evaluate our exchanges and how NT doesn't add up as the sole or primary means of destruction.
<br>
<br>I have had direct exchanges with Mr. Chandler. I was pointing out that the energy requirements of pulverization were excessive; not something that would be implemented using conventional chemical explosives, because the quantities are massive. If conventional CD were the means, the goals could be accomplished not only with much less, but also in a manner that more closely resembles a crumbling (not pulverizing) destruction initiated by airplane impacts. The smoking gun is the energy requirements of pulverization, which I say was a side-effect of the means chosen and not something that was designed and planned for.
<br>
<br>Mr. Chandler avoided the nuclear topic. Didn't review Dr. Wood's book. He, of all people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, would have wielded a lot of weight in debunking the book. Why didn't he, even when today I admit it was disinformation? Because it had much truth that they didn't want to address.
<br>
<br>Nuclear topics were also purged from 9/11 blogger. I was never granted admission.
<br>
<br>I'm busy and distracted with real-life, but I do have the goods to thoroughly trash the AE9/11 Truth FAQ on no-nukes written by the AE9/11 Truth Writing Team. (Were you involved?) As with debunking of previous Dr. Jones no-nukes papers, its weaknesses are in the reports they accept, unchallenged and at face value, as being definitive on what was measured. Also, it frames the nuclear case badly, making absolutely no mention of FGNW -- a glaring omission.
<br>
<br>You've said repeatedly that it doesn't matter HOW the towers were destroyed; what matters to you and the public is that they were destroyed in an unlikely fashion that the official statements can't support. You've said that you want to bring public awareness to that improbable aspect.
<br>
<br>What my dogged persistence into nukes even from exile proves, is that if a nuclear HOW does matter. In fact, a nuclear 9/11 is the rallying call that has the potential -- in a Lord of the Rings fashion -- of bringing together both the divided factions of 9/11TM as well as the "uninitiated" ignorant masses. It furthermore explains all of the limited hang-outs into NT, NPT, pods-on-planes, hollow towers, etc. It explains the brutal tactics used against me, from (HR1) flame-wars to his incoherent blog postings dedicated to me as a "disinfo agent." (And HR1 is still tolerated by you?!! Despite his same black-boot-on-throat tactics used rudely against participants today?)
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff never ceases to amaze me with his hypocrisy, played out often against Mr. Wright. First, I can re-purpose Mr. Ruff's posting against him when he's been agitated by Mr. Wright not answering direction questions, etc. His whole litany of complaints are exactly the same I have against Mr. Ruff. I'm still partway convinced that purposeful triangularization exists between AWright, HR1, and Ruff.
<br>
<br>Second, you tolerate Mr. Wright, yet I remain banned? I have demonstrated being far more reasonable, rational, logical, intelligent, etc.
<br>
<br>I can be convinced of other conclusions.
<br>
<br>Yet, you act the censor and won't let such discussions happen so that I can be convinced otherwise... Or others can be convinced of my arguments.
<br>
<br>The BIG picture of all this is that keeping the public from landing on 9/11 nuclear conclusions is the only uniting thread in all of this. Because it is the KEY, it is the motivator, it is the rallying cry, it is the change instigator... Or rather it would have been if it would have been revealed and had its dots connected 10 years ago.
<br>
<br>Whatever.
<br>
<br>Exile is a blessing for what I achieve in real-life. As a sincere seeker of Truth, I'm only rankled by the games of your "regular trolls" and their hypocrisy. I'm sure you can imagine the circus that they would start were a single comment of mine permitted publication.
<br>
<br>Again, whatever.
<br>
<br>I'll do another yoga exhale and let my mind be purged of its ire with this venting email, so that it is no longer there to distract.
<br>
<br>Connect some dots, Mr. McKee.
<br>
<br>Before I return to my seat in exile, I thank you for granting me permission to subscribe to the discussions.
<br>
<br>All the best,
<br>
<br>// Herr der Elf
<br>
<br>++++++
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-35975">October 20, 2015 at 3:36 pm</a>
<br>Craig,
<br>
<br>Let’s be clear here, Sheila not only questioned the Nanothermates as insufficient to have felled the towers; she said she agreed that the proposition that Nukes were involved made sense to her. Let’s address her entire comment, not cherrypick and isolate the part about Nanothermates.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-35980">October 20, 2015 at 5:04 pm</a>
<br>HR,
<br>
<br>I react to what I think is important. You are free to take her on about nukes, although I don’t think every mention of nukes should cause people to freak out. I think the type of material used to demolish the towers is not high on my list of priorities to fight over. I’m more concerned with how we convince official story believers to reconsider what they’ve been told.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-35981">October 20, 2015 at 5:15 pm</a>
<br>Thanks Craig,
<br>
<br>I am not particularly anxious to take Sheila on about nukes. It is a prospect that is easily dismissed with but a few well reasoned and substantive point. I don’t think it is worth burdening this thread with that argument. What I would suggest is that Sheila read this page on my blog, and by page, I mean all of my commentary after the initial remarks put in the abstract — the whole argument:
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/disinformation-dew-nuke/
<br>
<br>I would especially point out my comment on “The Prager Psyop” that addresses all the substances he claims prove a nuclear reaction.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>2015-10-20
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>If you're now allowing nukes to be discussed -- and in particular by mean-spirited HR1 --, then the reason for my banishment no longer exists.
<br>
<br>Your only concern will be for HR1's unhingement and what he & his tag-team (Mr. Ruff) dredge up to side-line my rational, reasoned, measured comments in flame wars.
<br>
<br>I do have new information, new analysis. I can set Shiela straight as well as all of those who don't believe in nukes.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>2015-10-20
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>HR1's reference links are disorganized pieces of crap. Very funny to how he plops in such links as if they were authoritative, when they are not. I've shredded them in the past. Plus anybody, once on HR1's blog, exploring his other ware, will find other "less-than-pretty" offerings.
<br>
<br>That you allow HR1 to repeatedly put such links into his postings speaks volumes. I have equivalent links that I could post, were I permitted.
<br>
<br>It should be pointed out that HR1 does not permit me to respond on his venue, and he is too chicken-shit to debate me on my turf, where I am much fairer to his words and arguments than he ever has been to mine.
<br>
<br>You want something to "convince official story believers to reconsider what they’ve been told"? A nuclear 9/11 will do it, Mr. McKee. And it dovetails so nicely with the Pentagon-con in all aspects.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 222 -->
<a name="x223"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x223" class="tiny">x223</a>
hybridrogue1 & djthermaldetonator : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_223');">emotionally invested truthers irrationally call me a shill</a></p>
<p>2015-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_223" style="display: none;">
<p><b>djthermaldetonator</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36158">October 22, 2015 at 11:13 pm</a>
<br>Forum, blog, whatever. Sorry I really don’t like this format. It’s too long to scroll and keep focus with all these little comments directed towards me, going off subject on some. So I rather just direct this message to Mr. McKee, and I’m ignoring the rest.
<br>
<br>I recognize your face and name, I am quite certain we have talked on Facebook before. If you add me on Facebook you’ll see the previous conversation we’ve had. I am well acquainted with numerous people who have worked with AE.
<br>
<br>Reason I come off defensive, is because as of recent, I’ve had a portion of emotionally invested truthers irrationally call me a shill without considering my years of being public and activist for 9/11 truth, which I find disturbing with how much the movement is still correct on the majority of the tragic deaths (bombs inside the WTC).
<br>
<br>But I do not understand how there is evidence for plane denial on this blog, contrary to witness and photographic evidence of a plane having hit the Pentagon? Nor the fact that most 9/11 researchers never question people in DC who saw the plane, or dare to interview family victims from that itself, (especially when there is a chance these witnesses and family victims could of found solidarity within the truth movement, or just having legitimate concerns for the victims and obvious lies at the WTC).
<br>
<br>The situation(scene) lacking media and bystander cameras at the Pentagon is a separate subject, and so is whatever reasons we could speculate why the authorities would not release the 80 camera angles (which i wish they would release too), but suspiciously release angles that are poor.
<br>
<br>But because there is limited video documentation of the Pentagon strike, that doesn’t mean we should just ignore or throw away all the early conclusive witness accounts to that strike, and only accept those who saw and witnessed the bombs at the WTC, just because were lucky enough to have had lot of news cameras as proof to validate those claims.
<br>
<br>By me referring to “government evidence”, is the actual submissions from the crime scenes, not just a general overall blanket term, to include the 9/11 Commission report, which one doesn’t have to read to know is a lie (when 6 of commissioners already stated it was set up to fail, a white wash, and a cover up) which was assembled after the crime scene evidence was already gathered. That is the context of how these items came about. Maybe you haven’t looked at all of it, but even the evidence gathered for the plane incidents is contrary to the 9/11 Commission report (amongst some other things I’ve even discovered recent that are not in there, besides the popular building 7).
<br>
<br>As an irrational question of, do I trust the government? No. But what we accept in comparison of how our government of yesteryear has gotten into wars through lies, is way different now than just assuming our government (military) is all evil and encompassing, and will just kill its own, on its own turf. The war deception strategies then still differ, as does the technology to spy and terrorize, and the global stage itself. Also what matters is what sort of research you may have done on previous false flags, and whether if there is a correlation or similar agenda to them, or not?
<br>
<br>It will take a great detail to give you my complete theory on whom and how 9/11 was done. Because my theory allows a lot more room and sound arguments for other operational theories to how this may have been orchestrated. It’s sort of an “I know how much I don’t know, about 9/11” sort of answer, by sticking to only concrete evidence. Like for example, we know for a fact Israelis were caught in and around, and all involved with 9/11. Isn’t that just as strong (or stronger) evidence than just paying attention to how building falls down?
<br>
<br>Now if you’re not going to accept what photographic and witness evidence there is at the Pentagon, I will honor that, because I understand where you’re coming from. But that also means that cant really go no further If you’re just going to ignore evidence, that’s not acceptable to you. So I’m not going to spend my time explaining out my entire Pentagon theory, as it will also have to include explaining the rest of the attacks in greater details.
<br>
<br>As even cited in movies like Loose Change, a big clue to what I’m saying, you should recognize is evidence that was released by authorities and yet contrary to the official version, which is the passenger flight manifest for flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.
<br>
<br>With your willful limitations, in order to get around to proving that there was a plane that hit the Pentagon, and that there were planes that still crashed into the WTC (I hope some of you at least agree on that part?) and in Shanksville, and to proving there where hijackers, and that there where hijackings and passengers on those planes, phone calls and all, who died on those planes, we will have to do a little terrorism research, that goes into areas others are afraid to look at, and is too long to explain.
<br>
<br>I seem to recall you are aware of Israeli involvement? Then I can gladly build my theory explanation step by step, versus preconceived notions from the truth movement. But it will also have to include facts about the WTC 1993 bombing (and few worthy points about Iran Contra too). I know it’s not the same thing, and there were no planes involved. But the official versions of those events are linked (and could be easily defined as both being Al Qaeda events , but are strangely not) , however they still are linked the same way as what us truthers implicate who did 9/11. The WTC 1993 bombing is not off topic at all, and it’s (what I think) shameful that the truth movement really has not done much research on this, other than watching Alex Jones movies. There are beyond not only similarities, but it possibly may been done for the same agenda as what 9/11 was for.
<br>
<br>So Mr. McKee, if you would like to learn more on what research I have done, please add me on Facebook and I will speak to you privately or public there. There is no point for me to continue on this thread, if conversation on the Pentagon is going to be limited to “I don’t trust the government”, or “the government could just fabricate evidence” without any proof to that either, plus that I really don’t like this format. I only hope the rest of you will challenge yourselves more to look at evidence and other witness accounts, that may counter what you already believe, (or what you would call, defending the official version), especially if you are one not afraid to implicate Israel. I’ll just give you one more last clue. Suicidal terrorism isn’t limited to Muslims and Japanese.
<br>
<br>One more response to a later comment.. I myself actually enjoy debating not only plane denial truther’s but debunkers too (on Facebook). It’s just kind of funny that it’s sort of a 50/50 split between agreeing with both groups. But both groups don’t seem to know anything about the 1993 WTC bombing either. But with debunkers, they seem to run in fear from the Israeli evidence or call me anti-Semite.
<br>
<br><b>rediscover911com</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36160">October 22, 2015 at 11:37 pm</a>
<br>“Forum, blog, whatever. Sorry I really don’t like this format. It’s too long to scroll and keep focus with all these little comments directed towards me, going off subject on some. So I rather just direct this message to Mr. McKee, and I’m ignoring the rest.” [short quote from a long meandering post]
<br>
<br>I’ll be short and to the point: Who accuses of that which they are being and doing … projecting their own failings upon others?
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36165">October 23, 2015 at 12:00 am</a>
<br><b>djthermaldetonator</b>,
<br>
<br>I appreciate that you addressed this latest comment to Mr McKee, but I feel compelled to disabuse you of your gross misconceptions concerning our findings on the matter of the Pentagon event. You have been invited to study our case first hand on your own cognizance. You have most obviously failed to do so, or your current remarks would be recognized even by yourself to be incorrect – were you to be frank with yourself.
<br>
<br>The issues are in fact straight forward, if not simple to digest.
<br>
<br>The case is straightforward in that the plane proven to be on the north of Citgo path cannot have hit the light poles nor made the damage within the Pentagon at the angle that damage is documented to be.
<br>
<br>The case is not simple to digest because the matter of that proof rests for the most part on the witnesses to the event that were in the proper place and time to witness the plane on that path. It is difficult to digest this because the witness testimony is a huge meal that must be taken one bite at a time. It takes a great appetite to be determined enough to find the truth that lies in this huge meal. Only when you are willing to go through our assessment of the witness testimonies, and follow the very careful reasoning put to them will you have the capacity to digest this rather complex assessment.
<br>
<br>The second point is less complex and concerns the so-called “evidence”. There simply is no legitimate evidence for an aircraft crash at the Pentagon. You will find no legitimate chains of custody in the official record for any of this asserted evidence. You will find that even the so-called FDR evidence is illegitimate and must be dismissed as tainted. You will find there is not a single aircraft change-part list of ID’s for any of the asserted evidence.
<br>You will be left with the only reasonable conclusion one can make in such a situation, that being that there was “evidence planted” at the scene of the crime by the perpetrators of that crime..
<br>
<br>I will also address the 1993 “terrorist bombing” of the WTC. As well as your remarks on the bombing of the Murrah building. But those will be in a separate, or perhaps several separate commentaries here.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>djthermaldetonator</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36167">October 23, 2015 at 12:57 am</a>
<br>feel free to add me. I’m not doing anymore responses here. I’m well aware of all the Pentagon theories, have spoken to some of these filmmakers before. Plenty of investigatory questions I asked, that you have not addressed. https://www.facebook.com/djthermaldetonator
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36170">October 23, 2015 at 1:16 am</a>
<br><b>djthermaldetonator</b>,
<br>
<br>I do not do facebook, I don’t like their policies and refuse to be stalked by their algorithm.
<br>If we are done here – so be it, I find your arguments from ignorance untenable at any rate.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>djthermaldetonator</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36171">October 23, 2015 at 1:23 am</a>
<br>understandable, thermatedetonator@gmail.com . Your wrong on few things with WTC 93, but i know why most truth seekers site the FBI to blame. the other events you mentioned dont concern me or 9/11. However, the OKC bombing does (JFK to a degree, but its a stretch), but i will relay that you via email.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36174">October 23, 2015 at 1:44 am</a>
<br>“but i will relay that you via email,”~djthermaldetonator
<br>
<br>No you will certainly not. If you are able to keep making remarks here with this evasion tactic, you would be able to make your arguments here just as well.
<br>
<br>My personal email is meant for my personal friends and acquaintances. You can also read my blog at:
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/911-false-flag-psyop/
<br>And:
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/truther-no-more-david-chandler-embraces-official-pentagon-story/
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36169">October 23, 2015 at 1:13 am</a>
<br><b>djthermaldetonator</b>,
<br>
<br>I will make this one short and sweet. As you have access to all of the issues that have been addressed on this blog by simply going down the list under the heading; “ARCHIVES”, it is your own unwillingness to grasp what has been previously addressed on this blog;
<br>
<br>>The Murrah bombing has been addressed in great detail here
<br>
<br>>The Shanksville crash as been addressed albeit in somewhat less detail. There was no crash at the old strip mine as is asserted in the official narrative.
<br>
<br>>The 1993 bombing of WTC using the explosive supplied by the FBi to the informant, and his taping of their admission to allowing that bomb to be placed and detonated by the patsies that they set up, has not been addressed in sufficient detail here, but I know the case intimately personally.
<br>
<br>Additionally I have been on the trail of the government perpetrators in earnest from the time of the coup d’etat in Dallas in 1963. And am aware of the Stockton California false flag school yard shootings that were meant to pass the first legislation against “assault rifles”.
<br>
<br>Also the Columbine false flag event with the same anti-gun agenda.
<br>
<br>Skipping a few we come to the Branch Davidian compound attack by the military in breach of the Posse Comitatus Act (1878)
<br>
<br>The Randy Weaver incident that was actually the proximate cause of Timothy McVeigh’s impetus for joining the elOhim militia group on the Oklahoma/Arkansas border, which led to his involvement as a patsy for the Oklahoma bombing.
<br>
<br>This history of false flag and other PSYOPs is long and complex when one simply accounts for the ones made in Amerika.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>djthermaldetonator</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36187">October 23, 2015 at 9:56 am</a>
<br>Mr hybridrogue1, not interested in you’re blog and threading back to you here. Have a nice life.
<br>
<br>Mr. sockpuppet2012 , I’ve meet Craig Ranke and know his films.
<br>A.) 4 people out of countless of others who witnesses the plane and path, is not conclusive proof that there wasn’t a plane, or that was a missile, a drone, a hologram, or even a “stand down order”.
<br>B.) Mr Ranke no longer cares to be involved in the movement, nor want’s to debate his findings.
<br>
<br>Now, if you care to compare notes on your claims, or want my answers to the rest of your questions, i’l gladly do so via email or Facebook. Hell, i might even try to resurrect Mr Ranke for you. I dont run a blog, nor care to validate one that’s not practical. i’m done here.
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>October 23, 2015 at 11:04 am
<br><b>djthermaldetonator</b> said:
<br>
<br>“Mr. sockpuppet2012 , I’ve meet Craig Ranke and know his films.
<br>A.) 4 people out of countless of others who witnesses the plane and path, is not conclusive proof that there wasn’t a plane”
<br>
<br>If you think there were only four witnesses to the NoC flight path, then you know NOTHING of Craig Ranke’s films or website.
<br>
<br>If you think Craig Ranke says there was no plane, then you know nothing of his films and website.
<br>
<br>Can you name one of the “countless of others who witnesses the plane and path”?
<br>
<br>“….. or that was a missile, a drone, a hologram…..”
<br>
<br>Why do you bring up that nonsense?…..that’s just more proof that you are completely unfamiliar with Ranke’s films and website.
<br>
<br>Your status as a shill, a gatekeeper and a liar is obvious…..you stand out like a clown at a funeral!
<br>
<br>“Mr Ranke no longer cares to be involved in the movement, nor want’s to debate his findings”
<br>
<br>That’s two more lies.
<br>He probably doesn’t want to waste his time with you, and you spin that into “he doesn’t want to debate anyone”.
<br>
<br>Craig Ranke would gladly debate Chandler, Cole, Legge, Hoffman, Deets or Ryan or any of the other well known detractors of his work on camera, but why would he want to waste his time with you?
<br>
<br>“Now, if you care to compare notes on your claims, or want my answers to the rest of your questions, i’l gladly do so via email or Facebook”
<br>
<br>Why are you afraid to discuss your nonsense here, where you are unable to block people and delete comments?
<br>
<br>Why are you so interested in collecting email addresses?
<br>
<br>“Hell, i might even try to resurrect Mr Ranke for you”
<br>
<br>What makes you think you have any influence over Graig Ranke?…..you’re not even familiar with his films or website.
<br>
<br>“i’m done here”
<br>
<br>I doubt that.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36193">October 23, 2015 at 11:30 am</a>
<br><b>djthermaldetonator</b>,
<br>
<br>Well now if that isn’t a bunch of oinking rhetorical bilge you just spewed. You obviously haven”t a thing of substance to offer. So you may as well can the bullshit and get lost.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 23, 2015 at 12:55 pm
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>,
<br>
<br>This clown, djthermaldetonator turned out to be another turnip without a drop of blood or substance. It seem that not a single Chandlerite can make even the beginning of an argument here. Not a single one will make an argument of substance, just hot wind.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 223 -->
<a name="x224"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x224" class="tiny">x224</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_224');">quiz your false belief that Facebook is somehow better</a></p>
<p>2015-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_224" style="display: none;">
<p>2015-10-23
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. ThermalDetonator,
<br>
<br>I am a lurker reader of Truth & Shadows. In exile, really, for a pre-crime, no less. Mr. McKee is gracious enough to let a second email alias of mine subscribe to comments, but he won't publish at the moment. Not so much for what I would write, but for the over-reaction of my debate partners: the infamous Mr. Rogue and his fart-saluting little buddy, Mr. Ruff. My zig-zag path to 9/11 truth has lead me to FGNW (4th generation nuclear weapons), that I had a talent for slipping in sideways in my comments while being able to relate it to the subject.
<br>
<br>I don't necessarily recommend going to my blog where I have dual-purposed my exchanges (under the alias "Senor El Once") with belligerent dry-drunk Mr. Rogue and others from T&S. Such a repetitive bore it has become even for me! The view from the penalty box is a blessing, really.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, the reason I am writing is to quiz your false belief that Facebook is somehow better than Mr. McKee's blog. FB has no permanence -- except with the FBI and what they'll dredge up at our trials. FB is so easy to game. Post a few comments in a row, and you push the discussions of others up into the Read More nether regions. Share a few posts in a row to a forum, and you push down into the news feed of others the discussions on other topics. You literally have to have notifications on and receive emails in order to have half a chance of getting a URL to give to others on where a great discussion might have transpired. You can't even go (but I'm sure the FBI can) to any view of your own submissions and have collected in one place all shares ~and~ comments that you ever made; nor can you do that for others. I repeat: FB has no permanence.
<br>
<br>9/11 Truthers have to participate in so many carousels with trolls. Serious participants who feel they are writing something worthy need to take efforts on their own to preserve a copy of wisdom: off-line at the very least. It is so easy to get banned, and for a vindictive admin to purge your content. Blogs are free and just as easy to maintain as posting normal comments, I believe you error greatly in judgment about their value.
<br>
<br>FB together with a blog is your only hope at permanence while avoiding carousel spins. I mean, if you re-post you worthy efforts on FB to your blog, you'll have a "goto" URL to shut-down unproductive spins down the road. The more diligent you are in your blog postings of capturing source URLs of where discussions took place, can help your efforts for truth. Likewise, you can post on FB links to your blog, It gives permanence to FB when otherwise it would be a memory hole.
<br>
<br>Of course, it can also be misused, as Mr. Rogue does. He won't ever publish a comment from me (but that doesn't mean I can't subscribe.) Nor will he confront me on my blog. If you go rummaging around his blog, you'll find a couple of unhinged postings followed by literally hundreds of comments dedicated to me, an alleged disinformant. Too funny, and hardy worth reading; it has no organization. Mr. Rogue can't decide what his blog wants to be: (1) something serious with research, (2) a smear job on opponents, (3) a legacy for Mr. Rogue. The omissions are noteworthy, for he had lengthy debates with others on T&S and never re-purposed his "worthy" words on his blog. Guess that makes me special that he has dedicated so much to me.
<br>
<br>T&S is a unique place. Mr. McKee brought back URLs to individual comments, so if you save them with your words off-line, you can later shut-down a lot of nonsense by posting the "goto" link, if not choice quotes from the original.
<br>
<br>Mr. McKee is pretty fair, although my time in the penalty box has dragged on too long. On the plus side without me as a catalyst for bad or sour behavior by Mr. Rogue, we quickly learn that the issue isn't with me.
<br>
<br>On another topic, I am also in the CIT camp. There was a plane that people saw. But there are no witnesses to it actually hitting the Pentagon. The witnesses saw a plane and shortly on its heels heard and explosion and saw smoke, and mentally connected the dots and the psy-op wanted them to. Conveniently, no video released either except a few frames from a parking meter. Alas, the flight path was not aligned with the staged damage. [I believe a missile was launched from a construction trailer, coupled with explosives within the building.] Aside from the videos [that could shut a lot of people up one side or another if released], there is no effort to correlate via serial numbers airplane parts with the alleged commercial aircraft.
<br>
<br>Oh well. Just thought I'd touch base to inform you that you pin false hopes on FB. It has no permanence (except at our trials.)
<br>
<br>All the best and have a great weekend.
<br>
<br>// Herr der Elf
</p>
</div><!-- section 224 -->
<a name="x225"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x225" class="tiny">x225</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_225');">oinking rhetorical bilge</a></p>
<p>2015-10-23</p>
<div id="sect_225" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36193">October 23, 2015 at 11:30 am</a>
<br>djthermaldetonator,
<br>
<br>Well now if that isn’t a bunch of oinking rhetorical bilge you just spewed. You obviously haven”t a thing of substance to offer. So you may as well can the bullshit and get lost.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>If Mr. Rogue does not substantiate his assessment, then his comment itself becomes "oinking rhetorical bilge" that he should spew on his blog and not on yours.
<br>
<br>I don't subscribe to the comments of your blog to get poked in the eye repeatedly by Mr. Rogue's demeanor.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 225 -->
<a name="x226"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x226" class="tiny">x226</a>
Jens Schmidt, ruffadam, hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_226');">under his scholarly spell.</a></p>
<p>2015-10-21 through 2015-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_226" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36054">October 21, 2015 at 12:20 pm</a>
<br>“Some of the others might just be under his [Legge’s] “scholarly spell.” You know, the academic Ph.D. who wears the jacket and tie and speaks softly.”
<br>I have no opinion of Legge, as I don’t remember having read anything by him, other than the Harrit et al paper, to which his contribution probably was minor.
<br>
<br>But: If memory serves, he has his PhD in chemistry, with a background in agriculture. Can any of you verify that? Does he have any scholarly achievements to his credit other than his papers at the Journal of 9/11 Studies? The Harrit paper lists his affiliation as “Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia” – a business, apparently, not an academic venue.
<br>
<br>With that in mind, I don’t see how physicist Chandler, engineer Cole or physics PhD Wyndham should feel under any “scholarly spell” – Legge is simply outside his field here at the Pentagon.
<br>Do you assert that perhaps Dr. SE Jones (physics), Dr. NH Harrit (chemistry), Dr. J Farrer (physics), Dr. GS Jenkins (physics), Dr. C Grabbe (physics), or Tony Szamboti (mechanical engineer) were likewise under that “scholarly spell” when they collaborated with Legge on various papers?
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 21, 2015 at 4:47 pm
<br>“No I do not. Legge is the oldest of these people, and often that translated to “wiser” for younger men.”
<br>Seriously? Cole graduated in 1979 and thus has 35 or so of engineering experience on his back. Chandler is no “younger man”. I don’t know how old Wyndham is, but he was Assistant Professor for three years before going on a career in IT education. I can’t take this serious.
<br>
<br>“I do know Legge quite well although not having met him in person we communicated for several months in an intensive email discussion and eventual heated debate. Legge is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works with.
<br>He is a persuasive liar and a cheat as well.”
<br>I can’t argue with your personal experience, and accept it as you put it. However, I am aware that the quality of personal communications is a function of both sides’ behaviour. I am sure your personal experience with me differs VASTLY from the experience of those I collaborate with on a friendly. co-operative basis.
<br>
<br>“So whether this “scholarly spell” was all from respect for his tenure and achievements or had some great measure of intimidation is only known by the details of each of this cast of characters actual interactions with this shyster. Going along to get along is a pretty deeply ingrained human psychological response to perceived authority.”
<br>In other words: You are speculating, perhaps projecting.
<br>
<br>“That is No, as a long answer Mr Schmidt, and it is adamant on my part as well.”
<br>“Hybridrogue1 is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works against.” :D
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 21, 2015 at 5:34 pm
<br>“Legge is in his 80’s, Chandler is in his 70’s now, Cole is quite a bit younger still.”
<br>80s – wow, ok, would not have guessed that.
<br>Cole would be going on 60.
<br>
<br>“That you “can’t take this serious.” is absolutely of no concern to me.”
<br>That’s your prerogative.
<br>
<br>“You say, ““Hybridrogue1 is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works against.”
<br>
<br>Which is quite a distinction between; “Legge is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works with.”
<br>
<br>The “with” as opposed to “against” is of the essence. Is it not Mr Schmidt.”
<br>D’uh. Yes, of course, I wouldn’t have changed the “with” to “against” of it didn’t make a difference. Did you notice the “:D”? That was essential, too, to correctly parse my text.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 3:37 am
<br>“You should have noticed the comparative charts between the Tillotson Xerogell and the chips being tested by Harrit. The red chips measured about 10 1/2 Watts/Gram compared to about 5 Watts/Gram — at least twice the brisance of the military sol-gel.”
<br>
<br>The W/g are “specific power”, not “brisance”. Tittlotson’s paper points out specifically that they did NOT yet measure the reaction velocity!
<br>
<br>5 W/g are nothing extraordinary. Here is a paper that investigates the “…Thermo-oxidative Degradation of a composite Epoxy Resin Material” – nothing designed to be energetic or explosive, nothing nano, just regular epoxy resin:
<br>Budrugeac (2013)
<br>Look at the upper right chart in Figure 1: The DSC chart peaks near 5 W/g!
<br>
<br>Is 5 W/g a very fast reaction?
<br>Truth is: No, not at all, it is a very slow reaction.
<br>From this curve, Harrit determined a specific energy of 1.5 kJ/g for the entire chip (including the gray layer, which they assumed to be inert). By definition, 1 W = 1 J/s. Or 1 s = 1 J/W – reaction time is energy divided by (average) power: t = E/P. Let’s plug in the numbers (mass, measured in g, cancels out): reaction time for that chip would have been 1500 kJ / 5 W = 300 seconds, assuming konstant power. That’s 5 minutes. Read: IF the chip burned constantly at its peak specific power of 5 W/g, it would take 5 minutes to burn to completion! For a red layer merely 50 micrometers thin and about 1 mm wide, that is VERY slow burning indeed! Now you need to realize that this slow burning is immediately obvious from the DSC graphs anyway: The x-axis plots target temperature. Temperature was raised at a rate of 10 °C/min. 10 °C on the x-axis are thus equivalent to 60 s. The blue curve (the one they compare with Tillotson) starts reacting exothermally at ~240 °C and ends reacting exothermally at ~480 °C. The difference, 240 °C took 24 minutes in the DSC device – that’s how slowly the chip reacted in reality!
<br>
<br>Harrit’s DSC comparison between one chip vs. Tillotson’s nanothermite (Fig. 29) is odd anyway: Look at Fig. 19: They picked the curve that most closely resembled Tillotson’s – with the lowest peak power and highest peak temperature. The green curve peaks well above 20 W/g! That is also the curve from which Harrit determined a specific energy of 7.5 kJ/g – 5 times that of known nanothermite, and almost twice that which thermite could do in theory. This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the MAIN reaction that produced the plotted DSC peak was NOT, could not possibly be, a thermite reaction.
<br>
<br>Anyway, at no point do Harrit et al even hint that the chips react “explosive” in any way under their own power! I don’t think it counts if you infuse lots of heat by pointing a torch flame at a chip.
<br>
<br>As far as I know, the only person hinting such is Mark Basile; he filmed a chip he heated on a steel strip, and then in one frame it was still there, in the next gone.
<br>Assuming a frame rate of 30/s, and a field of viision that shows no more than an inch or so, this gives a minimum velocity of the chip of 0.03 meters per 1/30th of a second – we are talking about an order of magnitude of 1 m/s. “Extraordinary brisance” of an explosive would be far beyond 1000 m/s.
<br>
<br>SUMMARY:
<br>Harrit’s chips burn very slowly in the DSC test.
<br>Their brisance is unknown, experimental results indicate it may be 3 orders of magnitude lower than the brisance of ordinary explosives.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 4:26 am
<br>“…you derived this assumption from the photo of Jones. As described in the paper the chip was ignited by an electrical charge, during the experiments with Harrit.”
<br>No. I think you want to re-read the relevant part of Harrit et al and then come back and correct your mistake.
<br>
<br>“As far as the rest of your post; this simply does not jibe with the what is described in the literature concerning the explosive properties of sol-gel energetics. They speak of massive overpressure and brisance, and the ability to dial in such attributes according to the gas producing molecules in ratio to the energetic product.”
<br>I agree it does not jibe with the what is described in the literature concerning the explosive properties of sol-gel energetics. The conclusion from Harrit’s experimental results should then be that the chips are probably NOT “sol-gel energetics”.
<br>Is there any evidence in Harrit et al that the red material is the result of a sol-gel process? No. Have Harrit et al identified the red material? Not really! They don’t know what the organic matrix material is, they have no idea what the silicon is doing there, and they haven’t really understood what these platelet-shaped particles are. They have no explanation for the gray material.
<br>Most of the energy release comes from the organic matrix as it burns on air. Again, the power is comparable to that of ordinary epoxy resin, as per the Budrugeac paper I linked you to. There really is no good evidence that any thermite reaction has occurred at all.
<br>
<br>“Again, if Cole was able to achieve such explosive effects with regular scale Thermate,”
<br>IF – but did he really? Did he powderize concrete? Did he toss steel columns?
<br>
<br>“ it is imminently plausible to presume nano-milled sol-gels would be exponentially more explosive.”
<br>That would be a presumption, which does not follow in any way from the experimental data on the red/gray chips as presented by Harrit et al. Quite the contrary. The thermal behaviour of the chips is dominated by mere organic combustion on air.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 3:50 am
<br>“…explosive properties: can they cut WC central columns? can they toss columns? can they powderize concrete? Anyone who has seen Jonathan Cole’s experiments with simple Termate (sulfur laced thermite) knows that even this regular Thermate can do every one of those things.”
<br>To the best of my knowledge:
<br>Cole didn’t show that (or how) thermate powderizes concrete.
<br>Cole didn’t show that (or how) thermate tosses columns.
<br>
<br>The steel wall panels found at the WFC, on the other side of West Street, are said to have been ejected at a lateral velocity of 60 mph, 75 mph … I have seen different estimated by different Truth researchers, but that is about the range.
<br>Each wall panel weighs several tons.
<br>It is easy, in principal, to calculate the amount of high explosives needed to accelerate a ton of steel from 0 to 60 mph. As for formulas, all you need is the formulas for energy (kinetic energy of the tossed mass, chemical energy of the explosive) and momentum (of both the panel and the explosive residues flying the other direction), and estimate reasonable bounds for brisance and energy density. Has anyone attempted to do that? I think the result would leave you scratching your head.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 4:48 am
<br>“He most certainly did. He showed a video of the thermate blowing the top off of a capped column that blew it up high as a pine tree in his back yard.”
<br>Thanks for confirming that he didn’t toss a column.
<br>What flew up in the tree? Watch the Cole-video from 12:50 minutes on: He made a four-sided box cutter – something he can hold in his hand without a lot of force. Then boom, then: “I think my box cutter blew about 30 feet up“. Not the top of a capped column. Be more careful with your claims, HR1!
<br>
<br>In his experiments, Cole typically used like 1 kg of thermate. I think the box cutter isn’t more than 5 kg. To fly up 10 meters, an object needs an initial velocity of about 14 m/s, that’s about 30 mph. Half of what is claimed for the wall panels. To accelerate the box cutter to twice the velocity, you need four times the energy. So for perhaps 5 kg of box cutter, he’d have needed more like 4 kg of thermate.
<br>
<br>Wall panels weighed several tons.
<br>To toss wall panels to a velocity of 60 mph, you need tons of thermate.
<br>This is a result of Cole’s experiment.
<br>It should have you scratching yout head: How would the perps place tons of thermate onto or into each wall panel?
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 5:35 am
<br>“you KNOW damned well we aren’t talking about Thermate, nor Thermite here”
<br>I never claimed we are talking about therm_te here. I was talking about the experimental results on certain red-gray chips.
<br>It was YOU who introduced the talk on thermate when you linked to the Cole video. If you don’t want to talk about thermate, don’t introduce the topic! Don’t blame me for responding to you!
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 11:54 am
<br>“Then don’t be surprized that I won’t be responding to you further. If you can’t figure out why I brought up the Cole videos then screw you.”
<br>I am not surprised. I pointed out several hard errors in your claims about the Harrit study. I can understand why you might be shy to respond to that.
<br>
<br>To remind you: The original cause for me to respond in this thread half a day ago was your assertion that “5 Watts/Gram” means “at least twice the brisance of the military sol-gel.”“. This was flat-out FALSE. I explained to you that brisance is not measured in W/g (rather, it correlated with velocity of the reaction front in the explosive material), that Tillotson explicitly wrote that they had NOT measured the reaction velocity, that Harrit’s 5 W/g corresponds to / is the result of an excrutiatingly slow reaction, where the tiny chips (roughly 1 mm x 1mm x 50 µm) smouldered over the course of a whopping 24 minutes; and finally that I showed you another scientific paper, where the authors had measured ordinary epoxy resin to burn at a peak specific power of about the same 5 W/g.
<br>Yes, I understand why you didn’t respond to that.
<br>
<br>Further erroneous claims you made, that I corrected, were
<br>
<br>“As described in the paper the chip was ignited by an electrical charge, during the experiments with Harrit.”
<br>That was wrong. You should have re-read Harrit et al and corrected this error.
<br>
<br>You claimed, and insisted, that Cole showed that thermite charges could “toss columns” and “powderize concrete”, when in fact he showed no such thing.
<br>You corrected the former claim to “the top off of a capped column” – which was FALSE, too – he hurled the box-shaped cutting device. which didn’t weigh very much.
<br>You avoid the glaringly obvious observation that Cole needed a huge amount of thermate relative to the object he “tossed”.
<br>
<br>You claimed “we do have physical evidence of a sol-gel energetic explosive in the Jones-Harrit study“.
<br>I told how this was, again, FALSE, on both counts: No evidence that the red or the gray chip material is “sol-gel”; and no evidence that either is “explosive”.
<br>I understand perfectly why you would not wish to respond to this repeated incident of being shown plain wrong.
<br>
<br>You claimed: “There are several charts in that presentation Schmidt, one of them IS of the primer paint graph. Could you have mistaken that graph as a sol-gel graph?”
<br>How deeply embarrassed you must have felt when you relized you were wrong and my reply was correct: That there really is no chart of any kind of “the” (or indeed any) primer paint.
<br>I understand perfectly why you would not wish to respond to this.
<br>
<br>It must hurt to be shown wrong so often, about something that you believed in so much with all your heart, and I understand why you would wish to distract from your numerous false claims.
<br>
<br>By the way: Do you believe there was only one primer paint in the world, or in the WTC?
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 5:10 am
<br>“Now if Cole did this with regular Thermate, and as you see it blows the top off of the capped box column; what are the possibilities of a sol-gel nanothermate?”
<br>Invitation to speculation.
<br>
<br>“So what are the alternatives? RDX certainly, DETcord certainly. But these can only be surmised”
<br>Correct. Speculation.
<br>
<br>“whereas we do have physical evidence of a sol-gel energetic explosive in the Jones-Harrit study.”
<br>No, these are both false.
<br>There is no evidence in the Jones-Harrit study that the chips are “sol-gel”
<br>There is no evidence in the Jones-Harrit study that the chips are “explosive”
<br>
<br>“There are several charts in that presentation Schmidt, one of them IS of the primer paint graph. Could you have mistaken that graph as a sol-gel graph?”
<br>No, you are wrong.
<br>There is no graph in that paper on any primer paint.
<br>
<br>You need to re-read the Harrit et al paper. You have grave misconceptions of its content.
<br>
<br>“Obviously we have disparity between your interpretations and the experiments of Cole.”
<br>No.
<br>Cole is doing experiments with thermate.
<br>Harrit et al did experiments on an unknown material that derives most of its energy from organic combustion.
<br>The disparity has nothing to do with my interpretation, but with the studied materials being so different.
<br>
<br>“One more thing, if Cole’s Thermate has the explosive power we witness in his videos, and we know what it can do to steel, then it certainly has the explosive force to obliterate concrete as well. ”
<br>I do not doubt that you can obliterate concrete or steel to any degree you wish with thermate, nano-thermite. The problem arises with the quantity needed. This has not been properly assessed.
<br>
<br>“Especially the light weight concrete making up the floor pans. Full strength concrete was only used in the foundations and sub-basement weight bearing levels of the WTC.”
<br>I know. Light-weight concrete easily crumbles, if for example you drop it from a large height. No explosives needed.
<br>
<br>“Since we are all agreed that the towers exploded violently, throwing box columns and beams weighing multiple tons laterally for up to 600 feet. What mechanisms would each of you propose were at work there?
<br>Jens? Utu?”
<br>I do not agree at all that explosions threw the wall panels 600 feet. You’d need totally ridiculous amounts of explosives to do that, which are not in evidence.
<br>I think the walls simply toppled over, after the floor joists were stripped off.
<br>
<br>“Utu didn’t answer whether he/she considers DEW or nukes as options.
<br>There are some very simple reasons that both can be ruled out. And this can be discussed further if anyone cares to propose one or the other.”
<br>I certainly don’t propose either, silly.
<br>
<br>Please bear in mind that what I commented on today is the thermal properties of the red-gray chips as measured and presented in Harrit et al (2009) – and your FALSE claim that the value “5 W/g” is a measure of “brisance”. I have allowed you to distract from that, but would kindly ask you to review my arguments that led to my conclusion that the chips reacted very slowly in Harrit’s DSC experiments.
<br>
<br>Bottom line is: You have badly misrepresented Harrit’s results in several places now and need to correct those errors.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 5:29 am
<br>“I do not think your calculation of reaction time are correct. It’s way too rough ”
<br>You dismiss without argument what I asserted with an argument.
<br>My argument is solid and stands unrefuted.
<br>
<br>“and dividing 1500 J/g by 5W/g gets you something in seconds (which would be correct) but this division is not really justified.
<br>Not seconds – MINUTES!
<br>(1500 J/g) / (5 J/(s*g)) = 300 s = 5 min (provided the chip burned at 5 W/g constantly, which of course it did not – it burned even less powerfully all the time exept at peak).
<br>
<br>And again, the x-axis span from 240-480 °C = 240 °C really is equivalent to 24 minutes of burn time – there is no escaping this direct experimental result!
<br>
<br>“In terms of kJ/g the material Jones and Harrit studied compares well with traditional explosives.
<br>Actually, no: 7.5 kJ/g is more than all the “traditional” explosives, and far more than thermite or even nano-thermate.
<br>This despite much of the chips being inert gray layer!
<br>The gray layer typically has about the same thickness as the red-layer, and thus about the same volume, but the gray material is clearly much denser than the red material, and thus most of the mass of the chips is made of inert gray layer. If you accept that the energy release comes from the red material alone, then it follows that the energy density of the red material alone must be much larger than the 1.5, 3, 4.5 and 7.5 kJ/g measured by Harrit et al, putting it firmly outside the theoretical maximum of all explosive materials.
<br>
<br>The exotherm is clearly dominated by combustion of the organic matrix on air. This is a slow process, nothing explosive.
<br>
<br>“However, the speed of reaction is what is the most important.”
<br>I am not sure it’s the most important. I think energy considerations are more important IMO. But yes, it is important – AND has not been quantified at all by Harrit et al. So we do not know what the speed of reaction is “in the wild”, but we know it was VERY slow in the DSC environment.
<br>
<br>“Mixtures even nano mixtures always will have a lower speed of reaction (explosion) than that of single chemical compound explosive material. So I think you are correct pointing out the slowness of the thermite.”
<br>There is no evidence at all that the “nano-mixture” in the chips reacts.
<br>I think the entire Harrit and Jones claim that the chips are thermitic is bogus.
<br>There – now you have it ;)
<br>
<br>(Remember: Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan are co-authors. Coincidence?)
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 7:25 am
<br>“Energy densities of organic compounds do not include the weight of external oxygen. In explosive oxidizer containing oxygen in the explosive material. Gasoline has about 40 kJ/g while TNT has 4.6 kJ/g.”
<br>Yes, you correctly identified the reason why mundane organic materials ususally have so much higher energy densities than monomolecular explosives or thermites.
<br>
<br>“Did Jones-Harrit when measuring energy density burnt the samples in vacuum or in inert gas?”
<br>No, they did it under air.
<br>
<br>“If they got 7.5 kJ/g (the highest value for one sample) it is high for explosive (material containing its own oxidizer) but moderate for an organic compound burnt in oxygen.”
<br>Yes.
<br>Not just “high” for explosives, but impossible.
<br>
<br>“Jens Schmidt claims that Jones-Harrit test did not result in actual burning the oxidizer+metallic part of the chips. That only the organic compound was burnt? Is he correct?”
<br>Actually, I don’t want to lean too far out the window and claim positively that “only” the organic, and “no” metal burned. I say there is no actual evidence in Harrit et al that any Al did react and significantly affected the DSC results.
<br>Harrit et al themselves point out that most likely the organic matrix contributed to the exotherm, but they failed to quantify that. I say that the organic matrix most definitely did burn, and it would suffice to explain the DSC data, while thermite alone could not possibly do it. Thermite is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the thermal behaviour.
<br>
<br>“I think I will have to read their article carefully and then perhaps to contact them.”
<br>Good idea.
<br>
<br>“Or do we have any commentators here that studied Jones-Harrit paper thoroughly with understanding who has some physics and chemistry background (can be an autodidact)?”
<br>Doubtful. But we’ll see.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 10:18 am
<br>““No, they did it under air” – If this is so, then it’s possible that thermite did not participate in the reaction.”
<br>Yes. Looking at the DSC test alone, that is correct.
<br>Harrit’s and Jones’ case rests in no way on the DSC test as such.
<br>It rests solely on a claim that elemental iron was created when they burned chips (by whatever method).
<br>
<br>“One would have to perform chemical analysis to find out if some free metals in the initial sample turned into some oxides or whatever they suppose to turn. They got XEDS but they did not do chemical analysis of the sample which is a destructive test.”
<br>I am not a specialist in forensic material analysis and cannot judge competently what tests should or should not be done; whether chemical (as opposed to physical) tests would be necessary. But in order to prove thermite and a thermite reaction, you must indeed show that 1. elemental aluminium is present before the reaction (a), and depleted or gone afterward (b).
<br>2. iron oxide is present before the reaction (a), and depleted or gone afterward (b).
<br>3. aluminium oxide is present after the reaction (a), but wasn’t there in significant amounts prior (b).
<br>4. elemental iron is present after the reaction in signicant amounts (a),, but wasn’t there in significant amounts prior (b).
<br>Of these, only 2(a) is unequivocally proven in the Harrit paper, IMO: The 100 nm grains are definitely Fe2O3 – they have the crystal shape of hematite, and they are most definitely the pigment that maked the red layer red.
<br>1(a) is claimed by Harrit et al as a conclusion from Figure 17, but in conjunction with Fig 14 and 15, that finding is slightly dubious in my opinion – it is far from clear that they detected a significant amount of elemental Al (the total Al in the red layer of that particular chip is probably well under 5% by weight of the red layer)
<br>4(a) is also claimed, as resulting from Fig 21 and similar findings, but again the quantities are unclear – are they significant?
<br>They never looked for or found Al-oxide before or after – that’s the main blunder.
<br>
<br>“Perhaps they did not have enough samples. I’m disappointed. It seems that Jones-Harrit did not answer very essential questions and their result is very preliminary and thus their claim (like the title) seem to be ezagerated.”
<br>I agree. Their conclusions are speculative, do not follow necessarily from the data, and are in part even contradicted by the data.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 6:53 am
<br>“You said: “Actually, no: 7.5 kJ/g is more than all the “traditional” explosives, and far more than thermite or even nano-thermate.” This what I found:
<br>[several thermites and traditional explosives, ranging from 4.0 to 6.4 kJ/g]”
<br>Thanks for confirming my claim.
<br>
<br>“Hexanitrobenzene 7.00 kJ/g
<br>Heptanitrocubane 8.20 kJ/g”
<br>These are the only ones approaching or exceeding 7.5 kJ/g.
<br>Hexanitrobenzene is unstable and not currently used as an explosive
<br>Heptanitrocubane, acording to WP, “is a new experimental high explosive”.
<br>Both have chemical formulas with about 20-25% by weight nitrogen. Harrit et al show no nitogen in any of their chips – the red layer matrix material cannot be one of these non-traditional explosives.
<br>
<br>“So if you say that Jones-Harrit measured energy density of some organic substance that was in the flake what would it be to give that high 7.5 kJ/g?”
<br>That would be speculative, but any ordinary organic binder (polymer) would fit the bill.
<br>For example epoxy (20-25 kJ/g) would.
<br>No doubt cured linseed oil would be in that range (liquid vegetable oil has somewhere near 35 kJ/g).
<br>Pretty much every organic polymer has an energy density somewhere between 18 and 40+ kJ/g. The exception are halogenized polymers – but the XEDS reveals no significant signals for Flourine, Chlorine or Bromine.
<br>
<br>“And since the amount of that substance was probably less than the sample weight it would be even higher unless they measured the net weight after burning it.”
<br>Correct. They would have measured before burning, everything else would be so brainless it would amount to deception.
<br>The gray layer would usually outweigh the red layer 2:1 or 3:1
<br>Within the red layer, the organic matrix would certainly outweigh the inorganic particles by a similar margin.
<br>
<br>Mark Basile has quantified the elemental composition of the red layer of his “best” chip. which subsequencly burned very vigorously. He found under 2% Aluminium, under 3% iron, but over 70% carbon. The Al and Fe could combine for no more than 5% by weight thermite, while the carbon content would imply >80% of some standard (non-halogenized) polymer.
<br>It follows that >95% of the energy output of his chip must have come from ordinary organic combustion.
<br>Basile may have his estimates somewhat wrong (they are tricky to do), but not by leaps and bounds. There is no reason to think the mass proportions in Harrit’s chips were much different – after all, all sides agree that Basile corroborated Harrit.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 9:55 am
<br>“According to XEDS red layer had lots of carbon and gray layer had negligible amount of carbon.
<br>
<br>Do you claim that Jones-Harrit when measuring energy density burnt only red layer? Did they do it in oxygen free environment? Red layer has very little oxygen.”
<br>Harrit et al themselves believe that the gray layer is practically inert: It is close to 99% iron and oxygen – that’s fully or partially oxidized iron (or steel). It is conceivable that there would be some phase shifts upon heating in the DSC, and perhaps a bit of further oxidation on air. But this comes with only two possible interpretations:
<br>Either those reactions are far below the level of the red layer exotherm and thus negligible (this is what Harrit et al believe, and I concur)
<br>Or these reactions within the gray layer are so significant that they render the entire DSC test inconclusive and essentially worthless.
<br>
<br>ens Schmidt
<br>October 31, 2015 at 4:45 am
<br>utu,
<br>
<br>because the analyses by Harrit et al were incomplete, didn’t follow a well-thought plan and were in part done incompetently, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to draw any certain conclusions from looking at some of the figures. With this in mind:
<br>
<br>“I have questions about Fig. 20 that shows residues of red/grey chips after being ignited in DSC.
<br>The spheres are small fraction of residues and the residues are still red. Not much different than before test. This means that combustion of samples in DSC was very incomplete.”
<br>Yes. The red layer is bright red because it contains iron oxide pigments of ~100 nm particle size – the standard, low-tech, cheap pigment stuff that you find in EVERY red primer paint.
<br>The residue still being red after combustion means that the red iron oxide pigments are still there in large amounts and have not participated in any reaction. Since these pigments are claimed by Harrit et al to be the oxidizer of the hypothesised thermite reaction, the conclusion is inescapable: The thermite reaction either did NOT occur at all, or it was highly incomplete – which puts the DSC results even farther outside the reach of the fabled thermite reaction.
<br>
<br>“But on the other hand there are no signs of the grey part. Or is it behind?”
<br>I can only guess, but I suggest that the gray parts, the shiny blobs, are the gray layer.
<br>
<br>“The process of combustion happened at say 400 C (DSC traces) while the existence of iron spheres imply that locally much higher temperature was present.”
<br>Don’t forget that each DSC run went all the way to 700 °C! I can only guess, but I suspect that the gray layer deformed in part into energetically more favorable round shaped as a result of phase transitions – no melting required.
<br>
<br>“ I suspect that they did not really succeed in igniting the samples. Only the organic matrix burned but ironoxide+aluminum mostly did not react except in few spots.”
<br>And yet you see these large amounts of gray, shiny, roundish things. If you tally the volume of iron oxide pigments relative to the binder before any ignition (for example from Figure 8), and of these “speres” in Fig 20, I think you will find that there wasn’t enough iron in the red layer to produce these.
<br>They did ignite the chips alright – the exotherms prove it. There simply wasn’t any significant thermite reaction, and all the observations must be explained differently.
<br>
<br>“So is it legitimate to ask why they did not run DSC scan up to 900 C or more? Only then they could experience a complete thermitic reaction.”
<br>They had this expectation, from some literature, that nanothermite ignites below 660 °C (the melting point of Al). To test this hypothesis, it was ok to run to just 700 °C. The stupid mistake was to do it under air when you know already that you have an organic binder that is certain to combust somewhere under 700 °C.
<br>They could have run the test to 1200 °C and then would have found some more phase transitions, reductions of metal oxides, and combustion of char. But still no thermite.
<br>
<br>Ha! If the thermite burned incompletely, as evidenced by the large amount of left-over red irin oxide, there should also be left-over Al, and that should have melted at or below 660 °C, resultung in a pretty sharp endotherm (downward) DSC peak. There is a tiny short such signal in the blue curve near 600 °C – too far off to allow the conclusion “Al”.
<br>
<br>“I think that this organic compound in the samples (if it is really a manufactured thermite) is a binder not some ignitor”
<br>I agree.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 12:41 pm
<br>“Thank you for addressing all points (and more) that I brought up.”
<br>You’re welcome, utu.
<br>
<br>“ I think that Harrit et al. did not prove that specks they analyzed where thermite. It is also highly questionable whether they observed a thermitic reaction.”
<br>I agree.
<br>
<br>“They only provide XEDS that can be used to obtain info on elemental ratios if the XEDS were calibrated. Were they?”
<br>Probably not. At least they don’t mention that they used standards to calibrate the XEDS quantification, as would be the usual practice in such papers. I believe that their statement “A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents” should be interpreted as “conventional” = “not calibrated”, but I can be mistaken.
<br>
<br>“Though without chemical analysis or at leas calibrated XEDS we do not know for sure whether Fe2O3 was present. It could have been a different oxide. Does the red color points to hematite uniquely?”
<br>Among iron oxide pigments, only hematite is red, and only at at particle sizes below 250 or 500 nm (shades vary – the red gets brighter the smaller the particles are). There of course exist red pigments that are not iron oxide, but so far no one has proposed any candidate among the things we see in the chips. The crystal shape (rhombic facets) also speaks for hematite.
<br>
<br>“We do not know if the ratio of Fe2O3 to Al is right one for optimal thermitic reaction.”
<br>Correct, no attempt was made to quantify Fe or Al in the entire red layer. Except by Mark Basile, who estimated 1.7% by weight Al and a bit below 3% Fe. The ratio is not far off.
<br>
<br>“It was not proven that Al detected with XEDS was free (not in any compound but in elemental form) and thus ready to be oxidized!”
<br>Actually, Figure 17 has such a high Al-peak and such a low O-peak that the best interpretation would be that, in that particular spot, we see elemental Al (plus some Al-oxide).
<br>
<br>“The origin of micro spheres discovered after DSC burn is unknown. Harrit et al. suggests that they are iron rich (yes, one XEDS is presented) and that they resulted from stealing oxygen by Al from Fe2O3, i.e., the thermitic reaction. The latter claim cannot be proven without addressing the issue of the gray layer. The gray layer is not discussed. It absence or presence is not mentioned when discussing the post DSC residues.”
<br>Exactly! Without discussing the gray layer, which is mostly Fe and O, as an obvious candidate origin for iron-rich residue, the argument is incomplete and remains speculative.
<br>
<br>“The semi-transparent micro spheres are not explained. Was there enough temperature to produce glass? Or are they organic?”
<br>I could only speculate here. We have no data on these transparent spheres. Could be silica something. I don’t know what temperatures would suffice to produce such spheres. I am not convinced none of the various different kinds of chips contained any glassy silica to start with. The Tnemec primer contains amorphous (glassy) silica.
<br>
<br>“As you have mentioned the biggest blunder was performing DSC under normal atmosphere. And I would add that several samples should have been sacrificed for a thorough chemical analysis.”
<br>I think another weakness is that there are no real before-after comparisons of the same chips.
<br>
<br>“Question: In reaction Fe2O3+2Al aluminum must be in elemental form. But Al is always covered with an ultra-thin layer of Al oxides. The ratio (by weight) of this oxides to elemental Al increases as particle gets smaller. So it is reasonable to ask how small the particles could be to obtain the optimal reaction? If there was no ultra-thin layer of oxides the answer is simple: smaller is better. But with oxides on Al there is a limit.”
<br>I can’t answer this. You describe correctly the payoffs. The answer would depend on several things: perhaps production process (maybe some processes yield thinner alumina layers?), and of course the application or properties you have in mind.
<br>Note that the spere is the shape that maximizes volume for given surface area (or minimizes surface for given volume). Harrit et al show that the Al-content in chips a-d is most probably limited to the platelets that are only tens of nm thin. These would have a passivation layer of several, perhaps as much as 10 nm, on both sides- a very inefficient shape.
<br>(And keep in mind that we don’t even know what kinds of particles there are in other chips, such as the one they soaked in MEK! We don’t know that that chip has the same Al- and Si-rich platelets)
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 3:13 pm
<br>“and we might imagine that some of the thermitic compounds continued to combust, off-gassing a toxic brew of PAH’s”
<br>You might imagine anything you wish. I hear a vivid imagination is appreciated by many people.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 5:23 pm
<br>“Imagine” was quite alright, as your hypothesis is not informed by any observation or previously established theory. You basically appeal to magic: You imagine that there is a magic potion (thermite) that can have any property you wish it to have (such as “can off-gas a toxic brew of PAH’s”). Reality is that you do not actually know that “thermitic compounds” were present, nor that “thermitic compounds” could be expected to have this property.
<br>You are imagining this. Scientists don’t call it “hypothesizing” when they make up stuff from nothing.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 4:08 am
<br>“Determining the actual chemical composition of the red-gray chips can involve working backwards from gaseous byproducts of the combustion. PAHs were found IN ABUNDANCE by the EPA at ground zero.”
<br>You are assuming that the PAHs found at GZ came from combustion of the red-gray chips – when there were so many other things smouldering in the piles.
<br>Yes, capturing and analysing the gasous products of the chip combustion might have been a smart move, but you are already proposing a conclusion supported by no extant evidence.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 12:22 pm
<br>Thanks, HR1, for confirming with the lengthy quote that indeed your claim was wrong that “the chip was ignited by an electrical charge“.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 30, 2015 at 12:59 pm
<br>“The chip was ignited by an electrical charge in the DSC”
<br>No, complete nonsense. You invented this – you must know that you just invented this falsehood. HR1, are you really lying?!
<br>
<br>“Do you think that your commentary here is successfully debunking the Jones-Harrit paper?”
<br>You utterly – UTTERLY! – fail to even address my arguments. You tell false claim after false claim, wrongness upon wrongness, error concatenated to error. Are you doing this consciously? Or are you really so utterly ignorant of the topic you attempt, but badly fail, to debate? You don’t understand the science in Harrit et al, do you?
<br>
<br>Yes, my arguments disproving Harrit’s conclusions are valid – my premises are true, my reasoning solid. You can’t and don’t hold a candle to this, sorry.
<br>
<br>I think YOU are attempting misdirection here – I have no other explanation for your continued inventions of FALSE claims such as the one on “ignited by an electrical charge”.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 4:19 am
<br>“It would require much less volume to achieve the explosive energies by the sol-gel products.”
<br>
<br>a) what sol-gel products? I have told you several times already: Harrit et al provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the red/gray chips are “sol-gel” products! This is a made-up fantasy to equate the red-gray chips with sol-gel energetic materials! You continue to peddle mere imagination, zero fact! Please do not fail to address this admonition! Please do not commit again the fallacious claim that the chips are products if a sol-gel process unless you provide evidence – which doesn’t exist! Please admit in your own words that you understand that your implied assertion of chips=sol-gel has no, zero, evidence to support!
<br>
<br>b) The “energetic” red layer of the red-gray chips is mostly organic binder with a low density (would be near 1 g/cm^3 as opposed to thermite’s ca. 4 g/cm^3). IF the red material was the “explosive sol-gel” that you fantasize about, it would require roughly the same volume as all the other organic explosives. But of course there is ZERO evidence that the red-gray chips are explosive – that is a fantasy!
<br>
<br>Man, HR1, don’t you notice that almost EVERYTHING you write here is factually FALSE? There is a very strong pattern.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 11:54 am
<br>““I have told you several times already: Harrit et al provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the red/gray chips are “sol-gel” products!”~Schmidt
<br>Yes you have. And I don’t believe you.”
<br>You don’t believe me you don’t have evidence?? Uhm okay…
<br>Then it should be easy to present/point to/quote that evidence :)
<br>A few hints to guide you:
<br>– What tests or criteria would show whether a material is sol-gel?
<br>– Have Harrit et al applied those tests or criteria?
<br>– What were the results?
<br>I think that, if and when you think about this, you will find that you not, in fact, have any such evidence.
<br>I furthermore think that you don’t even know what a sol-gel is, and how to spot evidence for it.
<br>
<br>““it would require roughly the same volume as all the other organic explosives.”~Schmidt
<br>Not according to the chart, of course “roughly” can be interpreted as a weasel word in this instant.”
<br>The chart that you reproduced simply showed the theoretical values for generic Al/Fe2O3 thermite – regardless of particle size or mixing process, as you can verify by looking at Figure 1 of the reference [21] they took that graphic from. This has nothing to do with sol-gel, the authors start talking about sol.gel as a proposed process after that.
<br>Generic thermite would be a mixture of only Fe2O3 and Al in appropriate proportions, without any binder whatsoever, without silicon compounds, too, of course.
<br>But the chips DO contain organic binder – in fact there is a LOT of organic binder surrounding the pigments. Much more organic binder by volume than iron oxide grains and Si-Al-O-platelets, and probably even more organic binder by weight. The organic polymer would be MUCH less dense than thermite. This greatly indluences the density of the composite red material, such that the energy density per volume drops by a factor that’s certainly somewhere around 2-3. Perhaps I am being generous here. The graphic suggests that the density of thermite is about 4 g/cm^3, which seems about right. The red material quite certainly does not exceed 1.5 g/cm^3. I can do the math to support my estimate, if you don’t believe me.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 5:19 am
<br>““Do you know what DSC is? How does it work? What is its purpose making DSC trace?”~utu
<br>Yes I do you know what DSC is.”
<br>No, hybridrogue1, you just proved once and for all that you truly do NOT know, much less understand, how a DSC works. See, you copy&pasted most of your post from Wikipedia without marking that as a quote, without credit and link. You sneaky one! You come across as a bit dishonest there! Those WP sentences of course are quite okay. All the rest, what you wrote yourself, is essentially WRONG – again, and that shows clearly as day that you have not the first clue.
<br>
<br>What HR1 wrote:
<br>“It works by placing 2 samples in separated dishes in the DSC.”
<br>That is correct. Wow.
<br>
<br>“One sample is heated, while the control sample is not. The DSC trace determines the heat flow through the heated sample in comparison to the unheated sample.”
<br>And this is flat-out WRONG: The reference sample of course is heated, too. Why didn’t you read the WP article you stole from for comprehension?
<br>
<br>HR1 c&p’ed from WP:
<br>“More or less heat will need to flow to it than the reference to maintain both at the same temperature. Whether less or more heat must flow to the sample depends on whether the process is exothermic or endothermic. For example, as a solid sample melts to a liquid it will require more heat flowing to the sample to increase its temperature at the same rate as the reference. This is due to the absorption of heat by the sample as it undergoes the endothermic phase transition from solid to liquid. Likewise, as the sample undergoes exothermic processes (such as crystallization) less heat is required to raise the sample temperature. By observing the difference in heat flow between the sample and reference, differential scanning calorimeters are able to measure the amount of heat absorbed or released during such transitions.”
<br>This, the remainder of your post, is stolen from WP without any citation. BIG no-no ;) And you wonder why you get no respect here?
<br>
<br>Man up and admit that you committed several grave errors of fact already, that you are clueless and need for someone competent to explain the entire Harrit et al paper to you.
<br>Admit that, for the last 6 years, you have believed Harrit and Jones as well as Ryan and Legge on faith alone, because you lack the comprehension to judge their work.
<br>
<br>And open up to the possibility that perhaps Harrit and Jones can be wrong, too. Or liars. It’s the scientific stance to take.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 3:59 am
<br>“How else do you propose that the chips were ignited in a DSC? They certainly wouldn’t use a blowtorch now would they?
<br>Explain an alternative to electrical heating while the chip is in the DSC”
<br>Ah I see now – you have not the first clue what a DSC does, and difficulties understanding how things react when heated, We have to start from zero with you.
<br>
<br>FIrst and quickly: you wrote that the samples were “ignited” by an “electrical charge”. It wasn”t an electrical “charge” as such that ignited the samples. Rather, the heating plates of the DSC are powered by electricity. The proximate cause for the chips to ignite was heat (the infusion of energy by influx of a higher temperature), not electrical charge. Do you know, and understand, what the proper scientific meaning is of “electric charge”? If not, look it up at WP. You should understand that you can speak of an electric charge if and when an object has an excess or lack of electrons. Shile the heating plates are powered by electricity, they at no point experience a net positive or negative charge. That’s why your claim was wrong entirely. But I see now that perhaps through your lack of understanding of physics you somehow meant something correct, while using incorrect language.
<br>
<br>A DSC is a device where you subject two samples to a defined temperature regime: One sample is the substance you are studying, the other is a known, ideally inert reference material. The temperature regime could for example be to heat the sampled slowly to 400 °C and then cool them slowly back to room temp. You can vary the heating and cooling rates, sometimes you have more than one heating circle, etc., depends on what you are studying, The regime that Harrit et al programmed (the guy actually carrying out this DSC experiment was Jeff Farrer, who explained in an interview how he first learned how to operate a DSC on that occasion – that’s how unexperienced that team was, they had never ever before worked with a DSC!) was slow heating at a rate of 10 °C per minute from room temperature (~20 °C) to 700 °C (note that this is often misconstrued as Farrer heating the chips to only 425 °C). Since that is a time differential of about 680 °C, you see that each run took about 68 minutes.
<br>The trick that makes DSC what it is (a “Differential Scanning Calorimeter”) is that it measures the energy input required to maintain the heating rate for both the inert reference sample and the specimen you are studying. Some reactions (physical as well as chemical) consume energy – for example, the vaporization (boiling) of water consumes a lot energy while temperature remains practically constant. To maintain a heating rate, the DSC must suddenly apply a LOT of additional energy to quickly boil of the water at 100 °C. Had the chips contained water, it would have shown as a very marked downward “peak” at 100 °C. If on the other hand the sample ignites and an exotherm reaction occurs, then the DSC device doesn’t need to input as much heat to maintain a temperature rise – this shows as the plotted line in the DSC graph going up.
<br>
<br>There are several things that can go on in materials that cause DSC curves to go up or down:
<br>melting/freezing
<br>vaporizing/condensing
<br>phase transitions (from crystalline to amorphous or vice versa; from one crytsal structure to another)
<br>chemical synthesis (e.g. oxidation – for example burning on air)
<br>chemical decomposition (e.g. reduction of oxides, or the slow destruction of polymers into smaller molecules, such as CO2 gas or char and soot (elemental carbon))
<br>There are more.
<br>
<br>When you heat a paint sample, reactions that might occur might be, perhaps in this order:
<br>* giving off residual water at 20-100 °C
<br>* a glass transition of the polymer somewhere between 100 and 400 °C
<br>* polymer decomposition somwhere between 200 and 450 °C
<br>* polymer combustion somewhere between 230 and 550 °C (often concurrent with decomposition)
<br>* various phase transitions within the mineral pigments over a vast possible temperature range
<br>* reduction of minerals at higher temperatures
<br>* melting of any components possible over a large temperature range
<br>
<br>Having this in mind, you can’t reduce the discussion of DSC curves to observing that there is a peak somewhere, and that’s it. You also want to look at all the smaller characteristics – the wobbles, the secondary peaks and troughs, the point where the slopes begin to rise above or sink below 0, etc etc etc. Harrit et al haven’t done any of this analysis. Their four samples differe in many of these characteristics. For example, the green and black curve drop below 0 between 540 and 700 °C., while the red and blue curve remain close to 0 there. The red and blue curve have local maxima near 390 °C and local minima near 410 °C before raising to their global maxima near 430 to 440 °C – the green and black curves have smooth slopes there. These differences in observations are best explained as the “green” and “black” chips being a material different from the “red” and “blue” curve chips. The red curve alone has another local maximum a bit beyond 450 °C – the red and blue chips may be similiar but are not same. Harrit et al missed all this.
<br>
<br>Anyway, to cut back to your question:
<br>Do you understand now that the chips were slowly (taking >1 hour) heated on little stove plates from room temperature to 700 °C, that this heating (increase in temperature; not electric charge) caused several reactions during that time, chief among them was ignition and organic combustion of the binder on air (exotherm chemical reaction) which started (“ignited”) well below 400 °C for the green and black curves, and peaked at 425 °C (green, black) to 440 °C (red, blue)?
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 9:29 am
<br>You’re welcome, and I appreciate your clearing this up.
<br>
<br>“We nevertheless have the results from that experiment. Do you dispute those as well?
<br>If so explain.”
<br>That experiment; The DSC test on four red-gray chip specimens, about which we know very little else:
<br>– They were selected from three of the four dust samples provided to Jones by private citizens of NYC: MacInlay (2 specimens), Intermont and White
<br>– They were attracted to a permanent magnet
<br>– They visually had a red and a grey layer
<br>We do not know their elemental composition, and we have no micrographs (neither optical nor from electron microscopy). We do not know how they would have behaved if soaked in MEK. We do not know what their resistivity is, and we do not know if the residues of any of these four chips appears in the remainder of the paper (such as Figures 20, 21, 25), and of so, which residue corresponds to which DSC curve.
<br>
<br>The results are as follows:
<br>– Figure 19, showing four DSC traces (green, black, red and blue)
<br>– From these curves, Harrit et al determined specific energy yields of 7.5, 6, 3 and 1.5 kJ/g (for the green, black, red and blue curve, respectively)
<br>
<br>I do not despute these results at all. I accept them in their entirety.
<br>
<br>In their discussion, Harrit et al explain that the variation of the specific energies must in significant part be due to variations in the relative mass of the gray layer:
<br>“Variations in
<br>peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising,
<br>since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal,
<br>shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray
<br>layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron
<br>oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm,
<br>and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.”
<br>I find this entirely plausible: The gray layer would indeed be almost completely iron oxide, with very little potential of further oxidation. It might conceivably contribute a little to the exotherm, either through phase transitions, or by oxidizing Fe3O4 further to Fe2O3. But either process would be small in effect compared to the exotherm of organic combustion.
<br>
<br>They write that
<br>“In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and
<br>numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many
<br>of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were
<br>iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical microscope”
<br>I accept this a true as well, but would like to note that this is not specifically a result of the DSC test, but more generally of heating the chips to 700 °C (or more, as in the flame test) and burning them in the process. It is entirely unnecessary to do a DSC run to get some form of this result.
<br>
<br>Further below (page 28), they write this interpretation of the DSC plot:
<br>“the DSC tests demonstrate
<br>the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of
<br>pure thermite.”
<br>This is correct.
<br>
<br>What I disagree with are the following statements:
<br>“Furthermore, the energy is released over a
<br>short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in
<br>Fig. (29).”
<br>This is FALSE. As I pointed out, the DSC temperature was slowly raised at a rate of 10 °C/min, such that a difference of 10 °C plotted along the x-axis in Figures 19 and 29 corresponds to 60 seconds, 1 °C to 6 seconds. That the peaks appear “narrow” is an artefact of the chosen scales.
<br>Tillotson’s nanothermite (Fig. 29) peaked at about 5 W/g. If you look at Fig 19, you’ll see that the black, green, red and blue curves first reach and exceed 5 W/g at 377, 382, 423, and 432 °C, and stay above 5 W/g until 455, 462, 462 and 450 °C, respectively. The four curves thus stay at that specific power for 78, 80, 39 and 18 °C, which corresponds to 468, 480, 234 and 108 seconds, respectively.
<br>In short, the “short period of time” is actually between almost 2 minutes and 8 minutes! And that’s only counting the part of the exotherm where specific power exceeds that of Tillotson’s reference. All four peaks are actually quite a bit wider than that – the green peak starts at just over 200 °C and goes to about 545 °C, and interval that took 34 minutes! That is most decisively NOT a “short time”. The narrowest peak is the blue one, starting at about 420 °C and ending at about 478 °C, which took 5.8 minutes. Short time??? Either Harrit et al are spectacularly incompetent at reading DSC traces, or they are consciously deceptive.
<br>
<br>They repeat the same mistake / deception when they write:
<br>“The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC”
<br>
<br>Among the 10 conclusions, I agree with #10:
<br>“The carbon content of the red material indicates that
<br>an organic substance is present. […]
<br>The nature of the organic material
<br>in these chips merits further exploration. We note
<br>that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the
<br>total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests
<br>exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic
<br>thermite reaction.”
<br>And I would like to add that the organic material most definitely is “energetic” – as any ordinaty paint binder would be, for example. I left out this part from #10, which I disagree with in that it is mere speculation not actually supported by the evidence:
<br>“This [organic substance present] would be expected
<br>for super-thermite formulations in order to
<br>produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus
<br>make them explosive.”
<br>It would also be expected for many other materials for many other reasons. Most notably it would be expected in red primer paint, which most of the chips without a doubt are.
<br>
<br>Consequently, I reject assertions like this:
<br>“If a paint were devised that incorporated these very
<br>energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry
<br>and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building
<br>use.To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance
<br>such as paint could match the characteristics we have
<br>described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration
<br>using a sample of the proposed material, including
<br>SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.” (page 28).
<br>Complete nonsense. Primer paints DO contain flammable organic binders that most definitely release more heat than thermite when burning! This is no problem, as the paint layer is only 25 to 50 micrometers thin – compared to the thickness of steel members that are upward of 1/4 inch = 6250 micrometers thick, that’s negligible. It is not difficult to calculate that a steel member would warm up by only a few degrees if the paint (or a corresponding thermite layer) were to burn completely. Since the paint doesn’t ignite before the steel is already beyond 250 or 400 °C, the problem then is not the paint.
<br>
<br>Conclusion 7 focusses on the DSC results, and it is all wrong:
<br>“As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts
<br>vigorously at a temperature of approximately
<br>430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching
<br>fairly closely an independent observation on a known
<br>super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition
<br>and the presence of iron oxide grains less than
<br>120 nm show that the material is not conventional
<br>thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C)
<br>but very likely a form of super-thermite.”
<br>WRONG: The DSC results do NOT indicate a “vigorous” reaction.
<br>WRONG: The chips do not all ignite at ~430 °C – the green and black curves are already reacting under 380 °C.
<br>WRONG: the blue curve in Figures 19 and 29 does not match the red curve in Fig. 29 (“a known super-thermite sample”) – practically every characteristic is different: peak temperature differs by almost 100 °C, peak power by a factor of 2, the chip doesn’t have the thermites endotherm between 30 and 310 °C and above 560 °C, the red curve is missing several local minima and maxima of the blue curve. Again: Either Harrit et al are spectacularly incompetent at reading DSC traces, or they are consciously deceptive.
<br>WRONG: The low temperature of ignition says nothing about any thermite reaction, as it first and foremost, and almost certainly exclusively, is a property of the organic binder.
<br>WRONG: The “presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is … very likely a form of super-thermite” – 120 nm grains of iron oxide are extremely well known to any competent forensic expert, but apparently completely unknown to the forensic amateurs Harrit et al – the common name is “red iron oxide pigments”. They are a low tech product. They cost about half a dollar per pound and have been the main red inorganic pigment in the world for everything including steel primer for ever and ever.
<br>
<br>It is hard to believe this astounding density of wrongness can be the result of an honest scientific inquiry by competent researchers.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 3:11 pm
<br>“So the bottom line here Schmidt, is that you are claiming that the red-gray chips are nothing but “primer – paint”. The same tired assertions made by Millette, the JREF crowd, and the so-called “Skeptics”.”
<br>Yes. That’s where the evidence is pointing.
<br>
<br>“I acknowledge that you make an argumentum verbosium – an argument of intimidation here. You have every right to your “professional opinion”. There are however many physicists and chemists that disagree with you.”
<br>No. My argument is not needlessly verbose. You are needlessly verbose when you post lengthy quotes without any argument of your own.
<br>Appeal to authority fallacy.
<br>You are unable to refute any of my arguments on their own merits.
<br>
<br>“If you are so confident in your theories here, why don’t you write a paper on this and get it published in a peer reviewed journal. You surely have done papers that have been peer reviewed before {?} You should know the procedure well enough.”
<br>No, I have never published any scientific paper.
<br>
<br>“You could make quite a name for yourself in the literature of 9/11 by successfully rebuking the Jones-Harrit paper. Perhaps you are wasting your precious time here arguing with us “ignorant plebes” … aye?”
<br>Perhaps.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 4:49 pm
<br>“They are if they are “scientific” psychobabble.”
<br>Well good. They are NOT “psychobabble”. So relax :)
<br>
<br>“That is exactly what I think you are offering here; complex argumentation that is simply meant to confuse.”
<br>If that’s what you think, then you are (again) plainly in error. The topics are somewhat complex to a layperson, sure, but I do my best to explain to that level.
<br>
<br>“I don’t buy it. I won’t buy it until you produce a peer reviewed paper of your own.”
<br>Do you hold the writings of your friends and heroes to that same standard? If not, why mine? Double standards much?
<br>
<br>“Your argument comes down to Jones & Harrit are liars.”
<br>No, wrong. You confuse argument and conclusion.
<br>And I do not conclude that they are liars. I conclude they are highly incompetent in what they did for that paper OR liars. (Of course, they can also be both at the same time). I have personal hunches about the distribition of incompetence and dishonesty among the authors, but will keep them mostly to myself, as I obviously can’t prove them.
<br>
<br>“They obviously are not stupid, they couldn’t have made such egregious and silly mistakes as you posit.”
<br>Is that your premise, or are you attempting to paraphrase me with this?
<br>Yes, I agree that they are not, in general, stupid.
<br>But being intelligent, and being a sharp and competent mind in one field (or perhaps having been sharp and competent in the past) doesn’t always protect you from committing such egregious and silly mistakes.
<br>
<br>“So the only conclusion we can come to is that you are calling them liars.”
<br>That’s what you say.
<br>
<br>“Both of these men have long and illustrious scientific careers, with hundreds of peer reviewed articles under their belt. I find it absolutely preposterous to assert they would take the chance of ruining their own unblemished reputations in the manner you propose.”
<br>I am flabbergasted myself and offer no explanation for why smart people might do such things. I do not claim any in-depth understanding of psychology.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 5:15 pm
<br>“My determinations are balanced by what I find to be rational arguments as a first priority.However a great many if not a majority of the works I cite are peer reviewed AND they make sense internally as well.”
<br>Bullshit.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 5:01 am
<br>Griscom is a specialist in the properties of certain amorphous minerals – essentially a geologist.
<br>
<br>He has no experience with forensic material analysis.
<br>He has no experience with organic polymers
<br>He has no experience with mineral, crystalline pigments
<br>
<br>It is unclear what expertise Griscom brings to the table to be picked to review a paper by the editor of a “Chemical Physics” journal.
<br>
<br>But wait, there is one bit of experience that makes him a “peer”:
<br>Griscom is a Truther who had previously published in Jones’ and Ryan’s own “Journal of 9/11 Studies”:
<br>http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf
<br>Could this be coincidence?
<br>
<br>The approprietness of the peer-review process and the reputation of the Bentham line of Open Access journals notwithstanding, all of the arguments made about Harrit’s data and conclusions stand on their own merits. Perhaps Griscom found no further fault – I do!
<br>
<br>ens Schmidt
<br>October 31, 2015 at 9:55 am
<br>Yes it is obvious that you find the conclusions of Harrit’s experiment wrong. However you haven’t made it clear exactly why that is.
<br>See my other, long post a few minutes ago, where I tackled the conclusions about the DSC results. That’s only part of the reason.
<br>
<br>What do you think the red and gray substance is, if it is not a sol-gel energetic?
<br>First of all, I need you to realize that the assertion, suggestion, implication that the chips are “sol-gel” is completely groundless, you have exactly ZERO evidence for this claim. It is also a useless claim. So please tell me verbously why you keep repeating this suggestion? You need to drop it, until you bring evidence (of which there is precisely none)!
<br>
<br>Secondly: There is no data, no observation, that would give grounds to call the chips “explosive”. Do you realize this?
<br>Having said that, it is true, and trivial. that they are “energetic” – EVERY organic polymer is, and EVERY material based on organic polymers is “energetic”.
<br>This label “energetic” means nothing more here than that the stuff can burn – your finger nails can burn, and I’d bet they’d release as much energy as those chips. So I could ask you with precisely the same level of legitimacy: Why do you grow sol-gel energetics on your finger tips? You see, the question is slightly moronic.
<br>
<br>So what do I think the red and gray substance is? Easy: It’s paint.
<br>
<br>What Harrit et al either never quite understood, or deceptively ignore, is that they were looking at different chips. The four chips in Figures 6 to 11 are very probably the same material, but the chip they soaked in MEK (Fig 12-18) definitely is a different material. They surely had at least two, perhaps three or four, different materials in the DSC test, and they mention having found several further red-gray substances. I am convinced these simply represent different paint formulations.
<br>What Harrit et al also had not understood when they published in 2009, and still can’t quite admit today (or draw the correct conclusions from) today is that, of course, there were different paint formulations painted on the WTC steel: The perimeter columns of WTC1+2 are different from the floor joists, the joists certainly different from the core columns, and they all are most probably different from the paints used in WTC7, built about 15 years later, when they were already fading out chromates and lead in paints.
<br>
<br>Harrit et al address the question of paint in their paper, as it was obvious even to them that the chips look an awful lot like paint. I think all arguments in the paper are invalid as they compare unspecified chips to unspecified paints. Since there are several different kinds of chips, and an unknown and vast number of possible paints, all these arguments amount to comparing apples with bananas.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 3:16 pm
<br>“No, you actually need to get the larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters to realize that the assertion, suggestion, implication that the chips are “sol-gel” is completely groundless.”
<br>There is no “larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters”. The only scientific investigation that I am aware of that has followed up the Harrit et al paper has found that the chips are paint, not sol-gel.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 4:37 pm
<br>“The only “scientific investigation” that I am aware of is the Millette attempt, which was never completed and never published in a scientific journal.”
<br>This is all correct.
<br>But his work was a “scientific investigation”, wasn’t it?
<br>If you wish to discard Millette’s study based on those criteria (not completed; never published in a scientific journal), then I think you will agree that “the larger scientific community” has actually NOT “been investigating these matters” AT ALL. Correct? Or can you point me to any other scientific investigation of the red-gray chips that was completed and published? Then please do! Otherwise, please retract the FALSE insinuation that there is a “larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters” and admit you made that up.
<br>
<br>“Millette has been soundly rebuked”
<br>No.
<br>
<br>“he did NOT follow the proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper”
<br>You don’t understand that there is no “proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper”. They didn’t have a protocol. They just did random things that popped into their minds. It was a bad study, badly presented. It was the work of amateurs in that field.
<br>Millette is an actual forensic scientist with loads of expertise in exactly this kind of research.
<br>
<br>But if you must: What IS the “proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper” – can you please summarize it?
<br>
<br>“He did NOT publish.”
<br>So what? His entire data was made publicly available, plus his preliminary findings.
<br>Harrit et al are holding back lots of data.
<br>
<br>“So are you going to plead ignorance of James Millet now Jens?”
<br>Silly. I knew you knew what I was talking about.
<br>
<br>And again, you are ubable to refute my true assertion:
<br>“The only scientific investigation that I am aware of that has followed up the Harrit et al paper has found that the chips are paint, not sol-gel.”
<br>Millette’s study IS the only follow-up on Harrit et al out there,
<br>And it found that the chips are ordinary paint.
<br>And you haven’t even attempted to hold a candle to that.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 8:47 am
<br>“I learned a term for a credentialed person’s bamboozling of the uninitiated. It’s called “proof by intimidation.”~ David L Griscom
<br>Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966. Fellow, American Physical Society.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 11:58 am
<br>I like that! Print it out and keep it handy, so you can read it the next time someone tries to bamboozle an “uninitiated” doubter of the good Dr.s Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Legge by clubing them, with alleged credentials, titles and such stuff.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 2:34 pm
<br>I have known of and encountered Argumentum verbosium for a long time Schmidt,
<br>
<br>You are not the first and surely not the last to apply it.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 12:12 pm
<br>Dear Lord – can’t you at least comment the lengthy quotes? So that I can assess whether you even understand what you are quoting?
<br>I have already addresses everything that’s contained in that quote!
<br>
<br>Yes, the organic binder is energetic! So are your fingernail clippings and your bourbon whisky. So what?
<br>No. the chips are not “as powerful as one known variant of super-thermite” – they are a lot MORE powerful in the DSC test! And it doesn’t matter!
<br>No, the alleged “narrowness” of the peaks is not significant! They are not narrow, and it wouldn’t matter if they were! These people are totally inept at interpreting DSC charts!
<br>No, the “degree of its energy is” NOT”determined by the height of the peak and the power at which it goes off is the width of the peak.” This is garbled nonsense, uttered by a DSC amateur!
<br>No, it is FALSE to claim that “according to Harrit´s paper, the tested samples of paint displayed a completely different behavior in the DSC” – there is no such data in the Harrit et al paper, and nowhere in the paper does the word “paint” appear in the context of it being tested by DSC! These amateurs LIE to you, hybridrogue, and you gullibly believe all these falsehoods, because you are incapable of assessing their claims!
<br>
<br>Don’t quote text that you do not understand!
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 1:23 pm
<br>Tell you what Schmidt, get yourself some primer paint; heat it, cook it, flame it, do anything you want to it. And then show us the production of iron microspheres that result from this simple little experiment.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 4:17 pm
<br>“Tell you what Schmidt, get yourself some primer paint; heat it, cook it, flame it, do anything you want to it. And then show us the production of iron microspheres that result from this simple little experiment.”
<br>Moving goal posts again, HG1?
<br>You can’t refute any of my arguments.
<br>Actually, I am rather shure that the iron-rich microsheres largely don’t come from burning the primer but from heating the oxidized steel flakes (the gray layer). But that is a little speculation on my part.
<br>
<br>Problem is that the Harrit et al paper is in large parts bogus. Their conclusions do not follow from their data and are in significant part contradicted by their own data. Their claims are not made out, and so the burden of evidence still rests on them.
<br>
<br>Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)
<br>October 31, 2015 at 3:11 pm
<br>I don’t know much about solgel, DSC, SEM/XEDS, Al/Fe2O3, don’t know about physics and chemistry beyond my high school advanced physics and chemistry classes, and I can barely differentiate between paint chips and potato chips under a microscope.
<br>
<br>But I have over five decades of hands-on, intensive, field-tested experience in clinical level douchebaggery…
<br>
<br>So, I ask you, Jens Schmidt. Why do you have to be such a giant douchebag when you are arguing your points? Does it help you feel good about yourself? I mean, we all get that you know your “science”, but what is it with the hyper-obnoxious language? Is it compensating for something you otherwise lack? Or is there a much deeper motive and/or meaning to the intense drama you are staging while you illuminate us with your knowledge?
<br>
<br>Thank you for the facts and knowledge you are sharing… But, screw you for your demeanor while you are doing it!!!
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 4:12 pm
<br>Another interesting paper – thanks again, utu!
<br>
<br>“My impression is that DSC scans are NOT made to measure explosive properties like actual energy density or reaction speed but they are done to study stability of the materials and what phase transition they undergo at different temperatures.”
<br>Hehe yes, of course your impression is correct! DSC is rarely used to study chemical reaction. There is a certain slowlness and inertia inherent to the method that makes it difficult. In a nutshell, you can’t explose an explosive slowly and at a well-controlled temperature ;)
<br>
<br>Perhaps the greatest value of this paper is that it shows for all these explosives and propellants that they decompose at temperatures mostly under 300 °C. This underscores what Dutch explosive demoltition expert Danny Jowenko explained when interviewed by the TV program Zemla in 2006 or so: That the twin towers could not possibly have been demolished with explosives: the collapses started within the fire zone, where the heat of the fires would have destroyed the explosive charges and their detonators.
<br>
<br>“Only the existence of the micro spheres that were iron rich may but doesn’t have to point to a thermitic reaction and a high school level test of observing micro flash when setting the flake on fire with a bunsen burner may but doesn’t have to indicate that there was elemental Al that got oxidized producing a flash.”
<br>Exactly. They have some spheres. That is all the evidence that is left after diligent scrutiny. And the claim that “only” thermite could result in such spheres is wishful thinking.
<br>
<br>“ I have noticed that in minds of many the thermite acquired extraordinary and mythical properties. This is because we do not know that much of its properties, so all claims that thermite could for example toss several tons columns at 50 mph are just pure unwarranted suppositions.”
<br>Yes. They haven’t actually worked any of this out. It’s all speculation.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 5:12 pm
<br>I knew the Yi Wang paper already (a different Wang, by the way, than the Jeff Wang you cited earlier).
<br>
<br>“It seems that nano thermites ignite below Al melt point while micro thermites ignite above the melting point”
<br>Yes.
<br>
<br>“Fig. 5a Shows DSC curves for three nano-Al thermites. The peak width is similar for all three”
<br>okay… and?
<br>
<br>“but the height is largest for the …”
<br>Careful! The plot lines are stacked in Fig. 5a for easier comparison of the events along the x-axis! Wang et al do not put a scale on the y-axis. You were right to take the values from Table 1.
<br>Table 1 lists the interesting data, for example “?Hr (J/g)” – that’s the energy density: The nano-Al mixes range from ~1.4 to ~1.65 kJ/g and thus outperform the micro-Al mixes (all slightly below 1 kJ/g). All thermite compositions fall far short of the theoretical maximum of thermite at 4 kJ/g. I haven’t seen any work so far that documented more than those 1.65 kJ/g for nano-thermite.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 5:46 pm
<br>“claiming that the investigated samples are paint is disingenuous on your part.”
<br>Why disingenuous? I have only given my conclusion so far .- we have not yet discussed systematically my reasons. You don’t have to believe me, for I haven’t even tried yet to persuade you, but I am not “disingenuous”.
<br>
<br>“In exchange between you and I we expressed suspicion that DSC peaks could have been created by the binder but we have’t proven it and we haven’t seen DSC traces of paint.”
<br>Not proven 100%, okay, but there really is no other possibility. We don’t need to even think about paint to know that there is an organic binder that MUST have reacted with a significant exotherm.
<br>
<br>“And from what I have read Milled did not do DSC traces for paint either.”
<br>So what? Why should he have?
<br>The reasons why the chips are paint don’t rest that much on the DSC traces, really. The DSC traces are a good falsification, but they cannot prove paint (but some corroboration is possible, as Í may come around to showing you eventually)
<br>
<br>“So I am not ready to go where you want to be and I would suggest you apply similar degree of skepticism and scientific rigor to your own pronouncements as you did to Harrit et al”
<br>Yes.
<br>
<br>“And do not tell me that burden of proof is on them”
<br>Stop. Burden of proof is on them for their claims (“thermite”). Burden of proof is on me for my claims (e.g. “paint”). It doesn’t matter very much if the chips are paint or not. What matters is that Harrit et al are plain wrong to claim they have proven thermite.
<br>But they are paint :D
<br>
<br>“…or that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs because paint is commonplace and thermite is not.”
<br>Don’t worry, I don’t use that phrase. However I would like to point out that “paint” really is, or ought to be the null-hypothesis, as the chips really look like paint, and we already know as a certain fact that there were tons of primer paint in the WTC towers. Red primer paint, even in the form of red-gray chips. are definitely expected a priori to be found in the WTC dust, while thermite would not.
<br>Even Harrit et al implicitly accept “paint” as the null-hypothesis to improbe upon when they attempt (but really fail, as I have yet to explain; I only hinted yet at the “apples/bananas” problem) to disprove “paint” in two or three places in the paper.
<br>
<br>“Take a look at my comment above on Fig. 30. While this may not explain the psychology of the authors it may shine some light on their state of ming when the composed the paper.”
<br>I understand your suspicion. But I won’t claim I know or understand the personal pschology of the authors.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 6:07 pm
<br>Utu,
<br>I still want to see Schmidt produce the formation of iron-rich microspheres during burning of paint.
<br>
<br>I presume that, being the working chemist he claims to be he has access to lab where he can conduct a proper experiment and get the proper readings for the process he uses and the tests on the resulting materials.
<br>
<br>Or perhaps he can attempt the theorize his way to such conclusions…grin
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 6:43 pm
<br>“Another question about chemistry: Why has this group…”
<br>Which group?
<br>
<br>“… largely ignored the FEMA Appendix C “Limited Metallurgical Examination” report in these discussions?”
<br>Which discussions?
<br>Why should that report be discussed, and in which discussions? Why?
<br>
<br>“EDS profiles seem to support thermitic “rapid sulfidation and oxidation” of the steel.”
<br>How so? Thermite doesn’t cause sulfidation. Sulfur and some Sulfur compounds do.
<br>
<br>“The Bentham paper references this science as corroborative of their findings.”
<br>No, untrue.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 6:30 pm
<br>“being the working chemist he claims to be”
<br>What the…?? You invent your own facts at will, don’t you?
<br>
<br>I am not a chemist, and never claimed I am.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 6:36 pm
<br>“I am not a chemist, and never claimed I am.”~Schmidt
<br>
<br>Pardon my egregious infraction! So what are you a bellboy?
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 6:51 pm
<br>I claim no formal training or professional experience in the relevant fields of scientific research,
<br>It doesn’t matter what I am. What matters is whether my claims are true and my arguments valid.
<br>
<br>You previously quoted at length from an article by Messiers Talboo and Zugam – have you questioned what they are, or why did you put such complete and blind faith in their utterings that you didn’t even adorn their words with any comment of your own?
<br>
<br>Double standards much, HR1?
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 7:05 pm
<br>Good to know Schmidt, I have not formal training a a scientist either, nor do Messiers Talboo and Zugam. They are journalist and artist as I understand it.
<br>What is “blind faith”? No I find their arguments reasonable and coherent with what I have learned of these matters
<br>
<br>You say; “What matters is whether my claims are true and my arguments valid.”
<br>
<br>That is so indeed, I do not find you arguments valid. So, here we are at the place this all started.
<br>
<br>I had looked up your name and found a chemist with your name in Copenhagen if I recall correctly. It doesn’t matter now, you obviously ain’t the guy.
<br>
<br>We obviously are having a failure to communicate here Mr Schmidt. I see no profit in continuing this carousel.
<br>
<br>Maybe you can cook some paint at home. Just be sure it is well ventilated, and wear goggles.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 7:23 pm
<br>“What is “blind faith”? No I find their arguments reasonable and coherent with what I have learned of these matters”
<br>As you perhaps found out in the last 48 hours or so, what you have learned of these matters is actually very little to almost nothing. There is no shame in that. Knowing that you don’t know is a good start on a journey to knowledge,
<br>You should perghaps hold your judgement until you know a little more.
<br>
<br>“I do not find you arguments valid.”
<br>That’s not quite true. You don’t find them convincing perhaps, but you haven’t probed the validity of my arguments. You can’t actually explain WHY you don’t believe my arguments. You mainly dismis them without argument, if you don’t ignore them.
<br>
<br>“We obviously are having a failure to communicate here Mr Schmidt.”
<br>This would not occur if you addressed my arguments. Your constant evasions and your constant desire to find fault with the person rather than the argument is what derails our communication. Perhaps this is what you aimed at when you sensed that my discussion of Harrit et al is highly competent?
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 7:29 pm
<br>“Perhaps this is what you aimed at when you sensed that my discussion of Harrit et al is highly competent?”~Schmidt
<br>
<br>“Perhaps” wouldn’t be the operative word here. I don’t find your argument here particularly competent at all.
<br>
<br>You can dance, spin and continue your psychobabble all you wish.
<br>I would rather sit this ta ta tango out.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 7:35 pm
<br>“I don’t find your argument here particularly competent at all. ”
<br>Why? Have I made any argument about any aspect of the Harrit paper that is false, invalid or weak?
<br>You haven’t actually pointed out any fault with any of my arguments.
<br>So how did you decide my arguments are not competent when you don’t find any fault wuth them?
<br>
<br>Please pick up any argument that you have found a fault in and explain why that argument is faulty :)
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 7:44 pm
<br>Riding along on a carousel…. can you say “paint”?
<br>
<br>Let it be Schmidt, the ride has been too long already.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 7:42 pm
<br>Jens,
<br>
<br>I see no reason whatsoever that you should not write a paper with all your idea’s regarding the nano-thermite issue in it and present it to Jones and Harrit and the rest of the truth community so they and we can respond to it. You claim to have uncovered serious flaws in their (Jones and Harrit) analysis so why not present them in a concise paper so they can be responded to?
<br>
<br>Have you done so already? If so please direct me to your paper/presentation. What is the point of arguing your contentions here where neither Jones or Harrit will respond?
<br>
<br>I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit. I will try to find my sources for this claim but will need some time. I do recall that there were some very clear proofs that the chips could not have been paint or primer presented in either a paper or in a video which I will endeavor to find.
<br>
<br>So far though, and this is just my opinion, Jens it seems to me that you are missing the forest because of the trees. There are overlapping pieces of evidence that point to thermite/nano-thermite which cannot be explained away as paint or primer. For example the liquified metal seen pouring out from the tower in several videos. Surely you are not saying that was caused by office fires reacting with (take your pick)? It seems very clear to me that this was molten metal pouring out which from my understanding could not be produced by burning office contents of paint or primer. Does your theory of what happened explain the molten metal pouring out of the tower? Jones and Harrits theory does.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 8:16 pm
<br>“Harrit pointed out that the red-gray chips were soaked in acetone to remove impurities.”
<br>Which chips?
<br>Are you sure he said “acetone”?
<br>Are you sure they soaked chips in solvent to remove impurities?
<br>
<br>“Soaking a sample of the paint primer left it limp and soggy and it fell apart.”
<br>A sample of WHICH primer paint? Or do you believe there exists only one primer paint?
<br>
<br>“I think this is both in a written response, and on a video as well. Harrit has made comments as to Millette’s failed attempts on several occasions.”
<br>Links would be great.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 8:24 pm
<br>Schmidt, read this article in its entirety and cut the crap:
<br>
<br>http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 10:55 pm
<br>I just want to update to say that the solvent the chips and paint samples were soaked in was MEK – not Acetone as I had recalled.
<br>
<br>I have had to work with both of these products and they are both terribly dangerous to handle and inhale.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 2:54 am
<br>OK, I read both articles.Now what?
<br>
<br>“I have had to work with both of these products and they are both terribly dangerous to handle and inhale”
<br>Ooohh! Bamboozle bambooozle! :D
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 7:52 pm
<br>Several typo’s in the above which I could not correct after it was posted. They are as follows:
<br>
<br>I said: “I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit.”
<br>
<br>I meant to say: “I have seen this argument before about the red/grey chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit.”
<br>
<br>I said: “could not be produced by burning office contents of paint or primer.”
<br>
<br>I meant to say: “could not be produced by burning office contents or paint or primer.”
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 8:10 pm
<br>Thanks, ruffadam, for your courteous and reasonable reply!
<br>
<br>I see no reason whatsoever that you should not write a paper with all your idea’s regarding the nano-thermite issue in it and present it to Jones and Harrit and the rest of the truth community so they and we can respond to it. You claim to have uncovered serious flaws in their (Jones and Harrit) analysis so why not present them in a concise paper so they can be responded to?
<br>That’s a good idea, actually. It would take some time to realize though. Responding to individual points on a discussion board required a lot less structuring and precision than writing a paper.
<br>
<br>Have you done so already?
<br>No.
<br>
<br>What is the point of arguing your contentions here where neither Jones or Harrit will respond?
<br>In part, it’s testing how the arguments are received.
<br>
<br>I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit. I will try to find my sources for this claim but will need some time.
<br>That would be great!
<br>
<br>I do recall that there were some very clear proofs that the chips could not have been paint or primer presented in either a paper or in a video which I will endeavor to find.
<br>Sounds like you are thinking of Harrit’s “Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint“?
<br>
<br>There are overlapping pieces of evidence that point to thermite/nano-thermite which cannot be explained away as paint or primer. For example the liquified metal seen pouring out from the tower in several videos
<br>What observation, fact or logic would connect the red-gray chips to that flow of some glowing material? I see none. This is pure conjecture.
<br>
<br>Perhaps there was thermite used in the demolition of the towers – but the red-gray chips are not that thermite. Because they are not thermitic.
<br>
<br>Does your theory of what happened explain the molten metal pouring out of the tower?
<br>I have no theory of what happened.
<br>
<br>Jones and Harrits theory does.
<br>Really? How so?
<br>They don’t know what the red-gray chips are, they have no theory how they were used, where they were applied. They actually have no explanation for the flow of glowing material that involves the red-gray chips and any of their known properties.
<br>And anyway, Harrit and Jones claim, erroneously, that the exotherm of the red-gray chips was a thermite reaction. It clearly wasn’t. If they take that as premise for an explanation of the glowing flow, the premise would be false.
<br>
<br>In general: Even if the red-gray chips are paint, that does not disprove thermite was used to demolish the towers, or thermite explains the flow.
<br>And even it the red-gray chips are thermite, that does not mean they explain the glowing flow or the demolition of the towers.
<br>In any case, each claim must stand on its own evidence. You need to prove both that the red-gray chips are thermitic AND that the glowing flow was the result of a thermitic reaction before you can reasinably hypothesize a causal connection between the two.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 4:10 am
<br>“I’m siding here with Jones. Because if samples tested by Millete did display different DSC traces than the ones obtained by Harrit et al. this would indicate that Millete samples were not the same as Harrit samples.”
<br>By the same reasoning, you should conclude that Harrit’s samples are not the same as Harrit’s samples: The green and black curves have several features not seen in the blue and red curve, and vice versa.
<br>
<br>Harrit et al tested at least two different materials in the DSC and never realized it!
<br>
<br>This can be no wonder, as their elemental (XEDS) analysis also identified red-gray chips as being several different materials: the MEK-soaked chip is very different from chips a-d (with its significant Mg and Zn content and the large disparity between the Al and Si peaks), the multi-layerd chip has additional Pb, and other chips were found to contain additional Cu or Ba. One chip even had a gray layer that wasn’t iron-based.
<br>
<br>They established no selection criteria beyond the initial “is magnetically attracted and looks red-gray“. Therefore, they tested apples and oranges in the DSC, and in all other test.
<br>This ALONE renders the paper inconclusive and extremely poor.
<br>
<br>Millette concentrated on chips that were very similar to Harrit’s chips a-d in that their main EDS peaks were limited to C, O, Al, Si and Fe, where the Al and Si peaks were about the same height, and which had the two characteristically shaped particles: rhombic, Fe-rich grains and hexagonal. Al- and Si-rich platelets.
<br>If you argue that Millette maybe had the wrong chips, then you must also throw out Harrit’s chips a-d as the wrong chips. This then would deprive you of any and all evidence in the paper that there are “nano-particles” and that there is iron oxide in the red layer of the remaing chips (well, except for the red color of course).
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 5:21 pm
<br>Millette did not do DSC or he did not present i? W/o DSC Millette work is noted but cannot serve as a definitive proof that Harrit’s samples had no thermite.
<br>I don’t understand how you arrived at this conclusion. Why do you think that DSC is a necessary test to prove or disprove thermite? By what criteria derived from a DSC test would you decide whether a substance is or isn’t thermitic?
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 6:20 pm
<br>Utu,
<br>
<br>The iron rich microspheres are the key to this. Primer paint will not produce the iron rich microspheres.
<br>
<br>Scan through this article until you find the info on what these iron rich microspheres are:
<br>http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
<br>
<br>utu
<br>November 1, 2015 at 6:39 pm
<br>Harrit et al. and Millette are primary sources and this is what I read and I get it. What you linking here is a secondary source. They are for people not capable to read the primary sources with a proper comprehension. The authors of the secondary sources often do not understand science. And thet have their own spin and bring their own agendas. HR1, beware of secondary sources. You do not want to be at their mercy. However, I’m afraid, a person w/o a proper scientific background – like yourself – has no choice but is left to mercies of the interpreters.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 6:52 pm
<br>The original sources are quoted, utu.
<br>Do you understand that the iron rich microspheres are not just any iron spheroid?
<br>
<br>” I’m afraid, a person w/o a proper scientific background – like yourself – has no choice but is left to mercies of the interpreters.”
<br>Don’t give me this bullshit Utu.
<br>You’re on your own.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 7:39 pm
<br>utu: ….. “Good cop”
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>: ….. “Bad cop”
<br>
<br>Too obvious.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 7:43 pm
<br>Yea Sockpuppet,
<br>
<br>I figure it is a routine too. We get the real sophisticated agenteur here on T&S.
<br>
<br>I say we just ignore both of these clowns.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 5:24 am
<br>Cool, the arguments are over your head, the results not to your liking. What does the rational gentleman do?
<br>
<br>Right – ignore! :D
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 5:22 am
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>, like hybridrogue1, cannot refute the arguments. So instead he smears the persons.
<br>
<br>Too obvious.
<br>
<br>Just like Kevin Ryan could not refute Millette, so he tried to assassin the character. Poor shmocks.
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 7:48 pm
<br>“utu” is allowed to “refute” some of what “Jens Schmidt” says, while maintaining that Harrit and Jones are incompetent buffoons.
<br>
<br>It’s the “Good cop/Bad cop” routine.
<br>
<br>“utu” says to “Schmidt”:
<br>
<br>“Come on, Schmidt…..lay off Hr1 a little bit…..here…let me explain it to him”
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 7:54 pm
<br>Yes yes Sock! We were suckered into the weeds far away from the issue of this thread, which is the nonsense from Chandler et al on the Pentagon. Everything those two jerks said was a simple diversion tactic.
<br>
<br>Live and learn…forget and then get kicked in the ass by this jive nonsense and learn again.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 7:53 pm
<br>Willy said:
<br>
<br>“I figure it is a routine too. We get the real sophisticated agenteur here on T&S”
<br>
<br>That proves the importance of this Blog, and why the Pentagon Clan won’t be caught dead near this place.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 5:18 am
<br>@utu
<br>“By looking at the two Wangs’ articles and LLNL reports I know what DSC traces to expect when dealing with thermites.”
<br>If you overlay all those DSC traces, you will find that the values are somewhat all over the place, some graphs have 2 exotherm peaks, the peak temperatures vary, the maximum specific power varies, etc. The property “has an exotherm peak somewhere between 550 °C and 950 °C” is so vague and general, it doesn’t help at all to identify the substances or the reactions.
<br>Anyway, the red-gray material is obviously quite different from all the thermites you looked at: The latter contain no or little organic residue (Tillotson found 10%, some Wang preparations have none), and none have this big inert mass of pure iron oxide. So you would expect from the start that the chips’ traces would differ significantly from those of purer thermite even if they actually did contain thermite.
<br>And lastly, the Wangs and the LLNL teams do not apply DSC to identify the substance or the reaction! To that end, they use XRD and electron microscopy. They usd DSC to investigate the performance of their preparations. It’s like you might use a person scale to investigate the efficacy of a diet: If you plot your weight from day to day and find that you lose weight quickly in the first week and then stall, that plot would not help to identify specifically you or that particular diet! If another researcher did scale tests on some person and found the same pattern of “weight loss the first week, then stall”, he would be wrong to conclude that that person ate the same diet that you did.
<br>
<br>“Harrit’s DSC traces are similar though not identical (a lower temperature of ignition).”
<br>Every exotherm chemical reaction would be “similar”: Show a peak like Harrit’s specimens, only at different temperatures.
<br>
<br>“I haven’t seen DSC profiles of paint or other non-energetic organic materials. Have you?”
<br>You imply that paint is non-energetic. Why do you say that? What do you understand by “energetic”? One WTC paint is based on an alkyd resin with linseed oil which both crosslink to harden when curing. This is an “energetic” material in the most ordinary sense of the word: They release energy (exotherm reaction) when burning. The other known WTC primer paint consists of about 70% epoxy. Epoxy, too, is energetic: It reacts exothermaly when exceeding its ingnition temperature of ~425 °C. And guess at what temperattre Harrit’s chips burn the most powerfully…
<br>Here is a paper that has DSC traces of an organic binder (epoxy):
<br>http://revroum.lew.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/4/Art%2006.pdf (Fig. 1, top right)
<br>https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/19722/ferranti_louis_200712_phd.pdf?sequence=1 ()
<br>I have a link to a paper that does DSC tests on oil paints (cured linseed, sunflower and stand oil), but that is behind a $30 pay wall. It used to have some of the figures visible, but no longer.
<br>
<br>“Millette did not do show them (why?).”
<br>Millette’s lab, MVA, is a forensic lab with all the equipment needed to identify materials collected at crime scenes and elsewhere.
<br>A DSC device is not there. That’s because DSC is not a method used by experienced, competent forensicists.
<br>He didn’t do DSC. He could have sent a specimen to another lab that does DSC, but that would have cost money, and why do it anyway? DSC results are not fingerprints in the way that XRD, XEDS, FTIR or SAED are.
<br>
<br>“Jones claims (in his letter) they tested some paints and got bland DSC shapes (w/o definitive peaks) but they did not show them either (why?).”
<br>Right – why not show them? And why not tell WHICH paint(s) they tested! WTC paint? I doubt it, actually! And did they test those paints with a dominant gray iron oxide layer attached?
<br>You can choose to believe these claims, or remain sceptical.
<br>
<br>“But I sense that you want it to be closed very much. You can close it but you have to present evidence that cannot be found in Millette or Harrit papers. Do you have any evidence from without their papers? So far you did not present it.”
<br>I only have the papers by Harrit et al and Millette, plus an open letter by Harrit (“Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint”) plus a presentation of results from red-gray chips by Mark Basile (Screenshots), plus a study on red-gray by a French researcher, F. Henry-Couannier, plus a few statements by Jones and Farrer. I haven’t nearly presented all of these results!
<br>
<br>For the time being, I think we can close the book on the assertion that Harrit et al “proved” the materrial is thermitic. They have not. And with this, they ball is in their court, and nothing else needs to be done as long as they don’t play it. No researcher has actually confirmed their findings (Basile THINKS he has, but his result of only 1.7% Al in the red layer, of which no doubt a significant proportion is already oxidized) belies that claim: Pure, ideal thermite has about 25% Al and releases under 4 kJ/g. A substance with 1.7 % Al could thus release at most 4 kJ/g * 1.7/25 = 0.27 kJ/g. Assuming his chip is the same material as the four chips in Harrit’s DSC, it follows that less than 18% (best case: comparison with blue curve) or less than 3.5% (comparison with the green curve) of the heat release could possibly come from a thermite reaction.
<br>But there actually is no evidence at all that any thermite was present or reacted.
<br>None whatsover.
<br>Yes, the theory is dead already.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 3:02 am
<br>“A keen eye can discern from either a faulty premise or a faulty conclusion”
<br>This is very telling – you say you take as premise that a conclusion is faulty and argue from there? Thanks for revealing how your mind works.
<br>
<br>“The philosophy of argumentum holds the key to critical thinking skills.”
<br>What pseudo-intellectual babble!
<br>
<br>You found no faulty premise
<br>You found no faulty reasoning
<br>So you simply declare the conclusion false without any argument and work backwards from there?
<br>Fascinating.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 4:51 am
<br>“So you simply declare the conclusion false without any argument and work”~Schmidt
<br>
<br>I don’t need to do any argument or work, the red gray chips are not paint.
<br>
<br>You need to do the argument and work to prove the chips are paint.
<br>
<br>You are the one disputing the Jones-Harrit findings. It is your responsibility to prove them wrong. You are not arguing with me Schmidt, you are arguing against Jones-Harrit.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 3:57 am
<br>“Millete did not perform DSC traces. DSC tests are very important in studying energetic materials.”
<br>Yes, but the Harrit study was not a study to figure out the properties of an energetic study, but a forensic study to find out what an unknown substance is. In contrast to methods such as XEDS, XRD, FTIR or SAED, the thermal traces do not provide unique and precise fingerprints. That’s why DSC is not that good at identifying a material.
<br>
<br>“The above papers do not explicitly state whether DSC test were done under inert gas condition or in the presence of oxygen.”
<br>I would bet serious money that they were done under inert gas. Residues of organic substances in their sol-gel preparations clearly demand doing DSC without oxygen.
<br>
<br>“Y Wang has tested regular nano thermite powder (no binder) and obtained the same ignition point as for the sol-gel nano thermites.”
<br>You mean that tends to refute Jones, right?
<br>
<br>You quote Jones:
<br>“We concluded that oxygen may be important to get the reaction initiated.”
<br>Since they did not also test under inert gas, that is speculation.
<br>But of course it is true: 7.5 kJ/g means inescapably that the substance reactied with external oxygen, It just wasn’t a thermite reaction.
<br>
<br>You quote Jones:
<br>“Dr Farrer of our team contacted one of the LLNL scientists about this issue, and was informed that the LLNL tests of nano-thermite were performed in air”
<br>But Jones added a note at the end of the article:
<br>“After publication of our paper, others have suggested that the experiments in the LLNL publication were performed in an inert atmosphere; so the picture is not clear to us at this time and further contact with the LLNL scientists is advised.”
<br>The article that Jones references here and in Fig 29 of Harrit et al is
<br>http://de.scribd.com/doc/80585354/T-M-Tillotson-et-al-Nanostructured-energetic-materials-using-sol-gel-methodologies
<br>They write about the organic impurities:
<br>“From elemental analysis we have observed thatthese materials have organic impurities that makeup 10% of the sample by mass [23]. It is likely that the impurities are due to residual solvent and/or epoxide or epoxide by-products from the syn-thesis.”
<br>epoxide releases about 20 kJ/g of energy when burned on air, solvents usually more. If their material was 10% epoxide or similar, and it was allowed to burn on air, then it would contribute about 2 kJ/g (10% of 20 kJ/g) to the total heat release – more than they measured total! Also epoxy ignites around 425 °C. There is no marked thermal event in that region in Tillotson’s DSC trace. It follows that the trace was very unlikely won under air.
<br>
<br>“DSC tests of Millette samples possibly might produce different non-energetic DSC traces. But we do not know.”
<br>Speculation.
<br>
<br>“The temperature of the peak of the traces obtained by Harritt seems to be too high to be that of an organic compound”
<br>No. Here is a document on the combustion properties of many polymers:
<br>http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/05-14.pdf
<br>Table A-1 lists the temperature for three thermal events; the third is ignition temperature. You will find plenty near or above 425 °C.
<br>We had previously looked at the ignition poins of various explosives. These are not crosslinked polymers like an organic binder would be. Breaking the crosslinks requires the additional heat that pushed polymer ignition points above those of oligomers and monomers.
<br>
<br>“but it is significantly lower than that of nano thermites by Yi Wang or LLNL”
<br>Yes, although I have seen at least one report that found a nano-thermite preparation to ignite around 450 °C, if I recall correctly. Don’t have the link handy.
<br>
<br>“Since Millette does not want to perform DSC tests then ideally Harritt and Jones should provide more DSC tests as well as comparative test of organic materials like paints.”
<br>What would be the purpose of that? DSC is not a good method to identify unknown substances. Can you explain the purpose of such a study?
<br>
<br>“Some paint samples should be obtained from old steel construction columns.”
<br>Then you’d compare one unknown with another unknown, for you will typically not know the paint composition of old steel construction columns. You realize that different paints have different binders and different pigments in different proportions? Apples and bananas.
<br>
<br>“I conclude that Millette did not negate Harritt et al. findings beyond a reasonable doubt.”
<br>Millette didn’t need to do DSC at all to identify precisely the identity of ALL constituents of those red-gray chips that match Harrit’s chips a-d: What the gray layer is (a steel similar to A36 with manganese and low carbon; oxidized), what the organic binder is (epoxy), what the small rhombic grains are (alpha-Fe2O3, called hematite), and what the hexagonal platelets are (kaolinite, an Aluminium Silicate). He additionally found a bit of TiO2. All these ingredients are perfectly consistent with red primer paint on oxidized structural steel.
<br>He found no elemental Aluminium. That rules out thermite.
<br>
<br>Here is Millette’s report:
<br>http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 5:25 am
<br>An analogy from the DEW proposition by Judy Wood:
<br>
<br>Wood’s proximate premise was that since there is no seismic signal accompanying the collapse of the material of a WTC tower as it slammed to the ground; that the material must have “dustified” — ie, “disappeared’. (‘Where Did The Towers Go?’ – Judy Wood)
<br>
<br>Where is the error? It is quite simple is it not? The material of the tower did not slam to the ground in a single instant. This is self evident by simple observation of any video of the events.
<br>It took TIME for the material to hit the ground as many thousands of separate events. Some 10 to 14 seconds of time for each tower.
<br>
<br>One knows in the very first instance of Wood’s hypothesis that it is based on a prima facie falsehood. It is self evidently untrue.
<br>
<br>From that point, one then goes through the futile and fruitless exercise of addressing all of the other assertions that Wood makes to back up her initial premise, and finds that each one of these are equally provably false. This is PREDICTED by the provably false premise; yet we are “challenged” to go through every single point of her argument to prove beyond doubt that she is wrong. THIS is logical error. We KNEW she was wrong from her proximate error.
<br>
<br>In arguments such as these, it can become argumentum ad infinitum – an endless carousel of blithering nonsense.
<br>
<br>I propose that the suggestion that the red-gray chips in the WTC dust are primer paint, is just as obviously false as Judy Wood’s suggestion that lack of seismic signal proved that the towers disappeared.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 7:44 am
<br>“Wood’s proximate premise was that since there is no seismic signal accompanying the collapse of the material of a WTC tower as it slammed to the ground”
<br>I am not sure this is a precise and fair rendering of Wood’s premise (I haven’t really looked at her work yet), but assuming it is. it is obviously false: There were seismic signals accompanying the collapse of the material of each of the three WTC towers as they slammed to the ground. So yes, if that is actually her premise, every conclusion that follows is invalid.
<br>(She has plenty of other premises that are all false, plus a few instances of strangely erroneous reasoning. If anyone should seriously be interested in what they were, we can discuss that in a separate discussion if, when and where it fits. For the moment, I am merely areeing with you, HR1, and saying more specifically why I agree)
<br>
<br>“From that point, one then goes through the futile and fruitless exercise of addressing all of the other assertions that Wood makes to back up her initial premise, and finds that each one of these are equally provably false.”
<br>This is the routine that you want to put me through.
<br>
<br>The starting point of our current debate here was your assertion that 10 W/g, twice the specific power of some nanothermite preparation, indicates a “high brisance” – that the chips reacted very fast, vigorously, even “explosively” (for “brisance” is a property of explosives) in the DSC experiment.
<br>
<br>That premise was FALSE.
<br>
<br>It, or rather something related, is also a premise taken as true by Harrit el al to justify their conclusions, but is actually FALSE: That the DSC results show “narrow” peaks, indicating a “vigorous” reaction.
<br>
<br>At that point, if you had consistent standards, Harrit et al should have gone the way of Judy Wood’s claims in your book, HR1. Why didn’t they?
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 9:27 am
<br>I cannot be any clearer or direct than this; You are not arguing with me Schmidt, you are arguing against Jones-Harrit.
<br>Consequently I am not arguing with you.
<br>
<br>I have made note of the endless carousel, the one too long gone ’round.
<br>
<br>You Schmidt make yourself out to be more important that you are here. I am under no obligation to answer your every question, to satisfy your every need for attention.
<br>
<br>This is beginning to remind me of that Monty Python sketch, “This is Not an Argument”
<br>“Yes it is!” – ‘No it isn’t” “Yes it is!” – ‘No it isn’t” “Yes it is!” – ‘No it isn’t”
<br>
<br>No it isn’t.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 10:11 am
<br>Glad you realize you have not actually argued the subject matter after your several initial false claims, HR1.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 10:13 am
<br>Those false claims were?
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 11:01 am
<br>I pointed out several of your false claims twice already. You failed to address them and argue. Why would it be different the third time around?
<br>
<br>1. “The red chips measured about 10 1/2 Watts/Gram compared to about 5 Watts/Gram — at least twice the brisance of the military sol-gel.”
<br>
<br>2. “the chip was ignited by an electrical charge, during the experiments with Harrit”
<br>
<br>3. “Cole was able to achieve such explosive effects with regular scale Thermate” (namely “tossing columns” and “powederizing concrete”, the former later changed to tossing “the top off of a capped column“, which was FALSE, too)
<br>
<br>4. “we do have physical evidence of a sol-gel energetic explosive in the Jones-Harrit study” – that’s false on two distinct counts – no evidence for sol-gel, no evidence for explosive
<br>
<br>5. “There are several charts in that presentation Schmidt, one of them IS of the primer paint graph.”
<br>
<br>6. “In terms of kJ/g the material Jones and Harrit studied compares well with traditional explosives.”
<br>
<br>7. “Yes I do you know what DSC is. It works by placing 2 samples in separated dishes in the DSC. One sample is heated, while the control sample is not.” (That’s to related counts of false claims – the claim that you “know” what DSC is, and the claim about not heating the reference material, which proves the former to be false)
<br>
<br>8. Your implications that there exists a “larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters“, and that this imagined larger scientific community accepts that the chips are “sol-gel””
<br>
<br>9. The implication that there is a “proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper”
<br>
<br>10. “If you get a sharp peak in the calorimeter, that material is energetic” (quoted from Farrer) – lie by insinuation: the peaks aren’t sharp; and the wording suggests that being energetic is the nature and purpose of the substance, when in reality nearly every organic substance is “energetic” by this criterion
<br>
<br>11. “I presume that, being the working chemist he claims to be he has access to lab”
<br>
<br>12. “the red gray chips are not paint” (this being stated as your premise)
<br>
<br>Is seems you so far have retracted only 2., 7. and 11. while maintaing repeatedly 3., 4. and 12. and leaving the others uncorrected.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 11:08 am
<br>“Is seems you so far have retracted only 2., 7. and 11. while maintaing repeatedly 3., 4. and 12. and leaving the others uncorrected.”~Schmidt
<br>
<br>There is no need to retract anything else Schmidt, it is only your opinion that the other points are incorrect. It is only your assertion that I am incorrect on the points you list.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 11:35 am
<br>“Claims of fact” and “opinion” aren’t the same things.
<br>
<br>Claims of fact can be verified or falsified using objective criteria. If you had claimed the Statue of Liberty stood in El Paso, Texas, I said that false, then neither of us would state an “opinion”. Your claim of fact would be false.
<br>
<br>You could try to verify your claim for example by posting photographs from EP showing the SoL there. But you refuse to do so.
<br>You made those claims.
<br>Burden of evidence was on you.
<br>You have refused to provide evidence.
<br>You fail.
<br>
<br>Let’s try the first:
<br>Are you still of the opinion that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g?
<br>Then please consider what “brisance” IS:
<br>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance
<br>WP: “Brisance /br?'z??ns/ is the shattering capability of a high explosive, determined mainly by its detonation pressure. … The sand crush test and Trauzl lead block test are commonly used to determine the relative brisance in comparison to TNT … Generally, the higher this pressure, the finer the fragments generated. High detonation pressure correlates with high detonation velocity, the speed at which the detonation wave propagates through the explosive, but not necessarily with the explosive’s total energy (or work capacity)”
<br>Did the DSC test, and its W/g result, measure “the shattering capability” of the chips? NO.
<br>Did the DSC test, and its W/g result, measure the “detonation pressure” of the chips? NO.
<br>Is the sand crush test a DSC test, or does it result in W/g readings? NO.
<br>Is the Trauzl lead block test a DSC test, or does it result in W/g readings? NO.
<br>Did the DSC test of the chips generate fragments from the material it was in contact with (such as the sample holder)? Certainly NOT.
<br>Did the DSC test, and its W/g result, measure the “detonation velocity” of the chips? NO, detonation velocity is measured in m/s.
<br>
<br>So you see that your claim that the DSC test determined the “brisance” of the chips relative to Tillotson’s nanothermite is objectively false. You can hold on to your “opinion” that you claimed something true – that would be irrational, but your prerogative. It is however NOT “opinion” on my part to state that your claim is FALSE – I just tested it against objective criteria.
<br>
<br>Basically you are maintaining that you don’t need evidence and logic to determine the truth value of your “opinions”. This defies every base principle of science of course.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 12:29 pm
<br>“Are you still of the opinion that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g?”~Schmidt
<br>
<br>Yes, but only indirectly.
<br>
<br>Would you assert that the Energy release for monomolecular explosives HMX, TNT and TATB, for energetic composite Al/Fe2O3, are not intimately related to their brisance?
<br>
<br>Now once again, you are attempting to draw me into a debate that we have already had.
<br>I refuse to go around and around here past this one response.
<br>
<br>As you have been advised, it is in your court to make a critique of the Jones-Harrit paper. If it is your opinion that I have misinterpreted their findings – again that is your opinion, regardless of your framing your opinion as an “objective fact”.
<br>
<br>FINI
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 1, 2015 at 12:49 pm
<br>““Are you still of the opinion that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g?”~Schmidt
<br>Yes, but only indirectly. ”
<br>Please explain!
<br>
<br>“Would you assert that the Energy release ”
<br>Energy release is not measured in W/g and not represented by the peak height. Please do not distract once again from your claim that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g.
<br>
<br>“a debate that we have already had”
<br>We haven’t come to the end of that debate, for which their can objectively be only one possibility: You understanding that your claim was false (nonsense) and retracting it.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 5:36 am
<br>@Hr1:
<br>““Farrer is the TEM lab director at Brigham Young University, where he has access to world-class equipment.” ( Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory (TEM Lab)
<br>And Schmidt was trying to convince us that he didn’t understand how to run a DSC.”
<br>Yes, correct on both counts. Farrer is a competent practitioner in the electron microscopy lab (TEM as well as SEM). His SEM and XEDS work in the Harrit paper is excellent!
<br>
<br>He had zero experience with a DSC the day before he DSCed those chips.
<br>
<br>“So Schmidt was simply here to smear and defame the scientists involved in the Jones-Harrit paper.”
<br>It follows directly from the quality of their work: Doing DSC on a specimen, that contains a LOT of organic matter, under air when you are interested in an inorganic reaction among the components of the specimen, is an obviously stupid thing to do, and the way they interprete some plot features and fail to interprete others clearly show incompetence.
<br>
<br>I actually like Farrer and would trust him with a lot (this in contrast to Jones or Ryan). He admitted himself that he had to learn first how to use a DSC device – in other words, that he had no experience in that!
<br>Will find link later if you need that evidence. Was in his interview wit AE911Truth.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 9:20 am
<br>If there is anyone on this forum who would like to continue on this circus ride carousel that Jens Schmidt is continuing to offer rides on, I welcome them to respond. For myself I have made it clear that I find his motives disingenuous. I have made it clear that I am not going to argue this topic around and around on every trivial detail that Schmidt can bring up.
<br>
<br>This latest business about Farrer is an example. The fact that Farrer may have been inexperienced in the DSC device is meant to imply that the conclusions of the results are faulty. This conclusion must face head on the acceptance of the conclusion of these studies by world renowned scientists, experts in their fields.
<br>
<br>Again it seems the tell of this tale is divided between scientists who are independent, and willing to confront political authority, and scientists who are beholden to authority and go along to get along.
<br>
<br>As a prime example of this is Millette, the only scientist so far to attempt a rebuttal to the Jones-Harrit paper. Millette was heralded as an independent scientist with no connections to the government by the JREF crowd that hired him to debunk the Bentham paper on thermitic materials in the WTC dust. It turns out however that Millette was working directly for the EPA, and is responsible for papers that led to the announcement that the environment of the WTC cleanup operations were safe. He has been found to have committed some serious criminal acts in this regard. But like anyone involved in the 9/11 cover-up Millette enjoys impunity.
<br>
<br>If anyone wants to go into the details of how Millette’s so-called research on the ‘red-gray chips’ is legitimate or a scam, let them. But this is an old story spun every which way for years now.
<br>
<br>The bottom line here is that the Red & Gray Chips are not paint, they are a sol-gel energetic material. And if anyone wants to prove otherwise there are proper procedures for doing so.
<br>Making scurrilous arguments against the Jones-Harrit findings on blogs is not going to cut it.
<br>
<br>Schmidt can go on and on here for the rest of the year and beyond, and it will amount to nothing, as it amounts to nothing now. Of course he can pound his chest and hoot his ululations of victory and make claim to all the bananas here. The sorry truth is there are no fruits available here at T&S offered as consolation prizes for fancy tango dances of spinning rhetoric.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 10:40 am
<br>@HR1
<br>“The fact that Farrer may have been inexperienced in the DSC device is meant to imply that the conclusions of the results are faulty.”
<br>Wrong.
<br>I already explained HOW the DSC test was incompetently done and inexpertly interpreted. This needed no recourse to the qualifications of the operator.
<br>However, noting the inexperience of the experimenter helps to explain WHY the Harrit team acted so incompetently with regard to the entire DSC desaster.
<br>In my mind, noting Farrer’s inexperience is actually a nice thing – it suggests he merely erred. If he were an experienced DSC user and interpreter, I would have to conclude willful deception.
<br>
<br>“the acceptance of the conclusion of these studies by world renowned scientists, experts in their fields”
<br>Surely you can name at least two “world renowned scientists, experts in their fields” who have indicated “acceptance of the conclusion of these studies“, along with the fields that you believe they are experts in? Any forensicist there? Any world renowned thermite expert? Any expert on primer paints?
<br>
<br>Or perhaps, if you can’t actually name two such scientists, you want to retract this fabricated claim, and add it to the list of false claims you were forced to retract :)
<br>
<br>“scientists who are beholden to authority and go along to get along. As a prime example of this is Millette”
<br>Yay, the old “he has found out so many of my false claims, while I could not hold a candle to any of his arguments … what can I do … o right, let’s do a little character assassination instead of arguing the facts of the case!” Classy, HR1 :)
<br>
<br>“Millette was heralded as an independent scientist with no connections to the government”
<br>Was he? “With no connections to the government“? Linky please? Or retraction?
<br>
<br>“He has been found to have committed some serious criminal acts in this regard.”
<br>Has he? Surely Kevin Ryan, who originated this smear piece, has taken Millette to court over this crime? Court docket, please? After all, Millette’s report reveals that Ryan is the co-author of a fallacious paper?
<br>
<br>You already found out that Kevin Ryan is a most shady character, didn’t you? You place him among the bad, deceptive, perhaps even traitorous folks with regard to the Pentagon story, right?.
<br>What if Ryan has been out to discredit the Truth Movement from the very beginning? Could you perhaps be falling for the lure of a liar? I think you are!
<br>Be more critical, HR1!
<br>
<br>“the Red & Gray Chips are not paint, they are a sol-gel energetic material”
<br>You keep saying this, but have no evidence. Please present your evidence, or retract!
<br>Worse still: You don’t even understand the very sentence you wrote there.
<br>You don’t know what “sol-gel” is, otherwise you would not write such stupid phrases as “they are a sol-gel energetic material“, “various known sol-gels that they compared against their own material“, “the brisance of the military sol-gel“, “sol-gels with exponentially more explosive force“, “sol-gels might have been the only explosives needed“.
<br>
<br>I’ll give you a hint: You seem to think that “sol-gel” is a word for a kind of material.
<br>No, it isn’t.
<br>That’s how I know you are talking out of your rear end.
<br>Why do you talk about “things” (“things” in quotes because “sol-gel” is not a “thing”) that you don’t know at all? Don’t you realize how utterly STUPID you appear?
<br>
<br>“there are no fruits available here at T&S”
<br>This may be the only true phrase in your post ;)
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 11:26 am
<br>@HR1:
<br>*FACEPALM*
<br>The list of flat out false blunders you write because you don’t the fuck understand what you are writing about keeps growing and growing. I think you are an intelligent guy – you must sense, at least sometimes, that you don’t know what you are talking. Why do you make such a fool of yourself so often and so consistently? Are YOU perhaps a mole out to make the Truth Movement look dumb, silly and ridiculous?
<br>
<br>Here is your latest blunder:
<br>“Sol-gels are distinguished by the nanoscale characteristics. The difference between macroscale materials and the sol-gels are obvious simply from the VLM photomicrographs of red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples.”
<br>Oooh – “nanoscale characteristics” – “VLM photomicrographs” – mighty techy sounding words, bamboozle bamboozle, right?
<br>VLM is the abbreviation for “Visual Light Microscopy”, and “nanoscale” is commonly understood to be the range from 1 to 100 nm – a particle can be called to be on the “nanoscale” if one or more of its dimensions (width, lenght, thickness) is in that range 1-100 nm.
<br>Visible light is electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 390 and 700 nm. The resolution of any microscope depends on the wavelength of the rays it uses. There is a theoretical limit of resolution for VLM lenses near 200 nm, while in practice, very few VLM microscopes come even near this limit.
<br>
<br>It is therefore flat out IMPOSSIBLE to characterize the “nanoscale characteristics” of any material with VLM.
<br>
<br>Again, hybridrogue1, you spoke out of your rear end and invented claims that you don’t even understand.
<br>Stop that childish behaviour.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 11:59 am
<br>“It is therefore flat out IMPOSSIBLE to characterize the “nanoscale characteristics” of any material with VLM.”
<br>
<br>It is however to characterize microscale characteristics by VLM, and these are clearly NOT microscale products. Thermite and Thermate are microscale products.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 12:35 pm
<br>Edit the above sentence:
<br>
<br>It is however possible to characterize macroscale characteristics by VLM, and these are clearly NOT macroscale products. Thermite and Thermate are macroscale products.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 12:53 pm
<br>I’m sorry, Willy…..I posted my comment before I saw your edit.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 1:23 pm
<br>Okay okay I read this “correction” too late. So for all I care:
<br>
<br>Alright, Einstein: Did Harrit et al examine and describe the macroscale characteristics of the chips using VLM? What were they? Please quote the relevant passages.
<br>Which of the macroscale characteristics that Harrit et al detected by VLM convince you that the chips are “sol-gel”? :) (Remember: The context is still: What is your evidence that the chips are “sol gel”? Or are you hoping you could detract from that question?)
<br>
<br>So you say the chips are not thermite or thermate?
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 1:19 pm
<br>@HR1
<br>This conversation has the entertainment value of a bizarre train wreck.
<br>
<br>“It is however to characterize microscale characteristics by VLM”
<br>Alright, Einstein: Did Harrit et al examine and describe the microscale characteristics of the chips using VLM? What were they? Please quote the relevant passages.
<br>Which of the microscale characteristics that Harrit et al detected by VLM convince you that the chips are “sol-gel”? :)
<br>
<br>“these are clearly NOT microscale products. Thermite and Thermate are microscale products.”
<br>So you say the chips are not thermite or thermate?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 1:44 pm
<br>“they were all identified as Thermite”
<br>This is the conclusion by Harrit et al, but it doesn’t follow from the data. The conclusion is invalid
<br>
<br>“Do paint chips produce iron spherules when heated?”
<br>Harrit et al did not show that the “iron spherules” originated from the red (paint) layer. They did not exclude the possibility that they resulted from phase shifts within the gray (oxidized steel) layer.
<br>The “iron-rich sphere” shown in Fig 21 looks like a ball of condensed soot with a concentration of hematite pigment. In the upper left part of that image, you can clearly see the 100 nm rhombic grains and 1-2 µm hexagonal platelets – obviouskly unreacted! Since those were heated to 700 °C; at least any elemental Al should have melted (at or under 660 °C) – there is no evidence for that – not in the image, not in any DSC trace.
<br>In the text, describing the ball in the center of Fig 21, Harrit et al write: “the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two“. Approximately? What does “approximately” mean? Would a factor of 1.6 count as “approcimately”? Did they do a standardizing routine for that quantification? If not, the error in that estimate could be substantial – they don’t say. Is that a factor of 2 by weight or by mols? They don’t say! If the former, then the conclusion they draw, “so substantial elemental iron must be present” is flat out wrong: Fe2O3 is 111 g Fe and 48 g O per mol – a very good match for what they measured!
<br>
<br>“What is thermite or any other energetic substance doing in the WTC dust?”
<br>No one found thermite.
<br>There were a lot of “energetic” substances in the WTC debris:
<br>– Paper
<br>– Computers
<br>– Furniture
<br>– Human remains
<br>– Paints
<br>– ….
<br>ALL of these release more energy when burned than does thermite!
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 1:54 pm
<br>“ALL of these release more energy when burned than does thermite!”~Schmidt
<br>
<br>I hope this idiotic statement is your last Schmidt! I understand your caveat, and the statement is still bullshit.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 2:38 pm
<br>@HR1:
<br>What matters is how fast it burns and what temperature it can produce when burning.”~utu
<br>That is the caveat I mentioned. His assertion is utter rhetorical nonsense on that head.
<br>Except you didn’t mention it :D
<br>
<br>I am glad you understand now that pointing out that a material is “energetic” just because it produces an exotherm peak in a DSC test is utter rhetorical nonsense.
<br>
<br>So – how fast do the red-gray chips react? :D
<br>Ooh – flashback,,, that’s where this whole mess started – your assertion that somehow “10.5 W/g” means “twice the brisance” – a stupidly false claim you still haven’t retracted.
<br>
<br>And … what temperature did the chips reach?
<br>(That is actually an interesting question, to which my answer is only “speculation” as I have no evidence for it – which I, in contrast to a certain someone else, have no trouble admitting)
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 2:53 pm
<br>Allow me to reply in the manner that you do Schmidt;
<br>
<br>You are an idiot who doesn’t know anything about science. You are bluffing your way through this entire exchange making up shit as you go. You are a liar and will not retract a single lie you have made. You are just a stooge and a shill. And! An arrogant prick as well.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 3:57 pm
<br>@HR1
<br>“Allow me to reply in the manner that you do Schmidt;
<br>You are an idiot who doesn’t know anything about science. You are bluffing your way through this entire exchange making up shit as you go. You are a liar and will not retract a single lie you have made. You are just a stooge and a shill. And! An arrogant prick as well.”
<br>It is easy to make such statements without argument and evidence. That is the difference between you and me:
<br>
<br>“You are … making up shit as you go”
<br>Except you haven’t pointed out a single thing I have made up. So far, I have been able to support every claim I made with evince – when asked, and often without being asked.
<br>You on the other hand have already been called out on several of your fabrications – and every time, you were not able to support your made-up bullshit with evidence.
<br>
<br>“You are a liar and will not retract a single lie”
<br>You haven’t pointed out a single lie. This is because nothing I have written in this exchange was wrong, or at least I am not aware of anything wrong.
<br>
<br>“You are just a stooge and a shill.”
<br>You have no evidence for this accusation.
<br>
<br>What an extremely poor, pathetic attempt at “tu quoque” of the cheapest kind. I almost start feeling sorry for you.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 2:18 pm
<br>@HR1
<br>““ALL of these release more energy when burned than does thermite!”~Schmidt
<br>I hope this idiotic statement is your last Schmidt! I understand your caveat, and the statement is still bullshit.”
<br>Are you blue in the face while you yell “BULLSHIT”, Willy? :D
<br>
<br>Your problem is that you have no argument to support your “bullshit” claim.
<br>
<br>What I wrote is true:
<br>Thermite releases less than 4 kJ/g of energy when burned <- TRUE, right?
<br>Paper and wood release around 15-18 kJ/g when burned <- TRUE, right?
<br>15 to 18 is more than 4 – <- TRUE, right?
<br>So paper and wood (furniture) release more energy when burned than does thermite.
<br>
<br>Computers contain a lot of plastic – certainly 20% by weight <- TRUE, right?
<br>Most plastics have energy densities of 20-40 kJ/g <- TRUE, right?
<br>20% of that is 4 to 8 kJ/g <- TRUE, right?
<br>"4 to 8 kJ/g" is more than "under 4 kJ/g" <- TRUE, right?
<br>So computers release more energy when burned than does thermite.
<br>
<br>Now as for human remains … what are they made of? Fat, meat, other organic substances… these may average 25 kJ/g (fat dominates in Wall Street Americans!) are perhaps 25-30% by weight of the body (most of the rest is water, and some inorganic stuff in teeth and bones).
<br>Human remains thus average about 6 to 8 kJ/g. That's more than thermites under 4 kJ/g.
<br>So human remains release more energy when burned than does thermite.
<br>
<br>Is any of that untrue? What? Please be specific, so we can go look for evidence for our respective claims :)
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 2:42 pm
<br>@HR1:
<br>“My reply to utu is adequate”
<br>Perhaps you should let utu do the arguing for you, if the only way for you to write a sensible reply is to quote utu and blurt “what he said!” ;)
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 3:04 pm
<br>Why do the Nutty Professors insist on arguing about thermite on this thread?
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b> said:
<br>
<br>“What is the point of arguing your contentions here where neither Jones or Harrit will respond?”
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b> said:
<br>
<br>“In part, it’s testing how the arguments are received”
<br>
<br>Received by who?…..and what’s the other “part”…..the other reason?
<br>
<br>Wouldn’t it be much more reasonable to see “how the arguments are received” where Jones or Harrit can respond.
<br>
<br>Why, in the name of sanity, would the Nutty Professors choose a thread where the topic is the Pentagon to test “how the arguments are received” about Thermite?
<br>
<br>The obvious motive, just like the Chandler Clan, is to take the conversation off course from discussion of the Pentagon.
<br>
<br>The Pentagon evidence is the most damning of all the 911 evidence because it leads directly to perpetrators with names, faces and titles.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 3:08 pm
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>
<br>Agreed in triplicate!
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>utu
<br>November 2, 2015 at 3:21 pm
<br>I think it was me who was the first that objected to something HR1 wrote about thermites. This started the whole discussion. Jens Schmidt joined later. If you want to blame somebody for keeping you from Pentagon blame me. It was not my intention though.
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 3:29 pm
<br>utu said:
<br>
<br>“I think it was me who was the first that objected to something HR1 wrote about thermites. This started the whole discussion. Jens Schmidt joined later. If you want to blame somebody for keeping you from Pentagon blame me. It was not my intention though”
<br>
<br>Thank you, utu!
<br>
<br>So, do you think we could put an end to this Chemical Merry-go-Round?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 2:47 pm
<br>@SP2012
<br>Makes sense to me.
<br>Can you write a response without silly sarcasm?
<br>What was wrong with what I wrote?
<br>I did not, as your silly 2H+O simile suggests, mistake fuels for their oxides.
<br>
<br>Do you say that paper, wooden furniture, computers, human remains or paints do NOT release more energy upon burning than even ideal thermite?
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 3:06 pm
<br>Now the bottom line here, the one that Schmidt should sit his arrogant ass on; is that there is nothing he can accomplish here as an adequate rebuttal to the Jones-Harrit paper- If and until he gathers his junk science together in a paper and attempts to publish it to present to the scientific community oft referred to as the Truth movement.
<br>
<br>All of his scurrilous efforts here are in vain.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 4:00 pm
<br>@HR1
<br>“All of his scurrilous efforts here are in vain.”
<br>Quite possibly.
<br>And so are your scurrilous efforts here at trying to hold a candle to me – and failing badly.
<br>
<br>Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)
<br>November 2, 2015 at 4:38 pm
<br>Others have asked, but [no reply has come forward from you, Jens. What is it exactly that you are after? Why are you discussing extreme technicalities here with people who are obviously and admittedly not engineers or scientist? Why here? How exactly is this discussion “testing” your scientific chops about the subject matter. How come you are wasting your “genius” on a page like this?
<br>
<br>And… One more time: Why do you feel compelled to be such a giant douchebag?
<br>
<br>Utu, here, seems to be very knowledgeable as well. And, s/he has also argued for some of the same points, without the douchebaggery that you project in every single post. Do you not realize how much credibility you are losing with your behavior and asinine “gotcha” comments? Do you talk to your students like this? How about your peers? Friends?
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 5:04 pm
<br>Lilaleo said:
<br>
<br>“And… One more time: Why do you feel compelled to be such a giant douchebag?
<br>
<br>Utu, here, seems to be very knowledgeable as well. And, s/he has also argued for some of the same points, without the douchebaggery that you project in every single post. Do you not realize how much credibility you are losing with your behavior and asinine “gotcha” comments? Do you talk to your students like this? How about your peers? Friends?”
<br>
<br>That is precisely why I “advised” Willy to answer Schmidt with…..”Nuh uhh”
<br>
<br>The book of Etiquette says:
<br>
<br>Always answer arrogant Douchebags with “Nuh uhh”, or “Huh?”
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 6:10 pm
<br>Lilaleo,
<br>
<br>strangely, I didn’t see you complaining about HR1 being such a dick and douchebag when I first posted here, trying to correct mistakes and answer challenges in a cool, concentrated and sober way. How he fought to derail the debate! What names he called me!
<br>
<br>Where were you then?
<br>Or perhaps you have resigned to HR1’s douchbaggery a long time ago?
<br>
<br>I have been reading this blog on and off for a few months, perhaps a year now. So far I was under the impression that mostly the discussion was high-level, well informed and intelligent. That assessment expressedly includes HR1, who generally came across to me as an educated, well-versed person, even when he was a dick abusing people not sharing his beliefs.
<br>
<br>Because that’s what it is – people have beliefs, and they bend their arguments and their facts to match their beliefs. The same intelligent and educated person can be spot-on with one claim, and totally nuts with the next. Perceptive and subtle with one, and blind to the elephant in the room a minute later.
<br>
<br>I think some of the main proponents of the “plane flew NoC and over the Pentagon” are as intelligent, and as honest, as some of the main proponents of the “plane flew SoC and into the Pentagon by remote control” theory. They accuse each other of being shills, detractors, moles, whatever.
<br>This is a very interesting topic to me.
<br>Similar things can be said about the various claims concerning the WTC collapses – nanothermite, DEW, nukes… I do not think that any of those “schools” is set up by the enemy or only populated with assholes or lunatics.
<br>
<br>Generally speaking, I find that almost all of these researchers are way outside of their fields – they are almost all amateurs in what they are doing.
<br>And so am I!
<br>
<br>And yes, Harrit and Jones are amateurs when it comes to forensic research, Farrer is an amateur in thermal testing, Legge and Chandler are amateurs in the field of … whatever the fields are that apply to researching the Pentagon incident. MacQueen and Griffin obviously are amateurs in every discipline of “9/11 research”. McKee is. AE911Truth boasts 2350 or whatever “experts”, their booklets and technical briefs however are written by a lawyer, a carpenter, a business student, a journalist. Ever wonder why that is?
<br>
<br>The 9/11 researcher nearest to being an expert that I can think of and have read a bit about is Tony Szamboti, although a mechanical engineer is not a forensic structural engineer. He happens to disagree with the Chandler mantra of “freefall at WTC7 means explosives on perimeter columns”, and I think Szamboti is right – and Chandler, and practically everyone at AE911Truth and in the larger 9/11 Truth community, is wrong about that (not saying there weren’t explosives at WTC7, just that “freefall” is no proof if it).
<br>
<br>I have studied Harrit et al. I have discussed it with chemists, with a structural engineer and an architect who both know a bit about structural steel coatings. I have communicated with a couple of experts in XEDS for months before I felt reasonably competent to discuss the basics of it. I have studied papers on inorganic pigments and their mineral precursors. I have seen pretty much all of the “nanothermite” papers out there. I have read training materials of a DSC manufacturer. I am privy to a few private conversations with Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Basile and Griscom about the red-gray chips. I have myself contacted Farnsworth. I have looked at all the data by Harrit et al, additional data by Jones, by Farrer, by Harrit, all the data so far released by Mark Basile, the Millette study, a study by Henry-Couannier – all on red-gray WTC chips. I have read blogs and debates between the authors and some of their critics, I have listened to hours of interviews.
<br>
<br>Farrer says that Millette’s chips look precisely like his own, and Millette has identified the composition of those chips completely: No thermite whatsoever. This is the shortest story that I can tell about the chips. Harrit et al is refuted absolutely.
<br>The next shortest story is the competent appraisal of the Harrit et al DSC data, which shows very clearly that the exotherm is NOT a thermite reaction – 95% to 100% of the energy MUST come from organic combustion. This, too, kills the Harrit et al paper totally, without hope of resurrection.
<br>
<br>The story here is that Harrit et al is a hopelessly flawed paper, it is absolutely CRAP – and yet, after more than 6 years, it seems that no Truther has lost faith in Harrit or Jones over that hoax! What does that tell us about the movement? -> It is faith based.
<br>
<br>I think there prevails the same attitude that you can see exemplary in HR1: People are intelligent and can be critical, but the moment certain core beliefs are challenged, all pretense of critical or scientific thinking goes overboard: Because the chips are not paint, facts firmly in evidence and natural laws must be false. Premises are derived from conclusions.
<br>
<br>Because no plane hit the Pentagon, any evidence must be faked. Because a plane hit the Pentagon, the witnesses must have been manipulated. Because there were explosives at WTC7, NIST are traitors. Because the twins were demolished, Jowenko is a patsy of the government, buying the Jewish MSM yarn hook, line and sinker. Because WTC7 was a CD, the Mossad killed Jowenko. Because Mineta said AA77 was approaching while he was in the bunker, all radar data, TV recordings, photographs of the Vice President, Secret Service logs and a dozend other testimonies must be faked. Actually, because Cheney is a naughty naughty boy, Mineta is right and inerrant and everyone else lies.
<br>
<br>There is a new star in the Truth skies over Europe – Johann Kalari, self-proclaimed civil engineer and “explosives master”. He saw the light a year ago or so and now speaks to everyone who couldn’t climb up a tree at the count of three. He is amazing: 2 of 3 claims of fact he utters are flat-out false – he misrepresents the claims he tries to sell. I think he is stupid, not impostor. When I alert him to all his mistakes – his standard reply is not to reject my correction, but to maintain that it doesn’t matter whether his claims are true, as long as we agree that the US government demolished the towers. This guy has opened a group on Facebook that has quickly grown to 4000+ members since summer. Every other day, some member posts an old hoax – Kalari never catches the hoax, and when alerted, doesn’t mind, as long as the hoax has a message of “Inside Job!”. People post Judy-Wood nonsense, nuke nonsense – Kalari doesn’t mind, as long as the message is “government bad – truth movement good”.
<br>
<br>This movement is pathological.
<br>
<br>And HR1 shows some interesting symptoms.
<br>
<br>What was the question again? Ah, right
<br>What is it exactly that you are after?
<br>Someone was wrong on the internet, and still is.
<br>
<br>Utu, here, seems to be very knowledgeable as well. And, s/he has also argued for some of the same points, without the douchebaggery that you project in every single post.
<br>utu has actually learned something here – has asked questions and accepted, after critical examination, some of the answers. I think utu doesn’t perceive my posting with him as douchebaggery – I respect him (or her?), he/she respects me. Why? Because we understand what the other understands.
<br>
<br>Contrast this with HR1. Did you notice the many false claims he makes?
<br>Did you notice how he neither presents evidence when pressed, nor retracts most of the false claims?
<br>Notice how he insults me, smears me, smears other, in lieu of arguments?
<br>THAT, my friend, is douchebaggery. “As you call into the forest, thus it will sound back”.
<br>
<br>utu
<br>November 3, 2015 at 7:42 am
<br>To Jens Schmidt
<br>
<br>Individua like HR1 are self appointed enforcers of core beliefs dogma. They are good at intimidation and impervious to arguments based on logic and facts. Their ignorance is actually of great help in doing their job. Accomplishments and talents of Zdhanov or Beria come to mind. Arguing with them can demonstrate to onlookers how dense and shameless they can be but it never causes any cracks in their beliefs.
<br>
<br>You are casting pearls…But why are you doing it is not clear to me. You cannot draw much satisfaction by defeating your inferiors. Certainly you have acquired lots of knowledge on subjects related to 9/11 and you have good writing skills. Why not use it for a constructive project in which you explain what in your opinion evidence shows and what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence and what extra evidence would be needed to demonstrate thesis A or B? Also an article explaining common mistakes in reasoning and data interpretation people make would be useful. What do you actually believe after your analyses? The are several camps. Each is populated by the believers in one particular dogma, though they do not see themselves as believers but as knowers. They actually believe that their beliefs is the state of knowing at which you arrive by a rational process. The smallest of all possible camps is the camp of skeptics who profess that they actually do not know. As a skeptic you are attacked by everybody. There was no room for skeptics during 30 Year War or during the Civil War. Are you a skeptic or one of the believers?
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 8:38 am
<br>@utu:
<br>I am warming up to the idea of writing a paper, or a series of papers, and this feels more and more like a dress rehearsal.
<br>
<br>utu
<br>November 3, 2015 at 8:47 am
<br>Good. Do it.
<br>
<br>Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)
<br>November 3, 2015 at 1:18 pm
<br>This is such a big letdown, Mr. Schmidt… I was so ready and willing to put aside your attitude issues and respect you for your brain and knowledge, but, after all the technical and “scientific” discourse, it just turns out that you are an intelligent, very knowledgable, but, at the same time, an unbearably shallow man. Your big excuse for the abrasive attitude you displayed here is “he did it first, how come you don’t call him a douchebag”???
<br>
<br>So, all this nonsense about sol-gels and schmol-gels that you had us read through, was nothing but a bar-fight you intentionally picked for some personal agenda that seems to come from a place of childish insecurity on your part. Someone else a little more comfortable in his skin, and more confident of his science might have argued the same points, with the same exact data points, in a much more level-headed and productive manner, winning the readers’, including HR1’s, respect at the end of it all. Now wouldn’t that have been swell? Oh well… Instead, since you felt he was “being a dick” to you, you went ahead and decided to show us all that you can be a much bigger dick. Just imagine how much negative (human) energy we could have been spared if you had written what you wrote in your post that I am replying to from the get go, presented your position on the papers/studies that you cite, given your credentials as you just did…
<br>
<br>HR1 is a known entity here, and stands tall on top of a mountain of his own words, available for all to see and read all over the Internet, and agree, disagree or rebut should they choose to do so. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can easily say even those of us who have occasionally been on the receiving end of his linguistic-ninja moves have eventually, through the test of time, learned to like and respect him for all that he is… Not for all that he is not. I genuinely hope that you would stick around long enough to earn the same.
<br>
<br>So, if we take away all the mutual insults you two have exchanged and just look at the substance, what have we accomplished here? Or, rather, what have you accomplished? Showed us that we can neither prove or disprove the flakes are paint chips or that they are not paint chips??? Whoop deedoo!!! I could have saved both of you (and utu) a lot of time and told you this from the get go. We can’t prove or disprove a plane hit pentagon, prove or disprove mineta was telling the truth, prove or disprove , beyond a reasonable doubt, that the plane flew north of Citgo any more than we can prove it was not Bizarro Superman who did it all with his DEW eyes. Proving others’ work wrong is easy… Show us how you can prove your own to be right!
<br>
<br>Which brings us to what I would consider are major misconceptions you seem to have about the so called truth movement. You correctly point out that most people involved in 9/11 research are amateurs, but fail to recognize the absurdity of this phenomenon in the arguably most technologically advanced nation on earth, and the reasons for it being so. You moan about how unsound the science behind the claims made by the people who cared to do work on the subject, without recognizing the twisted alternate reality of our times which either prevents, persuades or scares 99.9% of more capable scientists from asking very simple questions which may or may not have answers that contradict the official narrative. And while you talk about “people” with broad brush strokes and generalizing them, you seem to be unaware that you, yourself, are part of a different group of “people” who can’t seem to recognize the human factor to the shortcomings while they suffer from a different set of shortcomings themselves.
<br>
<br>But, perhaps more importantly, you seem to treat the ‘movement’ as if it were a level-field scientific and forensic research endeavor, while we have a few pathetic grams of flakes out of hundreds of thousands of tons of WTC and Pentagon building material and dust, almost zero funds, lack of access to evidence, witnesses, cutting edge equipment and facilities to carry out any experiments, or the support of accomplished scientists and engineers who’d be well capable of producing some pretty conclusive evidence at least on some of the issues discussed. Not to mention the fact that the movement operates against a well oiled, military grade propaganda and cover up operation that functions with unlimited funds, absolute impunity and lack of accountability, and under the protective umbrella of the technocratic power structure, their military, intelligence agencies, news organizations, gatekeepers and an army of shills and trolls and moles, some of whom seem to have, by hook or by crook, plopped themselves at the highest (so to speak) levels of the movement.
<br>
<br>I am assuming it is clear to most people here that you have an impressive intellect and IQ points to match (Which, by the way, is pretty much exactly how I would describe HR1.) The question then becomes what you will do with these qualities of yours. If your purpose is to disprove some widely held ‘beliefs’, scientific or otherwise, within the movement, I’d say don’t bother. It’s a forgone conclusion. You can comfortably assume that at least half of the evidence and so-called scientific conclusions were purposefully inserted into the mix by agents, moles and charlatans, and the other half is seriously lacking sound science and professional forensics as they are guided by emotions and prejudices. Even then, as many people here have pointed out, the onus is on the manufacturers of the official narrative to prove what they are saying is the truth… Which, they can accomplish extremely easily by producing a video of the plane crashing into Pentagon, by making evidence and key witnesses from all levels of government available to researchers and investigators, etc. etc. The truth about the lies we have been fed is not within the paint chips, but in the pudding we have been served, and its tangy, rancid flavor of cover up.
<br>
<br>The direct consequences of 9/11 has brought the world to a third world war in 14 years, and many millions have died, and many more will die in the next decade. For those of us who see the events in their historical context as opposed to seeing it as a scientific puzzle to be solved following error-free processes, and those of us who have spent years observing and analyzing the cover up, it’s size and its scope, feel that the exact science behind the collapses is far from being essential to identify the parties involved in this massive false-flag event perpetrated on not just the Americans, but the whole entire world. And, it is currently still in progress.
<br>
<br>I’m glad to see that you are leveling off your attitude and stating you might write “a paper or a series of papers”. I would strongly urge you and encourage you to do so. But do not be fooled into believing this here was a dress rehearsal. It was anything, but, as there are no real scientists here to call you up on your arguments. It was totally the wrong venue. I don’t need to be a scientist to be able to recognize that fact.
<br>
<br>What you choose to do with your intellect and IQ points is your business. But, what you have displayed here feels very misguided, immature, trivial, cocky, unwise, obnoxious, and outright a waste of your own time, as well as ours. So, if I may quote you, “THAT, my friend is douchebaggery.” It is sad, because you seem to be well capable of doing so much better, which, personally, was what I was hoping for. After all, good minds are hard to find, and it’s a shame to see it wasted.
<br>
<br>——–
<br>
<br>(One last thing… Just because I can’t resist asking… Were you the forest, or was HR1 in your little proverb there?)
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 2:29 pm
<br>@Lilaleo
<br>Long post read and acknowledged. You are right about a few things, even while I disagree with a few other things. Thanks.
<br>
<br>“you have an impressive intellect and IQ points to match (Which, by the way, is pretty much exactly how I would describe HR1.)”
<br>I expressed that myself when I wrote “mostly the discussion was high-level, well informed and intelligent. That assessment expressedly includes HR1, who generally came across to me as an educated, well-versed person…”
<br>
<br>“(One last thing… Just because I can’t resist asking… Were you the forest, or was HR1 in your little proverb there?)”
<br>Yes, I would have been the forest in my use of that proverb that HR1 would have been calling into.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 5:12 pm
<br>@Clyde
<br>“That is an odd generalized observation about “Truthers” and an odd conclusion about “the movement”.”
<br>My perception – it may be different from yours, and it may be inaccurate, but it is my perception – is that within the truth movement, there are only two groups of people who reject Harrit et al’s “nanothermite” findings:
<br>– People pushing “exotic” theories about the WTC destructions – DEW, nukes, that lot
<br>– People who believe all the death and destruction was caused by planes hijacked by Arab terrorists – as the official theory says – but that was consciously allowed and enabled by government agencies. The abbreviation “LIHOP” roughly describes that group.
<br>The mainstream of the Truth Movement believes there was explosive demolition, and within that mainstream, Harrit et al stands unopposed and almost sacrosanct.
<br>Same goes with the Chandler-mantra “freefall at WTC7 proves explosives on perimeter walls“.
<br>Would you agree or disagree?
<br>
<br>There is a lot of intelligence and even technical expertise assembled in that mainstream – and yet no one sees through the bogus!
<br>
<br>This raises an important question to me:
<br>WHY are all these people incapable of seeing the errors in fact and logic?
<br>It puts into doubt the epistemology that all these people apply.
<br>
<br>“Harrit’s paper may well be incompetent … I fail to see how that leads directly to the conclusion that failing to accept the official explanation of the events is an act of faith.”
<br>This is taking my statement farther than I intended. There are “schools” of thought in the movement, offering (partial) alternative explanations – such as nukes, DEW, nanothermite. I didn’t mean to say that “failing to accept the official explanation” is an act of faith, but rather that believing in those partial alternative explanations is. Do you know any truthers who have not at least some faith in nanothermite OR nukes OR DEWs? Despite all of these being bogus?
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 6:30 pm
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b> said:
<br>
<br>“Do you know any truthers who have not at least some faith in nanothermite OR nukes OR DEWs? Despite all of these being bogus?”
<br>
<br>Conversely:
<br>
<br>“Do you know any cognitive infiltrators who don’t have FANATICAL faith in Caveman Highjackers, AND 3,000 degree office fires AND paint chips from Hell?”
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 6:54 pm
<br>“…..despite all these things being the looniest harebrained nonsense anyone pretending to sanity could imagine”
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 4:09 pm
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b> said:
<br>
<br>“And so are your scurrilous efforts here at trying to hold a candle to me – and failing badly”
<br>
<br>Willy, I don’t want to sound like I’m telling you what to do…..I’m just offering some advice that has always worked for me.
<br>
<br>When Jens Schmidt says you can’t hold a candle to him…..just say:
<br>
<br>“Nuh uhh”
<br>
<br>It works for me all the time…..try it!
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 4:31 pm
<br>@SP2012:
<br>HR1 is at that level already.
<br>Even below.
<br>Saying “Nuh uhh” has the advantage of saving him from adding yet another stupidity on the large pile of false claims he hasn’t retracted in this thread ;)
<br>
<br>Today I have been posting mainly for the entertainment value of seeing HR1 stumble from one failure to the next to the next.
<br>
<br>This, while I am waiting for ruffadam to hopefully post links and sources where Jones and Harrit addressed this argument “about the red/grey chips being paint“.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 7:11 am
<br>@rediscover911com
<br>“Iron sperules were not produced by the Basile studies, were they?”
<br>You contradict yourself in the very next sentence:
<br>“Iron sperules were produced by combusting the red/gray chips.”
<br>
<br>Perhaps you mean Basile didn’t produce iron-rich spherules when burning paint? Probably – likely. I never claimed that it is the paint (the red layer) that produces the iron-rich spherules. I believe they come from heating the gray layer (oxidized iron).
<br>
<br>Anyway, let’s look at Basile’s entire presentation. He starts talking about his work on red-gray chips a bit before the 30 minutes mark:
<br>
<br>
<br>At 30:00 minutes, he shows a VLM image of chip #13. This is the chip that he later shows burning in the video.
<br>
<br>At 39:30 minutes, he shows the XEDS plot of the red layer of this chip #13. He finds it is only about 1.3 to 1.7% by weight Aluminium, has about the same amount of Silicon, and 1.7 to 2.6% Iron. It has, however, >70% Carbon! Since the carbon can’t be elemental (the would be either intensely black then, or diamond), it surely is bound – mostly with oxygen and with hydrogen (the latter generally doesn’t show in XEDS) – it is a hydrocarbon. Hydrocarbons typically have densities of around or under 1 g/cm^3, while thermite would average about 4 g/cm^3. If you assume a perfect mix of iron oxide and aluminium, and do your math right, you will find that the chip would contain under 5% by weight thermite and ober 80% by weight hydrocarbon. Applying the densities, that means the chip would be only about 1% by volume thermite. Applying specific energies for thermite (under 4 kJ/g) and typical organic binders (at least 20 kJ/g), you will find that the thermite could contribute under 0.2 kJ/g to an exotherm (5% of 4 kJ/g), while the organic matrix would contribute 16 kJ/g or more (80% of 20 kJ/g). So thermite would contribute less than 1.25% of the total energy of combustion.
<br>
<br>At 41:42, the video clip of chip #13 burning begins. Remember: 99% or more of the heat released in that video MUST have come from organic combustion! Unless you want to claim that Basile’s XEDS results are wrong.
<br>
<br>At 43:00: VLM of same chip #13 after burning – it looks charred, proving that indeed much of the organic matrix did react.
<br>
<br>At 43:07, a VLM image at higher resolution of some of the ash he collected from the same chip #13:
<br>The first thing you should notice is that, as in Harrit et al’s experiments, there is still a lot of red material left – the 2.6% iron with oxide didn’t even react to completion, further lowering the maximum possible contribution of a hypothetical thermite reaction!
<br>The second thing to notice is that the “iron droplets” are surprisingly large – it is difficult to discern what length the scale marke “200 µm” refers to, but it appears that several of these droplets are on that order of magnitude: A couple of hundred micrometers long. For a chip that started out only a dozen by two dozen hundreds of µm, that is a very significant percentage of the entire volume, especially considering that that less than 1% of the volume of the red layer would have been thermite, according to the XEDS data. With elemental iron being almost twice as dense as thermite, and iron being only 50% of the residue of the thermite reaction, the iron residue shoule be no more that 0.25% of the original volume of the red layer. That volume was approximately 1.6 mm x 2.1 mm x 0.05 mm = 0.168 cubic mm. 0.25% of that would be 0.00042 cubic mm. That is the maximum amount of elemental iron that would be possible if ALL the iron oxide in the red layer was involved in a perfect thermite reaction.
<br>0.00042 cubic mm could form a cube of 75 micrometers in each dimension. Four of the five droplets that Basile points to appear larger than that. It is therefore impossible that the droplets formed from the iron in the red layer!
<br>The third thing you should notice is that never accounts for the gray layer after burning. What happened to it? Where did it go? What does it look like?
<br>There is an obvious answer: The larger “iron droplets” formed from the gray layer, not the red paint!
<br>
<br>At 46:30, he shows a VLM of some particles, and at 47:00 a SEM image and corresponding elemental make-up from XEDS of the smaller particle in the center of 46:30. What do we have? 53% iron and 21.3% oxygen, or 2.5:1 by weight. That’s awfully close to the theoretical 2.33:1 you’d expect for fully oxidized iron (Fe2O3). Plus a good 8% of C, and 5 and 8% for Al and Si, respectively. Plus some Ca, Cr, and other bits and pieces. What’s this? Mostly iron oxide and aluminium silicate, with a good bit of soot. Best explanation would be that this did form from the paint. Too bad he didn’t zoom in with the SEM to show the nanoscale – I have little doubt we would see the familiar rhombic 100 nm iron oxide pigments and one of those kaolin (Si-Al-O) platelets.
<br>Why didn’t Basile show one of the larger droplets? I have little doubt they have little to no Al+Si, and instead would reveal about 1% Mn.
<br>
<br>Why doesn’t he show XEDS for the gray layer before and after? Harrit et al’s gray layer XEDS for chips a-d clearly has a small but significant hump at 5.9 keV, the K-alpha value of manganese – the gray layer is structural steel.
<br>
<br>“You have ignored this, Jens Schmidt”
<br>I have ignored nothing. You see, I know and understand ALL of his results – they actually contradict his conclusions.
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 7:38 pm
<br>“Jens Schmidt” ….. no, not that Jens Schmidt ….. the “other” “Jen Schmidt” said:
<br>
<br>“Bla..bla..bla…bla…bla!”
<br>
<br>Lilaleo asked:
<br>
<br>“Others have asked, but no reply has come forward from you, Jens.
<br>
<br>1. What is it exactly that you are after?
<br>
<br>2. Why are you discussing extreme technicalities here with people who are obviously and admittedly not engineers or scientist?
<br>
<br>3. Why here?
<br>
<br>4. How exactly is this discussion “testing” your scientific chops about the subject matter.
<br>
<br>5. How come you are wasting your “genius” on a page like this?”
<br>
<br>Enquiring minds want to know. “Jens”
<br>
<br>Your head seems large enough to hold an incredible amount of brains.
<br>
<br>Do you think you might be able to muster up enough brain power to answer those five simple questions….hmmm?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 8:22 am
<br>@HR1
<br>“I have to wonder if “our” Jens Schmidt watched the same video of Harrit, with the last part showing Mark Basile’s experiment.”
<br>I sure had watched both presentation – both Harrit’s and Basile’s entire presentations, before. I just discussed Basile’s entire presentation on his red-gray chip work here:
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36814
<br>Bottom line: Basile shows there is both too little Aluminium and too little Iron in the red layer to account for the heat release or the volume of the “iron spherules” (which, no doubt, are iron oxide blobs). Basile’s data refutes his “thermite” conclusion.
<br>
<br>“First Harrit clearly explains why the aluminum is so scarce”
<br>What? Where? No. Why do you make up stuff again?
<br>
<br>“and how it is separated from the silicon”
<br>No. He shows an apple (chip a) that obviously has Al and Si associated in those hexagonal platelets (kaolin clay), then he shows a banana he soaked in MEK where Si and Al are not associated.
<br>The proof that the latter chip is a banana and not an apple is Fig 14 compared to Fig 7. He acknowledges the obvious differences between the spectra – and then simply handwaves them! Claims “contamination” without providing evidence for that claim!
<br>
<br>Do you have the the Harrit et al paper handy? Please open it at Fig 14!
<br>Now please open this (December) 2009 presentation by Dr. Steven Jones, starting at about 1:14 hours:
<br>
<br>
<br>He presents results from an analysis of actual WTC primer, scratched off of column that is part of a monument now. The XEDS result is shown at 1:14:50 (the larger chart on the right).
<br>Now compare this to Fig 14, the XEDS of that banana chip before MEK soaking! Do you notice something?
<br>– Both are dominated by C and O (the usual hydrocarbon matrix), then Ca (erroneously labeled “C” in the Jones presentation)
<br>– Both have a LOT more Si than Al (this in contrast to chips a-d, which all have same amounts)
<br>– Both have some sulfur
<br>– Both have smaller but significant amounts of Zn, Mg (not labeled in Fig. 14), Al and Cr
<br>That MEK-soaked chip sure looke very different from chips a-d, but surprisingly similar to WTC column paint – do you see that, HR1?
<br>
<br>So Harrit clearly compares a banana with apples.)
<br>
<br>“both of which are in minute quantities after the the chip is burned.”
<br>They ought not be – elements don’t vanish, neither Al nor Si form volatile substances when burning. That is one main reason why Harrit, Jones and Basile FAIL: They fail to show the necessary residue of Al2O3., of which there should be a LOT more by volume than “iron droplets” (thermite residue is about the same masses of Fe and Al2O3, but Al2O3 only has half the density, so there should be twice the volume)!
<br>
<br>Not finding large amounts of Al2O3 is another killer for the thermite hypothesis, which we have by now killed at least four times!
<br>
<br>“Moving on to Basiles, experiment which clearly shows a thermitic reaction which results in the production of iron spheroids”
<br>No. See my other post, linked above.
<br>
<br>“Now why does this need to be explained over again to someone who actually watched and absorbed this video?”
<br>You failed to watch and absorb and UNDERSTAND the entire presentations, which have more data than you knew.
<br>Basiles own data kills thermite.
<br>
<br>You also quietly dropped the Harrit letter “Why the paint chips aren’t paint” – why? He briefly touches on that in his failed presentation, but the real big fail is in that letter itself!
<br>You should read the letter, fully, carefully. Check the premises, check the logic, check the math, check the conclusions.
<br>If you are intelligent, and are capable of independent, free thought, you, too, can find the several severe blunders in that letter that totally kill the conclusion three times over.
<br>In fact. as I will show you in due time, Harrit reveals new data in that letter that actually corroborates the “paint” hypothesis.
<br>
<br>So are you afraid to touch the Harrit letter now?
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 8:59 am
<br>“So are you afraid to touch the Harrit letter now?”~Schmidt
<br>
<br>The primer paint when dry is:
<br>
<br>> Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4) 34%
<br>> Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) 12 – 17%
<br>> Calcium silicates or aluminates 3.3 – 5.5%
<br>
<br>Put that on your heat strip and cook it.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 12:15 pm
<br>@HR1
<br>“The primer paint when dry is:
<br>> Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4) 34%
<br>> Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) 12 – 17%
<br>> Calcium silicates or aluminates 3.3 – 5.5%
<br>Did you check the assumptions, the source documents, the logic and the math that led to these percentages? Did you verify they are all correct?
<br>
<br>If you had done this (as I advised you to do at least twice), you might have noticed that
<br>– Harrit hat one crucial base assumption WRONG
<br>– Has another, less crucial, assumption very probably wrong
<br>– Harrit MISREADS one source documents
<br>– Harrit MISREPRESENT another source document
<br>– Harrit has got his math FAULTY.
<br>
<br>A chain of rather stupid mistakes led to this result. It is patently FALSE.
<br>
<br>The primer, when dry, EITHER is
<br>> 0% Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4)
<br>> 0%Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2)
<br>> 0% Calcium silicates or aluminates
<br>(and instead: 16% iron oxide Fe2O3, 12% Aluminium Silicate Al2Si2O5(OH)4, 1.1% Strontium Chromate SrCrO4)
<br>OR is approximately
<br>> 13-14% Iron Oxide (Fe2O3)
<br>> 7-8% Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4)
<br>> 3.5-4% amorphous silica (SiO2)
<br>> 12-13% other, unknown pigments, possibly including Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) and/or Calcium silicates or aluminates
<br>OR
<br>some other, as of yet unknown composition.
<br>
<br>Why? Because Harrit’s first and worst FALSE assumption is that all paint chips would have a composition according to the Tnemec Red 99 recipe as reported by Sramek 1967. This specification however only applies to the perimeter columns above the 9th floor.
<br>The floor joists were painted with another primer paint, one that has only the three pigments I listed in the first set of numbers.
<br>And it is quite possible that core columns, perimeter below the 9th floor, the hat truss, the antenna, and all the steel assemblies of WTC7 were painted with other primer formulations.
<br>
<br>The second (most probably) false assumption in Harrit’s letter is that he believes the Material Safety Data Sheet in Figure 4, valid I think for the year 2000, applies to the Tnemec composition of the late 60s or early 70s.
<br>
<br>He misrepresent that MSD sheet as describing the ingredients of the proprietary “Tnemec Pigment”, which was 33.7% of the total pigment, but it actually described the ready, wet paint, including all the oganic resin and thinners.
<br>
<br>He misreads the Tnemec composition (Figure 3): He thinks the percentages behind the individual pigments are based on the weigh of the ready wet painst as 100%. However, the four pigments add up to 100%, and the seven vehicle ingedients also add up to 100%! Zinc Yellow is 20.3% of the pigments, not of the paint! What is the proportion Pigments:Vehicle? We don’t know! But it is reasonable to assume that a proportion of 30:70 is plausible. Zinc Yellow would thus be 20.3% of the 30% that the Pigment are in the wet paint – that’s only 6.1% in the wet paint. Yes, thinners would probably evaporate during drying and curing, but because of the aforementioned blunders, Harrit overestimates the amount of thinners to subtract from the wet paint – his faulty math results in ~40% volatile ingredients, in reality it’s only ~22%.
<br>
<br>See? The world renowned, excellently published Professor Dr. Harrit commits error after error after error – and yet, 6 years laters, no Truther ever spoted all these glaring errors, and Harrit himself has not retracted this letter, of which he should rightfully be deeply ashamed!
<br>
<br>Now the floor joist primer composition
<br>71.5% epoxy
<br>16% iron oxide
<br>11.5% Aluminium Silicate
<br>1.1% Strontium Chromate SrCrO4
<br>happens to be an excellent match for Fig 5 (right) where Harrit reveals what Harrit et al concealed in Figure 7: That Chip a has small but significant signals for Strontium and Chromium!
<br>
<br>And the corrected Tnemec Red 99 composition seems to be a reasonable match for both Figure 6 in the Harrit letter (Fig 14 in Harrit et al) and the WTC column chip that Jones presented in Sydney.
<br>
<br>So you see: Harrit’s letter backfires: it actually corroborates the paint conclusion, once you correct for all the stupid mistakes Harrit links together.
<br>
<br>rediscover911com
<br>November 3, 2015 at 12:24 pm
<br>Jens wrote: “Blah, blah, blah”
<br>
<br>Controlled demolition, Jens. Iron spherules, Jen.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 1:12 pm
<br>“Yes, thinners would probably evaporate during drying and curing,”~Schmidt
<br>
<br>WTF do you mean “probably”??? I am a painter Schmidt, don’t try to blow smoke up my ass.
<br>
<br>> Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4) 34%
<br>> Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) 12 – 17%
<br>> Calcium silicates or aluminates 3.3 – 5.5%
<br>
<br>Comes to about 56% of the ingredients, the other 35% would be solvents.
<br>
<br>As per your further assumptions asserted as facts…. well, as others have said here;
<br>“Bla bla bla” & more “Bla bla bla”
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 2:13 pm
<br>@HR1
<br>WTF do you mean “probably”??? I am a painter Schmidt, don’t try to blow smoke up my ass.
<br>I am not a painter. I am not 100% sure how each paint is applied and how each paint reacts when curing.
<br>There are paints where nothing evaporates and no weight loss occurs.
<br>I am merely hedging my claim with the qualifier “probably”.
<br>But I am glad that you agree with Harrit and me on that particular point.
<br>
<br>Comes to about 56% of the ingredients, the other 35% would be solvents.
<br>LOL
<br>56+35=100?
<br>
<br>Harrit did not list the other pigments – the iron oxide and and the diatomaceous silica. He arrived at those numbers by dividing the listed pigment content by 0.6. Do that to the other pigments:
<br>Iron oxide 35.9% -> divided by 0.6 -> 59.8%
<br>Silica 10.1% -> divided by 0.6 -> 16.8%
<br>Add those to the 56%, and the pigments are 133% of the ingredients.
<br>LMAO!
<br>
<br>As per your further assumptions asserted as facts…. well, as others have said here; “Bla bla bla” & more “Bla bla bla”
<br>You have finally hit rock bottom.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 3, 2015 at 2:37 pm
<br>“LOL 56+35=100?”~Schmidt
<br>
<br>Lol, yea, okay next time I will pick up a pencil instead of guesstimating off the top of my head.
<br>We are in the ballpark anyway.
<br>
<br>So you posit, GUESS, that the primer has some micaceous iron oxide. And you are obviously proposing that this could in some way account for the microspheres in the residue of burning a primer of such.
<br>
<br>How?
<br>
<br>How to you propose this would happen without subjecting it to temperatures in the range of 1,150 to 1,200 °C? Are you seriously contending that the approximate 450° ignition range used in Basile’s experiments could possibly achieve this? These are dried chips, there is no benzine available for coking them.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>@utu
<br>“Not true. Harrit claims that microsphers are Fe rich products left by thermitic 2Al+F2O3 reaction.”
<br>He claims, but doesn’t prove, and in fact we have been over the many reasons to reject the “thermite” conclusion – haven’t we?
<br>Harrit essentially claims that “thermite” is the ONLY process that could form such spherules. It is a bare assertion. He hasn’t demonstrated that the iron-rich particles are really iron, he hasn’t demonstrated Al2O3 as the other necessary thermite product, he hasn’t shown that there was a sufficient quantity of elemental Al before the reaction, if any at all.
<br>
<br>He speculates.
<br>
<br>With so much organic matrix surrounding the pigments, there is also a significant heat sink that would make it very difficult for the brew to reach the melting point of iron or iron oxide.
<br>
<br>He speculates, and for all that you can see, I speculate about the formation of those round shapes.
<br>
<br>“ Burden is on you since you reject thermitic reaction you speculate on some exotic to me chemical reactions. Benzene?”
<br>No, burden is on them for their claim.
<br>Burden would be on my for my claim.
<br>I do not “claim” benzene, I suggest it as one of many possibilities. Epoxy is a heavily crosslinked hydrocarbon network with plenty of benzene rings. I don’t know if benzene is released when epoxy decomposes at a bit above 400 °C, but if it does, it could reduce iron oxide. That would change the crystal structure of the gray layer lattice, and could give rise to shape changes, with spherical being the energetically prefered.
<br>
<br>“If the spheres were formed in the process (i.e., they were not pre-existent and hidden) high temperature is implied.”
<br>I agree that they probably weren’t pre-existent.
<br>We do have high temperatures;
<br>DSC went to controlled 700 °C
<br>Flame test by Harrit et al could exceed 2000 °C just from the flame tip
<br>We have not the slightest idea how hot Basiles steel heating strip got – might exceed 700 °C – we don’t know.
<br>So there WAS heat, plenty of heat to enable a lot of reactions.
<br>
<br>“So it was melting or release of Fe by one of the oxides. To form a sphere a melted Fe had exist for a brief moment but long enough that surface tension could form a sphere”
<br>I don’t think that bulk melting is the only process that results in round shapes. Condensing and sintering are two others.
<br>
<br>But again, I don’t have an explanation yet.
<br>And neither does Harrit, because they have failed to identify thermite or thermite residues.
<br>
<br>utu
<br>November 4, 2015 at 1:30 am
<br>Harrit claims that he has thermite and on basis of thermite he explains iron rich spheres.
<br>You claim there is no thermite and you do not know how to explain spheres.
<br>
<br>On the basis of evidence (Harrit +Millette) at best you can prove that Harritt did not prove what he claimed but you cannot disprove his claim.
<br>
<br>You got to accept that even if you can demonstrate all the faults in Harrit et al. methodology you cannot prove there was no thermite. But for some reason you blur this distinction and keep sneaking in arguments for the stronger case. And you do not have it.
<br>
<br>I am glad that at least you admit you do not how to explain iron rich spheres without invoking thermite. Harrit et al. invokes thermite so he does not have your problem.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 4, 2015 at 7:28 am
<br>Utu,
<br>
<br>I owe you an apology, so here it is. Although I do not agree with your final assessment here, and do think that the Jones-Harrit paper sufficiently proves the presence of a sol-gel energetic; I no longer think that you have been disingenuous here.
<br>
<br>I accused you of being in partnership with Schmidt. I no longer think that is so. You were no more in partnership with him than I was. We were both duped into a long squabble that ended up in the weeds of uncertainty.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>utu
<br>November 4, 2015 at 8:02 am
<br>Thank you for writing this comment. I do not know what to think of Jens Schmidt but he is not trying to find truth as I thought initially or convince other of his truth as I began to suspect later but he is on some warpath. He was all the time at each stage of discussion disingenuous in some way.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>November 4, 2015 at 4:54 am
<br>I estimate that the number of “dumbed down” people vs the enlightened ones runs anywhere from 90% to 97% dumbed down with 3% to 10% being enlightened.
<br>
<br>In my opinion those ratio’s have always been about at that level from as far back in time as you want to look.
<br>
<br>That is not a bad thing though and here is why: Even if the full 97% of the population is “dumbed down” that still leaves 3% who are wise to the game that is being played here. The American revolution was fought and won by 3% of the population and 3% of America today is about 9.5 million people. That is an army of 9.5 million really smart people vs a very tiny cabal of arrogant criminal scumbags who happen to be in positions of power.
<br>
<br>This tiny cabal may count the 97% as being on their side but here is why they are wrong: The 97% are not on anyone’s side simply because they are sheep and they will go wherever the sheep herder leads them. So who is the sheep herder? I think it is us the 3%. I think we are winning the information war and winning it BIG. That makes us the sheep herder and ultimately the victorious side. The cabal who pulled off 9/11 are dead meat and the noose is tightening around their necks. They have already lost the information war and that means that slowly but surely they are going to lose control over everything. The guilty will swing from trees soon enough the only question remaining is how much damage they can do on their way to the gallows. Make no mistake their ass is grass.
<br>
<br>Hell we already know who most of the perps are for 9/11 and there is a growing population of people who are learning the truth. Their fate is sealed, they are going to swing.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>November 4, 2015 at 4:32 am
<br>Just to point out once again the original topic of discussion here was Jenkins using deceptive language to imply that A+E support his and Chandlers pentagon position. Well that is indeed deceptive and dishonest and I think Jenkins should respond to this serious allegation. Since Jenkins is very unlikely to respond and Chandler has no intention of responding I consider the allegation to be unchallenged.
<br>
<br>I find it just a bit too convenient that at least one new person has shown up here on T+S who seems very intent on changing the subject to a very technical one involving the red/grey chips identified by Jones and Haritt. More than half the thread is now flooded with this off topic discussion. In previous threads it would have fallen to agent Wright to disrupt the thread and challenge the truthers positions with an off topic post. Now it seems to have been kicked upstairs to a more sophisticated agent of disruption who has none the less succeeded in derailing the discussion.
<br>
<br>Bottom line for me at this point is that T+S must be a real thorn in the side of the bad guys to attract so many and such sophisticated disruptors.
<br>
<br>I do not think Jones findings have been challenged at all. Personally I think it is an argument meant to baffle us with bullshit and a lot of it. The towers were clearly blown up with explosives and clearly thermite/nano-thermite was involved in the destruction at some level. However that is NOT the topic under discussion here. This topic is about Jenkins and his pentagon position.
<br>
<br>Does not anyone else see what is going on in this thread? Schmidt needs to take his argument up with Jones and Haritt where in my opinion he will be quickly and decisively dispatched. I want to talk about Jenkins and the disinfo team that this article is all about. I am not interested in a highly technical argument about what certain lab equipment can and cannot detect because frankly Schmidt could say literally anything about it and I have no real way to evaluate his statements. Jones and Haritt are the ones to talk to. Frankly I am sick of this discussion being derailed.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>November 4, 2015 at 7:20 am
<br>“Jones and Haritt are the ones to talk to. Frankly I am sick of this discussion being derailed.” ~Adam Ruff
<br>
<br>As one of the main participants in this derailment I am in total agreement with Mr Ruff.
<br>Learning not to get suckered into these carousels is difficult, even when you realize that is all it is, an endless carousel ride to the boondocks of distraction.
<br>
<br>As an excuse, and that is all it is in this context, I felt that logic and proportion should be defended. Oft times revealing the techniques of a provocateur are beneficial.
<br>
<br>And on that note, although I don’t agree with Utu’s final assessment, I have changed my mind as to him/her being in a covert partnership with Schmidt. I think Utu was taken in and is honestly trying to figure out the truth of a fairly complex argument.
<br>
<br>As it is said, “we live and learn” — sometimes redundantly, over and over again!
<br>\\][//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 226 -->
<a name="x227"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x227" class="tiny">x227</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_227');">trolls are tripping all over themselves to post their garbage here</a></p>
<p>2015-10-19 through 2015-11-05</p>
<div id="sect_227" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>October 19, 2015 at 7:07 pm
<br>I think the fact that trolls are tripping all over themselves to post their garbage here is a very positive sign. The more of them that show up and the harder they try the more damage I know these recent articles are doing to the perps. It seems to me that when there is a really hard hitting piece done here, or elsewhere for that matter, that the trolls just gurgle forth from their caves in mass and try every trick in the book to ruin the discourse or to distract from the point. The more the trolls get worked up into a lather the more I know we are having an effect on them, the more I know the noose is tightening around their necks. Great article Craig. I think I am going to buy a copy of Massimo’s film today! The unedited version of course, not the Jenkins cut.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>October 20, 2015 at 6:59 am
<br>Sheila,
<br>
<br>Legge and crew simply used the CD argument to build up credibility capitol since the truth movement had already proved that the towers were demolished. This way the agent(s) lose nothing by admitting to or even appearing to support CD. Later on they trade in their free credibility capitol so they can do more damage to the truth movement on issues that are more dangerous to the perps, like the pentagon for example. Chandler and some of the others may just be dupes fooled by Legge’s flim flam or they may be operatives too. We will never know for sure without a whistle blower coming forward. I do know one thing though, one or more of these people are working for the other side and they are doing everything in their power to suppress the pentagon evidence. The good news is their mission is a failure and they are completely and utterly discredited.
<br>f
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 7:42 pm
<br>Jens,
<br>
<br>I see no reason whatsoever that you should not write a paper with all your idea’s regarding the nano-thermite issue in it and present it to Jones and Harrit and the rest of the truth community so they and we can respond to it. You claim to have uncovered serious flaws in their (Jones and Harrit) analysis so why not present them in a concise paper so they can be responded to?
<br>
<br>Have you done so already? If so please direct me to your paper/presentation. What is the point of arguing your contentions here where neither Jones or Harrit will respond?
<br>
<br>I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit. I will try to find my sources for this claim but will need some time. I do recall that there were some very clear proofs that the chips could not have been paint or primer presented in either a paper or in a video which I will endeavor to find.
<br>
<br>So far though, and this is just my opinion, Jens it seems to me that you are missing the forest because of the trees. There are overlapping pieces of evidence that point to thermite/nano-thermite which cannot be explained away as paint or primer. For example the liquified metal seen pouring out from the tower in several videos. Surely you are not saying that was caused by office fires reacting with (take your pick)? It seems very clear to me that this was molten metal pouring out which from my understanding could not be produced by burning office contents of paint or primer. Does your theory of what happened explain the molten metal pouring out of the tower? Jones and Harrits theory does.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>October 31, 2015 at 7:52 pm
<br>Several typo’s in the above which I could not correct after it was posted. They are as follows:
<br>
<br>I said: “I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit.”
<br>
<br>I meant to say: “I have seen this argument before about the red/grey chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit.”
<br>
<br>I said: “could not be produced by burning office contents of paint or primer.”
<br>
<br>I meant to say: “could not be produced by burning office contents or paint or primer.”
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br>November 2, 2015 at 4:31 pm
<br>@SP2012:
<br>HR1 is at that level already.
<br>Even below.
<br>Saying “Nuh uhh” has the advantage of saving him from adding yet another stupidity on the large pile of false claims he hasn’t retracted in this thread ;)
<br>
<br>Today I have been posting mainly for the entertainment value of seeing HR1 stumble from one failure to the next to the next.
<br>
<br>This, while I am waiting for ruffadam to hopefully post links and sources where Jones and Harrit addressed this argument “about the red/grey chips being paint“.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>November 4, 2015 at 4:54 am
<br>I estimate that the number of “dumbed down” people vs the enlightened ones runs anywhere from 90% to 97% dumbed down with 3% to 10% being enlightened.
<br>
<br>In my opinion those ratio’s have always been about at that level from as far back in time as you want to look.
<br>
<br>That is not a bad thing though and here is why: Even if the full 97% of the population is “dumbed down” that still leaves 3% who are wise to the game that is being played here. The American revolution was fought and won by 3% of the population and 3% of America today is about 9.5 million people. That is an army of 9.5 million really smart people vs a very tiny cabal of arrogant criminal scumbags who happen to be in positions of power.
<br>
<br>This tiny cabal may count the 97% as being on their side but here is why they are wrong: The 97% are not on anyone’s side simply because they are sheep and they will go wherever the sheep herder leads them. So who is the sheep herder? I think it is us the 3%. I think we are winning the information war and winning it BIG. That makes us the sheep herder and ultimately the victorious side. The cabal who pulled off 9/11 are dead meat and the noose is tightening around their necks. They have already lost the information war and that means that slowly but surely they are going to lose control over everything. The guilty will swing from trees soon enough the only question remaining is how much damage they can do on their way to the gallows. Make no mistake their ass is grass.
<br>
<br>Hell we already know who most of the perps are for 9/11 and there is a growing population of people who are learning the truth. Their fate is sealed, they are going to swing.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>November 4, 2015 at 4:32 am
<br>Just to point out once again the original topic of discussion here was Jenkins using deceptive language to imply that A+E support his and Chandlers pentagon position. Well that is indeed deceptive and dishonest and I think Jenkins should respond to this serious allegation. Since Jenkins is very unlikely to respond and Chandler has no intention of responding I consider the allegation to be unchallenged.
<br>
<br>I find it just a bit too convenient that at least one new person has shown up here on T+S who seems very intent on changing the subject to a very technical one involving the red/grey chips identified by Jones and Haritt. More than half the thread is now flooded with this off topic discussion. In previous threads it would have fallen to agent Wright to disrupt the thread and challenge the truthers positions with an off topic post. Now it seems to have been kicked upstairs to a more sophisticated agent of disruption who has none the less succeeded in derailing the discussion.
<br>
<br>Bottom line for me at this point is that T+S must be a real thorn in the side of the bad guys to attract so many and such sophisticated disruptors.
<br>
<br>I do not think Jones findings have been challenged at all. Personally I think it is an argument meant to baffle us with bullshit and a lot of it. The towers were clearly blown up with explosives and clearly thermite/nano-thermite was involved in the destruction at some level. However that is NOT the topic under discussion here. This topic is about Jenkins and his pentagon position.
<br>
<br>Does not anyone else see what is going on in this thread? Schmidt needs to take his argument up with Jones and Haritt where in my opinion he will be quickly and decisively dispatched. I want to talk about Jenkins and the disinfo team that this article is all about. I am not interested in a highly technical argument about what certain lab equipment can and cannot detect because frankly Schmidt could say literally anything about it and I have no real way to evaluate his statements. Jones and Haritt are the ones to talk to. Frankly I am sick of this discussion being derailed.
</p>
</div><!-- section 227 -->
<a name="x228"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x228" class="tiny">x228</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_228');">Blessed for having read? Did they find any good on which to hold fast?</a></p>
<p>2015-10-29</p>
<div id="sect_228" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1446132810655#c740310857317140215">2015-10-29</a>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html?showComment=1446132912539#c1866066959330236613">2015-10-29</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Ruff and Mr. Whitten,
<br>
<br>I am a sincere seeker of Truth. Recently I was taken aback by this quotation:
</p>
<blockquote><i>"The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim."</i> ~Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931)</blockquote>
<p>Certainly dovetails with:
</p>
<blockquote><i>"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."</i> ~Mark Twain</blockquote>
<p>Inspiration to present conditions -- even on the themes of 9/11 -- can often be found in biblical passages. For instance:
</p><blockquote>I Thessalonians 5:21: <i>"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."</i></blockquote>
<p>
<blockquote>Revelations 1:3: <i>"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."</i></blockquote>
<p><b>Are Mr. Ruff or Mr. Whitten blessed for having read <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">4th generation nuclear weapons</a>? In "proving" or "testing" it, did they find any good on which to hold fast?</b>
<br>
<br>Why am I communicating with them? Why am I bringing this up? Because Mr. Ruff wrote on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-34973">October 5, 2015 at 8:32 pm</a>:
<br>+++
<br><i>To me the fact that the "team" refuses all discussion of these issues indicates deception on their part. A truther (a real one) does not shy away from addressing challenges to his or her work. In fact real truthers relish the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove their hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one.</i>
<br>+++ end quote
<br>
<br>Then on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-36396">October 29, 2015 at 8:32 am</a>, Mr. Ruff repeats:
<br>+++
<br><i>A genuine truther would face opponents in the open and if he was shown to be in error he would change his stance and embrace the truth regardless of personal considerations. That is what real truthers do.</i>
<br>+++ end quote
<br>
<br>Using Mr. Ruff's own definitions:
<br>
<br>- Mr. Ruff is not a truther (a real one). (a) He doesn't have any permanent work: articles, blogs, etc. to support his no-nukes on 9/11 premise. (b) If we graciously include statements that he made on T&S and my blog as his work, Mr. Ruff has totally shied away from addressing challenges to it. No show for quite some time. (c)_ "Blessed is he that readeth", therefore blessed is ~not~ Mr. Ruff who boasted of not reading my postings or reference materials.
<br>
<br>- Mr. Whitten is not a truther (a real one). (a) He won't make comments on my blog. (b) He won't allow my comments on his blog. [(c1) He won't participate on Facebook, despite it being perfect for him, his belligerent style, and his penchance for cycling through repetitive arguments.] (c2) "Blessed is he that readeth", therefore blessed is ~not~ Mr. Whitten who admitted not finishing Dr. Wood's book and then perpetuated for two years a lie about having destroyed the book in order to avoid discussions. Why? <i>"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."</i> [I Thessalonians 5:21]
<blockquote><i><b>hypocrisy:</b> the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.</i></blockquote>
<p>In the past, I <i>"relished the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove my hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one."</i> Thus, I was the real truther.
<br>
<br>Not so much any more, owing to 14 years since 9/11 and the crushing reality of the difficulty in convincing others how they've been fooled.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 228 -->
<a name="x229"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x229" class="tiny">x229</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_229');">a provocateur very good at rhetoric</a></p>
<p>2015-11-18</p>
<div id="sect_229" style="display: none;">
<p>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-37343">November 18, 2015 at 11:15 am</a>
<br>“You think that I am a stooge and shill, don’t you?”~Jen Schmidt — in a comment to me higher above.
<br>
<br>Yes indeed I do Schmidt. I am convinced that you are a provocateur. One that is very good at rhetoric. And by rhetoric, I mean bullshitting; making seemingly plausible arguments out of hot air.
<br>
<br>You assert that I find anyone who disagrees with me a stooge and shill. This is a statement drawn from how long a familiarity with me? If it is a familiarity longer than a couple weeks now, then I would suspect you have a file on me.
<br>
<br>Your complaint is more one of a tepid attempt at self defense against those of us who are intimately familiar with the Intelligence community, who know and recognize the MO of agents provocateur. Your profile is unmistakable Schmidt.
<br>
<br>While there is the benefit of the doubt for Uto and Brotherton, in that they are likely just lazy thinking fools, you are a different creature all together. You are an apologist and toady for the criminal state.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>from: Maxwell C. Bridges <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>to: Willy Whitten <stampfever11@gmail.com>
<br>cc: unspunnewz <ruffadam2003@yahoo.com>
<br>bcc: Craig McKee <craigmckee45@yahoo.ca>
<br>date: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM
<br>subject: [New comment] Going full debladder: provocateur
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Whitten,
<br>
<br>You should be grateful that I am not participating on T&S. Mr. Jens Schmidt is more than a match for you, doesn't need my help, and pings my curiosity in his true underlying vector in the discussions with you. I considered his points (and yours) objectively, and I agree with his arguments [including the shill take-down.]
<br>
<br>Demonstrating my continued naiveity, I am astonished that you aren't having any "ah-ha moments" from your discussions with Mr. Schmidt, which would have you ratchet back the autodictat snark and coolly reconsider your position on NT. Remember that I had found NT unreasonable as the primary cause from other directions. If you were a sincere and honest participant, by golly these would be two data points in a trend line to get your hard-and-fast opinions waffling (if I didn't suspect those opinions were really "agendas").
<br>
<br>Although I don't know whether or not Mr. Schmidt is a duped useful idiot like myself, I do know that he rings more sincerity and technical understanding than you, in part because I have known you way longer. [Whatever inspired you to perpetuate the lie about having physically destroyed Dr. Wood's book for literally years? El-oh-el, talk about the gift that keeps on giving and a cherry-on-top of failing a simple objectivity test.]
<br>
<br>I don't know what to think of Mr. Utu. But you've got Mr. Sockpuppet2012 and Mr. RuffAdam slapping you on the back. "Projecting" is a recent theme that they discuss, but interesting that you seem to exhibit in this very comment below.
<br>
<br>Mr. Utu gets it right in calling you out for your got-it-in-the-morning-all-day sour attitude. You are rude. On purpose to derail discussion topics that are uncomfortable or that you can't control. Data points in your trend line, Mr. Whitten.
<br>
<br>Reminds me of an experience I had with an agent before your time. He had cornered himself with banning worthy offenses in a forum; I escalated with the admins because it was aimed at me. Ironically parallel with Mr. Whitten's near banishment from COTO and self-imposed exile. But the banishment didn't stick, and the agent bounced right back. And not under some new alias, which would have been so easy for this admitted IT professional to do, having access to multiple email accounts and IP addresses. No, he bounced back in less than a week with the exact same alias. When confronted about his return, he said that he didn't want to but he was asked to come back. The implication was the establishment hosting the forum asked him to participate and to continue to stomp his black-boots down on the voices of others [non-traditional themes]; the establishment enabled through IT means his return, because somehow his "services" were deemed beneficial.
<br>
<br>The moral of that story is also a lesson from Hollywood. Namely, your production has to have an antagonist -- the nastier the better -- or you won't inspire interest and emotions in the audience requisite for them to get attached and follow.
<br>
<br>So Mr. Whitten, I can rationally understand why Mr. McKee tolerates you. Your posting count alone increases the page hit counts [useful bragging rights for job seeking in Mr. McKee's profession and for advertisement], and you are the circus act, the carnival barker, the provocateur.
<br>
<br>I look forward to the new article about Mr. Schmidt on your blog and its dedicated comments, Mr. Whitten. You're going to need it, sooner than later. Use it to gather your arguments. If you've learned nothing from your blog postings in homage to me, your off-T&S efforts against Mr. Schmidt need to be clean and void of your clever "whitten" ad hominem, otherwise links that you make from T&S to it will ultimately discredit you (further). Clean slate for Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Whitten. Resist the urge to post about him under your blog entries dedicated to me. FTR, I state again that I am not Mr. Schmidt, uttered out of fairness so you can avoid alias-ASS-ociating whomp-ass from two directions.
<br>
<br>Where is Mr. Schmidt's argument headed? His nuclear statements to date straddled the fence. What is important is that he is legitimating taking down NT, so that the true causes of the WTC destruction can be discussed. Maybe he's championing 4th generation nuclear devices. Or maybe another shoe will drop. I don't know.
<br>
<br>Stooge Larry or Curly you seem to be, Mr. Whitten, with your "Moe! Moe! Moe!" comments. Or was it M.O.? El-oh-el.
<br>
<br>There is also at your disposal as an option: STFU. Given your sour attitude and your repeated expressions of being tired of the same types of carousel rides, maybe you are the one who should get off, get out, and go some where else. [Facebook calls you.]
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 229 -->
<a name="x230"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x230" class="tiny">x230</a>
David Hazan (@Lilaleo) : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_230');">put dicks back in pants</a></p>
<p>2015-11-18</p>
<div id="sect_230" style="display: none;">
<p><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-37367">November 18, 2015 at 5:43 pm</a>
<br>Jens, Utu an HR1,
<br>
<br>OK, gentlemen (so to speak)…. Time for everyone to put their dicks back in their pants. This has become a ghastly sight, and a discussion that no one is benefiting from… (and I really wish someone on this blog with bigger feathers than myself would have intervened)
<br>
<br>Jens… From almost your first few comments here at T&S, it was clear to me that you were not only a douchebag, but you also had some ulterior motive to your toxic dickishness… A very common mistake that smart people make is that they assume they can, and will outsmart everyone, forgetting that their words are a window into there souls, character, intentions and motives…. And god knows you have exposed way too many of your windows here… <i><b>That</b></i> is your biggest weakness my douchebag friend… And that is exactly why all your IQ points will never yield any <b>wisdom</b>, which, for civilized argumentation, is a pre-requisite. If you are saying, “forget about my character and/or wisdom, you can’t prove me wrong on my scientific analysis”, then take your analysis to a more appropriate venue. You can decide where.
<br>
<br><i>(And, if you are gonna go “how come you don’t call HR1 or Utu douchebags?” like last time, it’s because Utu is not one… He argues all his points with decorum, whether I agree with them or not… As for HR1, you are welcome to reread my previous reply to that question)</i>
<br>
<br>Watch out with that zipper now…
<br>
<br>All the best.
</p>
</div><!-- section 230 -->
<a name="x231"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x231" class="tiny">x231</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_231');">Why doesn't Mr. Whitten get legitimately pegged as a "douchebag" too?</a></p>
<p>2015-11-18</p>
<div id="sect_231" style="display: none;">
<p>from: Maxwell C. Bridges <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>to: Willy Whitten <stampfever11@gmail.com>
<br>cc: unspunnewz <ruffadam2003@yahoo.com>
<br>bcc: Craig McKee <craigmckee45@yahoo.ca>
<br>date: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:36 PM
<br>subject: [New comment] Going full debladder
<br>
<br>I forgot to mention Mr. Hazan (Lilaleo), a person Mr. Whitten allows to post comments on his blog. Now a good buddy.
<br>
<br>Mr. Hazan writes that Mr. Utu argues his points with decorum, thus being spared being called a "douchebag". However, the same cannot be said about Mr. Whitten. Why doesn't Mr. Whitten get legitimately pegged as a "douchebag" too?
<br>
<br>In a word: hypocrisy.
<br>
<br>In a phrase: team work.
<br>
<br>Mr. Schmidt has legitimately trounced Mr. Whitten on the topics. Mr. Whitten has shot his wad by promising to get off the carousel. Therefore, tag-teaming Mr. Hazan must step in.
<br>
<br>But I still look forward to Mr. Whitten's new blog entry focused on Mr. Schmidt's argument. Of course, we know this man-date will be beyond Mr. Whitten's abilities and a character assassination (has and) will ensue.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 231 -->
<a name="x232"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x232" class="tiny">x232</a>
hybridrogue1, sockpuppet2012 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_232');">carousel has gone on too long; I have had enough</a></p>
<p>2015-11-18</p>
<div id="sect_232" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-37358">November 18, 2015 at 3:13 pm</a>
<br>“There is no need to address any of the content in the previous context, as HR1 failed to provide any evidence to support his fantasies about me.”~Schmidt
<br>
<br>We are supposed to take your denials of being a stooge at face value? Lol
<br>Preposterous. The permanent members of this site are not so childish as to believe such empty denials.
<br>
<br>This carousel has gone on too long. Blab on as you will. I have had enough of your bullshit.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-37371">November 18, 2015 at 6:12 pm</a>
<br>HR1 said:
<br>
<br>“We are supposed to take your denials of being a stooge at face value? Lol
<br>Preposterous. The permanent members of this site are not so childish as to believe such empty denials”
<br>
<br>Jens Schmidt said:
<br>
<br>“The non-childish members of this site will see that your accusations are empty, as they are void of supporting evidence”
<br>
<br>Wrong, Mr. Schmidt!
<br>
<br>HR1 has already said “it’s your MO”
<br>
<br>It is not necessarily the content of your comments…..it is the fact that you are here at ALL that brands you as an Agent.
<br>
<br>We wonder what you are doing here.
<br>
<br>You were asked before what you were doing here on a PENTAGON thread talking about nano-thermite.
<br>
<br>Your limp answer was:
<br>
<br>“I just wanted to see how my information would be received”
<br>
<br>But you saw how it was received in the first hour…..what was your excuse after that?…..and why on a Pentagon thread?
<br>
<br>What could possibly motivate you to spend hours a day…..day in, day out, arguing with people you seem to see as delusional?
<br>
<br>By your comments, I get the impression that you see Steven Jones, Neils Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer and others as crack-pots or attention seekers.
<br>
<br>What, in the name of sanity do you hope to accomplish here???
<br>
<br>Are you motivated by magnanimity?…..are you sacrificing your leisure time that you could be spending with your wife and children, in hopes of delivering one or more of us from our delusions?
<br>
<br>Are you motivated by Narcissism?….do you “get off” by showing how “smart” you are?
<br>
<br>I compare your actions to my own actions if I was to spend hours a day, day in, day out, arguing on a Crop Circle forum.
<br>
<br>I can imagine the Crop Circlers finally asking me:
<br>
<br>“Uhh…..excuse me Mr. Sockpuppet, but the people on this Forum have been discussing you in private conversations, and we have come up with some questions we would like you to answer before we engage in any more debate with you”
<br>
<br>1. What could possibly motivate you to come onto this Crop Circle Forum and spend hours and hours, day after day showing off your vast knowledge of geometry, trigonometry, botany, horticulture and geology, when you seem to think we are nuts?
<br>
<br>2. What do you hope to accomplish?
<br>
<br>3. Is your life so empty and meaningless that you are driven to prove yourself superior and more intelligent than others?
<br>
<br>4. Are you religiously motivated?….do you hope to win some souls from the “deception” of Crop Circles?
<br>
<br>Ok, Mr. Schmidt…..what could my answer possibly be to the Crop Circlers?
<br>
<br>How could I possibly explain my actions if I wasn’t religiously, magnanimously or Narcissistically motivated?
<br>
<br>What is motivating you, Mr. Schmidt, to devote so much time on a blog where you seem to think the people are nuts….unless you are an Agent?
<br>
<br>That seems to be the only possible explanation.
<br>
<br>I lay a hundred to one that you don’t spend a single minute of your life on Crop Circle, Big Foot, Loch Ness or Flat Earth websites.
</p>
</div><!-- section 232 -->
<a name="x233"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x233" class="tiny">x233</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_233');">questions should really be aimed at Mr. Whitten</a></p>
<p>2015-11-18</p>
<div id="sect_233" style="display: none;">
<p>from: Maxwell C. Bridges <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>to: Truth and Shadows <comment+edvo1q-hzcp39f67n8ydwblvzhhy-4zefg13du9lu-4j1ps-2_x3yz@comment.wordpress.com>,
<br>Willy Whitten <stampfever11@gmail.com>
<br>bcc: Craig McKee <craigmckee45@yahoo.ca>
<br>date: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:42 PM
<br>subject: Re: [New comment] Going full debunker: Chandler devotes most of Pentagon talk to boosting 9/11 official story
<br>
<br>Nice team work, Mr. Sockpuppet2012.
<br>
<br>Alas, your questions should really be aimed at Mr. Whitten. Just tally the number of posts that he has and a different picture will emerge as to who is spending all of his time here.
<br>
<br>I could be wrong, but Mr. Schmidt may be in Europe, which would make his participation here an after work hobby, as opposed to the day job that Mr. Whitten makes it out to be.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 233 -->
<a name="x234"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x234" class="tiny">x234</a>
hybridrogue1, sockpuppet2012 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_234');">Schmidt is a squamous faced toadyboy</a></p>
<p>2015-11-18</p>
<div id="sect_234" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-37394">November 18, 2015 at 10:07 pm</a>
<br>Yea Sock, I agree that Schmidt is a squamous faced toadyboy. I just see nothing profited by continued dialog with the stooge.
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 234 -->
<a name="x235"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x235" class="tiny">x235</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_235');">Hold Mr. Whitten to his promise</a></p>
<p>2015-11-19</p>
<div id="sect_235" style="display: none;">
<p>from: Maxwell C. Bridges <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>to: Truth and Shadows <comment+edvo1q-hzcp39f67nxrhc-q-7fkpt_58wjyzxmth79vwszv10fmimk@comment.wordpress.com>,
<br>Willy Whitten <stampfever11@gmail.com>,
<br>unspunnewz <ruffadam2003@yahoo.com>
<br>bcc: Craig McKee <craigmckee45@yahoo.ca>
<br>date: Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:43 AM
<br>subject: Re: [New comment] Going full debunker: Chandler devotes most of Pentagon talk to boosting 9/11 official story
<br>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>Hold Mr. Whitten to this promise and others he has made in the thread to avoid Mr. Schmidt and any comments about him.
<br>
<br>Mr. Sockpuppet, too. Amazing the cheat he attempted that both Mr. Utu and Mr. Whitten tried to set him straight about, but without an apology from Sockpuppet. (Just because Mr. Schmidt was disproving elements of the "concensous" 9/11TM position.)
<br>
<br>Mr. Schmidt is very much a truther. Unlike the tag-team above, he's not afraid of chasing truth all the way to the kernel even if it means taking on the questionable work of PhD's from the TM.
<br>
<br>Let's be objective. Look at the politicians; look at the media; look at the delayed and then stilted -- if not outright missing -- official reports... Ample circumstantial evidence exists as to the extent the PTB went to in order to control the message.
<br>
<br>Why then do we give a small handful of PhD's in the truth movement a free pass? Why is the work of Dr. Jones and his cabal (including Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Legge, and Mr. Ryan) somehow above questioning? Sure, Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood have more glaring issues, but this doesn't mean that Dr. Jones and NT are beyond reproach.
<br>
<br>If the PTB wanted to control and steer the 9/11TM, what form would that take? Where would they try to park investigations?
<br>
<br>My research found NT seriously wanting from one direction: its inability to achieve pulverization and hot-spot duration without massive quantities.
<br>
<br>Mr. Schmidt is proving NT seriously wanting from other directions, and finds significant faults in the analysis and conclusions of those PhD's.
<br>
<br>Yet Mr. Whitten won't hear it. His painful cognitive dissonance (in deference to PhD's) leads him to ad hominem instead of step-back re-evaluation of beliefs. Same "Larry, Curly, and M.O." with me when I had him cornered.
<br>
<br>In the past, I've brought up pictures of steel "arches" mined from Dr. Wood's work. Silly me in allowing Dr. Wood's "arches" description sway my understanding and word choice. I don't think they were arches at all, but "sags". The steel beams were heated end-to-end so hot, they sagged.
<br>
<br>NT in combination with any other chemical incendiary or explosive -- short of massive, unreasonable quantities -- CANNOT explain these sagging steel beams. Dr. Jones and company should have their feet held to the fire with regards to how their mechanisms could achieve those "steel sags".
<br>
<br>4th generation nuclear devices easily explain those "steel sags", hot-spots, hot-spot duration, the high percentage of iron spheres in the dust, the tritium, the noise levels, etc. and even the obnoxious ignorant tag-teaming in your forum.
<br>
<br>Religious fanatic that I am, truth needs to be followed all the way.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 235 -->
<a name="x236"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x236" class="tiny">x236</a>
hybridrogue1 & Jens Schmidt : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_236');">ruled entirely by hubris</a></p>
<p>2015-11-23</p>
<div id="sect_236" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-37501">November 23, 2015 at 11:39 am</a>
<br>Among Schmidt’s tactics is a mode of rhetoric that makes an attempt to APPEAR to contain such diverse elements as facts, logic and a fanatical devotion to the rule of reason.
<br>
<br>Schmidt is ruled entirely by hubris.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-37504">November 23, 2015 at 12:14 pm</a>
<br>@HR1
<br>Since you regularly fail to refute my arguments, and in fact most of the time don’t even dare touching them, I guess they stand as unrefuted facts, logic and reason.
<br>
<br>Personal attacks are the tactic of choice for those who come unarmed to a reasoned debate.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/#comment-37506">November 23, 2015 at 12:28 pm</a>
<br>Taunts to engage someone who is clearly merely provoking further dialog with that someone who is clearly here for covert purposes is just another indication of a shill and stooge.
<br>Schmidt makes many claims here that simply do not stand up to reason as he would have us presume. We have in fact been roun’n’round on this carousel enough times.
<br>
<br>Why are you here Schmidt? What ends to you hope to achieve? If you are attempting to prove that the official narrative of 9/11 is true, you are bound to fail.
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 236 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part4 -->
<a name="x237"></a><hr>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part5');">Part 5: HR's self-inflicted implosion</a></p>
<div id="sect_part5" style="display: none;">
<a name="x238"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x238" class="tiny">x238</a>
James Fetzer, hybridrogue1, Craig McKee, & other T&S Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_238');">“The Real Deal”~Fetzer</a></p>
<p>2016-01-02</p>
<div id="sect_238" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br><b>James Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38635">January 2, 2016 at 2:29 am</a>
<br>
<br>As someone who has published extensively on the Pentagon, who has offered good reasons for concluding that “no planes” theory is correct and who has advanced objective and detailed proof that the “official” narrative of the Holocaust cannot be sustained, I am impressed by the thorough and sensible fashion in which Craig McKee has taken apart the irresponsible and indefensible allegations of Mike Collins, which appear to have been fostered by Ken Doc. This is disgraceful.
<br>
<br>One of the common mistakes committed in ordinary language is to confound false assertions with lies, where false assertions properly qualify as lies only when those asserting them know they are false but assert them anyway in a deliberate effort to mislead their target audience. On the basis of my knowledge of the 9/11 research of John Lear, Ace Baker and Craig McKee, I am dumbfounded that such irresponsible attacks would be made upon any of them. I have had my differences with Ace Baker, for example, but I have never doubted his sincerity in his research.
<br>
<br>I would be glad to invite Mike Collins or Ken Doc (or both together) to come on my show, “The Real Deal”, and debate what did and did not happen at the Pentagon, what can explain what we have been shown in relation to the purported “hits” on the Twin Towers and the official narrative of the Holocaust. On that subject, search for “The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science”, which also appears in AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015). On the Pentagon, here are links to 4 articles that, in my judgment, leave no room for doubt about it:
<br>
<br>http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/reflections-on-pentagon-911.html
<br>
<br>http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/top-ten-911-cons-fraud-vitiates.html
<br>
<br>http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/06/official-account-of-pentagon-attack-is.html
<br>
<br>http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-aeronautical-engineer-no-boeing-757.html
<br>
<br>On the “planes” in New York, check out “The Real Deal Ep. #100 The 9/11 Crash Sites with Major General Albert Stubblebine (USA, ret.)”, formerly in charge of all US military signals and photographic intelligence, with whom I discuss each of the alleged crash sites in considerable detail at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65H8XbrQHBg And for a shorter summary of the evidence that none of the alleged 9/11 aircraft crash sites were real, see “The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, Part 2”, on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAEvw2CjAYQ
<br>
<br>For added measure, we can throw in Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing. I have YouTubes about both entitled “The Real Deal must see Sandy Hook Update” and “The Real Deal must see Boston bombing update”, which you can easily find by searching their titles on YouTube. I also have an edited book, NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), which was banned less than a month after its appearance by amazon.com, which I immediately released to the public for free as a pdf. Anyone should be able to find it without effort, such as at rense.com, to download.
<br>
<br>My opinion is that Craig has exposed some of the most ignorant and irresponsible figures in the 9/11 Truth movement. Neither Mike Collins nor Ken Doc appear to have any idea what they are talking about. From what Craig has outlined here (with copious documentation) strikes me as a veritable encyclopedia of elementary fallacies compounded by deliberate deception. I therefore invite them to come on my show for a two hour debate with me. Like Bush and Cheney, they can come together and hold each others hand. I stand ready, willing and able to expose them both.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38641">January 2, 2016 at 12:04 pm</a>
<br>
<br>“On the “planes” in New York, check out “The Real Deal”~Fetzer
<br>
<br>Hahahahahaha…still peddling that bullshit aye?
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38647">January 2, 2016 at 2:27 pm</a>
<br>
<br>You couldn’t resist, could you? You can have this one, but from now on, no unspecific comments about peddling bullshit.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38651">January 2, 2016 at 2:58 pm</a>
<br>
<br>You would be even less happy should I be specific Mr McKee.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38652">January 2, 2016 at 3:13 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Yes, one has things to be grateful for. But I dream of a day when Mr. Fetzer will comment or be mentioned and you will let it pass. You may say I’m a dreamer …(I’d put lol, but I hate lol)
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38653">January 2, 2016 at 3:23 pm</a>
<br>
<br>So be it Craig. Your wish shall be granted.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38654">January 2, 2016 at 4:51 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Craig, You should not give him ANY of these snide and disgraceful ad hominem comments. If you want to foster respect, you have to ENFORCE IT. He ought to be banned for life; but for now, I would recommend that you simply delete his remark, which was clearly intended to distract attention from the abundant and compelling proof I have advanced that what Mike Collins and Ken Doc are peddling is not only false but provably false and, indeed, in relation to the Pentagon and the “hits” on the Twin Towers, not even scientifically possible. This guy has a designated role to attack and distract anything I post here lest others follow up and discover truths that he and others, such as Collins and Doc, would prefer that the public never know.
<br>
<br><b>Paul Zarembka</b>
<br><a href="">January 2, 2016 at 5:19 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Jim, there is a query of you RE: Roth/Ram Jet shortly after 1 p.m. this afternoon at https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11. Just thought you might want to answer.
<br>Joe
<br>January 2, 2016 at 8:05 pm
<br>
<br>paul, I do like your article on roth and westover, if this is not the right place to comment, I am sorry.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38658">January 2, 2016 at 5:51 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Well as you see Craig, well enough will not be left alone. I understand that Ken Doc and his oinkers are dishonest shills, And I know you have never condoned some of the nutty concepts that they have accused you of. BUT you have given solace even yet this very day to someone who does promote screwball junk science and absurd theories.
<br>
<br>This “no-planes” at the WTC has been shot down as absolute nonsense by all with any grasp of Newtonian physics. “Projected Holograms” are simply impossible in principle. And the other issues in dispute are equally unscientific twaddle.
<br>
<br>And now as we see with the latest post here (January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm), we are no longer confined to the issues on Ken Doc and his nonsense, but are treated to an onslaught of absolute bullshit about the the towers not being hit by real aircraft. So we end up with junk science again:
<br>The “No-planes at WTC”, attended by the same crap pseudoscience that has come from this charlatan for years now.
<br>
<br>If you won’t at least make it clear that you don’t agree with this nonsense, how can you complain when someone accuses you of promoting it. You don’t have to censor the party spouting this bullshit, but you can make your position on the matter clear; that you allow all points of view here, but do not necessarily condone those points of view.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38662">January 2, 2016 at 6:21 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I am composing a response to your comment. Please stop commenting until I have posted it!
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38655">January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm</a>
<br>
<br>For those who care about truth as it relates to 9/11 as opposed to attacking Truthers, here is an outline of the proof that no real planes hit the North or the South Towers. This should make it all the easier for those who believe they were real planes to identify where we agree and disagree. I begin with some reflections on the construction of the Twin Towers and why the official account cannot be sustained.
<br>
<br>Notice that the windows were deliberately designed small to avoid overheating the buildings and placing too much stress on the air conditioning system. The alleged plane in the North Tower was intersecting seven (7) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external steel support columns at the other filled with 4-8? of concrete. In the case of the South Tower, it was eight (8).
<br>
<br>At 208' on a side, each floor represented an acre of concrete. So Flight 11 would have been encountering seven acres of concrete on steel trusses, but Flight 175 eight. We know what happens when a commercial carrier hits a tiny bird weighing only a few ounces in flight. Imagine what would happen if one of the were to encounter a single acre of concrete on a steel truss?
<br>
<br>Any real plane of any kind would have crumpled against the building, with its wings, tail, bodies and seats falling to the ground. But we have photos of the areas beneath and there is no airplane debris. You could have relined in a lounge chair sipping Pina Coladas and have been perfectly safe. The laws of physics and of engineering have a contribution to make to 9/11.
<br>
<br>There were multiple reasons they had to fake it to make sure everything would go as planned:
<br>
<br>(1) It’s very difficult to hit a 208' wide target at over 400 mph. Some twenty pilots tried it where only one managed to do it one time.
<br>
<br>(2) They needed to have the planes explode after they had entered the buildings to provide a pseudo-explanation for their “collapse”.
<br>
<br>(3) They had to coordinate them temporally with massive explosions in the subbasements, designed to drain the sprinkler systems of water.
<br>
<br>(4) The original plan was to use drones until they discovered that it was physically impossible to get them into the buildings before they exploded.
<br>
<br>(5) Indeed, the friction of their collisions with those massive buildings would have generated so much heat that they would have exploded externally.
<br>
<br>(6) Even using images of planes under their control, they missed the mark by 14 and 17 seconds, with the subbasement explosions going off too early.
<br>
<br>(7) The idea was to claim that jet fuel had fallen through the stairways and caused those explosions. It was crude but the public is very gullible.
<br>
<br>(8) They had previously positioned jet fuel/napalm prepared to be set off when the images of the planes had entered all the way into the buildings.
<br>
<br>(9) They had mini-incendiary charges in elaborate arrangements to create the cookie-cutter cut outs on the sides of the buildings (set by the Gelatin Group).
<br>
<br>It was a clever use of the post hoc-ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy, which took in the vast majority of the people. They even planted an outmoded engine at Church & Murray, which would not have been necessary had real planes been used. And a landing gear was found years later, still attached to a piece of rope that had been used to help lower it into place. How dumb are we supposed to be?
<br>
<br>But the public hasn’t caught on. The laws of physics and of engineering cannot be violated and cannot be changed. The official account of the planes in New York is no more physically possible that the official account of Flight 77 at the Pentagon, as an aeronautical engineer has explained in the fourth of the articles I linked above. It’s time for the 9/11 Truth community to acknowledge that science matters to our research.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>2016-01-03
<br>{mcb: removed from T&S.}
<br>
<br>in response to James Henry Fetzer:
<br>
<br> <blockquote>For those who care about truth as it relates to 9/11 as opposed to attacking Truthers, here is an outline of the proof that no real planes hit the North or the South Towers. This should make it all the easier for those who believe they were real planes to identify where we agree and […]</p></blockquote>
<p>Here you will find the real crash physics explained as per real aircraft hitting the World Trade Towers:
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/911-disinformation-no-planes-theory/
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>2016-01-03
<br>{mcb: removed from T&S.}
<br>
<br>Here you will find the real science and technology on CGI and so-called “projected holograms”:
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/disinformation-video-fakery/
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38659">January 2, 2016 at 6:06 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Let’s keep the discussion on topic. I understand you oppose the position on the evidence taken by Collins and Doc, but the post is not about arguing those scientific details. It’s about how they have used dishonesty and disinformation tactics to distract and intimidate. And it’s about how the exaggerated focus on “disinformation” is doing harm to the movement.
<br>
<br><b>Sheila</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38665">January 2, 2016 at 6:24 pm</a>
<br>
<br>So we have 7 acres of steel trusses, attached at each end to a steel support column, and filled with 4? to 8? of concrete. This comprises the 7 floors (one acre each) that the planes supposedly smashed through when they disappeared into the towers like a hot knife through butter, with nothing falling into the street.
<br>
<br>This alone, with no other evidence, is proof positive that the images we saw on TV were fake. It is time that the truth movement offer a big apology to the “no-planers” that have been derided for so long, such as Morgan Reynolds.
<br>
<br>I am reminded that the 3 topics that 9/11 blogger forbade were: 1) no planes, 2) criticism of Israel and 3) support for CIT.
<br>
<br>I realize that this is a bit of a hijack of this thread, but WRT Doc and Collins, I don’t know that there’s much more to say. I think we all agree that they are reprehensible people, or possibly paid agents.
<br>
<br>They are attacking you Craig because they hope that you will be intimidated and back down from presenting evidence they don’t want people to see. In case Doc and Collins are reading this, I can only say, don’t hold your breath.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38755">January 2, 2016 at 10:39 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Sheila, You begin to appreciate why 9/11 Blogger did not want any discussion of “no planes”, where even easily verifiable facts about the design of the buildings defeats the official account. Consider the genius of making points of vulnerability “off limits” for discussion: 1) no planes; 2) criticism of Israel; and 3) CIT. There is a mountain of proof of Israeli complicity, such as the web site, “Israel did 9/11–all the proof in the world” (though it was done with the complicity of the CIA and the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense). And toss in CIT, which uncovered a host of witnesses to a plane approaching the Pentagon north of the Citgo station, when the “official account” required that it approach south of the Citgo station. (That plane, by the way, flew over the Pentagon at the same time explosive charges were set of inside it.) What more elegant and effective technique than to declare those subjects “too controversial” and therefore “off limits”. How much more proof could we require that the 9/11 Truth movement has been compromised?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br>2016-01-03
<br>{mcb: comment removed from T&S.}
<br>
<br>in response to veritytwo:
<br>
<br> <blockquote>And that’s where common sense comes into play. From the 5 frame video that doesn’t show something as big as a Boeing 757 to the lack of scattered crash debris from a 200,000 plus pound aircraft hitting a reinforced wall is a lot of kinetic energy that isn’t explained by the overview of damage inflicted. […]</blockquote>
<p>The lack of consensus is by design. We have two prominent groups, for example, A&E911 and Judy Wood and DEWs, who will not even address who was responsible and why. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has made some important contributions, but do not appreciate that their proofs that Flight 175 was traveling faster than aerodynamically possible for a Boeing 767.
<br>
<br>Using ground-air communications, Pilots for 9/11 Truth have also established that Flight 11 was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was detected over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had officially hit the South Tower are proof of video fakery and support “no planes” theory, which is the conjunction of the four claims:
<br>
<br>(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
<br>
<br>(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
<br>
<br>(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and,
<br>
<br>(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
<br>
<br>Indeed, I have FAA Registration data showing the the planes used for Flights 93 and 175 were not even deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005. There is more than enough proof that none of those crashes took place. But look around you. The Pentagon links I provided offer empirical evidence and aerodynamic proof no Boeing 757 hit there, yet we have members of the community attacking those who provide it. We have been infiltrated.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38785">January 3, 2016 at 9:56 am</a>
<br>
<br>Just on a side note I think I saw you Jim at LAX a week or two ago. I drive a taxi at LAX and I was waiting there at the curb and I think it was you that got into a taxi right near me. The person I saw was a spitting image of Jim Fetzer and he seemed to recognize me a bit as well. Anyway if it wasn’t you no worries. On another side note to this thread I will say that I disagree strongly with many of Jim Fetzer’s positions such as mini nukes among others. Back to Ken Doc though, I am NOT going to engage with Jim on this thread about anything but the topic.
<br>
<br><b>stuartbramhall</b>
<br>January 2, 2016 at 6:25 pm
<br>
<br>My personal impression is that 60-70% of the really active 9-11 Truthers are paid government disinformation agents. That’s a pretty characteristic proportion for any successful dissident/resistance movement.
<br>Reply
<br>
<br><b>Adam Syed</b>
<br>January 2, 2016 at 6:46 pm
<br>
<br>I doubt it’s that high. You only need one or two drops of poison to contaminate an entire well. I’d say the percentage is well under 50 but for sure, there are definitely paid agents out there that are assigned full-time to dominate at certain high profile sites.
<br>Reply
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38677">January 2, 2016 at 6:43 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Thanks Craig, Mr Fetzer’s wish shall be granted. So long!
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38686">January 2, 2016 at 6:57 pm</a>
<br>
<br>You’re being very childish, and you’re making a small problem into a huge one. I don’t know what you mean by “so long” but I think you should take the rest of the day off.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38701">January 2, 2016 at 7:16 pm</a>
<br>
<br>No no, That’s all right Craig, Let the pseudoscience win the day here on T&S. It’s your site, play it as you please.You’ve got Sheila popping in supporting the same nonsense Fetzer is promoting.
<br>You can either quash this crap, or let it stand. It seems to me you want to let it stand.
<br>I will not stand by silently as this takes place. If you are going to throw my commentary back into moderation, YOU are making the choice, not me.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38705">January 2, 2016 at 7:22 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I HAVE HAD IT WITH YOU TODAY. HR, YOU MAKE THINGS SO MUCH WORSE AND YOU PAINT ME INTO A CORNER EVERY GODDAMN TIME.
<br>
<br>I WON’T BE LECTURED ON MY OWN BLOG AND YOU ARE NOT THE COMMENT COP HERE. IF YOU COULD JUST KEEP YOUR KEYBOARD QUIET LONG ENOUGH FOR ME TO READ THE COMMENTS AND MAKE A DECISION, THINGS WOULD BE FINE. BUT NO, YOU HAVE TO SCOLD ME BEFORE I’VE EVEN HAD TIME TO POST A RESPONSE. I’VE TOLD YOU NOT TO DO THIS NUMEROUS TIMES. MEANWHILE, I AM ALSO DEALING WITH RESPONDING TO JOE, WHO IS AT LEAST ADDRESSING THE TOPIC AT HAND.
<br>
<br><b>Sheila</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38784">January 3, 2016 at 9:48 am</a>
<br>
<br>Maybe this expression is not used in Canada. In the US, “so long” means good-bye.
<br>
<br><b>Joe</b>
<br>January 2, 2016 at 8:37 pm
<br>
<br>interesting, comments of mine are vanishing.
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>January 2, 2016 at 8:40 pm
<br>
<br>Which comments are vanishing? I have not removed anything.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="">January 3, 2016 at 6:18 am</a>
<br>
<br>I seriously doubt that you are being censored Joe. Craig is not a petty dictator and he actually wants to talk this out and resolve it unlike El Presidente Ken Doc.
<br>
<br>Take a screen shot of your post and then show it as evidence.
<br>
<br>Just so you are aware Joe all posts go into a moderation queue if they contain more than two links. Perhaps that is the issue?
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38789">January 3, 2016 at 11:29 am</a>
<br>
<br>Joe is not being censored. If he has sent a comment that hasn’t appeared I think I know what might have happened. I put hybridrogue1 on the blacklist yesterday because of a series of comments that went beyond what I was willing to tolerate. I had put him on moderation and his comments continued directly to me and I had had enough. But in blocking him, I would also, unintentionally, have blocked comments where his name is mentioned. if Joe’s comment mentioned HR, then it would not have gotten through. If he resends it then it will appear. My apologies.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>veritytwo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38741">January 2, 2016 at 8:56 pm</a>
<br>
<br>More DEW doo doo. The nukie doo doo is sure to come up in this posting now that this kettle of rotten fish has been dumped on the stage. Wouldn’t piss on O’Reilly if he was on fire but the scum left Fetzer gasping and blubbering here.
<br>I don’t have time for this, there’s a greater need in exploring and exposing the end play being foisted in the geopolitical landscape in the current sense, bullshit put aside. This innuendo is just more round and round here. No time to be dragged into an ambiguous undiagnosed past. There’s bigger issues in the present that beg to be understood to thwart dark possibilities rather than infighting over points of view that are only that, points of view.
<br>
<br>https://youtu.be/9-KylM1XlqM
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38744">January 2, 2016 at 9:06 pm</a>
<br>
<br>What are you talking about? More DEW doo doo? Dumped on the stage?
<br>
<br><b>veritytwo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38745">January 2, 2016 at 9:18 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Read what I said Craig. I have a great respect for you but this is just leading to another round of infighting that’s a complete waste of time that just leaves me with the taste of bad bile in my gut.
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38747">January 2, 2016 at 9:36 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I read what you said but I asked you to clarify. Are you blaming me for quoting Ken as saying I support space beams? That’s the only DEW reference I’ve seen.
<br>
<br>As for it being a complete waste of time, that may well be, but I had little choice other than letting false charges stand and waiting for more of them. Perhaps you should address your frustration to Joe or Ken or Mike.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38749">January 2, 2016 at 9:49 pm</a>
<br>
<br>For reasons of his own, veritytwo introduces a completely irrelevant and distracting post about my appearance on “The Factor”. Others viewed it completely the opposite. After I spoke at The Great Hall of Cooper Union, my wife and I made a visit to a local theater when Alex Jones was producing a 9/11 program. They were very hospitable and ushered us in, placing me on a podium with first responders, which I regarded as an honor. The fellow sitting next to me leaned over and said, “It was watching you on O’Reilly that convinced me 9/11 had been an inside job.”
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38750">January 2, 2016 at 9:51 pm</a>
<br>
<br>No, he’s ignorant of the evidence that supports the use of mini or micro nukes to take down the Twin Towers. This is the kind of remark that gives 9/11 research a bad name: no argument, only a derisive dismissal based on his personal lack of knowledge. There’s a lot of that going around
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>veritytwo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38757">January 2, 2016 at 11:01 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Come on Craig. I don’t do Facebook and I certainly don’t hold it against you for this posting. I certainly would have contested it with my whole being given your position. What I see happening is just more round and round with a big clash of ego’s trying to put their read into what they’ve bought into. I see you as being a gracious moderator that tries to maintain a level field which gets difficult when people get their dandruff up. I realize this blog centers around 9/11 but it needs to move forward with insight and good intent.
<br>9/11 is a symptom, as horrific as it is of an underlying grave deep issue that needs to be brought to the surface to the here and now. By infighting, all it does is create division, after all, isn’t that what the dialectic is all about, divide and conquer?
<br>We’ve got to consider, the perpetrators that would do such a thing are focused as a lazar, as Adrian Salbuchi said. While we, in our vast multitudes are like fireflies over a field or pond with our lights illuminating in different directions, not focused. We are many, they are few. Should we ever throw off the garb of garrulousness, we’re unstoppable. I just find it disappointing to see that we can’t seem to find a consensus. We’re going into year 15 after the event, we’re still infighting amongst ourselves. A pity, there’s some dedicated brilliant people in the movement.
<br>
<br><b>Adam Syed</b>
<br>January 2, 2016 at 11:23 pm
<br>
<br>“By infighting, all it does is create division, after all, isn’t that what the dialectic is all about, divide and conquer?”
<br>
<br>This isn’t a question of infighting. It’s a question of responding to libel. Ken Doc has an entire URL devoted to lies about Craig.
<br>
<br><b>Adam Syed</b>
<br>January 2, 2016 at 11:31 pm
<br>
<br>And just to be clear:
<br>
<br>“I don’t do Facebook and I certainly don’t hold it against you for this posting. I certainly would have contested it with my whole being given your position.”
<br>
<br>Are you saying that you support Craig posting the piece but that the comment section is where the real bile is? Should commenting have been disabled for this blog post? He is contesting the lies “with his whole being” just like you said you would if in his position.
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38764">January 3, 2016 at 12:42 am</a>
<br>
<br>I am interested in the answers to those questions also. I think it’s pointless to talk about in-fighting unless you break it down more than that. Does it mean don’t say anything that might prompt an argument? Don’t criticize anyone because they’ll react and then we have a fight?
<br>
<br>You know, I was prepared for an onslaught of hostility from the subjects of this post and their supporters. But it turns out that most of the opposition has come from other supposedly “friendly” sources.
<br>
<br>Two things I will leave everyone with:
<br>
<br>If you have a problem with a comment that someone else has made, as in you think it should be deleted, email me privately and explain what your issue is. Those who don’t have my private email can use truthandshadows@yahoo.com. What I will not put up with any more is someone posting a comment publicly demanding that I discipline another commenter or ban them or delete a particular comment. No more.
<br>
<br>The other thing is that for the rest of this comment thread I don’t want to hear one word about the details of physical evidence concerning how the towers were brought down. It’s not the appropriate venue for that discussion. I don’t care if it’s nukes, DEW, nanothermite or anything else; this thread is not the place to argue it. Anyone who does not respect this will have their comments deleted.
<br>
<br><b>veritytwo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38782">January 3, 2016 at 8:47 am</a>
<br>
<br>What I’m saying relates directly to this blog. There’s a freshness here that occasionally gets bogged down by what appears to be bruised ego’s as to those participants personal beliefs. I come here for knowledge and fellowship, I try to keep an open mind. I have my perceptions of 9/11 tempered by much background research but that is my personal view.
<br>It doesn’t matter, there’s something to be gleaned from each perspective but things don’t have to get nasty. The one thing we’re all in consensus on is that a criminal act was performed on that day that leaves much to be critically answered to.
<br>The way TPTB handled the whole investigation speaks of a blatant criminality by those sanctioned to public trust in escrow. That trust has been broken leaving us that have become unglued from the status quo to try to find answers amid speculation and innuendo.
<br>My point of view is to ask the question, why the derogation? When in fact we’re in consensus to the fact, we’re all onside that there’s too much being hidden by those that are sanctioned to public trust.
<br>The division that’s been created all through society by the event and all their other false flags is in no doubt to keep we the people offside while they engineer their technocratic vision of how they envision things to be. What I believe we’re all in agreement to is in the recognition that their hubris has created a sickness throughout all society and the very nature of the planet herself. Funny how “lived is the devil spelled backwards”, there’s devils on the loose, a prevalent psychopathy. This is to be viewed across many different spectrums of information sources.
<br>
<br><b>veritytwo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38788">January 3, 2016 at 11:22 am</a>
<br>
<br>This just about explains my stance in a large way. As with you Craig, I live north of the 49th, there about living out in the rhubarb patch. My bug out bags have wings attached. Just waiting for the marathon to begin.
<br>
<br>https://youtu.be/tBU01akf688
<br>
<br> <b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38787">2016-01-03</a>
<br>{mcb: put back into moderation.}
<br>
<br>in response to ruffadam:
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Just on a side note I think I saw you Jim at LAX a week or two ago. I drive a taxi at LAX and I was waiting there at the curb and I think it was you that got into a taxi right near me. The person I saw was a spitting image of […]</p></blockquote>
<p>Not so fast, Ruffadam. When you insinuate that comments of mine are false or misleading, you are implying that I may fall to the same category as Ken Doc or Mike Collins. You have to be specific. I deny that anything I have written in any of my posts here qualifies either as false or as misleading. On the contrary, unless you can substantiate these claims, your own comment here would seem to fall into that category. Tell me precisely what have I said that qualifies as either? I cannot be responsible for your ignorance of the evidence that substantiates mini or micro nukes, but that most certainly does not make my defense of their having been used false or misleading
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38767">January 3, 2016 at 2:24 am</a>
<br>
<br>Joe I have a question for you. Why is it that Ken Doc himself does not discuss this issue openly in an environment where people are allowed to speak freely without being silenced? I find it strange that Ken Doc is comfortable silencing people he doesn’t agree with yet pretends to be a fair and benevolent leader of the truth movement who is being attacked.
<br>
<br>Get this one thing straight Joe your group did the attacking and all Craig has done is defend himself. You and your group are the aggressors, you allow that poison pill Collins to attack others and do nothing. You are therefore condoning his behavior and supporting it. Ken Doc banned me and others without cause and that is a fact. Now if we respond to the petty tyranny you have all either condoned or initiated we are NOT attacking you we are defending ourselves. There is a big difference between those who initiate a fight and those who defend themselves. Think of it this way Joe, if you take out a gun and start shooting at me I am then free to take out my own gun and blow your head off in self defense and no criminal charges will be filed against me. In that scenario you are the guilty party Joe because you initiated the attack.
<br>
<br>Ken Doc was not guilty of anything UNTIL he applied different rules to Collins than he did to other people. Once he did that and once all of the admins went along with it you all became guilty of doing an immoral act. Ken Doc compounded his guilt by banning other people, like myself, who tried to initiate a conversation about the issue and hopefully resolve it. Doc obviously doesn’t want it resolved. If he did want to resolve it he would be here himself trying to do so. Instead only you Joe, his henchman and apologist, are here discussing it.
<br>
<br>The truth of the matter is that Ken Doc would like us all to just go away quietly and say nothing about his tiny tyrannical regime on FB. He would love to be able to lob his insults from behind a big electronic wall and have everyone else be incapable of responding back. Well guess what Joe this is the real world and not only can we respond but we can do so publicly. In fact Joe we can shout from the rooftops about what a petty little tyrannical kingdom Ken Doc has going there on FB. That is what I intend to do Joe because frankly Ken Doc and his henchman picked a fight with the wrong God damned people. There is zero justification for what you did. ZERO!
<br>
<br>Now Joe here is a video I made which expresses my feelings about censorship which I dedicate to Ken Doc and his henchmen who are all vile disgusting book burners in training.
<br>
<br>https://youtu.be/JFTHRj7luA0
<br>
<br>Censors are just evil dictators that lack the power and the armies to slaughter the people they don’t like. Ken Doc is just another Stalin without the army, but hey at least he has you Joe.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 238 -->
<a name="x239"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x239" class="tiny">x239</a>
hybridrogue1, James Henry Fetzer, & Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_239');">overstayed welcome</a></p>
<p>2016-01-03</p>
<div id="sect_239" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11157">January 3, 2016 at 2:15 am </a>
<br>
<br><b>Craig has me on moderation, and Uncle Fistfucker is still posting; fuck both of them.</b>
<br>
<br>What is really stooooooooooopid is Craig has his panties all twisted in a knot over fucking Facebook bullshit!!! He has lost all perspective. He has fucked himself and T&S with this self-gratifying post.
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11159">January 3, 2016 at 4:21 am</a>
<br>
<br>Yea, Uncle Fetzer giving the finger may be Photoshopped, but it catches his character nicely nevertheless.
<br>He is one of the most arrogant charlatans on the Internet. So fuck’em if he can’t take a joke.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11160">January 3, 2016 at 6:17 am</a>
<br>
<br>“I am interested in the answers to those questions also. I think it’s pointless to talk about in-fighting unless you break it down more than that. Does it mean don’t say anything that might prompt an argument? Don’t criticize anyone because they’ll react and then we have a fight?”~Craig McKee
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38764
<br>
<br><b>Of course Craig cannot see his own hypocrisy in saying that! <i>Astonishing!</i></b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11161">January 3, 2016 at 6:30 am</a>
<br>
<br>“You know, I was prepared for an onslaught of hostility from the subjects of this post and their supporters. But it turns out that most of the opposition has come from other supposedly “friendly” sources.”~McKee
<br>
<br><b>Hmmm..You might think he would catch a clue there!
<br>
<br>And if you happen to read these words here Craig, what to you expect after silencing me on T&S?</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11163">January 3, 2016 at 10:24 am</a>
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br>January 2, 2016 at 4:51 pm
<br>Craig, You should not give him ANY of these snide and disgraceful ad hominem comments. <b>*If you want to foster respect, you have to ENFORCE IT. He ought to be banned for life</b>; but for now, I would recommend that you simply delete his remark, which was clearly intended to distract attention from the abundant and compelling proof I have advanced that what Mike Collins and Ken Doc are peddling is not only false but provably false and, indeed, in relation to the Pentagon and the “hits” on the Twin Towers, not even scientifically possible. This guy has a designated role to attack and distract anything I post here lest others follow up and discover truths that he and others, such as Collins and Doc, would prefer that the public never know.
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38654" rel="nofollow">https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38654</a>
<br><b>*Fetzer is of course speaking to Craig about me there.</b>
<br>“What I will not put up with any more is someone posting a comment publicly demanding that I discipline another commenter or ban them or delete a particular comment. No more.”~Craig McKee
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38764" rel="nofollow">https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38764</a>
<br><b>You will find I never demanded that Fetzer be banned, not even disciplined. All I wanted was the right to confront Fetzer for being the arrogant lying son-of-a-bitch that he is.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11165">January 3, 2016 at 11:26 am</a>
<br>
<br>“Using ground-air communications, Pilots for 9/11 Truth have also established that Flight 11 was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was detected over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had officially hit the South Tower are proof of video fakery and support “no planes” theory, which is the conjunction of the four claims:”~Jim Fetzer
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38664" rel="nofollow">https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38664</a>
<br><b>This is the kind of bullshit that Ken Doc can turn around and say with honesty the Craig supports, whether Craig has said these things or not – because Craig allows this nonsense to be spewed on his blog without comment, or allowing Fetzer to be confronted. </b><b>
<br></b><b>It is naive that Craig should be in anyway surprised that some rhetorical spinmeister like Ken Doc can point to such Fetzerian bullshit posted on T&S and give Craig credit for the statements. If Craig isn’t going to criticize Fetzer for his nonsense, then he is responsible for allowing it on his site. <i>ESPECIALLY</i> when Craig won’t allow others to criticize Fetzer for his bullshit.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><img id="grav-b1d73a23c2929e613c1e21ddc8cf8b16-195" alt="" src="https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b1d73a23c2929e613c1e21ddc8cf8b16?s=40&d=identicon&r=G" class="avatar avatar-40 grav-hashed grav-hijack" height="40" width="40"> <cite class="fn">hybridrogue1</cite>
<br>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11166">January 3, 2016 at 11:42 am</a>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 2, 2016 at 5:51 pm
<br>Well as you see Craig, well enough will not be left alone. I understand that Ken Doc and his oinkers are dishonest shills, And I know you have never condoned some of the nutty concepts that they have accused you of. BUT you have given solace even yet this very day to someone who does promote screwball junk science and absurd theories.</b><b>
<br>This “no-planes” at the WTC has been shot down as absolute nonsense by all with any grasp of Newtonian physics. “Projected Holograms” are simply impossible in principle. And the other issues in dispute are equally unscientific twaddle.
<br>And now as we see with the latest post here (January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm), we are no longer confined to the issues on Ken Doc and his nonsense, but are treated to an onslaught of absolute bullshit about the the towers not being hit by real aircraft. So we end up with junk science again:
<br>The “No-planes at WTC”, attended by the same crap pseudoscience that has come from this charlatan for years now.
<br></b><b>If you won’t at least make it clear that you don’t agree with this nonsense, how can you complain when someone accuses you of promoting it. You don’t have to censor the party spouting this bullshit, but you can make your position on the matter clear; that you allow all points of view here, but do not necessarily condone those points of view.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38658" rel="nofollow">https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38658</a>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>January 2, 2016 at 6:21 pm
<br>“I am composing a response to your comment. Please stop commenting until I have posted it!”
<br><b>. . . . . . . . . . . . . .</b><b>
<br></b><b>And so it has been all night long and Craig never posted a response addressing my points; instead he put all of my commentary into moderation and went off on me with this:</b>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>January 2, 2016 at 7:22 pm
<br>I HAVE HAD IT WITH YOU TODAY. HR, YOU MAKE THINGS SO MUCH WORSE AND YOU PAINT ME INTO A CORNER EVERY GODDAMN TIME.
<br>I WON’T BE LECTURED ON MY OWN BLOG AND YOU ARE NOT THE COMMENT COP HERE. IF YOU COULD JUST KEEP YOUR KEYBOARD QUIET LONG ENOUGH FOR ME TO READ THE COMMENTS AND MAKE A DECISION, THINGS WOULD BE FINE. BUT NO, YOU HAVE TO SCOLD ME BEFORE I’VE EVEN HAD TIME TO POST A RESPONSE. I’VE TOLD YOU NOT TO DO THIS NUMEROUS TIMES. MEANWHILE, I AM ALSO DEALING WITH RESPONDING TO JOE, WHO IS AT LEAST ADDRESSING THE TOPIC AT HAND.
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38705" rel="nofollow">https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38705</a>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><img id="grav-b1d73a23c2929e613c1e21ddc8cf8b16-196" alt="" src="https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b1d73a23c2929e613c1e21ddc8cf8b16?s=40&d=identicon&r=G" class="avatar avatar-40 grav-hashed grav-hijack" height="40" width="40"> <cite class="fn">hybridrogue1</cite>
<br>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11168">
<br>January 3, 2016 at 4:59 pm</a>
<br>
<br><b><i>Craig still won’t put a lid on this motherfucker Uncle Fetzer! </i></b>
<br>He has essentially banned me, and now will do nothing about this charlatan Fetzer, regardless of how off topic, or tending toward the issues that Ken Doc was hoisting upon Craig.
<br>By giving Fetzer a platform to spout these bogus theories, Craig is playing right into the hands of Ken Doc. Ken Doc has every right to assume that Craig agrees with this nonsense, seeing he has gone out of his way to protect Fetzer the promoter of these ideas.
<br>As an outsider what conclusion would you come to?
<br>Craig <i>STILL</i> has not stood up and denounced “No-planes at WTC”, “Video Fakery”, “Nukes at WTC”, “Projected Holograms”.
<br><b>WHY THE FUCK NOT?</b>
<br>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br>January 3, 2016 at 10:26 am
<br>“Not so fast, Ruffadam. When you insinuate that comments of mine are false or misleading, you are implying that I may fall to the same category as Ken Doc or Mike Collins. You have to be specific. I deny that anything I have written in any of my posts here qualifies either as false or as misleading. On the contrary, unless you can substantiate these claims, your own comment here would seem to fall into that category. Tell me precisely what have I said that qualifies as either? I cannot be responsible for your ignorance of the evidence that substantiates mini or micro nukes, but that most certainly does not make my defense of their having been used false or misleading.”
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38787" rel="nofollow">https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38787</a>
<br><b>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .</b><b>
<br>As far as I’m concerned, Craig has lost his bearings and sense of judgement. I sure as hell am not going to apologize to him for anything I said to him or Fetzer.
<br></b><b>At this point if McKee wants to ban me then fuck him, I don’t give a shit.
<br>I have had enough of his tepid wishy-washy bullshit.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11169">January 3, 2016 at 5:59 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Kim McLaughlin
<br>January 3, 2016 at 12:42 pm
<br>“Craig, I am sorry that you think me defending Ken is ridiculous. Hopefully we can agree to disagree on that. I have never seen, heard, etc, Ken lump you personally into supporting Space Beams, etc, so honestly I am not sure what all of that is about? I have never seen you support Space Beam and Holograms. My understand of your disagreements on the truth page have always been the Pentagon and Mike Collins. I will let Ken speak for himself on what he thinks… So again, you are saying my only choice is to change Ken and other admins minds or walk away from the truth movement. You write “So if anyone had done the right thing then, this post would never have happened.” Craig, you have no idea what I have or have not done… Instead of walking away, I chose to block certain people. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if you would have also blocked Mike. You say “Do you remember me passing along a note to you telling all the admins that Mike was routinely posting lies about what I believe?” Yes, I remember that, if you would have blocked him none of that would be an issue. You write “I don’t give a shit about Ken or Mike or Joe or Cal or anyone who spews ignorance,” If that’s true Craig, why do you keep writing about it? I used to be a huge supporter of your articles. Sorry, I don’t support this, and I stand behind everything I have said about it.. If your articles go back to focusing on things that help this movement, I will support those. You keep this fight alive though, and by doing so, in my opinion, you are damaging your credibility…”
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38793
<br>
<br><b>I agree with Kim here, whom I have never encountered, or know at all. But she makes all the sense in the world in her commentary there. Craig has really lost his bearings, he has gone ballistic over trifling matters and spent an inordinate amount of effort and words pumping it up into a giant blimp of utter bullshit.
<br>
<br>I emailed Craig what is essentially my resignation from Truth & Shadows just a few minutes ago. Craig and his remaining crew can go their own way. I have had enough of this namby-pamby horseshit.
<br>I want nothing more to do with a site that gives credence to Jim Fetzer, one of the most obvious shysters in the so-called “Truth Movement”.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11170">January 3, 2016 at 6:55 pm</a>
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>January 3, 2016 at 1:42 pm
<br>“Thank you so much for that support, Michael. I could use it about now.
<br>
<br>It’s interesting to me that the most obnoxious and ignorant comments to me since I posted this – both public and private – are from people I thought were fair and reasonable. These aren’t the people I thought would be this way.”
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38800
<br>
<br><b>Hahahaha!! Yea, that’s it “obnoxious and ignorant “. Sure Craig, everybody else has changed, and turned against you out of the clear blue sky. You have flipped out and are in denial now, and to you it’s everybody else’s fault. It’s your hubris McKee, simple and obvious ego borne arrogance.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11172">January 3, 2016 at 7:05 pm</a>
<br>
<br>You can “rest your case” on your own blog now McKee. You don’t have posting privileges here anymore.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>2016-01-03 email
<br>
<br>Well, the truth movement continues to fascinate me, as does human nature.
<br>
<br>Willy will never, ever, ever, be allowed to post on TS. Never.
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11173">2016-01-03</a>
<br>{mcb: posted but removed from HR's blog.}
<br>
<br>You emailed your resignation? Are you kidding? Have you lost your mind? Or were you always like this and I didn’t notice.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11176">January 3, 2016 at 8:27 pm</a>
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br>January 3, 2016 at 3:08 pm
<br>Kim, I don’t know you from Adam, but I find your attacks on Craig for objecting to a mountain of false claims being deliberately disseminated from a site that you defend to be indefensible. Why in the world–when Craig has so meticulously documented the false allegations against him–would you want to defend that practice? I reaffirm my invitation to Mike Collins and Ken Doc to come on my show and debate 9/11 (planes/no planes, the Pentagon and anything else), what happened at Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, even the Holocaust and the Moon hoax. I have published and done shows on all of them and more. For the video program archive, see https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsfS5KpYMzb20sCxyfSotfX1ELkIBrXZ3 For the audio, go to radiofetzer.blogspot.com. Take me on, if you like; but Craig McKee does not deserve this.
<br>
<br>REPLY
<br>Kim McLaughlin
<br>January 3, 2016 at 3:16 pm
<br>Mr. Fetzer, as an admin on the Truth Page I really only have one thing to say to you. Go sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here!
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38805
<br>. . . . .
<br><b>Hahaha!! This is hilarious! Now Craig’s new “celebrity” pal, Fetzer rides to his defense like a knight in shining armor. This is like something out of Kafka!</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11177">January 3, 2016 at 8:38 pm </a>
<br>“Kim, I really don’t want to fight with you because you seem to be in the middle of some kind of emotion meltdown that is clouding your reason. But you’re saying some very ridiculous and untrue things.”McKee
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38809
<br>
<br><b>There we have it, full blown projection from Craig McKee, who in fact is the one in the middle of some kind of emotion meltdown that is clouding his reason!
<br>
<br>Good Gawd y’all..!!!
<br>Lol</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11178">January 3, 2016 at 8:44 pm</a>
<br>
<br>“Jim Fetzer’s detailing of the no planes evidence on this post is probably one – not because I disagree with his view, but because it was off topic.”~Craig McKee
<br>
<br>Well, there we have it; ‘not because he disagrees with the no planes evidence’…
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11179">January 3, 2016 at 10:02 pm</a>
<br>
<br>That’s the lowest yet. You know full well what I meant. Shall I rephrase in a way that’s harder for you to twist? Okay. And I’ll offer some needed context: “Are there times I would have been better not to allow certain comments? Absolutely. Jim Fetzer’s detailing of the no-planes position on this post is probably one – not because I disagree with him, which I have made clear hundreds of times that I do, but because it was off topic.”
<br>
<br>There. Is that clearer to you? Have I not said hundreds of times that I support the AE911Truth position on controlled demolition? It turns out that truth is a much murkier concept for you than I realized. For years I have treated you as fairly and decently as I could, and this is what I get.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11180">January 4, 2016 at 12:57 am</a>
<br>
<br><b>I am letting this one stay visible and published Craig. Because you have finally made it crystal clear. No you have NOT made it that clear before anywhere that I have read it.
<br>I apologize for not ‘remembering’ if I should have. But as far as “knowing full well what you meant” when I wrote that — not so Craig, simply not so.
<br>
<br>As far as Fetzer, I refuse to keep my mouth shut when he spouts his bullshit. it doesn’t matter who’s yard we are playing in at the time. That’s just the way I am. We have different sensibilities on what we can put up with. It is time I go my way since you don’t understand that.
<br>
<br>Fare thee well Craig…</b>
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11181">January 4, 2016 at 1:12 am</a>
<br>
<br><b>This is one of the things allowed to be posted on the thread, even after all that has come down. No one will dare answer or confront this known disinfo agent. I would have, if still allowed to comment there. But confronting Fetzer is verboten on T&S for whatever mysterious reason.
<br>
<br>Anyone who does not grasp that Fetzer is a mole and a disinfo agent needs to review the beginning of this page – and pay close attention:</b>
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br>January 3, 2016 at 6:10 pm
<br>“And what, precisely, is supposed to qualify me as a “know disinfo agent in this movement”? Because I offer scientific explanations for events that are otherwise inexplicable, but which they apparent do not understand or want to obfuscate? and that makes ME “a disinfo op”?”
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38828
<br>. . . . . . .
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11183">January 4, 2016 at 1:41 am</a>
<br>
<br>I just have one more question Craig. Is there some reason you won’t make this clarification more publicly by restating it on the current thread there? Is the fact that Fetzer is there supporting you keep you from saying anything that might bring on his displeasure?
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11184">January 4, 2016 at 2:45 am</a>
<br>
<br>In a way, I find it ironic that I ended up being banned from Truth & Shadows during this recent fiasco on the Ken Doc thread. I don’t blame Craig for his frustrations there, but I do think he over reacted and was heavy handed with me precisely because I have been such a constant supporter, and “should have” supported Craig in his hour of troubles.
<br>
<br>But I cannot, will not, never ever stand silent in the face of Uncle Fetzer’s scurrilous bullshit. It is a matter of principle to me. Fetzer is a charlatan needing to be exposed and outed anytime and anywhere he surfaces.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>2016-01-03
<br>{mcb: published but sent back to moderation queue.}
<br>
<br>I can’t believe you say: “But confronting Fetzer is verboten on T&S for whatever mysterious reason.” You know that is not the case. I simply asked you not to call names in unspecific comments about him because it achieves nothing except starting a fight. Is that too much to ask?
<br>
<br>You have posted thousands and thousands of comments at Truth and Shadows over the years, and I have given you great leeway. I let you and Fetzer argue for more than 500 comments on one post alone. I would not do that again. There are a lot of things that I wouldn’t do again. But every decision I made was sincere even if sometimes off the mark.
<br>
<br>Anyway, if you want to keep saying false things and sounding like a more articulate version of Mike Collins, then go right ahead. In fact, I know a Facebook forum you might enjoy… Sorry, couldn’t resist. On the bright side, you can call Fetzer all the names you want now – full time!
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11186">January 4, 2016 at 3:32 am</a>
<br>
<br>Craig,
<br>
<br>You have overstayed your welcome here. I now return to you the favor you offered me of banishment.
<br>You can say whatever you want to say at your own blog.
<br>Cheerio sweetheart!
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 239 -->
<a name="x240"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x240" class="tiny">x240</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_240');">display no grace, and certainly no fairness</a></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11187">2015-01-03</a></p>
<div id="sect_240" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Whitten,
<br>
<br>The irony is thick, as is my schadenfreude at your situation: banned from T&S.
<br>
<br>You display no grace, and certainly no fairness. Ask Mr. McKee a question, then deep-six his response. Par for your course and your brand of being well adjusted in a pathological world.
<br>
<br>I know you've already got your sockpuppets planted on T&S, so you won't be missing the commentary. Mr. Ruff and Mr. Verity are also available to keep you informed, although Mr. Verity doesn't do Facebook either.
<br>
<br>Looking forward to your new blog posting that aims at Mr. McKee and T&S. Don't be burying your dings on T&S under a blog dedicated to Dr. Fetzer. Such is not very sporting.
<br>
<br>Nifty way to change the guard: cause a rumpous to get yourself purposely banned.
<br>
<br>// Herr der Elf </p>
</div><!-- section 240 -->
<a name="x241"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x241" class="tiny">x241</a>
hybridrogue1, David Hazan (@Lilaleo), James Henry Fetzer, & Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_241');">banned to the shadows</a></p>
<p>2016-01-04</p>
<div id="sect_241" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11190">January 4, 2016 at 11:18 am</a>
<br>” can’t believe you say: “But confronting Fetzer is verboten on T&S for whatever mysterious reason.” You know that is not the case. I simply asked you not to call names in unspecific comments about him because ~Craig McKee
<br>
<br><b>Let me be perfectly clear here; I was talking about the current situation on the thread about Ken Doc. I do not see why you don’t get this. Context is important in understanding the situation; I have never denied that I was allowed to confront Fetzer previously.</b>
<br><b>
<br>Secondly on the issue of “calling names”; I have never called Fetzer any name that does not describe exactly what he is, a mole, a charlatan, and an agent of cognitive dissonance. After all this time it is simply incredible that you do not see this Craig! Fetzer is far more dangerous than some small time clown like Ken Doc. Fetzer has duped hundreds of thousands of people with his nonsense. It is clearly nonsense. You yourself admit it is nonsense. So…what? Do you actually believe that Fetzer is merely MISTAKEN???
<br>Seriously? That is simply naïve.
<br>
<br>So Craig, is calling you naïve an empty slur? Do you really think I say that in meanness simply to insult you? After all of these years Craig? That is an incredible position to take.
<br>
<br>Addressing the second part of this sentence; let me remind you of something you said on the very thread we are discussing:
<br></b>
<br>“Does it mean don’t say anything that might prompt an argument? Don’t criticize anyone because they’ll react and then we have a fight?”~Craig McKee
<br>In combination now: “it achieves nothing except starting a fight. Is that too much to ask?”
<br>
<br><i><b>Yes by God it IS!</b></i>
<br>
<br><b>I have addressed your middle paragraph already in my remarks above. I will not address your third and final paragraph, as you yourself must know it you only said it to be hurtful. I have not said any “false things”. I admit I have taunted you, trying to get you to see that Fetzer is playing you for a fool. I have tried to get you to explicitly denounce the crazy “theories” he is spewing – denounce IN REAL TIME, while it counted, during the current debate there – no matter how many times you have said that you “disagree” with various things I felt you needed to be FIRM and outspoken beyond “the call of duty” so that even the most dense reader could not mistake what you think.
<br>
<br>Finally, I must repeat again; I do not have a problem with anything you believe about 9/11 Craig. My whole problem is the way you handle Jim Fetzer with kid gloves. I simply don’t get it. I haven’t been able to understand this for a long time – I still do not understand it.
<br>
<br>So again I ask: <i>Do you actually believe that Fetzer is merely MISTAKEN?</i>
<br>
<br>This is the thought I want to leave you with here Mr McKee. Because this is something that you are going to have to figure out sooner or later:
<br>
<br>Is Fetzer a genuine seeker of Truth, and he is simply mistaken in his views?
<br></b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11191">January 4, 2016 at 11:46 am</a>
<br><b>Here is an exchange on the Ken Doc page that illustrates what I am talking about:</b>
<br>. . . . . . . . .
<br><b>Kim McLaughlin</b>
<br>January 3, 2016 at 3:16 pm
<br>Mr. Fetzer, as an admin on the Truth Page I really only have one thing to say to you. Go sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here!
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br>January 3, 2016 at 3:20 pm
<br>That’s the kind of reply I would expect from a troll or a shill: an ad hominem with nothing to back it up. You cannot show that I have anything wrong, so you don’t even make the effort. I think we can see why you belong with Ken Doc and Mike Collins. Something about “birds of a feather”.
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>January 3, 2016 at 3:35 pm1
<br>I am going to leave this comment up because Jim has already responded to it in a fair way. But it is a bullshit comment that adds nothing of value.
<br>. . . . . . . . . .
<br>
<br><b>REALLY Craig? You claim Jim responded in a fair way? He called Kim a “troll” and a “shill” and claimed she was using “ad hominem” — that is “fair” in your view? You know how utterly incredible I find such things.
<br>You get pissed at me for defending Kim McLaughlin from Fetzer’s defaming bullshit, and take it to mean that I am insulting you!
<br>
<br>This is how mixed up it becomes when you do not recognize an agent of ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ in action. You are duped by Fetzer and lash out at both Ms McLaughlin, and me for defending her! That is the very Divide and Conquer technique of cognitive infiltration that Fetzer is a master at- AND YOU FALL FOR IT!
<br>
<br>And I know that you take these remarks as further “attacks” on you!!!
<br>
<br>Craig, it is bloody nonsense! Both Adam Ruff and myself have attempted to warn you about Fetzer. Why oh why can you not get it? It just breaks my heart to watch this.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11186">January 4, 2016 at 3:32 am</a>
<br>Craig,
<br>
<br><b>I have changed my mind. You can comment here if you wish. I am not going to simply act out of spite. Just remember I will answer anything you say frankly, and will hold nothing back.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11194">January 4, 2016 at 5:14 pm</a>
<br>{mcb: original #comment-11194.}
<br>I browsed through this – not sure what to make of it. Seems like it is more of techniques of collecting info off the internet than it is for agents of Cognitivie Infiltration, like Fetzer, Sunstein et al.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
<br>
<br>http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5
<br>
<br>1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
<br>2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
<br>3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
<br>4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
<br>5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
<br>https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11194">January 4, 2016 at 5:14 pm</a>
<br>{mcb: The original #comment-11194 above was replace with this.}
<br>
<br>After reviewing the row on Truth & Shadows about Ken Doc, I come back to my first impression and thoughts on the story.
<br>Frankly Ken Doc isn’t worth the ink it would take to print out Craig’s article. He is a nothing, a nobody when it comes to the totality of things 9/11.
<br>
<br>What did Craig accomplish with this article besides some temporary ego gratification? What were the costs of this article? For one thing Craig promoted the name of someone I certainly never heard of, Ken Doc… who? My first thought was and remains, who the fuck is Ken Doc and why should I care? Well now we know who Ken Doc is don’t we?…some punk on a Facebook forum spouting bullshit about Mr McKee, and who knows or cares what else.
<br>
<br>So now EVERYBODY that reads Truth and Shadows knows the name of Ken Doc.
<br>
<br>A Hollywood agent once remarked “Publicity is what counts, it doesn’t matter whether it is good publicity or bad publicity”; publicity makes for notoriety or celebrity, and little divides the two forms of being famous.
<br>
<br>So now because of Craig’s clever PR he has inadvertently made Ken Doc a person of substance. A substance he did not have prior to Craig’s article on T&S.
<br>
<br>Are there other consequences? Perhaps ones that will last far beyond the temporary gratification Craig feels today? I can name one that I think will haunt Craig for a long time to come: His coddling of Jim Fetzer during the first day and a half of commentary. Fetzer is like a South American Poison Dart Frog. You handle it, you die. Whether Craig agrees with anything Fetzer says or not, Craig now carries the stench of Fetzer attached to his name and the blog Truth and Shadows, that has hosted this vile pretender and lying agent of cognitive infiltration.
<br>
<br>Craig has also lost a true friend in tossing me. He may never come to realize it. I was attempting to get Craig to see beyond the moment, to think of what seeds he may be sowing that might come back to haunt him. My efforts may have been clumsy, but I held and hold no contempt for Mr McKee. Was I mad at him for sending me to the cooler? Yes enraged, and I am still sore from that. But those bruises with fade and are already. I fear the wounds Craig has suffered will fester with time and become a heavier burden than now.
<br>
<br>As there seems nothing further I can do about the situation as it has panned out, I will try to move on and put it behind me. I wish Craig the best of luck! I hope he and Truth & Shadows flourish in the coming new year.
<br>
<br>Peace, Willy Whitten</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11195">January 4, 2016 at 5:21 pm</a>
<br>“Since armies are legal, we feel that war is acceptable; in general, nobody feels that war is criminal or that accepting it is criminal attitude. In fact, we have been brainwashed…War and the large military establishments are the greatest sources of violence in the world. Whether their purpose is defensive or offensive, these vast powerful organizations exist solely to kill human beings… We should all be horrified… but we are too confused.”~Dalai Lama
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11198">January 4, 2016 at 7:20 pm</a>
<br><b>This is the original Facebook page attacking Mr Mckee:
<br>https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/craig-mckee/
<br>
<br>It is indeed squattle and rhetorical bullshit, to frame Craig in such a manner. But I will tell you what: I would never have laid eyes on this junk by KenDoc had it not been promoted on T&S.
<br>The purported numbers for the Facebook are impressive, but I think deceptive, in that most readers are likely part time facebook dumbfucks who join facebook as a “party-place” — these are NOT serious people for the most part.
<br>
<br>However this “conclusion” of KenDoc is indeed utter tripe:</b>
<br>
<br>“Either Craig McKee is not a very good researcher or he is a plant in this movement trying to divide and conquer it. Does Craig McKee want to be the next James Fetzer of disinfo? Because all Craig does is attack real information and promotes false theories. Last point, make sure you believe a plane did not hit the Pentagon, otherwise, Craig’s next blog might be about you! Craig McKee is a Troll and he runs a conspiracy site known as Truth and Shadows.”~KenDoc
<br>
<br><b>The truth of the matter is that Craig runs an open forum addressing many points of view, he doesn’t necessarily condone the point of view of the theories or personalities he profiles on his blog. he allows and extraordinary span of freedom of speech, and is one of the most fair of any moderators I have ever Encountered. I fully support Mr McKee in his efforts to provide the movement with timely reviews of various points of view that are swirling out there in the digital domain.
<br>
<br>The recent conflict between Craig and I have not changed my overall favorable view of Craig McKee or his website Truth & Shadows. Our disagreements are complex and subtle, and as noted earlier are mainly to do with Jim Fetzer, who is one of the most dangerous agents of disruption on the Internet today, with far more influence than any small time punk like Ken Doc will ever have.
<br>
<br>Still I do not advise the banning of Fetzer from the site. I only advise very public distancing from him by Craig anytime Fetzer ends up commenting on Truth & Shadows.
<br>
<br>Ken Doc is a flash in the pan. Jim Fetzer is an ever present danger to truth on the Internet.
<br></b>
<br>See: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38882">January 4, 2016 at 5:58 pm</a>
<br>David,
<br>
<br>I thank you for your thoughtful comments. And you raise a fair point – that I have been pulled into the gutter, where I have no business being. But sometimes this is better than the alternative – doing nothing.
<br>
<br>Believe me, I debated for weeks about how to deal with this. One option was to ignore any attacks. I mean the attacks are so absurd and so juvenile, they are hardly worth worrying about. There would have been some advantages in this approach, to be sure.
<br>
<br>A second option would be to expose what these people are doing and to use the situation to illustrate some of the ways that real disinformation is being used to obscure the truth. I finally chose the latter. And despite the enormous stress it caused, I’m glad I did. I also wanted to expose how this Facebook page is doing all it can to drive any newcomers to the Movement away but insulting and mocking them. I think my dissection of Collins demonstrates how that is being done.
<br>
<br>I knew that an article of this kind would cause a shitstorm, but this was not the intention or the desire on my part. I thought that the idea that a truther should simply never tell obvious lies about anyone’s position would go without saying. But apparently, some people don’t see this.
<br>
<br>The fact that Kim McLaughlin can not only justify Doc’s lies but actually come to agree with them during an afternoon without the slightest basis for doing so, is absolutely incredible and absolutely unprincipled. This is not a person who cares at all about truth or who can even recognize it when she sees it. All she cares about is staying in her clique. She can have it.
<br>
<br>As I tried to point out, I had not dealt with any of those people for the better part of a year when Doc and Collins thought it would be a great idea to launch more attacks. And those who think responding is “starting a war” simply don’t understand what they are talking about.
<br>
<br>Not one comment out of more than 180 addressed the issue of so-called truthers attacking and mocking “conspiracy theorists.” If people don’t understand how damaging that is, then I don’t know what to say to them. Going on about “conspiracy sheep” is beyond irresponsible, it is an attack on truth itself. I think it’s something an agent would say to divide and to denigrate those who investigate conspiracies.
<br>
<br>So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11202">January 4, 2016 at 11:20 pm</a>
<br>
<br>“So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.”~Craig McKee
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38882
<br>
<br>Let me see if I can decipher exactly what the subtext in this text means here.
<br>
<br>As the prequel has reference to Hybridrogue1, I shall have to assume that this is meant to describe me:
<br>
<br>“I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.”
<br>
<br>Now Craig has complained of “low blows” here several times. Nothing I have said so far comes anywhere near this insinuation McKee has just made. So I am left with Craig’s opinion that I don’t care about truth. or think it matters. Quite a remarkable assertion. Or as I would characterize it, a slur.
<br>
<br>Her is a guy running a forum that allows the most infamous charlatan and disinfo shill on the web today to post freely on his web; and he says that I am the one who doesn’t care about truth!
<br>
<br>Anyone who allows James Fetzer free reign to spew his lies and bullshit, has no just place to claim another has is unconcerned about the truth. Craig has been hypocritical in a few of his comments there and here, but this one is a stand out in spurious nonsense.
<br>
<br>“Mild mannered” Craig McKee is a supreme chump and a self righteous asshole.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>2016-01-04
<br>{mcb: Published and emailed before retraction.}
<br>
<br>“I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.”
<br>
<br>Just tell me that wasn’t aimed at me Craig, and I will dump the comment above this one.
<br>Veri thinks it wasn’t aimed at me… is he right? I’ll apologize if you clear this up.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br>2016-01-04
<br>{mcb: Published and emailed before retraction.}
<br>
<br>I don’t think it was, either, Willy. If anything, I am reading Craig’s last paragraph as a somewhat disguised expression of remorse about the fact that you are gone.
<br>
<br>Either way, if I may say so, both of you really need to cut the crap. If for nothing else, just not to give the douches over at the Fartbook the satisfaction of knowing they have managed to do some damage to Craig, you, and more importantly, to T&S. If you don’t, then the divisive tactics employed by these numbskulls come out victorious.
<br>
<br>You already know well my ultra cynical view of the truth-scmruth movement and its internal dynamics… But, even then, I can’t begin to tell you how crappy this childish feud of the two of you makes me feel. I suspect (and hope) that there others at T&S who share my pain and utter disbelief.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>2016-01-04
<br>{mcb: Published and emailed before retraction.}
<br>
<br>Thank you for that input David. I will take it to heart.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>2016-01-04
<br>{mcb: Published and emailed before retraction.}
<br>
<br><b>I am done with this I have nothing more to add, and perhaps some more to subtract.
<br>Thanks for good advice from several of my friends.
<br>May peace prevail at some point.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11210">January 5, 2016 at 10:40 am</a>
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br>January 5, 2016 at 12:31 am
<br>“You are right, David. I do not suffer fools gladly. And cowards display cowardice, just as they do.”
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38889
<br>
<br><b>That’s right David, Fetzer doesn’t suffer fools gladly – but he takes advantage of them gladly. The only people who buy into his bullshit are fools and idiots. without such fools and morons Fetzer wouldn’t have a following at all. Fetzer is the simpleton’s charlatan, and the moron’s champion.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11212">January 5, 2016 at 12:06 pm</a>
<br>
<br><b>Fetzer, your very existence on the material plain is an insult to nature and truth. The soles of your shoes whisper filthy lies to the ground beneath your feet everywhere you tread.
<br>
<br>On the planet Earth an object at rest, that is stationary geographically is INERT.
<br>It has but one quality: Mass
<br>
<br>Vector is a quality of momentum. An object at rest has zero momentum. This is the most elementary of Newtonian physics, and yet Fetzer doesn’t understand this.
<br>
<br>Is he really this stupid?
<br>
<br>Or is he counting on his audience to be stupid? After being rebuffed on these issues for years by so many people, I assert that Fetzer is NOT this stupid, that he is in fact a shyster conman out to dupe the gullible.
<br></b>
<br>“I don’t think rogue1 has scored any points here. Even if he wants to play the very childish game of “no planes” means no planes..”~Fetzer — September 1, 2012 at 10:32 am
<br>And why do you ignore the fact that the effects of the 200-ton plane hitting the stationary building at more than 500 mph would be the same as the effects of the 500,000-ton tower moving at more than 500 mph hitting the stationary plane? You seem to believe that none of us notices that you are dealing with one of the vectors while completely ignoring the other.
<br>”http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12407
<br>
<br>> “You seem to believe that none of us notices that you are dealing with one of the vectors while completely ignoring the other.”~James H. Fetzer — September 9, 2012 at 10:23 am
<br>. . . . . .
<br><i><b>WTF?</b></i>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11214">January 5, 2016 at 3:51 pm</a>
<br>BANNED FROM TRUTH & SHADOWS — January 2, 2016
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 2, 2016 at 5:51 pm
<br>Well as you see Craig, well enough will not be left alone. I understand that Ken Doc and his oinkers are dishonest shills, And I know you have never condoned some of the nutty concepts that they have accused you of. BUT you have given solace even yet this very day to someone who does promote screwball junk science and absurd theories.
<br>
<br>This “no-planes” at the WTC has been shot down as absolute nonsense by all with any grasp of Newtonian physics. “Projected Holograms” are simply impossible in principle. And the other issues in dispute are equally unscientific twaddle.
<br>
<br>And now as we see with the latest post here (January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm), we are no longer confined to the issues on Ken Doc and his nonsense, but are treated to an onslaught of absolute bullshit about the the towers not being hit by real aircraft. So we end up with junk science again:
<br>The “No-planes at WTC”, attended by the same crap pseudoscience that has come from this charlatan for years now.
<br>
<br>If you won’t at least make it clear that you don’t agree with this nonsense, how can you complain when someone accuses you of promoting it. You don’t have to censor the party spouting this bullshit, but you can make your position on the matter clear; that you allow all points of view here, but do not necessarily condone those points of view.
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38658
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo) </b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11215">January 5, 2016 at 4:12 pm</a>
<br>I hear you, Willy. I really do. But, I do not feel this much emotion and this much disdain for the man is a good mix for a successful strategy. In fact, it is the kind of shit these predatory characters feed on.
<br>
<br>Our Professor Cockatoo is a pro… In all senses of the word. You can spit at him and he’d say it’s raining and put a raincoat on… So, it is indeed painful for me to imagine him havin’ a good ol’ laugh watching you and Craig go at each other because of him.
<br>
<br>On the flip side, Craig is a good man. In all senses of the word. And he makes the mistake good men make, which is to assume that people operate under a mutually shared umbrella of ethics, common sense, character, etc., and his imagination might sometimes fail him to understand how dark and twisted some minds are, and that, when stakes are high, these minds cut each other’s throats without even blinking.
<br>
<br>He made an honest attempt to expose these douches, but calling them liars is not very different then telling a clown his nose is red. These people do this for a living… They put on their costumes and just go to work. And, they are all in… Won’t back off just because they are exposed, or caught lying, or lost an argument.
<br>
<br>I really do not mean to be patronizing towards you or craig, and by no means believe that i am smarter or wiser than either one of you. I just feel that, at least for the moment, I have a clearer, more level headed view of what went down between you two. Just trying help.
<br>
<br>(by he way, I asked publicly if anyone knew what the fartbook admin characters do for a living, but no answer so far)
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11216">January 5, 2016 at 4:31 pm</a>
<br>Hi David,
<br>
<br>I notice you have a comment in waiting. If you mentioned HR1 or any variation thereof, that would be the cause of holding up the comment.
<br>
<br>I grok all that you say. As I have already said, I do not hold Craig in contempt at all, I do find him to be gullible in the extreme, but that is not contemptible, it is tragic.
<br>
<br>I do have exceedingly great contempt for Uncle Fetzer. This is true, it is intellectual, but that does not discount a passionate aspect to my contempt. I apologize for neither, as passion drives action, and my action is of the pen…(or the analog, keyboard of the postmodern era). I feel it is my duty to help unmask this King Rat, James Fetzer.
<br>
<br>As you know I am hardly the only one who feels such contempt for this impostor and crank. I have cited several others in the longer commentary above in this thread.
<br>
<br>Now I have the added motive to out this vile charlatan, as he was the core instigator of the breakup between Craig and I. Whether Craig can ever be convinced of what a monster Fetzer is…I simply do not know. That is obviously out of my hands now.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11217">January 5, 2016 at 5:20 pm</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>“If you mentioned HR1 or any variation thereof, that would be the cause of holding up the comment.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Really? That is ridiculous if true… I had not used your name in vain… But quoted Craig’s last sentence there which did contain the H word :-}]
<br>
<br>Needless to say, my comment-in-witing was a gentle attempt to usher in a conciliatory process between you two. Although, I have to admit, there is a bit of selfishness on my part in my efforts towards this goal:
<br>
<br>I became aware of T&S through you, and without you there, it will certainly turn into a lonelier place. And, if Craig lets this clash between you go on to really become permanent, I will start thinking he is not who and what i thought he was after all, and will probably stop frequenting the blog eventually. That would be very BLEH!
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>“Now I have the added motive to out this vile charlatan”</p></blockquote>
<p>Now, <b><i>that</i></b>, I will stand fully behind, sir!
<br>
<br>Because, even though i know that each well-poisoner (like the fartbook douches) acts at a certain capacity within their abilities, I always feel the real damage is done at a much higher level, by people who have academic titles in front of their names. So, I do share your contempt. It is just that, in this instance, the expression of that contempt caught Craig in an extremely vulnerable state, I believe when he had mentally prepared himself for a war of words with the ken doc clan, but he had not anticipated the possibility of the thread moving in the Fetzer-centric direction and take away from the purpose of his efforts. At least not so soon, on the first day after publishing his write up. He might not feel as strongly as you do about the guy, but i can’t imagine him not thinking Fetzer is at best more-holes-than-cheese, and at worst a pure opera and/or a charlatan.
<br>
<br>I am not really worried about you and craig not ever making up. The agitated waters might need to calm down a little more before sailing into the sunset :-)
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11218">January 5, 2016 at 5:24 pm</a>
<br>“Admittedly, I was sometimes confused by how strongly he defended some of his positions, perhaps most confusing to me was his relatively recent defense of the government agency NASA which, as a Flat Earther who knows the whole agency is a giant money-siphoning hoax, I attempted to challenge directly at his blog – only to be un-welcomed and blocked. While not directly 9/11 related, I’m hoping Mr. McKee will someday write on his investigation into that subject.”~Sherif Shaalan — January 5, 2016 at 11:26 am
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38905
<br>
<br><b><i>Hahahaha!!</i> This is hilarious! Shaalan is an admitted “Flat Earther” — And he is complaining about my not allowing his stupid bullshit on my blog. The chump has his mind in the Dark Ages and his head up his ass.
<br>What a joke this Sherif jackass is.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11220">January 5, 2016 at 6:18 pm</a>
<br>Yo David,
<br>
<br>I appreciate your moral support. I wish I could share your optimism about reconciliation with Mr McKee.
<br>I’m afraid I find it unlikely that Craig will submit to such petitions as yours and Adam Ruff’s. Pride can run deep.
<br>
<br>It is funny that the nutballs are coming out now that I have been blackballed from T&S, there will likely be more as time goes on. That screwball Sherif Shaalan, is one of the first of many. This fliptart actually believes that the Earth is flat. He sent me several videos on this nonsense and asked me to “critique” them.
<br>Lol… I thought Galileo had taken care of that in the Middle Ages! Unbelievable junk…
<br>I would expect “TamberineMan”, and others to pipe up soon. Hufferd should be blowing some anal hurlant there soon, congratulating Craig on “finally seeing the light” about that “vicious monster HR1” — Oh yea, I have made enemies of a lot of goofballs in my time.
<br>
<br>Maybe Craig will reinstate Maxifucker’s posting privileges out of spite! Add these guys, Fetzer and Maxipad, and you will have a Crackpot Jamboree at T&S … a flood of Yahoos! Jonathan Swift would be proud.
<br>
<br>2016 is already stacking up to be a VERY STRANGE YEAR. It looks like it will divide the men from the boys, and the gullible from the wise…and ne’er the twain shall meet..
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-11224">January 5, 2016 at 7:38 pm</a>
<br><b>Hahaha! I can imagine that the Maxitwat is just squealing with joy because of the recent developements on T&S.
<br>
<br>Hey maybe you can get your stupid ass reinstated there! Give it a try Maxifuck!!! Can’t hurt to try!
<br>
<br>Getting you back on there with Uncle Fistfucker, the Flat Earthers, maybe TamborineMan…and all the rest of the fruitcakes that used to post there would be a real Hoedown of Lunacy!!!</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11225">January 5, 2016 at 8:15 pm</a>
<br>Notice that Sharif avoided answering the question, with some rhetorical squattle.
<br>
<br>Now on our very first encounter on T&S, Sharif was lobbying for me to be banned within two exchanges.
<br>I took it as an agenda for his being there in the first place. It has panned out that way over the course of time since then.
<br>
<br>The Lunatics are now taking over the asylum! T&S is in for some very weird times in 2016.
<br>\\][//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 241 -->
<a name="x242"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x242" class="tiny">x242</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_242');">Mr. Whitten also fits that mold</a></p>
<p>2016-01-04</p>
<div id="sect_242" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Not published.}
<br>
<br>Craig McKee wrote:
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.</blockquote>
<p>Mr. Whitten takes offense:
</p>
<blockquote><p>As the prequel has reference to Hybridrogue1, I shall have to assume that this is meant to describe me.</blockquote>
<p>That would be a false assumption, because Mr. Whitten completely ignores the parenthetical phrase: <i>"that's another story."</i> In other words, Mr. Whitten's forced departure is not related to the Ken Doc piece, nor to Mr. McKee's subsequent comments about truthers who aren't.
<br>
<br>However, if Mr. Whitten insists on taking offense, let's see how Mr. Whitten also fits that mold reserved for Ken Doc and Mike Collins.
<br>
<br>T&S's <i>"most prolific commenter"</i> was also a chief participant in nearly all its heated flame wars. Quick to shoot ad hominem and one-liners, and not a care about the fall-out or having his own words deleted. The fast majority of that "Whitten work" did not even merit being re-purposed and preserved on his own blog, which alone should attest to its lack of worthiness.
<br>
<br>Mr. Whitten was challenged to exhibit an open-mind with an objective review of (someone's) work. Mr. Whitten ran out the clock on providing the review, admitted to not finishing reading the work, and then milked a lie for literally years that the work was so bad that he physically destroyed it.
<br>
<br>Had Mr. Whitten held to the assignment and provided an objective good, bad, and ugly review, regardless of how thin it turned out to be, his reputation would not have suffered. But Mr. Whitten was prone to telling (small) lies, promoting other people's work as his own (albeit with improvement in this regard over the years), and fighting flaming battles about what transpired in run-up to getting the assignment instead of doing the assignment.
<br>
<br>When the topic of discussion moved beyond that work and into other areas, again Mr. Whitten demonstrated the skills of avoidance of such scholarly reviews while maintaining his barbed front of labeling it negative things.</p>
</div><!-- section 242 -->
<a name="x243"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x243" class="tiny">x243</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_243');">earned your banishment</a></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-11232">2016-01-05</a></p>
<div id="sect_243" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-11228">2016-01-05</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Whitten,
<br>
<br>Let us not lose sight of the fact that <i><b>you earned your banishment.</b></i> (Good thing you've got sockpuppets already installed on T&S who lamely plead for your return.) Although you wrote and then deleted some inciting comments to Craig, after advice from Mr. Hazan, this doesn't mean that they landed completely into the ethernet bit-bucket. I can only imagine the contents of your <i>"resignation email".</i> Oh the pleasures of being one of the few subscribers to the comments on your blog!
<br>
<br><b>But rather than pollute your hit-piece on Dr. Fetzer or your hit-pieces on me with comments related to Mr. McKee and T&S, why don't you start a brand-new smear campaign for Mr. McKee like you did for COTO previously?</b>
<br>
<br>I have issues with several premises that Dr. Fetzer supports. I can take down NPT and Holograms more rationally, reasonably, logically than you could or can (in your confused, highly disorganized, hate-filled blogs). I can provide source links to the previous T&S discussions even when I don't wordsmith new verbiage.
<br>
<br>Unlike you, I am consistent, moral, and above-board. I write for posterity, which curbs me during authoring. (Take a lesson.) I am unashamed to display my evolution in thought, or to admit where I was wrong. If you could present a convincing case against my 4th generation nukes while at the same time shoring up the gross deficiencies in the NT limited-hang-out, I would have changed my opinions already and issued public apologies.
<br>
<br>But, Mr. Whitten, you have been a game player. You are more interested in the fight than an outcome that sides with TRUTH. Case in point, Mr. McKee wrote:
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.</p></blockquote>
<p>Your uncurbed, shoot-from-the-hip response completely ignored the parenthetical message regarding your departure being <b><i>another story</i></b> and not related to the Ken Doc piece, nor to Mr. McKee's subsequent comments about truthers who aren't.
<br>
<br>Your departure was directly dependent upon your unhinged and unsubstantiated (in the comment) belittling of a participant and his hobby-horse, a re-occuring negative tactic against many other participants that often led the T&S discussion astray.
<br>
<br>I can boast that my T&S silence was not based on anything I actually did or for anything I was going to do per se. It came out of fear about the reaction of easily unhinged participants (e.g., you, Mr. Ruff, sockpuppet VerityTwo) to anything I might slip in sideways occasionally (because Truth dictates it). To the lower degree I participated, such infrequent inserts could have been easily ignored... unless there was an agenda to derail.
<br>
<br><b>But hey, Mr. Whitten. Me of all people are justified in pushing your buttons by implying that you are a truther who isn't.</b> Mr. Ruff so wonderfully wrote <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38838">January 3, 2016 at 9:08 pm</a> regarding Ken Doc:
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p> When Ken Doc made the immoral decision to start lying about other truthers he became a liar instead of a truther... It is just a plain simple fact Kim that Ken is doing wrong and that he is the attacker in this. Craig is defending himself and therefore he is NOT the attacker and he is NOT the one causing division.... <b>The simple fact is Kim that lying about others means that you are not a truther. Period.</b> </p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Whitten, rhetorically speaking, how would you classify your two blog postings dedicated to me?
<br>
<br>How would you classify the <b><i>lie</i></b> that you diligently maintained for a couple of years about you having physically destroyed Dr. Wood's book? [I don't care one "whit" about Dr. Wood's book or what your review might have been. I have my own issues with it, was only after its nuggets of truth anyway, and made clear this agenda to you from the onset.] You so spectacularly screwed the pooch on this simple test of your objectivity and integrity. You ran out the clock on your review, admitted to not finishing reading the work, and then milked the lie about its physical destruction <b>so that you could avoid a detailed, reasoned, and rational discussion.</b>
<br>
<br>I can certainly laugh about that state of affairs, but it continued. You proudly carried this willful and purposeful ignorance at reviewing source material into 4th generation nukes, the natural evolution of my line of inquery. This is on top of the many subtle lies and deceitful debate tactics that you were caught in.
<br>
<br>You, as T&S's <i>"most prolific commenter"</i>, were also a chief participant in nearly all its heated flame wars. Quick to shoot ad hominem and belittling one-liners, and not a care about the fall-out or having your own words deleted. The vast majority of that "Whitten work" did not even merit being re-purposed and preserved on your own blog, which <b>alone should attest to its lack of worthiness.</b>
<br>
<br>At any rate, Mr. Whitten, I provided you in the past with much free advice on how to improve your blog. Some is repeated above that, regardless of the forum, you need to write from the onset for posterity -- with fact and tone -- and you need to be actively saving and re-publishing it. Prove that you stand behind your words. And if a couple months later upon review, the words no longer reflect your cooled-off state, they should be edited accordingly.
<br>
<br>If there is any validity to the two hit-pieces (and HUNDREDS of unstructured, unorganized comments) you've penned against me, then it could stand to be re-worked and the ad hominem & lies purged in a new creation, deep-sixing the old. Their continued existence as-is only continue to discredit you.
<br>
<br><b>What Ken Doc is to Mr. McKee, you have been to me.</b> Coincidence?
<br>
<br>If you haven't irreversibly burned your T&S bridges and if there is any thought to restoring your commenting abilities, then it should be <b><i>after</i></b> another month or two cooling off in the penalty box. And in fairness, I should be restored beforehand or at the latest at the same time. Your actions (and lies) have been so much worse than mine.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 243 -->
<a name="x244"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x244" class="tiny">x244</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_244');">the only one who reads whinyshit comments</a></p>
<p>2016-01-05</p>
<div id="sect_244" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-11244">January 6, 2016 at 5:36 am</a>
<br>
<br>I am the only one who reads your whinyshit comments to HR1blog Maxitwat.
<br>
<br>You see that is the difference between you and I. I don’t need T&S as a platform for my ideas and commentary. I have a blog of my own that gets from 150 to 200 hits every 24 hours.
<br>
<br>So I have a voice on the web. You don’t with your measly little twat-blog.
<br>
<br>You sending me your whining commentary proves that to me. So wallow in your angst all alone you pathetic little shit.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11236">January 6, 2016 at 2:34 am</a>
<br>Craig McKee — January 5, 2016 at 8:55 pm
<br>“Based on what I’ve seen on hybridrogue’s blog today, the chances of this split being reversed are much more remote than they were even yesterday. I will post more after the hockey game I’m watching is over.”
<br>* * * * * * * *
<br><i><b>Gee Craig…was it something I said??? Lol</b></i>
<br>
<br><b>Maybe I should let you moderate my blog as well.
<br>
<br>You don’t like my views on certain things, such as the Moon Hoax bullshit for example.
<br>
<br>Are you going to pretend you have the chops scientifically to make a good argument against the Apollo Missions? Seriously? You don’t know enough physics to make a reasoned argument against a pretender like Jim Fetzer, that’s why you fell for the hokey bullshit of Max Bridges for YEARS.
<br>
<br>Yea, I agree with everybody else: You are a fair and just guy…until your ego gets bruised.
<br>I’ve apologized for hurting your feelings with some of the things I have said. That is the last one you get.
<br>
<br>If you ever want me to come back to T&S again, it’s up to you to apologize to me. What makes you think I am so desperate to be reinstated on Truth & Shadows anyway? I am NOT, if you are going to play hard ball; “My blog verses Your Blog” bullshit games, you can take Your blog and shove it.
<br>
<br>That should settle it “Permanent-like” aye?
<br>The year isn’t even 5 days old!</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11238">January 6, 2016 at 3:22 am</a>
<br><b>You can take Your blog and shove it. That should settle it “Permanent-like” aye?
<br>
<br>And you can quote me on that McKee.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11239">January 6, 2016 at 3:45 am</a>
<br>James Henry Fetzer — January 5, 2016 at 10:37 pm
<br>“Craig, You are such a good and decent man who has only the truth at heart that this has become a litmus test for integrity among students of 9/11: Those who attack you have shown that they are not dedicated to truth and do not deserve our respect. We know who you are–and through their attacks we are discovering who they are. This is a painful but instructive exercise.”
<br>* * * * * *
<br><b>Here is the alliance as it is stacking up…a good and decent man who is being played by the King Rat, James Fetzer. And Craig is so naïve he <i>still</i> doesn’t get it.
<br>What a shame for Craig personally and for Truth & Shadows.
<br>
<br>You’ve made your bed Craig, now sleep in it.
<br>
<br>Why would David Hazan say such a thing?
<br>Are you fucking serious Craig? Wake the fuck up!!!!!!</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11243">January 6, 2016 at 4:59 am</a>
<br>Craig McKee — January 5, 2016 at 11:54 pm
<br>“Well, that’s a fresh perspective I wasn’t expecting!
<br>I didn’t count on Kim jumping the shark, but she has made her choice, and she’ll have to live with that. Now she says I defend Jim Fetzer “constantly,” which completes her conversion to the Ken Doc/Mike Collins school of truth telling.
<br>Despite how painful and stressful all of this has been, if I had to do it again, I would.”
<br>* * * * * * * * * *
<br><b>How is allowing Fetzer a platform on T&S not “defending Jim Fetzer”? You host him you own him.
<br>He is yours.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11241">January 6, 2016 at 4:35 am</a>
<br><b>“Smoke ’em all out, Craig!”~sockpuppet2012 — January 5, 2016 at 11:23 pm
<br>
<br>Yea Sockpuppet! And who will be left standing on T&S when the smoke clears?
<br>
<br>All of the fawning sycophants to Craig McKee__that’s who.
<br>
<br>Welcome to Wishy-Washy Land you suck-up little punk.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11242">January 6, 2016 at 4:42 am</a>
<br><b>I am satisfied to be ex-T&S. It feels good to be out here on the perimeter on my own.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11246">January 6, 2016 at 10:53 am</a>
<br>Craig McKee — January 2, 2016 at 6:21 pm
<br>“I am composing a response to your comment. Please stop commenting until I have posted it!”
<br>* * * * * * * *
<br><b>So that was on the 2nd of January. And last night Craig was going to compose his thoughts on the “breakup between us” – after watching a hockey game…(now there’s some serious business to have to take care of) and now it is:</b>
<br>
<br>“David, I have just read the latest on HR’s blog, and I don’t have the energy to deal with this tonight. I will say this, however. It is hybridrogue who is deciding that this split cannot be fixed. He is behaving like a bully with a gleeful mean streak, like Mike Collins with a better vocabulary.”~Craig McKee –January 6, 2016 at 12:00 am
<br>
<br><b>It appears Craig is waiting for some sort of subneural reasoning to bubble up from his gut, to give him some idea of what to say about everything.
<br>
<br>The whole excuse given for initially putting me on moderation, was that Craig couldn’t think while I was bugging him by putting up posts after he told me to stop; even though he told both me and Fetzer to stop, and Fetzer didn’t stop either but that’s okay because…because….<i>because???</i> Because Fetzer’s the wonderful wizard of Ahhs???
<br>
<br>So now, as usual I get the blame for this whole mess because I am writing commentary on my own blog, and Craig isn’t writing the commentary he has been promising for four days now.
<br>
<br><i>Sure!</i> That makes sense! (don’t it?)
<br>
<br>And I am admonished by friends to stand back, and give Craig time to cool off, to let the pressure cooker frying his mind shut off, before his knapsack explodes killing 300 bystanders and flipping tables at the restaurant spilling corn-syrup-food-colored-fake-blood all over T&S.
<br>
<br>Yes gleeful <i>GLEEFUL</i> words of wonder spill forth here “merrily merrily merrily” this must be a dream! Or could it be some new form of Canadian Stand-up Comedy?
<br>
<br>Well whatever it is, it is most entertaining, and I can’t wait to read the next chapter that will likely never come.
<br>
<br>Yes! <i>YES!!</i> It is ALL my fault! Because I am THE MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE, and I have you all in my thrall, and there is not a move you can make or a thought you can think without my will power guiding them! Remember that next time you try to flip a booger with your pinky and it ends up stuck on your reading glasses.
<br>
<br>Give me a Lol…has anybody seen the Lol? I thought I saw a herd of them stampeding the gates of T&S last night…maybe it was just hotdog flavored water squirting from chocolate starfish.
<br>
<br>Good morning world! Behold the brand new day.</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11251">January 6, 2016 at 5:03 pm</a>
<br><b>But hey! How would <i>YOU</i> deal with some backwater asshole who hardly anyone in the world has ever heard of, like Ken Doc? Well Hell’s Bells!!! The answer surely must be to blow up a dirigible the size of the Good-Year Blimp, with Ken Doc’s name and address flashing in neon lights and float it above your valley. figuring the whole time that surely no one is going to remember the name of Ken Doc now! Not after this!
<br>
<br>Surely ‘KenDoc the Unknown’ has no scud missiles to launch into your valley – you are safe from all reprisals because hey, why would Ken want to shoot down his biggest PR stunt made by his enemies?
<br>
<br>Go figure…</b>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 244 -->
<a name="x245"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x245" class="tiny">x245</a>
David Hazan, James Fetzer, & Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_245');">wishing others would have used some restraint before shooting their mouths off</a></p>
<p>2016-01-05</p>
<div id="sect_245" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38876">January 4, 2016 at 4:08 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Craig,
<br>
<br>I have always been an admirer of the ethics and dignity you apply to your articles, as well as your interactions with the countless comments and commenters on your pages. And that includes this latest article above, in which you try to engage in a major confrontation with people that you feel are in the wrong.
<br>
<br>As painful and frustrating as it was for me to watch and read the ensuing shitstorm, I tried my best to refrain from jumping on the bandwagon with a knee-jerk comment of my own, and can’t help wishing that others would have used some restraint as well before shooting their mouths off.
<br>
<br>But, sadly, I feel that you have been had. You have allowed these lowly characters to pull you all the way down to the gutters of the internet. And when you pick a fight with sewer rats, it is inevitable that you will get some muck all over you regardless of the outcome.
<br>
<br>“LOL” is already annoying enough as it is, but countless LOLs right after calling people idiots and dimwits should have been sufficient to know that these people have zero interest in T?UTH, and they wouldn’t give a rat’s ass whether what they are saying or claiming is true, ethical, or dignified… And, not unlike the super-anti-gay minister turning out to be gay himself, for people who keep calling others stupid, they seem to be very short on IQ points and education themselves.
<br>
<br>I suspect this Facebook operation’s admins are much more organized and sinister than just being liars and being dumb. But, that’d be pure speculation on my part.
<br>
<br>However, I would like to pose a question (not rhetorical) to anyone reading this who might have an answer:
<br>
<br>I would be very curious to know how these truth-bandits, Ken, Mike, Joe, Kim et al, make a living.
<br>
<br>Wishing you all a rat-free blog :-]}
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38882">January 4, 2016 at 5:58 pm</a>
<br>
<br>David,
<br>
<br>I thank you for your thoughtful comments. And you raise a fair point – that I have been pulled into the gutter, where I have no business being. But sometimes this is better than the alternative – doing nothing.
<br>
<br>Believe me, I debated for weeks about how to deal with this. One option was to ignore any attacks. I mean the attacks are so absurd and so juvenile, they are hardly worth worrying about. There would have been some advantages in this approach, to be sure.
<br>
<br>A second option would be to expose what these people are doing and to use the situation to illustrate some of the ways that real disinformation is being used to obscure the truth. I finally chose the latter. And despite the enormous stress it caused, I’m glad I did. I also wanted to expose how this Facebook page is doing all it can to drive any newcomers to the Movement away but insulting and mocking them. I think my dissection of Collins demonstrates how that is being done.
<br>
<br>I knew that an article of this kind would cause a shitstorm, but this was not the intention or the desire on my part. I thought that the idea that a truther should simply never tell obvious lies about anyone’s position would go without saying. But apparently, some people don’t see this.
<br>
<br>The fact that Kim McLaughlin can not only justify Doc’s lies but actually come to agree with them during an afternoon without the slightest basis for doing so, is absolutely incredible and absolutely unprincipled. This is not a person who cares at all about truth or who can even recognize it when she sees it. All she cares about is staying in her clique. She can have it.
<br>
<br>As I tried to point out, I had not dealt with any of those people for the better part of a year when Doc and Collins thought it would be a great idea to launch more attacks. And those who think responding is “starting a war” simply don’t understand what they are talking about.
<br>
<br>Not one comment out of more than 180 addressed the issue of so-called truthers attacking and mocking “conspiracy theorists.” If people don’t understand how damaging that is, then I don’t know what to say to them. Going on about “conspiracy sheep” is beyond irresponsible, it is an attack on truth itself. I think it’s something an agent would say to divide and to denigrate those who investigate conspiracies.
<br>
<br>So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38877">January 4, 2016 at 4:21 pm</a>
<br>
<br>This is bad–a form of “political correctness” applied to 9/11 research. If we don’t call out the rats among us, we will never be free of them. They will continue to pollute and obfuscate the truths we have established. There is no alternative to outing them. They are wrong in every way: empirically, scientifically, theoretically, morally and ethically. They have no redeeming merit. I hereby reiterate my invitation to Mike Collins and Ken Doc to come on my show for a debate on the issues (the Pentagon, planes/no planes and whatever, including the Holocaust and the moon non-landings, if they like). I have done serious research and publication on all of them. But of course they won’t do it. They are of the kind that attacks others for no good reason using a blizzard of ad hominems and refused to offer good reasons in their defense. The explanation, of course, is not difficult to discern: THEY DON’T HAVE ANY. Craig is a nice guy, but I am willing to take them on in a no-holds-bared exchange on “The Real Deal”, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsfS5KpYMzb20sCxyfSotfX1ELkIBrXZ3
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38878">January 4, 2016 at 4:56 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Fetzer,
<br>
<br>As per Craig’s wishes, I have no intention to argue with you on the merits of your comment above, or expressing my long held opinion of the heavy handed and callous manner you try to steer the so-called truth movement.
<br>
<br>I have already seen your repeated, self-promoting invitations to the “rats” to come on your show to hash things out, which I can almost guarantee you that they shall not accept. And, if, by some freak development they do accept, I have very little interest in listening to any of the participants in question, including the host.
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38889">January 5, 2016 at 12:31 am</a>
<br>
<br>You are right, David. I do not suffer fools gladly. And cowards display cowardice, just as they do.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38893">January 5, 2016 at 1:27 am</a>
<br>
<br>Don’t take this the wrong way, Eriksen, but it’s easy for you to say, who cares. Of course it’s not the ideal use of time to deal with people I have written about. But it’s my time and I was attacked very unfairly. It’s my right to respond. I would counter that it is NOT possible that in lying that they thought they were helping the movement. When is lying acceptable for those in a truth movement?
<br>
<br>And yes you can prove that these claims are false. Try to find a single statement I have made supporting any of the things they say. You won’t. If they had proof they would have offered it. And I’m sorry but I demonstrated very thoroughly how Collins qualifies as a troll. It’s very clear. How much proof do you need? And this goes beyond a personal argument. Among other things, it’s about people, especially new people, having the opportunity to explore ideas and learn about 9/11 without being called a fucking retard by an obvious troll.
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38903">January 5, 2016 at 10:32 am</a>
<br>“…. the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story)….” – Craig McKee
<br>
<br>With all due respect (and affection) for both of you, your egos and your hurt feelings, I do not believe even for a second that either of you think, believe, or wish that this is indeed a “permanent departure”. So, please do not make me write up a whole thing where I would have to address you both like little children who just had a fight, and make you apologize to each other and kiss and make up.
<br>
<br>Whether you want to go through the conciliatory process in private or on these pages is your business… But whatever you are going to do, do it soon. If you don’t, Wisemen lose to the Rats one-nothing… In their home field, nonetheless. Which might force them to change their team name to Notsowisemenafterall.
<br>
<br><b>Sherif Shaalan</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38905">January 5, 2016 at 11:26 am</a>
<br>As a daily reader/follower of this blog for nearly 5 years, the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 is bittersweet to me.
<br>
<br>On one hand I particularly found much of his well-worded insight into the deep state to be nothing short of profound – “Government is [indeed] a racket” – and have quoted many similar statements like his “gawblesmerka” several times in other communications.
<br>
<br>On the other hand, I found his ridicule, vulgarity, and overall dominating presence here intimidating and in stark contrast to the considerate, respectful and evenhanded tone of Mr. McKee and almost all of the other regular contributors here.
<br>
<br>Admittedly, I was sometimes confused by how strongly he defended some of his positions, perhaps most confusing to me was his relatively recent defense of the government agency NASA which, as a Flat Earther who knows the whole agency is a giant money-siphoning hoax, I attempted to challenge directly at his blog – only to be un-welcomed and blocked. While not directly 9/11 related, I’m hoping Mr. McKee will someday write on his investigation into that subject.
<br>
<br>Regardless, in separating the chaff from the grain, I greatly appreciate much of his insight on this blog. I look forward to my increased participation here on what I believe is the finest blog on 9/11, and perhaps the participation of those who were otherwise reluctant before.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>veritytwo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38912">January 5, 2016 at 1:14 pm</a>
<br>I have to go with David on this one. I haven’t tendered many comments until recently, for the simple fact, a closed mouth gathers no foot. The “Rogue” and I have been online friends over many campaigns covering each other’s 6’s. Under that crusty out front persona is what I’ve come to respect, a sweet guy (no Willy, I ain’t gay. Not that matters an iota). He’s very outspoken but brings to the table a sharp mind backed up by much archived materials. He’s been instrumental to bringing my knowledge base light years ahead, I hold the highest respect for him. It’s because of Willy that came over to this blog, now I’m sounding off for him.
<br>His eloquential demeanor can be quite crusty but there’s no BS with him. Whoever comes to the table better be up on their game because he’ll certainly hold them to it. Be a shame for him to move on. Hey David, you two are of a like mind I see.
<br>Craig, I hope you and him can patch up your relationship.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 245 -->
<a name="x246"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x246" class="tiny">x246</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_246');">divide up between 37 other people curious enough to follow your blog</a></p>
<p>2016-01-06</p>
<div id="sect_246" style="display: none;">
<p>Señor El Once
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11256">January 6, 2016 at 8:07 pm</a>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-11258">2016-01-06</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Whitten, you wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I am the only one who reads your whinyshit comments to HR1blog Maxitwat.</p></blockquote>
<p>Correction. You are the only one who reads my comments when they are posted to HR1blog and routed to the moderation queue. But you are not the only one who reads my comments, because you completely miss the message about <i>"save and re-purpose."</i> When I get around to it, eventually they make it to my website and blog. I know you think that this is a big whoop-de-doo, but you also have to admit that this diligent little habit turned tactic has provided my words sufficient permanance over time to kick your sorry ass.
<br>
<br>You go on to hyperventilate:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I don’t need T&S as a platform for my ideas and commentary. I have a blog of my own that gets from 150 to 200 hits every 24 hours.</p></blockquote>
<p>First of all, <i>"having a blog"</i> and <i>"using a blog efficiently and effectively"</i> are two different things. We can immediately guage the worthiness of your ideas and commentary expressed so profusely in many different forums -- Amazon, OpEdNews, COTO, and T&S -- when they don't see the light of day on your blog as well. Either <i>"Unworthy"</i> or <i>"a liability"</i>.
<br>
<br>Secondly, let's provide some perspective to your alledged 200 pageviews in 24 hours. This can be attributed to rubberneck morbid curiousity gooking at the train wreck you've become. Gee, even I, who am subscribed and don't need to "load your blog" in my browser, am guilty of giving you probably <i>a quarter of those hits.</i> <i>"Did HR really write that shit? Did HR think better of it and modify it or take it down?"</i> Indeed in inflating you page views with page refreshes, I observed formatting improvements you made to comments, content changes and in one case complete replacement, as well as published comments that leave and then later -- with your blood really boiling -- return.
<br>
<br>Ah, yes, but then we have the matter that is your own personal hand in the hit count. Each time you make a comment, edit a comment, remove a comment, restore a comment, navigate to another page on your blog (prior to making a comment)... all of those serve to inflate your hit count and your ego, but they aren't real in terms of being significant. You're easily also another quarter or half of your hit count.
<br>
<br>The remaining hits we can divide up between 37 other people curious enough to follow your blog.
<br>
<br>You go on to charge mistakenly:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So I have a voice on the web. You don’t with your measly little twat-blog.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Don't project your web aims and aspirations onto me.</b> My blog accomplishes the purposes assigned to it: preserve my words offered up in discussions elsewhere. Even as a <i>"measly little twat-blog"</i>, it contradicts handily your claim of me not having a voice on the web. You obviously weren't thinking when you wrote that humdinger. Further in the paradigm that <i>"content is king"</i>, my fair and moral efforts have been sufficient as a side-effect to debunk and discredit, among others, both you and Mr. Ruff.
<br>
<br>In fact, your blog is missing so many of your words, under normal circumstances you would be grateful for how much my blog accurately quotes with links to the source destination your words "MIA" from your blog. Alas, these aren't normal circumstances, and most aren't normal quotes: they are to your embarrassment on many levels which is why you've never stood behind them and re-purposed on your blog.
<br>
<br>With regards to Mr. McKee, you wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You don’t know enough physics to make a reasoned argument against a pretender like Jim Fetzer, that’s why you fell for the hokey bullshit of Max Bridges for YEARS.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hokey bullshit? To what are you referring? Is it the 80% overlap in conspiratorial views between you and me? If I have any true claim to fame, it was that I was not as quick to judgment as you and others were in throwing out whole genres at the slightest whiff of error, because I recognized nuggets of truth exist within disinformation sources.
<br>
<br>FTR, Mr. McKee is not in the nuclear 9/11 camp, and he actively avoids such discussions, because he targets raising public awareness in general about 9/11 as being more important than minutia details about what caused it. Pity, because were I given the opportunity to convince him and the T&S community, <i>"we were nuked on 9/11"</i> would be the banner that ushers in that higher level of public awareness and action.
<br>
<br>To the minority percentage of my beliefs that doubts "Mr. Willy Whitten" is a real person and pegs you as a senior citizen earning extra income by infiltrating blogs Sunstein style, your assignment was to keep a lid on 9/11 nukes and derail all such discussions and related (e.g., Dr. Wood) by any means possible.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So wallow in your angst all alone you pathetic little shit.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Who is wallowing?</b>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<br>January 3, 2016:
<br>
<br>Craig has me on moderation, and Uncle Fistfucker is still posting; fuck both of them.
<br>
<br>Craig cannot see his own hypocrisy in saying that! <i>Astonishing!</i>
<br>
<br>As far as I’m concerned, Craig has lost his bearings and sense of judgement. I sure as hell am not going to apologize to him for anything I said to him or Fetzer. At this point if McKee wants to ban me then fuck him, I don’t give a shit. I have had enough of his tepid wishy-washy bullshit.
<br>
<br>I emailed Craig what is essentially my resignation from Truth & Shadows just a few minutes ago. Craig and his remaining crew can go their own way. I have had enough of this namby-pamby horseshit.
<br>
<br>You [Mr. McKee] have flipped out and are in denial now, and to you it’s everybody else’s fault. It’s your hubris McKee, simple and obvious ego borne arrogance.
<br>
<br>You can “rest your case” on your own blog now McKee. You don’t have posting privileges here anymore.
<br>
<br>There we have it, full blown projection from Craig McKee, who in fact is the one in the middle of some kind of emotion meltdown that is clouding his reason!
<br>
<br>January 4, 2016:
<br>
<br>I refuse to keep my mouth shut[...]. it doesn’t matter who’s yard we are playing in at the time. That’s just the way I am. We have different sensibilities on what we can put up with. It is time I go my way since you don’t understand that. Fare thee well Craig...
<br>
<br>You have overstayed your welcome here. I now return to you the favor you offered me of banishment. You can say whatever you want to say at your own blog. Cheerio sweetheart!
<br>
<br>So Craig, is calling you naïve an empty slur?
<br>
<br>This is how mixed up it becomes when you do not recognize an agent of ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ in action.
<br>
<br>I have changed my mind. You can comment here if you wish. I am not going to simply act out of spite.
<br>
<br>“Mild mannered” Craig McKee is a supreme chump and a self righteous asshole.
<br>
<br>I am done with this I have nothing more to add, and perhaps some more to subtract.
<br>
<br>January 5, 2016:
<br>
<br>2016 is already stacking up to be a VERY STRANGE YEAR. It looks like it will divide the men from the boys, and the gullible from the wise…and ne’er the twain shall meet..
<br>
<br>The Lunatics are now taking over the asylum! T&S is in for some very weird times in 2016.
<br>
<br>January 6, 2016:
<br>
<br>I’ve apologized for hurting your feelings with some of the things I have said. That is the last one you get. If you ever want me to come back to T&S again, it’s up to you to apologize to me. What makes you think I am so desperate to be reinstated on Truth & Shadows anyway? I am NOT, if you are going to play hard ball; “My blog verses Your Blog” bullshit games, you can take Your blog and shove it.
<br>
<br>You can take Your blog and shove it. That should settle it “Permanent-like” aye?
<br>
<br>I am satisfied to be ex-T&S. It feels good to be out here on the perimeter on my own.
<br></p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Whitten, with the above, I can clearly feel the vibrant energy you exhibit as <i>an ex-T&Ser out on the perimeter on your own.</i> But <i>"wallow"</i> is the appropriate name for it.
<br>
<br>P.S. Ken Doc may be a backwater asshole, but you under-estimate his endeavors on Facebook. He is not "unknown." And his WordPress blog? Far superior to yours in every single way (hit-piece on McKee excepted).
<br>
<br>P.P.S. Speaking of Facebook, I repeat that it is the place for you in every single way.
<br>
<br>P.P.P.S. This was already mostly finished when Mr. McKee posted his rebuttal. Glad that he included a good number of your choice quotes that I highlighted above. I'm naive, and not ashamed to admit it. Mr. McKee may be too. Your true colors were revealed to me long ago, and Mr. McKee is just now really catching on. Caught you in more of your lies, too. That was golden. His assessment of your blog: <i>"firehose of ridicule turned full blast"</i>.
<br>
<br>Naive me has been guilty of trying to give you constructive, positive criticism on how to improve your blog. I'm reminded of one of my earlier reviews of Dr. Judy Wood's books when not even 1/2 way finished. I wrote words to the effect that:
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>I found no major issues in the first half. Even if the second half unravels to be blatant disinformation, this book is worthy of being in our 9/11 collections to be held up as an example of what disinformation looks like.</p></blockquote>
<p>In similar fashion, the only redeeming value your blog has in its present hate-filled, unorganized state is to be held up as an example of what a true disinformation effort looks like. Kudos, Mr. Whitten. No need to change a thing.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 246 -->
<a name="x247"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x247" class="tiny">x247</a>
Craig McKee, ruffadam, David Hazan, veritytwo : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_247');">Liars are NOT truthers</a></p>
<p>2016-01-06</p>
<div id="sect_247" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38845">January 3, 2016 at 9:31 pm</a>
<br>Agreed Craig. It occurs to me that many people have forgotten one very simple thing. Liars are NOT truthers.
<br>
<br>ruffadam
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38845">January 6, 2016 at 4:27 am</a>
<br>I agree with you that cordial relations between truthers is very important however I have to ask one question. Is a person like Ken Doc who posts provable lies about others really a truther? I do not think he is a truther any more. I have no reservations at all about saying that.
<br>
<br>Mixed in with your positive intent to unite truthers into more cordial relations is the assumption that everyone who claims to be a truther really is a truther.
<br>
<br><b>veritytwo</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38980">January 6, 2016 at 8:47 am</a>
<br>Craig; You have to have noticed since you canned Willy, all the pustulence oozing and slithering out of the woodwork. Now you have to deal with puppet ass kissers, flat brained flat earthers, festerers and the other drivel. Rogue performed a duty contesting these slugs and holding them to some kind of accountability with aplomb.
<br>Now you have to. By the way, I’m still on the turnip truck headed out of Dodge having a life as opposed to hiding behind the opaqueness of the ether where one can be whatever kind of asshole their mean spiritedness has brought them to become. They need to try having a real life, I can think of all kinds of expletives but all it’d become is a name calling contest.
<br>One from the “Rogue”
<br>
<br><b>Sherif Shaalan</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38981">January 6, 2016 at 9:06 am</a>
<br>To ridicule and name-call what one has not even bothered to investigate at all, let alone understand would also qualify one as an anti-truther.
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38987">January 6, 2016 at 10:23 am</a>
<br>veritytwo said:
<br>
<br>“Craig; You have to have noticed since you canned Willy, all the pustulence oozing and slithering out of the woodwork
<br>Now you have to deal with puppet ass kissers, flat brained flat earthers, festerers and the other drivel”
<br>
<br>Awwwwww…..did the poor baby get butt-hurt?
<br>
<br>That’s a charming “vocabulary” you got there.
<br>
<br>Can you name some of this “oozing, slithering pustulence…..puppet ass kissers and festerers and other drivel”, and by copying and pasting from some of their comments, prove your point?
<br>
<br>“By the way, I’m still on the turnip truck headed out of Dodge having a life as opposed to hiding behind the opaqueness of the ether….”
<br>
<br>Oh…..I didn’t know “veritytwo” was your real name and address…..stupid me…..all this time I thought you were hiding behind the opaqueness of the ether…..Project much?
<br>
<br>“…..where one can be whatever kind of asshole their mean spiritedness has brought them to become”
<br>
<br>Now, that is such a classic, text book case in projection that it renders your whole comment as a parody.
<br>
<br>“They need to try having a real life…..”
<br>
<br>Yawwwwn.
<br>
<br>“I can think of all kinds of expletives…..”
<br>
<br>You mean…..even MORE?
<br>
<br>“…..but all it’d become is a name calling contest”
<br>
<br>I can’t for the life of me imagine how that would come about
<br>
<br>veritytwo…..your whole comment is a parody of projection; your projection is so exaggerated, it’s actually comical, like a Monty Python skit.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>sockpuppet2012</b>
<br>January 6, 2016 at 10:32 am
<br>veritytwo, I like that video you posted…..”You’re Gonna Miss Me”.
<br>
<br>It reminds me of Opie Taylor gettin’ ready to run away from home and writin’ his Pa a goodbye letter.
<br>
<br>Waaa…..waaaa…..waaa!
<br>
<br>Will someone please feel sorry for me…..at weast dust a widdoh bit?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38960">January 5, 2016 at 8:12 pm</a>
<br>Thank you. Looking forward to it.
<br>
<br>Can’t speak on behalf of veritytwo, but I followed all of your exchanges and comments live, as it happened, both here and on the HR1 blog. And, I will risk being perceived as presumptuous and say in advance that I feel I understand both of your positions, angles, and resentments quite well. My bigger point is still that, considering your history with each other, what transpired does not warrant a break up.
<br>
<br>I might come across as a little pushy regarding this matter, but it’s only because I am quite troubled by it… And with that, I will shut up and wait for the chips to fall where they may between you two.
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38965">January 5, 2016 at 8:55 pm</a>
<br>Based on what I’ve seen on hybridrogue’s blog today, the chances of this split being reversed are much more remote than they were even yesterday. I will post more after the hockey game I’m watching is over.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38965">January 5, 2016 at 10:26 pm</a>
<br>David, you have been a voice of reason and patience over the past two or three days (not just then) but I must say I was hurt by this comment you made on hybridrogue’s blog:
<br>
<br>“And, if Craig lets this clash between you go on to really become permanent, I will start thinking he is not who and what i thought he was after all, and will probably stop frequenting the blog eventually.”
<br>
<br>Why would you say that?
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38966">January 5, 2016 at 10:37 pm</a>
<br>Craig, You are such a good and decent man who has only the truth at heart that this has become a litmus test for integrity among students of 9/11: Those who attack you have shown that they are not dedicated to truth and do not deserve our respect. We know who you are–and through their attacks we are discovering who they are. This is a painful but instructive exercise.
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38973">January 6, 2016 at 12:00 am</a>
<br>David, I have just read the latest on HR’s blog, and I don’t have the energy to deal with this tonight. I will say this, however. It is hybridrogue who is deciding that this split cannot be fixed. He is behaving like a bully with a gleeful mean streak, like Mike Collins with a better vocabulary.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38989">January 6, 2016 at 10:55 am</a>
<br>“Why would you say that?” – Craig McKee
<br>
<br>In the jungle, they say “when elephant run, monkey climb up high tree”… Perhaps it would have been wiser if i had listened to it and stayed out of this. But, now that I haven’t done that, I realize that this monkey has to do the monkey dance and avoid getting run over, while trying not to step on any elephant toes…
<br>
<br>Craig… I have made a great effort to keep my comments and peacemaking efforts to gentle generalities, and didn’t think it was my place to get personal or criticize or praise either one of you for some very human mistakes both of you have committed in the past few days… But you did ask the “voice of reason” for a reason… So, now I have to spell a few things out…. Please watch your toes.
<br>
<br>Even when quoted out of context like above, I feel my words are pretty self explanatory, and they speak the truth. I would, indeed, be very disenchanted (to say the least) with T&S if this somewhat childish episode results in a stalemate. That said, I still wish that you’d consider my commentary here and at HR1 in its entirety, and not in dissected individual sentences.
<br>
<br>I hate to lay undue pressure on you guys, but this “spat” is symbolically a little larger than just the two of you. To me, it represents exactly how the so called truth movement, and in fact, an entire society is made to disintegrate day by day, by rats, using tactics that are already so well known to most everyone here, let alone you as someone who has written many eloquent articles about this very subject, or HR1, who might be considered an expert in his own right with extensive knowledge about these tactics. As someone who has watched many truth babies get tossed out with the blog water over the years, what is a justifiably emotional episode for you, is a very recognizable and saddening pattern of psychology for me.
<br>
<br>When things are this obvious, and the people involved are still not able to look at what’s happening rationally, it is almost always because they are intoxicated by their own emotions. And, at times like this, when egos are still tender, criticism is useless, and a level headed, neutral and friendly “voice of reason” is the only thing that has any chance of working. If I, indeed, hurt your feelings with my hypothetical that you quoted while I was trying to be just that, so be it. As long as you know that I was fully aware that you were keeping an eye on the HR1 blog and it was not a statement made behind your back.
<br>
<br>In the meantime, like teenage sweethearts who just broke up, both of you are following and quoting each other’s blogs, misreading into each other’s comments (And in this instance, one of mine), while pretending not to care much if this is “permanent”.
<br>
<br>HR1 is shooting his mouth off on his blog trying to inflict some pain while trying to maintain his verbal warrior stance to disguise his hurt feelings. It is really not helping the situation at all… Especially when the other side (you) is locked into the wounded dove position and is seeking support and sympathy. I’ll say it one more time… I feel that I understand, sympathize with, and feel affection for both of you and your positions in this matter, and I do not sit in judgement of anyone for their temporary lapses of judgement in the heat of things… God knows I have had my own fair share of all that… But still, for two smart, intellectual, honest and mature men of a certain age who have shared a bumpy journey with each other over the years towards Truthlandia, with the good, bad and the ugly, yes, I find this dynamic a little childish and insecure on both sides, to be honest.
<br>
<br>One thing that web based relationships do is that they take the human factor out of the equation to a great extent, and we often forget that the person behind the keyboard, including the shills and trolls and Kens and Fetzers, is a flesh and bone human being, with very human strengths and weaknesses, with very human feelings that are not limited to just their opinions on whether or not a plane hit the pentagon, or what they think or believe in on any given contentious subject. While both of you are trying to make this all sound like it is about principles, the truth, the cause, the right thing to do, etc. I just see two human beings who have hurt each other’s feelings (irrespective of who was right or wrong) and are having a difficult time dealing with it. It is really that simple… The rest is all mambo jumbo!
<br>
<br>I will end by saying that I am neither a psychic, or a psychologist. I could easily be very wrong with my analysis of the “situation”, and might be unaware of some past and dormant resentments between you two that are reurfaceing because of all that transpired. In fact, even though I value truth more than most aspects of life, I don’t even consider myself a “truther” and I couldn’t tell you how many trusses the WTC had, or how many NoC witnesses there are, and I do not care to know. I come here for the people and the high level of intellectual discussions that take place here, not to gather 9/11 info or news. I do enjoy reading your take on some douchebags on Fartbook, but do not need an article to know that the sewer is full of rats. It’s a foregone conclusion. It took me years to muster up the courage to post comments here, and even then, I try hard to keep my head low and my participation at a philosophical and sociological realm and not embarrass myself by going into any 9/11 related fact-based discussions. So, please forgive me if I have overstepped some boundaries by meddling in all this, or have abused your welcome.
<br>
<br>I hope this answers your question. And I really hope that it was not a rhetorical, and that I have not made a fool out of myself with this lengthy reply.
<br>
<br>Couple of footnotes:
<br>* I appreciate you calling me “voice of reason”. Means a lot to me
<br>* Please do not feel obliged to deal with or reply to my commentary.
<br>* And lastly…. SockPuppet!!!! Show some dignity for god’s sake and put a sock in it!
<br>
<br>bit?
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/?cpage=1#comment-39003">January 6, 2016 at 2:17 pm</a>
<br>I promised to explain the split with hybridrogue, and while I don’t particularly feel like doing it, I will.
<br>
<br>David, I appreciate your broader perspective on what has happened, and undoubtedly I could have done some things differently, but you can’t have peace negotiations with someone who won’t stop shooting at you. And he won’t. I predict that in just a few minutes, he’ll be quoting from this comment (using bold type and starting with hahahaha!) and heaping on more insults and more ridicule. Have I ever mentioned how much I hate childish arrogance and cruel condescension?
<br>
<br>He is making the choice that this won’t be resolved. He is not even giving me a chance to be part of the decision.
<br>
<br>HR is a much more interesting and effective commentator when he has someone to answer to. He used to be much more aggressive and insulting at TS, but he changed after I asked him to cut out the insults. It took time and I acknowledge the effort he made. But since his recent split with reality, and with no one to advise him, he has turned into a disturbed child pulling the wings off flies.
<br>
<br>I find that it’s often not the cause of a split that is the most important in terms of whether it can be healed or what it reveals about someone’s character. It is what the parties do after it has occurred. Do they fume in silence? Do they run and trash the other behind his/her back? Does their pride keep them from apologizing? And do they make any effort to avoid inflaming things beyond a certain point, knowing that this will make reconciliation more difficult?
<br>
<br>Or do they pull out everything they have been saving up over months and years to launch an all-out assault against the other? And do they keep the assault going beyond the point when they can ever expect the other to come back and meet them halfway?
<br>
<br>That’s what HR has been doing now for several days. And there is no sign of him letting up.
<br>
<br>Willy is much too clever for his own good. At the same time, he’s not as clever as he thinks he is. Nor is he as important. He thinks that the blog will come tumbling down because he is not there to police it. No doubt the loss of his usually intelligent input will be felt, but the world will keep turning (no offense to flat Earthers) without him.
<br>
<br>He writes: “It is funny that the nutballs are coming out now that I have been blackballed from T&S, there will likely be more as time goes on.”
<br>
<br>And again: “The Lunatics are now taking over the asylum! T&S is in for some very weird times in 2016.”
<br>
<br>Then he blames me for Jim Fetzer defending me. Do I need to explain how ridiculous this is?
<br>
<br>Hahaha!! This is hilarious! Now Craig’s new “celebrity” pal, Fetzer rides to his defense like a knight in shining armor. This is like something out of Kafka!” says HR.
<br>
<br>And…
<br>
<br>“At this point if McKee wants to ban me then fuck him, I don’t give a shit. I have had enough of his tepid wishy-washy bullshit.”
<br>
<br>And…
<br>
<br>“What is really stooooooooooopid is Craig has his panties all twisted in a knot over fucking Facebook bullshit!!! He has lost all perspective. He has fucked himself and T&S with this self-gratifying post.”
<br>
<br>See? Not as clever as he thinks he is.
<br>
<br>Then irony rears its head:
<br>
<br>“Maybe Craig will reinstate Maxifucker’s posting privileges out of spite! Add these guys, Fetzer and Maxipad, and you will have a Crackpot Jamboree at T&S … a flood of Yahoos! Jonathan Swift would be proud.”
<br>
<br>Mentioning spite certainly was ironic as seen when he bizarrely endorsed an irrational and simple-minded emotional rant from Kim McLaughlin.
<br>
<br>“I agree with Kim here, whom I have never encountered, or know at all. But she makes all the sense in the world in her commentary there.”
<br>
<br>And in keeping with a post that addresses people not telling the truth, HR announces that I don’t allow others to criticize Jim Fetzer. Do I need to collect the hundreds of HR attacks on Fetzer on this blog, many of them just gratuitous insults? Later, HR clarified that it was just on this post that I wasn’t allowing criticism. That’s false, too, of course.
<br>
<br>“Craig allows this nonsense to be spewed on his blog without comment, or allowing Fetzer to be confronted.”
<br>
<br>And: “ESPECIALLY when Craig won’t allow others to criticize Fetzer for his bullshit.”
<br>
<br>Yes, it is after the conflict that someone’s true colors come out. Doc and Collins felt wounded by what I wrote last year, and they reached for anything close by to throw. Their goal was to discredit me even if they had to resort to false statements to do it. It seems that HR has a similar instinct.
<br>
<br>This whole thing brought me to HR’s blog, which I must confess I hadn’t much read before. In addition to the firehose of ridicule turned full blast, I found a post from the past where he made one of the more hateful attacks I’ve seen in some time. I am removing the name, because I don’t want to compound any effect of this unjustified expression of hate.
<br>
<br>HR includes a photograph of someone he has tangled with on TS. The caption reads: “The old faggot himself.”
<br>
<br>And just to reinforce the sentiment, he follows with this:
<br>
<br>” _____________ attempts to provoke me on every T&S thread he attends, which are only few and far between actually. But every time this spermbank has shown up he spews showers of septic jiss my way.”
<br>
<br>Yes, I miss HR already. How will we ever survive without him?
<br>
<br><b>Adam Syed</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-39012">January 6, 2016 at 2:59 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Yes, a person’s true colors are indeed manifest after a split and how it’s handled. Remember how Jeff Jacobucci and I collaborated on the short-lived 911newscentral.com, and then after our “blog divorce,” he came onto the discussion here and started insinuating I was an infiltrator? I don’t think he was truly suspicious of me, he just wanted to backhandedly attack and demoralize me.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Sheila</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-39023">January 6, 2016 at 9:13 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I’m glad he’s gone and I commend you Craig for writing about this split with admirable restraint. After being so unfairly and viciously attacked, it would be only human to want to sling a little mud yourself. You don’t, and my esteem for you has only increased.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-39029">January 6, 2016 at 11:41 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Thank you, Sheila. I got a couple of shots in but for me it’s either find a bit of distance or smash some furniture with baseball bat. I really can’t spare the furniture.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-39097">January 7, 2016 at 9:07 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Sheila I am NOT glad that Willy is gone and I think it is a shame and a loss for T+S. I think both Willy and Craig made mistakes to create this split and I told them both that and I told them both what I thought those mistakes were. I do not blame either person for the break up but I blame both Willy and Craig for not allowing for a cooling off period and sincere apologies all around. I am still friends with both Craig and Willy and will continue to talk to both. I will continue to participate here and I will also participate on Willy’s blog. That is my full disclosure about this.
<br>
<br>Sheila I have to say that I object to your glee that Willy is gone and I object to your promotion of hologram planes of all things. I almost swallowed my tongue when I saw that post. My God that theory has ZERO merit and has been debunked ten times over. Worse you said it right when the issue between Craig and Willy was blowing up because Fetzer was attempting to derail this thread with his mini nuke crappola. Your timing could not have been worse. Anyway I am not going to say more here about this except that I will miss Willy here.
<br>
<br>None of this should lead anyone to believe however that I blame Craig more than Willy for the split because I don’t. I have written to both Craig and Willy and made it clear what I think for what it matters. It is finished now and that is that.
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-39102">January 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Adam,
<br>
<br>I would say that when these kinds of conflicts occur there is usually blame to go around. But I must object to one thing you said. That is that I deserve some blame for not allowing a cooling off period. I do not accept this blame. I was not the attacker in this, I was the person being attacked relentlessly amid other attacks. If this had happened when things were otherwise calm that might have been different, but Willy knew full well the pressure I had put myself under. He chose that time to issue an angry lecture about something that frankly is none of his business. As you know, I am always open to suggestions, concerns, and beefs. But he used poor judgment in thinking that berating me was going to produce the results he wanted.
<br>
<br>For things to be patched up, both sides have to show some openness to this and some willingness to meet the other person halfway. But Willy only increased the nastiness of his attacks once I put him on moderation and made them more and more personal. He said I was refusing to allow criticism of Fetzer and he knows this is untrue. That’s really dishonest. He was put in moderation because of the way he was attacking me both in comments and emails. And he chose to use the same mocking and taunting tone that I wrote about in the post. He knew I’d react very badly to this but he didn’t care.
<br>
<br>I know that privately you have indicated in more detail why you think we are both to blame, and I thank you for your efforts to fix this. I admitted later that if I had not been distracted by all else that was going on I would not have allowed Jim’s first comment because it was off topic. There were other comments from him that were not approved for the same reason. Neither of you realize this. I objected to Willy firing off a stupid insult that would only provoke a confrontation I didn’t want to deal with.
<br>
<br> “On the “planes” in New York, check out “The Real Deal”~Fetzer
<br> Hahahahahaha…still peddling that bullshit aye?”
<br>
<br>I just asked him not to fire off “unspecific” attacks – in other words, ad hominem attacks. When Fetzer posted a second comment I was literally in the middle of reading it when Willy intensified his assault on me for allowing it. To say I muzzled him is not true. He had six comments posted after the first one and before I put him into moderation. To compare that decision to allowing comments from Fetzer is apples and oranges. Willy was not muzzled, he was abusive and I don’t have to put up with that. And for him to say he agrees with the moronic comments of Kim McLaughlin, and for him to suggest on his own blog that Ken Doc has a good point simply went beyond the pale.
<br>
<br>I’m not glad he is gone, but it didn’t have to go this way. A little humility and sincerity would have helped avoid this result. He was not willing to contribute this. He even reproduced a private email between us on his blog. How can I trust a person who can turn on someone so suddenly and so ferociously?
<br>
<br>I’m sure a wiser person would extend an olive branch, but Willy chose to make this impossible for me.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-39106">January 8, 2016 at 12:57 am</a>
<br>OK let me step aside from this at this point and just say that it saddens me that this did not work out. I would like to move on from it because I see nothing constructive coming from continuing to talk about it. I chalk it up to an unfortunate mix of circumstances and bad timing.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 247 -->
<a name="x248"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x248" class="tiny">x248</a>
hybridrogue1, David Hazan, ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_248');">pride keep them from apologizing</a></p>
<p>2016-01-07</p>
<div id="sect_248" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 7, 2016 at 1:09 am
<br>Naïveté is not innocence, it is gross and moribund ignorance.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 7, 2016 at 1:41 am
<br>“Does their pride keep them from apologizing? And do they make any effort to avoid inflaming things beyond a certain point, knowing that this will make reconciliation more difficult?”~Craig McKee
<br>
<br>Very interesting questions there…aye?
<br>Very cleverly written passage there by McKee. He insinuates that I never apologized; but doesn’t come out and say it.
<br>Craig knows I did apologize, but gives the appearance that I didn’t.
<br>Now I can recognize rhetorical trickery when I read it. It is disingenuous, without being an outright lie. It is “political language”.
<br>And it is dishonest.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 7, 2016 at 2:36 am
<br>Sheila — January 6, 2016 at 9:13 pm
<br>“I’m glad he’s gone and I commend you Craig for writing about this split with admirable restraint. After being so unfairly and viciously attacked, it would be only human to want to sling a little mud yourself. You don’t, and my esteem for you has only increased.”
<br>* * * * * * * *
<br>Ah, sweet little Sheila you know her when you see her, full of bile and a gorgon’s nastiness. And full of shit as well, buying into and propagating the same bullshit that Fetzer spews – crows of a feather are they.
<br>I knew the bitch would vomit some gelatinous spittle at me at some point.
<br>
<br>Other’s will pipe up soon I am sure. This thread will continue to be a study in cultist social behavior. Soon, There will be no one left on T&S but Craig’s fawning sycophants. Of course that will make him feel more vindicated.
<br>A vicious cycle of pathos.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11268">January 7, 2016 at 3:25 am</a>
<br>Adam Syed — January 6, 2016 at 2:59 pm
<br>“Yes, a person’s true colors are indeed manifest after a split and how it’s handled.”
<br>* * * * * * *
<br>And they each line up to kneel at Craig’s feet and express fawning fealty. Too typical, but they do not recognize it consciously.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 7, 2016 at 3:34 am
<br>And now I note that Anastasia made a comment that went unpiublished – and then Craig made a comment that goes unpublished. And I know that Anastasia saw my message about Fetzer’s “no-planes” bullshit here, and she probably acknowledged that and using my gravitar in her reply it got stuck in moderation. So Craig is telling her why it won’t be published,
<br>Simple deductive reason tells me this,
<br>Later Craig deleted Anastasia’s comment – but has left his message to her.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 7, 2016 at 6:54 am
<br>“Yes, I miss HR already. How will we ever survive without him?”~Craig McKee – January 6, 2016 at 2:17 pm
<br>* * * * * * * * * * *
<br>That is simple to answer. With a new oath of fealty by the sycophants that expect to stay on T&S with this new shuffling of the deck. One must denounce HR1 in some way, at least distance oneself if one hopes to stay on good graces with McKee.
<br>
<br>Who will be the next in line to kneel and pledge? I have my candidates in mind…
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 6, 2016 at 8:10 pm
<br>About Hybrid Rogue
<br>
<br>I write.
<br>
<br>I write for fun.
<br>
<br>I write in dire seriousness.
<br>
<br>I write cutting satire.
<br>
<br>I write about serious things.
<br>
<br>I write whatever catches my fancy.
<br>
<br>I write for my own entertainment here.
<br>
<br>I write for others who enjoy my style.
<br>
<br>Style and form are everything–substance and meaning will rise in their wake.
<br>
<br>Please don’t let me be misunderstood. Please misunderstand me, it makes my day. Dialectics prevail.
<br>
<br>“Like is not.” All language is metaphor. Something I learned from Julian Jaynes. Something known by the Taoist sages.
<br>
<br>I run through the gambit of emotions everyday, just like all humans. I am fallible, as are all humans.
<br>I have an ego, like all humans. I am more clever than most humans. Some humans are more clever than I. Such is life.
<br>
<br>I take life very seriously. I take life with a grain of salt. I bleed when I am cut. I cut back when I am bleeding.
<br>
<br>I am what I am, like Popeye the Sailor Man…Lol
<br>
<br>So to those of you out there whom I have insulted. Thank you very much!
<br>It is YOUR own emotion that brings your own pain from another’s words.
<br>
<br>The world is a madhouse. Sit and cry, or join the party. The choice is yours.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 6, 2016 at 9:31 pm
<br>And of course, I stand by every word I have written here.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 7, 2016 at 7:48 am
<br>“Because it is always groundhog day in the conspiracy world”
<br>
<br>I like that David! very clever, and very true in a certain aspect.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 7, 2016 at 3:57 pm
<br>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
<br>January 6, 2016 at 11:21 pm
<br>We dance round in a ring and suppose,
<br>But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.
<br>
<br>(R. Frost)
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br>January 6, 2016 at 11:42 pm
<br>Who am I to break tradition?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br>January 7, 2016 at 10:46 am
<br>Craig McKee of Truth and Shadows
<br>* * * * * * * *
<br>An interesting exchange there David, I don’t think Craig sees a way out of tradition. He’s not really that deep a thinker philosophically. Remember he comes from a very mainstream position. It took him years to finally figure out that 9/11 was a PSYOP. He’s been playing catch-up since that time. He’s still quite young and has a lot to learn about the world and himself.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 7, 2016 at 4:03 pm
<br>Remember, I do not find Craig McKee to be a conscious villain. I think he is simply naïve , gullible and confused at this point in his life.
<br>Some people finally really ‘Get It’, some people don’t.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>January 7, 2016 at 5:15 pm
<br>Craig McKee – January 7, 2016 at 11:36 am
<br>“That’s what they call me when they’re being nice.”
<br>* * * * * * * *
<br>Ya know? McKee is really wearing out this “Victim” card. He’s played it to the hilt and should just drop it.
<br>It isn’t cute anymore.
<br>It makes him look foolish. Of course he will just take this as another “attack”…jeeeeeeeez.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo) </b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11285">January 7, 2016 at 5:51 pm</a>
<br>Yes, our exchanges with Craig seem to have dwindled to one liners and snappy repartee now… which I find pointless and do not wish to continue. I feel I have seen enough true colors for a while… My attempts to hold a mirror so that people can see their own seem to have failed.
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11284">January 7, 2016 at 5:39 pm</a>
<br>Hi Willy,
<br>
<br>Let me get something off my chest… And I hope you know that I say this with considerable affection… You really behaved like a spoiled brat! And you certainly lost sight of the pig picture in your hot-headed state of mind… So, there… I said it, and now we can move on…
<br>
<br>At the same time, I also want to thank you (kinda, sorta) for inadvertently creating a situation where people were indeed forced to show their true colors, as Craig pointed out. Some display flashy and blindingly explosive colors (I want name names), while others are all black and white… Some are limited to just the team colors of their respective associations… There were a couple of turncoat colors, and slime greens there as well in the mix…. But the color that saddens me most is that predominant, bland, passionless, insight-less, and gutless neutral grey, both when it is one’s authentic color, as well as when it is just a heavy coat of paint that covers their real true colors.
<br>
<br>And all this while they all argue about, who’s the real peacock… Good grief!!!! Good f’n grief!
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/comment-page-1/#comment-11286">January 7, 2016 at 7:19 pm</a>
<br>Thanks David,
<br>
<br>You know you can always be frank and straight forward with me. I understand your perspective very well.
<br>I am certainly willing to stir the pot when I feel it needs a mix up, I have never denied this nor do I feel particularly bad about this attribute.
<br>
<br>Spoiled? That is a bit more complex. Perhaps. I have had a rather blessed life, I was born with many talents, but that would be to say I was “spoiled” by the graces of nature. It made certain aspects of life easy, but it made it difficult in other ways. Having a Muse, and being dedicated to her come hell or high water is a natural recipe for conflict with authority.
<br>
<br>Being a handsome man has its treats, it also can stoke jealousy. There are two sides to every blessing. “The Agony and the Ecstasy” is the way that Michelangelo put it.
<br>
<br>Let me repeat something my most recent adversary said; “if I had it to do over again,” I still would. Neither Craig nor I knew the consequences of our actions at the beginning of the joust. We played it by our best instincts. It is what it is now.
<br>
<br>And I remain convinced that Craig started a tempest in a thimble by choosing off Ken Doc and blowing the little punk’s notoriety to the size of some massive danger to truth. The guy is a pipsqueak in the scheme of things, someone few of us ever heard of before this melodrama. And Craig making such a big deal out of Ken Doc while ignoring the real ghoulish beast within his gates, is utterly incredible in my opinion. Just because Fetzer stood up for Craig does not make him any less dangerous, but indeed even more so by his calculated ingratiating himself for his own PR purposes. And just because Ken Doc attacked Craig personally doesn’t make Ken Doc a major danger to truth. Again we are talking about cheesy Facebook nonsense here.
<br>
<br>Craig’s naïveté is utterly sublime – subliminal and total. And tragic.
<br>
<br>And THAT my friend, is the “Big Picture”. And I never lost sight of it. So we disagree on that very central point. But this doesn’t make us adversaries does it? No it makes us insightful from separate perspectives.
<br>I especially appreciate your perspective, and it’s distinct angle, because it helps me articulate mine that much better than just howling into the wind.
<br>
<br>Thank you ever so much!
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11293">January 7, 2016 at 10:48 pm</a>
<br>Well David, for myself, I have only “kept” two adversaries for longer than a couple weeks. That would be Jim Fetzer and Maxitwat Bridges. In my view, both dangerous moles burrowed into the so-called Truth Movement. And I say ‘so-called’ because it is not a single organism, but a diverse and modular organism morphing through time.
<br>
<br>We both know that the Sunsteinian cognitive infiltration units are out there by the legions now. I think that Fetzer is one of the originals, and Legge as well. Maxitwat is small time and doesn’t even have a voice in the proceedings anymore, that’s why I have little to say about him anymore, accept as a reference point.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>hybridrogue1 January 8, 2016 at 2:23 am
<br>ruffadam — January 7, 2016 at 9:07 pm
<br>
<br>Sheila I am NOT glad that Willy is gone and I think it is a shame and a loss for T+S. I think both Willy and Craig made mistakes to create this split and I told them both that and I told them both what I thought those mistakes were. I do not blame either person for the break up but I blame both Willy and Craig for not allowing for a cooling off period and sincere apologies all around. I am still friends with both Craig and Willy and will continue to talk to both. I will continue to participate here and I will also participate on Willy’s blog. That is my full disclosure about this.
<br>
<br>Sheila I have to say that I object to your glee that Willy is gone and I object to your promotion of hologram planes of all things. I almost swallowed my tongue when I saw that post. My God that theory has ZERO merit and has been debunked ten times over. Worse you said it right when the issue between Craig and Willy was blowing up because Fetzer was attempting to derail this thread with his mini nuke crappola. Your timing could not have been worse. Anyway I am not going to say more here about this except that I will miss Willy here.
<br>
<br>None of this should lead anyone to believe however that I blame Craig more than Willy for the split because I don’t. I have written to both Craig and Willy and made it clear what I think for what it matters. It is finished now and that is that.
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-39097
<br>
<br>Thank you Adam! What a nice surprise to see a kind word for me on T&S for a change.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11299">January 8, 2016 at 3:43 am</a>
<br>Craig McKee — January 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm
<br>“Adam,
<br>I would say that when these kinds of conflicts occur there is usually blame to go around. But I must object to one thing you said. That is that I deserve some blame for not allowing a cooling off period. I do not accept this blame. I was not the attacker in this, I was the person being attacked relentlessly amid other attacks.”
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-39102
<br>* * * * * * * *
<br>
<br>HORSESHIT!!
<br>
<br>When Adam first contacted the both of us (Jan. 2) I said I was not opposed to attempting reconciliation with you Craig. Your very first answer back in that three-way was, absolute and final: “Adam, This split is permanent. I can never trust him or respect him again.”
<br>
<br>Also, I did offer an olive branch and an apology; and I quote myself here from Jan. 4:
<br>
<br>“I am sorry Craig, I apologize for those last comments and many of the other things I have said. I am dropping this issue,
<br>Here and on my blog.
<br>Good luck with T&S in the coming year.”
<br>
<br>* * * * * * *
<br>
<br>All three of us, Adam, Craig, and myself have got one thing right at last. IT’S ALL OVER NOW.
<br>Kaput, finished. You make a thin gruel of “dignity” Craig. I will have nothing further to do with you.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11303">January 8, 2016 at 5:52 am</a>
<br>Craig McKee — January 7, 2016 at 3:55 pm
<br>“For Ken, getting the truth out to people doesn’t matter as much as punishing anyone who has criticized him.”
<br>* * * * * * * * *
<br>The boundless hypocrisy of McKee continues to astound me.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11300">January 8, 2016 at 4:25 am</a>
<br>So I wonder what lies ahead for Uncle Fetzer and Aunt McKee?
<br>
<br>Will they get a permanent “thing” going?
<br>
<br>Only the future will tell, but some marriages are made in Hell.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38845">January 3, 2016 at 9:31 pm</a>
<br>Agreed Craig. It occurs to me that many people have forgotten one very simple thing. Liars are NOT truthers.
</p>
</div><!-- section 248 -->
<a name="x249"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x249" class="tiny">x249</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_249');">recent lies were part of the infection that got you amputated</a></p>
<p>2016-01-08</p>
<div id="sect_249" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/#comment-11316">2016-01-08</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Whitten,
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff wrote on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/comment-page-1/#comment-38845">January 3, 2016 at 9:31 pm</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[M]any people have forgotten one very simple thing. Liars are NOT truthers.</p></blockquote>
<p>I find it fascinating how Mr. Ruff demonstrates such hypocrisy with regards to you, Mr. Whitten, when your recent lies were part of the infection that got you amputated from T&S. Mr. Ruff obviously missed your whopper about supposedly not being able to confront Dr. Fetzer about some of the premises he supports on T&S, but Mr. McKee smacked that faulty notion down hard. Mr. McKee should do a tally of your comment count up until you shot yourself in the foot and didn't kiss enough ass.
<br>
<br>Maybe Mr. Ruff was in on the lie that you foisted for over two years about having physically destroyed Dr. Wood's book and used it for bird-cage liner. If he was in on it, he should have corrected the record on one of the numerous occasions when I made hay with it and rubbed your nose in it. If Mr. Ruff wasn't in on the lie, then how hypocritical is it of him to avoid pegging you with his standard <i>"Liars are NOT truthers."</i>
<br>
<br>I've enjoyed your fresh round of lies, Mr. Whitten:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I have only "kept" two adversaries for longer than a couple weeks. That would be Jim Fetzer and Maxitwat Bridges.</p></blockquote>
<p>How quickly you forget: Sherry Feister, Albury Smith, the Scragged editors, Simon Shack, TamborineMan, Hufferd, COTO's JerseyG (& nearly all female COTO participants), Frank Legge, [your ex-wives, your step-father, your mother, your kids...]
<br>
<br>Obviously, I could research and find many more just from T&S. Suffice it to say that either you are a liar, or you can't count adversaries and have no sense of time.
<br>
<br>You go on to write the following contradiction and lies:
</p>
<blockquote><p>In my view, both dangerous moles burrowed into the so-called Truth Movement... Maxitwat is small time and doesn’t even have a voice in the proceedings anymore, that’s why I have little to say about him anymore, accept as a reference point.</p></blockquote>
<p>How can I be a mole in the Truth Movement if I don't even have a voice in the proceedings? It doesn't just contradict itself, it exposes more lying. The fact that you keep pinging me back to life and keep maintaining your ad hominem blogs dedicated to me contradicts <i>"I have little to say about him."</i>
<br>
<br>I will give you this: just as I was dangerous to your agenda by exposing your lies and hypocrisy, I am dangerous to the Truth Movement. In my sincere search for truth, I expose weaknesses in the <b>"concensus 9/11 theories"</b> and limited-hang-outs, while persistently holding onto nuggets of truth -- even from disinfo sources -- needing to be addressed.
<br>
<br>Loved this oldie but a goodie from Lilaleo (Mr. David Hazan) on <a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/variation-on-milgram/#comment-569">November 22, 2013 at 10:05 pm</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>If I may say as a friendly note, <i><b>everyone</b></i> seems to have more of a problem with you than you have with them. I am not even gonna go in to why I feel this may be so, because I sense that you already know… And, as you have expressed on a few occasions in the past, you don’t really “give a shit” about what people think about you…
<br>
<br>So, when you adopt a tone deaf argumentative persona and ignore people’s reactions to (mostly) your language, <i><b>and</b></i> you don’t give a shit, It just creates a cycle of feedback inhibition that gets out of hand on hot topic discussions. Especially with people who have steadfast with their convictions and don’t easily get intimidated by “language”.
<br></p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Ruff ought to give you some encouragement with the following suggestion, seeing how he knows more about Ken Doc and Mike Collins first-hand than you do. He can tell you that Ken Doc is ~not~ a flash in the pan and has (disinfo) momentum. Recall that Mr. McKee -- who you used to respect --, Mr. Ruff, Mr. Syed, and others all found it important enough to participate.
<br>
<br>So in your exile from T&S, your should sign-up for Facebook, seek out Ken Doc's forums, and have a good time being your belligerent self.
<br>
<br>Some FB advice to help you. Write and save your response off-line before posting. FB is notorious for "forum sliding", and for cycling through the same discussions again and again. This will give you a leg-up. When typing a message into the field, ENTER will post it possibly pre-maturely if you were going for another paragraph; SHIFT-ENTER will allow you to write multiple paragraphs in a single posting. Copying from something written off-line avoids that quirk altogether, although FB does allow you to edit postings. If you turn on notifications (and then set up an email filter for them), those emails are about the only way to acquire the URL's for where discussions happened. You'll have to follow the link from the email, and then the permanent URL will be in the address bar of your browser. You'll want to copy this into your original message and save it. Later (or maybe at the same time), you might want to post thing to your blog, which gives you a true permanent link. Because it is much easier to get banned from certain forums which then prevents you from even reading what is going on, it helps to also be saving off-line comments from others to whom you are responding.
<br>
<br>Finally, although FB will always be a pain-in-the-ass asking you to fill in lots of personal information, you don't have to. You can give the bare minimum.
<br>
<br>FB is a time-suck, but you've already demonstrated by your formerly overwhelming presence on T&S (and COTO & OpEdNews) that you have plenty of time on your hands. And you're precisely the sociopathic dick who should be in Ken Doc's FB forums.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 249 -->
<a name="x250"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x250" class="tiny">x250</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_250');">Superstitious Thinking</a></p>
<p>2016-02-02</p>
<div id="sect_250" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/moon-landing-hoax/#comment-11718">February 2, 2016 at 3:45 am</a>
<br>
<br>Craig McKee believes in things that he doesn’t understand, that is the sign of Superstitious Thinking.
<br>I was part of Truth & Shadows for a bit more than four years. In that time I have watched Craig struggle with scientific and technical issues, and buying into several severe pseudoscience con-jobs. His ignorance in basic physics hobbled him.
<br>
<br>On top of this he put his faith in Max Bridges for advice in science in technology, and Bridges himself is scientifically challenged and utterly irrational – or disingenuous, and led Craig astray into mazes of rhetorical bullshit.
<br>
<br>Craig eventually banned Bridges, but it really wasn’t because he had figured out that Bridges is a charlatan. It was a personal dispute between them. McKee cannot follow a scientific argument because he has steadfastly refused to study the subject of physics and structural engineering and other essential knowledge to thoroughly grasp those aspects of the 9/11 case.
<br>
<br>And Craig has never really caught on that Jim Fetzer is a charlatan and a mole that infiltrated the 9/11 truth movement as a disinformant. Fetzer doesn’t understand science either, he is a pretender and has been caught out over and again.
<br>
<br>I knew that Craig and several other of the regular commentators on T&S bought into the Moon-Hoax nonsense for a long time. But it never became an issue between he and I until quite recently. That is not the reason I left T&S however. The issue was Fetzer posting his bullshit freely on the last thread before the Moon-Hoax thread, the one to do with Ken Doc.Who had accused McKee in promoting nonsense like Nukes at WTC, No-Planes at WTC, Video Fakery, DEW, and Holograms. Craig allowing Fetzer to post his bullshit about Nukes and No Planes on that very thread, it made it seem very disingenuous to claim he did not promote those falsehoods. And although Craig complained that he made it clear that he did not believe those theories, it can hardly be denied that he was promoting them by allowing their propagation on his site. So it’s Craig’s own fault that people will interpret his allowing these things to be promoted colors him with that brush, no matter how much he denies it.
<br>
<br>But we come to the Moon landings issue itself, and that is really an incredibly elementary scientific proposition. And the reasoning used by the Hoax advocates is so utterly transparently ludicrous, it becomes more than simple scientific ignorance in Craig’s case — he is not a logical thinker either! Some of the argument for a hoax landing are so obviously bullshit that a 12 year old could see through them.
<br>
<br>At any rate, a disinformant like Fetzer knew right off the bat that Craig is a sucker, and now Fetzer has finally got him under his control. And although I have empathy for Craig’s situation, it is not my problem. Craig’s a big boy, and if he hasn’t learned to fend for himself, he has to accept the consequences.
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 250 -->
<a name="x251"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x251" class="tiny">x251</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_251');">scientifically challenged and utterly irrational – or disingenuous</a></p>
<p>2016-02-02</p>
<div id="sect_251" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>You don't know shit about Mr. McKee's thoughts and actions with respect to me... a statement that ironically applies to me as well. But I'm not the one speculating; you are. You're just trying to push buttons with both him and me and to ping me back to life.
<br>
<br>Your premise can easily be proven false (pegging you again <b>the liar</b>). If Mr. McKee had <i>"put his faith in Max Bridges [me] for advice in science in technology,</i>" he would already be convinced of my 9/11 4th generation nuclear premises. Mr. McKee, having drunk the Kool-aide from 9/11A&E, has publicly stated that he does not believe in nuclear involvement and is happy with the NT cul de sac. Before he reached these conclusions, his agenda was to bring greater public awareness to the grander 9/11 hoax. He expressed many times that discussions in the minutia of mechanisms of destruction were counter-productive to this greater goal.
<br>
<br>Unlike you, my banishment was not for anything that I had done. You deserved your banishment many times over for your attitude, bullying, forum-flooding, and <b><i>forum-sliding</i></b> (look it up from your links about recognizing disinfo tactics). I was banned for a pre-crime and an offense not yet made. Because my current 9/11 truth & holy-grail involve 4th generation nuclear devices, I could not promise that I would not at some point <i><b>"slip it in side-ways"</b></i> some comment that in all other aspects related to what was being discussed. Even then, such a slip-in every n-th comment would not have been so bad. The real pre-crime banishment was for the suspected <b><i>OVERREACTION</i></b> to what would have been slipped-in by me from <i><b>YOU AND MR. RUFF.</b></i> In a sense, I was pre-crime banned for offenses that YOU were expected to make. A little bit bass-ackward in retrospect, why I'd be punished for YOUR actions.
<br>
<br>I loved your quote: <i>"Bridges himself is scientifically challenged and utterly irrational – or disingenuous."</i> I've got significantly more science chops than you, Mr. Rogue. I've pawned your ass many times on the subject. [Still, I extend kudos for you having researched and boned up on that which you originally did not know.]
<br>
<br>Two things are telling. One is when you were presented with the mathematics and science that called into serious questions your premise, you could never admit that where your premise was wrong or lacking. An example of this is the quantities of NT required to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>
<br>The second is that you couldn't argue anything except by referencing the works of others. This isn't to say that providing references is wrong. It is saying that you didn't have the science intelligence yourself to see the merits and demerits in (a) my argument & references or (b) your own arguments & references. Further, you did not have the understanding OR INTELLECTUAL HONESTY to admit the boundaries or scope-limits of the references that you relied on. You were all too happy to accept them at face value and not question. An awesome example of this Dr. Jones' "No Nukes" paper that doesn't even mention 4th generation nuclear devices.
<br>
<br>I also loved your continuation: <i>"[Bridges] led Craig astray into mazes of rhetorical bullshit."</i> Such utter nonsense. Here is what I suspect is much closer to the truth. I am a respectful, logical, articulate, reasoned, smart, honest, and sincere participant. Most of the time and certainly before your arrival, Mr. Rogue, Mr. McKee can and did ignore me, because he could trust in the value of my contribution to his blog. [We split the task in debunking the trolls.]
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue, you employed the tactic of forum flooding. The crafty part was that many times it wasn't even your work or words; you quote-mined others and pasted it in as a weak reflection of your intellect for what you ran across in your reading. Such non-threatening postings seemingly gave you gravitas as being a valued contributor so that when you felt compelled to bully someone and steer the forum, that infraction would be a small fraction of the whole, could be removed, and still leave you with "reasonable remainders". The true value of all your postings and you standing behind them is recognized in the fact that the vast majority did not merit being re-purposed on your blog.
<br>
<br>When not taunted and tainted by you, Mr. Rogue, my contributions to T&S were infrequent but valued for their alternative, reasoned perspective. Whereas you might argue that my lengthy opinions were not valued (by lurker readers), then it would have followed that they could have been ignored and forgotten amid your forum flooding on other themes. But you didn't ignore my comments and dilute and regulate them into nothingness, did you? Quite the opposite. My voicing of what I sincerely believe was dangerous to your agenda, by being outside what you were charged with defending. You took on my words -- with cheating, lying, and weasel techniques -- and lost, leading to more unhingement on your part.
<br>
<br>If Mr. McKee was deluded and fooled by anyone, it was by you. Your true character gets exposed on your blog. Mr. McKee didn't realize how dishonest or despicable you really were (owing to your innocuous forum-flooding), until he had your bile aimed at him on your blog. Contrast in personalities, since my banishment, Mr. McKee wasn't treated to a series of backstabbing comments on my blog. Sure he's received emails from me, but such expressed gratitude (for my banishment) and not bile. How ironic!
<br>
<br>If Mr. McKee made a mistake, it was in not heeding his own revelation about nuclear discussions: namely, that the topic itself wasn't the problem on his blog, but the behavior of participants (YOU). Rather than initially taking it out on me, you as the common denominator in nearly all flame wars should have been graced with banishment then. Without inappropriate over-reactions from you in forum floods, my infrequent even if bat-shit crazy comments only would have added color to the discussions. As it turned out though with my exit first, your bad behavior persisted and persists still. I'm overdue for exoneration.
<br>
<br>P.S. It's been more than 2 weeks since your banishment. Your insults still to Mr. McKee proves you <b>a liar</b> on your statements to Lilaleo about how long you hold grudges.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 251 -->
<a name="x252"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x252" class="tiny">x252</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_252');">1124 wasted words</a></p>
<p>2016-02-02</p>
<div id="sect_252" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/moon-landing-hoax/#comment-11737">February 2, 2016 at 10:32 pm</a>
<br>
<br>That was 1124 wasted words Bridges. Words that will never see the light of day here. Now why don’t you fuck off an play dead again like a good little puppy.
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 252 -->
<a name="x253"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x253" class="tiny">x253</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_253');">it got a reaction out of you</a></p>
<p>2016-02-02</p>
<div id="sect_253" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>Wasted words? El-oh-el. Not only did it get a reaction out of you, but it put a placeholder in the minds of your "vast" audience that you are incapable of disputing whatever it is that I wrote, therefore you must suppress it at all costs so that only "your version" seems to persist. Puts you on the defensive and in a bad light.
<br>
<br>You would have been better off strategically speaking not to have acknowledged it at all. But I thank you for doing so, because it validates the information path that I chose.
<br>
<br>Why don't you follow your own fuck-off advice, which can be started by not ever mentioning me on your blog ever again, because clearly you don't have the ability to do so without --l.y.i.n.g--.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 253 -->
<a name="x254"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x254" class="tiny">x254</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_254');">the psychosis of this anonymous bouncing lunatic</a></p>
<p>2016-02-03</p>
<div id="sect_254" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/moon-landing-hoax/#comment-11740">February 3, 2016 at 12:54 am</a>
<br>
<br>I have been advised by Maxwell Bridges, aka Maxifucnanus, aka Maxitwat, aka, el Kabong; not to mention him on this site again. Of course this is my blog and I can say any fuckin’ thing I want here.
<br>It is quite the delight seeing Señor Fuckhead stewing in his own juices, plying his futile demands like a voice from a deep empty well.
<br>
<br>Let me recommend two threads on this blog that address the psychosis of this anonymous bouncing lunatic calling itself, “Maxwell Bridges”:
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/
<br>
<br>https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/
<br>
<br>Viddy well, little brother!
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 254 -->
<a name="x255"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x255" class="tiny">x255</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_255');">publishing our exchanges</a></p>
<p>2016-02-03</p>
<div id="sect_255" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>You write: <i>"It is quite the delight seeing Señor Fuckhead stewing in his own juices, plying his futile demands like a voice from a deep empty well."</i>
<br>
<br>None of your 41 followers is <i>"seeing"</i> anything from me, making my unpublished taunts just a figment of your imagination as far as they are concerned.
<br>
<br>When I feel like it and get around to it, certainly I'll be publishing our exchanges on my blog. But I'm in no hurry.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, though, we have to ask who is <i>"stewing in his own juices"</i>? Not I. Particularly if I can't be bothered to update my website from the last several months of my efforts. September was the last update. Worse, is that I haven't been that active except some Facebook exchanges in September & October.
<br>
<br>I've been primarily a lurker, because I've needed to be a worker and earn my keep. On the personal side, you should note that I did not ramp up my T&S involvement (or blog activity) after getting laid-off from a 7-1/2 gig at a high-tech company in October 2014 and while on severance for many months. I would have had the time to make T&S and ~you~ my personal projects, but I didn't. And only reluctantly <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html">did I get it on with Mr. Ruff by calling his bluff</a>, and ended up not having to do much there either when he fumbled as spectacularly as you. I'm already one contract down and a few weeks into a second. Before the first contract started, I did accomplish some major research into my premise and into correcting my beliefs in certain areas (e.g., beams from space).
<br>
<br>Regarding your links. Taken as a whole, very little of it are quoted words from me. Most of it is you <i>"stewing in your own juices."</i> Those "works" reflect your "psychosis", not mine.
<br>
<br>Given that the following was written about you, your narcissism should have no problems reading both the article and <b>all of the comments.</b> It is hyperlinked to a relatively new comment.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/laying-bare-propagana-techniques-and.html?showComment=1452126087985#c3288806524768046897
<br>
<br>Stew, Mr. Rogue. Stew.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 255 -->
<a name="x256"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x256" class="tiny">x256</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_256');">the speed the dust settles at</a></p>
<p>2016-02-05</p>
<div id="sect_256" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/moon-landing-hoax/#comment-11782">February 5, 2016 at 5:57 pm</a>
<br>
<br>And for my ‘secret admirer’ MF:
<br>
<br>It is not simply the speed the dust settles at, but the fact that it does not disperse and hang in ‘the air’ as it would in an atmosphere.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/moon-landing-hoax/#comment-11832">February 7, 2016 at 2:57 am</a>
<br>
<br>94 COMMENTS on the Moon-Hoax thread on T&S, and not a single solid argument supporting the hoax assertion. Absolutely nothing but bullshit from these clowns.
<br>No wonder Craig hasn’t said a word since the first day.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/moon-landing-hoax/#comment-11903">February 10, 2016 at 4:49 am</a>
<br>
<br>“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”
<br>– Voltaire
<br>
<br>Well McKee’s Moon-Hoax article on T&S did a belly-flop. They didn’t prove squat or make any convincing points. And that is because the whole lunar landing hoax concept is based on BULLSHIT.
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 256 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part5 -->
<hr>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part6');">Part 6: OCD to the extreme</a></p>
<div id="sect_part6" style="display: none;">
<a name="x257"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x257" class="tiny">x257</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_257');">as far as I am concerned the debate is over</a></p>
<p>2016-03-21</p>
<div id="sect_257" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-40848">March 17, 2016 at 6:20 am</a>
<br>
<br>As far as I am concerned the debate is over about the pentagon unless someone wants to challenge our position with something new and substantial. Coste, Chandler, Jenkins, and the rest of the plane impact supporters have been decisively debunked. Thoroughly shattered and discredited.
<br>
<br>I think the debate with Barbara Honegger will show the emptiness of her hypothesis and she will be proved to be completely wrong as well. I am so disappointed we still have to debate these nebulous, ever morphing, and unfounded theories such as Barbara’s at this late date when we should be making arrests and prosecuting the guilty. It must be done apparently because those unfamiliar with the real evidence at the pentagon are still buying into Honegger’s theory simply because she is prolific and promotes herself to such a degree they miss the fact that she has little or no evidence to back it up. Few researchers know the evidence well enough to argue with her so she has gotten by with relatively few challenges. That is until now.
<br>
<br>It is about time the truth movement start to assert itself with the pentagon evidence the way it does with the controlled demolition evidence. Failing to do so is just impotence at this point. The pentagon evidence is arguably the most damning proof of an inside job that exists. Let’s start putting these disinformants claiming impact at the pentagon in their proper place along side popular mechanics and the JREF trolls. Let’s start holding the so called “leaders” of the truth movement accountable for their baseless positions. Let’s get real and demand that people like Richard Gage come clean about the pentagon and retract his BS statement that did so much damage to the cause. Hold Chandler to account for his sloppy hit piece on CIT. Come on people we are growing old here letting these charlatans run amok.
<br>
<br>The question that remains for me is what are we going to do with this proof that the government staged the crime scene at the pentagon? What are we going to do? Debate it for years more when there is no credible challenge to the evidence?
<br>
<br>I am not interested in 9/11 discussion any more I am interested in naming names and making arrests and getting justice. Play time is over.
<br>
<br>BTW: Yes I can start naming names. Look into Christopher Bollyn’s excellent research for the names to start with.
<br>
<br>I will name a few names right now that are participating in the cover-up and/or obfuscation of 9/11 evidence:
<br>
<br>David Chandler (pentagon), Kevin Ryan (Israeli involvement, pentagon), Jim Hoffman (pentagon), and others. These people should be mercilessly drummed out of the truth movement for what they have done. To even refer to them as “truthers” at this point is an insult to all truthers.
<br>
<br>So called leaders such as DRG and Richard Gage refuse to speak up about this intolerable situation and for that I am seriously disappointed in them both. I say to both of them now to stand up like men, like real truthers, and call these people out on their lies and evasions and obfuscations. Real truthers would do exactly that. Leave no doubt where you stand on the pentagon evidence, come on already!
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-40912">March 18, 2016 at 12:14 pm</a>
<br>
<br>A truther is indeed someone who finds and tells the truth no matter who likes it or not. It isn’t an issue when a truther changes his or her stance when some new information comes along in fact they should change when they are shown to be wrong.
<br>
<br>So you changing your opinion isn’t the issue Dwain, the issue is you changed your opinion based on highly speculative information that in no way whatsoever counters the compelling testimony of the NOC witnesses. The God damned Sandia test doesn’t prove shit about the pentagon Dwayne because the plane didn’t hit. SANDIA IS IRRELLEVANT! repeat that over and over in your head Dwayne until you get what the issue is.
<br>
<br>Even if a plane did hit the pentagon, which we know is not true, the Sandia test still doesn’t prove jack shit about it because we have no idea what was left after the test on the ground. For all we know there was a mangled engine laying there after the Sandia test. So just give it a rest man, it is pure BS Dwain, the plane flew over and NOTHING you have said or come up with shows that conclusion to be wrong. NOTHING!
<br>
<br>You know something Dwain you may be book smart but your logic stinks. I am tired of dealing with people slinging around BS and pretending to be truthers.
<br>
<br>If you are a real truther then stand up like one and support the NOC evidence strongly and openly. Follow the implications of the evidence and say it loud and clear that the pentagon itself staged the crime scene on 9/11 thereby proving insider involvement in the crimes of 9/11. If you don’t do that you are NOT a truther.
<br>
<br>The BS game you are playing here Dwain says some very disturbing things about you. Why would you persist in trying to obfuscate some of the best proof we have of an inside job? Why would anyone do that? Honestly I wish a real truther was there to slap you in the face and tell you how dirty it is to do what you are doing. it makes me sick.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-40990">March 19, 2016 at 9:43 pm</a>
<br>
<br>The JREF’ers have been up to no good for a long time that is for sure and not just with 9/11 but you know the NSA’s Q group has been at this for a long time too. They use all sorts of dirty tricks to try and tear us down and divide us but you know what Dominick? The truth ALWAYS wins in the end. No matter what they do the truth cannot be defeated, the only thing they can even remotely hope for is to suppress the truth for a while. So in essence they are like cockroaches scurrying around hoping and praying the light doesn’t get flicked on. These disinformation artists promoting the lie about impact at the pentagon are a dying breed, discredited and demoralized, just like the corporate media. No one is buying the BS they are selling anymore.
</p>
</div><!-- section 257 -->
<a name="x258"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x258" class="tiny">x258</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_258');">Sandia F4 crash and the MythBuster rocket-sled are useful to the Pentagon discussion</a></p>
<p>2016-03-21</p>
<div id="sect_258" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>The Sandia F4 crash into a re-enforced wall and the MythBuster rocket-sled are useful to the Pentagon discussion as well, but more in a sense of "you can't have it both ways" in debunking premises of plane impact.
<br>
<br>The main take-away point is that high velocities equate to exponentially high energies that can exceed the inherit structure strength of the materials in question. Materials and assemblies in the objects of the collision do ~not~ have to act as cohesive wholes. No, the high energy can act locally to shatter the material first, thus preventing something like wing or tail assemblies from remaining in tact and "bouncing off." The fragments of the material once shattered could be forced many directions, including backwards (bounce) with respect to the original vector of travel. But at that point they are fragments, not complete assemblies.
<br>
<br>To the degree that we might "believe" that the renovated & stronger Pentagon walls shattered materials of the plane, very little of it is shown. Solid pieces of the plane, such as wheel assemblies and engines, would have had better penetration through the first wall, but would have successively less energy for penetration at each wall of several rings. The final burned out hole in an inner ring is unbelievable, because nothing remains from the aircraft to suggest having made the hole.
<br>
<br>(I still say that a construction trailer launched a rocket, the very trailer that government simulation videos make a point of saying "a wing clipped it and got it to sit askew with the Pentagon wall" but aligned with the alleged flight path.)
<br>
<br>Furthermore, the exponentially high energy involved with the aircraft could have had very different effects with the light poles. Even for a light pole getting sheared (or shattered locally) by the aircraft wings, the wings themselves would experience equal & opposite energy that could shatter or gouge deeply into the wings at localized impact points. Such would compromise the integrity of the wings, possibly making it impossible for the aircraft to remain aloft to make it to the Pentagon.
<br>
<br>Someone in the discussion mentioned (paraphrased) that "if there had been fly-over, there would be a tell-tale swirl from the jet exhaust in the billowing fire-ball smoke. We didn't see that, so there was no fly-over."
<br>
<br>Many eye-witnesses to an actual aircraft are consistent with the path that they say it flew, which deviates from the path of actual destruction. Some could say that was an operational accident. Others could say that this was from design, precisely because (a) a jet backwash swirl would be visible in the fireball if the aircraft flew along the alleged flight path, and (b) the aircraft along the alleged flight path could receive crippling damage so as to not hit the Pentagon squarely.
<br>
<br>The bottom-line, Mr. McKee, is that the Sandia F4 crash is still a useful experiment to give us insight into the damages of 9/11. It is stilted and doesn't explain the whole 9/11 story, and hints at how the story doesn't add up.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>On a related note. Gotta love the hot air that Mr. Adam Ruff blows: "A truther is indeed someone who finds and tells the truth no matter who likes it or not. It isn’t an issue when a truther changes his or her stance when some new information comes along in fact they should change when they are shown to be wrong."
<br>
<br>What a hypocrite!
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff -- like a Republican Senate refusing to vet court nominees -- refuses to read my (new) information about FGNW, so he isn't about the change his mind. Cognitive dissonance in another form.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff complains about the stance taken by certain leaders of the 9/11TM that precludes them from considering flyover. Yet, I complain about these same leaders not seriously reviewing the nuclear evidence, accepting flawed reports unquestioned & unchallenged, extrapolating erroneously to negative conclusions, etc., and Mr. Ruff is blind this data point falling into the exact same trend line.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 258 -->
<a name="x259"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x259" class="tiny">x259</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_259');">You think this is very important, but I do not</a></p>
<p>2016-03-28</p>
<div id="sect_259" style="display: none;">
<p>Craig McKee
<br>
<br>I don’t think it is the same. I believe the case for a faked plane crash at the Pentagon has been the subject of a disinformation campaign for more than a decade. Participants in this campaign want the truth movement to give up on evidence that is critical for proving that 9/11 was an inside job. I don’t think that denouncing this disinformation is contributing to infighting because I think the “controversy” is a contrived one. The majority of truthers agree no plane hit and I would like to see it stay that way. The towers are a different case. The movement is united behind the idea that the towers were blown up and that they did not fall because of plane impacts or jet fuel fires. You want to elevate the question of what type of explosive was used. You think this is very important, but I do not. I am not convinced that it paints a clearer picture of anything. Having said that, everyone is free to address whichever subject they think is important. They can start their own blog or comment wherever that topic is discussed. I encourage those who have a case to make to do so it in any way they can. I don’t believe in telling people to stay away from any area of research provided they are honest in wanting to investigate it. I applaud you for assembling your research into a paper that others can read and discuss. But on my blog, I have the right to say whether or not I want put the focus on which type of explosive devices were used to bring the towers down. I actually wish I didn’t have to write about the Pentagon at all. I think most people understand that no impact occurred but I think that efforts by the Chandler/Hoffman/Legge group seem to be directed at weakening the TM’s position and causing the illusion of a genuine controversy. This I feel the need to expose.</p>
</div><!-- section 259 -->
<a name="x260"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x260" class="tiny">x260</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_260');">a profoundly deeper significance</a></p>
<p>2016-03-28</p>
<div id="sect_260" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee, (part 1/2) you wrote: "I believe the case for a faked plane crash at the Pentagon has been the subject of a disinformation campaign for more than a decade."
<br>
<br>Agreed. More than anything, the actual faking of a plane at the Pentagon explains the concerted effort (September Clues & Let's Roll Forums) to dupe useful idiots (such as I was) about "no planes at the WTC". Its true disinfo intents were to discredit the 911TM and to dissuade the public from pursuing similar "no planes" themes where they truly applied: Pentagon & Shanksville.
<br>
<br>However, the disinformation campaign into the causes of WTC destruction goes back to the day of event: even longer.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "You want to elevate the question of what type of explosive was used."
<br>
<br>Language is important, Mr. McKee. I want to elevate the question of what "mechanisms of destruction" were used, not the "type of explosives." Your inexact language wants to park me in the cul de sac of limited hang-outs.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "You think this is very important, but I do not."
<br>
<br>I agree that if I was splitting hairs about NT, RDX, or other fancy chemical explosives and their proportions in the mix, it would not be very important. Such mechanisms could be scape-goated to any patsy, for such explosives are easier to come by. Except for one minor snafu. To achieve what was observed in the pulverization and under-rubble hot-spots, obscenely massive quanties would have been required: an unrealistic logistics challenge. That dog don't hunt for Occam Razor.
<br>
<br>My FGNW mechanisms of destruction have a profoundly deeper significance.
<br>
<br>You have repeatedly expressed that your goal is get greater public awareness of the deceit of 9/11 (among other things). You focus on the Pentagon way too much, but hey, that's your hobby-horse.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "I am not convinced that [nuclear destruction] paints a clearer picture of anything."
<br>
<br>You're playing games, Mr. McKee, but I'll bite. WTF would convince you of [a destructive mechanism] painting a clearer picture of "something"?
<br>
<br>The USA didn't drop just two nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. It also fire-bombed Dresden and other German cities with similar casualty outcomes (except for radiation sickness). Americans don't feel remorse about the fire-bombings (unless they've researched it), but they do feel remorse about the nukes (except for those who drank the Kool-Aid about the "American lives saved.") That is how the propaganda & PR panned out during the cold-war from all sides: "nukes are bad!"
<br>
<br>You avoid discussions that would convince either you of FGNW, or me of the errors in my ways. It isn't a matter of scientific chops, either. It is a matter of you being a good investigator & reporter; you can learn along the way what you need to know. You haven't been questioning what you've been fed from AE911Truth that parks understanding at NT.
<br>
<br>Deployment of nukes are the bad PR that (theoretically) no administration, no government, and no country could survive without massive internal & external pressure for fundamental change. Could negate the very objectives of the operation. Nukes reduce dramatically the list of suspects, and becomes much harder to scape-goat to patsies.
<br>
<br>FGNW, Mr. McKee, are the key to public revelation & action.
<br>
<br>// Part 1/2
<br>
<br>Part 2/2
<br>Mr. McKee, you call out certain leaders in the 911TM for being part of the Pentagon "plane impact" disinformation crowd. Can't you see that many have played a similar role with regards to WTC? (The whole NT crowd.) Involvement of nukes (FGNW or otherwise) can't be admitted under any circumstance in any "controlled entity or forum": from AltNet News, to 9/11 Blogger, to Let's Roll Forums, to September Clues... etc., etc., ... and seemingly to Truth & Shadows.
<br>
<br>It was okay for me to write a T&S piece that later (my) research proved wrong. It was okay for you to allow Dr. Wood's to be discussed under your article on T&S, because she craftily doesn't make any claims and has elements ("beams from space") that discredit. That Dr. Wood article had its comments closed, and no "Part 2" ever replaced it. Yet, to shut down new T&S discussions into Dr. Wood, you refer them to the closed article (without even a link) as if you weren't aware that it has been closed for quite some time.
<br>
<br>Not okay is mining nuggets of truth from disinformation sources. Not okay is when understanding evolves and the discussion begins to hone in on the true, damning mechanisms having a nuclear whiff.
<br>
<br>More accurately, the above was okay as far as you were concerned, as long as it didn't inspire bad behavior by its detractors. But rather than handling the detractor and calling them on their dishonest & discrediting actions, they got the pass and I got the boot.
<br>
<br>[I love how one opponent -- your most active contributor -- lied for years about having physically destroyed Dr. Wood's book in order to avoid rational discussions that might rescue nuggets of truth and get them re-purposed elsewhere. It exposed another participant as a blow-hard, hypocritical, liar, and he has yet to debunk anything from Dr. Wood, let alone FGNW, despite many boasts. Fucking no-show when called out to defend his words and act according to discussion rules that he himself spelled out.]
<br>
<br>You don't see any patterns. But I do.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "[O]n my blog, I have the right to say whether or not I want put the focus on which type of explosive devices were used to bring the towers down."
<br>
<br>And when the type of explosive device gets absolutely shredded? When it can't explain all of the evidence? When it comes up vastly short? When even its champions say something else was involved? Makes you the clown holding the bag.
<br>
<br>I did not relish being the odd-man out in T&S discussions for having championed (for a time) NPT, Dr. Wood, milli-nukes, etc. However, TRUTH was my guide and helped me change my views, but not at the expense of nuggets of truth.
<br>
<br>TRUTH should be the focus.
<br>
<br>// Part 2/2
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 260 -->
<a name="x261"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x261" class="tiny">x261</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_261');">put in touch with Schmidt & Gloux</a></p>
<p>2016-03-30</p>
<div id="sect_261" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/craig.mckee.16/posts/1672935346300980?comment_id=1675344119393436&reply_comment_id=1675761126018402¬if_t=share_comment¬if_id=1459306753403974
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, I would like to be put in touch with two T&S participants: Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Gloux. (a) Could you please ask them if they would be willing to correspond with me? If so, they could contact you off-list with their email address to pass to me, or you could pass them off-list my email address or my blog URL.
<br>
<br>Or on-list, (b) you could post a link to my blog with the comment that I desire a short audience with them.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
<br>
<br>Thank-you.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 261 -->
<a name="x262"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x262" class="tiny">x262</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_262');">get a leg-up with raw research</a></p>
<p>2016-03-31</p>
<div id="sect_262" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Craig McKee, so that you could get a leg-up quickly, get to my level of understanding of nuclear / DEW, and discuss the topics knowledgably, I had promised you several months ago the raw results of my research at my local institution of higher education (that turns out, I could mostly do online after I got my library card). This summary wasn't my sole or focused endeavor while laid-off and (somewhat) still on severance Spring/Summer of 2015. But it was sufficient to get the lay of the weapon's land around the turn of the century.
<br>
<br>Various entries in this raw work didn't always merit extensive notes or quoted extracts. They were included to show completeness and that "I did go there and do that and left nothing relevant out." If you came across similar references on your own, this raw summary could be a guide as to whether the entry was worth chasing all the way down to a published article or book (albeit soley from the perspective of my FGNW hobby-horse.)
<br>
<br>If you had to limit your review of this raw data, the two stand-out entries are at the bottom of Part 2:
<br>
<br>- Doug Beason, Ph.D : "The E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy weapons Will Change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought" 2005
<br>
<br>- Andre Gsponer : "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weaspons: Military effectivenss and collateral effects." 2008
<br>
<br>They are worthy of you looking up yourself and (the former) checking out of the library of your local institution of higher education.
<br>
<br>The following link opens to section with my notes from Dr. Beason's book, followed by the section of Dr. Gsponer.
<br>
<br>http://www.maxbridges.us/111_rant/2015_DewFgnwResearch.php#x137
<br>
<br>At the very top and very bottom are links to expand/collapse that are very handy. Plus all of the titles expand/collapse individual sections, to aid you in your review.
<br>
<br>What is sad is that a similar literature review was ~NOT~ performed by leaders of the 911TM before they embarked on concerted efforts to "poo-poo" nuclear / DEW. This research proved to me that (straight) DEW obtained from (generally) chemical sources, were not capable of achieving what was observed due to (a) optics and (b) energy sources, particularly when posited as "beams from space." And my hybrid variant of "nuclear DEW" had similar optical problems that would be solved by being very close -- if not inside -- the target (WTC).
<br>
<br>P.S. Dr. James Henry Fetzer (Philip Joy, Kevin James) may find this research also of interest.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 262 -->
<a name="x263"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x263" class="tiny">x263</a>
Craig McKee, Roger Gloux, Jens Schmidt : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_263');">would you be willing to correspond</a></p>
<p>2016-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_263" style="display: none;">
<p>2016-04-01
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41579">March 31, 2016 at 7:01 pm</a>
<br>
<br>To Roger Gloux and Jens Schmidt,
<br>
<br>Senor El Once, a past comment contributor on Truth and Shadows, has asked if you would be willing to correspond with him privately. Please email me at truthandshadows@yahoo.com and let me know. Thanks.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41600">April 1, 2016 at 9:34 am</a>
<br>
<br>Craig,
<br>I have never heard of El Once. Why would he want to correspond privately as opposed to here on this public board?
<br>Who is he?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41610">April 1, 2016 at 2:57 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Jens, he has made many comments on this blog since 2010 although he does not currently have posting privileges. You can check out this link, which goes into the subject he’d like to converse with you about.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br><b>Roger Gloux</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41619">April 1, 2016 at 5:08 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Done.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 263 -->
<a name="x264"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x264" class="tiny">x264</a>
ruffadam, Jens Schmidt, hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_264');">the guy is OCD to the extreme</a></p>
<p>2016-04-04</p>
<div id="sect_264" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41722">April 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm</a>
<br>
<br>For the record if you invite Senior El Once into your circle of contacts you are going to regret it because the guy is OCD to the extreme and will NEVER leave you alone! Ever. I told him many times to stop contacting me and he kept doing it anyway. He sends very long elaborate diatribes which are confusing and hard to decipher and which are full of all sorts of erroneous conclusions and logical fallacies. By contacting him you are letting a crazy person into your company. You have been warned.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41741">April 5, 2016 at 12:29 am</a>
<br>
<br>Thanks for the warning. I don’t think highly of proponents of any “nukes” theory.
<br>What is “OCD”?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41749">April 5, 2016 at 5:40 am</a>
<br>
<br>OCD = Obsessive compulsive disorder
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41757">April 5, 2016 at 10:50 am</a>
<br>
<br>Ah ok. I don’t take online medical diagnoses very serious, but thanks again for the warning, I think I know the type of poster.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-13065">April 5, 2016 at 8:38 pm</a>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b> — April 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm
<br>
<br>“For the record if you invite Senior El Once into your circle of contacts you are going to regret it because the guy is OCD to the extreme and will NEVER leave you alone! Ever. I told him many times to stop contacting me and he kept doing it anyway. He sends very long elaborate diatribes which are confusing and hard to decipher and which are full of all sorts of erroneous conclusions and logical fallacies. By contacting him you are letting a crazy person into your company. You have been warned.”
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41722
<br>
<br><b>A great Public Service Announcement By Adam Ruff there!!!
<br>Lol</b>
<br>\\][//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 264 -->
<a name="x265"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x265" class="tiny">x265</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_265');">flatter me so with your assessment</a></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41724">2016-04-04</a></p>
<div id="sect_265" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
<br>
<br>You flatter me so much with your assessment!
<br>
<br>I think the reason you act the way you do, is that you know that you've been <i><b>a glaring hypocrite & blow-hard</b></i> and have been <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html">caught repeatedly in the act.</a>
<br>
<br>Where is your promised debunking of <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">fourth generation nuclear devices</a>? I even have <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">a new FGND thread</a> that you could participate on. Where is your debunking of Dr. Wood (a much easier target)? You are a repeated no-show, Mr. huffing-and-puffing Ruff, and lose by default. Can't even live up to your own expectations for honest participants of T&S (<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-40912">March 18, 2016 at 12:14 pm</a>) re-written for FGND:
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>A truther is indeed someone who finds and tells the truth no matter who likes it or not. It isn’t an issue when a truther changes his or her stance when some new information comes along in fact they should change when they are shown to be wrong. So you changing your opinion isn’t the issue {...}. If you are a real truther then stand up like one and support the {...} evidence {of FGND} strongly and openly. Follow the implications of the evidence and say it loud and clear that {the nuclear involvement & cover-up} thereby proving insider involvement in the crimes of 9/11. If you don’t do that you are NOT a truther. The BS game you are playing here {...} says some very disturbing things about you. Why would you persist in trying to obfuscate some of the best proof we have of an inside job? Why would anyone do that? Honestly I wish a real truther was there to slap you in the face and tell you how dirty it is to do what you are doing. it makes me sick.</p></blockquote>
<p>[In a Gomer Pile voice] <i>"Surprise, surprise, Mr. Ruff:</i>" that your mentor, Mr. Whitten, failed in his gambit against me in a parallel spectacular fashion and is also a repeated no-show.
<br>
<br>I guess what gets your goat the most about me is that *I* am not as crazy as you hyperventilate. Sure, I write well; sure, I can research; sure, I can extract meaningful nuggets from highly technical sources; sure, I'm organized; sure, I collect comment-by-comment all of my words and eventually re-publish them. You don't appreciate in the least how this little habit -- hardly <i>"OCD to the extreme"</i> because it is simply drip-by-drip -- can help in authoring words from the onset that are worthy later of preservation and re-purposing. Keeps me out of the flame wars.
<br>
<br>I also like this <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-40990">March 19, 2016 at 9:43 pm</a>:
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>The JREF’ers have been up to no good for a long time that is for sure and not just with 9/11 but you know the NSA’s Q group has been at this for a long time too. They use all sorts of dirty tricks to try and tear us down and divide us but you know what {...}? <b>The truth ALWAYS wins in the end.</b> No matter what they do the truth cannot be defeated, the only thing they can even remotely hope for is to suppress the truth for a while. So in essence they are like cockroaches scurrying around hoping and praying the light doesn’t get flicked on. These disinformation artists promoting the lie about {NT @ the WTC will soon be} a dying breed, discredited and demoralized, just like the corporate media. No one is buying the BS they are selling anymore.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Come out and play, Mr. Ruff!</b> I've made it easy for you by giving you an outline of what needs to be debunked. Go through my FGNW article section by section and give us the good, the bad, and the ugly. {You'll fail if you can acknowledge no good, or no truths.}
<br>
<br>Oh, and before I forget. I did the research that you were incapable of. I promised you <a href="http://www.maxbridges.us/111_rant/2015_DewFgnwResearch.php">my raw research into DEW and Nukes</a>. This, too, should give you a very huge headstart and leg-up into debunking FGND.
<br>
<br>Truthfully, I don't expect shit from you or Mr. Whitten. You two, too-proud high school graduates (by the skin of your teeth) are too stupid, and certainly won't show up to have your intelligence / ignorance further exposed and your selves discredited.
<br>
<br>But Mr. McKee will take note of how I earnestly and sincerely MANY TIMES tried to initiate a rational, reasoned, researched, substantive discussion with you two DISINFO CLOWNS, only to have you act the JFEF and Q-Group. {Indeed, I have been uncharacteristically throwing many personal insults your way in this message to "inspire" you. I'm not expecting much; the cut of your jibe is already known.}
<br>
<br>Enjoy your Pentagon carousels.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 265 -->
<a name="x266"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x266" class="tiny">x266</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_266');">I cling to nuggets of truth like a dog to a bone</a></p>
<p>2016-04-05</p>
<div id="sect_266" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html?showComment=1459875010217#c5242944457070873020">Part 1/2</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff wrote on Truth & Shadows <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41722">April 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm</a>:
<br><i>"For the record if you invite Senior El Once {SEO = Bruecke = Bridges} into your circle of contacts you are going to regret it because the guy is OCD to the extreme..."</i>
<br>
<br>El-oh-el. Sure; when I discover a nugget of truth, I cling to it like a dog to a bone. Sure; I'm organized. Sure; I collect drip-by-drip, comment-by-comment my words, relevant quotes from my opponents that I'm responding to, and dates & URLs where such transpired.
<br>
<br>The issue isn't what my legacy exposes about me, because I have been sincere, I stand behind my words {until new data or analysis necessitates a change}, and the knowledge of the collection task affects even the authoring process to curb baser instincts and to write content worthy of preservation.
<br>
<br>The issue is what legacy exposes about my opponents: blow-hard, hypocrisy, lies...
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff continued: <i>"... and {SEO} will NEVER leave you alone! Ever."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff's exaggerations verge on lies, which has been the issue and merits contact in an attempt to correct the record.
<br>
<br><i>"I told him many times to stop contacting me and he kept doing it anyway."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff was told to set up a filter for my messages, and he promised that he had already done so: my email messages go directly to spam or trash <i><b>UNREAD</b></i>.
<br>
<br>Phrases like <i>"will NEVER leave you alone"</i> and <i>"kept doing it anyway"</i> take on a hue of <b>daily spam</b> and irrelevant to anything. On the contrary, my off-list messages to Mr. Ruff have been so infrequent, the average over the course of a year probably isn't twice a month. The content of those infrequent messages related directly to Mr. Ruff's online activities.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff continued: <i>"He sends very long elaborate diatribes which are confusing and hard to decipher and which are full of all sorts of erroneous conclusions and logical fallacies."</i>
<br>
<br>Hold it right there! If Mr. Ruff repeatedly declared publicly & privately that he did not read my comments / emails and that he set up filters precisely to avoid reading my emails, then Mr. Ruff has zero basis to assert <i>"erroneous conclusions and logical fallacies"</i> in my work. Either Mr. Ruff (a) is lying about filtering / not reading my words, (b) is lying about his assessment of my actual content, or (c) both.
<br>
<br>Book reviews without actually reading the books (Kevin Ryan, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Andre Gsponer) are data points already in Mr. Ruff's trend line. He could only know if an email were <i>"very long elaborate diatribes"</i> if he looked inside. Therefore, (c) two lies are exposed.
<br>
<br>Given Mr. Ruff education level and IQ, I give him a pass on thinking my words are <i>"confusing and hard to decipher"</i>. In a cognitive dissonance sort of way, my messages probably are and probably <i>"hurt his widdle bwain."</i>
<br>
<br>For the sake of discussion, if we assume true Mr. Ruff's baseless assertions, improving or eradicating the very same <i>"erroneous conclusions and logical fallacies"</i> has been a motive behind my entire web presence and efforts to establish communication channels.
<br>// Part 1/2
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html?showComment=1459875041867#c4695960376633686777">Part 2/2</a>
<br>
<br>Readers can speculate themselves what possibly could be tainting Mr. Ruff's description of me. Maybe he doesn't like me dragging up instances of his own hypocrisy (<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-40912">March 18, 2016 at 12:14 pm</a> with minor edits for FGND):
<br>
<br><i>"A truther is indeed someone who finds and tells the truth no matter who likes it or not. It isn't an issue when a truther changes his or her stance when some new information comes along in fact they should change when they are shown to be wrong. So you changing your opinion isn't the issue {...}. Follow the implications of the evidence and say it loud and clear {...} If you don't do that you are NOT a truther. The BS game you are playing here {...} says some very disturbing things about you. Why would you persist in trying to obfuscate some of the best proof we have of an inside job? Why would anyone do that? Honestly I wish a real truther was there to slap you in the face and tell you how dirty it is to do what you are doing. it makes me sick."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff from <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-40990">March 19, 2016 at 9:43 pm</a>:
<br>
<br><i>"The JREF'ers have been up to no good for a long time that is for sure and not just with 9/11 but you know the NSA's Q group has been at this for a long time too. They use all sorts of dirty tricks to try and tear us down and divide us but you know what {...}? <b>The truth ALWAYS wins in the end.</b> No matter what they do the truth cannot be defeated, the only thing they can even remotely hope for is to suppress the truth for a while. So in essence they are like cockroaches scurrying around hoping and praying the light doesn't get flicked on. These disinformation artists promoting the lie about {NT @ the WTC will soon be} a dying breed, discredited and demoralized, just like the corporate media. No one is buying the BS they are selling anymore."</i>
<br>
<br>OCD-me! I did what Mr. Ruff was incapable of starting: objective research and review of DEW and nuclear devices for their state about 2001. Herewith, I fulfill my promise of making available <a href="http://www.maxbridges.us/111_rant/2015_DewFgnwResearch.php">my raw research into DEW and Nukes</a>.
<br>
<br>I earnestly and sincerely tried MANY TIMES to initiate a rational, reasoned, researched, substantive discussion, only to be be JREF'ed and Q-Group'ed by the likes of Mr. Ruff and Mr. Whitten. Mr. Ruff has skirted discussions. He avoids emails. I presently don't have posting privileges on T&S. We don't have communication channels. So Mr. Ruff's <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41722">April 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm</a> comment is an unsolicited attack.
<br>
<br>Look no further than Mr. Ruff's closing remarks: <i>"By contacting {SEO/me} you are letting a crazy person into your company. You have been warned."</i>
<br>
<br><i>Oooo! Dat's kwazy twalk!</i>
<br>
<br>// Part 2/2
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 266 -->
<a name="x267"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x267" class="tiny">x267</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_267');">re-packing Mr. Ruff's ammo and aiming at Mr. Whitten</a></p>
<p>2016-04-06</p>
<div id="sect_267" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-13101">2016-04-05</a>
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/01/hypnotic-suggestion-nuclear-case-closed.html?showComment=1459980328402#c678292947026444255">Part 1/2</a>
<br>Mr. Whitten offered on <a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-13065">April 5, 2016 at 8:38 pm</a> a pat-on-the-back to Mr. Adam Ruff for his T&S message on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41722">April 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm</a>.
<br>
<br>What is interesting is how much of Mr. Ruff's words really should be aimed at Mr. Whitten:
<br>
<br><i>"For the record if you invite {Mr. Whitten} into your circle of contacts you are going to regret it because the guy is OCD to the extreme..."</i>
<br>
<br>A great example is: <i><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/">MAXWELL BRIDGES: DISINFORMANT</a>.</i> Mr. Whitten's only consistent OCD focus in its 373 comments is ad hominem. Nothing on his blog addresses all of my points; the few he did address have rebuttals. Mr. Whitten isn't interested in a rational discussion, because if he were, there would be back-and-forth exchanges on one or both blogs.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff continued: <i>"... and {Mr. Whitten} will NEVER leave you alone! Ever."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Whitten maintains comments under this blog, even though the demerits of this "work" are quickly evident to any objective reader.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff continued: <i>"I told {Mr. Whitten} many times to stop contacting me and he kept doing it anyway."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Whitten knows that I am subscribed to his blog entry dedicated to me. By "contacting me", he constantly pings me back to life by posting comments there, by referencing me, and by alias-ASS-ociated me with other people.
<br>// Part 1/2
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/01/hypnotic-suggestion-nuclear-case-closed.html?showComment=1459980370099#c5493042692496839421">Part 2/2</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Whitten certainly wasn't the model of excellence in Mr. Ruff's hypocritical statement of <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-40912">March 18, 2016 at 12:14 pm</a> (with minor edits for FGND):
<br>
<br><i>"A truther is indeed someone who finds and tells the truth no matter who likes it or not. It isn't an issue when a truther changes his or her stance when some new information comes along in fact they should change when they are shown to be wrong. {...} Follow the implications of the evidence and say it loud and clear {...} If you don't do that you are NOT a truther. The BS game you are playing here {...} says some very disturbing things about you. {...} Honestly I wish a real truther was there to slap you in the face and tell you how dirty it is to do what you are doing. it makes me sick."</i>
<br>
<br>Maybe Mr. Ruff statement from <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-40990">March 19, 2016 at 9:43 pm</a> really reference Mr. Whitten:
<br>
<br><i>"The JREF'ers have been up to no good for a long time that is for sure and not just with 9/11 but you know the NSA's Q group has been at this for a long time too. They use all sorts of dirty tricks to try and tear us down and divide us but you know what {...}? <b>The truth ALWAYS wins in the end.</b>"</i>
<br>
<br>OCD-me! I did what Mr. Whitten and Mr. Ruff were incapable of starting: objective research and review of DEW and nuclear devices for their state about 2001. Herewith, I fulfill my promise of making available <a href="http://www.maxbridges.us/111_rant/2015_DewFgnwResearch.php">my raw research into DEW and Nukes</a>.
<br>
<br>I earnestly and sincerely tried MANY TIMES to initiate a rational, reasoned, researched, substantive discussion, only to be be JREF'ed and Q-Group'ed by the likes of Mr. Ruff and Mr. Whitten. Both have skirted discussions.
<br>
<br><b>So precious was the lie</b> maintained for over two years by Mr. Whitten that he had physically destroyed Dr. Judy Wood's 500-page full-color textbook and used it as bird-cage liner, in order to avoid discussing it. That is oh so El-Oh-El funny, particularly when Dr. Wood's work was never intended, by Dr. Wood or me, to be the end station. Hard to believe that two years ago (2014) was <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/laying-bare-propagana-techniques-and.html"><i>"Laying Bare the Propaganda Techniques and Dissembling"</i></a> and how it stands the test of time, followed by <i>"to destroy confidence in the reliability of", "to reject as untrue or of questionable accuracy", "Gathering and Sowing", ...</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. AWright's tenure on T&S ended coincidentally about the same time as Mr. Whitten's, in good old sockpuppet fashion. Amazing VerityTwo's huffing-and-puffing departure at the same time as Mr. Whitten's booting. And quite astonishing the viscious and irreversible <b><i>bridge burning</i></b> (pun intended) from T&S! ... So Mr. Whitten in his Q-Group demotion can spin his wheels in 52 year-old JFK conspiracies.
<br>
<br>Mr. Whitten's blog had isolated instances of genius and promise, only to be overwhelmed by his sociopathic tendancies. What a shame.
<br>
<br>// Part 2/2
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 267 -->
<a name="x268"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x268" class="tiny">x268</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_268');">shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium</a></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/wtc-explosions-witnessed/#comment-41913">2016-04-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_268" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>I do not dispute that the WTC was a victim of controlled demolition. Nor do I dispute the significant number of witnesses who reported hearing explosions. Nor do I dispute that conventional explosives could have played a (minor) role.
<br>
<br>Conventional (chemical-based) explosives couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium, such as air, water, earth, rock, etc.
<br>
<br>If we assume conventional explosives were used at the WTC on 9/11 and try to deduce their placement from the evidence (videos plus eye- & ear-witnesses), the description of the explosion cadence suggests a rate slow enough to be counted -- <i>"boom, boom, boom, boom..."</i> -- like one every half second, or one every second. Given that the destruction of each tower happened in approximately 10 seconds, this would suggest one explosive event for every 5th to 10th floor or 20th floor. None describe an explosion cadence of 10 blasts a second, or 1 blast every 0.1 second, which is an explosive device every floor.
<br>
<br>Now consider two anomalies. The first is that both towers, but most observable with WTC-1, had a "spire" or portion of the inner core remain standing briefly after seemingly the individual floors and outer wall assemblies were pulverized and fell or were ejected from around the spire.
<br>
<br>The second anomaly is that survivors and witnesses at very close proximity did not report afterward damage to hearing from deafening explosions. While Dr. Shyam Sunder can be faulted for many issues with NIST's 9/11 reports, <a href="https://cee.mit.edu/cee-in-focus/2009/spring/shyam-sunder">Dr. Sunder made valid statements</a>: <i>"Our analysis calculated that the minimum charge needed to make the critical column fail would have produced a huge 130-decibel sound, audible over half a mile away. None of the videos or witness reports provided any evidence of this."</i>
<br>
<br>Given the explosion cadence and the assumption of conventional explosives every 5th to 10th floor, their energy coupling to the targets (e.g., the concrete and contents of each floor) would have been shock-waves propagating through air. To achieve the observed pulverization, the shock-waves would have been large, which in turn calculates to <b><i>deafening decibel levels</i></b> to many survivors and witnesses close by.
<br>
<br>Because deafening decibel levels were not the case on 9/11, the assumption does not have to hold that the primary mechanisms of destruction were conventional (chemical-based) explosives. Thus, sincere seekers of truth must continue their search for the another primary mechanisms of destruction.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#14">Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons</a> are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can produce direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response and observed outcomes. <a href="http://isri.ch/wiki/_media/publications:ag-09-02.pdf">From Dr. Andre Gsponer</a>:
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.</p></blockquote>
<p>Furthermore for materials near the detonation point, surface heating can be sufficiently strong to <i><b>ablate</b></i> (e.g., "vaporize") and by reaction, a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>The main effect {of FGNW} will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.</p></blockquote>
<p>The bottom-line: FGNW have sufficient energy to produce explosive and even pulverizing effects. Because the shock-wave is directly within the material and not transmitted through the medium of air, the resulting audible explosions would be muted compared to conventional chemical explosives to achieve equivalent effects.
<br>
<br>FGNW are directed energy devices. Speculation: they could have been mounted on alternating sides of what became the "spire" and aimed their energy in a conical area upwards. This would have resulted in the fountain-type effect of content ejection and pulverization (except for spire) as observed, and also would have mitigated to a certain degree nuclear fracticide or one device causing another to fail or fizzle and not meet its full nuclear potential. The duration of under-rubble hot-spots is a clue of nuclear fizzle and 9/11 not being a perfect operation.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, other evidence in the aftermath (e.g., tiny iron spheres in the dust, tritium, heavy metals including Uranium in the dust) point at nuclear involvement. The cover-up also hints at it, both in what is considered solid evidence as well as what is considered disinformation, such as how nuclear devices are framed improperly.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 268 -->
<a name="x269"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x269" class="tiny">x269</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_269');">deafening decibel levels were not the case on 9/11</a></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/wtc-explosions-witnessed/#comment-41913">2016-04-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_269" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee, (Part 1/2) I do not dispute that the WTC was a victim of controlled demolition. Nor do I dispute the significant number of witnesses who reported hearing explosions. Nor do I dispute that conventional explosives could have played a (minor) role.
<br>
<br>Conventional (chemical-based) explosives couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium, such as air, water, earth, rock, etc.
<br>
<br>If we assume conventional explosives were used at the WTC on 9/11 and try to deduce their placement from the evidence (videos plus eye- & ear-witnesses), the description of the explosion cadence suggests a rate slow enough to be counted -- <i>"boom, boom, boom, boom..."</i> -- like one every half second, or one every second. Given that the destruction of each tower happened in approximately 10 seconds, this would suggest one explosive event for every 5th to 10th floor or 20th floor. None describe an explosion cadence of 10 blasts a second, or 1 blast every 0.1 second, which is an explosive device every floor.
<br>
<br>Now consider two anomalies. The first is that both towers, but most observable with WTC-1, had a "spire" or portion of the inner core remain standing briefly after seemingly the individual floors and outer wall assemblies were pulverized and fell or were ejected from around the spire.
<br>
<br>The second anomaly is that survivors and witnesses at very close proximity did not report afterward damage to hearing from deafening explosions. While Dr. Shyam Sunder can be faulted for many issues with NIST's 9/11 reports, <a href="https://cee.mit.edu/cee-in-focus/2009/spring/shyam-sunder">Dr. Sunder made valid statements</a>: <i>"Our analysis calculated that the minimum charge needed to make the critical column fail would have produced a huge 130-decibel sound, audible over half a mile away. None of the videos or witness reports provided any evidence of this."</i>
<br>
<br>Given the explosion cadence and the assumption of conventional explosives every 5th to 10th floor, their energy coupling to the targets (e.g., the concrete and contents of each floor) would have been shock-waves propagating through air. To achieve the observed pulverization, the shock-waves would have been large, which in turn calculates to <b><i>deafening decibel levels</i></b> to many survivors and witnesses close by.
<br>
<br>Because deafening decibel levels were not the case on 9/11, the assumption does not have to hold that the primary mechanisms of destruction were conventional (chemical-based) explosives. Thus, sincere seekers of truth must continue their search for the another primary mechanisms of destruction.
<br>// Part 1/2
<br>
<br>Part 2/2
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#14">Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons</a> are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can produce direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response and observed outcomes. <a href="http://isri.ch/wiki/_media/publications:ag-09-02.pdf">From Dr. Andre Gsponer</a>:
<br>
<br>"A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast."
<br>
<br>Furthermore for materials near the detonation point, surface heating can be sufficiently strong to <i><b>ablate</b></i> (e.g., "vaporize") and by reaction, a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
<br>
<br>"The main effect {of FGNW} will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material."
<br>
<br>The bottom-line: FGNW have sufficient energy to produce explosive and even pulverizing effects. Because the shock-wave is directly within the material and not transmitted through the medium of air, the resulting audible explosions would be muted compared to conventional chemical explosives to achieve equivalent effects.
<br>
<br>FGNW are directed energy devices. Speculation: they could have been mounted on alternating sides of what became the "spire" and aimed their energy in a conical area upwards. This would have resulted in the fountain-type effect of content ejection and pulverization (except for spire) as observed, and also would have mitigated to a certain degree nuclear fracticide or one device causing another to fail or fizzle and not meet its full nuclear potential. The duration of under-rubble hot-spots is a clue of nuclear fizzle and 9/11 not being a perfect operation.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, other evidence in the aftermath (e.g., tiny iron spheres in the dust, tritium, heavy metals including Uranium in the dust) point at nuclear involvement. The cover-up also hints at it, both in what is considered solid evidence as well as what is considered disinformation, such as how nuclear devices are framed improperly.
<br>
<br>// Part 2/2</p>
</div><!-- section 269 -->
<a name="x270"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x270" class="tiny">x270</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_270');">a blatant ~LIE~ dutifully maintained for nearly 2-1/2 years</a></p>
<p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/prelude-to-nookiedoo.html?showComment=1460140935158#c1835055531326388598">2016-04-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_270" style="display: none;">
<p>Here is a postscript to the 2014-04-10 comment <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/prelude-to-nookiedoo.html#x33">x33 <i>compelled to tell lies to bolster your arguments</i></a>.
</p>
<blockquote>+++ Begin Quote
<br><i>{Mr. Rogue / Mr. Whitten} knew how I was using {Dr. Judy Wood's} book to inspire rational discussion with leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement well ~before~ an offer with conditions was eventually extended{...} It was a test of objectivity. I was attempting a sincere effort to get two opposing sides on the same literal page in order to legitimately and objectively review Dr. Wood's work.
<br>
<br>Who knows why you accepted?
<br>
<br>Prior to receiving the book, you were disparaging it. Maybe you only accepted the offer as a cheap trick to get out of being constantly reminded that you had no standing for negatively evaluating it if you'd never read it. Maybe you thought it would be a cake walk to find all bad and acknowledge no good. Maybe you were unprepared for how little bad there was in comparison to overwhelming amounts of good. At the end of the day, what matters is how you played it.
<br>
<br>You ran out the clock on reading it. When pressed, you said you didn't finish reading it and weren't going to "because it was so bad." Huh? If it was so bad, why didn't you document the many instances that made it bad, as was the assignment that you agreed to? Pressed further, you try to send it back, but pay-it-forward or pass-it-along were the conditions, not return-to-sender. <b>Pressed further, you violently ripped it apart to be used as bird-cage liner so that nobody could obtain any further benefit from it, least of all yourself when the book cycled back into discussions.</b>
<br>
<br>Does any of this make rational sense?
<br>
<br>It tells me that <b>you were never sincere</b> in the first place. You thought you were playing me and avoiding for as long as possible a legitimate and objective review of Dr. Wood's work (and the evidence contained therein.) {...} I could not have imagined that I would get so much milage out of a book, one that I know has issues.</i>
<br>+++ End Quote </blockquote>
<p>I had written much earlier on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16656">March 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm</a>:
<br>
<br><i>My money is betting that the above [destruction of Dr. Wood’s book for bird cage liner] is just another fucking lie from Agent Rogue {Mr. Whitten}. I can wait a very long time before this lie is exposed, …</i>
<br>
<br>Sure enough much later and after I am soft-banned from Truth & Shadows, Mr. Whitten writes on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33511">August 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm</a> in a discussion with a new T&S participant: <i>"I have the BOOK [from Dr. Judy Wood]."</i> Then Mr. Whitten demonstrates on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/truth-and-shadows-turns-five/#comment-33693">August 31, 2015 at 2:39 pm</a> intimate knowledge of its content that could only be obtained from an intact book.
<br>
<br>Here we have it: a blatant ~LIE~ from Mr. Whitten dutifully maintained for nearly 2-1/2 years in lieu of acknowledging any good in Dr. Wood’s book?!!
<br>
<br>The silver bullet fatally pierces Mr. Whitten's integrity and character. <i>"Unfaithful in the small things…"</i>
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 270 -->
<a name="x271"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x271" class="tiny">x271</a>
ruffadam, Jens Schmidt, Wayne Coste : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_271');">there were no obvious explosions just before the WTC towers came down</a></p>
<p>2016-04-11</p>
<div id="sect_271" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42078">April 11, 2016 at 11:30 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Jens doesn’t believe explosives were used to bring down the towers so why would anyone think he has ANY credibility? I certainly don’t. I just ignore his and Wayne’s silly nonsense. There is no reason to regard their opinions as valuable. As far as I am concerned they are just JREF’ers here to waste our time.
<br>
<br>
<br><i>Jens Schmidt</i>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42081">April 11, 2016 at 11:45 pm</a>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>,
<br><i>“Jens doesn’t believe explosives were used to bring down the towers”</i>
<br>Here is a little challenge for you: Find me two videos:
<br>1. A video of an actual explosive demolition of a tall building
<br>2. A video of the collapse of any of the WTC towers
<br>Both ought to be with original sound from the camera.
<br>Chose the videos such that the sounds of the explosions are more obvious in the WTC video than in the other.
<br>
<br>Alternatively, you could admit right here and now that there were no obvious explosions just before the WTC towers came down – which makes the believe in explosives a little unobvious.
<br>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42082">April 11, 2016 at 11:55 pm</a>
<br><b><a href="https://www.911truthoutreach.org/" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Wayne Coste</a></b>
<br>
<br><div class="comment-content">
<br>Ruffadam:
<br>Excuse me!
<br>What part of my discussion about WTC Building 7 didn’t you understand? The only way this can happen is with explosives as I said in this post and the earlier post to this one.
<br>Initial
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42048" rel="nofollow">https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42048</a>
<br>Follow-up
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42068" rel="nofollow">https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42068</a>
<br>You can suggest that Jens is either confused about the evidence or misinformed.
<br>However, I expect that we are on the same page concerning WTC Building 7. Is that correct?
<br>-Wayne
<br></div><!-- .comment-content -->
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42083">April 12, 2016 at 12:34 am</a>
<br>
<br>Jens:
<br>
<br>I hope that you are not fixated on only one piece of evidence – such as the singular sounds of individual explosive charges. As I am sure you are aware, the Twin Towers were a much larger building that was destroyed than other controlled demolitions.
<br>
<br>In a parade, a singular snare drum makes a distinct sound. In a parade with a dozen snare drums doing a drum roll, you will never be able to hear the individual strikes by a drum-stick.
<br>
<br>If you are looking for irrefutable evidence of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers then let me introduce you to this 18 second video of the South Tower’s demolition:
<br>
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/RwzWBKfRsZ0">https://youtu.be/RwzWBKfRsZ0</a>
<br>
<br>What you just saw was that the demolition wave progressed down the South Tower at a speed that was as-fast-as, or faster than, free fall acceleration. If you noticed, by the time the material was ejected outside of the tower from one floor (in all three directions that you can see — left, front and a bit of the right side), the next floor was exploded and – this is the important part – the ejected material that was in mid-air does not have time to fall to obscure the demolition of the next floor. A gravity-only collapse would travel much slower because the structure above would need to be doing work and that slows the destruction to “slower-than-freefall-acceleration.
<br>
<br>Consequently this cannot be a gravity-only collapse. It had a lot of explosive help.
<br>
<br>Also note – the material that is ejected is not just floating “dust”, it is the aluminum skin, the steel perimeter columns and other structural material that lands up to 600 feet away. All heavy enough to fall at free-fall acceleration. It takes about 18 stories for the material in the air to begin to obscure the demolition wave.
<br>
<br>-Wayne
<br>
<br>PS. The material ejected outside the footprint stopped about the 5th floor because the “floors” below that were open lobby and had no structure to demolish. No need need // place for explosives and that is why the firefighters survived in the fourth floor staircase.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42084">April 12, 2016 at 12:47 am</a>
<br>
<br>Wayne,
<br>
<br><i>“…you will never be able to hear the individual strikes…”</i>
<br>Which makes the “explosives” theory a bit unobvious??
<br>
<br><i>“What you just saw was that the demolition wave progressed down the South Tower at a speed that was as-fast-as, or faster than, free fall acceleration.”</i>
<br>No, slower than g. David Chandler measured 2/3 of g. This is consistent with momentum transfer in a pancaking of the floor slabs – and exactly what the video shows. What you believe are explosives going of is simply tens of thousands of cubic meters of air expelled each second, with the dust of crumbling drywall and light-weight concrete.
<br>
<br>Gotta run!
<br>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42087">April 12, 2016 at 2:35 am</a>
<br><b><a href="http://gravatar.com/ruffadam" rel="external nofollow" class="url">ruffadam</a></b>
<br>
<br>Wayne I do not read your posts any more on any subject. I think you are dishonest and I want nothing to do with you.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Wayne Coste</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42099">April 12, 2016 at 8:27 am</a>
<br>
<br>Jens:
<br>
<br>I think you missed the point about the material being ejected out of the building. The demolition wave proceeded as-fast-as of faster than material in free fall outside the building.
<br>
<br>The David Chandler analysis was describing the acceleration of the top of the tower – for as long as it could be observed. What I was pointing out that the demolition wave destroying the outside of the building (in the three sides you can see (left, front and ejections to the right side by implication) is proceeding too fast for a “gravity-only” collapse.
<br>
<br>If the South Tower was “collapsing” at less than free fall acceleration, the material falling outside would have obscured the destruction of the next floor down. Instead, what we see is the next floor below is demolished before the material in free fall can obscure the view.
<br>
<br>From this analysis of material in free fall outside the building, I cannot see anything any about what is happening inside to the core’s structure – so the 2/3 of free fall acceleration by Chandler is not inconsistent.
<br>
<br>North Tower Demolition Wave
<br>
<br>In this view of the North Tower, at 0:18 – 0:24, you can see the building being destroyed as a demolition wave races down the center line of the building. The demolition wave here is a narrow strip down facade and is visible in other videos.
<br>
<br><a href="https://youtu.be/Mb-4Xt8ENt0">https://youtu.be/Mb-4Xt8ENt0</a>
<br>
<br>-Wayne .
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42153">April 14, 2016 at 9:33 am</a>
<br><div class="comment-content">
<br>
<br>Wayne, I appreciate the effort – but do you really consider these sounds to be explosions, even obvious explosions?
<br>
<br>You haven’t met the second part of my challenge – to show an actual explosive demolition where the sounds of the explosions are <i>less</i> obvious than at the WTC.
<br>
<br>What I want to convince you of is not necessarily that there were no explosions, but that no explosions were <b>obvious</b> – as you previously implied.
<br>
<br>There are no obvious sounds of explosions
<br>
<br>There are no obvious flashed of light from explosions
<br>
<br>There are no obvious shockwaves from explosions
<br>
<br>There is no obvious high-speed (hundreds of mph) shrapnell flying away from explosions
<br>
<br>There are no steel segments obviously cut by explosives
<br>
<br>There are no injuries stemming obviously from explosives (barotrauma and the like)
<br>
<br>There was no explosives-trained canine that barked
<br>
<br>Nobody has found explosives in any of the remains (and no, no one found nanothermite, and even if they did, nanothermite is not a steel-cutting explosive; not even Harrit and Jones claim that their alleged nanothermite was used as an explosive)
<br>
<br>So the obvious reality is: There were no obvious explosive demolition charges. All you have is anomalies that you interprete with a bias towards CD.
<br>
<br>Now: I don’t know what those loud sounds in your videos are, and I will give it a try identifying them, once you meet the challenge and find me an explosive CD with less obvious sounds. I note for the newest video you posted about 9 hours ago that the sounds were generated much closer to the cam than the tower was (they don’t reverberate), or, if they come from the tower, were generated well after collapse initiation. Why are there no obvious sounds of explosions immediately prior to collapse initiation? And why would anybody rig the lower part of the tower with explosives – do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descenging with great momentum? Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?
<br>
<br>I’ll have an extremely busy weekend and may not reply again until sunday or monday.
<br>
<br></div><!-- .comment-content -->
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.911truthoutreach.org/" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Wayne Coste</a></b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42159">April 14, 2016 at 10:15 pm</a>
<br><div class="comment-content">
<br>
<br>Jens:
<br>
<br>Your complete dismissal of the sound of explosions in the previously referenced video clips and the video clips showin demolition waves proceeding down the Twin Towers as-fast-or-faster that the debris in freefall suggest that nothing will shake your purported disbelief of the evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.
<br>
<br>Since you raised the issue, lets move on to a more technical discussion. You said:
<br>
<br>” … do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descending with great momentum? Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?”
<br>
<br>In fact, using NIST’s own data, in conjunction with measured observations, the descent of the top of the North Tower should have been arrested after about two-four seconds – assuming that it should have started in the first place..
<br>
<br>You are certainly aware that NIST never simulated the destruction of the Twin Towers – nor did any analysis of the structure once they deemed “global collapse was inevitable.” They had a good reason not to publish their results – the buildings would not have experienced a progressive collapse. They relied on the fraud of Zdenek Bazant’s published papers.
<br>
<br>A 2009 paper by Szamboti and MacQueen went to the heart of the progressive collapse fraud. There was no observed jolt.
<br>
<br>In 2011, Bazant published a paper written in response to a paper by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti (“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 2009), although the authors simply referred to MacQueen and Szamboti’s work as “… a new objection, pertaining to the smoothness of the observed motion history of the tower top, … raised and disseminated on the Internet”.
<br>
<br>It appears that Bazant (in desperation?) took up the challenge and wrote a paper describing the progressive collapse mechanism. In order to make the numbers work, he had to assume:
<br>
<br>1) The floors were much heavier than NIST said they were, and
<br>
<br>2) The column strength / column resistance was less than what NIST, said
<br>
<br>3) The acceleration was freefall for the first floor (instead of the observed 2/3 of freefall acceleration)
<br>
<br>When corrected by Szamboti and Johns in a discussion paper, they showed that because of the momentum transfer and structural resistance, the acceleration would negative (e.g. slowing to an eventual stop) if the correct values were used (e.g those contained in the NIST report or derivable from it). If the observed acceleration was used, then the progressive collapse would have been halted in under 4 seconds.
<br>
<br>This is an image of the graph showing the Bazant acceleration (blue line) and the effect of using corrected values.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/Le_Bazant_Corrected.png"><img src="https://i2.wp.com/www.hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/Le_Bazant_Corrected.png" style="max-width:100%;"></a>
<br>
<br>You can see that with the corrected values, the downward velocity returns to 0 m/s.
<br>
<br>You can see more discussion here:
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/465-asce-journals-refuse-to-correct-fraudulent-paper-they-published-on-wtc-collapses.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/465-asce-journals-refuse-to-correct-fraudulent-paper-they-published-on-wtc-collapses.html</a>
<br>
<br>-Wayne
<br>
<br></div><!-- .comment-content -->
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42196">April 16, 2016 at 7:30 am</a>
<br><div class="comment-content">
<br>
<br>Wayne,
<br>
<br>“<i>…lets move on…</i>”
<br>
<br>No, Wayne, let’s <i>not</i> move on when you have misrepresented my previous comments, not answered my questions and not met my video challenge ;)
<br>
<br>“<i>Your complete dismissal of the sound of explosions in the previously referenced video clips…</i>”
<br>
<br>Untrue, Wayne! I did not “completely dismis” these sounds – I addressed them, and askey you questions, to which I shall return shortly! I think we should get to the bottom of those two clips and do our best to either corroborate or falsify your allegation that theses sounds are the sounds of explosives exploding to demoligh the tower<img class="wp-smiley emoji" draggable="false" alt=":)" src="https://s1.wp.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/wpcom-smileys/simple-smile.svg" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" height="16" width="16">
<br>
<br>“<i>Your complete dismissal of … the video clips showin demolition waves proceeding down the Twin Towers as-fast-or-faster that the debris in freefall</i>”
<br>
<br>Untrue again, Wayne! I pointed you to the evidence, contained in the very same videos, that the “demolition” (actually just: colllapse) waves proceded slower than debris in freefall – you just need to look at the large, heavy pieces, not the dust, not the fluttering aluminium sheets. You failed to address this – may I take that as you dismissing evidence that refutes your claim?
<br>
<br>Wayne, I had asked, and you quoted my question:
<br>
<br>“<i> … do you really believe the collapse would have arrested <b>after the top half was already descending</b> with great momentum? Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?</i>”
<br>
<br>Please note the added emphasise on “<b>after the top half…</b>”
<br>
<br>You replied – but ignored the bit about “after the top half…”:
<br>
<br>“<i>the descent of the top of the North Tower should have been arrested <b>after about two-four seconds</b> – assuming that it should have started in the first place</i>”
<br>
<br>Do you see how you answer a question I didn’t ask? Your reply is about the early stages of collapse progression, my question about the later stages. This was misleading on your part, because the elipse that started your quote of my question cut out the crucial context in which I asked it! Here is my question including, in bold face, the bit you clipped out:
<br>
<br>“<i><b>And why would anybody rig the lower part of the tower with explosives – </b>do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descenging with great momentum?</i>”
<br>
<br>Wayne, please answer that question, and none other!
<br>
<br>I have to admit at this point that I made a stupid thinking mistake leading up to that question – in my mind, I had “corrected” the sound by placing the event at 10 seconds <i>later</i> in the video, which made me think the two sounds, if they originated from the WTC, did so several seconds after collapse initiation. Of course correction goes the other way: The Onno de Jong videos were shot from 9th Street and 1st Avenue, which is about 3 km / 1.9 miles away, such that sound would take approx 9 seconds earlier:
<br>
<br><span class="embed-youtube" style="text-align:center; display: none;"><iframe class="youtube-player" type="text/html" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KaqT16p3lmA?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent" allowfullscreen="true" style="border:0;" height="379" width="620"></iframe></span>
<br>
<br>The sound heard at 2:49 min would have been generated at ca. 2:40 min, and the sound heard at 2:55 min at 2:46 min; that’s ca. 10 and 4 seconds prior to visible collapse initiation. If you go to the video and watch around those two time stamps, you will note that there is no corresponding visual event: No flashes, no pressure wave pushing out fire or smoke…
<br>
<br>Wayne, I further asked:
<br>
<br>“<i>Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?</i>”
<br>
<br>This applies to any stage of the collapse progressions once we see the top segment has tilted such that columns are no longer vertically aligned around the collapse zone, and the entire top has started coming down.
<br>
<br>(I acknowledge that I have not yet spoken of what caused collapse initiation; these questions go to the question of what happened during the collapse progression – after initiation, whether it was explosives on all levels all the way down, or gravity-driven “pancaking”.)
<br>
<br>Please answer the quoted question!
<br>
<br>I also asked, and that goes back to my challenge and the video clip you offered:
<br>
<br>“<i>do you really consider these sounds to be explosions, even obvious explosions?</i>”
<br>
<br>That’s two questions – please answer both (a “yes” to “<i>obvious</i> explosion” would answer both)!
<br>
<br>What I want to convince you of is not necessarily that there were no explosions, but that no explosions were <b>obvious</b> – as you previously implied. That’s what the last questions are about.
<br>
<br>You still haven’t met the second part of my challenge – to show an actual explosive demolition where the sounds of the explosions are <i>less</i> obvious than at the WTC. I need now an actual explosive demoltition where the explosions are even less obvious than the two, apparently near, noises in the Onno de Jong video.
<br>
<br>As far as Bazanz, Szamboti and the “missing jolt” are concerned:
<br>
<br>Szamboti accepts Bazant’s models as modelling the actual WTC collapses – and that is Szamboti’s prime error. Base assumption false – all that follows is invalid.
<br>
<br>Let me explain very briefly:
<br>
<br>Bazant and Zhou, in a paper that Bazant had drafted a day after 9/11, and which they got published in 2002, assumed that IF the collapse would be resisted by the columns on every level, all the way through (that would be, I assume, what AE911Truth calls the “path of greatest resistance”) AND IF somehow the top segment had a chance to fall at freefall acceleration through the height of 1 floor, then the collapse could not have arrested as the potential energy differential per unit height (e.g. 1 story) is greater than what the columns can absorb. This is a limiting case analysis, but both assumptions don’t actually apply to the WTC: The top segment never fell at feefall, there was never a literal 1-story gap – but most importantly, the falling mass didn’t load the columns significantly after it had started falling. 98% of the area of the tower is floor or lateral beams, and only 2% is columns. Plus, the top part descending is proof positive of most columns having failed AND passing each other.
<br>
<br>It follows that most of the falling mass impacted horizontal members, which were <b>far</b> weaker than the columns and could not nearly offer as much resistance. Hence Bazant’s first paper was far too “optimistic” as far as survivability is concerned.
<br>
<br>And hence my question:
<br>
<br>Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?
<br>
<br>(Oh, and Bazant’s follow-up papers elaborated on his initial “column loading” model, and are thus also not applicable at any detail level to the actual WTC collapses. NIST, afaik, only made reference to Bazant & Zhou’s limiting case, which was perfectly legitimate. NIST picked the correct part from Bazant, Szamboti the wrong parts. And added a couple more errors of reasoning)
<br>
<br></div><!-- .comment-content -->
</p>
</div><!-- section 271 -->
<a name="x272"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x272" class="tiny">x272</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_272');">After Mr schmidt's admission of being official conspiracy theory all the way</a></p>
<p>2016-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_272" style="display: none;">
<p>{2016-04-14}
<br>Dear Mr McKee,
<br>
<br>After Mr schmidt's admission of being OCT all the way, I no longer find him of interest to contact. However all disinformation has its nuggets of truth. He does legitimately take chemical explosives to task for their weaknesses in explaining the evidence and video observations. FGND fit, although he won't go there. This is for your edification.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>{2016-04-16}
<br>Dear Mr McKee,
<br>
<br>Amazing how crafty if not snakey Agent Schmidt is as he essential defends OCT. The Q-group has upped their game with this character. Don't ban him, use him. Conflict makes an argument, breeds interest, and is classic for all productions (novels, plays, movies, dear abbeys, ...)
<br>
<br>I gently but consistently persistently remind you of my nuggets of truth mantra, because even in defending OCT, the agent reveals such when he talks about audio signatures of explosives and WTC. My hobby horse explains it, and you know it. Take your own advice to follow the white rabbit after truth and into my rabbit hole. (Or... said in gest while enjoying the lack of responsibility of exile..., you could stop being a censure against me and my sincere holy grail of Truth.)
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>{2016-04-16}
<br>Dear Mr McKee,
<br>
<br>Mr rogue was very good at teaching us all about pincers. Mr ruff does a poor job of defending controlled demolition, period. And he is bound to lose because he is assuming explosives, which the audio signatures don't match and the agent knows this, because he knows the true causes. The agents Schmidt and Gloucester (and ruff) did not contact me, and blew my humble request off.
<br>
<br>Such an exciting (fake) drama unfolds.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 272 -->
<a name="x273"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x273" class="tiny">x273</a>
ruffadam, Jens Schmidt, Travis : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_273');">a few contradictions in the mainstream media’s witness testimony</a></p>
<p>2016-04-15</p>
<div id="sect_273" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Travis</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42186">April 15, 2016 at 7:45 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Here are a few contradictions in the mainstream media’s witness testimony:
<br>
<br>http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
<br>
<br>Hagos, Afework: “There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over.”
<br>Morin, Terry: “…was working as a contractor at the BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex… noise was absolutely deafening. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me …”
<br>Munsey, Christopher:”…A silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex…”
<br>
<br>So was it a noisy airplane or a silent airplane?
<br>
<br>Probst, Frank: “…The plane’s right wing went through a generator trailer “like butter,…”
<br>Singleton, Jack:”…That right wing went directly over our trailer, so if that wing had not tilted up, it would have hit the trailer…”
<br>
<br>So did the right wing hit the trailer or not? Come on people.
<br>
<br>Cook, Scott P.: “…it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft…”
<br>Hemphill, Albert: “…The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack…”
<br>Owens, Mary Ann: “…Its downward angle was too sharp…”
<br>Renzi, Rick: “…The plane came in at an incredibly steep angle …”
<br>Sucherman, Joel: “…in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle…”
<br>Thompson, Phillip: “… as if it were coming in for a landing – cruising at a shallow angle…”
<br>
<br>So did it dive-bomb in, or fly level-enough to actually hit the light poles?
<br>
<br>Since n does not equal ~n, many of these have to be downright fabrications.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42193">April 16, 2016 at 6:34 am</a>
<br>
<br>Say what Travis, eye witnesses that make inconsistent statements?!? Has the world ever heard such an outrageous, deeply disturbing thing?? (Except – every time you have several witnesses, this is).
<br>
<br>Note: The previous paragrah is sarcasm.
<br>
<br>What you point to, perfectly legitimately, is that eye witnesses perceive imprecisely, memorize imprecisely, interprete imprecisely, retain in memory imprecisely, recall imprecisely or describe impecisely – or all of the above. (And sometimes they are paraphrased impresisely, if their recollection is reported by some third party)
<br>
<br>These are the reasons why it would be mad to trust witnesses testimony 100% when you have loads of physical and recorded evidence to the contrary.
<br>
<br>It’s like the 156 witnesses who spoke of “explosions” at the WTC. All very well, many describe loud noises or dusty expanses that they wrongly perceive as “like” explosions (rumbles aren’t explosions; billowing clouds aren’t explosions). Many falsely interprete sounds as explosions that sound like explosions but actually aren’t. Many recall explosions that never occurred. Many use the word “explosion” because they cannot at the moment think of a better word, or they do so consciously as a simile, not an actual interpretation. Many have their statements taken out of context.
<br>But the reality is: There were no explosions that caused the collapses – they would be clearly, loudly, sharply and totally obviously audible on practically ALL videos shot within, say, a mile, or even beyond. Yet, truthers struggle to produce any. Yes, some videos have loud noises in the general time frame of a collapse, but have any of those been corroborated by comparing with other videos or by linking them to specific witness statements? Of course not, or Craig wouldn’t be parading McQueen’s 156 witnesses!
<br>The reality is still: When the 3 tower collapses commenced, no explosions capable of causing this went of. None. Despite 156 witnesses claimed by truthers to support a CD insinuation.
<br>
<br>Building your case on (a selection of!) witnesses while discarding videos, physical evidence and all sorts of other recordings is plain madness, unless it’s willfully deceptive.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42195">April 16, 2016 at 7:22 am</a>
<br>
<br>The Towers didn’t collapse they were blown up with explosives.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42197">April 16, 2016 at 7:38 am</a>
<br>
<br>Oh – ok… I’m convinced now. Thank’s for meeting my challenge, answering my questions, and presenting the best evidence??
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-421979">April 16, 2016 at 8:35 am</a>
<br>
<br>Your “challenge”? Really you think you have in any way whatsoever challenged the overwhelming and conclusive case for CD? You are delusional. Scratch that you are just a troll.
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42205">April 16, 2016 at 12:05 pm</a>
<br>
<br>How about you meet this challenge… Find a video that shows the columns giving in and causing a pancake “collapse”… One that also shows 75 floors’ worth of steel columns and cross beams piled up on the ground at the end…
<br>
<br>Have you ever played Jenga, Jens?
<br>
<br><b>Travis</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42207">April 16, 2016 at 1:34 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Jens you ignorant slut. I am not “building a case while discarding videos”. I am just pointing out some contradictory witness accounts. The only case that you could make from those is the inconsistency of reports, for whatever reason.
<br>
<br>Nor am I being deceptive, you have a monopoly on that Jens.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 273 -->
<a name="x274"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x274" class="tiny">x274</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_274');">The perks of my exile are that I'm not obligated to faithfully respond</a></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42212">2016-04-16</a></p>
<div id="sect_274" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br><i>"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."</i> This paradigm in conspiracy theory cuts both ways. Mr. Jens Schmidt provided a challenge to the participants to provide the best evidence for controlled demolition.
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff is being true to his trend line of being a blow-hard, no-show, etc.
</p>
<blockquote><p>... I do not read your posts any more on any subject. I think you are dishonest and I want nothing to do with you. ... The Towers didn’t collapse they were blown up with explosives.</p></blockquote>
<p>The particpants are going to drop the ball, and Mr. Schmidt is going to run circles around them for this and other reasons. They'll make a mockery of your blog article, Mr. McKee.
<br>
<br>I can address Mr. Schmidt's challenge easily. If he's sincere, the evidence & science that I present will convince him of controlled demolition. If he's not sincere and the suspected troll / agent, his games will become obvious, he'll discredit himself, and he'll demonstrate to non-believers the reality of government infiltration.
<br>
<br>Alas, the only snag is <i>"unleashing the bat-shit crazy on your blog"</i>; I'll immediately enemy-of-my-enemy-style team up with Mr. Schmidt to legitimately debunk chemical explosives. (Mr. Ruff is at risk.) Truth dictates that I feed the sheep; my FGNW hobby-horse needs to run free.
<br>
<br>It is a sight to behold on conspiracy sites when two disinformation premises battle, find legitimate weaknesses in the other, and take each other down a few pegs on the believability scale. What I have learned on my spiritual 9/11 journey is that Truth is powerful, and very devistating in a three-way with two disinformation premises. A Truth position has the integrity to acknowledge & promote the nuggets of truth from disinfo sources to get stronger, while exhibiting the objectivity to condemn the bad that weakens the disinfo. Truth finds that third way.
<br>
<br>My game plan is quite simple and already available for counter-arguments to be composed. <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html"><i>"Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW"</i></a>. It gives me already handy links to section numbers that address a variety of topics. It even draws from your efforts in the original <i>"Beyond Misinformation."</i>
<br>
<br>Could be good for ratings. And the circus show will include otherwise unlikely alliances here and there, many arrayed against FGNW.
<br>
<br>... Am I serious?... Oh, you caught me, Mr. McKee. I'm only partially serious. The perks of my exile are that I'm not obligated to faithfully respond. I can be lazy and make infrequent dings from the sidelines. (Just be aware that they are being collected and are exposing trend lines.)
<br>
<br>If my exile were to be rescinded, I'll spend time writing thoughtful and reasoned comments at my pace; I have zero intention of having the frequency of a Wayne, a Jens, a Rogue, or a Ruff. I do what I do when I do it.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 274 -->
<a name="x275"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x275" class="tiny">x275</a>
James Fetzer, captivescientist, adamruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_275');">very small and soft explosions don’t do the job</a></p>
<p>2016-04-17</p>
<div id="sect_275" style="display: none;">
<p><b>captivescientist</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42237">April 17, 2016 at 6:41 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Jens said:
<br>
<br>“The reality is still: When the 3 tower collapses commenced, no explosions capable of causing this went of.”
<br>
<br>What explosions do you think would be capable of causing it?
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42244">April 18, 2016 at 12:48 am</a>
<br>
<br><i>“What explosions do you think would be capable of causing it?”</i>
<br>Good question – that ought to have been answered by the theory that explosives demolished the towers, however <b>there exists no such theory of explosive demolition of the WTC</b>, does it?!
<br>
<br>I suggest that it would be explosions that go BANG multiple times, very loudly and sharply and obviously, immediately prior to collapse initiation. Such as <b>are heard on every singel video of any actual explosive demolition ever.</b>
<br>
<br>Hence my challenge: Show me a video of an actual explosive demolition where the explosion sounds are less obvious than in even the best WTC video.
<br>
<br>Because silent explosives do not exist, and very small and soft explosions don’t do the job.
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42232">April 17, 2016 at 10:53 am</a>
<br>
<br>Adam Ruff has lost his way, speaking out about issues where his ignorance is palpable. What in the world does he know about the Zapruder film or JFK? I have three 500-page books including the best research from the best students of the assassination, where we have proven (there and elsewhere) that the film was massively edited and revised to conceal the true causes of the death of JFK from the public. One is entitled, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).
<br>
<br>Not only does he know nothing about JFK, but he is at least equally ignorant about 9/11 and the proof that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a nuclear event. It is embarrassing that he makes these ponderous assertions with NOTHING TO BACK HIM UP. Like many others here, he seems to trade on rumor and speculation. He does not cite my work but delivers smears for which there is no evidence. That also occurs even in the JFK community. Check this, for example:
<br>
<br>“Jim Fetzer responds to Jim DiEugenio’s attack on his research”
<br>http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/03/jfk-jim-fetzer-replies-to-jim.html
<br>
<br>Now if Adam thinks I have something wrong, then let him identify what I claim and why I claim it (to insure he actually understands my position), then explain what he thinks I have wrong and how he knows. None of those attacking me here make the least effort to do that. They go off half -cocked based upon their own massive ignorance, rumor and speculation. I issue the demand: if you think I have something wrong, prove it! Otherwise, you are displaying your own ignorance.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42238">April 17, 2016 at 9:02 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Veterans today has members who openly admit that a large percentage of what they themselves say is disinformation. So I do not need to look any further than that to discredit you Jim. Also I am not your trained seal and I do not jump through hoops just because you put them out there. I think you are right about a few things and totally full of shit on others. You are a classic operative you put out about 80% truth and mix it with 20% disinformation. I simply ignore you Jim since you work directly with people who admit they are lying I assume you are too.
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42240">April 17, 2016 at 9:24 pm</a>
<br>
<br>You are such an ignoramus you don’t even know that Duff and I had a falling out last April (a year ago, if you check it) over my publishing about JADE HELM 15 and his desire that I not. He booted me off Veterans Today and thereafter deleted all 150 articles I had published since joining the magazine in 2011. As with regard to other issues where I have pointed out your stunning absence of knowledge, you have no idea what you are talking about. To take me to task for being a member of a journal that I left over a year ago demonstrates your incompetence. I have to agree with you on one point, however: one of us is a complete and total piece of shit!
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42241">April 17, 2016 at 9:28 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Moreover, you have yet to show that I am wrong ABOUT EVEN A SINGLE POINT ACROSS MY RESEARCH ON JFK, 9/11, WELLSTONE, SANDY HOOK OR THE BOSTON BOMBING. You love to shoot off your mouth, but you are so incompetent at research you miss the boat OVER TIME. Give me one example where you claim I am wrong. Cite what I say and why I say it, then explain what I have wrong and how you know. You are a complete clown and a horse’s ass.
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42242">April 17, 2016 at 10:13 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Since you claim that I put out about 80% truth and 20% disinformation, which is which? Which of my work falls into the 80% truth category and which into the 20% disinformation category? And since you are advancing this and would be an idiot to make such a claim if you did not know my work, it should be effortless for you to explain which is which. And when you claim some of my work is “disinformation”, be sure to spell out and explain how you know. Otherwise. you would come across as an arrogant blowhard who has no idea what he’s talking about. I am calling your bluff.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42245">April 18, 2016 at 1:00 am</a>
<br>
<br>No hoops for me Jim. I will say this though your mini nuke crap is a big FAIL.
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42247">April 18, 2016 at 1:09 am</a>
<br>
<br>I figured you would wimp out. You don’t know my stuff and make up criticisms based on what you hear from others. I doubt you have had an original thought in your life. I have already linked to two articles in my longer response to these unfounded attacks. So here’s one more for you:
<br>
<br>“9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”
<br>http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/911-truth-will-out-vancouver-hearings-ii.html
<br>
<br>Start with this, especially the USGS dust sample evidence of a host of elements that would not be there–especially in the quantities and correlations found–had this not been a nuclear event. Then turn to the articles by Don Fox and by Dennis Cimino and explain what we have wrong.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42249">April 18, 2016 at 1:14 am</a>
<br>
<br>Wow Jim I am so hurt by your goading that now I am going to crumble and fall right into your clever trap! NOT!
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="">April 18, 2016 at 2:03 am</a>
<br>
<br>Adam Ruff, you have exposed yourself as a complete and total fraud. You don’t know any of my work. You had no basis to attack me. You thought you were being “cool” to join with others who have attacked me in the past. You did not even know that Gordon Duff, whom I despise, and I had a falling out over a year ago. Not only do you know nothing about my work on JFK or 9/11 or Wellstone, but you don’t even seem to know that I have published three books of expert studies since I split with Veterans Today: AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER (2015); NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015; banned by amazon.com); and AND NOBODY DIED IN BOSTON, EITHER (2016). One of the obvious signs that you were faking it is that my research is COLLABORATIVE because I bring together experts on different aspects of cases in awareness of the limitations of my own personal competence. You, however, just fake it, acting as if you were an authority and in the position to appraise my work when that is not the case. I am sorry, but I cannot abide phonies, liars and frauds, where you appear to be a stellar instance.
<br>
<br><b>Travis</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42243">April 17, 2016 at 11:27 pm</a>
<br>
<br>If you won’t do it for Dr. Fetzer Ruff, could you do it for me?
<br>
<br>I want to know the 20% that you two disagree on. Jim was an early pioneer for the cause, and if he joined the dark side, I would like to know.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42246">April 18, 2016 at 1:05 am</a>
<br>
<br>Travis I am not interested in Fetzer he is a poison pill. If you want a thorough critique of Fetzer then this is your link and here is your information: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42252">April 18, 2016 at 2:18 am</a>
<br>
<br>Travis, One shill citing another doesn’t cut it, either. He is obviously incapable of sorting things out for himself. Some of these people are like The Force: They can have a powerful effect on the weak minded. Adam Ruff is weak-minded, so he cites another fraud as his source. Disgusting!
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42248">April 18, 2016 at 1:14 am</a>
<br>
<br>Travis, you are sincere, he is not. This is the typical behavior of a troll: to attack someone who has done more and better research than have they to gain some perverse ego gratification. I have cited these below as well, but just to make it easy for him to track them down, they are:
<br>
<br>Don Fox / Did Israel nuke the WTC on 9/11?
<br>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/2-2-israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911/
<br>
<br>Dennis Cimino / 9/11: A World Swirling in a Volcano of Lies
<br>http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/911-world-swirling-in-volcano-of-lies.html
<br>
<br>He won’t respond because he can’t. He is not a serious person but a game player. So now we have set the frame of the debate. I have offered three articles as sources of support for the hypothesis that the Twin Towers were taken down by nukes. Let’s see what he has to say.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42250">April 18, 2016 at 1:18 am</a>
<br>
<br>Wow I guess I better respond or the whole world will see that Jim Fetzer was right all along! Bait rejected Jim.
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42256">April 18, 2016 at 9:58 am</a>
<br>
<br><i>This is the typical behavior of a troll: to attack someone who has done more and better research than have they to gain some perverse ego gratification. – Profesoor Fetzer
<br>
<br>Haha… This is like the pot calling the Brita jug black….</i>
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42257">April 18, 2016 at 10:03 am</a>
<br>
<br>Dave, not to impugn your intelligence, but what are the odds that I would be wrong about any of these matters, much less 20%, when I am doing COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH with numerous experts in fields where I am not myself an expert. Have you studied any of my books on JFK or 9/11 or Wellstone or Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, for example? And if you have, is there anything you think we have wrong? Please spell it out, because I would hate to think that you are one more mediocrity who has nothing serious to add but smears like those of Adad Ruff.
<br>
<br><b>David Hazan (@Lilaleo)</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42259">April 18, 2016 at 11:03 am</a>
<br>
<br>Professor… I feel that ruffadam has set up an inaccurate representation of your work by quantifying it with numbers, and has provided you with a hammer to keep banging, and reply multiple times with insults, condescension and accusations, prompting him and the readers here to bow In front of your huge body of work, as you usually do.
<br>
<br>I do not share his opinion. My wise-ass remark was directed at your calling ruffadam and HR1 shills and trolls.
<br>
<br>My issue is not that you have erroneous conclusions, it is about how you get there, how often you support outrageous and unscientific claims, how often you change your mind, your overall track record of jumping on every conspiracy theory, the relationships you have built and destroyed, affiliations you have made, and the extremely divisive affect you have had in any reasonable and impartial discussion that could have taken place under your watch, or with your involvement. Not to mention that I really do not care for your argumentative style
<br>
<br>Even then, I always stop short of calling you a shill or a troll, because I simply do not know whether or not you have any ulterior motives, or that you are doing all this consciously. I just decline to go into any rabbit hole with the rope that you dangle… That’s all.
<br>
<br>I hope that answers your question.
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42260">April 18, 2016 at 11:17 am</a>
<br>
<br>David, I am 75 years old. I do not suffer fools gladly. There have been massive attacks on me ad infinitum since I began research on JFK in 1992. My review of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Judy Wood has drawn over 7,000 (SEVEN THOUSAND) comments, almost all of them from Judy groupies. I am sick of it. None of you has shown I have anything wrong. I could give a rat’s ass if you don’t like my personal style. Frankly, for you to interject when you CANNOT SHOW THAT WE–AND I HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF COLLABORATORS–HAVE ANYTHING WRONG puts you at the bottom of the cess pool. I am a truth addict: I will accept nothing but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but–no partial truths, no white lies, nothing. And that includes criticism of me. If I change my mind from time to time, that is because of the impact of new evidence or alternative hypotheses. IT IS CALLED “SCIENCE”! I spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning–and I cannot abide seeing the same fallacies committed by those who claim to have a stake in JFK TRUTH, 9/11 TRUTH or any other. I am very direct in responding to rubbish. Now I am responding to more of it from you. THIS IS NOT A GAME. IF YOU CAN’T SHOW WHERE WE HAVE SOMETHING WRONG, THEN YOU REALLY HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE. You have accepted false histories of Scholars, fake attacks upon me and rumors and speculations, which are unending. I am sorry, but I am SICK OF THE BULLSHIT. If you can’t show we have something wrong, BE SILENT–because you are not advancing the truth by endless ad hominems attacking me. What do we have wrong and how do you know? A simple request. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Do it, if you can.
<br>
<br><b>James Henry Fetzer</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42264">April 18, 2016 at 11:44 am</a>
<br>
<br>David, I know there is something about your psyche that require you to have the last word, even if it is snarky and non-responsive. There are many disinfo ops out there. 90% of the JFK research community appears to be working the other side. There are very few with the kind of background I bring to these efforts, which is why my collaborative work is “cutting edge”. I draw upon the expertise of many others, including, in the case of JFK, a world authority on the human brain who was also an expert on wound ballistics, a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board certified in radiation oncology, which makes him an expert on X-rays, and many others.
<br>
<br>Those who are trying to keep the holes in the dikes plugged are running out of fingers. Jones, Ryan and others did not want alternative theories beyond nanothetmite to be considered, so they trashed Scholars rather than employ scholarship. They have never responded to the USGS dust evidence which reveals elements whose presence would be inexplicable had it not been a nuclear event. They love to equivocate and say, “Yes, something beyond nanothermite might have been involved!”, but they never say what that “something” would be. Its a limited hang-out and I have called them out about it–multiple times. My collaborative research is not the problem.
<br>
<br>You have fallen for a veritable barrage of verbal attacks upon me which completely discount the evidence and logic that lead to the conclusions we have advances (about the alteration of the Zapruder film, Oswald in the doorway, the faking of the crash sites, the nuclear destruction of the Twin Towers, that Wellstone was assassinated using high-tech weaponry, that Sandy Hook was a two-day FEMA drill presented as a LIVE event to promote gun control, that the Boston event was the most amateurish false flag in history. We don’t just make these claims: we prove them!
<br>So if you have something to contribute, do it. I learn from serious criticism. Your attacks are not.
<br>
<br>Here are two YouTubes about the Boston marathon bombing. Just tell me what we have wrong:
<br>
<br>“The Real Deal special Boston bombing update”
<br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMxhdiBrqTM and one
<br>
<br>“Boston Strong: The three ‘Jeff Bauman’s”
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 275 -->
<a name="x276"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x276" class="tiny">x276</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_276');">FGMW deliver energy directly to target and into the target</a></p>
<p>2016-04-18</p>
<div id="sect_276" style="display: none;">
<p>{email 2016-04-18}
<br>Dear Mr McKee,
<br>
<br>Mr Jens Schmidt <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42244">April 18, 2016 at 12:48 am</a> has a point. Silent or soft chemical explosives don't exist or don't do the job. Such destroy by the shock waves sent through the medium of air and are loud and deafening.
<br>
<br>FGMW deliver energy directly to target and into the target. Shock wave isn't in air, but is created in the materials of the target. A much different audio signature.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>{email 2016-04-18}
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>{Mr. ruffadam <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42245">April 18, 2016 at 1:00 am</a> has} No links. No substantiation. If Mr ruff had been honest during our prematurely short debates, he could point to that. But no, he was a no show yet still promotes the same unsupported bunk.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>{email 2016-04-18}
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>{Mr. ruffadam <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42246">April 18, 2016 at 1:05 am</a>} Almost enough to suspect sock puppetry ruff, rogue.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>{email 2016-04-18}
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>{Dr. James Henry Fetzer <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42252">April 18, 2016 at 2:18 am</a>} In this example for sure, Dr Fetzer speaks truth. //
<br>
<br>{email 2016-04-18}
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>Dr. James Henry Fetzer wrote <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-42264">April 18, 2016 at 11:44 am</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Jones, Ryan and others did not want alternative theories beyond nanothetmite to be considered, so they trashed Scholars rather than employ scholarship. They have never responded to the USGS dust evidence which reveals elements whose presence would be inexplicable had it not been a nuclear event. They love to equivocate and say, "Yes, something beyond nanothermite might have been involved!", but they never say what that "something" would be.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is true. Recognize the actions of Jones, Ryan, and others for what it is: support of a limited hang-out.
<br>
<br>Worse, is that you are going around with Ryan, Chandler, and others about the Pentagon: support for a different limited hang-out.
<br>
<br>Recognize the players and the concerted effort to keep public revelation from the Truth. If you want change in the world, it has to start from public understanding of what the Truth is. You can't sugar-coat it with <i>"the means of controlled demolition don't matter."</i> They do, Mr. McKee, they do! The means illustrate such ethical and moral depravity, that the public would march up and change things.
<br>
<br>At the very least, don't you be the stumbling block or the censure to public understanding.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 276 -->
<a name="x277"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x277" class="tiny">x277</a>
adamruff, Jens Schmidt : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_277');">no sounds of explosions</a></p>
<p>2016-04-19</p>
<div id="sect_277" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42288">April 18, 2016 at 7:58 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Absolutely right Hadmatter Jens is indeed rehashing a very old and discredited meme put out by the JREF’ers that there were no sounds of explosions. Completely false and people should take note that Jens is KNOWINGLY promoting disinformation. DON’T JUMP THROUGH HIS HOOPS.
<br>
<br><b>Jens Schmidt</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42293">April 19, 2016 at 10:50 am</a>
<br>
<br><i>“Jens is indeed rehashing a very old and discredited meme put out by the JREF’ers that there were no sounds of explosions.”</i>
<br>This is completely false – I do not claim “that there were no sounds of explosions“, period. Why do you shorten my actual claim by leaving out the all-important qualifier?
<br>There were no sounds of explosions consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with actual explosive demolition devices.
<br><b>Adding this qualifier makes it a true “meme”, as evidenced by your collective ability to present any recorded explosion sounds immediately prior to the collapses that you can compare to actual explosive CDs.
<br>
<br><i>“Completely false and people should take note that Jens is KNOWINGLY promoting disinformation.”</i>
<br>You made a completely false claim. Do not repeat it, or we shall know that you are “KNOWINGLY promoting disinformation”
<br>
<br><i>“DON’T JUMP THROUGH HIS HOOPS.”</i>
<br>What you mean to say:
<br>* Don’t answer questions.
<br>* Don’t address arguments.
<br>* Don’t commit to evidence.
<br>* Stay vague.
<br>* Do not formulate a hypothesis.</b>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42296">April 19, 2016 at 11:27 am</a>
<br>
<br>The towers were demolished with explosives. There are MANY eye and ear witnesses and multiple sound recordings not to mention multiple videos where you can see squibbs and explosions all the way down.
<br>
<br>Look Jens I am not playing your sick game. I have been through this BS for 15 years and you are just one in a long line of trolls and liars. I think what you do is despicable and pathetic and cowardly. You are a traitor to humanity.
<br>
<br>I have been to ground zero, I have been to the Citgo station next to the Pentagon. I have personally met William Rodriguez and held the key to the WTC stairs in my hand. I have looked him in the eye and I know he is telling the truth and I KNOW for a fact that you are a liar, a filthy rotten cowardly liar.
<br>
<br>Piss off Jens I don’t need to prove shit to you jerk. The demolition of the towers is obvious. If you can’t or won’t see it that is your problem. You can just stuff all your disingenuous BS right up your ass and if you were face to face with me now I would say even louder. Don’t even speak to me in the future.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42297">April 19, 2016 at 11:38 am</a>
<br>
<br>You know I have to say Craig it is times like these when I really miss Hybridrouge1 here. I just don’t have the time or energy to deal with troll filth like Jens while Willy certainly would have time and would do a great job of ripping his BS to shreds. Now as it is no one is countering his endless stream of disinformation and JREF talking points. Top it off with Fetzer and Deets and this blog is becoming downright irritating for me. I just don’t need the BS anymore. I am going to stop reading here and stop participating. Sorry Craig but I am DONE! These fucking slime disinformationists can just fill your blog with whatever BS they want I am sick of reading it.
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 277 -->
<a name="x278"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x278" class="tiny">x278</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_278');">totally valid criticsm</a></p>
<p>2016-04-19</p>
<div id="sect_278" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42302">2016-04-19</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>I do not know Mr. Jens Schmidt. I agree that he's probably a troll and Q-group agent, given his OCT stance.
<br>
<br>However, he has indeed made at least two very important points -- nuggets of truth, as it were -- in his "debates" with you.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>[1] There were no sounds of explosions consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with actual explosive demolition devices.</p></blockquote>
<p>This statement is true. It is an anamaly. Of course, his disinfo agenda is to favor gravity-driven pile-drivers by discrediting conventional chemical explosives, but legitimately so.
<br>
<br>Other than the structural element to which chemical based explosives are attached, destruction to content and other structural items happens by means of a massive shock-wave transferred through the medium of air. Shock-waves through air necessary to created the observed pulverization of concrete and content would be deafening loud. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of survivors and witnesses.
<br>
<br>When thought is turned towards fourth generation nuclear devices, an important difference between chemical explosives and FGND is a direct & deeper coupling of energy to the target. FGND do not rely on a shock-wave through air to achieve their destructive means. Energy at wavelengths approaching molecular distances is one effect, as is deep penetrating neutrons that can deposit their energy within the core of even thick metal beams and effect <b>volumne heating</b>. (Study the "sags" and "horseshoe" beams.)
<br>
<br>However, a really destructive side-effect of this directly coupled energy is called ablating, where the surface is vaporized so quickly that a shock-wave is created within the target to further decimate it and surrounding content. The audio signature of this would be observable but muted from what the audio signature of the equivalent amounts of chemical explosives needed to achieve the observed outcomes.
<br>
<br>This is not to say that directed energy from a FGND has no effect on air. Air, being made up of gases, would experience some of the same effects. It would heat up. Refer to testimony of surviving first responders who described an intense heat as if a <i>"fire ball"</i> engulfed them, although there was no actual <i>"fire ball."</i>
<br>
<br>You should ponder this section <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#14">FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift</a>.
<br>
<br>Mr. Schmidt second important (machine-gun) point:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[2] <i>“DON’T JUMP THROUGH HIS HOOPS.”</i>
<br>What {Mr. Ruff means} to say:
<br>* Don’t answer questions.
<br>* Don’t address arguments.
<br>* Don’t commit to evidence.
<br>* Stay vague.
<br>* Do not formulate a hypothesis.</p></blockquote>
<p>Nailed you, Mr. Ruff, with totally valid criticsm. Don't I know it? The above agrees with my experience with you on my hobby-horse topic: FGNW.
<br>
<br>To lamely defend himself, Mr. Ruff wrote on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42296">April 19, 2016 at 11:27 am</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The towers were demolished with explosives.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is complete and total speculation. None of the dust samples supports this conjecture -- not from Paul Lioy, nor from USGS, nor from even Dr. Jones. If you want to get technical, Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth did not test their samples for chemical explosives. Moreover, only Dr. Jones' samples supposedly had "energetic particles" that he described as nano-thermite.
<br>
<br>However, the red-gray aluminum-iron flakes that were found everywhere, weren't energetic and were a result of the #2 tower defect that made them white elephants. Namely, the alumunim cladding was corroding into the steel of the wall assemblies that if left unchecked would compromise the integrity of the structure (e.g., rust). The #1 tower defect that make them white elephants was asbestos.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff continued:
</p>
<blockquote><p>There are MANY eye and ear witnesses and multiple sound recordings not to mention multiple videos where you can see squibbs and explosions all the way down.</p></blockquote>
<p>Sounds of explosions does not have to equate to explosives. This is a logical fallacy. The list is endless of relatively common items that, through defect or misuse, can destroy themselves herolded by an explosion sound but with no actual explosives.
<br>
<br>As for squibs, I could go either way whether chemical explosives caused them, or whether FGNW <b><i>ablating</i></b> caused them. Arguing for mutual exclusivity in the means of destruction is a fool's game and a ready tool of disinformation.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff's retort:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I KNOW for a fact that you are a liar, a filthy rotten cowardly liar. Piss off Jens I don’t need to prove shit to you jerk. ... You can just stuff all your disingenuous BS right up your ass and if you were face to face with me now I would say even louder. Don’t even speak to me in the future.</p></blockquote>
<p>This does not convince anyone. Further, if you don't point out the specific instances of where a lie was uttered, then you are just throwing out ad hominem that puts you in violation of the decorum of the forum.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff goes on to lament:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You know I have to say Craig it is times like these when I really miss Hybridrouge1 here. I just don’t have the time or energy to deal with troll filth like Jens while Willy certainly would have time and would do a great job of ripping his BS to shreds.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Rogue, like you, thinks that witty put-downs would save the day. No. Only well researched and reasoned argumentation could do that.
<br>
<br>I hope that you will be true to your promise, Mr. Ruff:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I am going to stop reading here and stop participating. Sorry Craig but I am DONE!</p></blockquote>
<p>P.S. In order to stop email notification, you need to go to your WordPress dashboard. Menu around and eventually you'll find all of the articles to which you subscribe.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 278 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part6 -->
<hr>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Show All Parts</b></a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All Parts</b></a></p>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Show All</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All</a></p>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-7813965386832516062016-06-07T11:11:00.000-07:002016-06-17T07:52:38.336-07:00Attempts at Rational 9/11 Discussion<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Show All Parts</b></a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All Parts</b></a></p>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Show All</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All</a></p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
areaShowAll("sect_part");
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<a name="x1"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x1" class="tiny">x1</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_1');">Behold examples of disinformation in action</a></p>
<div id="sect_1" style="display: block;">
<p>2016-06-12</p>
<p>The following were attempts by me to have rational discussions about fourth generation nuclear devices on 9/11. Most of the parts in this article transpired on Facebook. By the very act of posting links to my blog article on FGNW, I attempted to move the discussion there. The following document many spins on the carousel.</p>
</div><!-- section 1 -->
<a name='more'></a>
<a name="x2"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x2" class="tiny">x2</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">Thoughts on Facebook</a></p>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: none;">
<p>2014-02-10</p>
<p>Facebook is not designed for serious discussion. You can't rely on even the sequence that postings appear in, because "bump" comments under a posting can be sufficient to juke a posting back to the top.
<br>
<br>Facebook doesn't provide tools for finding and organizing old content. It is pretty shitty for maintaining a <b>public legacy</b>, but really good at making a database of your comments available to alphabet-soup agencies to be used against you out of context.
<br>
<br><b><i>Legacy isn't to be under-rated.</i></b> Disinfo agents want to limit their legacy on the internet, because too much can be used against them and more easily exposes inconsistencies and lies. Facebook is ideal for them, because things shift into the never-never-land of the ether quickly.
<br>
<br>Legacy, though, is what strengthens truth, even if that legacy documents human wobbling and failings through beliefs that change over time.
<br>
<br>Facebook is designed to be a time-suck.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<hr>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part4');">Part 4: Facebook with Ken Doc & Mike Collins</a></p>
<div id="sect_part4" style="display: none;">
<a name="x165"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x165" class="tiny">x165</a>
Ken Doc : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_165');">April Fools: Dr. Wood</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_165" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204686781/permalink/10151933173066782/
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Last night, I read Judy Wood's book in 6 minutes and I will never doubt the empirical evidence again. She is now my favorite truther of all time. I urge you all to honor her by carrying around this wallet sized photo. She's so pretty!
<br>
<br>
<br>15 people like this.
</p>
</div><!-- section 165 -->
<a name="x166"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x166" class="tiny">x166</a>
Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">stick your cheetos up your fuzzyblob!</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_166" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Ken Doc</b> and if you don't like Judy Wood than I suggest you take your cheetos and stick them up your fuzzyblob! Haters!
<br>
<br><b>Marty West</b> Lolololol you !!!
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> yeah you know i was really wrong about Judy Wood ... we should all invite the poeple from Real 9/11 Truth Movement over here and have a BIG PARTY with them and KISS THEIR FEET because we were SO WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<br>
<br>Judy Wood was right all along ... i confess.
<br>
<br><b>Abdullah Baker</b> Hahahahahhaha! This made my day
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> in fact, i plan on going out soon and munching on some Cheetos just IN HER HONOR.
<br>
<p><br><b>Ken Doc</b> I just talked to Judy on the phone and she says she is re opening 9/11 and her first suspect she is calling to the stand is Marvin the Martian!
<br>
<br>We got this!!!
<br>
<br><b>Aisha Khodabocus</b> I admit there are some technologies that US has developed that we know not now!I have to give her credit for her work and observation even if it does not make sense now! I think she is beautiful and well done to her research and work! amazing woman
<br>
<br><b>Abdullah Baker</b> She can see the truth from a whole different perspective with that crooked eye and all. Lol
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 166 -->
<a name="x167"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x167" class="tiny">x167</a>
Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_167');">Space beams.... but ya, that's what I'm saying</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_167" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Ken Doc</b> I'm not saying it was Space beams.... but ya, that's what I'm saying.
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> oh man.... it was totally space beams! FROM SPACE!!!!!
<br>
<br><b>Abdullah Baker</b> Evidence exhibit A. The ray gun lol.
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> because you know, fuzzy cheetos are just the after-product of space beams .... from space.
<br>
<b>Ken Doc</b> I now present to you, exhibit #1.
<br>
<br><b>Stefan Gray</b> Helter Skelter...
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> OH GOD I LOVE JUDY WOOD!!!!
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> I think Judy provides a strong case. She is asking the courts for 25 years to life and a Kagillion dollars for damages.
<br />
<br><b>Roy Perez</b> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2dI-yRkFXY
<br>
<br><b>Taylor Hannson</b> Stop posting that pic.. not fair
<br />
<br /><b>Ken Doc</b> OMG.... I'm even more in love now.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 167 -->
<a name="x168"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x168" class="tiny">x168</a>
Mike Collins: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">don't make Judy Wood look less of a mutant</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_168" style="display: none;">
<p> Taylor, please don't post photoshopped pictures of Judy Wood made to make her look less of a mutant.
</p>
</div><!-- section 168 -->
<a name="x169"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x169" class="tiny">x169</a>
JoJoe Haleyscomet: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_169');">put something in your microwave oven</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_169" style="display: none;">
<p>"You put something in your microwave oven and leave something extra long and see what happens to it...........Hey, I haven't tried a fork in there. I know you're not supposed to, but I'm waiting for someone else to do it, to see what happens." ~ Dr. Judy Wood
<br>
<br>"I'm not saying there is absolutely no debris, because someone may have had some, like, pennies on their windowsill that fell out. They might be falling down. But it's not a significant volume of material." ~ Dr Judy Woo
</p>
</div><!-- section 169 -->
<a name="x170"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x170" class="tiny">x170</a>
Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_170');">flabbergasted</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_170" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Ken Doc</b> Words of wisdom! I'm flabbergasted.
<br>
<br><b>Bill Powell</b> I'd hit it
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> I'm first Bill... get in line. lol
<br>
<br><b>Michael Starcke</b> I want her so bad LOL! I want some of her space beam! LOL
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> hey Ken Doc do you think we could convince Judy to come to our house so she could bend over and we could just ... you know ...
<br>
<br>kiss it?
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> i wonder how much money she would charge if we could just HAVE THAT SUPREME HONOR!!!
<br>
<br><b>Daniel Gravel</b> Dustify me babee!
<br>
<br><b>Daniel Gravel</b> Or just put me in the microwave.
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> microwaves are where cheetos are made... did you know that? that is all that the factories at Frito Lays use to make cheetoes ...
<br>
<br>MICROWAVES! THE SECRET IS OUT!
<br>
<br><b>Daniel Gravel</b> They make Cheetos in the giant microwave space beam they have up in space, when they are not dustifying buildings with them.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 170 -->
<a name="x171"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x171" class="tiny">x171</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_171');">too hard on Dr. Wood's work</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_171" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> You're being too hard on Dr. Wood's work and the evidence that is collected in her efforts. Don't be distracted by her theories, but do consider the evidence. If your theory-du-jour doesn't address it adequately, then you need to keep looking.
<br>
<br>Me? Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (probably variants of neutron devices) is my current belief and is closer to Woodsian DEW than it is to super-duper nano-thermite. The latter is such a great limited hang-out; can't even address the duration of under-rubble hot-spots that high school chemistry & math doesn't shred as unreasonable.
<br>
<br>And for the malicious who frame DEW as beams from space, obviously it don't apply to WTC-1, WTC-2 or WTC-7... But what about the other buildings: WTC-3 dissolving, bore-holes in WTC-5, the crater in WTC-6, and the leveling of WTC-4's main edifice at a line with its North Annex.
<br>
<br>Too many duped useful idiots and shills play the game of mixing and confusing things on purpose. "If X destroyed Y, then X destroyed Z. If NPT at Pentagon & Shanksville, then NPT at towers." It doesn't all have to be the same. In fact, in such a big operation, it would make sense to test out many different technologies, whereby the overlap would cover for failings, and evidence of one could be played off another just to raise doubt.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 171 -->
<a name="x172"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x172" class="tiny">x172</a>
Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_172');">Here we go!!!!</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_172" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Ken Doc</b> Here we go!!!!
<br>
<br><b>Daniel Gravel</b> Maxwell Bridges - "In such a big operation, it would make sense to test out many different technologies". Why? Seems more like the opposite to me. Re-think your position Mr. Bridges.
<br>
<br><b>Taylor Hannson</b> Lol Daniel.. come off ass a prick wont you
<br>
<br><b>Taylor Hannson</b> "Re-think your position" uuhh
<br>
<br><b>Daniel Gravel</b> I prefer to call a spade a spade. I may be a prick to some but I sleep well at night.
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> Calling all Judy Wood supporters..... come out come out. My net is pretty big.
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=811454385538357&
<br>
<br>9/11 MEMES
<br>Real Scientists do not use words like "Ray Beam", "Dustified", "Fuzzyblobs", "Fu...See More
<br>Here is my collection of 9/11 Memes. Enjoy and feel free to share!
<br>https://imgflip.com/memegenerator
<br />http://en.grafme.com/
<br>By: Ken Doc
</p>
</div><!-- section 172 -->
<a name="x173"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x173" class="tiny">x173</a>
Mike Collins: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_173');">explain how a 'neutron bomb' can destroy a building</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_173" style="display: none;">
<p> haha...
<br>
<br>"Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (probably variants of neutron devices) is my current belief and is closer to Woodsian DEW than it is to super-duper nano-thermite. The latter is such a great limited hang-out; can't even address the duration of under-rubble hot-spots that high school chemistry & math doesn't shred as unreasonable."
<br>
<br>Maxwell, i wish you knew what at least knew the definitions of 1/20 scientific words that you used in that paragraph....
<br>
<br>Otherwise, please explain how a 'neutron bomb' can destroy a building, when neutron bombs were designed specifically to ONLY kill people while leaving buildings intact?
<br>
<br>you really should google the words you type before people catch on that you are just paraphrasing some blog you found.
<br>
<br>Otherwise, please explain how a NUCLEAR BOMB will create a pile of rubble and steel columns, even though the way a nuclear bomb works is to create a sphere of 1 million degree plasma....
<br>
<br>People who research conspiracy theories online should be required to pass high school chemistry and physics.
</p>
</div><!-- section 173 -->
<a name="x174"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x174" class="tiny">x174</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_174');">boils down calling it crazy</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_174" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Dr. Wood is just as much a disinfo agent as Dr. Jones, Dr. Fetzer, etc. But in the grand scheme of things, evidence in her book/website comes closer to explaining things. The fact that "rational review" of her work -- chapter by chapter -- boils down calling it crazy is pretty glaring of a cover-up. Yes, she makes mistakes, some that should have been fixed before re-purposing in her book.
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Mike Collins: Yes, 4th generation nuclear weapons.
<br>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 174 -->
<a name="x175"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x175" class="tiny">x175</a>
Mike Collins : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_175');">i know exactly what they are</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_175" style="display: none;">
<p> Oh, i mean i know exactly what they are..lol. but you do not.
</p>
</div><!-- section 175 -->
<a name="x176"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x176" class="tiny">x176</a>
Ken Doc : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_176');">rethink your position</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_176" style="display: none;">
<p>"under-rubble hot-spots"
<br>
<br>That's funny coming from someone who claims that there was NO heat and the rubble pile was cold!
<br />
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> "Dr. Wood is just as much a disinfo agent as Dr. Jones, Dr. Fetzer, etc. "
<br>
<br>Daniel was right.... it's time you rethink your position!
</p>
</div><!-- section 176 -->
<a name="x177"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x177" class="tiny">x177</a>
Maxwell Bridges & FB 9/11 Truthers : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_177');">without sufficient time to follow the link and download the PDF and read it</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_177" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Mr. Mike Collins is a fucking liar when he writes "i know exactly what they (4th generation nukes) are" without having sufficient time to follow the link and download the PDF and read it. Glad to know where you stand from the get-go, Mr. Collins.
<br>
<br><b>Daniel Gravel</b> I think it's because he read it previously.
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Mr. Ken Doc, so are you saying that Dr. Wood is not a disinfo agent?
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> I LOVE **DOCTOR** JUDY WOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<br>
<br>I AM NO LONGER ASHAMED TO ADMIT IT.
<br>
<br><b>Daniel Gravel</b> Good for you Ryan. Love, like spring and ray-beams are in the air.
</p>
</div><!-- section 177 -->
<a name="x178"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x178" class="tiny">x178</a>
Mike Collins & Ken Doc: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_178');">neutron bombs to be dropped on cities to leave the buildings intact</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_178" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Mike Collins</b> Lol max, that is a good paper. it describes the same stuff i learned back in physics from gen 1-gen 4 weapons. but if you are talking about 'neutron bombs' then you really don't know what that is. (considering you said "neutron type"). They developed neutron bombs to be dropped on cities to leave the buildings intact...please read about them.
<br>
<br><b>Mike Collins</b> So how many micro-nano-mini fission fusion nukes were used? lol....
<br>
<br>It's hilarious to watch mini-nukers scramble to find the appropriate blog to copy and paste without being able to type about it in their own words! XD
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> Wood, Jones et al, Fetzer , Khalezov or the official story? You do know that Fetzer supports every nuke/neutron/mini nuke theory out there right?
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> I WOULD LOVE SOME MORNING WOOD! LOL
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 178 -->
<a name="x179"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x179" class="tiny">x179</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_179');">using variants of neutron devices</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_179" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Mr. Collins, it appears that FB has some lag here.
<br>
<br>To answer your question, the reasons are many for using variants of neutron devices. For one, the neutrons can be targeted -- not for the purposes of destruction but -- for the purposes of getting them out of the way to reduce killing tandem devices.
<br>
<br>More importantly, by expelling neutrons, the normal blast and heat waves of a fusion device are reduced to tactical levels. Plus, as a variant of a fusion device, traditional radiation doesn't linger; if not measured within 24-48 hours, you get zip... which is precisely the flaw in all reports that try to con us into believing no nukes were used. Furthermore in the 4th generation realm, trade-off's in output yield are made yet again to focus energies at specific wavelengths (ala Project Excalibur and Casaba-Howitzer). Hey, if these wavelengths are at atomic distances, maybe the molecular disassociation promoted by Dr. Wood and crazy Hutchison ain't so crazy.
<br>
<br>You can read more of my musings here.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/
<br>
<br>Rabbit hole warning.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 179 -->
<a name="x180"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x180" class="tiny">x180</a>
Ken Doc: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">facebook marks your blog as spam</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_180" style="display: none;">
<p> I wonder why facebook marks your blog as spam?
<br>
<br>"For VT" - I assume you are talking about Veterans Today where Duff admits that 40% of everything on VT is disinfo. Not very credible.
</p>
</div><!-- section 180 -->
<a name="x181"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x181" class="tiny">x181</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_181');">Mr. Collins derisive and dismissive words</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_181" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> FB lag is at it again, and I only now see Mr. Collins derisive and dismissive words between my last postings. Variants of neutron devices would be the way to go, but you have to look at it outside the box of the hype of previous generations and neutron bombs as battlefield devices.
<br>
<br>As for Ken Doc's question, my blog as other articles I've penned. I cut down a version of my "Nuclear 2001-09-11" and re-arranged it with the intent on it being used on VT. It never was. Guess it took too many pot-shots at the reports that form the core of beliefs that 9/11 was not nuclear. Even were I wrong about 9/11 being nuclear (and I'm not), those reports can't be used to prove squat about 9/11 ~not~ being nuclear. In fact, the reek of a cover-up.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/
<br>
<br>FB may mark my blog as spam, because I've posted the same links several times in various FB 9/11 discussions. I stand behind my words [until given sufficient evidence and analysis to change my mind], which my blog proves. FB is such a memory hole, glad I'm not relying on it to preserve my words.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 181 -->
<a name="x182"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x182" class="tiny">x182</a>
Ken Doc: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_182');">a little more seriously</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_182" style="display: none;">
<p> If this happened to the Towers, I'd take Judy's theory a little more seriously. lol
<br>
<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og6POlrNU64
<br>Super Mario Brothers (1993) and the WTC
<br>Was not expecting this, oops.
<br>
<br><b>Paul Davey</b> Do you know Mark Smith and his "Real 911 Truth Movement" page, Ken ?
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> Max, this thread is about the "empirical evidence" that Judy claims to be the cause of DEW's. I find her to be very dishonest and her research is based entirely on speculation and assumptions.
<br>
<br>I am not a nuclear physicist but from observation of the towers collapse, it's clear to me that some type of energetic material was used. Scientifically proven nano thermite along with the aid of explosives is the most probable cause.
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> and I don't have to spend 7 years looking at a Hurricane travelling up the East coast. Judy provides zero evidence to back up her claims. This is what myself and many others have issues with.
<br>
<br><b>Paul Davey</b> Max, "neutron bombs" are not designed for demolition type effects, they are to take out life and leave buildings intact.
<br>
<br><b>Daniel Gravel</b> If she made-up all that stuff herself I have a little more respect for her.
<br>
<br><b>Darren Groom</b> I'll carry her picture my wallet...
<br>To scare off any muggers
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> Yes Paul, i know who Mark Smith is.... I banned him from all of my groups for his Judy Wood/No Plane nonsense years ago.
</p>
</div><!-- section 182 -->
<a name="x183"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x183" class="tiny">x183</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_183');">This thread is an April Fool's hit job on Dr. Wood and her book</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_183" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Correction, Mr. Ken Doc. This thread is ~not~ about the "empirical evidence" that Judy claims to be the cause of DEW's.
<br>
<br>This thread is an April Fool's hit job on Dr. Wood and her book.
<br>
<br>All who have actually read her book (or website) cover-to-cover raise your hands? {*Raising my hand*}
<br>
<br>I'm the first to admit that it does have disinformation, but it wasn't so self-evident at the first pass. It creeps in via the connections Dr. Wood doesn't make, the dangling innuendo that she leaves, and the differences between her book and website.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood's work was not meant to be the end station, which too many brain-dead champions of her book imply. No, its shoulders were meant to be stood upon to take it to the next level. That level is 4th generation nuclear devices.
<br>
<br>Mr. Paul Davey. You are correct that the traditional PR surround neutron bombs would ~not~ make them suitable for demolition; their battlefield purposes was to take out life.
<br>
<br>This being said, a neutron device despite expelling most of its energy as highly-energetic neutrons, still has a blast and a heat wave. Take this and tweak it further (in the 30-40 years since the idea came about), and you've got a device that aims the neutrons out of the way (e.g., upwards) while reducing blast/heat wave to tactical levels that could be used for demolition. Tweak it further, and you might even trade-off more of the blast/heat waves to enhance yields at desirable wavelengths, ala the x-ray laser proposed during Star Wars.
<br>
<br>Do the necessary paradigm shift in thought. I mean, who hasn't used a screw-driver for other applications other than inserting or removing screws? Take an existing tool (neutron devices) and tweak it further, and you can find whole new application areas.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 183 -->
<a name="x184"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x184" class="tiny">x184</a>
FB 9/11 Truthers : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_184');">shes a government plant</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_184" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Paul Davey</b> I was in his group for a few weeks to scope it out, because, he writes some accurate accounts about WW1 and 2, but couldn't understand the angle about 911 he has. I'm guessing that was the "Lure".
<br>
<br><b>Robert Erick</b> shes a government plant
<br>
<br><b>Daniel Gravel</b> I knew she looked weird and sounded dumb but are you sure she's a plant? Wow, I take it all back she's a pretty attractive and intelligent sounding vegetable... and on the government payroll to boot!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 184 -->
<a name="x185"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x185" class="tiny">x185</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_185');">Re-check your assumptions and position</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_185" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Mr. Ken Doc writes: "I am not a nuclear physicist but from observation of the towers collapse, it's clear to me that some type of energetic material was used. Scientifically proven nano thermite along with the aid of explosives is the most probable cause."
<br>
<br>Re-check your assumptions and position.
<br>
<br>The same person who poo-poo'ed nukes at the WTC was the one who introduced super-duper nano-thermite. Yet, surprisingly, he didn't offer of the math on how it could achieve pulverization, let alone duration of under-rubble hot-spots. When cornered, he back-peddles and says nano-thermite had help with the pulverization. Unfortunately, the high-school math proves that, with or without help from an even more brissant explosive (like RDX), the duration of under-rubble hot-spots can't be explained by nano-thermite without obscenely, massive, unreasonable, quantities that were ~unspent~ from their original purposes of pulverization. Thus, even Dr. Jones admitted in September 2012, "Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite.)"
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 185 -->
<a name="x186"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x186" class="tiny">x186</a>
Ken Doc: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_186');">Nuff said</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_186" style="display: none;">
<p> Maxwell, just stop and ask yourself why Fetzer and Judy jumped off the Steven Jones cruise ship right after he found the forensic evidence?
<br>
<br>Then ask yourself why Judy and Fetzer stopped scratching each others back and parted ways under not so pleasant circumstances?
<br>
<br>Fetzer and Judy are both disinfo agents. Judy moreso because even though she knows shes wrong, she still refuses to admit it. With Uncle Jim, he mixes in a lot of good info with some bs that discredits everything. So in my opinion, Fetzer is much more dangerous to thsi movement than Judy.
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> oh and they both promote No Planes/holgrams/cgi! Nuff said.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 186 -->
<a name="x187"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x187" class="tiny">x187</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_187');">Dr. Jones is the worst of the three</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_187" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Correction, Mr. Doc.
<br>
<br>Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Wood, and Dr. Jones are all disinfo agents.
<br>
<br>Dr. Jones is the worst of the three, because nobody questioned his expertise in nuclear physics and he filled the void he created with his "no nukes" conclusion with super-duper nano-thermite.
<br>
<br>Go deeper into his "no nukes" paper and his purposeful spinning becomes clear. It starts off badly, because he accepts unquestioned and unchallenged the results of other papers (like tritium) that were scope-limited, methodology impaired, and weren't applicable as the final word on tritium at the WTC.
<br>
<br>Why has Dr. Jones never gone through Dr. Wood's book chapter-by-chapter to highlight the good, the bad, and the ugly? Without specifics, he brands it all as ugly. The reality is that it has more good than bad, good that has to be re-purposed into any 9/11 theory-du-jour to be valid. The brush off of Dr. Wood's work is a sign.
<br>
<br>As for Dr. Fetzer, he's duped by everything that crosses his plate in order to extend his 15 minutes of fame. He still supports WTC holograms, despite never having provided anything to substantiate it that didn't unravel to have stark limitations making it unsuitable for the scale required of 9/11.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 187 -->
<a name="x188"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x188" class="tiny">x188</a>
FB 9/11 Truthers : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_188');">regarding space beams</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_188" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Paul Davey</b> Regarding space beams: Funny how it took another 5 hours for building 7 to fall. Maybe the Satellite had to do another orbit for it's next shot, and 20minutes equates to a large distance relative to ground level, so the second building would have been out of reach by even that amount of time. I have not seen any proof of the "Hutchison effect" anywhere, have you ?
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 188 -->
<a name="x189"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x189" class="tiny">x189</a>
Ken Doc: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_189');">hard physical evidence presented is strongly against the hypothesis that mini-nukes destroyed the WTC Towers</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_189" style="display: none;">
<p> "Dr. Jones is the worst of the three, because nobody questioned his expertise in nuclear physics and he filled the void he created with his "no nukes" conclusion with super-duper nano-thermite."
<br>
<br>Then question Dr Jones, Maxwell. I'm the wrong gut to be talking to.
<br>
<br>"The hard physical evidence presented is strongly against the hypothesis that mini-nukes destroyed the WTC Towers:
<br>1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.
<br>2. The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower in
<br>the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.
<br>3. Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which
<br>is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not rule
<br>out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the mini-nuke
<br>hypothesis.
<br>4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium
<br>series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for
<br>WTC dust.
<br>5. Nuclear activation or residual “fall-out” radioactivity (above
<br>background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on
<br>actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131
<br>measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low
<br>radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling
<br>evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis.
<br>6. No fatalities due to radiation “burning” were reported near ground
<br>zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse.
<br>7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the
<br>Towers.
<br>8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where
<br>vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and
<br>the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal
<br>was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)"
<br>http://www.journalof911studies.com/.../Hard-Evidence...
<br>http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes
<br>www.journalof911studies.com
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> Right on Paul.... why did Judy's space beam act like a traditional cd on B7 but yet worked completely different on the towers? Ooops!
<br>
<br><b>Amanda Sedell</b> Lol if there was radiation there would be proof period. It would be blatant. No "secrets there
</p>
</div><!-- section 189 -->
<a name="x190"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x190" class="tiny">x190</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_190');">Rebuttal to Dr. Jones Repudiation</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_190" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Thank you for re-posting Dr. Steven Jones summary from "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers." It is greatly flawed.
<br>
<br>"1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis."
<br>
<br>This "observation" came from a flawed report that was scope-limited into attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. The report re-defined "trace or background levels" in cases to be 55 times greater than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21), aside from being delayed, allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what constitutes a health risk.
<br>
<br>The "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" should not have been used by Dr. Jones unchallenged and as the final authority of what tritium levels were present.
<br>
<br>The "mini-nuke" phrase plays on the public's perception of nukes and frames it improperly.
<br>
<br>"4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust."
<br>
<br>The Lioy et al. report was also a flawed.
<br>
<br>- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
<br>
<br>- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
<br>
<br>- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
<br>
<br>- Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
<br>
<br>The delay in taking samples is important, because were Dr. Jones to have discussed variations of neutron devices (which he blatantly omitted), it would have been revealed that their claim to fame is dissipation of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in 24-48 hours.
<br>
<br>The Lioy report states:
<br>"We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40."
<br>
<br>Neither the actual measurement nor what technical definition of "background level" were provided in the report. One is left with wondering if any games of re-defining "background levels" was done as in the Tritium Report. (Be that as it may, these measurements from a late date were good news from the perspective of low-radiation devices.)
<br>
<br>"5. Nuclear activation or residual 'fall-out' radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis."
<br>
<br>Nice of "the author" (Dr. Jones) to test for radioactivity in his samples, but from the perspective of low radiation neutron devices, his testing was many days late and dollars short.
<br>
<br>"6. No fatalities due to radiation 'burning' were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse."
<br>
<br>True, but it is being skewed into the realm of larger mini-nukes. When neutron devices are considered, the vast majority of their energy is released (upwards) as highly energetic neutrons. As such, the other side-effects of the nuclear detonation from the blast wave, heat wave, and EMP are vastly reduced to tactical levels. Short-lived alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would be created in materials hit by the neutrons. Humans close enough to get radiation "burning" would have been decimated by the blast/heat waves or the structure falling down upon them.
<br>
<br>These devices were DEW (directed energy weapons) in the sense that the neutrons were aimed, but not for the purpose of destruction but to get them out of the way. That tactical nature of the other side-effects therefore spared those who were farther away.
<br>
<br>"7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers."
<br>
<br>Again, this is framing it large towards mini-nukes. For all we know, the tactical heat did melt glass but then the blast way decimated it and dispersed it with other content from the building over a wide radial distance.
<br>
<br>"8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)"
<br>
<br>Once more, he frames it as mini-nuke when ERW or neutron nuclear DEW would be more accurate. When of a tactical nature and within WTC-7, one questions whether vertically-directed plumes of dust would leave the structure.
<br>
<br>In fairness, I don't actively champion neutron DEW for WTC-7. Each building -- including WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 -- needs to considered individually. Assuming that one mechanism was responsible for all plays right into the disinformation game and is easily discredited.
<br>
<br>Dr. Jones' paper has other flaws including a logic error best summarized as:
<br>
<br>"Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device."
<br>
<br>In other words, he frames the discussion around certain types of nuclear weapons and legitimately states that the radiation signature did not match those. But rather than taking just those types off of the table, he takes all nuclear devices out of consideration.
<br>
<br>The blatant omission is neutron bombs.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 190 -->
<a name="x191"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x191" class="tiny">x191</a>
Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_191');">I am not a Nuclear physicist</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_191" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Ken Doc</b> Max, take it up with Jones. I am not a Nuclear physicist!
<br>
<br><b>Paul Davey</b> "Again, this is framing it large towards mini-nukes. For all we know, the tactical heat did melt glass but then the blast way decimated it and dispersed it with other content from the building over a wide radial distance."
<br>
<br>Does not exactly fit the "Directed Energy" description, just saying.
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> "If the road runner crashed in the WTC, would it look like this?" - James Fetzer
<br>http://i18.photobucket.com/.../trouble/66_Roadrunner.jpg
<br>
<br>Doh! lol
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> Max, pick a side! Or continue to be open about every theory out there and face ridicule.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 191 -->
<a name="x192"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x192" class="tiny">x192</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_192');">radiation argument is a weak one</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_192" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Ms. Amanda Sedell, the radiation argument is a weak one. Fusion devices don't leave lingering radiation beyond 24-48 hours, which is the minimum time-lag that most agency reports introduce in their analysis of things 9/11, but in many cases it was longer. //
</p>
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Which sides are you referring to, Mr. Ken Doc, and are there only two? //
</p>
</div><!-- section 192 -->
<a name="x193"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x193" class="tiny">x193</a>
Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_193');">died on 9/11 from radiation poison</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_193" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Ken Doc</b> Weak? Tell me how many people died on 9/11 from radiation poison?
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> Max, there are three alternative theories as to what brought down the towers in contrast to the Official story.
<br>
<br>1) Nano thermite and explosives
<br>2) Mini Nukes/Neutron Bombs
<br>3) Direct Energy Weapons aka Space beams
<br>
<br>or you can go with the Fire and Gravity theory. make your choice.
<br>
<br><b>Paul Davey</b> "Fusion devices don't leave lingering radiation beyond 24-48 hours"
<br>
<br>There were people within the vicinity to be exposed to it within that time specified, and what "Nuclear Fusion" devices are you talking about ? Fusion, generally does not result in a blast-wave (heat at best), but fission does.
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 193 -->
<a name="x194"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x194" class="tiny">x194</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_194');">deliberately framing nuclear devices into your pre-conceived notions</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_194" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Do some more research, Mr. Ken Doc who isn't a nuclear physicists. You are deliberately framing nuclear devices into your pre-conceived notions (from decades of fear-mongering PR) about what ~all~ nuclear devices should be. They ain't all like that. I've given you the rabbit-hole links.
<br>
<br>To your question about who died from radiation, you miss the point that the purposes of the tritium report and the Paul Lioy report were to down-play the health impacts and frame them as coming from certain toxic elements, to gloss over the true cause. Not that they didn't play a role, but the sudden onset of various 1st responder ailments, the pervasiveness, etc. has only been mirrored by other nuclear events.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 194 -->
<a name="x195"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x195" class="tiny">x195</a>
Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_195');">Should I start digging a hole</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_195" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Ken Doc</b> Should I start digging a hole 75 feet deep under the Sear Tower, Max?
<br>
<br>Or would that Rabbit hole be off boundaries. You seem to think i've never looked into all the different hypothesis before. Nano Thermite was found in the dust, I go where the forensic evidence leads me.
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> and you didn;t answer my question about how many people died of Radiation poisoning! You brushed it off as bad PR.
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> People are still dying today from breathing in the air we were told "was safe to breathe". Carbon Nano Tubes are showing up inside the lungs of victims. There's a rabbit hole for you.
<br>
<br><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> wow too bad it wasn't april fools everyday, we can catch more judy wood bots. LOL
<br>
<br><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> next you have to promote the no planes and tell everyone that Norma Rae is a misunderstood genius, LOL
<br>
<br><b>Judy Woodster</b> Ken Doc, I'm surprised you understood my book because not even I can comprehend it. You must be a smart dude. 6 Minutes? Wow. Hooked on Phonics must really be paying off.
<br>
<br><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> LMAO
</p>
</div><!-- section 195 -->
<a name="x196"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x196" class="tiny">x196</a>
Mike Collins & FB 9/11 Truthers : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_196');">a fake account from the debunkers</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_196" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Mike Collins</b> Lol Ken, im surprised you haven't realized by now that Maxwell is just a fake account from the debunkers who are trying to divide us up....i did the same thing in their group with Cass Sunstein. they are trying it now lol...
<br>
<br>And if not, then hes just yet another internet PhD who got his degree in physics by watching youtube videos and copying and pasting paragraphs from stuff he doesn't understand.
<br>
<br><b>Paul Davey</b> Jews, are a funny tribe
</p>
</div><!-- section 196 -->
<a name="x197"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x197" class="tiny">x197</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_197');">there is a #4</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_197" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Mr. Ken Doc, there is a #4.
<br>
<br>4) Nuclear DEW, which is a variant of neutron devices.
<br>
<br>The big issues with Dr. Wood's DEW is that she can't POWER it with anything real-world operational.
<br>
<br>I know not what you refer to with your hole under the Sears Tower.
<br>
<br>Nano-thermite was found ~only~ in the dust particles of Dr. Jones. The USGS reports all sorts of things found in its extensive, thorough, systematic collection of dust samples (including Uranium -- but no mention of why it would be there)... But the USGS doesn't mention nano-thermite. Neither does the Paul Lioy report. Neither does the RJ Lee Group who were commissioned by an insurance company to look into Banker's Trust; they found a high percentage of iron spheres in the dust (indicating high heat) from the lobby of Banker's Trust, but no nano-thermite.
<br>
<br>At some point, you're going to realize that nano-thermite was a limited hang-out that duped the 9/11 Truth Movement something fierce. That NT sacred cow needs to be slaughtered.
<br>
<br>In answer to your question, other than those trapped in the upper floors of the tower, probably ~nobody~ died of radiation poisoning by itself, but probably in combination with other inhaled toxic elements. You missed the point: variants of fusion (which variants of neutron devices are) do not leave lingering levels of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. People did not go all over the WTC right after 9/11; some areas were off limits; some areas were still burning underneath. Sufficient time for radiation to dissipate, for situation to be controlled, etc. And plenty of wonks to write misleading reports to control the message.
<br>
<br>Mr. Paul Davey, fusion does indeed produce a blast and heat wave. Why else would it be made into bombs?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 197 -->
<a name="x198"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x198" class="tiny">x198</a>
Ken Doc: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_198');">such a pretty lady!</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_198" style="display: none;">
<p> Judy, thank you for joining us with your presence. You're such a pretty lady! Sorry about that twitch! It must have been from the coma you suffered back in the 80's.
</p>
</div><!-- section 198 -->
<a name="x199"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x199" class="tiny">x199</a>
Mike Collins: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_199');">carbon nanotubes</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_199" style="display: none;">
<p> Ken, it's funny how you mention Carbon nanotubes....
<br>
<br>I'm sure Maxwell won't be able to explain how carbon nanotubes are used commonly as one of the binders used in sol-gel type explosives...
<br>
<br>http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl015614w
</p>
</div><!-- section 199 -->
<a name="x200"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x200" class="tiny">x200</a>
FB 9/11 Truthers : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_200');">GODDESS JUDY IS HERE!</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_200" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Ryan D Hall</b> JUDY IS HERE?!?!?!?!?!??!!
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> OH MY GODDESS JUDY IS HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<br>
<br><b>Paul Davey</b> "I know not what you refer to with your hole under the Sears Tower."
<br>
<br>Try "Nuclear Cavitation". But no.
<br>
<br><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> settle down atahan
</p>
</div><!-- section 200 -->
<a name="x201"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x201" class="tiny">x201</a>
Mike Collins: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_201');">unless you can explain in technical terms</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_201" style="display: none;">
<p> Maxwell, unless you can explain in technical terms how many explosives would be needed, then nothing you say has any credibility. A few of us here, myself included, actually have real science degrees, from real life universities.
<br>
<br>How can a single e...{mcb got cut off with a "See More"}
</p>
</div><!-- section 201 -->
<a name="x202"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x202" class="tiny">x202</a>
Ken Doc: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_202');">Lung Disease in World Trade Center Responders</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_202" style="display: none;">
<p> Max, I was referring to this paper.
<br>
<br>Case Report: Lung Disease in World Trade Center Responders Exposed to Dust and Smoke: Carbon Nanotubes Found in the Lungs of World Trade Center Patients and Dust Samples
<br>http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/.../info:doi/10.1289/ehp.0901159
<br>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=10.1289/ehp.0901159
<br>
<br>PMC - NCBI
<br>www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
<br>National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine8600 Rockville Pike, BethesdaMD, 20894USA
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> Now if you don;t mind Max, I want to talk to my new fav truther Judy! I can;t believe she's here!
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 202 -->
<a name="x203"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x203" class="tiny">x203</a>
Mike Collins: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_203');">after you're banned from this group</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_203" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Mike Collins</b> and FYI, they have 'fusion bombs'....they are hydrogen bombs. they use fission to compress a hydrogen (deuterium) sphere to undergo fusion....
<br>
<br>Fusion actually creates much more heat and energy per mass than fission bombs...so when Maxwell said "fusion bombs don't create heat"...that right there proves he is just talking out of his ass and copying/pasting shit he doesn't understand...
<br>
<br><b>Mike Collins</b> ken, how long do you typically allow disinformation trolls to spam this group? lol
<br>
<br><b>Mike Collins</b> in the other group, they get about 2 comments worth of time...and if their second comment isn't apologizing for posting bullshit, then they are banned.
<br>
<br><b>Mike Collins</b> Maxwell, after youre banned from this group and you wanna go troll some other groups to trick gullible people with misinformation, make sure to skim this first!
<br>
<br>http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb6.htm
</p>
</div><!-- section 203 -->
<a name="x204"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x204" class="tiny">x204</a>
Ken Doc: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_204');">hoping to catch a few more in my net</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_204" style="display: none;">
<p> I was hoping I could catch a few more in my net, Mike......
</p>
</div><!-- section 204 -->
<a name="x205"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x205" class="tiny">x205</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_205');">falsely associate evidence of one thing with another</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_205" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Mr. Collins, I mentioned early on that an error (purposely exploited by deniers) is to falsely associate evidence of one thing with another. To assume that one mechanism brought down the WTC complex falls right into the hands of disinformation, when the perps who could afford obscenely massive quantities of nano-thermite could also afford nukes, and planes, and lasers from space. Separate them out and look at each individually, and truth will be found.
<br>
<br>FB comments passing in the ether, I see a new one.
<br>
<br>I'm not talking single 4th generation nukes. I'm talking 6-12 per tower, probably placed on alternating sides of what became the spire. Configured as a variant of a neutron device has another benefit, in that by aiming the neutrons, fracticide between nukes might be mitigated. The under-rubble hot-spots point at fizzled nukes.
<br>
<br>And what games are you playing to insert false words in my mouth. I did not ever say "fusion bombs don't create heat."
<br>
<br>Right there we have proof of you being a disinformation troll.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 205 -->
<a name="x206"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x206" class="tiny">x206</a>
Mike Collins: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_206');">spent 8 years studying and working my ass off to get 2 degrees in engineering</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_206" style="display: none;">
<p> maxwell, the only problem with your copy and pasted nonsense is that I actually spent 8 years studying and working my ass off to get 2 degrees in engineering. so when people start talking about nonsense shit that goes against what is physically possible, or begin to use terms which are opposite of what they actually are, its hard to debate you.
</p>
</div><!-- section 206 -->
<a name="x207"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x207" class="tiny">x207</a>
Ken Doc: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_207');">taking up your 15 minutes</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_207" style="display: none;">
<p> Judy, I'm sorry that this Max dude is taking up your 15 minutes. Let me see what i can do about that. This is your day babes! lol
</p>
</div><!-- section 207 -->
<a name="x208"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x208" class="tiny">x208</a>
Mike Collins: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_208');">Master of Science Degree in Youtube videos and Conspiracy Blogs</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_208" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Mike Collins</b> you aren't going to graduate with a Master of Science Degree in Youtube videos and Conspiracy Blogs my friend.
</p>
<br><b>Mike Collins</b> 6-12? We did not see chunks of 10 floors being vaporized by nukes maxwell...
<br>
<br>The heat produced in ANY nuclear reaction, is more than 1,000,000 degrees (even hotter in fusion reactions)....
<br>
<br>This heat will NOT simply 'melt iron'.....it will turn every element within that heat zone into a gas.....
<br>
<br>Seriously, you are doing a great job of destroying the truth movement and confusing people though!
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 208 -->
<a name="x209"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x209" class="tiny">x209</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_209');">caught malframing my words to meet your pre-conceived notions</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_209" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Mr. Collins tries to pull rank with his alleged degrees. Kudos.
<br>
<br>But you've already been caught malframing my words to meet your pre-conceived notions of what nuclear devices are.
<br>
<br>Paid to run interference, I see. More kudos for you to have found such gainful employment for your degreed education with the Cass Sunstein's cognitive infilitration group.
<br>
<br>You say you've studied 4th generation nukes, yet surprisingly you've never applied it to the 9/11 evidence (which is Dr. Wood's claim to fame -- collect all evidence that 9/11 was nuclear and camp it under a kooky umbrella).
<br>
<br>If you are sincere, you will try again. If you are truthful, you will see that nukes and DEW are a marriage just waiting to be discussed. The rabid attacks against both aren't a wave-off, but a semaphore to "land here; something is being hidden."
<br>
<br>Whereas I'm not going to graduate with an MS in YouTube videos and conspiracy blogs, neither is Mr. Collins or anybody participating on FB going to accomplish anything long-lasting or worthwhile, except for fodder to be used by the government at our trials.
<br>
<br>//
<br>Unable to post comment. Try Again
</p>
</div><!-- section 209 -->
<a name="x210"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x210" class="tiny">x210</a>
Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_210');">such a sweetheart</a></p>
<p>2014-04-01</p>
<div id="sect_210" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Judy Woodster</b> You are such a sweetheart Ken Doc. People always told me you were an asshole but I want to personally thank you for sticking with the "empirical evidence".
<p><b>Judy Woodster</b> Do you have any tips on how I can make my presentations easier for people to understand? Every time I finish my speech, I always see people scratching their heads with a confused look on their face.
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> Just be yourself Judy.... all whacked out and shit. People will come around.
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> I wake up with morning Wood everyday because of you.
<br>
<br><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> ROTFLMAO
<br>
<p><b>Judy Woodster</b> hehe. You make me blush Ken Doc! I'd love to dustify you and turn you into my own personal cheeto and just eat you up.
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> We can make snowballs together... but this group is PG, Judy. I'm blushing too. lol
<br>
<br><b>Daniel Gravel</b> Judy Woodster - The problem is that you continue to you use words to describe your imaginings regarding 9-11. Just let the information flow and mime that shit. I guarantee you that people will applause.
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> Ken Doc YOU STOLE THAT LINE FROM ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> I DEMAND COPYRIGHT RESPECT!
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> IT WAS ME who first said: "I wake up with morning Wood everyday because of you."
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> (and it is .... true ..... kinda)
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> Let's not fight over Judy, Ryan! lol
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> YOU THIEF! I SAW JUDY FIRST! BACK AWAY, son!
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> just BACK ... AWAY.
<br>
<br><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> just dustify her, then there will be enough for everybody
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> stop disrespecting my LADY CHEETO like that, JoJoe!
<br>
<br><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b>i missed the whole cheeto thing?
<br>
<br><b>Udy Woodster</b> Boys, boys. There's lots of Judy to go around. This is actually the first time anyone has hit on me in decades.
<br>
<br><b>Udy Woodster</b> Ken Doc can be Tower 1, Ryan can be Tower 2 and I will be Tower 7 stuck in the middle of both of you. Mmmmmmm
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> Judy is definitely going down ON ME like Building 7!!!!
<br>
<br><b>Ken Doc</b> Damn Judy, you got some game I see....... can you last longer than 7 seconds Ryan? lol
<br>
<br><b>Ryan D Hall</b> i think i can last about as long as it took 7 to fall ... maybe longer if Wood gives me some microwaved cheetos for fuel first.
<br>
<br>i want her to snowball me
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 210 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part4 -->
<hr>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part5');">Part 5: Facebook with Atahan Ganduu, Ronald Wieck, JoJoe Haleyscomet, & Elizabeth Tague</a></p>
<div id="sect_part5" style="display: none;">
<a name="x211"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x211" class="tiny">x211</a>
Atahan Ganduu & Ronald Wieck: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_211');">Where did the towers go?</a></p>
<p>2014-05-22</p>
<div id="sect_211" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> Where did the towers go?
<br />
<br><b>Ronald Wieck</b> They fell to the ground.
<br>
<br>https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/1512846_10203974946920908_7473721504642393298_n.jpg
<br />
<br><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> Supposedly
<br>
<br><b>Ronald Wieck</b> Maybe the photos are fakes.
<br>
<br><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> Stop dreaming Ron
<br>
<br><b>Ronald Wieck</b> Says the jackass who believes in magic...
<br>
<br><b>Ronald Wieck</b> Judy is a fraud. She is in hiding. She will NEVER face a real scientist.
</p>
</div><!-- section 211 -->
<a name="x212"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x212" class="tiny">x212</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_212');">No scientists has legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work</a></p>
<p>2014-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_212" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Mr. Wieck writes: "Judy is a fraud. She is in hiding. She will NEVER face a real scientist."
<br>
<br>Not quite. No scientists -- whether inside or outside the 9/11 Truth Movement -- has taken the initiative to legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work chapter-by-chapter, section-by-section, image-by-image. Why? Because it is more valid than it is invalid. They avoid it like the plague. Why? Because in debunking the bad, they are left with nuggets of truth that must be addressed by any valid theory-du-jour.
<br>
<br>I've got her book, read it cover to cover. In my good, bad, and ugly assessment, Dr. Wood drops a lot of dangling innuendo in the form of (potentially) valid concepts, but doesn't (on purpose) connect them together into anything cohesive. She doesn't give us the serial numbers of the devices, but doesn't even attempt to give us model numbers or classification of devices. She gives nuclear means a remarkable short-shrift, when 4th generation nuclear devices can indeed accomplish the evidence that she has collected.
<br>
<br>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>
<br>Yes, evidence does exist of nuclear hijinx, probably mixed in with legitimate usage of other means. But the other means by themselves can't address all the evidence.
<br>
<br>//
<br>[physics/0510071] Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
</p>
</div><!-- section 212 -->
<a name="x213"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x213" class="tiny">x213</a>
Ronald Wieck: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_213');">ZERO evidence of "nuclear hijinx"</a></p>
<p>2014-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_213" style="display: none;">
<p>Real scientists tend to ignore Judy's lunacy.
<br>
<br>There is ZERO evidence of "nuclear hijinx," as you know.
</p>
</div><!-- section 213 -->
<a name="x214"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x214" class="tiny">x214</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_214');">Your hypnotic assertions cannot be proven</a></p>
<p>2014-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_214" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Dear Mr. Wieck,
<br>
<br>Your hypnotic assertions cannot be proven. Case in point, you wrote:
<br>"There is ZERO evidence of 'nuclear hijinx' (on 9/11 at the WTC)."
<br>
<br>Cough up the government reports that (a) promptly, (b) systematically, and (c)_ thoroughly collected samples, and then (d) analyzed them completely and appropriately.
<br>
<br>Alpha, beta, and gamma radiation? Where are the prompt reports? You lose if all you can cough up is the Paul Lioy report. What were the earliest dates for its sampling? I'll give you a hint. They were > 24-48 hours after the event, a time frame sufficient for such radiation from, say, a fusion or neutron device to dissipate.
<br>
<br>Tritium radiation? Why was that even present if it was a gravitational pile-driving/pan-caking collapse? Why was it found in the haphazard & delayed sampling of run-off and in the trees down wind? Why did they limit the scope of the tritium report such that it excluded speculation into tritium coming from a destructive mechanism? Why did the tritium report insert all sorts of unfounded speculation into other sources for tritium and its pathways? Why did they stop measuring tritium? Can what few measurements they publish even be trusted, given that they had to re-define "trace/background levels" to be 55 times greater than normal to explain it away? The report achieved the goals of its bent-scope, but that doesn't mean (a) that the report can be trusted at face-value for its speculative conclusions, or (b) that the report can be re-purposed unquestioned and unchallenged into ruling out nuclear devices.
<br>
<br>Where is the government report that officially takes nuclear devices off the table? Probably in the same dust-bin of the government report that takes chemical explosives off the table.
<br>
<br>The closest you'll come to a government report taking nuclear devices off the table would be the paper authored by BYU physics professor, Dr. Steve Jones. Only problems are: (1) he's supposedly not with the government but with the 9/11 Truth Movement; (2) he did a shitty job. He accepted things like the tritium report unchallenged. He had a gross logic error. He omitted any mention of neutron devices or anything closer to 4th generation nukes whose radiation signature (particularly when measured late and haphazzardly) matched what was observed.
<br>
<br>Your problem, Mr. Wieck, is that historically your 9/11 arguments have never even acknowledged what a massive anomaly it is to have measurable gravitational acceleration in the observed destruction, while at the same time exhibiting the massive energy sinks of content pulverization and content ejection. Obviously you've never changed your faith to Islam, so you can't even use the excuse of an all powerful Allah breaking his own laws of nature in what was observed. Funny you should mention "real scientists" when you clearly never had high school physics... And if I error on this point and you did, you didn't learn anything.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 214 -->
<a name="x215"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x215" class="tiny">x215</a>
Elizabeth Tague: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_215');">Like junk mail</a></p>
<p>2014-05-23</p>
<div id="sect_215" style="display: none;"><br>23 hours ago
<br><b></b> Why would they Maxwell Bridges even need to do any such thing ... she has NOT published according to scientific publication and legitimacy ... she has a web site and a book ... so there simply is NO requirement for science to refute or even acknowledge her.
<br>
<br>Like junk mail she is ignored for a reason ... what she has IS junk.
</p>
</div><!-- section 215 -->
<a name="x216"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x216" class="tiny">x216</a>
Atahan Ganduu: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_216');">dreaming that the towers are piled up</a></p>
<p>2014-05-24</p>
<div id="sect_216" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> You guys certainly do and it seems to have outlived its usefulness
<br>
<br><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> She's the only researcher who acknowledges the lack of significant debris at ground zero. Everyone else seems to be dreaming that the towers are piled up on the ground.
</p>
</div><!-- section 216 -->
<a name="x217"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x217" class="tiny">x217</a>
Ronald Wieck: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_217');">Israel's shills are peddling increasingly desperate claims in a last-ditch effort to sabotage the 9/11 truth movement</a></p>
<p>2014-05-24</p>
<div id="sect_217" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Ronald Wieck</b> There is NO lack of "significant debris" on the ground. Over a period of almost NINE months 1.8 MILLION TONS of debris was removed and hauled away to holding centers.
<br>
<br>Judy will NEVER tell us how high the massive rubble hills SHOULD have been.
<br>
<br><b>Ronald Wieck</b>
<p>http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm
<br>The Dimitri Khalezov "WTC was nuked" hoax
<br>www.takeourworldback.com
<br>How Israel's shills are peddling increasingly desperate claims in a last-ditch effort to sabotage the 9/11 truth movement
</p>
</div><!-- section 217 -->
<a name="x218"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x218" class="tiny">x218</a>
Atahan Ganduu, JoJoe Haleyscomet, & Ronald Wieck : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_218');">she didn't prove shit, LOL</a></p>
<p>2014-05-24</p>
<div id="sect_218" style="display: none;">
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> judy also doesn't acknowledge that the towers were blown 600 feet in all directions.
<br />
<b>Atahan Ganduu</b> Dr Wood acknowledges that the towers turned to dust in midair
</p>
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b>Judy Wood is the only one who can't see all the steel either.
<br>
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b>maybe she's too busy putting forks in microwaves.
<br>
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> Dr Wood proved that something is wrong with the stories we've been given
</p>
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> The one you believe in as well
<br>
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> she didn't prove shit, LOL
</p>
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> which story do I believe in?
</p>
<br />
<p><b>Ronald Wieck</b> No, Judybot, your brain-damaged goddess doesn't acknowledge reality. She PRETENDS that the towers turned to dust in midair.
<br>
<br>The dust studies and the rubble on the ground PROVE her wrong.
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> Cue the picture from the ISS where no one can see steel because the picture's taken from 200 miles away...
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> well close enough from 5 miles up.
</p>
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> expanding on your claims of dustifaction, what can cause that?
</p>
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> Clearly the towers are no longer there
</p>
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> expanding on your claims of dustifaction, what can cause that?
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> and your same crappy ass answer won't answer my question.
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> Don't know why you are so hostile towards that fact
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> along with your same stupid ass picture which you have shown a million times won't answer my question.
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> I'm not hostile. I am pointing out the fact that your "clearly the towers are not there" does not answer my question.
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> expanding on your claims of dustifaction, what can cause that?
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> The moon is made of swiss cheese.
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> The towers being almost entirely gone after the "collapse" is not debatable.
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> yes is is, but once again you failed to answer my question with your pre programed rhetoric.
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> I'm afraid you have allied yourself with the government
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> Not surprised
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> The government doesn't want people to realize that free energy is a reality demonstrated by the dustification of the towers on 9-11.
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> <p>LOL atahan, you are funny, in a mental institution type of way.
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> expanding on your claims of dustifaction, what can cause that?
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> so is that directly from the script?
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> atahan, more and more, I think you're just reading from a script.
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> You must be okay supporting big energy cartels and nanothermite
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> the towers weren't dustified.
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> Suit yourself
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> smoke from 200 miles away, yeah, and?
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> It's more then clear to me, you're never going to answer my question so you can keep mentally jerking yourself off. You can keep your 5 pictures but until you answer my question, you're just jerking mine and everyone else's chain.
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> expanding on your claims of dustifaction, what can cause that?
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gP2J0CUjc
<br>Holy Grail: Run Away!
<br>Holy Grail
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> Something can, evidently
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> so basically avoiding the question once again.
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> Directed free energy technology can. That's all I know. Feel free to do as you normally do and fill in what you don't know with theory and speculation
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> prove it, with pictures of a guy aiming a DEW into the WTC.
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> And prove that directed free energy cannot burn paper and can steer a hurricane away from the coast, burden of proof is on you.
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> well what happened
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> I'm not telling you until you answer my question of what you THINK happened, with proof. By proof, I don't mean the same sorry ass picture you always show. I need you, atahan to furnish proof which can be used in court of your theory.
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> Failing that, we're going in circles, once again.
<br />
<p><b>JoJoe Haleyscomet</b> Atahan Ganduu Directed free energy technology can. That's all I know. Feel free to do as you normally do and fill in what you don't know with theory and speculation
<br><<< this is a theory, don't look for facts when all you have is theory. I am not going to give you facts to support or debunk your theory until you can speak in fact.
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> you're not telling what happened because you simply dont know what happened, you've been speculating and theorizing for over a decade
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> just like your ball gag buddy
<br />
<p><b>Ronald Wieck</b>Please explain the absence of steel in the dust.
<br />
<p><b>Atahan Ganduu</b> First you need to explain the significant lack of debris
<br />
<br><b>Hynek Hasala</b> so air is debri?
<br>
<br><b>Elizabeth Tague</b> (Dr Wood acknowledges that the towers turned to dust in midair)
<br>
<br>HOW the hell would she know ... she WASN'T even there !!!
</p>
</div><!-- section 218 -->
<a name="x219"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x219" class="tiny">x219</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_219');">Steel converted into iron spheres is a massive energy sink</a></p>
<p>2014-05-24</p>
<div id="sect_219" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Mr. Wieck avoided my challenge that he substantiate his hypnotic suggestion about supposedly no evidence of nuclear use. [Let's hear it from the government's own reports on the matter.] Then Mr. Weick comes back much later with the following straw man:
<br>
<br>"Please explain the absence of steel in the dust."
<br>
<br>Steel is mixture mostly of iron and carbon. When the insurance company called in the RJ Lee Group to analyze the dust in the lobby of the Banker's Trust Building, they discovered large percentages of tiny iron spheres in the dust. The USGS dust samples also confirms this.
<br>
<br>Obviously, the straw man is asking about the absence of steel in the dust when in fact the steel has already been decomposed into iron and other elements.
<br>
<br>Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Wieck is a "coincidence theorist" and largely believes the government's story about planes initiating pile-driver pulverization at free-fall speeds.
<br>
<br>The problems are:
<br>
<br>- The only energy acknowledged comes from the potential energy of a pile-driver falling and office furnishing fires ignited by jet fuel that burned off within the first 10 minutes.
<br>
<br>- Such fires cannot melt steel.
<br>
<br>- The potential energy of the pile-driver cannot be consumed twice. If the pile-driver is to account for pulverization of content and ejection of content (or turning steel into Fe and C), the pile-driver cannot descend at gravitational acceleration, as observed. Pulverization, ejection, and free-fall at the same time mean that energy from another source had to be involved.
<br>
<br>- The iron spheres found in the dust of Banker's Trust gives an indication of higher levels of energy being involved in the WTC destruction. The steel was melted and/or disassociated into iron at about the time it was launched in the air with the dust, in order for it to cool into iron spheres found in the lobby.
<br>
<br>- Steel converted into iron spheres is a massive energy sink that the pile-driver theory can't explain.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 219 -->
<a name="x220"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x220" class="tiny">x220</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_220');">all powerful Allah breaking his own laws of nature</a></p>
<p>2014-05-25</p>
<div id="sect_220" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wieck,
<br>
<br>Your hypnotic assertions cannot be proven. Case in point, you wrote:
<br>"There is ZERO evidence of 'nuclear hijinx' (on 9/11 at the WTC)."
<br>
<br>Cough up the government reports that (a) promptly, (b) systematically, and (c)_ thoroughly collected samples, and then (d) analyzed them completely and appropriately.
<br>
<br>Alpha, beta, and gamma radiation? Where are the prompt reports? You lose if all you can cough up is the Paul Lioy report. What were the earliest dates for its sampling? I'll give you a hint. They were > 24-48 hours after the event, a time frame sufficient for such radiation from, say, a fusion or neutron device to dissipate.
<br>
<br>Tritium radiation? Why was that even present if it was a gravitational pile-driving/pan-caking collapse? Why was it found in the haphazard & delayed sampling of run-off and in the trees down wind? Why did they limit the scope of the tritium report such that it excluded speculation into tritium coming from a destructive mechanism? Why did the tritium report insert all sorts of unfounded speculation into other sources for tritium and its pathways? Why did they stop measuring tritium? Can what few measurements they publish even be trusted, given that they had to re-define "trace/background levels" to be 55 times greater than normal to explain it away? The report achieved the goals of its bent-scope, but that doesn't mean (a) that the report can be trusted at face-value for its speculative conclusions, or (b) that the report can be re-purposed unquestioned and unchallenged into ruling out nuclear devices.
<br>
<br>Where is the government report that officially takes nuclear devices off the table? Probably in the same dust-bin of the government report that takes chemical explosives off the table.
<br>
<br>The closest you'll come to a government report taking nuclear devices off the table would be the paper authored by BYU physics professor, Dr. Steve Jones. Only problems are: (1) he's supposedly not with the government but with the 9/11 Truth Movement; (2) he did a shitty job. He accepted things like the tritium report unchallenged. He had a gross logic error. He omitted any mention of neutron devices or anything closer to 4th generation nukes whose radiation signature (particularly when measured late and haphazzardly) matched what was observed.
<br>
<br>Your problem, Mr. Wieck, is that historically your 9/11 arguments have never even acknowledged what a massive anomaly it is to have measurable gravitational acceleration in the observed destruction, while at the same time exhibiting the massive energy sinks of content pulverization and content ejection. Obviously you've never changed your faith to Islam, so you can't even use the excuse of an all powerful Allah breaking his own laws of nature in what was observed. Funny you should mention "real scientists" when you clearly never had high school physics... And if I error on this point and you did, you didn't learn anything.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 220 -->
<a name="x221"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x221" class="tiny">x221</a>
Ronald Wieck : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_221');">Substantiating Reference Material</a></p>
<p>2014-05-27</p>
<div id="sect_221" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Ronald Wieck</b> http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/wtcchemfig1new11-7.gif
<br>
<br>+++++++++++++++
<p><b>Ronald Wieck</b> No steel was melted. Iron-rich microspheres are a characteristic of all office fires. The towers did not free fall.
<br>
<p><b>Ronald Wieck</b> Maxwell Bridges pretends that "large percentages of tiny iron spheres" were found in the dust. As is typical of twoofers, his imagination is his source.
<br />
<p><b>Ronald Wieck</b> https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM
<br>
<br>Vaporizing the World Trade Center
<br>www.uwgb.edu
<br>Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay ... See More
<br>
<p><b>Ronald Wieck</b> All That Dust
<br>
<br>A couple of revealing studies have been done on the dust from the World Trade Center. One was by the U.S. Geological Survey (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/). They measured the composition of the dust and found
<br>
<br>Component Minimum Maximum Average
<br>Silicon % 11.4 26.3 14.8
<br>Calcium % 9.58 26.01 18.36
<br>Magnesium % 1.79 6.94 2.88
<br>Sulfur % 0.87 5.77 3.11
<br>Iron % 0.55 4.13 1.63
<br>Aluminum % 2.27 4.13 2.90
<br>Carbon, organic % 0.98 4.02 2.48
<br>Carbon, Carbonate % 1.24 1.89 1.55
<br>Sodium % 0.12 1.16 0.57
<br>Potassium % 0.28 0.69 0.50
<br>Titanium % 0.21 0.39 0.26
<br>Manganese % 0.07 0.19 0.11
<br>Phosphorous % 0.01 0.05 0.02
<br>Loss on Ignition % 7.96 22.8 16.35
<br>
<br>Those figures are about what would be expected for a mix of concrete, drywall, and insulation. The loss on ignition indicates how much of the dust was combustible, mostly cellulose from drywall binder and paper. Titanium is partly from minerals in the concrete aggregate, and partly from paint. Titanium dioxide refracts light extremely strongly and is used in paints to make the paints opaque. The sulfur reflects gypsum, which is hydrous calcium sulfate and the principal ingredient in drywall..
<br>
<br>Gypsum, paper, asbestos and paint were insignificant in amount compared to the concrete and steel in the towers. The mere fact that they show up at all in chemical and physical analyses completely demolishes the idea that large portions of the towers were turned to dust.
<br>
<br>Another study (http://www.ehponline.org/.../110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html) found that half or less of the dust in their samples was concrete, and the other half was fibers of various kinds. Most of the fiber was glass fiber, but 10-20% was cellulose. Neither study measured the bulk density of the dust because it wasn't meaningful for either study, and would depend on the length of time the dust had settled and whether or not it had rained. But all the photographs in both studies show very fluffy dust.
<br>
<br>So how much dust was actually created? One conspiracy site (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html#Dust) argues as follows (my addenda are in blue):
<br>
<br>If a WTC tower were completely turned to dust, how much dust might we expect?
<br>Suppose the building's materials were reduced to 10% of its original volume.
<br>Volume of one WTC tower = (207 ft)x(207 ft)x(1368 ft) = 58,617,432 cubic feet
<br>Dust Volume (from one WTC tower) = (1/10)xVolumetower (approx.) = 5,861,743 cubic feet
<br>One square mile = (5280 ft)x(5280 ft)
<br>Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.) = (1/10)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches) = 2.52 inches deep over 1 square mile, (The terms are regrouped to put all the squared terms together)
<br>or equivalent to 1-inch deep over 2.52 square miles.
<br>An area of 2.52 square miles would be a radius of 0.896 miles. Note that the area would include both land and water.
<br>
<br>Suppose the building's materials were reduced to only 5% of the original volume.
<br>Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.) = (1/20)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches) = 1-inch deep over 1.26 square miles,
<br>An area of 1.26 square miles would be a radius of 0.634 miles.
<br>
<br>These calculations suggest that the towers had enough material to yield dust about an inch deep and cover approximately a square mile in lower Manhattan, plus the dust carried over the Hudson River, the East River, Brooklyn, the Upper Bay, and into the upper atmosphere. So where did all the dust come from? It looks like it all came from the towers.
<br>
<br>The assumption that the volume of building materials is about 10% of the total volume of the towers is in line with the figures at the top of this page, and the math is basically OK. This is pretty typical of the pages that assert that the towers were mostly turned to dust. Incidentally, several figures on that page will show fist sized chunks of the concrete that supposedly all disappeared.
<br>
<br>So, want photographic proof that the concrete wasn't all pulverized to microscopic fragments? Here it is. Not only are there chunks, but the rest looks more like sand than fine dust. Note the absence of suspended dust in the air.
<br>
<br>The first problem here is that dust is not equivalent to solid material. More than half of the volume of any powdered solid is empty space, especially immediately after it settles. But the analyses above show that about half of the dust was actually fibers of various sorts and fully 10% was organic fibers derived mostly from paper. And the photos of the dust samples show very fluffy dust. So the density is probably not the 2.4 grams per cubic centimeter of bulk concrete but much less.
<br>
<br>Second, the dust wasn't an inch thick over a square mile. Photos show dust an inch or so deep in the immediate vicinity of the towers, although higher accumulations occurred. If we model the dust as a broad cone rather than a disk, its volume is only one third that of the disk. Between the low density of the dust, the fact that most of the dust landed close to the towers, and the fact that half of the dust was materials other than concrete, the volume of concrete represented in the airborne dust is maybe 10% of the volume of the settled dust itself. This is the dust off site. Of course, the dust on the collapse site itself is from the building collapse.
<br>
<br>So, in place of estimating that the towers could make a disk an inch thick and a mile in diameter, we have to reduce the volume of the dust by a factor of 3 to model the dust pile as a cone. We reduce that by a factor of at least 2 and probably a lot more to account for the porous nature of dust, and by another factor of 2 to account for the fact that half the dust is not concrete. So we have to reduce the estimates of the concrete dust volume by at least a factor of 12. So instead of a million tons of concrete dust we have 80,000 or less.
<br>
<br>If the dust is a cone 5 cm thick (.05 meters) at the towers and a radius of one kilometer, the volume of the dust pile is .05 x pi x 1000 x 1000/3 = 52,000 cubic meters. That's only a sixth of the volume of the concrete in the towers. If half of that volume is empty space (I'm being generous), and half of what's left is other stuff, we have 13,000 cubic meters of concrete or 4% of the concrete in the towers. This is so poorly constrained it won't convince any conspiracy buff, but it shows that we don't need to pulverize the whole building to get the observed dust.
<br>
<br>There's a potentially valuable source of data on dust. Following 9/11, large vacuum trucks sucked up dust from the area and disposed of it. Somewhere there are dispatch records that can be used to get a more accurate estimate of the dust. But the trucks could haul 15 tons, and there were up to 16 of them working for several weeks. If they could make five runs a day (I'd bet on more like one or two) for 30 days, that's 15 x 16 x 5 x 30 = 36,000 tons. Again, this is too loose to convince any conspiracy buff, but it's only 11% of the total concrete in the towers, and a large portion of the dust wasn't concrete.
<br>
<br>A lot of people confuse optical density with amount of dust. The fact that the dust cloud was opaque means only that light didn't penetrate it. The clouds that hung above the site weren't much denser than air so the total volume of dust in them was not large. Typical clouds in the sky contain a few grams of material per cubic meter. If we assume the 9-11 cloud had 50 grams per cubic meter - ten times more than even thick water droplet clouds, and the dust cloud occupied a cubic kilometer, far more than its actual volume, we have a billion cubic meters times 50 grams per cubic meters, or 50 billion grams, 50 million kilograms, or 50,000 tons of dust, paltry compared to the million ton mass of the towers.
<br>
<br>So while the four lines of evidence above are pretty loosely constrained, it's interesting that they all independently converge on a few tens of thousands of tons of dust. Any way you slice it, there was just not that much dust.
<br>
<br>http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/
<br>
<br>++++++++++
<br>
<br>https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM
<br>
<br>Vaporizing the World Trade Center
<br>
<br>Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
<br>First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use "Back" to return here.
<br>Some Statistics
<br>
<br>Various sites give slightly different results but the following figures seem to be generally accepted.
<br>
<blockquote><p> Steel used in the WTC: 200,000 tons (I will use metric tons, not short tons. A metric ton is 1000 kg).
<br> Volume of steel (at 7900 kg/cubic meter): 25,300 cubic meters.
<br>
<br> Concrete used: 425,000 cubic yards concrete = 325,000 cubic meters
<br> Mass of concrete (at 2400 kg/cubic meter): 780 million kg or 780,000 metric tons
<br>
<br> Dimensions: 415 and 417 meters high by 63 meters square
<br> The "bathtub" - the sunken basement of the buildings, is 60 feet (18 meters) deep.
</p></blockquote>
<p><p>I will tend to use numbers on the high side since those make the best case for conspiracy theories.
<br>Some Derived Numbers
<br>
<blockquote><p> Volume of one tower: 1.65 million cubic meters
<br> Steel in one tower: 100,000 tons = 12,700 cubic meters
<br> Concrete in one tower: 390,000 tons = 163,000 cubic meters
<br> The concrete in the towers weighed about four times as much as the steel and occupied over twelve times as much volume.
<br> Actually, a lot of the concrete in the World Trade Center was in the base. The floors were about 8 cm thick and supported by steel sheets and a truss system, so the actual amount in the towers was quite a bit less.
<br> Mass of one tower: most people use 500,000 tons, a few use 600,000. The mass of concrete and steel above comes to 490,000 tons and doesn't count elevators, plumbing, utilities, windows and so on. 600,000 is probably closer to the mark, especially if we count internal walls and furnishings.
<br> Bulk density of a tower: If we assume 500,000 tons, 303 kg/cubic meter. If we assume 600,000, 363 kg/cubic meter. The bulk density is about one third that of water. Seal the holes and put them in water, and they would float.
<br> Volume of building materials in a tower: 163,000 cubic meters of concrete, plus 12,700 cubic meters of steel = 175,700 cubic meters. Add windows, elevators, and interior fittings and it's probably around 200,000 cubic meters per tower.
<br> If the volume of building materials was 200,000 cubic meters and the total volume of a tower was 1.65 million cubic meters, then building materials occupied 12% of the volume of the tower. 88% of the tower was air. That's what buildings are for - to enclose the largest open space with the least material.
<br> At peak occupancy there were 25,000 people in the towers or 12,500 per tower. Assuming 70 kg for an average weight, the people in each tower weighed 875,000 kilograms or 875 tons. Since people are about as dense as water (1000 kg per cubic meter), the volume of the occupants in each tower was 875 cubic meters.
<br> A grisly statistic but a necessary one. About 10% of the total occupants of the towers were killed on 9-11. Their combined weight would have been about 175,000 kilograms and their combined volume would have been 175 cubic meters. So searchers were looking for 175 cubic meters of remains in 400,000 cubic meters of debris. Typically 7% of the mass of a human body is bone, so the total bone mass in the ruins was 12,000 kilograms out of a billion kilograms of rubble.
<br> The harsh reality is that remains of many of the victims of 9-11 will never be found. Tiny bone fragments will be turning up on rooftops, in crevices in pavement, and other nooks and crannies for decades if not centuries. Rudi Giuliani has come under fire from New York firefighters for ending the search for remains. FDNY Deputy Chief Jim Riches said “We have the remains of dead heroes at the garbage dump because of Giuliani and his administration and they’re still there today and they won’t remove them.” (Whatever esteem the NYFD won on 9-11 has been pretty much squandered by its conduct since then, or maybe I should say the conduct of its corrupt brass.) Given that many bone fragments were pulverized and picked up by workers' shoes and clothing and vehicle tires, there are probably 9-11 bone fragments in New Zealand by now.
<br> On the one hand, Michael Moore's Sicko deals with the medical problems of 9-11 workers. On the other hand we have people who wanted the site excavated like an archeological dig to locate remains or look for evidence of a plot. Just imagine the health problems we'd have had if we'd spent years clearing the site.
<br> One final note to the relatives of 9-11 victims and every other disaster where questions remain unanswered: you have a right to what can reasonably be done. You do not have a right to the wholly unreasonable like sifting every square inch of lower Manhattan. And you do not have the right to what cannot be done. If our best efforts fail to find remains or the cause of a disaster, then they cannot be found.
</p></blockquote>
<p><p>Energy
<br>
<br>The gravitational potential energy of an object is the energy it takes to raise it to a certain height, or the energy obtained by letting it fall. The formula is U = mgh. U is the standard symbol for potential energy, m is mass in kilograms, g is the gravitational acceleration of the earth and h is the height in meters. Energy is in joules. One watt is one joule per second, and a joule is roughly the energy needed to raise one pound one foot.
<br>
<br>For the World Trade Centers, the towers were 400 meters high and their mass was 600,000 tons or 600 million kilograms. So the total gravitational potential energy in one tower was 6 x 108 kg x 9.8 m/sec2 x 400 m x 1/2. The factor of 1/2 comes from the fact that some mass fell 400 meters and some fell only a short distance, and the overall result is as if it all fell the average distance. So we have U = 1.2 x 1012 joules. A kiloton is 4.2 x 1012 joules, so the gravitational potential energy is about a quarter of a kiloton or 280 tons of high explosive, per tower.
<br>
<br>The planes that hit the towers were Boeing 767-200's, with a loaded mass of about 140,000 kg. They impacted at about 600 km/hour or 167 m/sec. So their kinetic energy was K = 1/2 mv2 = 1/2 x 140,000 x 1672 = 2 x 109 joules.
<br>
<br>The basic 767-200 has a fuel capacity of 63,000 liters, and accounting for fuel burned before impact, call it 50,000 liters. Jet fuel has an energy content of about 35 million joules per liter. So the energy content of the fuel on each plane was 1.75 x 1012 joules or about 0.4 kiloton. An appreciable amount of that energy would have been released explosively, the rest during the fires following impact.
<br>
<br>The energy from the collapse of one tower would have been roughly equivalent to a magnitude 3.5+ earthquake and the energy from the plane impacts somewhat less, depending on how much fuel exploded on impact. The impacts of the planes themselves would have been only a small part of the total energy released. The actual observed magnitudes were less because not all the energy was converted into seismic waves.
<br>Is Much of the World Trade Center Missing?
<br>
<br>Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.
<br>
<br>The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.
<br>
<br>So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected. Some conspiracy sites allege that the rubble pile is only 5% of what would be expected. Others use a figure of 33% as the height of a rubble pile relative to the original building and then argue that the pile should have been 140 or so meters high. But when Controlled Demolition Inc. (http://www.controlled-demolition.com) dropped a 23-story, 439-foot (134 m) building in Detroit in 1997, they ended up with a pile averaging 35 feet high (11 m) and a maximum of 60 feet (18 m) high. The rubble pile was an average of 8% of the height of the original building and a maximum of 14%. Scaling that up to the World Trade Center, we get heights of 33 to 58 meters. In other words, the rubble pile at the World Trade Center is totally in line with other large building collapses. 33% may work for a small building a few stories high, but a large building will compress the debris pile a lot more and also fill void spaces more effectively with pulverized debris.
<br> I could be wrong, but that looks like a mighty substantial pile of debris behind the firemen.
<br>All That Dust
<br>
<br>A couple of revealing studies have been done on the dust from the World Trade Center. One was by the U.S. Geological Survey (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/). They measured the composition of the dust and found
<br>Component Minimum Maximum Average
<br>Silicon % 11.4 26.3 14.8
<br>Calcium % 9.58 26.01 18.36
<br>Magnesium % 1.79 6.94 2.88
<br>Sulfur % 0.87 5.77 3.11
<br>Iron % 0.55 4.13 1.63
<br>Aluminum % 2.27 4.13 2.90
<br>Carbon, organic % 0.98 4.02 2.48
<br>Carbon, Carbonate % 1.24 1.89 1.55
<br>Sodium % 0.12 1.16 0.57
<br>Potassium % 0.28 0.69 0.50
<br>Titanium % 0.21 0.39 0.26
<br>Manganese % 0.07 0.19 0.11
<br>Phosphorous % 0.01 0.05 0.02
<br>Loss on Ignition % 7.96 22.8 16.35
<br>
<br>Those figures are about what would be expected for a mix of concrete, drywall, and insulation. The loss on ignition indicates how much of the dust was combustible, mostly cellulose from drywall binder and paper. Titanium is partly from minerals in the concrete aggregate, and partly from paint. Titanium dioxide refracts light extremely strongly and is used in paints to make the paints opaque. The sulfur reflects gypsum, which is hydrous calcium sulfate and the principal ingredient in drywall..
<br>
<br>Gypsum, paper, asbestos and paint were insignificant in amount compared to the concrete and steel in the towers. The mere fact that they show up at all in chemical and physical analyses completely demolishes the idea that large portions of the towers were turned to dust.
<br>
<br>Another study (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html) found that half or less of the dust in their samples was concrete, and the other half was fibers of various kinds. Most of the fiber was glass fiber, but 10-20% was cellulose. Neither study measured the bulk density of the dust because it wasn't meaningful for either study, and would depend on the length of time the dust had settled and whether or not it had rained. But all the photographs in both studies show very fluffy dust.
<br>
<br>So how much dust was actually created? One conspiracy site (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html#Dust) argues as follows (my addenda are in blue):
<br>
<blockquote><p> If a WTC tower were completely turned to dust, how much dust might we expect?
<br>
<br> Suppose the building's materials were reduced to 10% of its original volume.
<br> Volume of one WTC tower = (207 ft)x(207 ft)x(1368 ft) = 58,617,432 cubic feet
<br> Dust Volume (from one WTC tower) = (1/10)xVolumetower (approx.) = 5,861,743 cubic feet
<br> One square mile = (5280 ft)x(5280 ft)
<br> Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.) = (1/10)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches) = 2.52 inches deep over 1 square mile, (The terms are regrouped to put all the squared terms together)
<br> or equivalent to 1-inch deep over 2.52 square miles.
<br> An area of 2.52 square miles would be a radius of 0.896 miles. Note that the area would include both land and water.
<br>
<br> Suppose the building's materials were reduced to only 5% of the original volume.
<br> Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.) = (1/20)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches) = 1-inch deep over 1.26 square miles,
<br> An area of 1.26 square miles would be a radius of 0.634 miles.
<br>
<br> These calculations suggest that the towers had enough material to yield dust about an inch deep and cover approximately a square mile in lower Manhattan, plus the dust carried over the Hudson River, the East River, Brooklyn, the Upper Bay, and into the upper atmosphere. So where did all the dust come from? It looks like it all came from the towers.
</p></blockquote>
<p><p>The assumption that the volume of building materials is about 10% of the total volume of the towers is in line with the figures at the top of this page, and the math is basically OK. This is pretty typical of the pages that assert that the towers were mostly turned to dust. Incidentally, several figures on that page will show fist sized chunks of the concrete that supposedly all disappeared.
<br>
<br>So, want photographic proof that the concrete wasn't all pulverized to microscopic fragments? Here it is. Not only are there chunks, but the rest looks more like sand than fine dust. Note the absence of suspended dust in the air.
<br>
<br>The first problem here is that dust is not equivalent to solid material. More than half of the volume of any powdered solid is empty space, especially immediately after it settles. But the analyses above show that about half of the dust was actually fibers of various sorts and fully 10% was organic fibers derived mostly from paper. And the photos of the dust samples show very fluffy dust. So the density is probably not the 2.4 grams per cubic centimeter of bulk concrete but much less.
<br>
<br>Second, the dust wasn't an inch thick over a square mile. Photos show dust an inch or so deep in the immediate vicinity of the towers, although higher accumulations occurred. If we model the dust as a broad cone rather than a disk, its volume is only one third that of the disk. Between the low density of the dust, the fact that most of the dust landed close to the towers, and the fact that half of the dust was materials other than concrete, the volume of concrete represented in the airborne dust is maybe 10% of the volume of the settled dust itself. This is the dust off site. Of course, the dust on the collapse site itself is from the building collapse.
<br>
<br>So, in place of estimating that the towers could make a disk an inch thick and a mile in diameter, we have to reduce the volume of the dust by a factor of 3 to model the dust pile as a cone. We reduce that by a factor of at least 2 and probably a lot more to account for the porous nature of dust, and by another factor of 2 to account for the fact that half the dust is not concrete. So we have to reduce the estimates of the concrete dust volume by at least a factor of 12. So instead of a million tons of concrete dust we have 80,000 or less.
<br>
<br>If the dust is a cone 5 cm thick (.05 meters) at the towers and a radius of one kilometer, the volume of the dust pile is .05 x pi x 1000 x 1000/3 = 52,000 cubic meters. That's only a sixth of the volume of the concrete in the towers. If half of that volume is empty space (I'm being generous), and half of what's left is other stuff, we have 13,000 cubic meters of concrete or 4% of the concrete in the towers. This is so poorly constrained it won't convince any conspiracy buff, but it shows that we don't need to pulverize the whole building to get the observed dust.
<br>
<br>There's a potentially valuable source of data on dust. Following 9/11, large vacuum trucks sucked up dust from the area and disposed of it. Somewhere there are dispatch records that can be used to get a more accurate estimate of the dust. But the trucks could haul 15 tons, and there were up to 16 of them working for several weeks. If they could make five runs a day (I'd bet on more like one or two) for 30 days, that's 15 x 16 x 5 x 30 = 36,000 tons. Again, this is too loose to convince any conspiracy buff, but it's only 11% of the total concrete in the towers, and a large portion of the dust wasn't concrete.
<br>
<br>A lot of people confuse optical density with amount of dust. The fact that the dust cloud was opaque means only that light didn't penetrate it. The clouds that hung above the site weren't much denser than air so the total volume of dust in them was not large. Typical clouds in the sky contain a few grams of material per cubic meter. If we assume the 9-11 cloud had 50 grams per cubic meter - ten times more than even thick water droplet clouds, and the dust cloud occupied a cubic kilometer, far more than its actual volume, we have a billion cubic meters times 50 grams per cubic meters, or 50 billion grams, 50 million kilograms, or 50,000 tons of dust, paltry compared to the million ton mass of the towers.
<br>
<br>So while the four lines of evidence above are pretty loosely constrained, it's interesting that they all independently converge on a few tens of thousands of tons of dust. Any way you slice it, there was just not that much dust.
<br>Crushing Concrete
<br>
<br>One of the more scientifically respectable arguments against the conventional view of 9-11 is that it would take more energy to crush the concrete than was available. One site uses a figure 0f 1.5 kilowatt hour per ton to crush concrete to 60-micron (.06 mm) powder. One kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 joules, so it takes 5,400,000 joules to crush a ton of concrete to 60 micron powder. Crush the 390,000 tons of concrete in a tower to powder and it takes 2.1 x 1012 joules to do the job. That's twice the gravitational potential energy of a tower. In other words, crushing the concrete should have absorbed so much energy that the collapse would have been halted.
<br>
<br>The rule of thumb is that energy to crush a brittle solid is proportional to the total area of the fractures. If we have a cubic meter of rock and crush it into cubic pieces of dimension x, their volume will be x3 and there will be 1/x3 pieces. Their surface area will be 6x2. So the total surface area is 6x2*1/x3 pieces = 6/x. The energy to produce those particles will be inversely proportional to the size of the particles. If you assume the particles are spheres of diameter x, you have particles of volume ?x3/6 and surface area ?x2 (The radius is x/2). So you have 6/?x3 particles, each with surface area ?x2 and the total surface area is - wow - 6/x again. When doing a lot of these types of calculations, the exact shape of the particles doesn't matter.
<br>
<br>Some 9-11 sites erroneously claim the energy is proportional to the square root of size, evidently because they realize that area of a particle decreases as the square of size, but they don't take into account that the number of particles goes up as the inverse cube of size.
<br>
<br>Except there just wasn't that much dust. If we assume 50,000 tons of fine dust per tower (generous compared to the estimates above) that's only 270 million joules or a quarter of the gravitational potential energy. As we can see from the photo above, most of the material was not fine powder. If we assume the stuff under the fireman's boots is 600 microns (0.6 mm or sand sized) then the energy needed is only a tenth of what is needed to make 60 micron powder. At that rate it would take 2.1 x 1011 joules to crush all the concrete to sand, or about a sixth of the available gravitational potential energy.
<br>
<br>The problems with the crushed concrete argument are:
<br>
<blockquote><p> Serious overestimation of the amount of dust
<br>
<br> Serious underestimation of the amount of coarse debris
<br>
<br> Failing to account for much of the dust being derived from easily fragmented internal materials like paper and drywall.</p></blockquote>
<p><p>Vaporizing Steel
<br>
<br>Supposedly, videos of the collapse of a remnant of one tower show it vanishing into dust. In addition, many conspiracy theorists claim that much of the steel from the World Trade Center has vanished.
<br>
<br>The USGS data above show iron contents in the dust ranging from half a per cent to 4 per cent, with an average of 1.6%. Since iron makes up 5% of the crust, we'd expect a few per cent iron in concrete. Add to that some iron oxide from corrosion by the concrete in contact with steel and mechanical abrasion during the collapse, and the numbers are consistent with the iron content we find. We do not find the iron concentrations we'd expect if large amounts of iron were powdered.
<br>
<br>So, powdering the steel? The chemistry tells the story. It simply didn't happen. Collapsing and leaving a trail of dust behind is not the same thing as turning into dust.
<br>Directed Energy Weapons
<br>
<br>One of the favorite theories for bringing the towers down, apart from thermite or demolition charges, is directed energy weapons. These are especially favored by folks who argue that large parts of the towers were turned to dust or vapor.
<br>
<br>Real directed energy weapons fall into very limited categories.
<br>
<blockquote><p> Lasers. These can deliver a lot of energy to a small space, but for long distances on earth their effectiveness as weapons is limited by the atmosphere. Laser weapons powerful enough to damage human sight are possible. A laser powerful enough to cause physical damage to materials at a long distance will ionize the air, making it opaque ("blooming")
<br> Particle beams. These are even more limited on the earth's surface because the particles will interact with atoms in the atmosphere.
<br> Microwaves. These can be used to heat the surface of the skin to intolerable levels and are being actively developed as nonlethal crowd dispersal weapons. One suspects lethal versions are not hard to make.
</p></blockquote>
<p><p>So directed energy weapons have been considered mainly for three purposes:
<br>
<blockquote><p> Space warfare, where the goal is to damage electronics or missile heat shields
<br> Ballistic missile defense. Ground based systems have been plagued by atmospheric limitations
<br> Crowd dispersal using microwaves.
</p></blockquote>
<p><p>So directed energy weapons can deliver a lot of punch to a small, visible and unobstructed target, and even air is an obstruction for these purposes. And they can deliver enough energy to frazzle human nerve endings and damage the retina. Evidence for weapons systems capable of punching into the interior of a building or powdering concrete and steel over a large area? Zero, zip, nada, bupkis.
<br>"Your Estimates of Concrete are Too Large"
<br>
<br>One architect has criticized me for using too large a figure for concrete. He insists that the concrete was much lower in density.
<br>
<br>Bring it on. I'm all for it. The less the mass of the concrete, the easier it is to account for a lot of things. For example, if the floors were very porous light weight concrete, the energy needed to pulverize them would have been far less than that needed to break up standard concrete. And there would be a larger dust to solid ratio, and maybe even less dust overall, and the concrete would pulverize into smaller pieces. As I noted, I used large figures because those make the best case for conspiracy theories.</p>
</div><!-- section 221 -->
<a name="x222"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x222" class="tiny">x222</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_222');">nuclear involvement with 9/11 is constantly misframed by its detractors</a></p>
<p>2014-10-01</p>
<div id="sect_222" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/james.h.fetzer/posts/10152691448337978?comment_id=10152698174377978
<br>
<br>The problem with discussing nuclear involvement with 9/11 is that the argument is constantly misframed by its detractors. Evidence of nuclear involvement is in the dust, in the faulty reports, in the "measurement efforts", in the observed energy requirements of pulverization, in the lingering hot-spots, in the hazmat clean-up actions, in the security, etc.
<br>
<br>This does not discount that nano-thermite (NT) ~may~ have been involved, although it is a fine "coincidence" that the discoverer of NT in custody-challenged dust samples (and not in those of the USGS, RJ Lee Group, etc.) is also the individual who is responsible more so than anybody else -- outside or inside the 9/11 Truth Movement -- for giving nuclear considerations "the bum's rush." Namely, BYU nuclear physics professor, Steven Jones.
<br>
<br>For those interested, I go into details about the many blatant failings of the several reports that try to make the no-nukes case. In a nutshell here, Dr. Jones bases his no-nuckes conclusions on stilted reports whose data can't be relied upon. Dr. Jones has a glaring omission in the form of neutron devices (and all 3rd/4th generation nuclear devices that would improve upon this.)
<br>
<br>Neutron devices -- based of fusion -- as the starting point for the true 3rd/4th generation nuclear device used on 9/11 are important to understand, because (1) their alpha, beta, and gamma radiation dissipate within 24-48 hours, (2) their neutron radiation can be aimed [to get it out of the way and not cause fracticide in other tandem nukes], (3) shucking off energy by aiming neutron upwards allows the blast/heat waves, etc. to be scaled down to tactical levels. When deviant 3rd/4th generation nuclear devices are considered, we can get energy output at specific wavelengths that further reduces traditional blast/heat waves.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/01/nuclear-9112001-for-vt.html
<br>
<br>Moreover, those pesky hot-spots that burned under the rubble for months? Dr. Jones et al did not do the math (purposely) that could get NT -- in any combination with any other brilliant explosives or incendiaries -- to account for them. Why? Because the numbers reveal that you would need MASSIVE QUANTITIES THAT WERE ~~UNSPENT~~ from their original pulverizing purposes to go the duration of even a single hot-spot!!! Unbelievable, particularly when the hand-full of vacation days that bomb sniffing dogs took prior to 9/11 would have presented a logistics hurdle to get those MASSIVE QUANTITIES planted.
<br>
<br>Although NT is damning in and of itself of complicit insiders, NT was propped up as a limited-hangout to distract from 9/11 nuclear considerations. Why?
<br>
<br>Any whiff of "nuclear anything on 9/11" would cause a public panic and mass exodus from NYC, in addition to fingering the true culprits. Righteous indignation would have the public radically turn not just from the desire policies of the neo-cons in power but also from the very form of government. We simply "vote out of existence" the government and its institutions, as is not only our right but our duty.
<br>
<br>Here's an article on 4th generation nuclear devices from 2005.
<br>
<br>http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 222 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part5 -->
<a name="x223"></a><hr>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part6');">Part 6: Cold Fusion, Deep Underground Nukes, Dr. Wood on Tritium, and Continuous Ignition</a></p>
<div id="sect_part6" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Yet another Facebook group and (closer) attempts at rational discussion.}</p>
<a name="x224"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x224" class="tiny">x224</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_224');">a shopfront FB group</a></p>
<p>2015-08-31</p>
<div id="sect_224" style="display: none;">
<p>20150831 FB mail
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Joy,
<br>
<br>Rather coincidental your flattering invitation to join a new FB group, as I tried recently two attempts at another avenue for a reasoned interview piece and was meeting with silence.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "[I am setting up...] a shopfront FB group which allows grassroots primary researchers and bloggers such as yourself to share their latest in an ongoing way, and where joe public can come and read, sample, and if desired go over to the source URL."
<br>
<br>I don't think you can achieve what you desire if FB is your only tool. FB completely sucks as a venue for serious discussion. What you see is ~not~ what anyone else will see, in terms of postings, owing to the "organization by algorithm." When you make a comment to a posting, subsequent comments trigger that posting to appear where you see it in your feed. However, those who have never commented may never see that posting "rank high" in the news feed, because the algorithm pushed it out of view.
<br>
<br>The above hints at one way in which FB can be juked. Namely, if a given posting does have a lively, worthy discussion, making a few throw-away postings can effectively push the important posting down, down, down, such that it may never get on Joe Public's radar.
<br>
<br>Another way that FB can be juked is with the automatic collapsing of comments to the last three or four, hiding the rest behind "more comments" links. I've experience trolls doing precisely this. They put three or four comments in a row -- regardless of what the comments actually were [ad hominem or fluff] --, then the rest of the discussion gets buried particularly for Joe Public who is scrolling through and scanning the postings & the few exposed comments at the top level.
<br>
<br>Other than at your trial what the FBI/CIA will pull out extensively organized and categorized (by FB itself), FB has no permanence. Notifications by email are about the only way to snag a permanent URL to a posting and its comments. FB has no overlay to organize postings by date, theme, or other criteria. This contributes to FB being a time-sucking memory hole, and a very repetitive one at that, because postings that might have covered a theme are difficult to locate directly, difficult to acquire the URL, and thus difficult to put the URL within new discussions to shut down another spin on the carousel.
<br>
<br>For the above reasons, serious commenters need to preserve their words themselves. Otherwise, they're just throwing them away on FB. If they get banned from a group, they can't even lurk, let alone retro-actively save their efforts.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, FB requires you to log in. No lurkers. No google indexing.
<br>
<br>If you are serious about your endeavor, then establishing for free a blog on WordPress or Blogger will get you much farther. FB would only be used secondarily and infrequently to advertise what is on your blog. A good example is Craig McKee who has the blog "Truth & Shadows."
<br>
<br>I wish you well in your endeavor. When I get over my procrastination and have a new output article to my latest research, I might be inclined to throw some tidbits into your FB group. Owing to FB's time-sucking nature, I've been extremely limiting the number of times a week and the amount of time that I'm logged into FB. It is well so.
<br>
<br>All the best,
<br>
<br>// Maxwell C. Bridges
<br>
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br>8/29, 1:32pm
<br><b>Philip Joy</b>
<br>Hi Maxwell, hope you are well. I am considering setting up a sort of shopfront FB group which allows grassroots primary researchers and bloggers such as yourself to share their latest in an ongoing way, and where joe public can come and read, sample, and if desired go over to the source URL. Of course there will be fireworks where views collide, but unlike some I'm not afraid of that kind of heated debate. Interested?</p>
</div><!-- section 224 -->
<a name="x225"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x225" class="tiny">x225</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_225');">WDTTG</a></p>
<p>2015-09-01</p>
<div id="sect_225" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F965700833469284%2Fpermalink%2F966888853350482%2F&aref=1441146685736020&medium=email&mid=51eb6d2afc182G5af4d1a72decG51eb71c45c454G12eGf4aa&bcode=1.1441146685.Abm_Tr1DrQ1BudIy&n_m=maxwell.bridges%40maxbridges.us
<br>
<br><b>Steve Grage</b>
<br>Please be advised, Any serious researcher needs to review the content of the 500 page book "Where did the Towers Go". The author is not important as the book is a scholarly presentation of evidence complete with references. Naturally, if one hasn't read this book, ones opinion as to its content is of little value. I am not aware of any evidence in this book ever being false or misleading. Is there any serious researcher (defined as must of read "Where did the Towers Go") that can reference any false or misleading statement (page#). If not, this book should be the basis of knowledge of what happened (to WTC complex).
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Regarding Steve Grage's posting. I agree that WDTG is worth reading. However, I have found several instances of its content being false or misleading. (One example is the "torching of cars at the bridge." The cars were torched elsewhere and then towed to the bridge. Still an anomaly for how they got zapped where they were originally parked, but not the gross one that Dr. Wood implies had happened at the bridge. Pictures are available of the torched police car 2346 (?) parked elsewhere.)
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood doesn't go into details about the energy source for her speculations, let alone make or model number. She doesn't connect a lot of things, on purpose. Some shoddy research she exhibits into nuclear methods. (Hell, she doesn't even address in her 2010 book the valid 2007 criticism by Dr. Jenkins, which also has invalid points.)
<br>
<br>This PDF from 2005 (and earlier books by the author from 1999) into Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices will enlighten you as to the areas where Dr. Wood got it right and wrong.
<br>
<br>http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> If you'd like other instances, Dr. Wood accepts the satellite images unchallenged regarding hot-spots. All it would take is someone in the original report putting the wrong date on the 2nd image to imply how there weren't hot-spots, or that they cooled before September was over. Many accounts contradict that assumption from Dr. Wood of there being no hot-spots. The last ones were not put out until December.
<br>
<br>As already mentioned, she did shitty research into nuclear devices. For example, she makes no study into the types of such weapons, even though much is publicly available. Her dirt analysis -- although wonderful -- stops short of nuclear conclusions, although those are classic radiation mitigation techniques.
<br>
<br>USGS samples of the dust (see Jeff Prager) prove nuclear hijinx. The tritium report proves nuclear hijinx (and efforts to cover-up). The delays in taking samples and not being thorough are other indications of nuclear means. Refer also to Professor Cahill's air sampling.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood also states there was no damage to the bathtub. Actually there were cracks that needed repair. Dr. Wood misleads us with information about the power stations that were destroyed, implying that an energy weapon did it.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> I agree partly that Hutchison is misleading in Dr. Wood's work. However, when you study fourth generation nuclear devices [FGND] (as given in the PDF), that's when you learn about what might be possible.
<br>
<br>Nuclear energy is much easier to come by than Tesla energy from space (or any notion that space beams were involved.) In fact, any DEW devices not co-located within the towers would have a hard time delivering the requisite energy needed for destruction.
<br>
<br>FGND are about channeling specific wavelengths of the nuclear output, which in turn reduces many side-effects of your "standard" nuclear devices (e.g., blast wave, heat wave, EMP). Even aiming the neutrons of a neutron bomb upwards would scale back energy; call this using a device in an application different from design or the PR.
<br>
<br>At any rate, if the wavelengths of energy are on the scale of the molecular distances of materials, in a very Hutchison sort of way, materials truly could be disassociated and "dustified" to appearances.
<br>
<br>But there would still be those aforementioned side effects, like the intense instantaneous heat at ignition which would account for the bent and twisted beams. EMP slipping through window slits could explain some of the cars catching fires. EMP generates Eddy currents in metal it hits line-of-sight; large Eddy currents in the metal can cause things on the metal, like paint, plastic door handles, rubber seals, to ignite.
<br>
<br>http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Ms. Grable, I have researched cold fusion. It isn't quite real world to the extent that would have been required for 9/11. Not even today. That is a red-herring.
<br>
<br>Fission-triggered fusion FGND are what the evidence points to, particularly the tritium and the song-and-dance to explain away tritium as "air plane exit signs, sights on weapons, personal time-pieces.") Such shoddy measurements of it, too. And even then it slips out and required them to re-define trace levels of tritium to be 55 times larger than expected.
<br>
<br>Evidence in the dust sampled extensively by USGS and put into their data tables proves minor fission involvement due to the correlated quantities of certain elements. Although in the data tables, they don't explain those elements' presence, or that they are sample-to-sample in correlated quantities, or that they are remnants of nuclear recipes. Refer to Jeff Prager's work.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 225 -->
<a name="x226"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x226" class="tiny">x226</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_226');">Another forum, another seed planted</a></p>
<p><a href="http://911truthout.blogspot.com/2015/05/pouring-cold-water-on-judy-wood.html?showComment=1441812360724">2015-09-09</a></p>
<div id="sect_226" style="display: none;">
<p>To learn more about the importance of tritium, review Andre Gsponer's work, such as:
<br>
<br><i>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weaspons: Military effectivenss and collateral effects.</i> [2005]
<br>
<br>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>
<br>+++ page 11
<br>
<br>There is no standard definition of fourth generation nuclear-weapons. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this paper, we may use either of the two definitions:
<br><i>- "Nuclear explosive devices based on atomic and nuclear processes that are not restricted by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)," or
<br>- "Nuclear explosive devices based on low-yield thermonuclear pellets triggered by compact non-fission
<br>primaries."</i>
<br>The second definition recognizes the technical fact that radically new, but <i>realistic</i>, types of nuclear weapons will most probably use highly-compressed deuterium-tritium pellets as the main source of their explosive energy. This means that while fission was the main source of yield in the first three generations, the main source of yield in the fourth generation will be the fusion reaction...
<br>
<br>+++ page 39-31
<br>
<br><i>[C]onventional explosives, and first and second generation nuclear explosives</i>, primarily couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium: air, water, earth, rocks, etc. This means that the coupling of these weapons can be qualified as indirect, independently on whether the target is (relatively) close or distant from the point of
<br>explosion.
<br>
<br>In the case of <i>fourth generation nuclear explosives</i>, however, the coupling can be qualified as direct, unless the target is sufficiently far away from the point of explosion that the radiations are absorbed in the intervening medium before interactingwith the target. In otherwords, the fact that these weapons are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiations means that they can produce direct
<br>work on the target, and therefore induce a very different response than if the target was just hit by a shock wave.
<br>
<br>+++++
<br>
<br>There is much more from that source, although he doesn't mention 9/11 at all.
<br>
<br>Interesting trivia is that the Fifth Edition of <i>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And The Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons</i> by Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni was published in 1999. Sufficiently early for both Dr. Jones (in his famous "no 9/11 nukes" paper) and Dr. Wood to reference in their work. But they didn't.
<br>
<br>Dr. Cahill's air sampling after 9/11 (started late) also confirms nuclear hijinx.
<br>
<br>The USGS performed the most systematic sampling of the dust. Their data tables are pretty revealing. (Nothing for super-duper nano-thermite or conventional explosives.) Also revealing are the elements from those data tables that they chose ~not~ to discuss (e.g., Uranium, lithium, strontium, etc.) Jeff Prager looked at that data and discovered correlated quantities of elements that spell out nuclear methods.
<br>
<br>// MaxwellBridges.blogspot.com
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 226 -->
<a name="x227"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x227" class="tiny">x227</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_227');">Cold fusion with Ms. Grable</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/970326159673418/">2015-09-09</a></p>
<div id="sect_227" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Ms. Grable. I am ~not~ a physicist, but I do have an engineering background, understand technical things, and can research. When Dr. Wood name-dropped "cold fusion", I eventually dutifully researched it and studied the matter just this last Spring while unemployed.
<br>
<br>While cold fusion is a real thing, it isn't real enough ~today~ to power or make anything useful, let alone a whiz-bang weapon deployed mysteriously behind-the-scenes 15 years ago.
<br>
<br>I've read Dr. Wood's book cover-to-cover and have used it very effectively as an objectivity test in my debate opponents to find the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not until my second pass through her book did I start spotting the disinformation. [Details available upon request.]
<br>
<br>What you need to understand, Ms. Grable, is that Dr. Wood's work was ~never~ considered even by the author as the end station. Her purpose was to get readers to think out-of-the-box and introduce concepts that may or may not be relevant to 9/11. Actually, the sticker on the inside of her book and repeated in the intro says it all, having to do with listening to the evidence.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, Dr. Wood could not power her DEW with anything real-world. And Dr. Wood has major omissions in not considering more thoroughly deviants of nuclear weapons, now named by Andre Gsponer as Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW). I mean, her website has a great page about the dirt that was trucked in, spread out, scooped back up a few days later, and trucked out. YET SHE DOESN'T MAKE THE OBVIOUS CONNECTION THAT THIS IS CLASSIC RADIATION MITIGATION TECHNIQUES. Further, this web page was not re-purposed in her book.
<br>
<br>But I digress. Cold fusion is a concept promoted by Dr. Wood that has no real-world instantiation to date. Period. If Dr. Wood had a purpose in bringing it up, it was to demonstrate weaknesses in Dr. Jones' character. He legitimately poured water on Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion for the government, even while he pursued cold fusion research of his own.
<br>
<br>Before you go any further with your promotion of cold fusion, get yourself a library card at your local institution of higher education (like I did). Armed with that, you can do tons of research from home; you'd only have to go to the library to pick up the books you ordered. For the purposes of 9/11, you may not even have to read beyond the abstracts or introductory chapters to learn what you need to know. Which is: cold fusion is promising but far from real-world.
<br>
<br>FGNW is another story.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 227 -->
<a name="x228"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x228" class="tiny">x228</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_228');">What does Judy say in her book about the tritium levels</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/970522426320458/">2015-09-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_228" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Daniel M. Plesse</b> Maxwell Bridges What does Judy say about the tritium levels in her book.. Is it chapter and verse Official theory? How does it differ from current Facebook Comments on the topic as recorded in my blog.. Thanks</p>
<br>
<br>+++
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Plesse, you asked about Dr. Wood's book and what it says about tritium levels.
<br>
<br>Please permit this minor detour in my explanation. Dr. Wood's website has certain pages with seeming "hard-stops." Many pages still say "under construction 2006." From what I understand (but could have many details wrong), Dr. Wood had a student maintaining her website: the very student who was killed under mysterious circumstances about that time [2006]. I'm sure this put a chill on the website and whatnot.
<br>
<br>When Dr. Wood created her book, she re-purposed information from her website, much of it as-is. A major complaint I have about her book is that it did not improve content from its 2006 state when published in her 2010 book. Yes, she might have made minor improvements in the conversion, but she did not address criticisms (e.g., from Dr. Jenkins 2007) of her work (website). Her book did not re-purpose all of her website; the webpage about trucking in fresh dirt to put on the pile is not in her book, and is itself incomplete because it doesn't draw the obvious conclusion about radiation mitigation.
<br>
<br>As it turns out, Dr. Jones paper repudiating the use of nukes on 9/11 came out in 2007. Its chief error was accepting unchallenged the government commissioned report on tritium and using that report as the sole authority on tritium. That report was scope limited and achieved its goals, but it could not be re-purposed and used as-is as the sole authority on tritium. Specifically, that report had delayed and haphazard tritium sampling and even stopped its sampling, which was fine for its scope limited purposed, but not fine drawing other more expansive nuclear conclusions that Dr. Jones attempted.
<br>
<br>To answer your questions, the hoopla about tritium came during this gap period of time (2006-2010) that is missing from Dr. Wood's book.
<br>
<br>To my recollection, Dr. Wood doesn't mention tritium at all in her book, nor on her website. {mcb: my recollection at time of writing was wrong about Dr. Wood not mentioning tritium.}
<br>
<br>//
</div><!-- section 228 -->
<a name="x229"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x229" class="tiny">x229</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_229');">Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion was a fiasco</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/970326159673418/">2015-09-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_229" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Ms. Grable, just a few months ago while researching DEW and FGNW, I had the opportunity to comb the book stacks of my local institution of higher education (seeded by online catalog searches). "Cold Fusion" was one of the keyword side topics that I looked into.
<br>
<br>I read and/or skimmed many books. I read John R. Huizenga's "Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century" 1992 and Hideo Kozima's "The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon: In Search of the Physics and Chemistry behind Complex Experimental Data Sets" 2006. The former was really good about documenting the Pons-Fleischmann and Jones variants of "cold fusion." Dr. Jones was depicted in a favorable light, because Pons-Fleischmann work could not be re-produced. The latter shows advancements since 1992, but never to the scale proposed by Pons-Fleischmann.
<br>
<br>From what Pons-Fleischmann were peddling, cold fusion was a fiasco. The Wikipedia page on the subject of cold fusion gives a much more concise overview.
<br>
<br>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
<br>
<br>While doing my research, a particularly fascinating read was a book called "Tritium on Ice: The Dangerous New Alliance of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power" by Kenneth D. Bergeron 2002. It showed a concerted effort in the late 1990's to circumvent the Nuclear Proliferation Rules with various political cheats so that commercial nuclear power plants (of a bad design and under troublesome and accident-prone TVA) could manufacture tritium as a by-product of its normal operations.
<br>
<br>Tritium is the key component for all FGNW.
<br>
<br>Although tritium's half-life is only about 15 years and re-purposing tritium from de-commissioned nuclear weapons would meet USA's nuclear weapons' needs well into this decade, the powers-that-be (PTB) in the late 1990's were plowing into place the capabilities to generate new tritium sources much sooner. [It was accomplished in something like 2006, after this book was published.] Again, the PTB knew the importance of tritium in all of its top-secret tactical FGNW.
<br>
<br>One other item, Ms. Grable, that I see you bring up repeatedly: "No Particular Heat." This refers to the WTC destruction. It gets malframed regularly.
<br>
<br>Yes, there were no huge fireballs. We didn't observe flaming pieces of debris raining down.
<br>
<br>However, there is ample evidence that extremely high temperature levels were achieved. Dr. Wood's book contains pictures of steel beams bent into horse-shoes and arches. A major hoopla of all the reports on the dust was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres that were created by high temperature heat sources acting on steel, with the spheres formed during the ejection and fall in the dust cloud.
<br>
<br>Pictorial evidence also shows wall assemblies falling to the ground with a trail of smoke, steam, dust.
<br>
<br>The leading hypothesis is that nano-thermite achieved this. I disagree. FGNW achieved it without huge fireballs.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 229 -->
<a name="x230"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x230" class="tiny">x230</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_230');">from the Aether with Ms. Grable</a></p>
<p>2015-09-10</p>
<div id="sect_230" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Rosalee Grable</b> 2:56pm Sep 10
<br>I'm really enjoying our debate, and learning some stuff even.
<br>No Particular Heat. My video shows firemen walking within the footprint of WTC 2 within 29 minutes of its disappearance.
<br>There are natural laws governing the dispersal of heat. If the tiny round microspheres that used to be steel beams had been exposed to 2000 degree temperatures, people would not be walking around. The superheated dust would have burned their lungs out. Dispersal of heat would make the entire area too hot to sustain life.
<br>It is just not possible. When Mt. St. Helens blew, with similar pyrochlastic clouds and 2000 degree heat, all life perished in a 6 mile radius.
<br>Sad, but demanded by natural laws governing dispersal of heat.
<br>The creation of these microspheres enblazoned with fractal designs is a proof they used Tesla's Teleforce invention as a weapon.
<br>The power comes.from the Aether, the infinite energy source normally hidden behind time.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Part 1/2
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Grable, I am so open-minded to be considered naive at times, and certainly a world-class duped useful idiot. Sure, I'm willing to believe in "Tesla's Teleforce invention" whose "power comes from the Aether, the infinite energy source normally hidden behind time," but there has to be some science and evidence to back this up. I ought to be able to research it studiously -- as I have done with DEW, cold fusion, nuclear devices -- and learn of its basics and applicability. You as a true believer ought to be able to reference sources for this to substantiate this. But this is not the case. One or two videos aren't sufficient to dupe this usueful idiot into your belief system.
<br>
<br>Let me see if I can't steer your understanding of 9/11 anomalies with FGNW (4th gen nuclear weapons) as I have been duped. First of all, these are tactical in their destructive payloads. What makes them tactical is that the bulk of energy from the nuclear reaction is released at specific wavelengths. The normal heat wave, blast wave, and EMP side-effects associated with traditional nuclear weapons are significantly reduced.
<br>
<br>For a single device in the configuration, imagine that only a space the size of a baseball were super-heated at the nuclear reaction. Material (e.g., steel) right in the vicinity of this gets liquified if not vaporized. It is turned into liquid balls that the side-effect blast wave sends in different direction. Once away from the heat source (which is really more of an "instantaneous hot-point"), the liquid molten metal begins to cool in contact with air as it travels the distance to the ground. It does not have a large mass with respect to the surface area, so the cooling solidifies it quickly into tiny iron spheres that were later found in the dust samples.
<br>
<br>[I've taken for fun welding classes at my local community college. The larger the piece of metal: the more time/heat is required to heat it up; the more time is required to dissipate its stored heat to cool it down. The smaller the piece of metal (e.g., smaller than misty raindrops), the less energy is stored and the quicker it cools off.] Molten metal the size of misty raindrops getting cooled by the air would ~not~ leave excessive levels heat, because their surface-area-to-mass allows them to dissipate it quickly.
<br>
<br>Material in the building a little farther away from the "instantaneous hot-point" does not melt, but does absorb enough heat end-to-end to soften. This is observed by the horseshoes, arches, "steel doobies", and "meteorites" collected in 9/11 pictures (e.g., from Dr. Wood).
<br>
<br>The above two phenomenon were examples of the event producing heat. Firefighters and first responders did comment that it was warmer at ground zero than other places in the city. Many report melted boots from walking around.
<br>
<br>// End Part 1/2
<br>
<br>Part 2/2
<br>
<br>To your point, other aspects of FGNW did not have to result in heat. The bulk of the FGNW energy is channeled at specific wavelengths where desired (e.g., like up through the WTC towers, missing the inner core). When the wavelengths are on the same order as molecular distances, bonds in molecules of material can be broken, resulting in "dustification" for our more human macro-vision. Like a microwave oven, this can vibrate water molecules in things and instantly turn it into steam (or plasma), whose instant rapidly expanding volume can literally blow material apart from the insides.
<br>
<br>When you mentioned people walking around 29 minutes after the towers came down, they were not walking directly on any of the buildings' former footprints: WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6. Fires in some of these were still going on. People walked around on the streets and former WTC plaza area on top of debris that had been ejected (and cooled) from the buildings.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "When Mt. St. Helens blew, with similar pyrochlastic clouds and 2000 degree heat, all life perished in a 6 mile radius."
<br>
<br>You are mixing concepts. What really killed life so far out? Choking on the dust. Only up close was it heat and fire, if not shifting earth as well.
<br>
<br>9/11 had pyrochlastic clouds, but these were not the cause of the vehicle fires. EMP likely was, slipping out through window slits and debris to enduce high currents in metal line-of-sight. High currents means high heat, enough to ignite things on the metal, like paint, plastic door handles, rubber seals, etc.
<br>
<br>The bottom-line is that the military industrial complex has been experimenting with nuclear devices a really long time. These are much easier to come by than wished-for Tesla devices.
<br>
<br>The nuking of America also explains much of the cover-up. The wiff of anything 9/11 nuclear would cause a public panic. If it leaked out, both the panic and knee-jerk over-reactions would be difficult to control, thereby spoiling what was hoped to be gained.
<br>
<br>// End Part 2/2</p>
</div><!-- section 230 -->
<a name="x231"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x231" class="tiny">x231</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_231');">where Dr. Wood's book discusses tritium</a></p>
<p>2015-09-14</p>
<div id="sect_231" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/970522426320458/?comment_id=971771146195586&ref=notif¬if_t=group_comment_follow">2015-09-13</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Matt Nereim, thank you for the specific page reference to where Dr. Wood's book discusses tritium (page 372-376). Upon re-reading it, I see the scientific sleight of hand that she attempts using a logorithmic scale.
<br>
<br>Characterized from Dr. Wood based on entire context: Although the WTC-6 tritium measurements were only 50 times greater than the expected background levels, they were 50 times less than expected "in the cells" of active of an experiment of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) and 18,000 times less than a leak from a nuclear power plant. Not much to worry about at all.
<br>
<br>This section of her book definitely tries to give tritium explanations a short-shrift, and references the same source material as Dr. Jones in his no-nukes paper [2007].
<br>
<br>A nugget from Andre Gsponer's work 2005 page 3: "Fourth generation: 25 mg DT ~= 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency." For comparison, "First generation: 6 kg Pu ~= 10 kt yield at 10% efficiency"
<br>
<br>In other words, earlier nuclear weapons were using kilogram quantities of a radioactive material (plutonium), while FGNW are using 1/10,0000 less quantities (mg) (deutrium-tritium).
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/970326159673418/?comment_id=971537729552261&ref=notif¬if_t=group_comment_follow">2015-09-13</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, I must decline your gracious offer to explore further than my one-hit skimming a Facebook page credited to Dr. Judy Wood.
<br>
<br>First and foremost, I hate FB. The ease with which information and worthy discussions get buried. I don't need the temptation and time-suck.
<br>
<br>Secondly, my short skimming did not give me the impression it was even being run by Dr. Wood herself. Two of her long-time defenders in public debate, Andrew Johnson and Abe (?), have both posted with the alias "Dr. Judy Wood" (admitting to such in the posting).
<br>
<br>Thirdly, the two fans above plus Atahan Ganduu were active. I've gone in circles with them in the past. They've had instances in debate where their arguments made me re-examine my assumptions and conclusions. Yet, they are stilted, and can't admit to instances when my arguments should also move them to alterations in their opinions.
<br>
<br>Although Andre Gsponer has never written anything about 9/11 that I am aware of, those three fans of Dr. Wood should have been all over him and hyping him -- if they were as objective as they claim. They are not. Those trolls set their brakes in the Dr. Wood cul-de-sac even though Dr. Wood was never the end station.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 231 -->
<a name="x232"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x232" class="tiny">x232</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_232');">my faulty memory of Dr. Wood's book and tritium shouldn't be held against me</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/970326159673418/">2015-09-14</a></p>
<div id="sect_232" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, my faulty memory of Dr. Wood's book and tritium shouldn't be held against me.
<br>
<br>(a) It's been 4 years since I read her book.
<br>
<br>(b) I did not have the book on hand when answering your FB challenge about tritium.
<br>
<br>(c) Her section on tritium -- re-published in part on FB -- was short.
<br>
<br>(d) Like the rest of her book, she doesn't draw any conclusions. What she does name drop is designed to lead away from Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons.
<br>
<br>(e) Worst of all, her section on tritium (upon recent review) was doing the exact same thing as Dr. Jones' no-nukes paper. They both accept unquestioned and unchallenged the government commissioned work on tritium as the final and complete authority on tritium. They both try to frame that tritium in a manner to make it inapplicable and seemingly insignificant. Dr. Jones frames things as big nukes that the small tritium measurements don't align with. Dr. Wood attempts a similar thing with her bar graphs and discussions of "in cell LENR" tritium levels and of tritium leaking from nuclear reactors.
<br>
<br>The tritium section of her book is a non-sequitor, and certainly has no conclusions but no connections with other parts of her book either. In this light and to my mind, it is as if tritium weren't mentioned.
<br>
<br>You wrote with my clarifications: "[Dr. Wood] didn't make a conclusion and [Dr. Wood didn't] debunked the official report on Tritium."
<br>
<br>Yes. Dr. Wood accepted unquestioned and unchallenged the government commissioned work on tritium. If anything, that section was meant to take FGNW considerations off of the table.
<br>
<br>BTW, Dr. Wood also accepted unquestioned and unchallenged the government commissioned work on hot-spots and their satellite. On that front (in the government report), all it would take is mislabeling an image from, say, November and implying that it was from late September to implant false impressions.
<br>
<br>// </p>
</div><!-- section 232 -->
<a name="x233"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x233" class="tiny">x233</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_233');">I stand corrected: Debunking by Dr. Wood happened</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/970326159673418/">2015-09-17</a></p>
<div id="sect_233" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Daniel Plesse,
<br />
<br />To the extent that you've explained Dr. Wood debunking the government sponsored & scope-limited report on tritium, then I stand corrected. Debunking by Dr. Wood happened. Just not to the thrashing degree that this particular report deserved and I was hoping for. Call that disappointment #1.
<br>
<br>Disappointment #2 is that Dr. Wood name-drops LENR (low energy nuclear reactions), shows in a stilted manner (e.g., "in the cell of a LENR device") how LENR didn't apply, how leakage from a nuclear plant didn't apply, then seemingly drops all further nuclear considerations.
<br>
<br>You mentioned that she forgot to include gun scopes; I say she also forgot time pieces. You attribute it to laziness or poor reading skills. I think this applies to her research as well. I don't think she researched nuclear means very well. Hard to believe that she would't have stumbled upon Andre Gsponer and his fourth generation nuclear weapons "forward-looking papers."
<br>
<br>Your real question was about background levels.
<br>
<br>Let's be clear: we're talking tritium which is essentially a variant of water. Combined with water somehow is the mostly likely way it will be measured -- and certainly the mostly likely way human health could be impacted --, which is why they targeted their measurements with the run-off and groundwater. [An area in the report deserving of thrashing is limiting sampling to the WTC-6.] However, some tritium was transported on water vapor through the air with the dust cloud, landed on tree leafs downwind, and was measured there in very same report.
<br>
<br>Due to the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons (combined with some naturally occuring sources of tritium -- vulcanos; see Dr. Jones research), the background levels of tritium increased in the years leading up to 9/11. It is an inescapable constant.
<br>
<br>Your question highlights a blatant error in that report, propagated further by Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood. The error is re-defining what the tritium background level should be. Granted, the levels we are talking about were still well below those tritium thresholds considered health impacting by various health agencies: small. But not insignificant. And with some measurements in that report, it implies a re-defined background level 55 times greater than other 2001 background levels. Even the mundane samples taken downwind were over 3 times greater than expected.
<br>
<br>Background levels are. They aren't supposed to increase with freshly made layers of water and dust. This is one of the skews of the report. Measured levels can increase, and the difference between measured levels and the original background levels is from new sources. The report, however, tried to half-heartedly skew this increase as background levels; more importantly, it assured the public that 9/11 tritium wasn't health impacting: its goal.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 233 -->
<a name="x234"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x234" class="tiny">x234</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_234');">a line was drawn for Dr. Wood not to cross in her work</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/970522426320458/">2015-09-21</a></p>
<div id="sect_234" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Ms. Jana Karásková,
<br>
<br>you are indeed correct that the WTC-6 tritium measurements were delayed and were diluted by fire fighting efforts.
<br>
<br>The sarcasm in my posting was not coming through.
<br>
<br>My wild-ass speculation is that a line was drawn for Dr. Wood not to cross in her work. Not wanting to be mussled and not wanting to die, her book and website dance right up to that line, but never cross it. She doesn't connect together her methods, and stops short of saying anything outright. Plus, she had two or three research avenues -- like tritium, like the dirt -- that she starts up but doesn't travel the whole length. In fact, she stops short almost as if a cul-de-sac.
<br>
<br>Which is okay, because she writes in her intro (and in a sticker on the inside cover borrowed from her intro) to look at the evidence and not get distracted.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 234 -->
<a name="x235"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x235" class="tiny">x235</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_235');">duped seven ways from Sunday on these red chips</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/966888853350482/">2015-09-21</a></p>
<div id="sect_235" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Ms. Jana Karásková,
<br>
<br>you asked: "What about red chips? Could it be the dustified paint?"
<br>
<br>I could be duped seven ways from Sunday on these red chips. Assume for a moment that they are the dredded NT. The issue for me is that this cannot have the physics both ways. Way one is pulverizing brissance in the NT explosive; way two is the duration of hot-spots. To achieve the one mathematically implies for the other massively unrealistic quantities UNSPENT from its original pulverizing purposes to go the distance of hot-spot duration. Therefore, NT wasn't the sole destructive mechanism (which even Dr. Jones et al admit), but it wasn't the primary mechanism either.
<br>
<br>The USGS report on their dust samples spells out many elements discovered in its data tables, but only gives explanatory words about the table to some elements, not all. In my opinion, it doesn't mention NT at all not in the data table. The data tables however let slip out many trace elements for nuclear methods.
<br>
<br>The same is true for other reports (RJ Lee, Paul Lioy). They do not confirm NT; but nuclear residue is visible to those looking.
<br>
<br>The reality is that only dust samples (chain-of-custody) given directly to Dr. Jones have these energetic red/gray chips. Ergo, from the Millette report: "Mr. Mohr was unable to gain access to any samples used in the Harrit study so four samples were chosen from the archives of MVA Scientific Consultants." It does not surprise me that the Millette report did not find evidence of thermite. Those samples weren't juked prior to Dr. Jones or by Dr. Jones.
<br>
<br>I hate to dish on the professor, but he didn't test his dust samples for other explosive residue, yet found himself back-peddling after "discovering NT" regarding it needing to be mixed with something else (like RDX) to achieve brissance necessary for pulverization. His paper repudiating nukes has a major logic flaw in his conclusions, on top of the fact that he didn't give Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons any ink. The 1999 5th edition of Andre Gsponer's FGNW book demonstrates very shoddy research by Dr. Jones.
<br>
<br>Your asked: "What do You think about Milllette experiments and conclusions?" "Why some of the "thermite residues" - the red chips were not bigger?
<br>
<br>I speculate that Dr. Jones' samples were juked, because the PTB needed to appease pesky 9/11 truthers by filling the void left when Dr. Jones took ~all~ forms of nukes off of the table.
<br>
<br>Your asked: "And metal spheres? Could nuclear reaction produce them from core columns?"
<br>
<br>You've hit the nail on the head. A FGNW might well be considered a "point detonation", as in, that point is driven to extremely high temperatures as a side-effect to the energy being directed upwards at specific wavelengths. Items close to a detonation instantly melted if not turned into vapor. Little further away, you get sufficient heat to soften end-to-end various beams that (Dr. Wood's work documents) get bent into horseshoes and arches. Further away still, it can make "steel doobies" out of the outer wall assemblies.
<br>
<br>// </p>
</div><!-- section 235 -->
<a name="x236"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x236" class="tiny">x236</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_236');">NT would be found in the dust samples taken by others</a></p>
<p>2015-09-21</p>
<div id="sect_236" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Ms. Jana Karásková,
<br>
<br>"FGNW" stands for "fourth generation nuclear weapons." Google "Andre Gsponer".
<br>
<br>If NT were the primary mechanism, it would be found in the dust samples taken by others. It would have been represented in the dust everywhere, and would have made clean-up even more hazardous given hot-spots and fires.
<br>
<br>The single individual more so than any one else inside or outside the 9/11 Truth Movement who dissuaded the public from 9/11 nuclear considerations is the same one who discovered NT in the dust: Dr. Steven Jones. Both works have issues. Neither tells the complete story.
<br>
<br>// </p>
</div><!-- section 236 -->
<a name="x237"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x237" class="tiny">x237</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_237');">"Like I've been managed. What I mean by managed is the cover-up business"</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/966888853350482/">2015-09-23</a></p>
<div id="sect_237" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Daniel M. Plesse</b> Dr. Judy Wood Confession She was Managed The Cover up Business
<br>
<br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lpwsWjShPU&feature=share
<br>
<br>
<br>It was pretty easy to manage the people who do it or are able to see it. Like I've been managed. What I mean by managed is the cover-up business... Take the risk of somebody identifying it.
<br>
<br>++++++++++
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Daniel M. Plesse, I listened several times. You should update your description to include the source as well as the fact that you loop it at least twice. It lacks context. From what I heard, Dr. Wood said:
<br>
<br>"It was pretty easy to manage the people who do it or are able to see it. Like I've been managed. What I mean by managed is the cover-up business."
<br>
<br>Assuming the worst from this admission, then, yeah, it does make sense.
<br>
<br>- Her website starts many topics but then stops short of logical conclusions (e.g., spreading out dirt as a radiation mitigation technique, tritium discussion).
<br>
<br>- Many pages still note "under construction 2006". My understanding is that a student was assisting her with the website but met with a fatal event that is still unclear.
<br>
<br>- Dr. Wood's book is 500 pages with full-color images. It was not cheap. As David Chandler said (paraphrased to me from an email), "someone invested a lot of money in the production of her book." I'm betting that the $45 purchase price just barely covers production & storage costs. Dr. Wood might not be making that much money off it.
<br>
<br>I suspect with no substantiation that the original group of Dr. Jones, Dr. Fetzer, and Dr. Wood were put up to misleading the 9/11 Truth Movement. They were in on it together, before they split apart and starting fighting each other.
<br>
<br>Dr. Jones and Dr. Fetzer got to keep perks from their academic life. Dr. Wood was more the loose cannon. She didn't get to keep her job, suffered other hardships. She didn't get to modify content of her book before re-publication from her website. Was probably threatened in other ways.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 237 -->
<a name="x238"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x238" class="tiny">x238</a>
FB Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_238');">Debate on Dr. Wood</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/966888853350482/">2015-09-26</a></p>
<div id="sect_238" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Jana Karásková</b> Do you know why Amazon didn't sell her book as it was planned in the beginning?
<br>
<br><b>Daniel M. Plesse</b> Jana Karásková Why don't you ask her directly..
<br>
<br><b>Jana Karásková</b> She didn´t reply on most of my mails /I haven´t send many of them... /
<br>
<br><b>Rosalee Grable</b> Judy Wood ignores mere humans completely, and sometimes employs shills to post for her.
<br>
<br><b>Brian S Staveley</b> she said i was running a psy op on america after dodging all my questions,also Peter Santilli muted me while bad mouthing me with her, THEN Santilli actually posted my home address and phone number on before it snews.com and told ppl to go get me.(an...See More
<br>
<br><b>Brian S Staveley</b> Shes a complete fraud. I cant believe how many people buy that story.
<br>
<br><b>Philip Joy</b> She certainly is a phenomenon, as is her book. I don't think she's a very nice person, but that is hardly the point.
<br>
<br><b>Brian S Staveley</b> how about all her pics coming from one source? Dont see a problem with that either?
<br>
<br><b>Steve Grage</b> Brian S Staveley, I can appreciate your search for the truth but if you haven't read the book "Where did the Towers", then you're fit to judge its content. What you think of Judy Wood is not important, If you can mark any piece of fraud in her 500 page book, that's what I want to hear. How would you explain the toasted car lot NE of WTC complex (off West street)? Any anomoly there or do you surmise junked vehicles were moved there? It might help to review some evidence rather then focus on license plates or whatever. The before and after pictures are pretty convincing.
<br>
<br><b>Brian S Staveley</b> if someone gives a 4 hour presentation on exactly what is in the book and you watch 6 of those presentations by the author of the book herself, going thru the book, explaining the book you can get a pretty good jist of it dude. Also spending months on ALL her photographs. You can get a lot of her information without shellling out the 50 for the book. And I was not hearing information third hand and then the ppl saying this is what is in Judy's book., It came straight from from her mouth. Long elaborate powerpoint presentations. With her images,her speaking for four hours and me watching about 24 hrs worth and you think I cant have an opinion on the book? Thats absurd. why does she even bother with the presentations then if they are worthless? That's pretty time consuming.
<br>
<br>I heard and saw all this information about the contents of the book STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH! She gave these presentations! They weren't like someone else did them and im trusting their word on what she said. And they were so long its not like she didnt go into great detail. I also called her twice on the phone to speak to her directly. I certainly can form an opinion. Watching 5 or 6 four hour presentations by her is more than giving her a fair shake.
<br>
<br><b>Steve Grage</b> With the evidence I reviewed, I'm convinced an anomoly exists with the toasted cars apparently you believe it's a big scam moving around junked cars or something. If she went over all the material in her book, how long would that presentation be. Your time is worth money, I'm impressed with your search for the truth, I'll front the money for the book, get it delivered to you, if you read it and give me your honest opinion. PM me your address.
<br>
<br><b>Brian S Staveley</b> and Steve I asked her, herself Why the cars have no license plates. Sooooo many cars,no plates just like cars in a junkyard now obviously you don't agree with it but I know you can see it is a reasonable question to ask. Well I asked her and rather than answer me she deceptively had me muted while telling everyone IVe never looked at her material and she told everyone i was running a psy op on america. It was rather ridiculous. For asking an honest question
<br>
<br><b>Brian S Staveley</b> She wont answer any question. I asked her 3 or 4 direct questions both times I spoke to her and both times she dodged every question and repeatedly answered with well you gotta buy my book. That isnt what someone REALLY in search of the truth and sharing the truth says. Lady you are on these shows CUZ of your book and your research. Answer the questions. I asked her simple questions that i KNEW she was not gonna answer cuz if she did it opened the door for an alternate theory or what not. It was blatantly evasive and dishonest. She is more interested in making 50 dollars off you than anything. I will not support her.
<br>
<br><b>Brian S Staveley</b> But back to the presentations. You should call her and tell her to stop doing presentations on Where Did The Towers Go cuz even if ppl sit thru all 4 loooong ass hours and watch you present it 5 or 6 different times ,Its worthless. They cant get an opinion off over 20 hours of her presenting her case. lol And after months of meticulously going thru all her photographs which amazingly come from one source.
<br>SMH
<br>
<br><b>Steve Grage</b> I'm looking at a whole chapter (11) of toasted cars, The pics I see with rear perspective have license plates. I can't explain why some cars don't have license plates as well as why cars some are missing engine blocks, gutted on the inside with paper all over the place. I don't approve her approach e.g. won't come out directly and say there were no planes, buts it's on page 3 of WDTTG.
<br>
<br><b>Brian S Staveley</b> i didnt say all i said sooo many. and thats hardly a reason to dodge my questions again, mute me, lie about me, and actaually after the show manage to dig up my home address and cell number, publish it on before it news and tell ppl to go get me. That really happened. Cuz i challenged her again. and u think i should trust that person? cmon man
<br>
<br><b>Brian S Staveley</b> Sorry bro but she is a complete fraud. The contents werent vaporized! There were simply much less contents than we were all told. There were a ton of vacant floors and way less ppl actually worked there than we were told. They did many things to disguise this such as the subway stop in the lobby bringing 300,000 ppl a day thru there and many ppl up the elevators to the tourist attractions on the roof but just restricted their access to much of the bldg. They are never gonna think anything. Its a lot more basic than ppl make it out to be. Shit didnt vaporize. It just wasnt there. Those towers were built with the intention of knocking them down to blame someone years latr. they were never nearly fully occupied.
<br>What would subway riders in Manhattan be dressed like mostly?? thats right the same as most WTC workers. Its a great illusion. no one would ever notice the lack of foot traffic from lack of employees
<br>
<br><b>Daniel M. Plesse</b> Judy Wood already said she was "managed" in public.. Brian S Staveley I am still trying to figure out what that means.. I emailed both
<br>
<br>Deanna@spingola.com,
<br>Noam Chomsky <chomsky@mit.edu>
<br>
<br>Dear Spingola,
<br>
<br>Judy Wood said she was "managed" and Noam Chomsky talks about "the Master"
<br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lpwsWjShPU
<br>
<br>Who else are managed and what is the "cover up business" ?
<br>
<br>Can you ask these people what they are talking about? Thanks
<br>
<br>No reply however I did get a reply from the 555 lady..
<br>
<br>Dan –
<br>
<br>Tel. 904-555-0004 has never been assigned by NANPA to anyone.
<br>
<br>Please call me to discuss.
<br>
<br>A carrier identification code (CIC) is not the same thing as a telephone line number.
<br>
<br>There is no relationship between CIC 0004 and Tel. 904-555-0004 (555 line number).
<br>
<br>NANPA is the administrator of the 555 line number resource. I can confirm to you that Tel. 904-555-0004 is not now, nor has it ever been assigned to any company.
<br>
<br>
<br>Nancy Fears - NANPA
</p>
</div><!-- section 238 -->
<a name="x239"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x239" class="tiny">x239</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_239');">fit to judge Dr. Wood's book</a></p>
<p>2015-09-24</p>
<div id="sect_239" style="display: none;">
<p><br>
<br>Dear Mr. Steve Grage, you challenged another participant (Mr. Brian S Staveley) with: "if you haven't read the book 'Where did the Towers', then you're fit to judge its content." I've read it cover to cover, and continue to reference it today. I'm fit to judge its content. This will be held up to generations to come as a disinformation vehicle worthy of study, owing to the many nuggets of truth it contains and the obvious directions it did not take.
<br>
<br>You further challenged: "If you can mark any piece of fraud in her 500 page book, that's what I want to hear."
<br>
<br>"Fraud" is a strong word. I can mark errors, missed opportunities, and lack of cohesiveness. Here's one: the torched police car at the bridge. Dr. Wood makes strong "implications" (-- one of many weasels moves to avoid connecting dots and definitively naming things --) that the vehicles at the bridge were parked there when they got torched. I have found pictures of the police car still on fire at another location. It is still anomalous that it got torched where it was. It was towed to the bridge after it was torched. Plenty of time for this error to be discovered and corrected by Dr. Wood before re-publication from her website to her book. The location of the torching has implications regarding the accidental side-effect and its energy that created it.
<br>
<br>Another two errors concern fire trucks: a ladder truck with (according to Dr. Wood) "wilted front" and a pumper truck "with no engine." The truth is that: (a) the ladder truck's front had a large piece of debris that created the damage; (b) the design of the pumper truck has the engine sitting much further back under the cab and isn't in the area claimed to have a missing engine.
<br>
<br>Mr. Grage, you are correct to point attention to the toasted cars in the car lot, as well as the toasted cars along West Broadway. I attribute their damage to EMP side-effects of FGNW (4th gen nuclear weapons).
<br>
<br>I've also purchased WDTTG for other people to review, because I knew that the 3rd-hand reviews labeling it disinformation would never get them over the hurdle to purchase one themselves. So I did a pay-it-forward deal: free book in exchange for "good, bad, ugly" review, then pass it along or pay it forward to someone else. Boy, was I surprised at the number of bloody noses this "Objectivity Test" gave. Like Fonzie never being able to say he was "wrong", too many people influential in the movement weren't able to acknowledge any good... And it wouldn't have been as if I would have been contesting the "bad & ugly" found, because that is there, too.
<br>
<br>Let's be clear: Dr. Wood reminds us multiple times to "listen to the evidence and not get distracted." We can extrapolate this to also mean, don't get distracted by Dr. Wood's analysis because the true treasure of WDTTG is the collection of evidence. I particularly like the matching of images to locations on a map. Dr. Wood never intended her book as the end station.
<br>
<br>Although Andre Gsponer to my knowledge has never written anything about 9/11 or what he thought the causes were, by golly he is my new 9/11 hero for his FGNW speculative work!!! Some of his stuff pre-dates 9/11/2001, and he has other things from 2005 that pre-date Dr. Jones's and Dr. Wood's work. FGNW should have been discovered in their research, if they weren't disinformation to keep the public away from considering a nuclear 9/11.
<br>
<br>On the one hand which we can attribute to nuclear information being classified as national secrets, there is not a lot -- very little in fact -- of collaborating or validating public publications to support Andre Gsponer and his speculation. On the other hand, there is nothing that disputes what he writes as the direction nuclear development was heading. One work was in fact in its 5th edition in 1999, which doesn't happen if it isn't being maintained with new and better information, or if it is considered bunk by those in nuclear science. Owing to the obvious controls on what is fit for public consumption, we might be within our rights to say that Mr. Gsponer's speculative language covered his ass, but the truth of FGNW was no longer speculative but real-world.
<br>
<br>Needless to say, Andre Gsponer or similar FGNW is a major, calculated omission from the works for Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones.
<br>
<br>At any rate, I bring up Andre Gsponer, precisely because Dr. Wood was not the end station.
<br>
<br>Mr. Grage, if you are also a sincere seeker of truth, then Gsponer is your ~NEW~ forward strong-hold that nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood (and within all 9/11 disinformation) supports.
<br>
<br>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>
<br>Rather than having Mr. Brian S. Staveley read Dr. Wood's work with its known issues and "non-conclusions", leap frog to Gsponer above. Debate that.
<br>
<br>// </p>
</div><!-- section 239 -->
<a name="x240"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x240" class="tiny">x240</a>
FB Participants : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_240');">the true treasure of WDTTG is the collection of evidence</a></p>
<p>2015-09-26</p>
<div id="sect_240" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/966888853350482/?comment_id=979128642126503
<br>
<br>2015-09-26 at 4:57am · Like
<br><b>Philip Joy</b> Maxwell Bridges "the true treasure of WDTTG is the collection of evidence." Yes as an owner and I'll admit I only read it twice I would confirm this. It is also not a finished document - at time of writing 4th Gen Nukes weren't widely known about. On that can I ask, about EMP. I'd assume that the survival of the radios in Stairwell B indicate EMP had been largely tweaked out in your opinion?
<br>
<br>2015-09-26 at 5:22am · Like
<br><b>Philip Joy</b> Daniel M. Plesse Regarding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji24VJaFIfo Judy wood confesses she was managed -
<br>
<br>This from your YouTube channel, and I find the cut and looping and almost mendacious; it gives no context to her remarks, even tho her interv...See More
<br>Dr. Judy Wood - 9/11: 14 Years Later & The Media Cover-Up...
<br>youtube.com
<br>
<br>
<br>2015-09-26 at 9:17am · Like
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Dear Mr. Philip Joy, EMP is line-of-sight and is mitigated by location of detonation. In the case of 9/11, the steel towers whereby each floor had metal pans (on which the concrete was poured) would have plenty of material to block EMP from escaping or getting to trapped firemen. In my opinion, the EMP that escaped went through window slits and gaps in the disintegrating tower debris to affect the torching of vehicles along West Broadway and the parking lot. EMP generates Eddy currents in the metal it hits. Sufficiently large Eddy currents generates heat. Large heat can cause things to combust: paint, plastic, door/window seals. Once a fire has started, how it continues to burn depends on many other factors. The EMP duration would have been very short; line-of-sight distance from source also reduces magnitude.
<br>
<br>EMP is destructive to unshielded electronics, zapping the "doping" of semiconductors and melting solder, even if flames don't result.
<br>
<br>P.S. I agree with your assessment of Mr. Daniel M. Plesse's looping of a snippet from a Dr. Wood interview. Dr. Wood's usage of the word "managed" could also refer to "trickle-down response" to her activities.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>2015-09-26
<br><b>Brian S Staveley</b> i gave up posting in here cuz of ppls condescending attitudes daysago and im still getting comments that im tagged in. I dont wanna be part of this ass backwards group. Ppl telling me i have no right to an opinion cuz i am not a sucker and shelled out 50 bux for judy's nonsense. I was told i cant form an opinion even tho i sat thru 6-4 hour presentations by HER HERSELF about the contents of the book and i meticulpously studied all her photos for months on end.if that doesnt quailify me for an opinion i dont wanna be part of your little fkn echo chamber over here... ppl will herald her here and if i point out one of her shillish tactics,you flip the convo to"the author isnt important its whats in the book" and since u havent read it cover to cover u cant have an opinion. Id say i have a beter opinion of her from the route i went and my conversations with HER than ppl who just read the book,wave their pom poms, and dont ask her a challengng question. lmao. comincal. talkin in circles.
<br>
<br>Everyday i wake up to a "dear mr brian staveley" quote in hee.Just leave me outta of it. i dont post here anymore.its pointless and judy is a fraud. and i know this from PERSONaL EXPERIENCES and her attacking me multiple times. Does that not validate an opinion either????
<br>
<br>SMH
<br>
<br>When a reaercher u ask a chllenging question to in a polite manner not only dodges u,but accusses u of running a psy op on america then has your home address and number PUBLISHED on a web site with millions and tells them to "go get him" we will see how credible you think she is.
<br>23 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 1
</p>
</div><!-- section 240 -->
<a name="x241"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x241" class="tiny">x241</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_241');">Your unsubscription from this forum is eagerly anticipated</a></p>
<p>2015-09-26</p>
<div id="sect_241" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Brian S Staveley,
<br>
<br>Your unsubscription from this forum is eagerly anticipated. I hope sincerely that you can exhibit fortitude in your promises to give up posting here and being a part of this "ass backwards group."
<br>
<br>Starting after this comment, I will endeavor to not mention you by name, so that Facebook won't tie you in and give you messages. You may have to do some extra Facebook effort, such as blocking me, turning off notifications, etc. in order for Facebook notifications to truly shut up.
<br>
<br>FWIW, you don't have the right to call someone a fraud without substantiation. Whether or not there is any truth to your encounters with Dr. Wood, not answering your questions proves her a weasel and/or unprepared, but not a fraud.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Brian S Staveley, I must protest your trollish ways. After proclaiming your intent to unsubscribe from this group, you posted 6 in a row; after a brief exchanged, you posted another 6 in a row. Between my comment encouraging you to exhibit fortitude in your promises and this one, you had 11 of the 15 comments.
<br>
<br>Worse than the spamming count, the content of them were a two-fold repeat of points you had made earlier in the same thread it seems giving that an unreasonable bent to the arc of this discussion.
<br>
<br>And WTF? Are you replying from a SmartPhone app? It is one thing to monitor a discussion on your phone, it is quite another to participate. You foisted a ton of the spelling errors and thumb typos onto the reading audience, expecting all of us to see your genius and vindication through all your noise?!!!
<br>
<br>And for what? If it was so important, it could have waited until you were at a proper keyboard with a proper editor (like Notepad) to compose your well thought-out and reasoned words. It isn't as if the conversation were hot-and-heavy with tons of participants with no life except to monitor their social media all day.
<br>
<br>By near, every one of your spamming comments in a row could have been a single posting that gets a "See More" attached after publication! Composing off-line would have given you an extra advantage of being able to spell check and save your wonderful worthy words off-line as well. If you do a good job from the onset in the authoring, those very same words might be worthy of re-posting elsewhere -- like your own Facebook page, your blog, your website, your great American novel.
<br>
<br>Indeed, if you are not taking steps to write and collect your worthy words yourself, who will? Not somebody else's FB page, that's for sure.
<br>
<br>Although we all face the possibilities of being censured, blocked, or banned, your spamming comments in a row demonstrate another incidious tactic to disappear words. Doing such an underhanded thing pushes other comments into the "See more..." and "View previous comments..." regions very much prematurely.
<br>
<br>I ask of you in the future to be mindful of such things, and then maybe I won't give you so much well deserved mocking for not having the fortitude to adhere to your promises.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Brian S Staveley, if you address me or respond to my comments, you give me an opportunity to respond back and address you personally so that you are aware of it.
<br>
<br>Although you are entitled to call my long postings spam, the difference between mine and yours are that mine are easier to skip and don't juke the thread in a nefarious manner as your spamming comments do.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Brian S Staveley, behold what wonderful contributions to this discussion that your last three spamming comments were!!! Even after you were informed of their dubious nature.
<br>
<br>Because I posted something here and I have notifications on, I get far more notifications from all of your nefarious spamming actions than you get from me. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to count your number of comments in this (or the other thread) versus mine to see who has more. You do.
<br>
<br>And when your excessive comments are such pearls of wisdom -- "i thin you wanna fk me" --, it really underscores how you have won the discussion! Bravo!
<br>
<br>Don't answer this with a comment, but answer it in your head.
<br>
<br>Even if were dripping with sarcasm, which honorific would you prefer. (a) "Dear Mr. Brian S Staveley" or (b) "You fk'in idiot troll asshole Brian S Staveley"?
<br>
<br>Make good on your promises. Don't engage me.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 241 -->
<a name="x242"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x242" class="tiny">x242</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_242');">newly recorded flash points</a></p>
<p>2015-09-26</p>
<div id="sect_242" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/978225105550190/?comment_id=979180818787952
<br>
<br>2015-09-26
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b> Why thank you Mr. Daniel M. Plesse and Mr. Philip Joy for the direction your recent questions has taken my thought. What I wrote in the other thread about EMP remains true, but honestly I was having problems with FGNW detonations in the towers and the vehicle damage. I believe FGNW was focused and aimed away from the external wall assemblies (e.g., up a straw) so that they could mitigate EMP, as designed, before other means (e.g., NT) took out the connecting bolts of the wall assemblies.
<br>
<br>But design wasn't without hicc-up's in the execution. Spires standing was one. The overkill pulverization was another. This newly recorded flash points at yet another.
<br>
<br>If true, such a FGNW detonation high up without a lot of structure or debris on one side, ~that~ could give a side-effect EMP a freer reign. Further, a misaligned, late-denotating FGNW could effect neighboring buildings. The Deutsches Bank had its external fascade fixed in getting ready for occupancy, but then later opted to be demolished. Embrittlement to steel at a molecular, structural level is caused by neutron bombardment. I am speculating wildly without substantiation with regards to that other WTC building and reasons for its demise.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>2015-09-27
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Philip Joy, the premise is that multiple FGNW were involved. The execution was not without glitches. Nuclear devices when used in tandem have a tendenancy to negatively affect one another; the neutron emisssions of one device can fizzle another if not aimed properly.
<br>
<br>In fact in my speculation, the duration of under-rubble hot-spots is one piece of evidence of nuclear fracticide. One device caused another to fizzle and not reach its full nuclear potential in design output.
<br>
<br>The spire in the collapsing towers is also evidence of an execution with errors. It defeats any lame theories of pancaking or "crush down by upper stories."
<br>
<br>My guess is as good as anyone else's regarding why a FGNW high up happened late; what interferred with it.
<br>
<br>Of course, I leave the door open for that flash to be something else. However, it makes the most sense to my frame of mind to be FGNW, late-detonating and misaligned, and responsible for anomalous things in car parks and along West Broadway.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 242 -->
<a name="x243"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x243" class="tiny">x243</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_243');">the perfect source of 9/11 information</a></p>
<p>2015-09-29</p>
<div id="sect_243" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Loader, if you can find the perfect source of 9/11 information that is 100% correct with 0% error or disinformation, I will kiss that source's ass and yours as well! I predict however that I won't have to hold my nose, because it is a fool's errand and you are naive to believe such exists in your "whole truth" mantra.
<br>
<br>The whole truth would be wonderful, but we aren't going to get it [until a tipping point is reached and classified information sources made public], and you peg yourself more naive and gullible than me. Why aren't we going to get it? Because too many vested money interests won't allow it; they pay shills like you to defend nonsense. And those who come close still to the whole truth have their weakspots that can be exploited to keep them in line.
<br>
<br>So, yes, Mr. Loader. I'm happy with nuggets of Truth, because they sneak out all over, even from NPT nonsense, even from September Clues, even from Let's Roll Forums, even from Dr. Wood, even from Dr. Jones. They form a consistent story and are a consistent rabid omission from all sources, even all 9/11 disinformation.
<br>
<br>The fact that Mr. Grage is your friend does not mean that you have to be loyal to his premises when they are wrong. I haven't seen much growth in Mr. Grage in the year+ since I last encountered him.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html
<br>
<br>He is just as much of a brain-dead Dr. Wood minion as before, although more knowledgable in her book. But he does not acknowledge weaknesses and errors in his matron saint's work, nor does consider seriously the natural extension of her work: FGNW (4th gen nuclear weapons). I've provided many links to Andre Gsponer. I'll let you do your own googling today.
<br>
<br>If I'm the disinformation agent, you'll tolerate me in these forums. Period. Why? Better the devil you know than the one you don't. I am respectful (until too often provoked). I don't flood the forums; my comments are easy to both skip over or delete.
<br>
<br>More important than all of those superficial points, your arguments need to hone their metal in debate. If your lame-ass premises can be rationally defended against exploitation of their vast weaknesses, your arguments can only grow stronger. If they can't -- which is what the case has been --, then they get debunked and rational thinkers should move on.
<br>
<br>In other words, your theories aren't going to get stronger with brain-dead repetition of sources that themselves admit to not being the end-station, or with back-slapping me-to-isms from like minded minions on your disinfo tag team. Battle is where the truth comes out. And I'm not talking personal flame wars, either, which all of you are guilty of instigating with me in the erroneous belief that this can somehow make your case stronger. *BEEP* *BEEP* Nope. Not the case.
<br>
<br>What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Many would-be Dr. Wood debunkers try their efforts from the lofty position of not having the book, never having read the book, and not being willing to acquire or borrow the book [or venture to the website] to take it down legitimately.
<br>
<br>If those you respect don't have the gonads or ovaries to read my words, let alone assess their meaning and validity to the over-arching premises of the discussion, then they fall into the same camp and are hypocrites or worse.
<br>
<br>"Tyre embedded in dislodged WTC-1 wall assembly": how did it get there and how was the scene staged, if real aircraft -- the very premise of NPT -- were not involved? Do some wild-ass speculation into how it was possible.
<br>
<br>Enjoy the link, Mr. Loader. Shows my carousel spins with you your teammates' circus last year, and hints at why my patiences isn't that long today with the same fools. Search for their names.
<br>
<br>If I'm the disinfo agent, the link demonstrates me shooting a hole in my foot. Too much legacy, and by golly even growth in my views. Isn't a disinfo agent supposed to hold the line, never admit failing, never change? Today, I'm FGNW and no longer neutron DEW.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 243 -->
<a name="x244"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x244" class="tiny">x244</a>
Tim Grice Sr. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_244');">placed my findings in a video presentation</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/978225105550190/?comment_id=980064618699572&offset=0&total_comments=8¬if_t=group_comment_mention">2015-09-28</a></p>
<div id="sect_244" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Tim Grice Sr.</b> Maxwell Bridges Rather than numerous comments, or the presentation of a plethora of relevant and compelling evidence, often interrupted by others, as well as a basic instruction in Physics, I placed my findings in a video presentation.
<br>
<br>WTC Collapse - The Case For Nuclear Fusion
<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96syRuHvYDI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96syRuHvYDI</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 244 -->
<a name="x245"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x245" class="tiny">x245</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_245');">the good far outweighing the bad</a></p>
<p>2015-09-29</p>
<div id="sect_245" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Tim Grice Sr.,
<br>
<br>Your efforts are good and bad, with the good far outweighing the bad. The bad for me centered around "presentation" and qualilty of the hour-long production, and will not be something I pursue. I recognize that it takes time & effort and trial & error to put together a video production, and I could do no better. True to my nature, I was able to see beyond surface appearances and appreciate the good in your content.
<br>
<br>Your research and analysis is a step ahead of mine, and causes me to pause and re-contemplate my position. The funny thing is, as I was watching your video and attempting to make notes, I was so proud of *MYSELF* and patting *myself* on the back, because it was like checking things off of a list. You hit upon most of the substantiating research for my present 9/11 nuclear views, extracted all of the right salient points, and then provided new information, research, and analysis that HIT PAYDIRT!
<br>
<br>I would appreciate an off-line exchange with you. If you are willing and have it, I humbly request a text-version of the words displayed on the screen and spoken by the fem-bot in your video; some of the images would be nice, like those that mention specific research work. Some of the researcher names went by too fast; and the vidoe was glitchy not allowing fine-tuned pauses or re-winds. [I attribute this to Windows, Virus Protection, but mostly Facebook that runs JavaScript updates to the detriment of YouTube. There might even be a spook layer on top of this, given the subject matter.]
<br>
<br>I'll give you my email address if you FB message me; or you can sniff it out on your own from my blog.
<br>
<br>Yes, yes, yes. The wheels in my head are cranking. I was intrigued by:
<br>
<br>- laser ignition
<br>- Petawatt laser 6 used in cross fire reactor
<br>- continuous ignition until pellets consumed
<br>- Afghanistan: the Saudi Arabia of Lithium
<br>
<br>If we have a discussion, I'm concerned about:
<br>
<br>- Andre Gsponer's FGNW speculation and its relation
<br>- duration of hotspots
<br>- tritium
<br>- continuous ignition
<br>
<br>I'm still writing and procrastinating a new version of my 9/11 nuclear beliefs. Your efforts not only bolster mine, but as I said, take it a step further.
<br>
<br>The end of your video brought up (unrelated) opium production in Afghanistan as well as Lithium deposits. Those 10 minutes should be snipped and put into a new video that would also mention the natural gas pipelines through Afghanistan that was in negotiation before 9/11 and rejected by the Taliban. The location of US bases built after 9/11 coincide with the path of the pipeline.
<br>
<br>You may have brought up Lithium in relation to its usage in tactical nuclear weapons.
<br>
<br>My research pegs tritium as the key. In my research into nuclear DEW over the summer, I took a complete detour into nuclear power. I found this book to be a fascinating read: "Tritium on Ice: The Dangerous New Alliance of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power" by Kenneth D. Bergeron.
<br>
<br>It documents a neo-con trick that went under the normal channels to get tritium produced at civilian nuclear power plants, in complete and vagrant violation of all existing nuclear non-proliferation treaties. It documents how it undermined good-faith efforts to have this done in a responsible manner that was both safe and incompliance. It exposes the base neo-con political hard-ball that got this implemented at the worst managed and unsafest nuclear facilities in the US.
<br>
<br>The why question wasn't completely answered.
<br>
<br>Tritium is instrumental in all tactical FGNW speculated in Andre Gsponer's work. And it is the smoking gun of 9/11.
<br>
<br>All the best,
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 245 -->
<a name="x246"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x246" class="tiny">x246</a>
Tim Grice Sr. : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_246');">One Continuous Event</a></p>
<p>2015-09-29</p>
<div id="sect_246" style="display: none;">
<p>FB Message
<br>
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Max,
<br>The video was composed on computer and it probably best viewed at You Tube using a computer, this would probably eliminate any unwanted "Glitches" which are not an actual part of the video, but a probably a product of the "Streaming Video" process.
<br>I compared WTC collapse videos with each other in order to filter out those which appeared heavily edited. In this method I could determine which effects were similarly present in each of the remaining videos.
<br>The combined Hardware/Software CGI video editing of 2001 was not as advanced as today, this is why the Fake Planes were easily spotted in the various videos. I compared all of those videos I could find as well.
<br>
<br>Basically, I clear my mind of all of the "Preconceived" information of the Towers collapse and looked at the problem Objectively.
<br>What evidence did I see?
<br>What could cause the effects that I saw?
<br>
<br>I then had to draw upon years of personal experience with aircraft repair, with explosives, knowledge of metals, steel building construction techniques, knowledge of Electromagnetic Radiation, Plasma Physics and General Physics.
<br>
<br>The conclusion I drew was inevitable.
<br>
<br>I then looked online for similar conclusions by others.
<br>
<br>The multiple "Micro Nuke" Theory seems to be the most prevalent.
<br>
<br>I saw that each of the Towers collapse was One Continuous Event, and not a continuous "Chain Of Events".
<br>One Fusion Device will not ignite another in a "Chain Reaction" since Nuclear Fusion does not work like that. The great heat and energy produced by an ignited Fusion Device ( Fuel Cell) and associated Plasma Field would disassociate, dispel or incinerate, rendering useless any subsequent devices below, since the rate of decent of such an ignited device through the core of the Towers could only be roughly estimated.
<br>
<br>Perfection is seldom found in Man Made Technologies.
<br>Since the risk of Precisely Timed subsequent Devices being rendered useless would have been a factor, I decided it was One Sustained Device.
<br>If scaled properly, it would only need to "Burn" for 7 - 9 seconds, which I don't believe is an impossibility, but one that is more probable than impossible.
<br>
<br>If you need any references, I'll be glad to oblige.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>It's my belief the Unpredictability of a Nuclear Fusion Reaction falling through the core of the Towers can be seen in the production of "The Spire", where evidently the Reaction became off center from the Core Columns, deflecting to one side, allowing portion of one side of the Core Columns "The Spire" to remain temperately standing. Effected by extreme heat, one the Base portion collapsed, "The Spire" fell downwards vertically, leaving either or and dust and insulation in it's downwards path.
<br>
<br>++++++
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 246 -->
<a name="x247"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x247" class="tiny">x247</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_247');">lessons learned going around the 9/11 block</a></p>
<p>2015-09-29</p>
<div id="sect_247" style="display: none;">
<p>2015-09-29 FB Message
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Grice,
<br>
<br>I was happy to see your message. If you would like to correspond through email, my address is {mcb: edited}
<br>
<br>Please don't let my formality throw you off; it's an old habit that I kind of like and a most worthwhile debate tactic to adopt early on.
<br>
<br>My blog (MaxwellBridges.blogspot.com) in more ways than one documents my journey for 9/11 Truth.
<br>
<br>Physics was a required class in my engineering studies. On that Tuesday when I saw the towers dissengrate, I knew that nuclear devices were used: so much energy was required. Terrorists might plan a destruction, but if by chemical explosives, they aren't going to implement such thorough overkill. I sat on my ass for several years lurking on the internet for someone to say the obvious. They didn't, and the deceitful ways it was spun! I could not understand their hurry into two wars. Everything the Bush Administration did, pissed me off.
<br>
<br>I created a website for my personal use where I extracted meaningful passages from websites, articles, etc. to call attention to some issue. This got old.
<br>
<br>I started getting into online debates about 9/11 on local forums. Taught me many things. I learned early on to preserve my words, and to author words from the onset worthy of preserving. These I'd collect and re-publish on my website. Then I got a blog, where I re-published again the best of that.
<br>
<br>There's been this "black hole" around discussing 9/11 nuclear topics. "Black hole" is the correct term, because you can't see it, but evidence of it exists, creeps out, gets lame explanations, affects how others react, gets avoided, gets the trolls unhinged, gets you banned, etc.
<br>
<br>I joke that I'm a duped useful idiot, but it is properly applied science and analysis to ~all~ the evidence that dupes me one way or another. I've waffled a lot over the years in my search for truth, because nobody was giving a straight answer. [There isn't a single promoted source of 9/11 information that doesn't have disinformation; and disinformation is often the best source for nuggets of truth that they want buried.]
<br>
<br>First I was nukes on my own. Then I appealed to authority and was all over Dr. Jones' nano-thermite, even while reading the Anonymous Physicist, Dr. Wood's website, and Dr. Fetzer. When I look at their debunking of each other, they all had legitimate points. Wasn't any of them or their theories without issues, and nobody would go into nuclear devices. Dr. Fetzer does now, but in stilted ways; he peddles other disinformation today, like NPT Holograms that he doesn't understand and can't substantiate.
<br>
<br>I had some fun and games with Dr. Wood's book trying to get respected leaders or influential players to legitimately debunk it. I offered them a free copy in exchange for their good, bad, ugly review. Bad and ugly it has, but their avoidance of acknowledging any of the good prevented them from providing any review at all, whereby they failed spectacularly this simple objectivity test. Although I don't champion Dr. Wood's anymore, the book still had the power to bloody people's noses.
<br>
<br>My investigations in Dr. Jones work from a nuclear angle proved his no-nukes work very wanting. Dr. Wood gave it short-shrift as well, when she wasn't suggesting things that couldn't be proven as real-world.
<br>
<br>Based on this "nuclear black hole" in the concensus 9/11 Truth Movement, I was steered in the direction of researching a nuclear 9/11.
<br>
<br>Fission was out: too much energy and radiation; couldn't be used in tandem. Although traces of a fission reaction were present.
<br>
<br>Fusion was out: too much energy; couldn't be used in tandem.
<br>
<br>However, certain aspects of the evidence presented in Dr. Wood's book still had me. I tried on "nuclear powered DEW", which meaned plugging Dr. Wood's hypothetical not-named into a mini-nuclear reactor. The DEW was important for how content was destroyed.
<br>
<br>Neutron devices were out if used as designed, detonated in air.
<br>
<br>But if a neutron device used not as designed and hyped in the media -- to wit, detonated inside a metal structure --, if the escaping neutrons were aimed upwards, this would consume the lion's share of the energy and the side-effects of heat-wave, blast-wave, and EMP would be reduced to tactical levels. Aimed upwards, then fracticide between tandem nukes is reduced.
<br>
<br>I devoloped the premise of "nuclear DEW", which I defined as a variant of the neutron bomb. It was fission triggered fusion that let neutrons escape (upwards) while also directing the rest of the nuclear fusion energy at specific wavelengths, DEW style, also upwards. When the wavelengths were at molecular distances, material could exhibit disassociation or dustifications as observed. Neutrons aimed upwards wouldn't fracticide devices lower in the tower, but on occasion could lead to nuclear fizzle which causes the hot-spots that burned for days. The heat-wave and blast-wave would be reduced to tactical levels limited to the confines of the tower wall assemblies, which maybe NT then helped disassemble after shielding from EMP. The EMP, I reasoned, slipped out through window slits and debris cause the torched vehicles in the car park and along West Broadway. These devices were spire-mounted and aimed upwards: hence the left-over spire.
<br>
<br>Maybe close to two years ago, I stumbled upon Andre Gsponer's 2005 work that speculated on Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW). I wasn't using it for more a few quotes that validated my nuclear DEW concepts, and certainly that tritium was an important trace element.
<br>
<br>Too bad I didn't read the whole thing until this last Spring. I would have been bloodying the noses of trolls with Andre Gsponer's work rather than Dr. Wood's.
<br>
<br>For many personal reasons (like having a life, a family, being burned out on 9/11), I've been procrastinating updating my blog with my lastest premise of the 9/11 nuclear events (re-worked from my other writings.) Last weekend, I would have been writing about FGNW as being my latest 9/11 mindset. I'm also turning it into an opus.
<br>
<br>Which brings us to the present.
<br>
<br>My understanding of 9/11 nuclear possibilities is such that: you've convinced me to re-evaluate my premise and seriously consider your pure fusion device. The concept of one sustained detonation had not occurred to me.
<br>
<br>You kindly wrote: "If you need any references, I'll be glad to oblige."
<br>
<br>Indeed. Here's my laundry list.
<br>
<br>- Research paper titles, authors, that discuss the Petawatt laser. Send me in the right direction.
<br>
<br>- Source images for that 6 Petawatt laser configuration (by itself and next to the man).
<br>
<br>- Other things you think I might find important in make the case.
<br>
<br>I admit that a weakness of my nuclear DEW premise was always fracticide of the tandem nukes.
<br>
<br>I have much to contemplate with this sustained detonation, and the tritium fuel pellets burning until consumed.
<br>
<br>The audio-signature was also unique and bloodied some noses. Dr. Sunder of NIST was right when he said that RDX or other explosives (that Dr. Jones said was mixed with the NT to give it is brissance) would have been deafening within a half mile. No cases of survivors losing their hearing. But NT mixed with a fast explosive can't account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots; remember, this is the NT unspent from its pulverizing purposes, too.
<br>
<br>FGNW (which I'm adding your fusion devices to in this cryptic short-hand) would not necessarily have an explosive audio signature. If most of its energy is spent in other ways (neutrons, specific wavelengths), the heat- and blast-waves are reduced, and as a result dampen the noise.
<br>
<br>Thinking out of the box here.
<br>
<br>Firefighters attest to hearing a staccato "boom, boom, boom, boom". It wasn't the rate of every floor, which it would have been if chemical means deployed. It was more like the rate of every 10th floor.
<br>
<br>Could your tritium pellets have been used in multiple devices, even smaller than what you showed in your video? Could there have been tandem devices? Is this is what was heard and then seen as a flash in the video?
<br>
<br>I mean, the hot-spots also indicate an imperfect operation. What do you speculate caused it? I think they were fizzled devices that hadn't yet consumed all their tritium pellet.
<br>
<br>I don't know. Your work has me re-thinking.
<br>
<br>If it isn't too much to ask, I prefer communication through email over FB anything, anyday.
<br>
<br>All the best,
<br>// Maxwell C. Bridges
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 247 -->
<a name="x248"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x248" class="tiny">x248</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_248');">the improbable, Allah-defying destruction</a></p>
<p>2015-10-07</p>
<div id="sect_248" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/prager1/posts/10152985257847282?comment_id=10152986003262282
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Jerry Woeppel , I agree that the WTC were brought down by controlled demolition. Just because I believe that real aircraft -- not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft -- hit the towers does not equate with me believing them to be the cause for the improbable, Allah-defying destruction. In fact, they were the plausible-deniability cover for the destruction.
<br>
<br>My deviant views are that Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) did the deed, and that the normal black hole that surrounds anything nuclear being published (without approval) did its wonders not just in keeping us in the dark, but infiltrating the 9/11 TM to steer rational thought away from this.
<br>
<br>Google "Andre Gsponer". Although he writes in a speculative sense (and writes NOTHING about 9/11), the nuclear black hole neither confirms nor disputes his suggestions, giving it not just a stamp of approval but also suspicions of being not so speculative.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 248 -->
<a name="x249"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x249" class="tiny">x249</a>
Daniel M. Plesse : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_249');">Warning to Norma Rae large amount of text below</a></p>
<p>2015-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_249" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/986276318078402/?ref=notif¬if_t=group_post_mention
<br>
<br>Daniel M. Plesse
<br>12 hrs
<br>Maxwell Bridges Are you the "The professor" on YT? Warning to Norma Rae large amount of text below..
<br>The many earthquake witnesses also tell somewhat divergent stories about the subjective magnitude of the quake as well as the number of explosions heard before the collapse of the towers. There has been a great deal of debate over the seismographic evidence, whether the charts may have been manipulated, etc. Although we cannot rule out such manipulation, it is also not necessary to assume the charts are fake. The published charts, despite their relatively low readings (ML = 2.3 and ML = 2.1 on the Richter scale, respectively) are perfectly consistent with nuclear demolition.
<br>It is important to understand that "small, clean" nukes, which are technically known as "minimum residual radiation" (MRR) nukes and colloquially known as "neutron bombs", leave a far smaller seismographic footprint than do regular nukes of a comparable yield. To fully grasp this, it is necessary to first understand that nuclear weapons operate with multiple steps of stages, called the primary, secondary and tertiary. Most modern nukes have all three stages, but MRR nukes only have two. in regular nukes, most of the yield comes from the secondary and tertiary. The secondary is the fusion step, which is the "thermo" part of thermonuclear. The tertiary is also known as the tamper, which is the material encapsulating the primary and secondary. This is usually made of uranium-238 (a.k.a. depleted uranium), which becomes fissible when exposed to the massive radiation of fast neutrons (14 MeV) issued from the secondary. Because the tertiary is fission, it is also "dirty" leaving lots of fallout. This is why the fissile tamper is skipped altogether in MRR nukes.
<br>The primary is typically a small plutonium core that merely serves as a fuze for the secondary, which in its turn activates the tertiary. The primary need not be very large, and in MRR designs, they're made as small as possible. The reason, again, is that the primary, like the tertiary, is fission leaving "dirty" fission products behind as fallout. The purpose of MRR designs is to minimise those components and get as much of the total yield as possible from the secondary "thermo" stage. Because of criticality and other design issues, there are certain limits to how small the primary can be made. The precise details of this are secret, but we can safely infer that the primary could be as small as 10 or 20 tons' worth of of TNT, or 0.010 to 0.020 kilotons. That's based on known data about so-called Davy Crockett pits (i.e. primary cores) that date all the way back to the 1950s.
<br>Unlike the primary and tertiary, the secondary is fusion and therefore relatively clean. It will create an immense amount of radiation when fired, but the fallout is limited and the radioactive part consists mainly of tritium, with a half life of about 12.3 years. Because of the immense heat of the blast, most of the tritium will escape into the atmosphere and only a small fraction will stick on the ground, tied up in water. Sure enough, the heavily hosed-down groundwater samples taken at the World Trade Center showed elevated levels of tritium, which the authorities tried to explain away with rifle scopes and radioluminescent exit signs in one of the most ridiculous exercises in the entire cover-up effort. William Tahil has written about this as well, albeit not in his 2006 report but in articles posted on his website.
<br>As the name suggests, the "thermonuclear" secondary operates primarily through thermal energy (heat) rather than mechanical energy (blast wave). This explains why the secondary will have a far more limited seismic impact than a fission nuke of comparable yield, certainly when the nuke is placed in an open shaft. This is important, as much of the discussion of the seismic impact has been predicated on the patently false assumption that the nukes were placed in closed cavities deep in the bedrock underneath the Twin Towers. This cockamamy notion came from Dimitri Khalezov, whose supposed expertise in these matters is obviously non-existent.
<br>We know for a fact that the nukes were placed in the wastewater recycling main shafts located underneath each tower. The reason we know those shafts existed is that they're mentioned in Eric Darton's book on the World Trade Center, "Divided We Stand". The book was published in 1994, i.e. long before 9/11 and also long before the cover-up began. After 9/11, virtually all information about sub-basement infrastructure has been carefully scrubbed and put under wraps. While blueprints of the towers including basements are available online, there is almost nothing out there on electricity and telecom substations, water lines, the stormwater system, the feeder pipelines for the airconditioning plant, and the retrofitted wastewater recycling system with its pipeline to the Newtown Creek plant in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. What little we know is however enough to draw firm conclusions about 9/11.
<br>Putting the nukes in deep but open shafts will create a directed and semi-focused blast wave propagating upwards through the cores of the buildings. Unlike an underground nuclear explosion in a closed cavity, most of the blast energy will escape upwards through the hole at the top of the shaft, and only a small fraction will push sideways and impact the bedrock. Add to that the aforementioned fact that MRR nukes create mostly thermal energy, and you'll have a full explanation of how a one-kiloton nuke could leave such a limited seismographic footprint. There may also have been additional dampening factors, including the so-called bathtub, i.e. the slurry wall surrounding the WTC.
<br>All in all, when you figure in all these factors, the published seismographic charts are fully consistent with nuclear demolition. William Tahil's report (see Chapter 4 in linked PDF) contains a competent discussion of the seismic details, including S-waves and P-waves and all that. As Tahil concludes, the charts clearly indicate demolition. Quoting from Tahil, p. 94:
<br>« The large spikes of ML 2.3 and 2.1 are equivalent to at least 2 to 5 tonnes of TNT with good coupling and definitely much more at the WTC, maybe tens of tonnes of TNT, given the already known poor coupling of an explosion in the WTC basement cavity to the surrounding earth. »
<br>http://www.nucleardemolition.com/files/Download/GZero_Report.pdf
<br>Against the backdrop of the above discussion of MRR nukes in open shafts, it is plain to see that the evidence is perfectly consistent with nuclear demolition using precisely that. Importantly, the evidence is NOT consistent with any other variety or type of nukes than MRR. An ordinary or "enhanced-radiation" (ER) nuke from the US arsenal would have a much bigger seismic impact and it would also leave a lot more fallout and residual radiation than observed. We know from the correlations observed (again by Tahil, see Chapter 3 of his report) in the USGS dust samples, as well as the thyroid cancer epidemic amongst first responders (see Paul Romero's video series "Thermite Hoax") that there was radioactive fallout including fission products. The quantities are, however, so limited that it must have come from the primary of a MRR nuke. Observed tritium in the groundwater samples also speak to the same effect.</p>
</div><!-- section 249 -->
<a name="x250"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x250" class="tiny">x250</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_250');">a delightful read up until it went off the rails</a></p>
<p>2015-10-14</p>
<div id="sect_250" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/965700833469284/permalink/986276318078402/?ref=notif¬if_t=group_post_mention
<br>
<br>Oooo-kay. This was a delightful read up until it went off the rails in the paragraph starting: "We know for a fact that the nukes were placed in the wastewater recycling main shafts located underneath each tower."
<br>
<br>No, we do not know that for a fact. I think recorded observation of the from-near-the-top-and-down destruction contradicts the notion that the ~sole~ devices were below the towers and somehow aiming their energy upwards to initiate destruction at floor ~80.
<br>
<br>I'm still partial to those MRR, or 4th generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) being multiple and within the structure, aimed primarily upwards. Mr. Daniel M. Plesse has provided recent footage showing from a distances explosive flashes high up within the demolition wave.
<br>
<br>The leading theory of how those MRR or FGNW were implemented is given by Mr. Tim Grice Sr., where he postulates a sustained nuclear reaction (fusion-based) that falls with gravity.
<br>
<br>ALL OF THE ABOVE or SOME OF THE ABOVE may also apply, so we shouldn't beat each other up.
<br>
<br>This I'll say in passing just to get it off my chest. Many will remember some specific images collected by Dr. Judy Wood (and others as well) of large steel beams that she called "arches." What rankles me is that they were "sags" and not "arches". This is an important destinction to clearify how direction of forces and supports could account for "sags" in the presence of a hot-spot nuclear reaction.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 250 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part6 -->
<hr>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part7');">Part 7: Halifax & Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier</a></p>
<div id="sect_part7" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Along the way, I happened upon the blog of Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier: <a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/">911 Justice Halifax</a>. After seeing what was posted, the response to my comments, and the moderation of my comments, the blog is a great example of internet profitting by peddling 9/11 disinformation.}</p>
<a name="x251"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x251" class="tiny">x251</a>
Herr der Elf : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_251');">too clasified to publish: Bush nuclear piracy exposed</a></p>
<p>2016-02-16</p>
<div id="sect_251" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Herr der Elf</b>
<br /><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/#comment-29400">February 16, 2016 at 8:26 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I’ve been a champion of 9/11 nuclear devices for years. The above has many truths to it. However, I do not judge the underground detonation (as proposed by the Russian, Dimitri Khalezov) to be valid. The visual evidence of the top-down destruction contradicts the notion that a single underground nuke accomplished what was observed. Multiple of these W-54 devices — aiming their neutrons upwards — is more probable.
<br>
<br><b>Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier</b>
<br><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/#comment-29401">February 16, 2016 at 8:37 pm</a>
<br>
<br>now visualized the center column dropping down into the nuke, what would be remaining..the outside shell, which is what you see exploding out wards.. remember no pieces of the huge in support columns remained visible because they melted into that molten steel lake at the bottom of the 8 story deep hole..
<br>
<br><b>Herr der Elf</b>
<br /><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/#comment-29402">2016-02-16</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Towsey,
<br>
<br>I can certainly visualize your premise, but do not agree that this visualization matches the evidence: top-down. A nuclear device acting from the bottom-up (as presented by Dimitri) would have vastly different observations. Furthermore, the upper 20+ stories accordianed in on themselves.
<br>
<br>Now you visualize multiple 4th generation devices fashioned in a way to direct their neutrons (like upwards). This would help prevent fracticide between multiple nuclear devices as well as reducing the main side-effects of the nuclear yield (e.g., blast wave, heat wave, EMP).
<br>
<br>This would explain the progressive top-down wave of the outer shell exploding outwards. It could even go on to explain the 8 story deep hole (if I don't sit on the fence that this could also have been a geological formation).
<br>
<br>
<br>Dr. Steven Jones has several "tells" in his work that makes him less than reliable as the "9/11 nuclear physicist." Aside from accepting government reports on radiation (and tritium) at face value and aside from re-defining trace amounts, he never once mentioned 4th generation nuclear devices. [His nano-thermite work can't go the distance in accounting for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. Moreover, the supposed evidence of NT was only found in his samples. All other samples don't show this; they show high percentages of iron spheres which he explains away as the resultant reaction of NT with steel. I say / We say that it could be the result of extremely hot nuclear detonations.]
<br>
<br>Andre Gsponer (worthy of a google effort) wrote on this subject many times -- but as an outsider. One can expect with the "national secrets" clamp-down against revealing information about nuclear details that there ISN'T much to coaberate his work (like a 1999 book somewhat speculative that should have been known to Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, etc.) The surprising thing is that there is also nothing CONTRADICTING Mr. Gsponer's work either; nothing saying it was bogus or on the wrong track. In fact, he went through several revisions of that book, so his speculation was on the right tract and refined through other sources.
<br>
<br>My blog (a tedious bore to read front-to-back, sorry, mate) more or less documents my thought transformation, and how I attempted to rescue nuggets of truth from disinformation sources to craft a nuclear explanation for 9/11 at the WTC that addresses more of the evidence and leaves fewer gaps.
<br>
<br>Alas, I've been disillusioned and burned out for quite some time, so I have grusomely procrastinated taking my premise to the level where my thinking & reasoning are now: fourth generation nuclear devices (as described by Andre Gsponer, who, to my knowledge, has never written anything about 9/11). But were I to overcome this writer's block, it would mine and carry-over much information from my earlier works, such as this and why I provided the link:
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/01/nuclear-9112001-for-vt.html
<br>
<br>The above was re-crafted from another piece. It was intended for VT, but was never published there. And owing to my general burn-out, it is a good thing, because (1) I'm no longer inclined to defend against hosts of disinfo trolls, and (2) my thinking has evolved to 4th generation devices.
<br>
<br>At any rate, just letting you know I've been around the 9/11 block more than a few times. My patience has suffered as a result. My apologies in advance.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 251 -->
<a name="x252"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x252" class="tiny">x252</a>
Herr der Elf : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_252');">jumping to "satillite or UFO directed energy"</a></p>
<p>2016-02-17</p>
<div id="sect_252" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier</b>
<br><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/#comment-29442">February 17, 2016 at 8:33 pm</a>
<br>
<br>It amazes me the story of directed energy..I have asked this question when I found stories telling such..here is the question.. So where exactly is this directed energy supposed to originate from.. A satellite or what a UFO?
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br><b>Herr der Elf</b>
<br /><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/#comment-29447">2016-02-17</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Towsey,
<br>
<br>Your framing of the discussion and jumping to "satillite or UFO directed energy" raises my concerns about your sincerity.
<br>
<br>I will harken to my naive nature and set aside these concerns so that I can answer your question as if it were genuine.
<br>
<br>The directed energy was created by multiple nuclear devices planted within the towers. The paradigm shift is to not think BIG with massive destruction, but to think tactical and even purposely throwing away energy (as active neutrons) so that tactical side-effects (heat wave, blast wave, EMP) can be achieved.
<br>
<br>I was stuck on neutron devices being deployed in unconventional ways when I learned that even after they throw away much nuclear energy (in the form of active neutrons), they still contained a powerful punch in their side-effects.
<br>
<br>But we know that research went into controlling the energy of nuclear detonations at specific wavelengths (e.g., the X-Ray Laser).
<br>
<br>Extrapolating -- and of course running across Dr. Gsponer's work (http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf) -- we see that this is exactly what 4th generation nuclear devices do. If you want to use them in tandem, you have to be mindful of how the escaping neutrons (which reduces destructive yield) are directed so as to not cause fracticide (which it did on 9/11 and explain some of the under-rubble hot-spots lasting for months).
<br>
<br>The remaining energy can be tuned to desired wavelengths. Allowing escaping neutrons as well as tuning the energy to wavelenghts, reduces but does not eliminate side-effects of the nuclear detonation, like heat wave, blast wave, and EMP.
<br>
<br>When those wavelengths are on the order of automic distances, why the very observed "dustification" of content could be achieved.
<br>
<br>(Dr. Wood has disinformation. Allowing her work to be framed as space-beams and such is one glaring flaw. She should have found Dr. Gsponer's work and modified her views accordingly. Be that as it may, she talks about dustification and DEW. Most of her work stands up when married with 4th gen nuclear devices.)
<br>
<br>BTW: I had time last Spring to engage in my own personal research into the public information (at a University) about DEW and nuclear devices, particular with their capabilities around 2001. I conclude that space-based DEW would not have been able to achieve what was observed on 9/11. It is one thing to aim a high energy laser a weak yet explosive target on a missile such as its fuel tanks. It is quite another to dustify buildings that had no assistance from explosive elements within.
<br>
<br>All disinformation has a solid foundation of truth. One of the goals of disinformation is to be discovered eventually, so that valid nuggets of truth contained therein can be dispatched at the implosion of the disinformation source and supposedly removed from further consideration by an inquiring public. Dr. Wood's foray into space-based DEW is one area where she shoots purposely her disinformation in the foot to discredit it. Had she done more research, she would have discovered its limitations (atmosphere, wavelengths, etc.) and inapplicability to the observed destruction on 9/11.
<br>
<br>This being said, Dr. Wood is still closest with her DEW premise than all others. Nuclear DEW -- 4th generation nuclear devices. But within the towers, not external to them.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 252 -->
<a name="x253"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x253" class="tiny">x253</a>
Herr der Elf : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_253');">the type of nuclear devices used on 911 were...</a></p>
<p>2016-02-18</p>
<div id="sect_253" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier</b>
<br><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/#comment-29514">February 18, 2016 at 11:35 am</a>
<br>
<br>Thank you for your great response..You miss understood the intent of my comment about UFOs . I stated that because others have thought it.. I think I will make a new post on my site that highlights your information..stay tuned..and Thank You..
<br>
<br><b>Herr der Elf</b>
<br><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/#comment-29530">2016-02-18</a>
<br>Dear Mr. Towsey,
<br>
<br>Based on my misunderstanding, I apologize for my tone. Sigh. Having been around the 9/11 block too many times, patience and manners sometimes elude me.
<br>
<br>By the way, early in your article you wrote:
<br><blockquote>The type of nuclear devices used on 911 were a modified version of the W-54 nuclear artillery shells that were covertly provided to the Israelis between 1988 and 1998 from US surplus stockpiles illegally exported during the Bush/Clinton era.</blockquote>
<p><b>The above is indeed a gem.</b> Might not be the exact model number of the devices used on 9/11, but at this stage of the game, having any model numbers at all hint to viability of nuclear means is gold. I've been hit many times with the ruse <i>"if such-and-such exist, give me a model number."</i>
<br>
<br>And another nail in the coffin of those who promote limited hangouts (e.g., NT).
<br>
<br>++++ quote from <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf">0510071v5.pdf</a>
<br><blockquote>
<br>
<br> Fourth generation: 25 mg DT => 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency
<br>
<br> Consequently, going from the first to the fourth generation implies a total change of perspective about nuclear weapons: A "change of paradigm" where the concept of very-large-yield and big nuclear weapons for deterrence-use is shifting towards the concept of very-high-precision and compact nuclear weapons for battle-field-use — with yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, that is intermediate between conventional and contemporary nuclear weapons.
<br>
<br> ...
<br>
<br> Third generation nuclear weapons are basically "tailored and special effects" warheads and systems developed between the 1960s and 1980s, mainly for tactical uses or ballistic missile defense. Examples of these developments comprise the following concepts:
<br>
<br> - ERW — Enhanced Radiation (neutrons, hard X-rays)
<br> - RRR — Reduced Residual Radiation (enhanced blast)
<br> - EMP — enhanced ElectroMagnetic Pulse
<br> - DEW — Directed Energy (plasma-jet or X-ray laser-beam)
<br> - EPW — Earth Penetrating Warhead
<br> - ETC —
<br>
<br> ...
<br> [M]ost third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.
</blockquote>
<p>++++ end quote
<br>
<br>{From <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html#x201">a discussion on my blog</a>. A little repetitive to what I wrote above, but could be insightful.}
<br>
<br>Each tower probably had 6 or so devices of the 3rd and 4th generation nature. Each was fusion based, leaving little lingering radiation. Each probably had elements related to neutron devices, because aiming various amounts neutrons out of the way would help scale down side-effects (blast wave, heat wave, EMP) and prevent the pre-mature killing of neighboring tandem devices.
<br>
<br>Further, these devices would direct energy at specific wavelengths, that further takes away energy from side-effects and neutron output. What wavelengths? Weapons that used X-ray wavelengths are known to exist and were speculated in the Reagan presidency. Here's where the fun comes in for diligent researchers. They can pick representative sample wavelengths across the spectrum of energy to (mentally) test what would happen to materials. Of interest is when wavelengths are on the order of, say, molecular distances or when multiple wavelengths are output whose interference pattern could be destructive (which then puts it into the realm of Hutchison.)
<br>
<br>Even wavelengths in the microwave realm could produce with sufficient amplitude interesting outcomes. For instance, concrete, drywall, and porcellan have residual amounts of water buried in their structure. Sufficiently large microwaves could turn such water instantly into steam with a very strong outward force to the point of blowing apart the structure that contained it. Concrete has aggregates as well that act like a fork in a microwave oven.
<br>
<br>Dr. Harrit has been an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. Although not a physicists, he should have sufficient knowledge of atomic structures to speculate knowledgeably about what sudden influxes of energy at various wavelengths would do. Molecular disassociation and dustification might be applicable in the description.
<br>
<br>I find it very disingenuous of Dr. Harrit and Dr. Jones (and many leaders of the 9/11TM with science or engineering backgrounds) to not attempt the research and to not attempt strapping on nuclear shoes and go for a stroll.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 253 -->
<a name="x254"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x254" class="tiny">x254</a>
Herr der Elf : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_254');">NPT redux</a></p>
<p>2016-02-18</p>
<div id="sect_254" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/911-wtc-planes-videos-proven-to-be-fake/#comment-29547">2016-02-19</a> {11:45AM, 6:45PM}
<br>Dear Mr. Towsey,
<br>
<br>One of my more notable weaknesses is being naive and too trusting. I'll even admit that I'm a duped useful idiot on many things, but it is convincing arguments aligned with the proper application of physics and science that sways me one way or another.
<br>
<br>For many years, I was an ardent no-planer of the "September Clues" school of video fakery. Not only did I think it was convincing, but the debunkers of NPT (no plane theory at the WTC) had very weak arguments.
<br>
<br>What finally convinced me of the error in my ways was a video that did 3D modeling of NYC and overlayed the videos from many different perspectives. It proved that what appeared to be entirely different flight paths were not only consistent with one another, but also with two sets of radar data.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, I had direct exchanges with Simon Shack and his crew at the Clues Forum on other themes. Their position <i>"all imagery was fake, nothing was real"</i> is just too obtuse and unrealistic. Moreover, they had nothing to fill the void, like why "everything" was faked and what were the real mechanisms of destruction. In my mind, they outed themselves as disinfo agents. The true purpose of NPT at the WTC was to caste doubt on the two actual instances of no-planes, namely the Pentagon (was a fly-over) and Shanksville (no plane at all).
<br>
<br>Later, I came across previously unknown to me <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html#x224">evidence of plane parts</a> that would have been extremely hard to fake. If you follow what I linked, it takes you into the middle of a re-purposed discussion (source) that happened on Facebook. (A link to that source location is part of my re-purposed efforts, so if you are on facebook, you might be able to navigate to it direction. Or you might have to join the group where the discussion happened before my links to source will really work. Not my fault, and I did the best I could to record my discussions that Facebook makes so easy to "get disappeared" in the internet memory hole.)
<br>
<br>Without going into Facebook and by just going to my link, you'll see two images of exactly what I was talking about. It is a partial wheel assembly from a landing gear that is embedded between two vertical steel beams of a WTC wall assembly. ASSUMING A REAL AIRCRAFT hit WTC-1, this partial wheel assembly went through the impacted wall and had sufficient energy to rip an entire wall aseembly off of the back side. The pictures (at <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html#x224">#x224</a>) were taken before either tower was decimated. Other pictures (not shown but available on internet) show the gaping hole on the backside of WTC-1 where the wall assembly was.
<br>
<br>I encourage you to read not just the <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html#x224">#x224</a> but the entire re-purposed thread. It goes into the simple physics and explains how real aircraft could accomplish this.
<br>
<br>I have done the research. I understand the physics. It is not impossible for real aircraft to inflict the damage that they did (excluding the subsequent tower demolition.) I've done the physics on the engine that landed at Church & Murray and calculated an exit velocity of 122 mph more or less could achieve that, which is significantly reduced from the the impact velocity (ergo, entirely plausible).
<br>
<br>DON'T GET ME WRONG. If you want to promote that the aircraft involved were not the alleged aircraft -- <b>what I call the "No Commercial Plane Theory" (or NCPT)</b> --, I'm right behind you. The government has never definitely proved by serial numbered parts that the debris came from the alleged aircraft. Moreover, the speed and accuracy of those aircraft at near sea level flags being beyond rated limits of the alleged aircraft at even high altitude, pegs those aircraft as potentially not being the alleged one. But not being the alleged aircraft is entirely different than "no aircraft at all: video fakery & holograms."
<br>
<br>Before I forget. You've got some videos of this English talkshow guy, I forget his name and I can't be bothered to watch his videos again to find out for sure. Part of his NPT arguments involves a complete and total misrepresentation of radar systems, tolerances to their accuracy, and radar data so that he can then prop up a cloaked plane (caught on one radar but not the other) that projected a hologram of a plane (caught on the other radar but not the first). It misrepresents the present state of holograms and what would be required to project a aircraft that is convincing from all points of view. I've got a good laugh out of all of his productions once "the other shoe dropped" and he presented his various conclusions (UFO's, cloaked planes, projected holographic planes, etc.)
<br>
<br>FTR, the data from both radar systems to the accuracy tolerances of each represent a single aircraft that matches the flight path documented by many videos from different perspectives that 3D modeling proved was the same.
<br>
<br>My sole remaining 9/11 hobby-horse is nuclear involvement in the WTC.
<br>
<br>I did ride previously the NPT hobby-horse, but no more. Got shot out from underneath me mid-stream. Debunking NPT, however, has not become a new hobby-horse for me. I've got no horse in the NPT race.
<br>
<br>I'm telling you straight-up, though, that NPT at the WTC is entirely a disinformation limited hang-out with no basis in reality. As was mentioned, its purpose -- particularly once sincere truth seekers debunk it -- is to caste doubt on the valid instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
<br>
<br>Mr. Towsey, I don't know you that well and mean you insult.
<br>
<br>What I'm about to say references however everyone else I have run across on the internet who championed NPT: <b>they were definite disinfo trolls and agents</b>. They were unwilling to acknowledge either the weaknesses in their own positions or the valid arguments of their opponents; even after their points were thoroughly trashed in one venue, they turned around and repeated the same points in venue after venue. Trolls don't get tired of repetition. This stilted reasoning and argumentation can only be explained by an agenda, because real humans with only a truth agenda and an open-mind would have "ah-ha" moments of, at the very least, doubt and waffling, if not conversion. Not these agents.
<br>
<br>I've done the NPT carousel twice on Facebook. I've no energy to repeat it here. Good think I had the energy to preserve my efforts so that your readers can still benefit from it, even when I've recused myself from battle.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 254 -->
<a name="x255"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x255" class="tiny">x255</a>
Herr der Elf : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_255');">Sorry to be blunt. No.</a></p>
<p>2016-02-18</p>
<div id="sect_255" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier</b>
<br><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/#comment-29535">February 18, 2016 at 10:15 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Remember when I mentioned the huge core columns dropping down into the nuclear reaction and basically disappearing and leaving a huge poll f red hot molten steel ..
<br>
<br>Well here another thought that pertains to the huge antenna atop the building disappearing which seems that it two was turned into dust.
<br>
<br>But I will not be talking specifically about the antenna.
<br>
<br>Do you remember long ago when some researchers talked about the huge top section of the building approximately twenty stories that had tipped over sideways as it came down? At which point that section should have fallen further away and on to the street and adjoining buildings but mysteriously seemed to just disappear into the cloud of dust?
<br>
<br>I did an article that you can find on YouTube entitled “WTC Constructed to be nuclear device chimneys” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YZ8wVBQycY
<br>
<br>Will considering that nuclear reactions are frequency reactions such as electric current..
<br>
<br>From the information you spoke of it seems to me that the huge core columns would of acted as huge conductors of the nuclear energy and that destructive energy would of gone all the way to the top and would explain why that huge section of building just disappeared into dust before it had a chance to continue falling over off center and onto the the street.
<br>
<br>So the types of nuclear device you spoke of clearly would of been the cause of that huge twenty story block to just disappear..
<br>
<br>What are your thoughts on this?
<br>
<br>Thanks again for your comments..
<br>
<br><b>Herr der Elf</b>
<br><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/#comment-29548">2016-02-18</a>
<br>Dear Mr. Towsey, you wrote:
<br>
<br><blockquote>From the information you spoke of it seems to me that the huge core columns would of acted as huge conductors of the nuclear energy and that destructive energy would of gone all the way to the top and would explain why that huge section of building just disappeared into dust before it had a chance to continue falling over off center and onto the the street.</blockquote>
<p>Then you ask me my thoughts on this.
<br>
<br>I don't have much time. Sorry to be blunt. No.
<br>
<br>My premise is that the 4th generation devices were able to release (nuclear) energy at specific wavelengths, possibly on the order of atomic or molecular distances. As such, the energy wavelength would be acting on all of the material line of sight in more or less the same way in terms of molecular disassociation or dustification. The core columns would get disassociated just like the other materials.
<br>
<br>Were those core columns to act as conductors for this energy at a wavelength, to what end? Meaning, what happens to that energy when it reaches the end of the conductor? You're saying that at the end of the conductor, that destructive wavelength of energy escaped and acted on the surrounding materials to get those upper 20-stories to accordian in on themselves. To my understanding of physics, it would not have been possible for such energy to transfer through all of the material of the structure and then suddenly 20 or so stories from the top miraculously change into pulverzing forces.
<br>
<br>It is well that you bring up that 20-story block. Its tipping and then then accordian'ing in on itself debunks the space-beams, because the destruction happened from within the building at around the level of impact by the planes. Under normal circumstances, that 20-story block in tipping would have broken up some, but could have remained somewhat cohesive and certainly would not have pulverized itself. Its angular momentum together with the path of least resistance should have had it tumble outside the footprint of the towers. The pulverizing destruction wave did not progress much below the level of impact until the roof-line had already accordian'ed down to that point.
<br>
<br>In summary, the destructive forces could not have initiated in the lower regions of the towers and then somehow "pop out" into observable destruction some 20-stories from the top without similiar destruction being observable all along those lower regions first.
<br>
<br>The 20-story block's angular momentum was arrested not by the structure, but by forces that suddenly appeared at that level to make the block no longer cohesive; in fact, the block was pulverized and accordian'ed in on itself (which then debunks the government's premise of a pile-driver). Destructive mechanisms were placed at that level; it could not have been a singular destructive device at the bottom.
<br>
<br>I'm in the process of writing a response to another posting of yours.
<br>
<br>// </p>
</div><!-- section 255 -->
<a name="x256"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x256" class="tiny">x256</a>
Herr der Elf : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_256');">empty towers redux</a></p>
<p><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/wtc-complex-was-empty-on-911/">2016-03-22</a></p>
<div id="sect_256" style="display: none;">
<p>September Clues and Let's Roll Forums have both been exhaustively through the premise that the towers were empty or hollow.
<br>
<br>I, personally, could get on board with the notion that they were under-occupied and a large exodus after 1993. Even that the towers weren't completed on purpose, because it would have wrecked the real estate market in NYC when thousands of cheap office space in the towers became available.
<br>
<br>However, what is totally ~not~ convincing in that argument is the picture that you have re-purposed for this posting and put "911 The Hollow Towers" on.
<br>
<br>Why? Physics. Specifically, refraction. Look it up. It is the ability of light to bend around an object.
<br>
<br>The argument for hollow towers is that -- seemingly -- you don't see many floors in that image of bright sunlight.
<br>
<br>But do you know what else you don't see in that image and that you know was there? The vertical beams of the wall assemblies. All before and after pictures from this particular shot show the steel beams of the wall assemblies. Even the destructive aftermath of 9/11 shows these steel beams, sometimes within in-tact wall assemblies. For point of reference, the steel beams of the wall assemblies made up 50% of the face of a side of a building, with window slits being the other 50%.
<br>
<br>So why are all of those steel beams gone from this picture, too, except at the corners? Light refraction.
<br>
<br>Light refracted around the steel beams, that we know were there. Logic tells us that light could have refracted around the floors in this picture, although not completely. In fact, we see in this picture more evidence of floors than we do of the external wall assemblies.
<br>
<br>Conclusion: This photo can't be used to prove the towers were hollow or empty.
<br>
<br>And if you need an explanation for the lack of debris, <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">fourth generation nuclear devices.</a>
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 256 -->
<a name="x257"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x257" class="tiny">x257</a>
Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_257');">Your long scientific sounding commentary is misleading</a></p>
<p>2016-03-23</p>
<div id="sect_257" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/wtc-complex-was-empty-on-911/#comment-29957">March 23, 2016 at 1:50 am</a>
<br>
<br>Please.. Your long scientific sounding commentary is misleading..
<br>I am a photographer and I know all about light refraction..
<br>That argument means nothing here..
<br>The photo clearly shows there are no interior walls.. If there were there would of been no light coming through..</p>
</div><!-- section 257 -->
<a name="x258"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x258" class="tiny">x258</a>
Herr der Elf : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_258');">issue with both of your statements</a></p>
<p><a href="https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/wtc-complex-was-empty-on-911/#comment-29963">2016-03-23</a></p>
<div id="sect_258" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Towsey,
<br>
<br>I beg to have issue with both of your statements:
<br>
<br><blockquote>(1) That argument (about light refraction) means nothing here.
<br>(2) The photo clearly shows there are no interior walls.</blockquote>
<p>Light refraction is why we don't see any vertical beams of the wall assemblies that made up 50% of the WTC face. Light refreaction is also why we don't see most of the expected content (e.g., cubicles) on each floor. <b>Light refraction means EVERYTHING here.</b>
<br>
<br>Most floors of the WTC towers had an open floor plan that utilized cubicles whose walls could be seen over (and light in this photograph refracts over), so that all could have natural light and a view out the window.
<br>
<br>Contrary to your #2 statement, a person can clearly see many floors where a section or area were ceiling-to-floor walled off to create enclosed offices or rooms. The distance that we are from the towers messes with human perceptions. If we assume 13' between floors, one can calculate that those "tiny blotches" at levels about where the sun pierces through aren't so tiny in cases.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, the bottom-line to my comment is that <b>the towers were ~not~ hollow.</b>
<br>
<br>It is a different argument to say that the WTC were under-occupied and under utilized. Were I to speculate into the Rockefellers motives and money management, their aims of having the tallest two towers on the planet as a monument to USA capitalism could be achieved on the cheap by not making all floors move-in ready and to only do so with new paying tenants. Office space has its natural churn; therefore one could speculate that some floor in the middle may never have been finished.
<br>
<br>From similar past discussions in my laps around the 9/11 block, I've heard that it would have been EXTREMELY destructive to the NYC real estate market if the thousands upon thousands of square feet of WTC office space would have suddenly been made available; talk about a crash to the local market! Astute Rockefellers would of course know this, and govern the ramp up of finished space accordingly until supply balanced demand, which might leave many floors (in the middle) unfinished and never used. Government entities and agency front companies were known to have mailing addresses at the WTC; this could translate into only a fraction of such office space needing to be finished to the point of being habitable.
<br>
<br>I have never looked for proof of consistent occupancy of all floors over all periods. After the 1993 bombings, many tenants left over time, not to be replaced. Some on the hollow towers camp have speculated that pre-demolition work could have been carried out for years on those empty floors.
<br>
<br>I'm not in a position to disagree, except that pre-demolition (as well as hollow-towers) would be an easy, bat-shit crazy, diverting, limited hang-out to steer consideration away from my wild-ass speculation: <b>the prospect of <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">fourth generation nuclear devices</a> decimating content and material at all levels.</b> FGND thereby explains why such common & expected things (e.g., plumbing, floor pans, floor spans, concrete, office furnishing, etc.) were seemingly missing [or vaporized, pulverized, or dustified beyond recognition] from the debris pile.
<br>
<br>I believe that there were real victims on 9/11. I only question the true numbers. It would have been in everyone's best interest to pad the numbers. I have studied the area of 9/11 simVictim rather extensively in my laps around the 9/11 block and found highly credible many instances (but not all) of <i>"victim creation"</i>, especially enhanced by (infant) social media & the internet and by previous government proposals (e.g., Operation Norwood) suggesting such <i>"to be able to control the message" and "charge the public's emotions."</i> simVictims sort of becomes more obvious both in the number of families that did not come forward (e.g., airplane passengers, office workers) <b><i>and</i></b> the much smaller yet media savvy number of families that did come forward and used the <i>"tragic death of their loved one"</i> to promote pieces of the neo-con agenda (e.g., aspects of the USA PATRIOT ACT, invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq).
<br>
<br>One could argue that the <i><b>secondary</b></i> goal of disinformation is to have the bogus premise believed & actively (if poorly) championed by a small army of duped useful idiots and agency shills, but that the <i><b>primary</b></i> goal is to have valid nuggets of truth supporting the bogus premise swept from the table of public consideration once the disinfo premise is (purposely) debunked or torpedoed.
<br>
<br>I don't support <i>"hollow-towers"</i>, but could support aspects of <i>"under-utilized"</i> and <i>"pre-demolitioned"</i>. [We don't have to be getting all <i>"mutually exclusive"</i> about things.] The topic of <i>"simVictim"</i> was brought up with <i>"hollow-towers"</i> but is an independent nugget of truth, some of which is highly plausible if not validated as being in play.
<br>
<br>// </p>
</div><!-- section 258 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part7 -->
<hr>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part8');">Part 8: FB Froze & Porter FGNW</a></p>
<div id="sect_part8" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: With the exchanges documented in the earlier parts of this article, I knew the course of my research was taking me -- FGNW --, but didn't have an anchor blog article. Such was finally created and the basis for these efforts to "troll" for response in order to convince others & hone the arguments. Having met Froze & Porter in other (ultimately disinfo) forums of Facebook and been FB-friended, I was not surprised with their negative efforts or their subsequent FB-unfriending.}</p>
<a name="x259"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x259" class="tiny">x259</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_259');"> my overcoming-procrastination party!</a></p>
<p>2016-03-14</p>
<div id="sect_259" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/1667176720210176">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/1667176720210176</a>
<br>
<br>Ladies and gentle! Sincere seekers of truth and agent / trolls!
<br>
<br>I am 3.5+ beers to the wind on this fine day of spring break. I am flatttered that so many turned out to my overcoming-procrastination party! Surprised even! And sad, because I won't be able to give this thread the attention that it deserves (this week).
<br>
<br>Let me give a special shout-out to Mr. Joshua Froze. It is clear from his copy-and-paste dump that he did not read the article that I wrote.
<br>
<br>I wrote original material in the article that is the subject of this discussion. His response needs to be original, too, otherwise the source for his copy-and-paste PREDATES the article and can therefore not have knowledge regarding what the article was to about and how to address it.
<br>
<br>Shit, Mr. Froze! It fails on a technicality. Not my desire, which is why I'm giving you an opportunity to try again.
<br>
<br>Read my article. Identify the exact passages that are in error. (The numbers for each section are hyperlinked to their in-page-URL, so that your references can be specific.) Compose an equally researched and reasoned response to the items alleged to be in error.
<br>
<br>Be adult and mature. Your first meme posting to this article wasn't.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 259 -->
<a name="x260"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x260" class="tiny">x260</a>
Joshua Froze & Hal Porter : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_260');">No nukes</a></p>
<p>2016-03-14</p>
<div id="sect_260" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/1667176720210176">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/1667176720210176</a>
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges</b>
<br>Dear Mr. Joshua Froze, my article clearly proves that (1) there are nuclear devices that leave little radiation, (2) there was radiation (tritium), but that its reporting was delayed to allow dissipation and may have had other juking, and (3) that fourth generation nuclear devices exist. //
<br>
<br><b>Hal Porter</b>
<br />Do the "mini nukes" proponents in this thread have any visuals of "mini nuke" explosions/demolitions of structures?
<br>I have one (actually dozens) of standard controlled demolitions. Want to see one? Look familiar? Remember...sharing is caring! wink emoticon https://youtu.be/8U4erFzhC-U
<br>Second Tallest Building ever imploded
<br>https://youtu.be/8U4erFzhC-U
<br>
<br><b>Hal Porter</b>
<br>By the way, where did you come up with the figure "70,000 first responders (at the WTC???) have come down with odd forms of cancer associated with exposure to ionizing radiation"? Do you really think there were "70,000 first responders" at the WTC Complex on 9/11/01? Seriously? tongue emoticon Wave bye bye to your credibility! You were aware of the fact that all the buildings in the WTC complex were damaged and all were filled with asbestos and other carcinogens which became friable as a result of fires and explosions...weren't you?
<br>
<br><b>Joshua Froze</b>
<br />***No Radiation!***
<br>
<br>[Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department’s office of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way to work when the first tower was hit.
<br>
<br>--------
<br>
<br>Borri checked the World Trade Center site for signs of radiation before and after the collapse of the buildings. Radiation could have originated in industrial radiology sources, such as the installing beams of the huge office buildings, which may have contained some radioactive elements from x-rays taken, and from depleted uranium used in ballasts in aircraft wing tips (such counterweights in airplane wing tips give the most weight for least volume, says Borri). It might also be left from any medical or dental offices.
<br>The far more serious threat, of course, was the chance that one of the hijackers might have carried a suitcase of radioactive materials or a dirty bomb, a conventional bomb spiked with radioactive material. Such a bomb has been compared to TNT, strapped to a container of plutonium or plutonium-contaminated waste. This kind of a device would not produce a nuclear explosion, but it could spread deadly radioactive matter across a swath of city.
<br>
<br>According to Borri, the fear with a dirty bomb is that hundreds, maybe thousands, could die from radiation poisoning and cancer, and the area could be poisoned for years. (Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, says Borri.)
<br>
<br>That was fortunately not the case, Borri found, using a portable liquid scintillation counter, which measures radioactivity like a Geiger counter. The high-tech portable gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger, counter with a much more refined ability to detect any kind of radioactivity.
<br>
<br>-----
<br>
<br>Although Borri didn’t turn up any problematic radioactive readings by the end of the day, his work would be supplemented by the federal Department of Energy, whose technicians remained on site and continued to sample. [Only during the last days of the Ground Zero cleanup would radioactive testers find any evidence of radioactive emissions, from a pharmacy laboratory located within one of the buildings.]
<br>
<br>National Environmental Health Association:
<br>https://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-Tests.html
<br>
<br>Joshua Froze What is the smallest nuclear explosion you can get?
<br>
<br>[The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions. An unreflected spherical alpha-phase critical mass of P...See More
<br>Are Suitcase Bombs Possible?
<br>It is impossible to verify at the time of this writing whether nuclear devices sized to fit in side a suitcase were…
<br>nuclearweaponarchive.org
<br>
<br><b>Joshua Froze</b>
<br />"Mini" in that they can fit in your back-pack, but there is nothing "mini" about their explosions!!!
<br>
<br>There is nothing "mini" about a 10-20 ton TNT explosive equivalent!
<br>
<br>The smallest nuke is the Davy Crockett = 1000 R.E.!
<br>
<br>Chemical explosives like we see at the WTC's (TNT, RDX, or C4 plastic explosives etc) are in the 1-2 R.E. range!
<br>
<br>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_effectiveness_factor
<br>Relative effectiveness factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<br>The relative effectiveness factor, or R.E. factor, relates an explosive's demolition power to that of TNT, in units of the TNT equivalent/kg (TNTe/kg). The R.E. factor is the relative mass of TNT to which an explosive is equivalent; the greater the R.E., the more powerful the explosive.
<br>en.wikipedia.org
<br>
<br><b>Joshua Froze</b>
<br />This is just a copy and paste from a thing I wrote awhile ago about the:
<br>
<br>-------
<br>
<br>"Radiation-only cancers" claim:
<br>
<br>Gordan makes this claim in another Veterans Today article, claiming to know his hard science!
<br>
<br>http://www.veteranstoday.com/.../gordon-duff-nuclear-911.../
<br>
<br>So I wanted to find out what these alleged sicknesses or cancers are that:
<br>
<br>"could only be caused by high level exposure to radiation."
<br>
<br>Which is simply not true.
<br>
<br>Most of the cancers are lung cancers, which we can assume is from breathing in the dust...
<br>
<br>"About a month ago, I learned, from the New York Times, that one firefighter had died of radiation cancer, multiple myeloma." -Gordan Duff
<br>
<br>First of all, the New York Times does not claim multiple myeloma is a radiation cancer and second, multiple myeloma is not a cancer that "could only be caused by radiation." -Gordan Duff
<br>
<br>What causes Multiple Myeloma:
<br>
<br>[Although the exact cause isn't known, doctors do know that multiple myeloma begins with one abnormal plasma cell in your bone marrow — the soft, blood-producing tissue that fills in the center of most of your bones. This abnormal cell then starts to multiply.
<br>
<br>Investigating cause:
<br>
<br>...Though they haven't yet discovered the cause of these changes, they have found that almost all people with multiple myeloma have genetic abnormalities in their plasma cells that probably contributed to the cancer.
<br>
<br>The genetic abnormalities associated with multiple myeloma include:
<br>
<br>-A defect related to chromosome 14 in which a piece of one chromosome moves to a different chromosome (translocation)
<br>
<br>-Extra copies of certain chromosomes (hyperdiploidy)
<br>
<br>-An abnormality in which part or all of chromosome 13 is missing]
<br>
<br>http://www.mayoclinic.org/.../basics/causes/con-20026607
<br>
<br>Leukemia is the other cancer that Gordan Duff leads to believe can only be caused by radiation:
<br>
<br>"So often I hear, “How could a nuclear weapon be exploded in New York City. Wouldn’t people die of leukemia and radiation exposure?”
<br>
<br>Wouldn’t they, though." -Veterans Today
<br>
<br>Leukemia:
<br>
<br>[Leukemia, like other cancers, results from mutations in the DNA.
<br>
<br>These mutations may occur spontaneously or as a result of exposure to radiation or carcinogenic substances.
<br>
<br>Common examples of non-radioactive carcinogens are inhaled asbestos, certain dioxins, and tobacco smoke.] -Wiki
<br>
<br>"Asbestos" could also have surely caused the cancers and lung sicknesses combined with all the other mix of harmful dust...
<br>
<br>I'm familiar with what radiation is and the different types, I used to work as an x-Ray radiographer on the pipeline, (gamma ray to be specific) and what biological damage it can do...
<br>
<br>I don't see anybody "radiated" or anything on 9/11... Do you have any more examples of victims of "radiation cancer" on 9/11?
<br>
<br>Here is a little educational course on the biological effects of radiation, since it is apparent that Gordan Duff does not have a clue about what radiation is, or it's damaging biological effects!
<br>
<br>http://www.ndt-ed.org/.../Radia.../biological/biological.htm
<br>
<br>-------
<br>
<br>Furthermore:
<br>
<br>Any use of nuclear devices would have produced vast amounts radioactive fallout detectable even at great distances from Lower Manhattan. No such contamination has been found. Nonetheless, advocates of the nuclear weapons theory claim that scientific reports examining the chemical composition of World Trade Center remains and dust support their theory. Two such claims concern the detection of tritium and uranium.
<br>
<br>http://911research.wtc7.net/.../ana.../theories/nuclear.html
<br>
<br>The passage indicates that the radioactivity of the WTC samples was only slightly above background levels, which is not surprising, given that small quantities of radionuclides are used in applications likely present in the Towers.
<br>
<br>-------
<br>
<br>If Gordan Duff wants to speak out about radiation, he should write about the war crimes and crimes against humanity of depleted uranium bombs dropped in Iraq that has caused (and still causing) all the birth defects there!
<br>NUCLEAR 9/11 UNDENIABLE
<br>YOU ARE WATCHING THOUSANDS OF TONS OF STEEL VAPORIZE 9/11 RADIATION CANCER DEATHS…
<br>veteranstoday.com
<br>
<br><b>Joshua Froze</b>
<br /> Pretty hard to claim radiation sickness/cancers when there was no radiation! Here's a film documenting the real causes of the lung cancers! And it's NOT radiation!
<br>
<br>Dust to Dust - A painful reality of the thousands of 9/11 First Responders & Heroes of 9/11 that have all fallen ill & died/dying from the toxic dust of 9/11 that the Government would clearly rather see their lives swept under the rug! Never Forget!
<br>
<br>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-_Kazg4ExnQ#
<br>
<br><b>Calvin R. Eagle</b>
<br>NuclearDemolition.com
<br>
<br><b>Joshua Froze</b>
<br />Most of the cancers are lung cancers and leukaemia for example: (which "occurs spontaneously or exposure to radiation OR as a result of non-radiation carcinogens being inhaled such as ASBESTOS!)
<br>
<br>We know the buildings were laced with cancer causing asbestos, the buildings were considered a liability and a financial cost of billions to remove it!
<br>
<br>I think part of the blame for the dying rescue workers should go to EPA director Christine Whitman for telling the people "the air was safe to breath!" Everyone should have been evacuated or worn respiratory protection! I guess they were in a hurry to open up Wall Street? They opened up Wall Street at the cost of thousands and thousands of lives!
<br>
<br>In the words of a 9/11 first responder, Iraq veteran again the war:
<br>
<br>"I WANT to tell you about how sick some of these brave men and woman have become. I WANT to tell you about how the mayor refused to accept the fact that not dozen, not hundreds, but many thousands of us were contaminated, sickened, and poisoned, by some of the most toxic combinations of building materials in the history of disaster releif. And that for 5 terrible years he ignored that fact. 5 years of our family members watching us drop dead!"
<br>
<br>AND
<br>
<br>"Every time Popular Mechanics (FOX NEWS etc) calls the people of this movement (9/11 truth) "nuts" these "propagandists" these "professional liars" and tools who can not by any stretch of the imagination be called "journalists" strike another nail into the coffin of another rescue worker!" -David Miller 9/11 First Responder R.I.P.
<br>
<br>9/11 Truth Rising:
<br>http://youtu.be/t-yscpNIxjI
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Joshua Froze</b>
<br />DEBUNKING NUKES
<br>
<br>[When it comes down to a Nuclear hypothesis, It was Khalezov that started it with his 150 kt Underground nukes. People like Gordon Duff, Jim Fetzer, Jeff Prager, started promoting it. When the 150 kt Underground theory made no sense and was easily dismissed. They simply switched it to “mini nukes” and/or “Neutron Bombs”. I’m not a nuclear scientist but then again, neither is Duff, Fetzer or anyone else at VT. Let’s look at some research which disproves a nuclear theory.] Ken Doc II
<br>
<br>https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/?s=Mini+nukes&submit=Search
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 260 -->
<a name="x261"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x261" class="tiny">x261</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_261');">you are welcome to repost your silly meme's on your thread</a></p>
<p>2016-03-14</p>
<div id="sect_261" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/1667176720210176">https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/1667176720210176</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Hal Porter, you are welcome to repost your silly meme's on your thread.
<br>
<br>I reserve the right to edit and purge this thread from antics that I deem undesirable. Your silly meme on Dr. Wood and another on Alex have no relevance here. They are neither researched nor reasoned.
<br>
<br>I suspect that you did not read the article, either.
<br>
<br>Please do so. That is the basis for this discussion.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 261 -->
<a name="x262"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x262" class="tiny">x262</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_262');">The evidence you point to can be applied to FGNW</a></p>
<p>2016-03-15</p>
<div id="sect_262" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/1667176720210176
<br>
<br>To my knowledge, Dr. Andre Gsponer has never written about 9/11. But as a nuclear physicist but outsider to nuclear developments, he has publicly speculated about the potentials of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW). [This speculation (a) has not been debunked or refuted, and (b) has been improved and honed over time, as is evident by multiple editions of some of his work.]
<br>
<br>FGNW spans a broad range of weapons. "the different kinds of radiations can have a variety of effects, especially if they are very penetrating, as is the case for high-energy neutrons and gamma-rays." Dr. Gsponer lists several that I have republished here:
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#14
<br>
<br>Of particular interest to me is the FGNW that "ablates a material and produces a shock wave in it." High-energy neutrons and gamma-rays are very penetrating. This is achieved by heating the surface so much, that the material vaporizes (i.e., "ablates"), and as a reaction, a large pressure is exerted that launches a shock-wave into the material. In other words, the (vaporized) material essentially explodes. (Because the shock-wave is in the material and not the air, the explosion would not be as loud as the equivalent chemical explosives who shock wave is transmitted through the medium of air.
<br>
<br>I could agree that the overly redundant operation probably had some back-up explosives planted (but certainly not in quantities that would achieve pulverization or months' long under-rubble hot-spots.) Quite possibly this is what we observe as squibs coming out the sides of the structure, and cases where materials in flight seemingly ignite and rocket a different direction.
<br>
<br>However, I can also argue that 9/11 was not a perfect nuclear operation. The damaged cars along West Broadway and the car park are evident probably of escaping EMP. The under-rubble hot-spots are probably nuclear fizzle from FGNW devices that did not achieve their expected yield. A misaligned FGNW lower in the towers could cause ablating in material that then seems to explode like squibs or get launched a different direction.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 262 -->
<a name="x263"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x263" class="tiny">x263</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_263');">stand porter to your thoughts</a></p>
<p>2016-03-15</p>
<div id="sect_263" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Hal Porter, your behavior on my thread is not acceptable. Your language ("mini nukes") indicates that you still have not read the article that this whole thread is about. "Mini nukes" is a blatant false frame with many unacceptable assumptions that does not apply to fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND). Please RTFM before participating any further.
<br>
<br>In the post of yours that I deleted -- because I found the meme to be ad hominem --, you asked if FGND were used on WTC-7.
<br>
<br>Quite possibly, because they did have some hot-spots.
<br>
<br>However, 9/11 was not a perfect nuclear operation. Hot-spots is one indication of such, as in nuclear fizzle. Another example in my opinion is that WTC-7 did not go down when the towers did.
<br>
<br>I've never argued for mutual exclusivity in the destruction at the WTC, and those who do without acknowledging the merits of alternatives play right into the hands of disinformation. 9/11 was a redundant operation, with back-up plans to the back-up plans.
<br>
<br>It should be pointed out that a FGND ignited within the building -- depending on design goals of the device -- could have been instrumental in igniting secondary plans.
<br>
<br>Indeed, you'll say that the above is speculation. So is NT, only more so.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 263 -->
<a name="x264"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x264" class="tiny">x264</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_264');">energy required for pulverization not easy</a></p>
<p>2016-03-15</p>
<div id="sect_264" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Ms. Kim Mantenga, the details you provide are fascinating, but you misconstrue the energy required for pulverization by saying it would be easy. Sure, chemical explosives could pulverize that stuff, but at what cost to the operation and its detection? It would have been very loud, deafening even; but the event wasn't. Further, pulverization would have added significantly to the logistics. (Let's not talk about the amount of explosive materials above and beyond pulverization that would have been required to maintain the hot-spots.) Their aims could be achieved with chemical explosives at amounts significantly less than pulverization (and free-fall), and would have been much more believable but albeit messy (with large chunks falling great distances to cream neighboring buildings).
<br>
<br>Pulverization could never have been a design goal, and something for the public easily to notice and question. Pulverization was an accidental side-effect of the FGND methods chosen which was logistically easier to implement.
<br>
<br>Further, you over-estimate the effect that age would have on those materials.
<br>
<br>The point that you omit is that corrugate-metal, the joints that supported them, etc. were ~not~ found in the pile. My premise is that the FGND could be aimed upwards (to help prevent fracticide with FGND below) with an energy cone contained essentially within the outer wall assemblies. The FGND ablated the materials essentially causing them to shatter. On a human scale, think of what happens when heating food in a sealed container in the microwave. The rapidly expanding water turning into steam can blow the lid off.
<br>
<br>You write of "deteriorating fireproofing." So what? In the face of the penetrating energy of a FGND, it would have had zero effect when brand-new. I think you grossly over-estimate "the BIGGEST contributor to the "pyroclastic-like cloud" by far, would have been all that fireproofing streaming completely off the perimeter columns as they fell." Be that as it may, what caused the fireproofing to STREAM OFF the perimeter columns? They sure didn't plan or place chemical explosives in a manner that could achieve that.
<br>
<br>According to my premise, the FGND could heat uniformly heat (as an example) perimeter wall assemblies top-to-bottom to extremely high temperatures. This would cause the fireproofing to essentially "STEAM OFF" (or burn off but from deep penetrating heat).
<br>
<br>This can also account for what I call "the steel doobies" that are discussed in section 7, linked below.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#7
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 264 -->
<a name="x265"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x265" class="tiny">x265</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_265');">make appropriate extrapolations in reverse</a></p>
<p>2016-03-15</p>
<div id="sect_265" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Porter, you asked above: "Why use ANY kind of nuclear device(s) when simple (and abundant) military grade demolition explosives and shape charges would suffice?" Logistics.
<br>
<br>The manner in which you ask why is wrong. You have to look at the evidence and make appropriate extrapolations in reverse.
<br>
<br>A more appropriate why question would be: in the planning and execution, why didn't they stop at sufficient amounts of "military grade demolition and shape charges" that would ~not~ have resulted in (a) free-fall and (b) pulverization and (c) in my view could have been easier to conceal and wouldn't have been so blatantly obvious a controlled demolition?
<br>
<br>The answer is that they would have stopped well before the involved quantities became massive and unreasonable, and easily detectable by bomb-sniffing dogs that patrolled the WTC (up until just a few days before 9/11).
<br>
<br>An equally embarrassing question is: how do "simple (and abundant) military grade demolition explosives and shape charges" explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots?
<br>
<br>The answer is that they don't. Or rather, whether or not combined with NT, they don't explain hot-spots unless we are talking obscenely massive overkill amounts of explosive material, ~unspent~ from the original pulverizing purposes.
<br>
<br>Alas, if you would have RTFM, you would know that this passage here is slightly redundant from what I wrote in Section 3. Running the numbers on NT
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#3
<br>
<br>You wrote: "... that the detonation of ANY kind of nuclear device(s) in Manhattan would go undetected (and traced)..."
<br>
<br>No one ever said that it went undetected or untraced. You under-estimate how much control the perpetrators exercised on the investigation (e.g., FEMA didn't gain access until 10/7, fire marshals had no access to site / materials) and the skew in the official reports (e.g., with a hallmark of delayed, insufficient, and skewed sampling.)
<br>
<br>Here is a fact for the 9/11 nuke deniers, such as yourself. You can not conclusively prove that there was ~no~ radiation at the WTC, because there are no reports that did prompt, systematic, and thorough measurements for such. For a similar reason, I cannot prove that there ~was~ radiation (except that tritium is a huge giveaway). Therefore, if we were being on the level with one another, this debate point would be placed on a shelf and inapplicable to either argument, thereby forcing the case for or against FGNW to be made using other evidence. This has been done by me. RTFM.
<br>
<br>You asked if I am a video gamer. Nope. In my youth, video games weren't just the time suck they are today; they were "quarter sucks" and I was thankfully not so flush in the wallet to be able to afford too much of that mind-sucking luxury.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 265 -->
<a name="x266"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x266" class="tiny">x266</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_266');">no support for underground nuclear devices</a></p>
<p>2016-03-15</p>
<div id="sect_266" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Calvin R. Eagle, you seem to support UNDERGROUND nuclear devices. I do not. The evidence doesn't support it. The evidence does support multiple above-ground within the towers FGNW.
<br>
<br>The vehicles that you reference, I do discuss in my article in Section 22 Vehicle Damage.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#22
<br>
<br>I believe the vehicle damage (along West Broadway and the car park, etc.) can best be explained by escaping EMP through window slits and falling debris line of sight.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 266 -->
<a name="x267"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x267" class="tiny">x267</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_267');">Froze line-by-line</a></p>
<p>2016-03-15</p>
<div id="sect_267" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Froze, Allow me to address your posting line-by-line.
<br>
<br>Part 1/2
<br>
<br>You asked: "Was there or was there not molten steel flowing from the Tower before collapse?"
<br>
<br>Agreed, yes. However, the energy source for this could go either way. A fizzling FGNW could achieve it. However, I've written that they had back-up plans for the back-up plans and to argue mutual exclusivity is to become a disinfo shill.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Was there or was there not 'pools of molten steel' in the rubble?"
<br>
<br>Agreed, yes. However, to attribute these pools of molten steel to NT or other chemical weapons (the direction you are headed) is a stretch where the burn-rate numbers do not add up. The FGNW themselves are more likely suspects, in addition to possible fizzled FGNW.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Was there or was there not molten steel in the buildings during it's destruction?"
<br>
<br>Agreed, yes. It fits extremely well my premise of FGNW.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Did or did not the Towers get blown up with explosives? With enough force to hurl steel beams 600 feet away, and pulverize the concrete to dust?"
<br>
<br>DISAGREE! The evidence for explosives is extremely weak. Hell, Dr. Jones had the only dust samples that alledgedly had "energetic flakes." There were three other reports (RJ Lee Group, Paul Lioy et all, USGS) that measured dust samples, and none had "energetic flakes." None had NT.
<br>
<br>Worst of all, Dr. Jones did ~not~ test for other explosives!!! (See section 4. Test the Samples.)
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#4
<br>
<br>And when he was called to test his samples "late in the game," he and AE9/11 refused with lame excuses of not having equipment and if the expiration time had been elapsed on being about to detect such, the deniers would have a field day saying: "See! There were no explosives! It was gravity-driven pile-driver!" Or honest truth seekers such as myself would be saying: "See! There were no explosives! But energy was clearly added to make the free-falling pulverization complaint with physics. Therefore, FGNW were used!"
<br>
<br>You asked: "Would there or would there not be tiny hot droplets of molten iron spread out in the dust cloud?"
<br>
<br>Agreed, yes. But let's be clear about what was found in the dust. No one found energetic flakes. All found iron spheres, which signifies a very hot source. All found red flakes of metal fused with aluminum. This is 1/2 of the reason why the towers were a white elephant. The steel of the wall assemblies had been corroding with the aluminum cladding. Expensive to fix, and so was the 1/2 of the white elephant: removing the asbestos. At any rate, owing to the amount of wall assemblies and aluminum cladding, it is no wonder that such corrosion flakes were found in the dust.
<br>
<br>Back to the large percentages of iron spheres in the dust. Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit imply they could be created (with massive amounts of) NT reacting with steel. Guess what? The localized intense heat of a FGNW could achieve this. Worse, you should read about the FGNW design goal of "Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it. If surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material."
<br>
<br>Part 1/2
<br>
<br>Part 2/2
<br>
<br>Mr. Joshua Froze, you wrote: "Is it possible for these tiny hot droplets to catch cars on fire?"
<br>
<br>DISAGREE: Under the towers were things much more combustible than paint on cars: flags, trees, leaves, people, etc. They did not get burned.
<br>
<br>The dust particles had long distances -- cooling ones at that -- to get to some of those vehicles. (Dr. Jenkins speculated based on the steel-alumunim flakes that they were mildly conductive, and thus caused shorting within the engine compartment -- doesn't match all of the evidence.) Other buildings had combustible materials that the dust could reach, but the number of fires started by such is zero. (Firey aircraft debris supposedly caused all of the other WTC fires that were raging before either tower came down.)
<br>
<br>EMP would not have such issues and would be very selective in its "targets" (e.g., metal line of sight) and effects (e.g., Eddy currents sufficient to heat metal to point where things touching the metal like paint, seals, etc. would ignite).
<br>
<br>Look into EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, which is provided in my article with a link to the source. No damn "tiny hot droplets" are going to cause a car door to pop right out of his hinges laterally (to knock Patricia into a wall). EMP heating the door to a point where metal expanded to a size greater than its door frame could.
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#21
<br>
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Was there people burnt by "hot stuff" in the dust cloud?"
<br>
<br>Reluctantly agree, but they weren't hurt in the manner you surmise. In fact, many had what more closely resembles a mild sunburn, or burn from being too close to a very hot heat source... that they got rather suddenly. They did ~not~ have point burn marks as would be expected by "firey hot debris".
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Did the dust clouds burn everything in their path? No. Why? Because the "hot stuff" was SPREAD OUT in the dust cloud..."
<br>
<br>No, because this does not explain the damage to vehicles along West Broadway, but not other things.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "The hospitals were overflowing with burn victims. How many of these burn victims got burnt by the debris cloud and how many got burned from the planes jet fuel explosion is unknown."
<br>
<br>Yes, but how many got burned by the intense release of alpha particles from a FGNW? They didn't have point burns as a hot flake would leave; they had sunburns. (Ok, maybe some of the early tower victims had other burns. But the story of a fireball going down the elevator shaft is bunk. An underground nuke releasing alpha particles and such without a fire ball would inflict same damage.)
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Here are a few witnesses of the hot debris cloud:"
<br>
</p><blockquote>=== begin quote
<br>
<br>“When I was running, some hot stuff went down by back, because I didn’t have time to put my coat back on, and I had some — well, I guess between first and second degree burns on my back.” -Marcel Claes, FDNY Firefighter
<br>“Then the dust cloud hits us. Then it got real hot. It felt like it was going to light up almost.” -Thomas Spinard, FDNY Engine 7
<br>“A wave — a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block.” – David Handschuh, New York’s Daily News
<br>“And then we’re engulfed in the smoke, which was horrendous. One thing I remember, it was hot. The smoke was hot and that scared me” -Paramedic Manuel Delgado
<br>“I remember making it into the tunnel and it was this incredible amount of wind, debris, heat….” -Brian Fitzpatrick FDNY Firefighter
<br>“A huge, huge blast of hot wind gusting and smoke and dust and all kinds of debris hit me” -Firefighter Louis Giaconelli
<br>“This super-hot wind blew and it just got dark as night and you couldn’t breathe” -Firefighter Todd Heaney
<br>
<br>=== end quote</blockquote>
<p>The above quotes support better my FGNW premise than NT.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "The cars are going to get hit with some of this "hot stuff" as well, but it can't "brush itself off". You can start a car on fire with a cigarette butt!"
<br>
<br>But so suddenly? Line of site? You're trying too hard.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "The cars we're burned by the debris cloud, while most of the people obviously did not let themselves get burned by tiny little ashes/or 'hot stuff'"
<br>
<br>Your speculation has already been addressed. The evidence you point to can be applied to EMP.
<br>
<br>You wrote: "Also there is nothing 'odd' about any of the burnt cars on 9/11, they are no different then any other burnt car! Just google 'burnt cars' (Well... except for as getting pounded with debris!)"
<br>
<br>Your research is obviously weak. Some of the damage vehicles had the fires originating from within. Your firey hot NT dust particles could not have achieved that. A metal steering wheel or other metal loops in the vehicles would turn them into "secondary windings of a transformer" whose primary side was the very large EMP. Large current would be induced that would be sufficient to heat the metal to a point that it would ignite material attached to it (rubber, plastic).
<br>
<br>You wrote: "I hope this helps!"
<br>
<br>Hope my response set you straight.
<br>
<br>//
<br>Part 2/2
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 267 -->
<a name="x268"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x268" class="tiny">x268</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_268');">allow me to refine my speculation</a></p>
<p>2016-03-16</p>
<div id="sect_268" style="display: none;">
<p>https://www.facebook.com/maxwell.bridges.148/posts/1667176720210176
<br>
<br>Dear Ms. Kim Mantenga, Allow me to refine my speculation.
<br>
<br>I do not believe that the fireproofing ablated from the external wall assemblies. On the other hand, I do think that the inner joists and floor pans (& all content between the inner core and the outer assembly walls) were ablated, hence their significant under-representation in the debris pile. Certainly fireproofing attached to these inner joints as well as the concrete would suffer similar ablating effects.
<br>
<br>Although the output energy at molecular wavelengths was aimed upward, ignition of a FGNW would still result in intense heat. I believe this was sufficient to heat wall assemblies top-to-bottom (which NT would not if positioned conservatively & reasonably).
<br>
<br>Testimony to the amount of heat acquired by the wall assemblies, when they were launched laterally by the (reduced) blast wave, they burned off all that was affixed to them -- from primer, to paint, to fireproofing -- and this was seen streaming (or steaming) off of the wall assemblies as they fell.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 268 -->
<a name="x269"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x269" class="tiny">x269</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_269');">cognitive dissonance also in 9/11TM</a></p>
<p>2016-03-16</p>
<div id="sect_269" style="display: none;">
<p>As for Mr. Hal Porter, I chalk it up to the fact that those ignorant of 9/11 aren't the only ones who sometimes suffer from cognitive dissonance. Sometimes those within the movement also suffer when newly presented facts and analysis causes painful mental conflict with long held beliefs. Dr. Wood supporters suffer from it a lot, but not as much as those who believe in the NT limited hang-out.
<br>
<br>I was admittedly being harsh to some of Mr. Porter's postings, particularly those who presented belittling meme's of nukes and Dr. Wood. Mr. Porter spent a lot of time associating my premise with inapplicable fringe beliefs, and not enough time evaluation what I had collected together in my article and what my premise really was.
<br>
<br>Caveat: I'm a duped useful idiot and naive about lots of things. Properly applied science and analysis of evidence are what sway me one way or another. I've been a believer and champion of other 9/11 themes, but the strong evidence of nuclear involvement has never been adequately addressed. If it had been, my tune would be different. But because it hasn't been addressed and hasn't been debunked, and in fact such debunking attempts are full of blatant holes, I persist and have evolved to my present beliefs.
<br>
<br>Mr. Porter's effort to convince me otherwise -- by flooding my corner of the FB forums with copy-and-paste of marginally relevant themes & memes -- was not doing the trick. In fact, his eifer sort of gave away his intentions, as he looked at throwing into the discussion all sorts of benign explanations... ANYTHING TO SHUT DOWN nuclear considerations.
<br>
<br>My patience is thin.
<br>
<br>I didn't delete him entirely and would welcome him back. But I don't have to accept everything. He has his own corner of FB to post what he wants. This is my corner.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 269 -->
<a name="x270"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x270" class="tiny">x270</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_270');">FGNW are by definition DEW</a></p>
<p>2016-04-09</p>
<div id="sect_270" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Morin, I agree that directed energy weapons (DEW) were used, but I do not agree that they were not nuclear. <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html#14">Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons</a> are by definition DEW.
<br>
<br>Don't be a brain-dead follower of Dr. Judy Wood, as your posting suggests. Instead be an informed follower of such, and acknowledge that Dr. Wood never considered her research the end station. Hell, she craftily doesn't even make any claims, and certainly doesn't power her innuendo with anything real world that can meet the energy requirements of the evidence!
<br>
<br>Our task is to stand on the shoulders of her research, and take understanding to level where truth dictates: FGNW.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br> </p>
</div><!-- section 270 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part8 -->
<hr>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Show All Parts</b></a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All Parts</b></a></p>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Show All</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All</a></p>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-7997146141713394672016-06-06T11:11:00.000-07:002018-04-26T15:04:19.888-07:00Playing Disinfo Games<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Show All Parts</b></a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All Parts</b></a></p>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Show All</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All</a></p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
areaShowAll("sect_part");
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<a name="x2"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x2" class="tiny">x2</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">Case study in a 9/11 disinformation operative</a></p>
<p>2016-06-13</p>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: block;">
<p>My debate opponents in the discussion below unravel as disinformation operatives. Although they call themselves a committee, it is clearly a team of members with different roles and rules of engagement in maintaining their agenda</p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name='more'></a>
<a name="x3"></a><hr>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part1');">Part 1: Quinazagga Disinfo</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part1" style="display: none;">
<p>{Embodiments of the Cass Sunstein school of infiltration. My tolerance of blatant lies and deceit has run low. Today, I saw a Facebook posting that made sense:<br />
<blockquote>If you're riding a horse full speed; there's a giraffe beside you; and you're being chased by a lion: what do you do? Get your drunk ass off the carousel! </blockquote>
<p>And so I try.}</p>
<a name="x5"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x5</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_5');">Concurs with the NIST findings?!!</a></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-17525">2013-05-28</a></p>
<div id="sect_5" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Quinazagga,
<br>
<br>I wrote up a detailed response to your postings. But the deeper I got into your hastily written prose, the less sincere and rational you became in my mind. This aspect is hammered home to me with your words:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835598155/">The image</a>] shows the point of failure at the impact floors so this concurs with the NIST findings and shows Thermite or DEW not the cause of the collapse but impact damage and secondary fire damage from the 767 that was the intercontinental configuration with the central belly tank normal for a plane going coast to coast.</p></blockquote>
<p>I guess you took your clues from NIST whose shoddy reports on the WTC ~stopped~ at the initiation of the collapse and did ~not~ analyze anything that was happening in the dust thereafter. El-Oh-El, they didn't even try to explain how the top of the towers could hit street levels in a time that was within a couple of seconds of free-fall.
<br>
<br>Here's what you are PURPOSELY missing.
<br>
<br>(a) The upper floors are leaning in that photograph. A correct interpretation of physics assuming gravity alone suggests that those upper floors should topple over into the path of least resistance. Instead, they are alleged to have plowed through the path of greatest resistance down to the ground.
<br>
<br>(b) The copious amounts of pulverization and dust were generated in the earliest stages of this tower's <i>"collapse"</i> and is a huge energy sink that gravity can't account for.
<br>
<br>(c)_ The images taken moments after your image show that block of upper floors disintegrating in on itself before it reaches 10 or 20 floors below the alleged impact level. The disintegration of those upper floors arrested its toppling, spewed pulverized content over the sides and horizontally very energetically, but also left much less that could construed as a cohesive pile driver that could continue plowing throw the path of greatest resistance at free-fall speeds. All this would not be possible unless HUGE AMOUNTS of energy were added to the equation.
<br>
<br>Or stated another way: when a pile-driver is assumed to be acting only under the forces of gravity as is alleged by the government, then the very acts of (1) disintegrating the upper floors, (2) spewing content over the sides and horizontally, and (3) destroying lower floors are all energy sucks that take away from the destruction being able to approach (4) free-fall speeds, if they didn't arrest the collapse much sooner. The only way all four can be present and observable in the destruction is if energy is added... And it didn't come from the airplanes or the resulting fires.
<br>
<br>This is key.
<br>
<br>Failure to acknowledge this is failure to agree with the laws of physics, and will be reflected poorly on either your intelligence or your allegience (to the PTB to keep the status quo and spin more disinfo.)
<br>
<br>Seeing how I've got it written, here's part of my thrashing of the rest of your postings. You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Dr judy woods was tossed out of Federal court as her data is without any merit.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, Dr. Woods was tossed out of Federal Court because she and her plantiffs <i>had no standing</i> to be making their whistleblower case. That is, they weren't federal employees; they weren't involved in the creation of the faulty reports. The court case never progressed far enough to determine whether or not her data had any merit. Big difference.
<br>
<br>You continued:
</p>
<blockquote><p>She has failed to follow basic research rules in regards to time date location of the cars.</p></blockquote>
<p>Agreed. The police car was damaged first and then towed to the bridge; it wasn't damaged at the bridge, which she implies in her book and website. She makes several errors of this nature. Whereas one can split hairs that damaged-at-the-bridge (Dr. Wood's implication) is a completely different proposition than damaged-closer-to-the-towers, we must not lose sight of the fact that such vehicles were torched at all when other more combustible objects were not.
<br>
<br>You continued:
</p>
<blockquote><p>She knowingly mislead people by creating her own truths without any facts to back them up.</p></blockquote>
<p>You'll have to be more specific. I don't find this to be the case. What I find is that (a) she relied too much on a government report on hot-spots with tainted satellite images; (b) she gave too much leeway to Hutchison; (c)_ she never proved that devices to snag Tesla energy or energy from Hurricane Erin were operational; (d) she gave the bum's rush to nuclear devices; (e) thereby, she offered little but dangling innuendo to <b>P O W E R</b> her destructive mechanisms, and by her own words, it required lots of energy.
<br>
<br>You continued:
</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357255/lightbox/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357255/lightbox/</a>
<br>The photo taken on 91301 after the collapse of building seven shows no sign of controlled demolition or falling into its own footprint it fell across the street hitting the liberty building.</p></blockquote>
<p>Let's grant you that WTC-7 hit the Liberty Building. So what? Enough of its debris fell neatly into its own footprint. The points you are missing are that it shouldn't have collapsed at all given the observable damage and fires (e.g., small and localized), that it shouldn't have had 100+ feet of its collapse indistinguishable from free-fall, and that sufficient numbers of police, fire, and media had foreknowledge of exactly when it was going to come down. Ergo, your statement above about <i>no signs of controlled demolition</i> is nonsense, and puts you into a very bad light.
<br>
<br>You continued:
</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357305/lightbox/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357305/lightbox/</a>
<br>This photo shows that building seven rolled over after the con Edison substation caught fire due to the impact of south tower.</p></blockquote>
<p>So what?
<br>
<br>You continued:
</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/</a>
<br>This is impact damage on the liberty building near the fire station. There is no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF or and any electrolysis this means all of the claims to DEW are self created trues without facts to back them. This is why they were thrown out of court.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ah, now you're showing something interesting! Get a load of what I call a <i>"steel doobie"</i> that stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. The <i>"steel doobie"</i> (one of several I've seen) is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands.
<br>
<br>What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a <i>"steel doobie"</i>? <b>Hint:</b> the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors. The <i>"steel doobie"</i> clearly shows that violent <i>horizontal forces</i> were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of <i>"steel doobie"</i> and its ejection so far away.
<br>
<br>Check out this illustration that is very analogous to electric-magnetic fields and waves:
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/bending/Image710.gif">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/bending/Image710.gif</a>
<br>
<br>The picture you've linked to supposedly prove <i>"no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF"</i> [or any other controlled demolition hijinx] <b>does not prove such.</b> In fact, the <i>"steel doobie"</i> proves otherwise even before seeing the parallels with how electric-magnetic fields could operate. Based on other evidence, I'm led to believe that the <i>"steel doobie"</i> was close to a heat source that made steel spandrels pliable and thus facilitated the ease with which <i>horizontal forces</i> could act on it.
<br>
<br>Therefore, your lame interpretation of your image could be a strawman argument for <i>"no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF"</i>. The real evidence of EMP are the cars parked along West Broadway and in the parking lot caticorner from the towers, images collected and organized nicely by Dr. Wood.
<br>
<br>Read the following, which supports DEW but deviates from Dr. Wood:
<br>
<br>9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW Parts 1 and 2
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/">http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/</a>
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/">http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/</a>
<br>
<br>Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11
<br><a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/">http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/</a>
<br>
<br>I expect that you are a hit-and-run flamer. So this isn't written for you but others.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 5 -->
<a name="x6"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x6" class="tiny">x6</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">Free fall is a fallacy?!!</a></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-17605">2013-06-03</a></p>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: none;">
<p>{Also posted <a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/#comment-2056">2013-06-03</a> on Quinazagga, was published, but then removed.}
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga,
<br>
<br>You can use a limited set of HTML mark-up in your responses. Something like <blockquote> <\blockquote> around my words would have done wonders for readers in comprehending who wrote what. Needless to say, I'm slightly annoyed at the way my words were munged with your words both here and on your <a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/">home court.</a>
<br>
<br>I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Failure to acknowledge [several points relating to observable anomalies in the destruction] is failure to agree with the laws of physics, and will be reflected poorly on either your intelligence or your allegience (to the PTB to keep the status quo and spin more disinfo.)</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Quinazagga responded:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[M]y failure to acknowledge <i>Misapplied elementary physics</i> that exposes the truth about your limited understanding of physics and the WTC south collapse. It does show a technique called poisoning the well and attempt at a veiled personal attack</p></blockquote>
<p>Very clever, Mr. Quinazagga, but just saying I've <i>"misapplied elementary physics"</i> without substantiation of the same does ~not~ make it so. Ergo, the projection of a <i>"limited understanding of physics"</i> seems to be coming from you onto me.
<br>
<br><i>"A veiled personal attack?"</i> Not at all veiled. In fact, you are deserving of some choice demeaning names for having written:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Free fall is a fallacy and so is the disintegration of the upper floors as thy impacted wtc 7, wtc 5, and wtc 6.</p></blockquote>
<p>With regards to the first half of your sentence, free-fall in WTC-7 is a fact that even Dr. Sunder of NIST and the NIST report acknowledges. Of the three stages of collapse covering the first 18 floors, stage 2 covering 100+ feet or 8 stories has an acceleration indistinguishable from free-fall (e.g., 32 ft/sec-sec.) If free-fall from a tower is 9.8 seconds, and if the towers according to NIST fell to street level in ~11 and ~13 seconds, then the 1-3 seconds difference is small enough and within the margin of error for the phrase <i>"near free-fall speeds"</i> to be applicable. Because this was obtained through the path of greatest resistance, energy had to have been added that your <i>"elementary physics"</i> is purposely not accounting for.
<br>
<br>With regards to the second half of your sentence, you seem to be saying that the upper floors of WTC-1 and 2 disintegrated as they impacted WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7, right? The problem isn't with this belief, but with the contradiction this causes in your other beliefs. In order for any of the mass of the towers to impact other buildings in the WTC, the mass had to be ejected horizontally. This requires energy, and if your <i>"elementary physics"</i> is going to say that it came from the potential energy of the towers under the force of gravity, it should (but apparently doesn't) calculate the two-fold contradiction to physics: (1) anything that consumes energy in the destruction, such as pulverization and the forceful ejection of materials, makes that energy unavailable for the collapse to reach <i>"near free-fall speeds"</i> ... unless energy is added; (2) when mass leaves the footprint of the towers in order to damage other buildings, that mass is no longer available in the pile-driver that is smashing in-tact & structurally stronger lower floors.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga continued:
</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8901649107/">Shows Core components</a> of south tower in rubble. This means they did not turn to dust.</p></blockquote>
<p>Don't conflate my beliefs with Dr. Wood's work, where often her brain-dead followers make inaccurate statements with regards to amounts of remaining steel and concrete in the pile (which then makes it easy for others to debunk in a strawman over-generalization.) The point is that dust blanketed NYC. Generation of dust of that magnitude is a large energy sink that cannot be met by <i>"elementary physics"</i> that assumes only the energy from the mass acting under gravity. Energy was added.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote the following confusion:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Seeing that the argument you make is your own truth that has no physical facts to back it and based upon negating the physics of the collapse or collapse dynamics structural loading at time of collapse horizontally and laterally. Also, A lack of reading the
<br>http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
<br>Puts your commentary at an inability to be able to discuss the initiation of the WTC south tower or north tower collapse due to a lack of research you cannot discuss without placing misleading self-proclaimed truths and red herrings to distract from your lack of research.</p></blockquote>
<p>I loved the clever projection of your attributes onto me in the first sentence, Mr. Quinazagga. As for the second and third sentence, I believe the true red herring is your desire to limit the discussion to <i>"the <b>initiation</b> of the WTC south tower or north tower collapse."</i> The abstract of that report demonstrates some of its faulty reasoning:
</p>
<blockquote><p>This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings...</p></blockquote>
<p>The government hasn't proven that the airliners were <i>commercial</i>, which their speed at low-altitude counters. The government hasn't proven that <i>terrorists flew the airliners</i>, which their accuracy at such speeds counters.
<br>
<br>Be this as it may, for the sake of discussion, let's hold the above assumptions as true. In fact, let's assume that the <i>initiation of the collapse</i> was a foregone conclusion. Does the rest of the collapse of structurally sound steel skyscrapers as told to us by NIST make sense? No, because NIST purposely didn't go there.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote the following confusion with regards to why Dr. Wood had her case thrown out:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Not any difference you need to read and not cherry pick to back a false truth. I fact the court found her arguments without merit.
<br>The implausibly of plaintiffs' theories warrants no further consideration by this Court beyond the insufficiency of the legal claims upon which plaintiffs attempt to advance those theories in their lawsuits.</p></blockquote>
<p>Nice spin, but your understanding of courts runs parallel with your <i>"elementary physics"</i>. The <i>insufficiency of the legal claim</i> with respect to the plaintiffs not having standing got them kicked out of court. The plaintiffs had plenty of evidence regarding how the official story defies <i>"elementary physics"</i> and merits further consideration regarding how only added energy makes sense, therefore validly questioning the NIST reports. Their case was largely already out-bound before they could present that, or any <i>"implausible plaintiffs' theories"</i>.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So the vehicles were towed to the points by NYPW and then the paper swirled around them after so that proves that there was no DEW</p></blockquote>
<p>No. Not at all.
<br>
<br>The vehicles were damaged in various places, such as along West Broadway and a parking lot caticorner to the towers. Evidence and testimony puts this as happening during WTC-1's demise (e.g., 2nd tower to fall). Loose paper was already everywhere from WTC-2 (e.g., 1st tower to fall); flags were flying all day long; trees had leaves).
<br>
<br>Well into the clean-up effort, damaged vehicles were towed to places like the bridge.
<br>
<br>As for your DEW comment, I doubt we're even on the same page in even describing DEW. In my <i>9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW</i> beliefs [<a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/">Part 1</a> and <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/">Part 2</a>], the directed energy was aimed out of the way (upwards) and essentially thrown away. Letting the highly energetic neutrons escape upwards not only helped reduce to a tactical level the blast and heat waves, but also directed those blast and heat waves in useful directions. The vehicles were not damaged directly by DEW, but by an escaping EMP from the energy source (e.g., a neutron bomb, which is a type of fusion bomb). The EMP snuck out through window slits and gaps in the falling debris. Also, my beliefs hold that multiple neutron nuclear DEV devices were deployed in each tower and some of the neighboring buildings (WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6).
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>What I find is [Dr. Wood] lied about the damage and cause of such on vehicles and then spouted off her own self truths coming from her own creation without facts to back them.</p></blockquote>
<p>What I find is that crafty Dr. Wood went out on a limb to <b><i>call attention to the damage</i></b> on vehicles and to help open our minds to other options into the cause of such damage. However, crafty Dr. Wood in her book offers very little speculation or conjecture to connect her data points or offer up conclusions.
<br>
<br>I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The points you are missing are that [WTC-7] shouldn't have collapsed at all given the observable damage and fires (e.g., small and localized), that it shouldn't have had 100+ feet of its collapse indistinguishable from free-fall, and that sufficient numbers of police, fire, and media had foreknowledge of exactly when it was going to come down. Ergo, your statement above about no signs of controlled demolition is nonsense, and puts you into a very bad light</blockquote>
<p>Mr. Quinazagga lamely counters with:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Actually, Your lack of research is astounding. The fires involved full floors of the building and it was impacted by wtc south. There was no controlled demolition.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Non-uniform, non-symetrical fires</b> scattered about 2 or 3 floors in a well-designed modern skyscraper such as WTC-7 cannot result in <b>uniform, symmetric, free-fall</b> through 8 floors, as observed from many different videos. The picture you offer as evidence only shows 1 floor burning, yet free-fall is documented to have happened through 8 floors. Not gradually. Suddenly. Only the sudden influx of energy via something akin to a controlled demolition (or more neutron nuclear DEW devices) can accomplish this.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga first wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>This photo shows that building seven rolled over after the con Edison substation caught fire due to the impact of south tower.</p></blockquote>
<p>When asked its significance, Mr. Quinazagga responds:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Therefore, it proves there was no DEW or EMP/EMF.</p></blockquote>
<p>No it doesn't. The usage of DEW and the occurance of any EMP side-effects is not predicated on either of them being directly responsible for the Con-Edison substation fire. Your foisting up a logic error into a strawman. Maybe you're correct that the South Tower fell on it causing it to burn. But it was multiple neutron nuclear DEW devices that caused the tower to collapse. (But based on other incorrect beliefs you harbor and arguments you make, you're just as likely to be incorrect.)
<br>
<br>I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Get a load of what I call a "steel doobie" that stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. The "steel doobie" (one of several I've seen) is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Quinazagga responded:
</p>
<blockquote><p>We are talking about the damage <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/">shown in the photograph</a> of the liberty building so now you are putting forth a red herring Since the Steel doobies are from recovered steel the question is what happened after they hit the ground to bend them or roll them. </p></blockquote>
<p>El-Oh-El. The question is most assuredly <b>~not~</b> <i>"what happened after [the steel doobie] hit the ground to bend them or roll them?"</i> And you for sure have no physics explanation, because they aren't going to symmetrically roll up ~after~ they've augered themselves into the ground right next to the Libery building.
<br>
<br>Nope. The doobies were torched (to soften the spandrels) and rolled well before they hit the ground. And this highlights four aspects that should cause concern to your beliefs:
<br>
<br>(1) The only floors to have fires were high up in the towers, so were these torched pieces from that level? Probably not. So how could gravity have torched these pieces of debris?
<br>
<br>(2) How could gravity have heated the spandrels sufficiently enough to facilitate rolling in a very short period of time (milliseconds or less)?
<br>
<br>(3) Gravity is a normal or perpendicular force, yet the forces to roll such steel doobies is at worst orthogonal and at best radial to gravity.
<br>
<br>(4) How could gravity throw these doobies and heavy wall assemblies so far?
<br>
<br>Your steel doobie is not the only one found in the pile. Look where the man is climbing, and then note the steel doobie just under the beam he climbs upon:
<br>http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga continued:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You negate the impact of building seven upon liberty building. </p></blockquote>
<p>No I don't. You conflate debris from WTC-7 with one of the towers. If the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/">image you linked</a> is depicting the Liberty building, then the debris in the form of a steel doobie came from one of the towers, not WTC-7.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga continued:
</p>
<blockquote><p>In addition, it does not prove DEW or EMP or EMF propagation it negates them. The big chunk of building debris was caused by the impact of seven into the so this bent not rolled piece of steel happened because of the collapse.</p></blockquote>
<p>El-Oh-El and Huh? Your fantasy, Mr. Quinazagga. WTC-7 (as <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357305/lightbox/">shown in this image</a>) did not have wall assembles consisting of three vertical beams (3 stories in height) that were connected together by three spandrel pieces, but the towers did. Therefore, if we assume that the image is from Liberty, the pieces that inflicted the damage came from the towers, not WTC-7.
<br>
<br>Get out a map and calculate how far that is. Given that your <i>"elementary physics"</i> is so superior to mine, please indicate the force lines and the amount of energy required to throw the doobie that far. You should do the calculations at different heights.
</p>
<blockquote><p>So if that is a part of WTC south are you now admitting that WTC south hit wtc 7 and that part that was pushed into the liberty building was actually imbedded in wtc7 before it impacted the liberty tower.</p></blockquote>
<p>I admit to <i>nothing</i> in your convoluted weasel-worded sentences. I've granted a big assumption from you <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357305/lightbox/">that this image</a> is the Liberty building, but I now ask that you provide a map pointing out where the Liberty building and specifically this damage were.
<br>
<br>The circus of Mr. Quinazagga continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Why not go into the Kinetic effects of a 2,000 foot building that is an acre across That collapses due to an impact of an aircraft combined with secondary fires initiated by a fuel air explosion of jet b aviation fuel. Or the implosive and explosive effects of such an collapse as well as horizontal and vertical loading during collapse and energy transfer through core elements into the fishbowl and into the base of the tower.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, why don't YOU go into the Kinetic effects? I'll tell you why. Each and every instance of kinetic energy having been consumed by (1) violently horizontal ejection and (2) rolling into doobies <b>removes energy (and mass)</b> that the official story needs to attribute to a pile-driver smashing through the intact lower structures of the tower at near free-fall rates. Thus, the official story without any modifications that would add energy sources defies the laws of physics.
<br>
<br>The circus of Mr. Quinazagga continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>And it was not a neutron bomb or DEW because the lack of EMP/EMF and specific Nuclear signatures of radiation which would have prevented recovery operation like this.</p></blockquote>
<p>There was no lack of EMP: refer to the vehicles along West Broadway. There was no lack of a radiation signature. Refer to the tritium report; refer to first responder ailments. The radiation signature was different than what your <i>"elementary physics"</i> can comprehend. Short lived, by design. Look up neutron bombs, but remove the framing. Read my articles.
<br>
<br>The recovery operations that you speak of involved carting in fresh dirt on one day of the week, spreading it out, then later in the week scooping up & carting out the same dirt. This is a typical technique for nuclear clean-up.
<br>
<br>I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The real evidence of EMP are the cars parked along West Broadway and in the parking lot caticorner from the towers, images collected and organized nicely by Dr. Wood.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Quinazagga replied:
</p>
<blockquote><p>O.k. you can stop right there because you already admitted the cars were placed there by NYPW so this is a red herring. You are obviously fabricating facts to back an self-proclaimed truth that is without any merit.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>I admitted no such thing.</b> You can stop putting words into my mouth. The vehicles along West Broadway and the parking lot caticorner from the towers were damaged ~BEFORE~ WTC-7 came down, and much pictorial evidence exists to this fact.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You just killed your credibility. You admitted in another article Firefox has issues with the new Flicker and that is known since Google took over the site.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ho-hum. <b>I admitted no such thing.</b> [Provide a link to such an admission, and I'll offer an apology.]
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga, you have not (yet) been censored on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/">Truth & Shadows</a>, but this is indeed what my recommendation is to Mr. McKee going forward if you post more brain-dead dribble, stilting, and lies.
<br>
<br>You don't add anything useful to the debate, and this stems in part because your understanding of physics just completely sucks and you gullibly believe every word of every report issued by the government just because it came from the government. (This alone should be reason enough for you to question it and validate it, which you have not done.)
<br>
<br>And if I error in this assessment, it will be because you are paid to be the idiot in these discussions.
<br>
<br>I have patiently spent more time countering your malframed <i>coincidence theories</i> than they deserve. I didn't do it for you, but for latter-day lurker readers and for Truth. Your mishandling of my words as well as your game of putting words into my mouth and the total nearly incomprehensible munging of postings already demonstrates your stewardship of truth and that it can't be trusted.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x7" class="tiny">x7</a>
Mr. <!-- -->DGW & Mr. <!-- -->EB: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_7');">Rejection of submittal due to personal attack and distraction debate tactics. by associate editor</a></p>
<p>2013-06-04</p>
<div id="sect_7" style="display: none;">
<p>From: "<!-- -->DGW" <!-- --> {gmail address}
<br>To: Señor El Once
<br>Subject: Rejection of submittal due to personal attack and distraction debate tactics. by associate editor
<br>Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:22:01 -0500
<br>
<br>Your comment is rejected due to self-proclaimed truths being stated as truths and personal attacks as well as an inability to stay on subject.
<br>
<br>You post lacks any factual content and has nothing to add to the article or to debate it. Your inadequate level of expertise and research into the collapse of WTC 1,2,7 or the aftermath is sufficient to deny your post publication.
<br>
<br>Your inaccurate statements regarding DEW, EMP/EMF are another reason to deny the reposting of the same erroneous data.
<br>
<br>You admitted to only reading the abstract of the
<br><a href="http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017">http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017</a>
<br>
<br>Also you misquoted Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds.
<br>
<br>{Mr. <!-- -->EB} associate editor
<br>
<br>You can re submit your response after you have removed the implausible self-truths you attempted to reiterate and stick to factual not empirical made up self-trues.
<br>
<br>This is not censorship it is redirecting a merry-go-around discussion where you are under an illusion that you have any facts.
<br>
<br><a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters">http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters</a>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 7 -->
<a name="x8"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x8" class="tiny">x8</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">How far does an object in free-fall fall in 2.25 seconds? </a></p>
<p>2013-06-04</p>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: none;">
<p>{Two emails sent to the administrator of the Quinazagga blog, because a hasty math error was introduced into the first email. The correction is noted within curly braces.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. <!-- -->DGW,
<br>
<br>Or do you go by "Mr. Quinazagga" on Truth & Shadows? And is this whom I have the pleasure of writing?
<br>
<br>Your rejection of my posting is based on unfounded assertions, just like Mr. Quinazagga, and displays much of his poor formatting, writing habits, and assignment of <b>"admissions"</b> to me that I did not make. This, I'm sure, you'll construe as a personal attack, just like my comments as to Mr. Quizagga's poor comprehension of elementary physics. You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You admitted to only reading the abstract of the <a href="http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017" target="_blank">http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017</a></p></blockquote>
<p><b>I made no such admission.</b> Putting words into my mouth, I see. I've in fact read the article in question many times over the years. For the purposes of the exchanges in question, I <i><b>only needed to quote</b></i> from the abstract.
<br>
<br>You erroneously wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Also you misquoted Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds.</p></blockquote>
<p>First of all, I did not quote from the Final Report of WTC-7, else I would have given it proper formatting and attribution. Even without it being a direct quote, however, my memory of what the report contains was not wrong.
<br>
<br>Second, you should think a bit more about what your own words state: <i>The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds.</i> For the sake of discussion, let's use this number. How far can an object fall in 2.25 seconds? <i>{Corrected}</i> Answer: 81 feet. The issue is that there shouldn't have been any free-fall measurable in the collapse of WTC-7, if it were to collapse at all. How many stories is that? It is not insignificant.
<br>
<br>Actually, if you read the report, you'd know that this is Stage 2 of the three stages of the first 18 floors of WTC-7 demise. In other words, the acceleration of Stage 1 gave the collapse a running start into Stage 2. Ergo, after 2.25 seconds of Stage 2 free-fall, the amount of building it covered was greater than <i>{corrected}</i> 81 feet.
<br>
<br>So, who indeed has <i>"an inadequate level of expertise and research into the collapse of WTC 1,2,7 or the aftermath"</i>? Who is offering up a personal attack?
<br>
<br>// Señor El Once
<br>
<br>+++++ {2nd email}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. <!-- -->DGW,
<br>
<br>I wrote my email in haste right before leaving from work. I introduced an error.
<br>
<br>How far does an object in free-fall fall in 2.25 seconds? The correct answer is 81 feet, not 162 feet as I had stated. I forgot to divide by 2.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, Stage 1 of the WTC-7 collapse was a running start (or initial velocity) going into Stage 2. I was correct in stating, because of the initial velocity, that the free-fall of Stage 2 represented more than 100 feet of the building's height.
<br>
<br>Dr. Sunder was correct in his description of free-fall. It meant that no structure, no support, nothing was in the way of the whatever was falling to hinder its fall. The question with WTC-7 is how 8 stories (over 100 feet) of structure could be suddenly, symmetrically, and uniformly "step out of the way" so that nothing was there to resist the falling roof.
<br>
<br>Agreeable to the laws of physics, only added energy (in the form of some controlled demolition) adequately explains this observable and measurable evidence of free-fall.
<br>
<br>Unfortunately, this flies in the face of the official government explanations of what happened on 9/11. It is hard to believe that 19 foreign terrorists on planes could get prolonged accessed to WTC-7 to accomplish this task, particularly when WTC-7 -- housing the SEC, CIA, FBI, etc. -- was probably a secure facility.
<br>
<br>At any rate, my apologies for the math error.
<br>
<br>// Señor El Once</p>
</div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x9" class="tiny">x9</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_9');">misunderstood request for improved formatting and is not censorship</a></p>
<p><a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/#comment-2058">2013-06-05</a></p>
<div id="sect_9" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Quinazagga, who posted <a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/">this "article"</a>, was playing just before Memorial Day weekend on another forum, <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-17463">Truth & Shadows</a>, which enabled him to get the fodder for the article that is comprised of his words and my words.
<br>
<br>One of Mr. Quinazagga's postings for Truth & Shadows (which is re-posted <a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/">here</a> with the date May 31, 2013 - 10:46 am) did not pass moderation. It wasn't because of the content or discussion topics, but because it was so badly formatted and mashed together my words (Señor El Once) and his responses, any latter-day lurker reader is going to have difficulty figuring out who said what. Mr. McKee, the owner of Truth & Shadows, asked Mr. Quinazagga to apply more effort in delineating comments.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga (1) misunderstood the request as <i>"attempted censorship"</i>, (2) created this blog entry with the grand title <i><a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/">"Beware the censorship by 911truth supporters"</a></i> as a result, (3) posted a link on Truth & Shadows to this blog entry (whose prompt publication kind of pours cold water on the censorship claim), and (4) posted both forums <i>"an improvement"</i>(?) to his earlier mash-up of my words and his responses. Returning to the opening words of his blog entry, it begins with the perpetuation of the misunderstanding with this fine passage:
</p>
<blockquote><p>My comments will not be moderated by a bias judge whom runs with 911truth agenda pushers...</p></blockquote>
<p>How ironic that an associate editor (Mr. EB) of his blog would then reject <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-17605">an already public response from me (2013-06-03)</a> when Mr. Quinazagga linked an invitation to me (and any curious readers) and called me out by name.
<br>
<br>Among the justification for the rejection were:
<br>
<br>[1] self-proclaimed truths being stated as truths
<br>[2] personal attacks
<br>[3] an inability to stay on subject
<br>[4] lacks any factual content
<br>[5] has nothing to add to the article or to debate it
<br>[6]
</p>
<blockquote><p>Your inadequate level of expertise and research into the collapse of WTC 1,2,7 or the aftermath is sufficient to deny your post publication.</p></blockquote>
<p>[7]
</p>
<blockquote><p>Your inaccurate statements regarding DEW, EMP/EMF are another reason to deny the reposting of the same erroneous data.</blockquote>
<p>The rejection email concludes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You can re submit your response after you have removed the implausible self-truths you attempted to reiterate and stick to factual not empirical made up self-trues.
<br>
<br>This is not censorship it is redirecting a merry-go-around discussion where you are under an illusion that you have any facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>As requested, <i>"the implausible self-truths"</i> are removed; this posting <i>"sticks to factual not empirical made up self-trues."</i> Before offering the cleaned-up and edited version of my <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-17605">2013-06-03 posting</a>, let's start with <i>"factual self-true"</i> given by the associate editor (Mr. EB) in his rejection email:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[Y]ou misquoted Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds.</blockquote>
<p>First of all, I did not directly quote from the <i>"Final Report on the Collapse of WTC-7"</i>, but cut through its attempt at <i>"mathematical sleight of hand"</i> by writing its findings in different but valid words.
<br>
<br>Secondly, the associate editor substantiates that the <i>"factual self-true"</i> from that NIST report on WTC-7 was that the building had 2.25 seconds of free-fall. In free-fall of 2.25 seconds, how far can an object fall? Answer: 81 feet. However, another <i>"factual self-true"</i> is that this 2.25 seconds came in what NIST calls Stage 2. Stage 1 was a running start (or initial velocity) going into Stage 2. Ergo, the actual distance of free-fall was 100+ feet, or about 8 stories.
<br>
<br>Dr. Sunder of NIST and his report were correct in his description of free-fall. It meant that no structure, no support, nothing was in the way of whatever was falling to hinder or slow-down its fall. The question with WTC-7 is how 8 stories (over 100 feet) of structure could be suddenly, symmetrically, and uniformly <b>"moved out of the way"</b> so that nothing was there to resist the collapse.
<br>
<br>As promised, here is the edited version that should meet with the associate editor's guidelines for re-submittal.
<br>
<br>+++++++
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga, you can use a limited set of HTML mark-up in your responses. Something like <blockquote> <\blockquote> around quoted words aids readers in comprehending who wrote what.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Free fall is a fallacy and so is the disintegration of the upper floors as thy impacted wtc 7, wtc 5, and wtc 6.</blockquote>
<p>With regards to the first half of his sentence -- <i>"Free fall is a fallacy"</i> --, I disagree, NIST's report on WTC-7 disagrees, and his associate editor (Mr. EB) disagrees. Refer to the comments above.
<br>
<br>Turning to the two towers, an object dropped from one of their roofs would hit street level in about 9.8 seconds. NIST's reports on the towers give their collpase times at ~11 and ~13 seconds, which is between about 1 and 3 seconds of, and a small enough difference from, free-fall to merit the phrase <i>"near free-fall speeds"</i>.
<br>
<br>The issue is that this <i>"collapse"</i> at <i>"near free-fall speeds"</i> happened through the path of greatest resistance. Agreeable to the laws of physics, it could only be obtained if energy was added to move resistive floors and building structure out of the way.
<br>
<br>With regards to the second half of his sentence, he seems to be saying that the upper floors of WTC-1 and 2 disintegrated as they impacted WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7, right? The problem isn't with this belief, but with the contradiction this causes in his other beliefs. In order for any of the mass of the towers to impact other buildings in the WTC, the mass had to be ejected horizontally. This requires energy. If he's saying that it came from the potential energy of the towers under the force of gravity, he faces the two-fold contradiction to physics: (1) anything that consumes energy in the destruction, such as pulverization and the forceful ejection of materials, makes that energy unavailable for the collapse to reach <i>"near free-fall speeds"</i> ... unless energy is added; (2) when mass leaves the footprint of the towers in order to damage other buildings, that mass is no longer available in the pile-driver that is smashing in-tact & structurally stronger lower floors & structure.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Seeing that the argument you make is your own truth that has no physical facts to back it and based upon negating the physics of the collapse or collapse dynamics structural loading at time of collapse horizontally and laterally. Also, A lack of reading the
<br>http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
<br>Puts your commentary at an inability to be able to discuss the initiation of the WTC south tower or north tower collapse due to a lack of research you cannot discuss without placing misleading self-proclaimed truths and red herrings to distract from your lack of research.</p></blockquote>
<p>Contrary to Mr. Quinazagga's first sentence, the <i>"(near) free-fall"</i> aspects of the WTC decimation are ~not~ <i>"[my] own truth that has no physical facts to back it."</i> Both NIST and his associate editor (Mr. EB) agree.
<br>
<br>With regards to the second and third sentence, why is there such desire to limit the discussion to <i>"the <b>initiation</b> of the WTC south tower or north tower collapse?"</i>
<br>
<br>For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the <i>initiation of the collapse</i> was a foregone conclusion. Does the rest of the collapse of structurally sound steel skyscrapers as told to us by NIST make sense? No, because NIST purposely didn't go there. They stopped their analysis at what was plausible for the <i>initiation of the collapse.</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote the following with regards to why Dr. Wood had her case thrown out:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Not any difference you need to read and not cherry pick to back a false truth. I fact the court found her arguments without merit.
<br>The implausibly of plaintiffs' theories warrants no further consideration by this Court beyond the insufficiency of the legal claims upon which plaintiffs attempt to advance those theories in their lawsuits.</p></blockquote>
<p>The <i>insufficiency of the legal claim</i> with respect to the plaintiffs not having standing got them kicked out of court. The plaintiffs had plenty of evidence regarding how the official story defies <i>"elementary physics"</i> and merits further consideration regarding how only added energy makes sense, therefore validly questioning the NIST reports. Their case was largely already <i>boggie on the out-bound</i> before they could present that, or any <i>"implausible plaintiffs' theories"</i>.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So the vehicles were towed to the points by NYPW and then the paper swirled around them after so that proves that there was no DEW</p></blockquote>
<p>No. Not at all.
<br>
<br>The vehicles were damaged in various places, such as along West Broadway and a parking lot caticorner to the towers. Evidence and testimony puts this as happening during WTC-1's demise (e.g., 2nd tower to fall). Loose paper was already everywhere from WTC-2 (e.g., 1st tower to fall); flags were flying all day long; trees had leaves. They are far more combustible, yet cars were torched and not them?
<br>
<br>Well into the clean-up effort, damaged vehicles were towed to places like the bridge or out of the parking lot. Refer to your own picture of some of that clean-up effort: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5462/8901780141_fd9b7cd6d1_n.jpg
<br>
<br>As for your DEW comment, I doubt we're even on the same page in even describing DEW. In my <i>9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW</i> beliefs [<a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/">Part 1</a> and <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/">Part 2</a>], the directed energy was aimed out of the way (upwards) and essentially thrown away. Letting the highly energetic neutrons escape upwards not only helped reduce to a tactical level the blast and heat waves, but also directed those blast and heat waves in useful directions. This configuration as a neutron device also modified the radiation signature to something only short-lived.
<br>
<br>In my beliefs, the vehicles were not damaged directly by DEW, but by an escaping EMP from the energy source (e.g., a neutron bomb, which is a type of fusion bomb). The EMP snuck out through window slits and gaps in the falling debris. Also, my beliefs hold that multiple neutron nuclear DEV devices were deployed in each tower and some of the neighboring buildings (WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6).
<br>
<br>Before complaints are raised, my beliefs <i>"stick to factual not empirical made up self-trues."</i> They are based on mined and cherry-picked nuggets of truth from many different sources... Nuggets of Truth that have withstood the fires of debate and flames and haven't been debunked, despite sometimes coming from sources labeled even by me as <i>"disinformation vehicles."</i>
<br>
<br>I can understand Mr. Quinazagga's reluctance to rationally debate whether or not neutron DEW devices decimated the WTC, because he has problems from the get-go regarding an adequate explanation using sound physics for why any of the WTC buildings would have (near) free-fall exhibited in their destruction. However, once he has <b>honestly</b> overcome this stumbling block, the <i>"factual not empirical made up self-trues"</i> of <b><i>"added energy"</i></b> on 9/11 should come to the forefront of his understanding as the only thing that satisfies the physics energy equations.
<br>
<br>I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The points you are missing are that [WTC-7] shouldn't have collapsed at all given the observable damage and fires (e.g., small and localized), that it shouldn't have had 100+ feet of its collapse indistinguishable from free-fall, and that sufficient numbers of police, fire, and media had foreknowledge of exactly when it was going to come down. Ergo, your statement above about no signs of controlled demolition is nonsense, and puts you into a very bad light</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Quinazagga countered with:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Actually, Your lack of research is astounding. The fires involved full floors of the building and it was impacted by wtc south. There was no controlled demolition.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Non-uniform, non-symetrical fires</b> scattered about 2 or 3 floors in a well-designed modern skyscraper such as WTC-7 cannot result in <b>uniform, symmetric, free-fall</b> through 8 floors, as observed from many different videos. The picture you offer as evidence only shows 1 floor burning, yet free-fall is documented to have happened through 8 floors. Not gradually. Suddenly. Only the sudden influx of energy via something akin to a controlled demolition (or more neutron nuclear DEW devices) can accomplish this.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga first wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>This photo shows that building seven rolled over after the con Edison substation caught fire due to the impact of south tower.</p></blockquote>
<p>When asked its significance, Mr. Quinazagga responded:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Therefore, it proves there was no DEW or EMP/EMF.</p></blockquote>
<p>No it doesn't. The usage of DEW and the occurrence of any EMP side-effects are not predicated on either of them being directly responsible for the Con-Edison substation fire.
<br>
<br>I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Get a load of what I call a "steel doobie" that stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. The "steel doobie" (one of several I've seen) is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Quinazagga responded:
</p>
<blockquote><p>We are talking about the damage <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/">shown in the photograph</a> of the liberty building so now you are putting forth a red herring Since the Steel doobies are from recovered steel the question is what happened after they hit the ground to bend them or roll them. </p></blockquote>
<p>The <i>"steel doobies"</i> cannot symmetrically roll up ~after~ they've augered themselves into the ground right next to the Libery building. Logic suggests that they were so formed in the many milliseconds between ejection from the towers and being planted into the ground. Heat most likely softened the spandrels first.
<br>
<br>(1) The only floors to have fires were high up in the towers, so were these doobies pieces from that level? Assuming they were, how much energy is required to eject them from that height to land near Liberty building? Assuming they were not, the thickness of such pieces thinned as you went higher in the structure, thus changing its weight. It ought to be possible to determine from published sources the weight of the specific steel doobies, and thereby calculate from what actual level in the structure they came. How much energy should have been consumed from the <i>"(near) free-fall speeds"</i> to eject them from that calculated new height to land near Liberty building?
<br>
<br>(2) How could gravity have heated the spandrels sufficiently enough to facilitate rolling in a very short period of time (milliseconds or less)?
<br>
<br>(3) Gravity is a normal or perpendicular force, yet the forces to roll such steel doobies was either orthogonal or radial to gravity.
<br>
<br>(4) How could gravity throw these doobies and heavy wall assemblies so far?
<br>
<br>Your steel doobie is not the only one found in the pile. Look where the man is climbing, and then note the steel doobie just under the beam he climbs upon:
<br>http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You negate the impact of building seven upon liberty building.</p></blockquote>
<p>No I don't. You conflate debris from WTC-7 with one of the towers. If the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/">image you linked</a> is depicting the Liberty building, then the debris in the form of a steel doobie came from one of the towers, not WTC-7.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>In addition, it does not prove DEW or EMP or EMF propagation it negates them. The big chunk of building debris was caused by the impact of seven into the so this bent not rolled piece of steel happened because of the collapse.</p></blockquote>
<p>WTC-7 (as <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357305/lightbox/">shown in this image</a>) did not have wall assembles consisting of three vertical beams (3 stories in height) that were connected together by three spandrel pieces, but the towers did. Therefore, if we assume that the image is from Liberty, the pieces that inflicted the damage came from the towers, not WTC-7.
<br>
<br>Get out a map and calculate how far that is. Given that your physics is so superior to mine, please indicate the force lines and the amount of energy required to throw the doobie that far. You should do the calculations at different heights.
</p>
<blockquote><p>So if that is a part of WTC south are you now admitting that WTC south hit wtc 7 and that part that was pushed into the liberty building was actually imbedded in wtc7 before it impacted the liberty tower.</p></blockquote>
<p>I admit to <i>nothing</i> in your sentences. I've granted a big assumption from you <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357305/lightbox/">that this image</a> is the Liberty building, but I now ask that you provide a map pointing out where the Liberty building and specifically this damage were.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Why not go into the Kinetic effects of a 2,000 foot building that is an acre across That collapses due to an impact of an aircraft combined with secondary fires initiated by a fuel air explosion of jet b aviation fuel. Or the implosive and explosive effects of such an collapse as well as horizontal and vertical loading during collapse and energy transfer through core elements into the fishbowl and into the base of the tower.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, why don't YOU go into the Kinetic effects? I'll tell you why. Each and every instance of kinetic energy having been consumed by (1) violently horizontal ejection and (2) rolling into doobies <b>removes energy (and mass)</b> that the official story needs to attribute to a pile-driver smashing through the intact lower structures of the tower at near free-fall rates. Thus, the official story without any modifications that would add energy sources defies the laws of physics.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>And it was not a neutron bomb or DEW because the lack of EMP/EMF and specific Nuclear signatures of radiation which would have prevented recovery operation like this.</p></blockquote>
<p>There was no lack of EMP: refer to the vehicles along West Broadway and <a href="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5462/8901780141_fd9b7cd6d1_n.jpg">the parking lot</a>. There was no lack of a radiation signature. Refer to the tritium report; refer to first responder ailments. The radiation signature was different than conventional fission and fussion devices. Short lived, by design. Look up neutron bombs, but remove the framing. Read my articles. The USGS dust samples from many locations were determined (by Jeff Prager) to have correlated qualities of various elements that could only be from fission, as in fission-triggered-fusion neutron devices.
<br>
<br>The recovery operations that you speak of involved carting in fresh dirt on one day of the week, spreading it out, then later in the week scooping up & carting out the same dirt. This is a typical technique for nuclear clean-up.
<br>
<br>I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The real evidence of EMP are the cars parked along West Broadway and in the parking lot caticorner from the towers, images collected and organized nicely by Dr. Wood.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Quinazagga replied:
</p>
<blockquote><p>O.k. you can stop right there because you already admitted the cars were placed there by NYPW so this is a red herring. You are obviously fabricating facts to back an self-proclaimed truth that is without any merit.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>I admitted no such thing.</b> You can stop putting words into my mouth. The vehicles along West Broadway and <a href="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5462/8901780141_fd9b7cd6d1_n.jpg">the parking lot caticorner</a> from the towers were damaged ~BEFORE~ WTC-7 came down, and much pictorial evidence exists to this fact.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 9 -->
<a name="x10"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x10" class="tiny">x10</a>
Mr. <!-- -->DGW : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them with bullshit</a></p>
<p>2013-06-05</p>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: none;">
<p>Since you asked Let us go back to the source
</p>
<blockquote><p>Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed.
<br>
<br>WTC 7 withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours.
<br>
<br>The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. The collapse could not have been prevented without controlling the fires before most of the combustible building contents were consumed.
<br>
<br>WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires with characteristics similar to previous fires in tall buildings. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred previously in several tall buildings (One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991) where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. However, because of differences between their structural designs and that of WTC 7, these three buildings did not collapse. Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 - 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 - persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min. Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.
<br>
<br>The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of Column 79, which was unsupported over nine stories, after local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of floor failures. The buckling of Column 79 led to a vertical progression of floor failures up to the east penthouse and to the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. An east-to-west horizontal progression of interior column buckling followed, due to loss of lateral support to adjacent columns, forces exerted by falling debris, and load redistribution from other buckled columns. The exterior columns then buckled as the failed building core moved downward, redistributing its loads to the exterior columns. Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit.
<br>
<br>The collapse of WTC 7 was a fire-induced progressive collapse. The American Society of Civil Engineers defines progressive collapse-also known as disproportionate collapse-as the spread of local damage, from an initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it (ASCE 7-05). Despite extensive thermal weakening of connections and buckled floor beams of Floors 8 to 14, fire-induced damage in the floor framing surrounding Column 79 over nine stories was the determining factor causing the buckling of Column 79 and, thereby, initiating progressive collapse. This is the first known instance where fire-induced local damage (i.e., buckling failure of Column 79; one of 82 columns in WTC 7) led to the collapse of an entire tall building.
<br>
<br>WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon the removal of the Column 79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building.
<br>
<br>Neither the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) nor the "strong" floors (Floors 5 and 7) played a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7. Neither did the Con Edison substation play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.
<br>
<br>There was no evidence to suggest that there was damage to the SFRM that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams, except in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1, which was near the west side of the south face of the building.
<br>
<br>Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.
<br>
<br>Early fires in the southwest region of the building did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The fires in this region were not severe enough to heat the structure significantly; and, unlike the northeast region where collapse initiated, there were no columns supporting long span floors in the southwest region.
<br>
<br>The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time.
<br>
<br>A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a free-fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.
<br>
<br>Principal Findings
<br>
<br>Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed. Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street or West Broadway). This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.</p></blockquote>
<p>Actually looking at the report and the Aftermath of WTC 7 being laid across West Broadway and the only similarity between the WTC 7 collapse and WTC 1 and 2 towers is The connection, beam, and girder failures in the floor systems, and the resulting structural responses, occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 °C (750 ºF), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness.
<br>
<br>That raises the question of If WTC tower 1 and 2 had similar materials and construction methods/standards to that of WTC 7?
<br>
<br>Consider these two factual points to be a more factual basis of investigation and use the recovery data to be able to see the facts within the incidents.
<br>
<br>1. Hijackers were aided by embedded ground crews at the airports. Known fact supported by 1990 phoenix Arizona FBI report to Albright.
<br>
<br>2. Investigate the use of NSC-68 as a forging policy in the middle east in regards to the MEK is a causation of the creation of the terrorist network. This is due to the abandonment of established proxy warrior network and the re-acquirements by radicalized faction leaders whom crate a Crusader via religion to strike targets that have encroached upon the territory become a target of their religious leaders' self-created enemy thus this is transferred to their proxy warriors whom will strike that target.
<br>
<br>3. Building and construction standards in the WTC towers may have a weakness that is in the connective bolts used in both towers to connect the steel beams to support structures.
<br>
<br>As item #3 similar constructed medium rise office buildings have had floor collapses as result of similar uncontrolled fire damage and have had catastrophic failures. This means that there is a fire vulnerability in standard bolt/riveted steel or iron structures. This is why sprinkler and fire suppression systems are utilized in mostl buildings built after 1986.
<br>
<br>The need to separate an opinion from fact is very important in archival research as well as documenting and preserving the integrity of the facts.
</p>
</div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x11" class="tiny">x11</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_11');">copying-and-pasting from NIST reports does not absolve you from conveying its significance</a></p>
<p>2013-06-06</p>
<div id="sect_11" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. <!-- -->DGW,
<br>
<br>You are very adept at copying-and-pasting from NIST reports. However, this does not absolve you from conveying the significance of what you quote, both in a micro sense of details in isolation and/or combination and in the macro sense of larger agendas being played out and covered over.
<br>
<br>Those reports you quote do have elements of truth, don't get me wrong. This is out of necessity, because all effective disinformation has to be founded on a solid foundation of truth before they steer the unquestioning into the weeds. You place too much faith into the integrity of those reports and, for reasons about which I can only speculate, seem unable to acknowledge the contradictions, omissions, and skew that make them untrustworthy.
<br>
<br>You write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The need to separate an opinion from fact is very important in archival research as well as documenting and preserving the integrity of the facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>Agreed. However, it is also important to assess all of the facts in a timely and scientific manner, which was not done with regards to 9/11 or the WTC-7 report. Moreover, it is also important to recognize when opinions are mascarading as scientific ventures, when a hypothesis is proposed that can't be definitively proven, ignores all of the evidence, is prevented from collecting evidence, or doesn't even bother to analyze the evidence that is available.
<br>
<br>Before I show to you the troublesome aspects of your fresh quotations, let me give you some macro perspective.
<br>
<br>- Fire investigators were prevented from doing their jobs in analyzing the evidence. In fact they complained about crime-scene evidence being removed in haste, carted away, and destroyed.
<br>
<br>- The EPA issued public statements about the air quality in NYC in the days/weeks after 9/11 that were not true. I can only speculate that they were strong-armed into lying so as to not cause public panic.
<br>
<br>- The NIST reports on the collapse of the towers ~STOPPED~ at the initiation of the collapse, did not investigate anomalies during the collapse, and unscientifically ruled out controlled demolition <i>"... because, duh? We saw da planes."</i>
<br>
<br>- The draft version of the NIST report on WTC-7 did ~not~ mention that a phase of its collapse had measurable and observable free-fall. Their final version mentions it (and you quote part of it), but uses the mathematical sleight of hand called <i>"averaging"</i> to dupe the unwitting.
<br>
<br>- The creation of the 9/11 Commission was delayed for over a year, slow-walked, under-funded, and originally tapped an international war-criminal to head it. Today, even those on the Commission acknowledge that it was far from full-and-complete, failing to address even 5% of the Jersey Girl's questions. The behind-the-scenes executive director of the commission, Philip Zelikow, had conflicts of interest with the administration, filtered what evidence got to the commission and into the report, and <i>"while at Harvard worked on the use and misuse of history in policymaking."</i> Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."</p></blockquote>
<p>The significance of this very brief and incomplete list is for you to see that unquestioning faith in the correctness of government agencies is not well founded.
<br>
<br>And when a rational thinker steps back from these micro details, they see an agenda being trotted out that has shred the Constitution and been contrary to anything "American" or "Christian".
<br>
<br>As for your lengthy quotation from the WTC-7 report? Without your insight into its significance, it takes on the appearance of you throwing up a lengthy distraction. The quoted passage is nothing more than weasel-words, padding, and TNRAT (pronounced "tin-rat" and means <i>"they'll never read all that!"</i>)
<br>
<br>Let's cut out the fluff and go directly to this great quote that demonstrates the deceit in the WTC-7 report:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a free-fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.
<br></p></blockquote>
<p>How did they come up with <i>"a descent time of the upper 18 stories was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time"?</i> They AVERAGED the three stages together, because they needed to distract from the fact that Stage 2 was at free-fall. (<i>"Gravitational acceleration"</i> is another phrase for free-fall.)
<br>
<br>Now we can return to some of the passages that lead-in and try to bury the revelation above. Here's a red-flag for your beliefs:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 - 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 - persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, the WTC-7 fires were not stationary. They consumed what was combustible in a given area in 20 to 30 minutes and <b>progressed</b> into other areas. So although WTC-7 had fire most of the day (that coincidence theorists try to hype), the reality is that fires in any given area were short lived.
<br>
<br>The fuel for such fires was primarily office furnishings (diesel fuel gets ruled out below by NIST), which has limitations regarding how hot they can get with respect to reaching levels sufficient to make structural steel pliable. The <i>progressing</i> WTC-7 fires were insufficient in energy and <i>duration</i> to heat that structural steel to a failing (or pliable) point.
<br>
<br>If we grant this hypothesis, though, of the steel becoming pliable, when the fires progressed into other areas as discussed in the quoted passage, steel from the burned areas cool and regain their rigidity. However, the report wants us to conflate a steel structure with a wood structure of a house, whereby house fires do consume critical supporting structure and lead to overall structural failure.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The <i><b>probable</b></i> collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of Column 79, which was <i>unsupported over nine stories</i>, after local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of floor failures. The buckling of Column 79 led to a <b>vertical progression</b> of floor failures up to the east penthouse and to the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. <b>An east-to-west horizontal progression</b> of interior column buckling followed, due to <b>loss of lateral support</b> to adjacent columns, forces exerted by falling debris, and load redistribution from other buckled columns. The exterior columns then <b>buckled</b> as the failed building core moved downward, redistributing its loads to the exterior columns. Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit.</p></blockquote>
<p>Note the word <i>"probable".</i> <i><b>Probable</b></i> does not mean "definitive". They're guessing and covering their ass with weasel-words.
<br>
<br>The repeated lie is <i>"progression"</i>, of which <i>buckling</i> is a form of and is relatively gradual. This is what their computer simulation modeled. Unfortunately, the computer simulation does not model the video evidence, which proves that it was not gradual.
<br>
<br>The WTC-7 failure (particularly in Stage 2) was sudden, symmetric, uniform (length and breadth), and timed across many floors. Although buckling of columns is considered failing, resistance is still exerted in the buckling of columns. "Gravitational acceleration" in Stage 2 is not an indication of buckling resistance; it is zero resistance. The underlying support and structure were somehow suddenly compromised so that they would offer zero resistance to mass falling through their space. As the roof-line demonstrates, the collapse was uniform and symmetric, which is uncharacteristic of fires.
<br>
<br>The claim that column 79 was <i>unsupported over nine stories</i>? How could it be not supported? Structural steel is not consumed by mere 20-30 minutes fires stoked by office furnishes (or diesel fuel) that migrate into other areas.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The collapse of WTC 7 was a fire-induced progressive collapse.</p></blockquote>
<p>The issue is <i>not</i> that a building <i>could</i> be completely destroyed by <i>"a fire-induced progressive collapse."</i> The issue is that the WTC-7 evidence shows that it was not <i>progressive</i>; it was <i>sudden</i>. There is absolutely nothing progressive about over 8 stories exhibiting free-fall, meaning that
<br>
<br>They did not prove their case that fires were the primary mechanism. Unscientifically, They did not test for explosive. Evidence was destroyed. Their computer models did not agree with what was observed; they admitted to over-driving parameters in their model to get their progressive collapse theory; they did not release those models for public-peer-review.
<br>
<br>Some other quotes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Early fires in the southwest region of the building did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The fires in this region were not severe enough to heat the structure significantly; and, unlike the northeast region where collapse initiated, there were no columns supporting long span floors in the southwest region.</p></blockquote>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed.</blockquote>
<p>So we're left with a migrating office-furnishing fire to account for the sudden onset of gravitational acceleration over 8 stories. Yeah, right.
<br>
<br>Here's another great quote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street or West Broadway). This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yep, I am willing to accept everything above as true and valid.
<br>
<br>Why? Because <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/">neutron nuclear DEW devices</a>, being of a tactical nature, would accomplish the above without the tell-tell audio signatures of chemical explosives.
<br>
<br>The above passage is a red-herring. It explains why they didn't test for chemical explosives; they knew (or were told) chemical explosives weren't used. However, they didn't test for nuclear devices either. They didn't properly analyze the dust which had traces of correlated elements across numerous sampling points that clearly showed nuclear fission happend. They didn't speculate properly about why tritium was measured at elevated levels (although below EPA thresholds) in the WTC drainage water.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Consider these two factual points to be a more factual basis of investigation and use the recovery data to be able to see the facts within the incidents.
<br>
<br>1. Hijackers were aided by embedded ground crews at the airports. Known fact supported by 1990 phoenix Arizona FBI report to Albright.</p></blockquote>
<p>It is okay by me to circumscribe a larger group of conspirators. Did those same ground crews plant neutron bombs at the WTC?
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>2. Investigate the use of NSC-68 as a forging policy in the middle east in regards to the MEK is a causation of the creation of the terrorist network. This is due to the abandonment of established proxy warrior network and the re-acquirements by radicalized faction leaders whom crate a Crusader via religion to strike targets that have encroached upon the territory become a target of their religious leaders' self-created enemy thus this is transferred to their proxy warriors whom will strike that target.</p></blockquote>
<p>Most of the terrorist network were trained by the CIA.
</p>
<blockquote><p>3. Building and construction standards in the WTC towers may have a weakness that is in the connective bolts used in both towers to connect the steel beams to support structures.</p></blockquote>
<p>Indeed. The weakness was those connective bolts ability to withstand the effects of a neutron nuclear DEW.
</p>
<blockquote><p>As item #3 similar constructed medium rise office buildings have had floor collapses as result of similar uncontrolled fire damage and have had catastrophic failures. This means that there is a fire vulnerability in standard bolt/riveted steel or iron structures. This is why sprinkler and fire suppression systems are utilized in mostl buildings built after 1986.</p></blockquote>
<p>Nonsense. The reason for sprinkler and fire suppression systems is to protect and preserve human life. Lots of lives were lost in garmet district fires long ago that gave rise to new codes.
<br>
<br>Provide instances where uncontrolled fires damage let to catastrophic failures. If we are to believe the government's story, it happened only three times in history that were coincidently on the exact same day: 9/11/2001.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 11 -->
<a name="x12"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x12" class="tiny">x12</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">Re-Hash of email to the Quinazagga Forum</a></p>
<p><a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/#comment-2059">2013-06-06</a></p>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: none;">
<p>{Because the previous exchanges transpired on email, a combined entry was created and submitted to his blog. It passed moderation but then shortly thereafter was removed. <b>If you've read the three entries immediately prior to this, then no need to read this one.</b> In email they complained about their own words from the emails being published on their blog. I'm still complaining about my words being published on their blog.}
<br>
<br>Here are edited portions of an email exchange with the moderator of this blog.
<br>
<br>++++++++++ Señor El Once
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Quinazagga, you erroneously wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Also you misquoted Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds.</p></blockquote>
<p>First of all, I did not quote from the Final Report of WTC-7, else I would have given it proper formatting and attribution. Even without it being a direct quote, however, my memory of what the report contains was not wrong.
<br>
<br>Second, you should think a bit more about what your own words state: <i>The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds.</i> For the sake of discussion, let's use this number. How far can an object fall in 2.25 seconds? <i>{Corrected}</i> Answer: 81 feet. The issue is that there shouldn't have been any free-fall measurable in the collapse of WTC-7, if it were to collapse at all. How many stories is that? It is not insignificant.
<br>
<br>Actually, if you read the report, you'd know that this is Stage 2 of the three stages of the first 18 floors of WTC-7 demise. In other words, the acceleration of Stage 1 gave the collapse a running start into Stage 2. Ergo, after 2.25 seconds of Stage 2 free-fall, the amount of building it covered was greater than <i>{corrected}</i> 81 feet.
<br>
<br>Dr. Sunder was correct in his description of free-fall. It meant that no structure, no support, nothing was in the way of the whatever was falling to hinder its fall. The question with WTC-7 is how 8 stories (over 100 feet) of structure could be suddenly, symmetrically, and uniformly "step out of the way" so that nothing was there to resist the falling roof.
<br>
<br>Agreeable to the laws of physics, only added energy (in the form of some controlled demolition) adequately explains this observable and measurable evidence of free-fall.
<br>
<br>Unfortunately, this flies in the face of the official government explanations of what happened on 9/11. It is hard to believe that 19 foreign terrorists on planes could get prolonged accessed to WTC-7 to accomplish this task, particularly when WTC-7 -- housing the SEC, CIA, FBI, etc. -- was probably a secure facility.
<br>
<br>// Señor El Once
<br>
<br>++++++++++ Mr. Quinazagga (with editing to remove Señor El Once's words written above and to format it appropriately)
<br>
<br>Since you asked Let us go back to the source
</p>
<blockquote><p>Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed.
<br>
<br>WTC 7 withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours.
<br>
<br>The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. The collapse could not have been prevented without controlling the fires before most of the combustible building contents were consumed.
<br>
<br>WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires with characteristics similar to previous fires in tall buildings. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred previously in several tall buildings (One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991) where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. However, because of differences between their structural designs and that of WTC 7, these three buildings did not collapse. Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 - 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 - persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min. Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.
<br>
<br>The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of Column 79, which was unsupported over nine stories, after local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of floor failures. The buckling of Column 79 led to a vertical progression of floor failures up to the east penthouse and to the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. An east-to-west horizontal progression of interior column buckling followed, due to loss of lateral support to adjacent columns, forces exerted by falling debris, and load redistribution from other buckled columns. The exterior columns then buckled as the failed building core moved downward, redistributing its loads to the exterior columns. Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit.
<br>
<br>The collapse of WTC 7 was a fire-induced progressive collapse. The American Society of Civil Engineers defines progressive collapse-also known as disproportionate collapse-as the spread of local damage, from an initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it (ASCE 7-05). Despite extensive thermal weakening of connections and buckled floor beams of Floors 8 to 14, fire-induced damage in the floor framing surrounding Column 79 over nine stories was the determining factor causing the buckling of Column 79 and, thereby, initiating progressive collapse. This is the first known instance where fire-induced local damage (i.e., buckling failure of Column 79; one of 82 columns in WTC 7) led to the collapse of an entire tall building.
<br>
<br>WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon the removal of the Column 79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building.
<br>
<br>Neither the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) nor the "strong" floors (Floors 5 and 7) played a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7. Neither did the Con Edison substation play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.
<br>
<br>There was no evidence to suggest that there was damage to the SFRM that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams, except in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1, which was near the west side of the south face of the building.
<br>
<br>Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.
<br>
<br>Early fires in the southwest region of the building did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The fires in this region were not severe enough to heat the structure significantly; and, unlike the northeast region where collapse initiated, there were no columns supporting long span floors in the southwest region.
<br>
<br>The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time.
<br>
<br>A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a free-fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.
<br>
<br>Principal Findings
<br>
<br>Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed. Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street or West Broadway). This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.</p></blockquote>
<p>Actually looking at the report and the Aftermath of WTC 7 being laid across West Broadway and the only similarity between the WTC 7 collapse and WTC 1 and 2 towers is The connection, beam, and girder failures in the floor systems, and the resulting structural responses, occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 °C (750 ºF), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness.
<br>
<br>That raises the question of If WTC tower 1 and 2 had similar materials and construction methods/standards to that of WTC 7?
<br>
<br>Consider these two factual points to be a more factual basis of investigation and use the recovery data to be able to see the facts within the incidents.
<br>
<br>1. Hijackers were aided by embedded ground crews at the airports. Known fact supported by 1990 phoenix Arizona FBI report to Albright.
<br>
<br>2. Investigate the use of NSC-68 as a forging policy in the middle east in regards to the MEK is a causation of the creation of the terrorist network. This is due to the abandonment of established proxy warrior network and the re-acquirements by radicalized faction leaders whom crate a Crusader via religion to strike targets that have encroached upon the territory become a target of their religious leaders' self-created enemy thus this is transferred to their proxy warriors whom will strike that target.
<br>
<br>3. Building and construction standards in the WTC towers may have a weakness that is in the connective bolts used in both towers to connect the steel beams to support structures.
<br>
<br>As item #3 similar constructed medium rise office buildings have had floor collapses as result of similar uncontrolled fire damage and have had catastrophic failures. This means that there is a fire vulnerability in standard bolt/riveted steel or iron structures. This is why sprinkler and fire suppression systems are utilized in mostl buildings built after 1986.
<br>
<br>The need to separate an opinion from fact is very important in archival research as well as documenting and preserving the integrity of the facts.
<br>
<br>++++++++++ Señor El Once
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Quinazagga,
<br>
<br>You are very adept at copying-and-pasting from NIST reports. However, this does not absolve you from conveying the significance of what you quote, both in a micro sense of details in isolation and/or combination and in the macro sense of larger agendas being played out and covered over.
<br>
<br>Those reports you quote do have elements of truth, don't get me wrong. This is out of necessity, because all effective disinformation has to be founded on a solid foundation of truth before they steer the unquestioning into the weeds. You place too much faith into the integrity of those reports and, for reasons about which I can only speculate, seem unable to acknowledge the contradictions, omissions, and skew that make them untrustworthy.
<br>
<br>You write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The need to separate an opinion from fact is very important in archival research as well as documenting and preserving the integrity of the facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>Agreed. However, it is also important to assess all of the facts in a timely and scientific manner, which was not done with regards to 9/11 or the WTC-7 report. Moreover, it is also important to recognize when opinions are mascarading as scientific ventures, when a hypothesis is proposed that can't be definitively proven, ignores all of the evidence, is prevented from collecting evidence, or doesn't even bother to analyze the evidence that is available.
<br>
<br>Before I show to you the troublesome aspects of your fresh quotations, let me give you some macro perspective.
<br>
<br>- Fire investigators were prevented from doing their jobs in analyzing the evidence. In fact they complained about crime-scene evidence being removed in haste, carted away, and destroyed.
<br>
<br>- The EPA issued public statements about the air quality in NYC in the days/weeks after 9/11 that were not true. I can only speculate that they were strong-armed into lying so as to not cause public panic.
<br>
<br>- The NIST reports on the collapse of the towers ~STOPPED~ at the initiation of the collapse, did not investigate anomalies during the collapse, and unscientifically ruled out controlled demolition <i>"... because, duh? We saw da planes."</i>
<br>
<br>- The draft version of the NIST report on WTC-7 did ~not~ mention that a phase of its collapse had measurable and observable free-fall. Their final version mentions it (and you quote part of it), but uses the mathematical sleight of hand called <i>"averaging"</i> to dupe the unwitting.
<br>
<br>- The creation of the 9/11 Commission was delayed for over a year, slow-walked, under-funded, and originally tapped an international war-criminal to head it. Today, even those on the Commission acknowledge that it was far from full-and-complete, failing to address even 5% of the Jersey Girl's questions. The behind-the-scenes executive director of the commission, Philip Zelikow, had conflicts of interest with the administration, filtered what evidence got to the commission and into the report, and <i>"while at Harvard worked on the use and misuse of history in policymaking."</i> Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."</p></blockquote>
<p>The significance of this very brief and incomplete list is for you to see that unquestioning faith in the correctness of government agencies is not well founded.
<br>
<br>And when a rational thinker steps back from these micro details, they see an agenda being trotted out that has shred the Constitution and been contrary to anything "American" or "Christian".
<br>
<br>As for your lengthy quotation from the WTC-7 report? Without your insight into its significance, it takes on the appearance of you throwing up a lengthy distraction. The quoted passage is nothing more than weasel-words, padding, and TNRAT (pronounced "tin-rat" and means <i>"they'll never read all that!"</i>)
<br>
<br>Let's cut out the fluff and go directly to this great quote that demonstrates the deceit in the WTC-7 report:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a free-fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.
<br></p></blockquote>
<p>How did they come up with <i>"a descent time of the upper 18 stories was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time"?</i> They AVERAGED the three stages together, because they needed to distract from the fact that Stage 2 was at free-fall. (<i>"Gravitational acceleration"</i> is another phrase for free-fall.)
<br>
<br>Now we can return to some of the passages that lead-in and try to bury the revelation above. Here's a red-flag for your beliefs:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 - 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 - persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, the WTC-7 fires were not stationary. They consumed what was combustible in a given area in 20 to 30 minutes and <b>progressed</b> into other areas. So although WTC-7 had fire most of the day (that coincidence theorists try to hype), the reality is that fires in any given area were short lived.
<br>
<br>The fuel for such fires was primarily office furnishings (diesel fuel gets ruled out below by NIST), which has limitations regarding how hot they can get with respect to reaching levels sufficient to make structural steel pliable. The <i>progressing</i> WTC-7 fires were insufficient in energy and <i>duration</i> to heat that structural steel to a failing (or pliable) point.
<br>
<br>If we grant this hypothesis, though, of the steel becoming pliable, when the fires progressed into other areas as discussed in the quoted passage, steel from the burned areas cool and regain their rigidity. However, the report wants us to conflate a steel structure with a wood structure of a house, whereby house fires do consume critical supporting structure and lead to overall structural failure.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The <i><b>probable</b></i> collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of Column 79, which was <i>unsupported over nine stories</i>, after local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of floor failures. The buckling of Column 79 led to a <b>vertical progression</b> of floor failures up to the east penthouse and to the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. <b>An east-to-west horizontal progression</b> of interior column buckling followed, due to <b>loss of lateral support</b> to adjacent columns, forces exerted by falling debris, and load redistribution from other buckled columns. The exterior columns then <b>buckled</b> as the failed building core moved downward, redistributing its loads to the exterior columns. Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit.</p></blockquote>
<p>Note the word <i>"probable".</i> <i><b>Probable</b></i> does not mean "definitive". They're guessing and covering their ass with weasel-words.
<br>
<br>The repeated lie is <i>"progression"</i>, of which <i>buckling</i> is a form of and is relatively gradual. This is what their computer simulation modeled. Unfortunately, the computer simulation does not model the video evidence, which proves that it was not gradual.
<br>
<br>The WTC-7 failure (particularly in Stage 2) was sudden, symmetric, uniform (length and breadth), and timed across many floors. Although buckling of columns is considered failing, resistance is still exerted in the buckling of columns. "Gravitational acceleration" in Stage 2 is not an indication of buckling resistance; it is zero resistance. The underlying support and structure were somehow suddenly compromised so that they would offer zero resistance to mass falling through their space. As the roof-line demonstrates, the collapse was uniform and symmetric, which is uncharacteristic of fires.
<br>
<br>The claim that column 79 was <i>unsupported over nine stories</i>? How could it be not supported? Structural steel is not consumed by mere 20-30 minutes fires stoked by office furnishes (or diesel fuel) that migrate into other areas.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The collapse of WTC 7 was a fire-induced progressive collapse.</p></blockquote>
<p>The issue is <i>not</i> that a building <i>could</i> be completely destroyed by <i>"a fire-induced progressive collapse."</i> The issue is that the WTC-7 evidence shows that it was not <i>progressive</i>; it was <i>sudden</i>. There is absolutely nothing progressive about over 8 stories exhibiting free-fall, meaning that
<br>
<br>They did not prove their case that fires were the primary mechanism. Unscientifically, They did not test for explosive. Evidence was destroyed. Their computer models did not agree with what was observed; they admitted to over-driving parameters in their model to get their progressive collapse theory; they did not release those models for public-peer-review.
<br>
<br>Some other quotes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Early fires in the southwest region of the building did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The fires in this region were not severe enough to heat the structure significantly; and, unlike the northeast region where collapse initiated, there were no columns supporting long span floors in the southwest region.</p></blockquote>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed.</blockquote>
<p>So we're left with a migrating office-furnishing fire to account for the sudden onset of gravitational acceleration over 8 stories. Yeah, right.
<br>
<br>Here's another great quote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street or West Broadway). This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yep, I am willing to accept everything above as true and valid.
<br>
<br>Why? Because <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/">neutron nuclear DEW devices</a>, being of a tactical nature, would accomplish the above without the tell-tell audio signatures of chemical explosives.
<br>
<br>The above passage is a red-herring. It explains why they didn't test for chemical explosives; they knew (or were told) chemical explosives weren't used. However, they didn't test for nuclear devices either. They didn't properly analyze the dust which had traces of correlated elements across numerous sampling points that clearly showed nuclear fission happend. They didn't speculate properly about why tritium was measured at elevated levels (although below EPA thresholds) in the WTC drainage water.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Consider these two factual points to be a more factual basis of investigation and use the recovery data to be able to see the facts within the incidents.
<br>
<br>1. Hijackers were aided by embedded ground crews at the airports. Known fact supported by 1990 phoenix Arizona FBI report to Albright.</p></blockquote>
<p>It is okay by me to circumscribe a larger group of conspirators. Did those same ground crews plant neutron bombs at the WTC?
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>2. Investigate the use of NSC-68 as a forging policy in the middle east in regards to the MEK is a causation of the creation of the terrorist network. This is due to the abandonment of established proxy warrior network and the re-acquirements by radicalized faction leaders whom crate a Crusader via religion to strike targets that have encroached upon the territory become a target of their religious leaders' self-created enemy thus this is transferred to their proxy warriors whom will strike that target.</p></blockquote>
<p>Most of the terrorist network were trained by the CIA.
</p>
<blockquote><p>3. Building and construction standards in the WTC towers may have a weakness that is in the connective bolts used in both towers to connect the steel beams to support structures.</p></blockquote>
<p>Indeed. The weakness was those connective bolts ability to withstand the effects of a neutron nuclear DEW.
</p>
<blockquote><p>As item #3 similar constructed medium rise office buildings have had floor collapses as result of similar uncontrolled fire damage and have had catastrophic failures. This means that there is a fire vulnerability in standard bolt/riveted steel or iron structures. This is why sprinkler and fire suppression systems are utilized in mostl buildings built after 1986.</p></blockquote>
<p>Nonsense. The reason for sprinkler and fire suppression systems is to protect and preserve human life. Lots of lives were lost in garmet district fires long ago that gave rise to new codes.
<br>
<br>Provide instances where uncontrolled fires damage let to catastrophic failures. If we are to believe the government's story, it happened only three times in history that were coincidently on the exact same day: 9/11/2001.
<br>
<br>// Señor El Once
</p>
</div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x13" class="tiny">x13</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_13');">what makes a conspiracy theorist tick</a></p>
<p>2013-06-11</p>
<div id="sect_13" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/what-makes-a-conspiracy-theorist-tick/">what makes a conspiracy theorist tick</a> by quinazagga 2013-06-10
<br>
<br>{Email to Quinazagga as well as unpublished comment to that blog entry.}
<br>
<br>It is posts like this that prove what a lying, cheating, thieving, dishonest asshole you are, Mr. Quinazagga!
<br>
<br>How so?
<br>
<br>You didn't even write this piece of bullshit. You stole it from someone else but put your own name on it as if this were your work. Most of your blog is this way.
<br>
<br>Maybe if you had put proper accreditation on it, its contents might be worth debating. But not really. In the grand scheme of things, this represents a repressive propaganda effort to smear and dissuade. Very little substantiation. Lots of generalizations, which actually don't apply. Basically, <i>"don't even see the many data points of orchestrated deceit; don't connect them together into a trend line of high level misdirection. For if you do, you'll demonstrate a mental malfunction."</i>
<br>
<br>Your dishonest posting of this is like wrapping a bow around your entire website as a clue on how to regard it. Bot created drivel and disinformation.
<br>
<br>I'll make you happy by looking for the unsubscribe feature shortly. I've looked at your legacy. This was par for the course. You are hardly worth following even in the shit that you steal.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 13 -->
<a name="x14"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x14" class="tiny">x14</a>
Mr. <!-- -->DGW : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">your own "self-trues"</a></p>
<p>2013-06-11</p>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: none;">
<p><br>{Email response from Mr. <!-- -->DGW}
<br>
<br>once again you can have your own trues but not your own facts. You have proved the accuracy of the article.
<br>
<br>Fact 300,000 persons worldwide read this blog. Submissions are made by multiple authors and the author has the option to have their name posted or not.
<br>The claimed author goes by Ms. <!-- -->DS.
<br>Phantasypublishing blog articles are submittals by other Authors just like any other publication or publishing house and author has the option to have their name posted or not.
<br>Name calling and acting like a child will just get your comments placed in spam where they belong. The problem you have is the site is not regulated or syndicated and never will be.
<br>You really are the hypocrite here in making ignorant statements. You are the one whom parrots off misinformation about 91101 and uses Dr. Judy Woods whom has self-trues but no real facts that tie them to the incident. So you knowingly quote her Misinformation/disinformation as True and factual when it is not factual. No are a lot of your statements about Recovery of the WTC towers after 91101 that are fiction . Given your track record we will not publish any of your comments. Nor will you ever publish any private e-mails from me or any of my collages within Phantasypublishing as you are not a spokesperson for Phantasypublishing no are you in a capacity to represent the company.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x15" class="tiny">x15</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_15');">such a fucking liar in the face of copyright infringement</a></p>
<p>2013-06-11</p>
<div id="sect_15" style="display: none;">
<p><br>{Email Response to Mr. <!-- -->DGW}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. <!-- -->DGW,
<br>
<br>How am I an <i>ignorant hypocrite</i>? I'll wager you don't even know what a hypocrite is, ergo I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to explain how I might be one.
<br>
<br>You are such a fucking liar in the face of being caught in the act of <font size="4">copyright infringement.</font> I'll bet you never even ~asked~ Mr. Suave if you could use his piece. You probably found his article (re-posted in several places on the internet) and co-opted it for your purposes. He never sought you out to publish on your blog, so you are lying about whether or not he opted out of getting credit. At best, you might have (but didn't) send him a lame link saying you were going to re-publish his piece.
<br>
<br><font size="4">Still, there is no getting around your dishonesty in not crediting him with his work.</font> Worse, the manner of your posting gives the false impression that you wrote it. El-Oh-El! Nothing like the "originality" of your emails and postings (e.g., on Truth & Shadows) to put that thought to bed for good.
<br>
<br>Your lying knows no bounds evidently, and is on display with your Dr. Wood comments. You were told that my beliefs deviate from Dr. Wood; you were given links to those deviations. As for any misinformation/disinformation in her work, I at least have the ability to spot it from the truths and make a distinction; I have never championed 100% of her work, and cherry-picked the evidence that any conspiracy theory du jour (including the "official" one that you promote) must address to be complete.
<br>
<br>You, on the other hand, are so agenda-driven, you wouldn't know a truth or its significance if it fell into your lap at gravitational acceleration from a NIST report.
<br>
<br>Your company, Phantasypublishing, is aptly named: a fantasy, not a real company. Gee, 300k people read your blog? Maybe combined total page views over eight years. Big woop-de-doo. How many subscribe? [Subtract that number by one, because I no longer do.] The number has never been big, and this is reflected by the number of comments your vast numbers of readers never made. (Or was it because they flagged your ass like I did, thereby necessitating their banishment?)
<br>
<br>The only thing remotely saving your "company" from copyright infringement is the fact that you aren't making any money off of your site -- got no ads, no sponsors --, and you can claim that the articles were re-posted for the benefit of scholarly review.
<br>
<br>Doesn't mean you should regularly short-change the original authors (as you do) and not provide links to the source. Nope. In fact, if your "company" wants to continue to duck under this fair-use umbrella, then you had better start "fairly" using them by crediting the original author. Otherwise, you are and remain <font size="4">a plagiarist</font>, which is another form of <font size="4">fucking lying, you ignorant asshole.</font> Par for your course.
<br>
<br>As for publishing your own emails on your blog? Their removal is a testament to how you do <b>~not~</b> stand behind your own words, because they are confused, contradictory, and ignorant, and I made you mad by pointing out the specifics of such.
<br>
<br>Damn straight I'm not a spokes person for you, your colleagues (? alter-egos?), and am in no position to represent your company(?), nor have I ever wanted to be.
<br>
<br>The ignorance card falls into your lap at gravitational acceleration... Ignorance of what free-fall is; ignorance of fair-use; ignorance of truth; ignorance of any helpful advice to improve your blog and its reputation.
<br>
<br>Here's another proof of what a fucking liar you are.
<br>
<br>You never asked ~my~ permission to use my words on your lame-ass posting <a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters" target="_blank">"Beware the Censorship by 9/11 Truth Supporters"</a>. You did not credit me; you did not link to the source; you completely fucked up the formatting of my words; you have not let me defend my words.
<br>
<br>ERGO, you NO LONGER HAVE PERMISSION to use my words on your forum. <font size="4">Please remove my words from your site</font>. Cut it down, strip me out, and leave only Mr. Quinazagga's words. I don't want as much as a single lingering google search result that Señor El Once might have been active on your home court. You've so edited the record already, nobody will know that I tried; let's make that permanent and complete; remove all of my (better written) prose.
<br>
<br>// Señor El Once</p>
</div><!-- section 15 -->
<a name="x16"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x16" class="tiny">x16</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">Please remove all passages for Señor El Once.</a></p>
<p><a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/#comment-2068">2013-06-11</a></p>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: none;">
<p>{Posting to a website. It did not pass through moderation.}
<br>
<br>You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once.
<br>
<br>You did not credit me; you did not link to the source; you completely fucked up the formatting of my words; you have not let me defend my words.
<br>
<br>Cut it down, strip me out, and leave only Mr. Quinazagga's (poorly written) words.
<br>
<br>I don't want as much as a single lingering google search result that Señor El Once might have been active on your home court. You've so edited the record already, nobody will know that I tried; let's make that permanent and complete; remove all of my prose and references to my alias, Señor El Once.
<br>
<br>// Señor El Once</p>
</div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x17" class="tiny">x17</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_17');">such a cheesy liar!</a></p>
<p>2013-06-13</p>
<div id="sect_17" style="display: none;">
<p>{Email to Mr. <!-- -->DGW}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. <!-- -->DGW,
<br>
<br>You are such a cheesy liar! I'll come back to the Greening piece in a moment, but rest assured that it will prove you to be a liar and a cheat.
<br>
<br>Regarding the piece, <a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/what-makes-a-conspiracy-theorist-tick/" target="_blank">what makes a conspiracy theorist tick</a>, you wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The submitter was signed D. Suave and it is credited you simply overlooked it. Then made an ass out of yourself</p></blockquote>
<p>The submitter where? The submitter on your blog was quinazagga. Talk about making an ass out of yourself, there is a difference between a<i> "submitter on some strange blog on the internet"</i> and an <i>"author of original work."</i> Neither Mr. D. Suave nor Mr. Quinazagga authored it. It was authored <a href="http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4264" target="_blank">by Brian Dunning.</a>
<br>
<br>Moreover, the whole phrase <i>"submitted by {Ms. <!-- -->DS}"</i> was <a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/what-makes-a-conspiracy-theorist-tick/" target="_blank">post-edited into the piece</a>, probably after receiving my complaints. Edit it again to make sure to give the correct, rightful author credit, as well a link back to its source.
<br>
<br>Now with regards to what you <i>think </i>Mr. Quinazagga posted... *beep* *beep* Nope! The source playground was <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/" target="_blank">Truth & Shadows</a>, where Mr. Quinazagga's comment for May 31, 2013 - 10:46 was <b>never </b>published, because he so fucked up the formatting that it could not be determined who wrote what. Even the re-posting on your blog explicitly copies that his comment for Truth & Shadows awaits moderation. Mr. Quinazagga was never banned from T&S and successfully posted other comments after this one in question. He was asked to fix the issues with this one and re-submit, and it could be logically assumed that his comments after May 31 reflect this improved effort. Evidently, he never did (with all the same information), otherwise I would have seen his raise and called his bluff.
<br>
<br>You might be tempted to say that <i>"no, the discussion migrated here where Mr. Quinazagga re-posted the discussion."</i> *beep* *beep* Nope! Another fail. Truth & Shadows suffered with several comments from Mr. Quinazagga after May 31. And none of the things he posted after that date had any reference to the Greening piece. Finally, because you've childishly censored me, any rebuttal I might have made is gone (for now).
<br>
<br>And when we turn our gaze only to the lame re-hashing on the Quinazagga blog and the May 31 posting, we quickly discover (a) the May 31 postings included several things that subsequent postings on Truth & Shadows did not (like the Greening link), and (b) Mr. Quinazagga offered very little value-add. El-Oh-El! He provided no relevant excerpt from the Greening document nor any self-composed verbiage that would convey some level of his own understanding. Without relevance, it amounts to busy work to go there; you'll simply ignore it..
<br>
<br>Here's some more irony. Mr. Quinazagga wrote (where the link refers to the Greening piece):
</p>
<blockquote><p>Free fall is a fallacy and so is the disintegration of the upper floors as thy impacted wtc 7, wtc 5, and wtc 6. <a href="http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Your astute associate, Mr. EB, emailed cool quotations from the NIST report that proves that free-fall (gravitational acceleration) was no fallacy [in WTC-7]. And although WTC-1 & 2 were 2-3 seconds longer in collapsing than expected by free-fall, they were within the margin of error to merit them being associated as almost free-fall or the phrase "at free-fall speeds."
<br>
<br>With regards to the details of Mr. Greenings report, if Mr. Quinazagga wants to make a relevant, respectful, and intelligent posting on Truth & Shadows (neutral territory) and defend it rationally, I'll be happy to point out its failings.
<br>
<br>Until that day, I will hold to my assessments that you all at Phantasypublishing are LIARS and CHEATS, and your emails don't disappoint in this regard.
<br>
<br>Kudos to you, Mr. <!-- -->DGW born on August 19, 1970 at 10:00 pm in Plaquemine, Louisiana, for having started your real company, Phantasypublishing, in 1980 at the ripe old age of 10!!!
<br>
<br>*Clap* *clap* *clap*
<br>
<br>Having a company and having a (wildly) profitable one are two different things.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, I request again that<a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/" target="_blank"> the words of Señor El Once</a> be removed from your website, where your foul formatting of my words and cowardice at publishing my rebuttals makes it an unhealthy environment for truth.
<br>
<br>// Señor El Once
</p>
</div><!-- section 17 -->
<a name="x18"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x18" class="tiny">x18</a>
Mr. <!-- -->DGW : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">Phantasypublishing does not need your Authorization</a></p>
<p>2013-06-12</p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: none;">
<p>Sir,
<br>
<br>Phantasypublishing does not need your Authorization for publishing works that you released to a publicly accessed Blog system without restriction or placing your legal name or copyright restrictions upon it at the time of publishing. Upon your initial release prior to 6/11/2013 there was no implied copyright or terms of use of the data you presented. Meaning you released your exchange to public domain without restriction.
<br>
<br>A work of authorship is in the "public domain" if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.
<br>
<br>Since you are not the author of the data you presented in an public discussion you have no claim of copyright on your opinion you state publicly.
<br>
<br>You have had time to make a response article in excess of thirty days and have not supplied a response that includes quotes of an authoritative factual source for substantiation. You instead provided sources espousing self-created truth under empirical reasoning philosophy that had no basis in the physical facts of the incident. This is willful propagation of disinformation and propaganda that is unfounded in facts. Your failure to state that it was in your opinion or in the opinion of the other author that ----- happened. You also never address factual reports that are contrary to the self-truths you state. Under DMCA you have ten to ask for a full retraction of any article you failed to do so and the article will remain as it was published before you put a stop press notice. Due to your reporting self-proclaimed trues as facts and repetitive false claims aimed at Quinazagga the Articles will remain as they are to preserve the integrity of the database. Removing them allows you to weasel your way out without taking responsibility for the false and misleading statements made in the discussion by you.
<br>
<br>This blog site has approximately 300,000 readers worldwide daily and is a non-profit database. They do make comments upon your entries and the suggestion the community has made for both of you is to read http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/25/ and use APA guidelines if you want to retain research integrity. Since you don't use APA guidelines your information is viewed as your opinion not as fact. Quinazagga does use APA guidelines and has quoted sources. In my observation it is just a case of you denying the facts and replacing them with self-truth that is un founded in facts but founded in your empirical beliefs and philosophies.
<br>
<br>As of 06/11/2013 19:45 all data from for Señor El Once prior is frozen no further data from you will be published. No data from this e-mail or from Quinazagga emails may be used by you in any public database. This discussion begins here and ends here and will not be disseminated father. All rights to it are reserved by Phantasypublishing and THIS INFORMATION IS TO BE HELD IN CONFIDENCE. DISCLOSURE, REPRODUCTION, OR OTHER USE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF Phantsypublishing's owner.
</p>
<blockquote><p>You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once.
<br>
<br>You did not credit me; you did not link to the source; you completely fucked up the formatting of my words; you have not let me defend my words.
<br>
<br>Cut it down, strip me out, and leave only Mr. Quinazagga's (poorly written) words.
<br>
<br>I don't want as much as a single lingering google search result that Señor El Once might have been active on your home court. You've so edited the record already, nobody will know that I tried; let's make that permanent and complete; remove all of my prose and references to my alias, Señor El Once.
<br>
<br>// Señor El Once</blockquote>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x19</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_19');">Really? Daily, your web traffic logs 300,000 unique visitors?</a></p>
<p>2013-06-12</p>
<div id="sect_19" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. <!-- -->DGW,
<br>
<br>You are such a wanking liar, I'm starting to have my doubts about whether I'm communicating with a rational human or a bot, an artificial intelligence adept at copying-and-pasting words of others retrieved from a database, but inept at conveying meaning or understanding to those same words when pressed for details.
<br>
<br>What a load of bullshit:
</p>
<blockquote><p>This blog site has approximately 300,000 readers worldwide daily and is a non-profit database.</p></blockquote>
<p>Really? Daily, your web traffic logs 300,000 unique visitors? [Sarcasm] Right.[\Sarcasm] And what are the odds that ~none~ of them can be bothered to comment on an article or rate it?
<br>
<br>Put a counter on your blog, and maybe I'll believe you and offer an apology. You can get free-ones at BraveNet.
<br>
<br>Bots don't have morals or ethics, so the frequency and extent of your outlandish lies begin to make sense only within that framework. And thus the appropriateness of your <i>"phantasy"</i> name comes to the fore. Your bot-hood explains the slip-up's of its aliases, as well as the contradictions, the purposeful misunderstandings (e.g., programmed), the repetition in accusatory language, the poor formatting of quotes, etc.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You have had time to make a response article in excess of thirty days and have not supplied a response that includes quotes of an authoritative factual source for substantiation. </p></blockquote>
<p>Are you inviting me to post a response article on quinazagga? If so, your other language and actions really counters this. And if so, well by golly, my calendar shows that I still have 18 or so days before July 1 rolls around to make my response, because that is thirty days from the June 1 posting.
<br>
<br>Ooops! Did you just get tripped up in two additional lies? Version one of this pointed out many other lies and flaws. But the perceived insincerity of your very being made further honing of words & substantiation to that effect rather pointless.
<br>
<br>Nothing about you is to be trusted, Mr. <!-- -->DGW. Certainly ~not~ that you & your blog should be held up as bastion and safe harbor for Truth. Reeks more like a legend establishing affair intended to give you web-credibility.
<br>
<br>No need to respond.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 19 -->
<a name="x20"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x20" class="tiny">x20</a>
Mr. <!-- -->DGW : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">self-truths as facts</a></p>
<p>2013-06-12</p>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: none;">
<p>2013-06-12 9:33 PM
<br>{Email from Mr. <!-- -->DGW}
<br>
<br>
<br>You are very predictable in your responses. You state your nonfactual self-truths as facts and then add fabrications to them.
<br>
<br> Logically erasing any sincerity in your response thus rendering as your unsubstantiated opinion of Phantasypublishing.
<br>
<br>Yes there are 300,000 regular visitors and any rationally thinking publisher would moderate all of the comments received on articles.
<br>
<br>Yes there are more than just one individual operating within that capacity and after passing through Committee the reply is then
<br>
<br>submitted with the original to the Chief editor whom then places that authors name upon the response and publish it on the blog.
<br>
<br>Since the site is nonprofit all references to a for profit organization within the response must be omitted or it can be construed as
<br>
<br>passive advertising or redirection of reader to a profit site.
<br>
<br>Articles and responses of that content are prohibited and therefor screened by the committee whom will reject the comment under that basis.
<br>
<br>I stated you can submit a response so long as it has factual verifiable sources that are not profiteering and peddling their self-truth without providing any physical facts associated with the incident being discussed.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Fact most of the bent steel happened after or during the collapse of the WTC towers .
<br>
<br>Critical thinking says a fall from 2,000 feet up will put a dent if not bend or roll steel after it sits atop burning cars and other rubble of sub-basements .
<br>
<br>Also knowing what Sulfidation of steel is and how sea-water being pumped upon hotspots to get to fires under the WTC steel created hydrogen sulfide gas that added to hotspots.
<br>
<br>If you are able to look at other factors that were physically present after the collapses and the aftermath then you may present a factual dialogue that has intellectual value to merit publication.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Given what you have produced not only in your article publishes originally but in your response pattern. The committee's observation is that you are not capable of discussing facts and will respond only by parroting off your trues as facts when there is no physical fact to back them. Also you would have to retract the following statement you made, "You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once." For the following restriction the committee has placed to facilitate your request. As of 06/11/2013 19:45 all data from for Señor El Once prior is frozen no further data from you will be published. In order for any of your works to be published on this blog you have to retract your request fully.
<br>
<br>If you are not willing to do so then do not respond to this email and do not respond with anything outside of the requested retraction.
<br>
<br>This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
<br>
{SEO: I am <i>"the intended recipient"</i>. This is part of my <i>"sole use."</i> <i>"Others"</i> aren't involved with <i>"review, use, distribution, or disclosure"</i> here. I, <i>"the intended recipient"</i>, am. Thus, no violation of any prohibition has happened.}
</p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x21</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_21');"><i>"phantasy"</i> takes on new bounds with your fresh lies</a></p>
<p>2013-06-13</p>
<div id="sect_21" style="display: none;">
<p>{Email to <!-- -->DGW}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. <!-- -->DGW,
<br>
<br>The extent of the <i>"phantasy"</i> takes on new bounds with your fresh lies to cover over previous lies of having 300,000 daily visitors to your copyright-infringing blog:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Yes there are 300,000 regular visitors and any rationally thinking publisher would moderate all of the comments received on articles.</p></blockquote>
<p>Moderating comments is one thing. Rejecting them all is quite another, which is apparently what your committee has done. What a way to pander to your base, eh?
<br>
<br>Seems to me that would piss off a lot of readers, and the star ratings would reflect this. From what I've seen, the star ratings reflect nothing, because the traffic isn't what you <i>"phantasize."</i>
<br>
<br>Do you know what it takes to satisfy 300,000 daily visitors? No, you don't. Because if you did, you'd be doing it and you'd even have a blog counter to substantiate it. I'll give you a hint: new content everyday; the ability for readers to discuss and deepen the understanding of the topic. Your own archives proves that your "committee" has ~never~ managed to get even 1 new copyright-infringing article a day, much less the 4 or 20 needed to satisfy 300,000 daily visitors. Comments and star ratings? Hahaha! Doesn't happen.
<br>
<br>Singularity in purpose is requisite in satisfying visitors -- particularly returning visitors --, and your blog doesn't have it. It is poorly organized for what it does have.
<br>
<br>Not to brag, but I've been associated with a particular blog since 2010 that just yesterday had 1,511 page views by 785 visitors, 376 for the first-time [numbers are compliments of a free service from BraveNet that you could use.] Total page views since 2010 has been 3 million. To achive this on an ongoing basis, 4 new articles a day were (re-)published, each with proper accreditation to the original author and a link to the source. Comments are moderated there, as well, and come at a clip of 2 a day (lately).
<br>
<br>The point, Mr. <!-- -->DGW, is that if my substantiated visitor numbers (~700) were scaled to your alleged 300,000 daily visitor numbers, your moderation committee would be fielding 857 comments a day. And you expect me to believe that ~NONE~ of them passed through the moderation committee?
<br>
<br>Because I've been around the 9/11 block more than once, it is easy to spot your technique of applying your weaknesses to others, ala:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You state your nonfactual self-truths as facts and then add fabrications to them.</p></blockquote>
<p>Without substantiation to prove my statements as <i>"nonfactual self-truths"</i>, you're just spouting words.
<br>
<br>Thank you for the insight into your operations:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Yes there are more than just one individual operating within that capacity and after passing through Committee the reply is then submitted with the original to the Chief editor whom then places that authors name upon the response and publish it on the blog. Since the site is nonprofit all references to a for profit organization within the response must be omitted or it can be construed as passive advertising or redirection of reader to a profit site. <b>Articles and responses of that content are prohibited and therefor screened by the committee whom will reject the comment under that basis.</b></p></blockquote>
<p>And who exactly is on this committee? Just their initials will be fine, as well as their military rank and job functions.
<br>
<br>And WTF is going on with your last sentence? Clearly you copy-and-pasted this passage from somewhere else. Clearly the author of that sentence has no idea what they are talking about; clearly you have no idea what they are talking about.
<br>
<br>Clearly, if that last sentence were true, then your blog administrator should simply turn off the ability for readers to make comments, so false hopes are created.
<br>
<br>Another glaring lie, eh, Mr. <!-- -->DGW?
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I stated you can submit a response so long as it has factual verifiable sources that are not profiteering and peddling their self-truth without providing any physical facts associated with the incident being discussed.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yeah, right, Mr. <!-- -->DGW. Do these same rules apply to you, too?
<br>
<br>The EB quoted passage from summary from the WTC-7 NIST report hasn't met the standard, neither in the source nor in his understanding. NIST has yet to cough up the computer models used to ~not~ mimic observable reality. More importantly, that pesky 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration needs a much better explanation that doesn't defy physics or engineering practice or historical precedent. The same is true from the USGS report on the dust that, when properly analyzed, shows correlations in the elements from sample-to-sample that are indictative of nuclear fission. The same is true for a stilted government commissioned report on potential tritium sources in the towers that made all sorts of conjecture while avoiding that (fission-triggered) fusion devices answers nearly all the anomalous evidence, including steel beams smoothly bent into horse-shoes and arches and torched vehicles along West Broadway and in a car park.
<br>
<br>I can substantiate my views. And a great deal of the evidence pieced in a Tetris-sense into a cohesive theory (a) has not been debunked, (b) leaked out through official sources or reports, (c)_ weren't adequately explained in those reports, (d) weren't addressed at all by other reports. Purposeful omissions.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Fact most of the bent steel happened after or during the collapse of the WTC towers. Critical thinking says a fall from 2,000 feet up will put a dent if not bend or roll steel after it sits atop burning cars and other rubble of sub-basements.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not <i>"critical thinking"</i> but <i>"ignorant thinking"</i> and <i>"propaganda."</i>
<br>
<br>No, I'm sorry. The paragraph above is an example of:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You state your nonfactual self-truths as facts and then add fabrications to them.</p></blockquote>
<p>You claim that beams fell onto burning cars and that this caused them to bend into horse-shoes & arches or get rolled up into a <i>"steel doobie."</i> Let's set aside the obvious question about how the car caught on fire before the beam hit it. Let's also set aside that a beam falling from 2,000 feet can no longer contribute to the pile driving mass that destroyed the lower portion of the towers at free-fall speeds.
<br>
<br>The steel in the towers was over-designed for its purposes of supporting the structure above it and the dynamic wind loads. Do the math, Einstein. Take the mass of a beam and calculate its kinetic energy after falling 2,000 feet. You'll discover that this energy is large, particularly when compared to the strength of a car. While large, that same energy is insufficient to account for (a) a beam <b>smoothly</b> bending into a horseshoe, (b) several beams <b>smoothly</b> bending into arches, and (c)_ several beams <b>smoothly</b> rolling themselves into <i>"steel doobies"</i>.
<br>
<br>The key word is <b>smoothly</b> and can only be achieved with the addition of heat... massive amounts. What was that heat source that could sufficiently heat massive steel beams end-to-end to allow for such pliability. You see, without heat and with only force, the beams could have been bent, but not smoothly; they'd have visible fractures along the bend if they weren't broken.
<br>
<br>How hot can a burning car get? Hot enough to bend a piece of structural steel several times its own length? If you go to a blacksmith, how long do they have to heat a horse-shoe before it can be formed to fit onto a hoof?
<br>
<br>Where are your pictures of burnt out cars with bent structural beams from the towers through their roof? The picture of the <i>"steel doobie"</i> next to the Liberty building has no burnt out car where it augered into the ground.
<br>
<br>Here's another of your <i>"nonfactual self-truths"</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Also knowing what Sulfidation of steel is and how sea-water being pumped upon hotspots to get to fires under the WTC steel created hydrogen sulfide gas that added to hotspots.</p></blockquote>
<p>They also poured massive amounts of fire-retardent chemicals onto the hotspots.
</p>
<blockquote><p>If you are able to look at other factors that were physically present after the collapses and the aftermath then you may present a factual dialogue that has intellectual value to merit publication. </p></blockquote>
<p>Just another fucking lie, Mr. <!-- -->DGW, because your copying-and-pasting above already states [and your blog proves]:
<br><i>"Articles and responses of that content are prohibited and therefor screened by the committee whom will reject the comment under that basis."</i>
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You are very predictable in your responses.</p></blockquote>
<p>Actually, you are.
<br>
<br>You can't make a cohesive argument, let alone one that might be compliant with physics.
<br>
<br>You copy and paste material that is not applicable and that you don't understand.
<br>
<br>You play games with your aliases -- Mr. <!-- -->DGW, Mr. Quinazagga, associate editor Mr. EB, and now your committee.
<br>
<br>You repeatedly contradict yourself: <i>"you can submit a response"</i> and <i>"responses are prohibited."</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>The committee's observation is that you are not capable of discussing facts and will respond only by parroting off your trues as facts when there is no physical fact to back them. Also you would have to retract the following statement you made, "You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once." For the following restriction the committee has placed to facilitate your request. As of 06/11/2013 19:45 all data from for Señor El Once prior is frozen no further data from you will be published. In order for any of your works to be published on this blog you have to retract your request fully.</p></blockquote>
<p>You make it sound so appealing.
<br>
<br>If the committee's observation is that I am incapable of discussing facts, then obviously a retraction of my request to remove my words that YOU HAVE SO MANGLED AND MISREPRESENTED AND WON'T LET ME DEFEND will have no basis in the publication of subsequent articles or comments on your blog. It ain't gonna happen.
<br>
<br>I didn't come to your blog out of the blue. You first came to Truth & Shadows <i>"peddling your self-truth without providing any physical facts."</i> You ran away when confronted, mangled my words, and censored my respectful & rational responses from your home court.
<br>
<br>Show some integrity, Mr. <!-- -->DGW. Unpublish your <i>"Beware the censorship by 911truth supporters."</i> Of the 300,000 people who saw it, nobody's comment has survived and only 2 people voted -- and one of them was me. It won't be missed.
<br>
<br>Then if you still desire a respectful and rational debate on 9/11 topics, you can attempt it on Truth & Shadows. I don't own that blog, so it is neutral territory.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>If you are not willing to do so [retract my request for remove my words] then do not respond to this email and do not respond with anything outside of the requested retraction.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ooops! Too late!
<br>
<br>Next time, front load that into your email and don't bother with the rest.
<br>
<br>But not too late for you to retract:
<br><a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/">http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/</a>
<br>
<br>// Señor El Once</p>
</div><!-- section 21 -->
<a name="x22"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x22" class="tiny">x22</a>
Quinazagga Committee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">The committee's observation</a></p>
<p>2013-06-14</p>
<div id="sect_22" style="display: none;">
<p>2013-06-13 3:26 PM
<br>{Email in response to mine beginning: "The extent of the <i>"phantasy"</i> takes on new bounds"}
<br>
<br>Given what you have produced not only in your article publishes originally but in your response pattern. The committee's observation is that you are not capable of discussing facts and will respond only by parroting off your trues as facts when there is no physical fact to back them. Also you would have to retract the following statement you made, "You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once." For the following restriction the committee has placed to facilitate your request. As of 06/11/2013 19:45 all data from for Señor El Once prior is frozen no further data from you will be published. In order for any of your works to be published on this blog you have to retract your request fully.
<br>
<br>Since you are not willing to do so there is no further reason to continue any dialogue with you. As the only response has been to state your ignorance of copyright laws and use in publication or syndication under nonprofit charter or databases. The bottom line here is that you cannot admit to the facts of the 91101 terror attacks and present unsubstantiated self-truths. Mr. <!-- -->EB stated Facts and pointed out you inability to research or discuss facts by posting the following studies on the WIC tower collapse on 91101 http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html and the final nail in the WTC tower free-fall fiction http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf .
<br>
<br>Also in addressing the implausibility of DEW http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
<br>
<br>You failed to address facts of the issues you present and present an ad hoc defense on top of it.
<br>
<br>Your statements about the causes of bent steel are inaccurate and the factual proof is in the FEMA preliminary study of debris http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
<br>
<br>Also this combined with you pointing out that fire retardant and sea water both were added into a pile of hot debris adding to an caustic chemical mix. The recovered WTC Steel was taken from theses hot spots after collapse. This means the after effects are being talked about not the initiator of the collapse as the steel has been in a debris pile for greater than a month before them being extracted.
<br>
<br>http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0711/banovic-0711.html
<br>
<br>Since you cannot keep to a factual discussion and se distraction
<br>
<br>Since you failed to be able to factual argue any of the facts and your own Self-created truths based in empirical reasoning and philosophy not fact.
<br>
<br>In observing your own words it is just you mirroring tactic is an undeniable Logical failure.
<br>It also stands as your final proof through self-contradiction and the use of Distraction.
<br>
<br>I accept this is just your style of drawing out the discussion so it is over analyzing and transference to assess a motive where non is present.
<br>
<br>The Physical Evidence of what occurred on 91101 has been archived, researched and documented it is correlated and concurs with the physical facts supported by forensic and physical evidence.
<br>
<br>BTW : the abbreviation of " Also known as " is AKA
<br>
<br>"Because I've been around the 9/11 block more than once, it is easy to spot your technique of applying your weaknesses to others, ala:
<br>
<br>You state your nonfactual self-truths as facts and then add fabrications to them.
<br>
<br>Without substantiation to prove my statements as "nonfactual self -truths", you're just spouting words."
<br>
<br>Thanks for the mirroring your admission as to what your reasoning logic is. It is confirmed by you statements and response patterns that you are in fact the one operationally using propaganda debate tactics .
<br>
<br>The WTC tower collapses using factual data not empirical self-truths that are backed in opinion not fact..
<br>
<br>+++++++++++++++++ 2013-06-13 4:43 PM
<br>{Email from Mr. <!-- -->DGW in response to my email from 2013-06-12 starting: "You are such a cheesy liar!"}
<br>
<br>No you won come back to anything as you can't separate opinion from fact. The only winning move is not to play your game CAW.
<br>
<br>
<br>+++++++++++++++++ 2013-06-13 7:23 PM
<br>{Email from Mr. <!-- -->DGW in response to my email from 2013-06-12 starting: "You are such a cheesy liar!"}
<br>
<br>Stating your own personal trues as facts again. The facts speak very clearly as to whom posted and wrote the article.
<br>
<br>None of any of the individuals you falsely claim wrote the Article.
<br>
<br>No further discussion upon it because you simply don't know.
<br>
<br>All of your accusations are self-truth they never are attached to facts just your opinions which you over state their importance like a sibilant child.
<br>
<br>CAW
<br>
<br>Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.
<br>
<br>
<br>+++++++++++++++++ Comment to the blog posting
<br><a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/what-makes-a-conspiracy-theorist-tick#comment-2071">2013-06-14</a>
<br>
<br>The original article was more lengthy but it seemed to be more of an attack by {Ms. <!-- -->DS}" on conspiracy theorist who originally submitted this article to Phantasypublishing staff for publishing. So she shortened cut some venom out of her own behavioral science observations and this from her profession in the psychological field.
<br>
<br>My observation is Behavioral scientist should look at the whole Catastrophic incident or an incident being questioned as a condition el social. The human emotional responses and denial of reality should be observed in respect to catastrophic incidences and that is not to distract from thoes choosing to profit off of the event by creating their self truths instead of saying their opinion is their opinion.
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x23</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_23');">failed test of your committee's integrity</a></p>
<p>2013-06-18</p>
<div id="sect_23" style="display: none;">
<p>{Email to the committee}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. <!-- -->DGW, Mr. <!-- -->EB, Mr. Quinazagga, Mr. CAW, Ms. <!-- -->DS, and other unknown members of the committee,
<br>
<br>Let us start with the plagarized article <i>"What Makes a Conspiracy Theorist Tick"</i> (June 10, 2013). I have repeatedly brought it to your attention that neither Ms. <!-- -->DS nor Mr. Quinazagga were the original authors, although both may have been involved in posting it to your quinazagga blog.
<br>
<br>I informed you who was the original author (Brian Dunning from June 28, 2011) and where to find it (skeptoid.com/episodes/4264). It wouldn't have taken more than two minutes to edit the article in your blog database with these additions and corrections.
<br>
<br>Instead, I get all sorts of denials and weasel words. The latest volley came from Mr. Quinazagga <a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/what-makes-a-conspiracy-theorist-tick#comment-2071">on June 13, 2013 at 17:39 in a posting</a> and from Mr. CAW via an email on June 13, 2013 at 19:23 from Mr. <!-- -->DGW.
<br>
<br>Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The original article was more lengthy but it seemed to be more of an attack by {Ms. <!-- -->DS} on conspiracy theorist who originally submitted this article to Phantasypublishing staff for publishing. So she shortened cut some venom out of her own behavioral science observations and this from her profession in the psychological field.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. CAW wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Stating your own personal trues as facts again. The facts speak very clearly as to whom posted and wrote the article. None of any of the individuals you falsely claim wrote the Article. No further discussion upon it because you simply don't know.</p></blockquote>
<p>Indeed, the facts do speak very clearly as to who wrote and posted the article, yet those facts are ~not~ published on your website.
<br>
<br>The original article by Mr. Brian Dunning is ~not~ more lengthy in any significant sense. The source from Mr. Dunning has ~15 paragraphs, while Ms. <!-- -->DS's version has ~14 paragraphs. The last two paragraphs from Mr. Dunning were removed and replaced by one paragraph written by someone -- Ms. <!-- -->DS, Mr. Quinazagga, or an unknown entity who allegedly submitted it to your blog.
<br>
<br>It doesn't matter that Ms. <!-- -->DS may have edited and shortened Mr. Brian Dunning's original article, because the bulk remains indistinguishable from the original thereby remaining a copyright infringement (until proper attribution is made).
<br>
<br>It doesn't matter how the article came to Ms. <!-- -->DS's attention, because just about any sentence or lengthy phrase from her article plopped between double-quotes in a Google search will locate the original.
<br>
<br>Ms. <!-- -->DS didn't perform her due diligence; Ms. <!-- -->DS didn't credit even who submitted it to her; Ms. <!-- -->DS didn't credit the original author nor link to the source.
<br>
<br>Despite the weasel-words, it has all the appearance of Ms. <!-- -->DS and Mr. Quinazagga trying to snag the authoring credit for themselves. And were we to say that this was not their intention, the fact remains that no one on your committee has the integrity or the ability to make a simple edit to your own blog to fix it.
<br>
<br>This failed test of your committee's integrity sets the tone for the rest of my response.
<br>
<br>Just because the <i>"committee"</i> can provide links to government sponsored disinformation, it doesn't mean that those links are applicable. If you want to prove applicability, you need to (a) quote the relevant passages and (b) offer up some of your own understanding as to why they are applicable. Failing this, you resemble more and more a web bot with the clever ability to paste in items from its skewed and limited database but with no true understanding or ability to reason.
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->EB demonstrated such failings quite well. On behalf of Mr. Quinazagga who incorrectly boasted about 9/11 free-fall being a phantasy, Mr. <!-- -->EB copied a lengthy passage from the summary of the WTC-7 NIST report. Buried in that long passage was the short two sentence (or so) paragraph that documents 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration. Evidently, neither Mr. <!-- -->EB nor Mr. Quinazagga know that <i>"gravitational acceleration"</i> is another phrase for <i>"free-fall,"</i> else they wouldn't be embarrassing themselves with their obtuse and patently false 9/11 arguments.
<br>
<br>I wrote in reference to <i>"Beware the censorship by 911truth supporters"</i> http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/ :
</p>
<blockquote><p>You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once.</p></blockquote>
<p>In a case of erroneous logic, Mr. <!-- -->DGW writes (paraphrased from June 13, 2013 at 15:26) that to facilitate my request, <i>"all data from Señor El Once is frozen. No further data from you will be published. In order for any of your works to be published on this blog you have to retract your request fully."</i>
<br>
<br>The combined wisdom of your committee evidently isn't that smart. I do ~not~ request that any of my past, present, or future works or comments be published on your blog. Fuck it; keep me banned. But this banishment is a separate issue from the unpublishing of the article that inappropriately re-uses my words and formats them very poorly. I do not retract my request; I want my words removed from your blog. Your blog lacks integrity.
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->DGW continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Since you are not willing to do so there is no further reason to continue any dialogue with you.</p></blockquote>
<p>... At which point Mr. <!-- -->DGW demonstrates his lack of integrity by attempting to continue a dialog with me.
<br>
<br>Under normal circumstances, I would oblige. But these aren't normal circumstances. The way I see it, you and your wonderful committee have three massive strikes against you all.
<br>
<br>[1] It is truly a trivial task to update that one article on conspiracy theorists with its true author (Brian Dunning) and a link to the source. Period. It doesn't matter what path or through whom the article took for re-publication and editing on your blog, TRUTH dictates (a) that the attribution record be corrected now that you know what it is, (b) that more effort be spent on supplying proper attribution for all new articles, and (c)_ that the committee spend some effort to locate proper attribution for all old articles.
<br>
<br>[2] It is truly a trivial task to unpublish the article on "beware the censorship", given (a) that it is comprised of mostly my words, (b) that your committee has so badly munged up its formatting as to make it practically unreadable, (c)_ that you did not provide a link back to its source, (d) that you won't let me defend it, and (e) that you can't adequately defend statements that you make, except by underhanded techniques involving the aforementioned poor formatting and banning your debate opponent.
<br>
<br>[3] You can't even admit to free-fall (= gravitational acceleration) in the demise of the WTC, despite government reports spelling it out for you. Granted, those reports try to pin it on a mythical column 79 or other such nonsense; those reports try to average it with other stages so they can tell a meaningless truth about 18 floor falling slower than free-fall. The video evidence proves that it was ~not~ a single point of failure leading to a progressive collapse (as suggested by a computer model that still hasn't been released to the public and still doesn't match the videos despite much manipulation and overdriving of parameters beyond real-world cases.) No, all of the supporting structural elements across eight stories in WTC-7 were suddenly moved out of the way in order to obtain 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood suggested that DEW took out the WTC. Unfortunately, she could not ~POWER~ her proposal with anything real-world and operational; she gave nuclear enhancements the bum's rush in her book and website. Dr. Wood let her opponents frame her argument as "DEW from Space", etc. Worse, Dr. Wood made statements regarding the extent of the vaporization of steel that even pictures from her own book do no support. Her comment about the spire being vaporized is based on one view of the spire; other views of the spire show it telescoping and falling. Ergo, she was setting up the straw man.
<br>
<br>Dr. Jenkins, in turn, attacks Dr. Wood's straw man while building more of his own. For instance, he calculates the ~total~ amount of steel in the towers and then calculates how much energy would be required to make that steel go from a solid directly to a gas. He calculates a completely ridiculous number. What makes it ridiculous is that clearly from the pictures not all (and not even a majority) of the steel was vaporized. Dr. Jenkins never calculated how much energy is required to vaporize ONE steel beam, which would be a very useful number to know. He never calculated how much energy is required to liquify steel, etc. And if this wasn't enough to damage Dr. Jenkins' integrity, (a) he did not analyze any form of nuclear weapon [some of which are technically DEW] and (b) he's been promoting nano-thermite that by itself cannot account for pulverization nor for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>
<br>Nope, Mr. <!-- -->DGW and his fabulous committee, posting links to disinformation does not absolve you from extracting what is relevant from it and explaining from your own understanding why the passage is relevant. All any of you has been doing is blindly posting links to government sponsored disinformation.
<br>
<br>Your entire committee lacks integrity in the small things. It does not surprise me to experience such lack of integrity in the big things, which is most obvious in your lack of understanding as well as your fear of engaging me in a public fashion. Rather ironic that the article was supposed to be about Censorship by the 9/11 Truth Movement, but behind the scenes becomes Censorship by the 9/11 Coincidence Theorists. Ya'all're running scared.
<br>
<br>I'll be happy to engage you on a neutral public territory, like Truth & Shadows. However, your failure to admit to gravitational acceleration (despite being able to quote long passages with this fact spelled out) will put you at a disadvantage with regards to your reception by others.
<br>
<br>Mr. CAW said it best:
</p>
<blockquote><p>... you can't separate opinion from fact. The only winning move is not to play your game CAW.</p></blockquote>
<p>Don't play my game. Don't engage me. Remove the requested posting containing my words, so that I won't have as much as a toe-hold on your blog that could rightfully give me expectations that I could jump in and defend it more... and makes ya'all look like fools in trying to suppress me.
<br>
<br>Demonstrate some integrity. Unpublish the mis-use of my words, and fix the attribution in general on articles across your blog.
<br>
<br>
<br>I'll conclude this with the very poetic words of Mr. CAW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.</p></blockquote>
<p>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 23 -->
<a name="x24"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x24" class="tiny">x24</a>
Mr. <!-- -->OneOhOne : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">Troll patrol for phantasypublishing</a></p>
<p>2013-06-18</p>
<div id="sect_24" style="display: none;">
<p>2013-06-18 16:17 "Troll patrol for phantasypublishing"
<br>
<br>Let me clear this up for you since you lack any intelligence to understand. The article is not Plagiarized and since you have no facts to support you bullshit. Other than datamining through Google. It is not Brian's article and deviates from it as you pointed out. So that eliminates you claim legally and if brought into court you would loose this case. For plagiarism to be present the Article must match 100 percent copied. So you lost that argument because of you placing a high value on your baseless opinion on facts of plagiarism
<br>Bottom line is Brian stated it is not the article his site and you don't represent his site. Besides the fact he called you a kook.
<br>
<br>If you are going to quote an acronym do it fully and try to have the competency to utilize it correctly.
<br>We cannot fix your stupidity on this level Can't Argue with Stupid. CAWS that is what was placed upon you message.
<br>This is direct wording not weasel words. You are the one that uses those tactics in promoting false truths as facts. You lack any creditability judging from your response pattern
<br>Spamming or otherwise changing the subject, ad homs., personal attacks, making claims unsupported by the evidence and various other logical fallacies are tactics you utilize and it will be noticed in the Blog phantasypublishing as you are a crafty yet unsophisticated drone.
</p>
</div><!-- section 24 -->
<a name="x25"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x25" class="tiny">x25</a>
Quinazagga : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_25');">continued Spamming</a></p>
<p><a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters#comment-2074">2013-06-18</a></p>
<div id="sect_25" style="display: none;">
<p>Señor El Once continued Spamming or otherwise changing the subject, ad homs., personal attacks, making claims unsupported by the evidence and various other logical fallacies are tactics of the trained 911truther whom has their own unsupported truths indoctrinated into themselves.
<br>
<br>When this fact was brought to his attention he self banned and attempted to cover his actions up without taking personal responsibility for his own denial of truth and exploration of the 91101 terrorist attacks for personal or political gain.
</p>
</div><!-- section 25 -->
<a name="x26"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x26" class="tiny">x26</a>
Mr. <!-- -->DGW : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">banned yourself</a></p>
<p>2013-06-18</p>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: none;">
<p>First off you banned yourself from participating on Phantasypublishing's Blog and you are not on the Committee or a member of the Blog. This means you are not a member of the readership nor have any clue of operations of the blog. You also lack intellect to understand the acronym CAW and the continued use of discredited information sources to defend an indefensible self-created truth that has no basis physical facts. The only propaganda is the empirical truths of the 911truth movement used in a campaign backed by the National Libertarian Socialist Green Party Which is a front for the American Nazi part and Aryan brotherhood. These are hoaxes for money and exploitation of the ignorant for profit Dr. Judy Brown is the prime example of that level of academic fraud so complete that she did get thrown out of court. Not once but twice.
<br>
<br>As to permission to use your words That has already been explained to you and the article is very readable and remains as testament to your complete lack of education in regards to the collapse of WTC 1,2 and seven which is subject matter you attempt to incompletely cover. You instead spam this site with false claims and here is the kicker this site has more facts than you idiotic statement. It took Quinazagga posting two reports that shut your debate down because you failed to address them. That proved you created truth to be fiction without facts to back it up. All of your pointless argument will never change Facts of 91101. There is What occurred Factually and the made up empirical fantasy of 911truthers that is a meritless Hoax for profit Social entrepreneurship Philosophy and theology and is a propaganda technique that ties into other Occupy movements as well.
<br>
<br>So when one cuts to the facts of this whole exchange You were prohibited from deviating from the discussion about the WTC tower 1,2 and seven collapse. You used data that had no facts and when confronted with the reality that your truth was baseless. You denied that reality and then attempted transferal to others instead of taking responsibility for pushing an agenda based empirical truth that was made up and accepted as a false reality by useful idiots.
<br>
<br>Also, There is no need for you to try to talk about Copyright laws. You lack the legal capacity to understand them and just because you can take a quota and data mine to an article does not make the article original to that author. Brian uses other people's articles and has exchanged articles from this blog to use in his on journalistic pursuits.
<br>
<br>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>It doesn't matter that Ms. <!-- -->DS may have edited and shortened Mr. Brian Dunning's original article, because the bulk remains indistinguishable from the original thereby remaining a copyright infringement (until proper attribution is made). </p></blockquote>
<p>DGW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Yea it dose Dumbass. You do not know Copyright law so shut up about it is not the original article it has been written by that Ms. <!-- -->DS and deviates from the original article. So why don't you take your false claims and self-created truths and peddle them at a flea market on tracks that can double as toilet paper.</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br>{Edited out repeated but unaddressed passages from SEO Email.}
<br>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The combined wisdom of your committee evidently isn't that smart. I do ~not~ request that any of my past, present, or future works or comments be published on your blog. Fuck it; keep me banned. But this banishment is a separate issue from the unpublishing of the article that inappropriately re-uses my words and formats them very poorly. I do not retract my request; I want my words removed from your blog. Your blog lacks integrity. </p></blockquote>
<p>DGW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>It is you that lack integrity and everyone that sees your words prior to your banning yourself will know</p></blockquote>
<p>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[1] It is truly a trivial task to update that one article on conspiracy theorists with its true author (Brian Dunning) and a link to the source. Period. It doesn't matter what path or through whom the article took for re-publication and editing on your blog, TRUTH dictates (a) that the attribution record be corrected now that you know what it is, (b) that more effort be spent on supplying proper attribution for all new articles, and (c)_ that the committee spend some effort to locate proper attribution for all old articles.</p></blockquote>
<p>DGW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You are an incompetent data miner and whiner whom lacks any real understanding of copyright laws
<br>
<br>Also you banned yourself and refused to retract that ban to debate any of the pointless points you bring up as distraction.</p></blockquote>
<p>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[2] It is truly a trivial task to unpublish the article on "beware the censorship", given (a) that it is comprised of mostly my words, (b) that your committee has so badly munged up its formatting as to make it practically unreadable, (c)_ that you did not provide a link back to its source, (d) that you won't let me defend it, and (e) that you can't adequately defend statements that you make, except by underhanded techniques involving the aforementioned poor formatting and banning your debate opponent.</p></blockquote>
<p>DGW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Nope you banned yourself after you got shut down by the two reports and continue to whine about it by trying to cover up the evidence of your complete logical failure and denial of the facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[3] You can't even admit to free-fall (= gravitational acceleration) in the demise of the WTC, despite government reports spelling it out for you. Granted, those reports try to pin it on a mythical column 79 or other such nonsense; those reports try to average it with other stages so they can tell a meaningless truth about 18 floor falling slower than free-fall. The video evidence proves that it was ~not~ a single point of failure leading to a progressive collapse (as suggested by a computer model that still hasn't been released to the public and still doesn't match the videos despite much manipulation and overdriving of parameters beyond real-world cases.) No, all of the supporting structural elements across eight stories in WTC-7 were suddenly moved out of the way in order to obtain 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration.</p></blockquote>
<p>DGW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Your truth is not supported in facts and by misrepresenting a sequence of a collapse progression as an proof of free fall is a logical failure on your part. You can't transfer it to Quinazagga as he also provided you with documentation about Energy transfer and free fall fallacy in the WTC 1 and 2 collapse.</blockquote>
<p>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Dr. Wood suggested that DEW took out the WTC. Unfortunately, she could not ~POWER~ her proposal with anything real-world and operational; she gave nuclear enhancements the bum's rush in her book and website. Dr. Wood let her opponents frame her argument as "DEW from Space", etc. Worse, Dr. Wood made statements regarding the extent of the vaporization of steel that even pictures from her own book do no support. Her comment about the spire being vaporized is based on one view of the spire; other views of the spire show it telescoping and falling. Ergo, she was setting up the straw man.</p></blockquote>
<p>DGW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>She lied about the Cars and the initiator of their damage. She lied about the steel and recovery of all steel so her findings are based on misrepresentation of the facts and are without merit.</p></blockquote>
<p>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Dr. Jenkins, in turn, attacks Dr. Wood's straw man while building more of his own. For instance, he calculates the ~total~ amount of steel in the towers and then calculates how much energy would be required to make that steel go from a solid directly to a gas. He calculates a completely ridiculous number. What makes it ridiculous is that clearly from the pictures not all (and not even a majority) of the steel was vaporized. Dr. Jenkins never calculated how much energy is required to vaporize ONE steel beam, which would be a very useful number to know. He never calculated how much energy is required to liquify steel, etc. And if this wasn't enough to damage Dr. Jenkins' integrity, (a) he did not analyze any form of nuclear weapon [some of which are technically DEW] and (b) he's been promoting nano-thermite that by itself cannot account for pulverization nor for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.</p></blockquote>
<p>DGW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Sorry to say you lack the education to obviously to spot that the DEW fraud and the Nano thermite fraud both are hoaxes and are based in misrepresentation of truths as fact backed with manufactured facts that paint chips bun in an acetylene torch and that samples with no chain of handling can be submitted in a scientific study and produce the same findings that The USGS found and then some added chemicals due to contamination of the 2 year old Bentham samples.</blockquote>
<p>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Nope, Mr. <!-- -->DGW and his fabulous committee, posting links to disinformation does not absolve you from extracting what is relevant from it and explaining from your own understanding why the passage is relevant. All any of you has been doing is blindly posting links to government sponsored disinformation.</p></blockquote>
<p>DGW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Written like a parrot whom has no facts to pedal so fall back on a lie and here is the fact the links are sound and are not syndicated within the 911truth hoax this means you are a brainwashed troll with nothing to add. You points are meritless attempts at deflection and stating your opinion as fact is a way of lying. Your opinion is unsubstantiated in facts and therefore denied any futher time.</p></blockquote>
<p>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Your entire committee lacks integrity in the small things. It does not surprise me to experience such lack of integrity in the big things, which is most obvious in your lack of understanding as well as your fear of engaging me in a public fashion. Rather ironic that the article was supposed to be about Censorship by the 9/11 Truth Movement, but behind the scenes becomes Censorship by the 9/11 Coincidence Theorists. Ya'all're running scared.</p></blockquote>
<p>DGW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Nope it is you whom are running scared at</p></blockquote>
<p>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I'll be happy to engage you on a neutral public territory, like Truth & Shadows. However, your failure to admit to gravitational acceleration (despite being able to quote long passages with this fact spelled out) will put you at a disadvantage with regards to your reception by others.
<p>Mr. CAW said it best:
</p>
<blockquote><p>... you can't separate opinion from fact. The only winning move is not to play your game CAW.</p></blockquote>
<p>Don't play my game. Don't engage me. Remove the requested posting containing my words, so that I won't have as much as a toe-hold on your blog that could rightfully give me expectations that I could jump in and defend it more... and makes ya'all look like fools in trying to suppress me.</p></blockquote>
<p>DGW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>It just exposes you as what you are. You can't defend a pointless delusional truth held without facts. So you give factual information to back you claims or walk away empty handed with the same dumbfounded look upon face as you got shut down by the facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Demonstrate some integrity. Unpublish the mis-use of my words, and fix the attribution in general on articles across your blog</p></blockquote>
<p>DGW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The entirety of your article stands as a testimony of the thought process of delusional programmed trolls for 911truth. That have no merit or basis in facts just empirical fantasies that never occurred on 91101.</p></blockquote>
<p>SEO:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I'll conclude this with the very poetic words of Mr. CAW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes true words which you really never comprehended otherwise you would not have repeated them.</p>
<p>+++++</p>
<h4>How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism</h4>
<p class="Author">by John Ray</p>
<p class="ProseFirstLines"><span class="FirstLines"> Skeptics today bemoan</span> the overwhelming proportion of people who claim to believe in all manner of conspiracy theories from the JFK assassination to the origins of HIV-AIDS. For that reason, it may be worthwhile to take a moment to stop and celebrate one area in which skeptical advocacy has been overwhelming successful: the world of 9/11 conspiracies. Through the work of scholars like Michael Shermer and James Meigs, along with everyday skeptics on the grassroots level, critical inquiry has been overwhelmingly successful in calling these conspiracy theorists to task.</p>
<p>A tragedy on a scale at least comparable to Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination was bound to inspire a conspiracy subculture, but the takeoff success of the viral Internet documentary <em>Loose Change</em> and the movement it created was unprecedented. Looking out on the world in 2005 when Change became one of the most-watched Internet videos of all time, with over ten million unique viewers<sup><a href="#note01">1</a></sup>, it was hard to anticipate a future that was anything but bleak for those who felt it was their duty to defend history from such pseudohistorians.</p>
<p>Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 "truth movement" has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due.</p>
<p>Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers' biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience - the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind - also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like <a href="http://ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com/">ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com</a> and <a href="http://debunking911.com/">debunking911.com</a> are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise.</p>
<p>The Internet forced many "ground-level" 9/11 deniers - those who spread the gospel on popular social networking sites like Facebook and in their own blogosphere - into a rhetorical corner.</p>
<p>Instantaneous information traps old, well-discussed claims into sheer redundancy. In three years of debating 9/11 deniers, I have encountered almost the exact same laundry list of claims on dozens of occasions. The same resources have been successful in debunking 9/11 myths since their inception, tipping the debate against them. The first <em>Loose Change</em> was a sweeping work that, by this author's estimation<sup><a href="#note02">2</a></sup>, implicated roughly <em>578,000 people</em> in their version of 9/11; the "final edition," though twice as long, has orders of magnitude less content and almost zero positive claims, drumming up a meager 8,200 suspects<sup><a href="#note03">3</a></sup>. This is almost certainly a result of Internet-based skeptics bombarding <em>Loose Change</em>'s makers with the facts.</p>
<p>What should go down as a knockout blow to the 9/11 denier movement, what Michael Shermer called "just about one of the best things ever done in the history of skepticism,"<sup><a href="#note04">4</a></sup> is the now-famous <em>Popular Mechanics</em> article turned into a best-selling book that debunked many of the top points the conspiracy theorists relied on. Joining a chorus of mainstream publications including <em>Skeptic</em> and taking the central claims head on, the <em>Popular Mechanics</em> article became a cornerstone for the 9/11 denier movement's undoing.</p>
<div class="imageclearall"><img src="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-04images/trend-history.gif" class="banner" alt="Google trends screenshot" height="211" width="500">
<p class="caption">The spike in 2006, prompted by the live debate between the editors of <em>Popular Mechanics</em> and the producers of the documentary <em>Loose Change</em>, shows that not only was the skeptical perspective more well-accepted than the conspiracy perspective, it began to dictate the conversation. (<em>Graph produced using Google Trends by the author.</em>)</p>
</div>
<p>The <em>Popular Mechanics</em> article was published in its March 2005 issue and became an Internet hit after the live debate hosted by Democracy Now! between <em>Popular Mechanics</em> editors Jim Meigs and David Dunbar and <em>Loose Change</em> creators Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. In the aftermath of that debate - if this is any indicator of which side presented the better case - that article became the most popularly searched item pertaining to 9/11 conspiracies and, from that point on, the skeptical perspective became the dominant voice pertaining to the movement. The conversation was brought to the mainstream, and the mainstream made its decision.</p>
<p>Today, the 9/11 conspiracy movement is a shell of what it once was. The website masquerading as an academic journal, <em>Journal of 9/11 Studies</em>, has dropped from a high of six or seven articles published per issue to one, and its February 2008 edition (it's supposed to be updated monthly) was simply skipped over, evidently for lack of a single article. The introduction to the main hub of 9/11 denier activity, <a href="http://911truth.org/" rel="nofollow">911truth.org</a>, welcomes its visitors with a plea that announces, "we've cut to the bare bones, but are still far short of our basic budget needs." Prominent "truthers" like Mark Dice, Dylan Avery, Jimmy Walter (lambasted in Penn & Teller's Showtime series <em>Bullshit!</em> episode on 9/11), and Kevin Ryan have dropped into obscurity. The well read author David Ray Griffin continues to lecture, but to shrunken audiences, and this year's big 9/11 rally looks to be set in Ottawa, not New York City - evidently due to lack of interest.</p>
<div class="imagefloatleft" style="width: 305px; margin-left: 0; margin-right: 20px;"><img src="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-04images/articles_per_month.gif" class="banner" alt="graph" height="252" width="300">
<p class="caption">The number of articles on the popular conspiracy site "Journal of 9/11 Studies" has rapidly dwindled since a peak last year. (<em>Graph produced using Microsoft Excel by the author.</em>)</p>
</div>
<p>It is rare when those of us in the skeptical community get to celebrate a concrete success in building public consensus on an issue of pseudoscience. In the combination of grassroots Internet support and mainstream media advocacy we have seen one such moment. It was once feared that the 9/11 conspiracies would be the next JFK conspiracies - silly yet pernicious, running unchecked until it was too late. The opposite has happened here. Because the skeptical community gave the public some well-needed straight talk on the issue, pulled no punches, and let no challenge go soundly unanswered, we have won in six years what could have become a half-century long, uphill battle as with JFK conspiracy theories. Here's to winning once in awhile.</p>
<h5>References</h5>
<ol>
<li id="note01">Sales, N. "Click Here for Conspiracy." <em>Vanity Fair</em>, August, 2006, <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/features/2006/08/loosechange200608">www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/features/2006/08/loosechange200608</a></li>
<li id="note02">Ray, J. "Total Personnel Required for 'Loose Change' Version of 9/11: 578,212," <a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=34802512&op=1&o=all&view=all&subj=2211830485&aid=-1&oid=2211830485&id=5523995">www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=34802512&op=1&o=all&view=all&subj=2211830485&aid=-1&oid=2211830485&id=5523995</a> . Original content created by author of this article based on information presented in "Loose Change: Final Cut."</li>
<li id="note03">Ray, J. "8,157 High-Ranking American, British, and Pakistani Officials are Out to Get You!" <a href="http://conspiraciesrnotus.blogspot.com/2007/12/8157-high-ranking-american-british-and.html">http://conspiraciesrnotus.blogspot.com/2007/12/8157-high-ranking-american-british-and.html</a> . Original content created by author of this article based on information presented in "Loose Change: Final Cut."</li>
<li id="note04">"9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction." Narr. Lester Holt. Documentary. The History Channel. 20 Aug. 2007.</li>
</ol>
<p>+++++</p>
<p>{DGW} So what nonfactual statement do you want to make next.</p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x27</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_27');">Can't Argue With Stupid</a></p>
<p>2013-06-19</p>
<div id="sect_27" style="display: none;">
<p>{Email to Mr. <!-- -->OneOhOne and Mr. <!-- -->DGW}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. C.A.W.Stupid {= Mr. OneOhOne}, Mr. <!-- -->DGW, and the rest of the <i>"committee,"</i>
<br>
<br>Please accept my humble apologies for misspelling your name. However, the projection of your attributes onto me is misapplied when you wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>We cannot fix your stupidity on this level Can't Argue with Stupid. CAWS that is what was placed upon you message.</p></blockquote>
<p>"CAW" is the spelling used by your commanding officer, Mr. <!-- -->DGW, or an associate using his email. It was an honest mistake by me to assume that the initials "CAW" at the end of two emails were from an associate tasked with dealing with me.
<br>
<br>While we are on the subject of tasks doled out by the <i>"committee,"</i> I am curious as to your rank, your duties on the <i>"committee,"</i> and your assignments, one of which was probably hinted at with your email subject: <i>"Troll patrol for phantasypublishing."</i> Do they pay you well? What's the going rate?
<br>
<br>As serendipity would have it, I managed to read yesterday's newspaper after arriving home and before attending to your nice note. <a href="http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-06-18/">Yesterday's Dilbert</a> helped provide some of those answers:
</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Pointed Hair Boss:</b> Studies say that having too many smart people in a group lowers productivity. So I seeded this project team with an idiot to boost performance.
<br><b>New Idiot on Team:</b> My strategy of not paying attention in school is finally paying off.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. CAWS wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The article is not Plagiarized and since you have no facts to support you bullshit.</p></blockquote>
<p>What I know is that neither Ms. <!-- -->DS, Mr. Quinazagga, Mr. <!-- -->DGW, Mr. <!-- -->EB, nor you, Mr. CAWS, nor any other member of the <i>"committee"</i> wrote it. I know that when informed of whom the correct author might be (possibly <a href="skeptoid.com/episodes/4264">Mr. Brian Dunning</a> on June 28, 2011), none of you has made a convincing case for it not being Mr. Dunning.
<br>
<br>Mr. CAWS wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>It is not Brian's article and deviates from it as you pointed out. So that eliminates you claim legally and if brought into court you would loose this case.</p></blockquote>
<p>Don't let me put words into your mouth, Mr. CAWS, but your logic seems to be: <i>"Our posting deviates (oh so slightly) from Mr. Dunning's article, therefore it is not Mr. Dunning's article and he deserves no credit."</i> Stated another way, if 1 out of 15 paragraphs is unique despite 14 out of 15 paragraphs being word-for-word identical, that single, lonely, uniquely written paragraph is sufficient to win a (hypothetical) copyright infringement suit. *Beep* *Beep* Nope! Wrong again.
<br>
<br>I seem to recall newer musicians being taken to court by older musicians for a stolen guitar riff by the former that the latter made famous. (Just the guitar riff and not any other elements of the original song.) I seem to recall other instances where the former paid the latter royalties up front for usage of song snippets to avoid a trial. In the computer world, I recall certain software giants patenting "concepts" not just "code" to prevent others from copying how a program or website behaved. The point is, copyright has been successfully defended for copying significantly less than 14 out of 15 "paragraphs."
<br>
<br>Referring back to yesterday's Dilbert, if you would have paid attention in school, you wouldn't have been caught cheating by your teachers and professors. After all, they taught you how to quote other people's words both to accurately convey their words and their ownership thereof and to avoid any complaints of plagiarism. Without any edited weasel-words regarding who the true author is or author unknown, your plagiarism efforts (in this one instance and across the blog) would justify you receiving the grade of "F." Had you been at one of the military academies, you would be expelled.
<br>
<br>Mr. CAWS erroneously wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>For plagiarism to be present the Article must match 100 percent copied.</p></blockquote>
<p>I think I've already dispelled this lie. But in case my examples were too obscure, consider this one. Based on your logic, you could copy word-for-word one of Steven King's novels and then changed as little as the names of a few characters (and the dedication, "about the author," and maybe a single re-worded paragraph in each chapter), you could pawn this off as your own original work.
<br>
<br>Good luck with that one, Mr. CAWS, and you should contemplate why we don't see more knock-off books.
<br>
<br>Mr. CAWS wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Bottom line is Brian stated it is not the article his site and you don't represent his site. Besides the fact he called you a kook.</p></blockquote>
<p>I never stated or implied that I represented Mr. Dunning or any of his web efforts. I was doing the committee's blog a nice favor by pointing out its deficiencies in process & accreditation so that ya'all didn't run into legal trouble downstream. Mr. <!-- -->DGW, being an author, ought to appreciate the intent of giving authoring credit where credit is due, just as he undoubtedly expects this from others who might re-purpose or quote his works in a new venue.
<br>
<br>The integrity track record of the <i>"committee"</i> has not been very good. I suspect you never contacted Mr. Dunning in any shape or form, thereby nullifying his alleged <i>"kooky"</i> label against me.
<br>
<br>But for the sake of discussion, let's assume you aren't lying. If 14 out of 15 paragraphs of your posted piece overlap word-for-word with Mr. Dunning's blog entry, if nearly all other instances of the web not only match Mr. Dunning's piece but also give him credit and a link), and if Mr. Dunning is saying that he didn't author it, then the next logical questions are: Who did author it? Where did Mr. Dunning get it? Why was Mr. Dunning allowed to claim ownership of it? Was this some sort of "work-for-hire" with a ghostwriter? Interesting questions, one and all.
<br>
<br>Mr. CAWS wrote (in a font different from the rest of his Email):
</p>
<blockquote><p>Spamming or otherwise changing the subject, ad homs., personal attacks, making claims unsupported by the evidence and various other logical fallacies are tactics you utilize and it will be noticed in the Blog phantasypublishing as you are a crafty yet unsophisticated drone.</p></blockquote>
<p>On the <a href="http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters#comment-2074">Quinazagga blog 2013-06-18</a> came a posting from Mr. Quinazagga with strong overlap (emphasis mine) in the wording:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Señor El Once continued <i>Spamming or otherwise changing the subject, ad homs., personal attacks, making claims unsupported by the evidence and various other logical fallacies are tactics</i> of the trained 911truther whom has their own unsupported truths indoctrinated into themselves.</p></blockquote>
<p>El-Oh-El! Your threshold appears to be pretty low for what constitutes "Spamming." Tell me, how many total postings have I attempted to your blog? When was my last one? Your own database records will prove that the word "continued" is a lie. As for the rest of the copy-and-paste charge, <i>"the pot calling the kettle black."</i> Be that as it may, my 9/11 claims are supported by the evidence.
<br>
<br>I loved these published words within that same posting:
</p>
<blockquote><p>When this fact was brought to his attention he self banned and attempted to cover his actions up without taking personal responsibility for his own denial of truth and exploration of the 91101 terrorist attacks for personal or political gain.</p></blockquote>
<p>Self banned? How in the 'el did I accomplish that? Did I hack into your WordPress site and flag my email address? El-Oh-El, the wonders of "self banishment!"
<br>
<br>Denial of truth? For shame, Mr. <!-- -->DGW, you can't even admit to <i>"free-fall"</i> being equivalent to <i>"gravitational acceleration"</i> or that WTC-7 had 2.25 seconds or 100+ feet of it exhibited in its destruction, despite it being written in black-and-white in the NIST report.
<br>
<br>As far as the <i>"9/11 terrorists attacks"</i> go, you and I are in agreement that the events of 9/11 were attacks by terrorists. Where we differ, I suppose, is in pin-pointing exactly who the terrorists were and how wide their circle of conspirators was, because without inside and influential help, ain't none of it would have been possible.
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->DGW elaborates in an email:
</p>
<blockquote><p>First off you banned yourself from participating on Phantasypublishing's Blog and you are not on the Committee or a member of the Blog. This means you are not a member of the readership nor have any clue of operations of the blog.</p></blockquote>
<p>What does <i>not being on the Committee</i>, or <i>not being a member of the Blog</i>, or <i>not having a clue into the operations of the blog</i> have to do with anything? If nothing else, it disproves the very stupid premise that I might have "banned myself".
<br>
<br>With regards to <i>not being a member of the readership</i>, I was, I could be again, and there isn't much you can do to stop me, except maybe making your entire (worthless) blog MEMBER-ONLY, which would kind of defeat the purpose of the lame-ass web-presence legend you're attempting to establish.
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->DGW changes the subject and writes an ad hominem:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You also lack intellect to understand the acronym CAW and the continued use of discredited information sources to defend an indefensible self-created truth that has no basis physical facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>According to Mr. CAWS himself, you seem to lack the intellect to understand how to spell the acronym "CAWS."
<br>
<br>As for the <i>"use of discredited information sources to defend an indefensible self-created truth that has no basis physical facts"</i>, gee, I couldn't have summed up your 9/11 efforts better in its 100% reliance on incomplete, stilted, and hijacked government reports.
<br>
<br>In terms of what I do, I look for nuggets of truth in the disinformation, which by definition the disinfo has to have, else the disinfo will have no traction. As such, I consider both government as well as government sponsored infiltration into the analysis of others. I know that if I'm not careful, I'll be played; I have indeed been duped by more than one <i>"kwazy looney conspirathy theory"</i> until more research and proper (scientific) analysis shed light on both proper nuggets of truth and blatant disinfo dross.
<br>
<br>Your committee, on the other hand, is a bit hypocritical. Ya'all seem so eager to dismiss in their entirety everything from a given "source" upon detection of a single (designed-in, planted) flaw, yet do not apply the same dismissal when many errors are pointed out in the official government "sources" undergirding your "coincidence theories." Can't have it both ways... without exposing your agenda.
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->DGW continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The only propaganda is the empirical truths of the 911truth movement used in a campaign backed by the National Libertarian Socialist Green Party Which is a front for the American Nazi part and Aryan brotherhood.</p></blockquote>
<p>Y*a*w*n! I don't know what you're talking about except that this is a pretty radical change in topic that you have hypocritically labeled a "no-no."
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->DGW continued:
</p>
<blockquote><p>These are hoaxes for money and exploitation of the ignorant for profit Dr. Judy Brown is the prime example of that level of academic fraud so complete that she did get thrown out of court. Not once but twice.</p></blockquote>
<p>Who is Dr. Judy Brown? I don't know. Must be another one of those "lack of intellect" things similar to the proper spelling of "CAWS".
<br>
<br>However, what you write may apply to Dr. Judy Wood. Good thing that I don't champion her work 100%. In fact, I have my own issues with Dr. Wood's work.
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->DGW continued with this awesome run-on sentence demonstrating more of that "lack of intellect:"
</p>
<blockquote><p>As to permission to use your words That has already been explained to you and the article is very readable and remains as testament to your complete lack of education in regards to the collapse of WTC 1,2 and seven which is subject matter you attempt to incompletely cover.</p></blockquote>
<p>Don't go mixing your <i>low threshold for spamming</i> into being the same <i>low threshold for readability</i>. The re-purposed article starts out fine in its formatting, but then takes a right-turn into the unreadability weeds with Mr. Quinazagga's last posting that tries to address my words. Completely fucks it up, a testament to your complete lack of education with regards to writing and formatting.
<br>
<br>As for WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7, your <i>Committee</i> can't seem to stomach a tiny teaspoon of truth backed up by Newtonian Physics regarding free-fall and free-fall speeds. Incompletely covered? You bet, because it doesn't make much sense for me to try to get you to swallow a whole bottle of that truth medicine if I can't get the teaspoon of the same passed your nose. All in due time.
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->DGW continues with another run-on sentence:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You instead spam this site with false claims and here is the kicker this site has more facts than you idiotic statement.</p></blockquote>
<p>El-Oh-El! You've proved nothing false. Here as in there, just words and <i>false claims of false claims.</i> Bravo!
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->DGW continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>It took Quinazagga posting two reports that shut your debate down because you failed to address them.</p></blockquote>
<p>Really? Is that so? My recollection is that I was banned and all of my postings (that weren't plagiarized and/or poorly formatted from Truth & Shadows) were deleted. Ergo, how the debate was shut down and what was or wasn't addressed (or wasn't permitted to be addressed) remain something to be debated. But because you have on-going integrity issues, we can lump this into more words and <i>false claims.</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>That proved you created truth to be fiction without facts to back it up.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not so. <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/">My neutron nuclear DEW hypothesis</a> is supported by:
<br>- the energy required for pulverization.
<br>- the suddenness & speed with which total pulverizing failure happened.
<br>- the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>- the tritium measurements and the government sponsored song-and-dance on this theme.
<br>- the USGS dust samples and their analysis that then prove nuclear fission (ala fission-triggered-fusion in the form of neutron bombs directing their energy).
<br>- the damage to automobiles and the non-damage to other things more combustible.
<br>- the pictorial evidence of destruction (best collected in Dr. Judy Wood's book).
</p>
<blockquote><p>All of your pointless argument will never change Facts of 91101. There is What occurred Factually and the made up empirical fantasy of 911truthers that is a meritless Hoax for profit Social entrepreneurship Philosophy and theology and is a propaganda technique that ties into other Occupy movements as well. </p></blockquote>
<p>*Y*a*w*n!
</p>
<blockquote><p>So when one cuts to the facts of this whole exchange You were prohibited from deviating from the discussion about the WTC tower 1,2 and seven collapse.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ooooo! Can't deviate from the narrow agenda given to the <i>Committee</i> to defend! It was so long ago, you'll have to refresh my memory what the deviation was that you're not supposed to talk about and must shut down by any means at your disposal.
<br>
<br>Let's also ignore the fact that this discussion, by rights, should have transpired on Truth & Shadows where it originated, and where neither of us can pull dirty tricks like banning the other or arbitrarily limiting the discussion to one-side's database talking points.
</p>
<blockquote><p>You used data that had no facts and when confronted with the reality that your truth was baseless.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not true. See the short dashed list above, to which you have no explanation. If I error in this, you can set me straight by kindly explaining how the vehicles along West Broadway and in the car park were damaged? (Based on your official government conspiracy theories) how did gravity, jet fuel, and office fires torch those vehicles?
</p>
<blockquote><p>You denied that reality and then attempted transferal to others instead of taking responsibility for pushing an agenda based empirical truth that was made up and accepted as a false reality by useful idiots. </p></blockquote>
<p>Clever, Mr. <!-- -->DGW, but I'm not the one who coined the phrase <i>"free-fall phantasies"</i> with regards to the WTC complex, which your own associate, Mr. <!-- -->EB, then proves via NIST's own reports was ~not~ a <i>"phantasy."</i> Who's denying reality?
</p>
<blockquote><p>Also, There is no need for you to try to talk about Copyright laws. You lack the legal capacity to understand them and just because you can take a quota and data mine to an article does not make the article original to that author. Brian uses other people's articles and has exchanged articles from this blog to use in his on journalistic pursuits. </p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. <!-- -->DGW, it is not my responsibility to perform your due-diligence with regards to giving credit where credit is due on your blog. I was merely giving friendly advice about a subject that I do know about (and obviously Mr. CAWS and you don't.) The article in question was but one example of many, many on the blog that your "Committee" has paraded around as if you were the original authors.
<br>
<br>If you and your Committee would have more integrity, the proper knee-jerk response would have been:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Dear Mr. El Once, your questions into the original author of this and other pieces are valid and an area our Committee hopes to improve on. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. We will dedicate some time and try to locate the original author. Meanwhile, we will promptly add an editorial comment to the article in question stating that the author is unknown to us, but Mr. Brian Dunning appears to be taking credit for it.</blockquote>
<p>I'll cut you some slack, Mr. <!-- -->DGW. I'll let you dupe me into believing that you really contacted Mr. Brian Dunning and thereby learned that he was not the original author of that work. Of course, unless Mr. Dunning was paying work-for-hire to populate his blog, then it remains rather curious that he has been taking credit for the article all this time.
<br>
<br>More importantly, I thank you for demonstrating an NSA Q-Group "seed" article. Cass Sunstein's recommendations at its finest. Propaganda turned against US citizens, cuz <i>"we don't want ya'all tolerating any of those outrageous conspiracy theories from the internets."</i>
<br>
<br>I wrote originally: </p>
<blockquote><p>It doesn't matter that Ms. <!-- -->DS may have edited and shortened Mr. Brian Dunning's original article, because the bulk remains indistinguishable from the original thereby remaining a copyright infringement (until proper attribution is made). </p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. <!-- -->DGW responded: </p>
<blockquote><p>Yea it dose Dumbass. You do not know Copyright law so shut up about it is not the original article it has been written by that Ms. <!-- -->DS and deviates from the original article. So why don't you take your false claims and self-created truths and peddle them at a flea market on tracks that can double as toilet paper.</p></blockquote>
<p>Taken at face value, Ms. <!-- -->DS's version of the article does not deviate far enough from the original to merit (a) ~not~ crediting the original author [or who is assumed to be the author or at least where it was found], (b) assuming full credit herself, and (c)_ thinking this act of plagiarism isn't.
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->DGW wrote: </p>
<blockquote><p>You are an incompetent data miner and whiner whom lacks any real understanding of copyright laws</p></blockquote>
<p>Projecting your attributes on to me, again? <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html">Try grasping this:</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. ... As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.</blockquote>
<p>Mr. <!-- -->DGW wrote: </p>
<blockquote><p>Also you banned yourself and refused to retract that ban to debate any of the pointless points you bring up as distraction.</p></blockquote>
<p>Huh? If I had any curiousity about your abilities as an author, the above sentence pours cold water on it.
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->DGW wrote: </p>
<blockquote><p>Nope you banned yourself after you got shut down by the two reports and continue to whine about it by trying to cover up the evidence of your complete logical failure and denial of the facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>There you go again with your <i>"self bannishment"</i> phantasy.
<br>
<br>If the <i>"logical failures"</i> and specific <i>"denial of the facts"</i> aren't pointed out (as I do to your work), then they are just unsubstantiated words and you putting out a smoke screen.
<br>
<br>I wrote originally: </p>
<blockquote><p>[3] You can't even admit to free-fall (= gravitational acceleration) in the demise of the WTC, despite government reports spelling it out for you. Granted, those reports try to pin it on a mythical column 79 or other such nonsense; those reports try to average it with other stages so they can tell a meaningless truth about 18 floor falling slower than free-fall. The video evidence proves that it was ~not~ a single point of failure leading to a progressive collapse (as suggested by a computer model that still hasn't been released to the public and still doesn't match the videos despite much manipulation and overdriving of parameters beyond real-world cases.) No, all of the supporting structural elements across eight stories in WTC-7 were suddenly moved out of the way in order to obtain 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. <!-- -->DGW responded: </p>
<blockquote><p>Your truth is not supported in facts and by misrepresenting a sequence of a collapse progression as an proof of free fall is a logical failure on your part. </p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. <!-- -->DGW, did you have high school physics or perhaps college physics, with or without calculus? Obviously not, or you would grasp what even Dr. Sunder of NIST states about how free-fall means no structure or support exists to resist or slow down a falling mass. WTC-7 free-fall was not progressive, and the videos bare witness. It transitioned suddenly into free-fall.
</p>
<blockquote><p>You can't transfer it to Quinazagga as he also provided you with documentation about Energy transfer and free fall fallacy in the WTC 1 and 2 collapse.</p></blockquote>
<p>If free-fall off of the top of the towers puts you at street level in just over 9 seconds, then a total destruction of a tower happening in ~11 and ~13 seconds is within the margin of error to be described as "near free-fall speeds". For sure, the structure should have resisted and slowed the collapse, but couldn't, because it was taken out by controlled means.
<br>
<br>I wrote originally: </p>
<blockquote><p>Dr. Wood suggested that DEW took out the WTC. Unfortunately, she could not ~POWER~ her proposal with anything real-world and operational; she gave nuclear enhancements the bum's rush in her book and website. Dr. Wood let her opponents frame her argument as "DEW from Space", etc. Worse, Dr. Wood made statements regarding the extent of the vaporization of steel that even pictures from her own book do no support. Her comment about the spire being vaporized is based on one view of the spire; other views of the spire show it telescoping and falling. Ergo, she was setting up the straw man.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. <!-- -->DGW responded: </p>
<blockquote><p>She lied about the Cars and the initiator of their damage. She lied about the steel and recovery of all steel so her findings are based on misrepresentation of the facts and are without merit.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not quite, but if you absolutely insist, I won't argue the point. I don't champion her anywhere close to 100%.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood "implied" that the cars were taken out by a targeted DEW beam. What she "proved", however, was that the cars in question were torched in a mysterious way that jet fuel, office fires, and gravity cannot explain. You cannot explain it.
<br>
<br>I wrote originally: </p>
<blockquote><p>Dr. Jenkins, in turn, attacks Dr. Wood's straw man while building more of his own. For instance, he calculates the ~total~ amount of steel in the towers and then calculates how much energy would be required to make that steel go from a solid directly to a gas. He calculates a completely ridiculous number. What makes it ridiculous is that clearly from the pictures not all (and not even a majority) of the steel was vaporized. Dr. Jenkins never calculated how much energy is required to vaporize ONE steel beam, which would be a very useful number to know. He never calculated how much energy is required to liquify steel, etc. And if this wasn't enough to damage Dr. Jenkins' integrity, (a) he did not analyze any form of nuclear weapon [some of which are technically DEW] and (b) he's been promoting nano-thermite that by itself cannot account for pulverization nor for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. <!-- -->DGW responded: </p>
<blockquote><p>Sorry to say you lack the education to obviously to spot that the DEW fraud and the Nano thermite fraud both are hoaxes and are based in misrepresentation of truths as fact backed with manufactured facts that paint chips bun in an acetylene torch and that samples with no chain of handling can be submitted in a scientific study and produce the same findings that The USGS found and then some added chemicals due to contamination of the 2 year old Bentham samples.</blockquote>
<p>Sorry to say that you lack the education to obviously spot the jet fuel, office fires, and gravity-driven pile-driver fraud.
<br>
<br>As for the Nano-thermite fraud, the high school math and physics expose it as such, where my education was more than up to the challenge.
<br>
<br>As for the DEW fraud, not so fast with your broad brush. As Dr. Wood "implies" and let others "frame" as DEW-from-space, the fraud is exposed by physics as well, because a DEW device has to be powered somehow and Dr. Wood lacked a real-world operational answer, while avoiding nukes.
<br>
<br>DEW is a broad category and includes nukes: specifically, it includes neutron bombs. Ergo, don't get ahead of yourself.
<br>
<br>I wrote originally: </p>
<blockquote><p>Nope, Mr. <!-- -->DGW and his fabulous committee, posting links to disinformation does not absolve you from extracting what is relevant from it and explaining from your own understanding why the passage is relevant. All any of you has been doing is blindly posting links to government sponsored disinformation.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. <!-- -->DGW and his fabulous committee has yet to explain what he posted. Probably because he doesn't understand it well enough to find the quotes worth mining or to clarify it in his own words.
<br>
<br>I wrote originally: <blockquote><p>I'll conclude this with the very poetic words of Mr. CAW:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>Mr. <!-- -->DGW responded: </p>
<blockquote><p>Yes true words which you really never comprehended otherwise you would not have repeated them.</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, Mr. <!-- -->DGW didn't understand either, otherwise he would have translated.
<br>
<br>Of course, Sunday's Dilbert about <a href="http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-06-16/"><i>"Lying being an art form"</i></a> really puts a fine edge on my experience with your <i>"Committee."</i>
<br>
<br>Do yourselves a favor: ignore me. You've got me banned from your blog. You'll get your ass handed to you if you try to engage me on Truth & Shadows. You've been losing this email debate, despite the Committee tag-teaming. Your side ain't fairing too well (because you lack integrity and are fucking liars.) And were it not so, your 300,000 daily readers would have done your dirty work of trying to put me in my place without you lifting a banishing finger.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 27 -->
<a name="x28"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x28" class="tiny">x28</a>
Quinazagga Committee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">Committee's Action</a></p>
<p>2013-06-19</p>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: none;">
<p>++++ {Email from Mr. <!-- -->OneOhOne to Mr. <!-- -->DGW who forwarded to me with his additions.}
<br>
<br>Actually I can spot the frauds and those whom use unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence of the incident to back their findings.
<br>
<br>{SEO wrote}
</p>
<blockquote><p>As for the Nano-thermite fraud, the high school math and physics expose it as such, where my education was more than up to the challenge.
<br>
<br>As for the DEW fraud, not so fast with your broad brush. As Dr. Wood "implies" and let others "frame" as DEW-from-space, the fraud is exposed by physics as well, because a DEW device has to be powered somehow and Dr. Wood lacked a real-world operational answer, while avoiding nukes.
<br>
<br>DEW is a broad category and includes nukes: specifically, it includes neutron bombs. Ergo, don't get ahead of yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ergo, you are not educated in Nuclear physics or in Nuclear Chemical and Biological offensive and defensive weapons effect, use, and abatement. This is shown by your ignorance of Neutron Bombs and gamma radiation being straight line ionizing radiation. The radiological decay of thorium and the type of thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust is not associated with a neutron bomb it is however connected to UPS systems and electronic components as the uranium also is connected to paint, ceramics, and plastics. As was also pointed out the aftermath and site cleanup included deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors so no again no radiation signatures that are attributed to an neutron bomb.
<br>
<br>Also the bent steel was taken out of the pile about two months after the collapse. So here you don't even have the honesty of saying yes it was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile by the fires beneath it in the parking garage. Yes that is where some of the cars came from that Dr. Woods misidentified and so did you. When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.
<br>
<br>{SEO wrote}
</p>
<blockquote><p>Nope, Mr. <!-- -->DGW and his fabulous committee, posting links to disinformation does not absolve you from extracting what is relevant from it and explaining from your own understanding why the passage is relevant. All any of you has been doing is blindly posting links to government sponsored disinformation.</p></blockquote>
<p>The committee recognized your own propaganda as sell my opinion as truth. That is a fallacy called self-truth.
<br>
<br>Mr. <!-- -->DGW and his fabulous committee has yet to explain what he posted. Probably because he doesn't understand it well enough to find the quotes worth mining or to clarify it in his own words.
<br>
<br>{Mr. CAW wrote}
</p>
<blockquote><p>Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.</p></blockquote>
<p>{Mr. <!-- -->DGW wrote}
</p>
<blockquote><p>Yes true words which you really never comprehended otherwise you would not have repeated them.</p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO wrote}
</p>
<blockquote><p>In other words, Mr. <!-- -->DGW didn't understand either, otherwise he would have translated.</p></blockquote>
<p>I am not obligated to translate but here is the English to Quinazagga's statement
<br>
<br>"Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq."
<br>
<br>You cannot argue with the unintelligent in the end nobody will know difference of the two. So the winning action is not to play. This ends because he is banished as a troll.
<br>
<br>You already failed to carry non an intelligent conversation and wish add distraction intro the fray.
<br>
<br>Nope if you look at the feed on Truth & Shadows you have gotten your ass handed to you a couple of times over. So no real problem when we see a lack of research or honesty we just call it a Troll
<br>
<br>http://www.jod911.com/Roberts_WTC7_Lies.doc
<br>
<br>Addressed your statements years ago and is accurate with the facts about the 911truth hoax. So that stops the rehash and parroting off ao all of your false
<br>
<br>{SEO wrote}
</p>
<blockquote><p>Of course, Sunday's Dilbert about <a href="http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-06-16/"><i>"Lying being an art form"</i></a> really puts a fine edge on my experience with your <i>"Committee."</i>
<br>
<br>Do yourselves a favor: ignore me. You've got me banned from your blog. You'll get your ass handed to you if you try to engage me on Truth & Shadows. You've been losing this email debate, despite the Committee tag-teaming. Your side ain't fairing too well (because you lack integrity and are fucking liars.) And were it not so, your 300,000 daily readers would have done your dirty work of trying to put me in my place without you lifting a banishing finger.</p></blockquote>
<p>It already has been done why waste time with someone whom, denies facts of what occurred on 91101 and replaces them with self created trues that have no facts to back them up.
<br>
<br>This applies to your statements alone.
<br>
<br>++++++ <br>{Email from Mr. <!-- -->DGW to me 2013-06-19}
<br>
<br>{SEO wrote}
</p>
<blockquote><p>Do yourselves a favor: ignore me. You've got me banned from your blog. You'll get your ass handed to you if you try to engage me on Truth & Shadows. You've been losing this email debate, despite the Committee tag-teaming. Your side ain't fairing too well (because you lack integrity and are fucking liars.) And were it not so, your 300,000 daily readers would have done your dirty work of trying to put me in my place without you lifting a banishing finger.</p></blockquote>
<p>Let us correct your statement.
<br>
<br>1. You banned yourself.
<br>
<br>2. We have effectively won the e-mail debate as you have thoroughly debunked and discredited yourself.
<br>
<br>3. You never had any integrity. You were stating your own trues as facts and they are nonfactual they are based upon empirical and not factual reasoning base upon physical evidence.
<br>
<br>4. The Factual evidence is faring well as watch the steady decline in the 911truth movement as they lack any credibility or ability to speak about the facts.
<br>
<br>5. None of your transference hides your ignorance of the subjet you attempt to discuss
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<a name="x29"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x29</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_29');">Committee Troll One-Oh-One</a></p>
<p>2013-06-20</p>
<div id="sect_29" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. <!-- -->OneOhOne, Mr. <!-- -->DGW, and others on <i>"the Committee",</i>
<br>
<br>For a brief moment, let us set aside all of <i>"the committe's"</i> communications with me that have transpired so far on the theme of 9/11.
<br>
<br>My assumptions are that <i>"the Committee"</i> believes all aspects of the official government story on 9/11 and that it finds no unexplained or poorly explained 9/11 anomalies worth questioning. <i>"The Committee"</i> can give the US Government, its agencies, and a complicit media such marks for trustworthiness and integrity, because it has a history of honesty in all its actions and dealings. This assumption is based on <i>"the Committee's"</i> fawning over the infallibility of the government sponsored reports on the events of 9/11.
<br>
<br>If I am incorrect in my assumptions, please enlighten me. What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion? If the government has a history of dishonesty in its actions and dealings, what are some historical events that fall into this dishonest category?
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Actually I can spot the frauds and those whom use unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence of the incident to back their findings.</p></blockquote>
<p>If this is the case, Mr. OneOhOne, why have you not turned your <i>"keen eye for frauds and unsubstantiated truths"</i> onto the baloney fed to us by the government and media about 9/11? Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim?
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Ergo, you are not educated in Nuclear physics or in Nuclear Chemical and Biological offensive and defensive weapons effect, use, and abatement. This is shown by your ignorance of Neutron Bombs and gamma radiation being straight line ionizing radiation. </p></blockquote>
<p>So if your education in nuclear physics is so superior to mine, explain the significance of what you just wrote.
<br>
<br>While you're at it, explain the primary radiation released by a neutron bomb. Hint: it is not gamma radiation.
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The radiological decay of thorium and the type of thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust is not associated with a neutron bomb...</p></blockquote>
<p>True, but it is associated with fission. Fission-triggered-fusion is where that comes into play, of which neutron bombs are variants.
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[Thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust] is however connected to UPS systems and electronic components as the uranium also is connected to paint, ceramics, and plastics.</p></blockquote>
<p>Prove it, otherwise you earn the label <i>"fraud who uses unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence."</i>
<br>
<br>As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html">Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]</a> in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust.
</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Barium and Strontium:</b> Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
<br>
<br><b>Thorium and Uranium:</b> These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
<br>
<br><b>Lithium:</b> With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
<br>
<br><b>Lanthanum:</b> Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
<br>
<br><b>Yttrium:</b> The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
<br>
<br><b>Chromium:</b> The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
<br>
<br><b>Tritium:</b> A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>As was also pointed out the aftermath and site cleanup included deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors so no again no radiation signatures that are attributed to an neutron bomb.</p></blockquote>
<p>What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything?
<br>
<br>Your statement demonstrates either your own ignorance or skew as to what radiation signagure a neutron bomb would give off and its duration. Ever hear of Big Ivan from 1961, the largest nuclear detontation ever? It reduced radioactive output by 97% and left little & short-lived radioactive elements. Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect. A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.
<br>
<br>Here's something from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb">Wikipedia on neutron bombs</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. <b>The weapon's X-ray mirrors and radiation case</b>, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of <b>chromium or nickel</b> so that the neutrons can escape. <b>The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.</b>
<br>
<br>The "usual" nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. ... In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV)</p></blockquote>
<p>Recall that chromium and nickel were measured in significant quantities by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices.
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Also the bent steel was taken out of the pile about two months after the collapse. So here you don't even have the honesty of saying yes it was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile by the fires beneath it in the parking garage.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, not at all. Here's me being honest: <i>"Yes [the bent steel] was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile."</i> Satisfied?
<br>
<br>Now if you want examples of dishonesty, you can't even admit that the source for the heat that bent the steel is one of those anomalous things that is being covered over.
<br>
<br>You use the term <i>"fires"</i>. What fires? What was their source? You seem to be implying that it was from cars in the parking garage. FAIL.
<br>
<br>How were the fires in those cars in the parking garage ignited? Gee, the aircraft impacts and resulting fires were 80-90 stories ABOVE the parking garage. How did they get transmitted through 80-90 "pancake" layers to ignite the cars? Keeping with the premise, the major combustible element of those vehicles was gasoline, which requires oxygen to burn. Available oxygen under the rubble was consumed quickly. How long could those vehicles have burned (without oxygen)? [Hint: not many weeks as demonstrated by the hot-spots.] How hot could those fires have gotten? I'm just guessing here, but if gasoline doesn't cause the steel in auto engines to weaken and melt, I doubt that it could heat massive steel beams to a point where they could be bent into arches and horseshoes.
<br>
<br>I'm fine with you speculating, but you need to take that speculation a few steps further and outside the box of the official story -- which I assume you champion 100%.
<br>
<br>My premise is that the neutron nuclear reaction's heat was so intense, it quickly heated steel to a pliable state to create arches and horseshoes. These beams, however, weren't the closest. Analysis of the dust even from the lobbies of neighboring buildings shows significant quantities of tiny iron spheres. [How does gravity or jet fuel fires or car fires explain the creation of those iron spheres that were ejected into the lobbies of other buildings?]
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Yes that [from the parking garage] is where some of the cars came from that Dr. Woods misidentified and so did you. When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>If I understand your wanking lie correctly, you believe (a) that some cars were torched in the basements of the towers; (b) fires from these cars were so hot and so long, they caused steel beams to bend into arches and horseshoes; (c)_ these cars were excavated from the parking garages and towed to the bridge and other places.
<br>
<br>Bullshit.
<br>
<br>A news reporter (Vince ?) documented torched vehicles along West Broadway before WTC-7 came down. Likewise, police helicopters documented torched vehicles in a parking lot caticorner from the towers before WTC-7 came down. Eye witness accounts document vehicles <i>"popping off."</i>
<br>
<br>Ain't none of those cars done come from the underground parking garage, Mr. OneOhOne, as you seem to imply.
<br>
<br>Oh, and before I forget. You mentioned:
</p>
<blockquote><p>When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>First of all, the picture in question was never posted on Truth & Shadows where the discussion transpired, so I can't be accused of ignoring it. Mr. Quinazagga did all sorts of enhancements to posting before putting on his blog, and the addition of the picture was one of them.
<br>
<br>Secondly, -- you fucking liars -- the photo does ~not~ show wreckers moving destroyed vehicles <i><b>into</b></i> the holding lot! No, the photo shows a wrecker removing destroyed vehicles from the aforementioned caticorner parking lot. Many pictures of this lot exist that show it while vehicles are still ablaze and before the dust of the towers has settled.
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The committee recognized your own propaganda as sell my opinion as truth. That is a fallacy called self-truth.</p></blockquote>
<p>I recognize that the committee and its troll patrol have issues with the English language, and are coining their own phrase <i>"self-truth"</i> that doesn't have any meaning in the English language.
<br>
<br>The original wording was:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.</p></blockquote>
<p>The translation appears to be:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You cannot argue with the unintelligent in the end nobody will know difference of the two. So the winning action is not to play. This ends because he is banished as a troll.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ah, yes, but you played anyway. How unintelligent does that make you and the committee?
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You already failed to carry non an intelligent conversation and wish add distraction intro the fray.</p></blockquote>
<p>This statement is a data point that fits the trend line of all the other lies from your email and from those of other committee members.
<br>
<br>I have most certainly succeeded in carrying on an intelligent conversation, and this makes me dangerous to your agenda and is why you've banned me so quickly. Nothing I've written has been a distraction; it has all been on topic. After all, I am a principle participant in the exchange that Mr. Quinazagga extracted from Truth & Shadows (after running away like a scared cat).
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Nope if you look at the feed on Truth & Shadows you have gotten your ass handed to you a couple of times over.</p></blockquote>
<p>Prove it. Provide the reference URLs and relevant quotes. Otherwise, this is just your unsubstantiated opinion. Lest you be tempted to offer up my exchange with Mr. Quinazagga, he's the one who ran away like a scared cat; it is his blog that bans me and won't let me defend my words.
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So no real problem when we see a lack of research or honesty we just call it a Troll</p></blockquote>
<p>Shit, then I guess I should be calling you <i>"Mr. OneOhOne Troll"</i> from now on.
<br>
<br>As for your link to a DOC file [Roberts_WTC7_Lies.doc]? If you want to extract its contents and put it into an email, I'll look into it. Otherwise, I'm sure its just a honeypot of VBA viruses.
<br>
<br>Mr. TrollOneOhOne concludes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[Engaging me on Truth & Shadows] already has been done why waste time with someone whom, denies facts of what occurred on 91101 and replaces them with self created trues that have no facts to back them up.</p></blockquote>
<p>First of all, Mr. Quinazagga ran away from T&S like a scaredy-cat crying <i>"censorship-foul"</i> when there was no such thing.
<br>
<br>Secondly, not only are facts and substantiation supplied to back up my views, but also the errors & omissions in the foundations of your beliefs are pointed out.
<br>
<br>Thirdly, I have to admit that you make a good point about <i>"why waste time with someone who denies facts"</i>, makes up lies, and deploys other under-handed techniques in their argumentation (like banning rational & intelligent debate).
<br>
<br>I do it because I'm religiously fanatical about Truth. Truth is a divine attribute and the foundation of every virtue.
<br>
<br>Now we progress on to Mr. <!-- -->DGW's email, who tries to correct the record with lies:
</p>
<blockquote><p>1. You banned yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>An impossibility. And if you'd like to try to substantiate this with actual instances of any of my allegedly banning worthy offenses, fresh eyes will overturn your judgment and apply it to you. But don't let me stop you; prove it, Mr. <!-- -->DGW.
</p>
<blockquote><p>2. We have effectively won the e-mail debate as you have thoroughly debunked and discredited yourself.</p></blockquote>
<p>Oh-hum. More words without substantiation. Have you debunked free-fall in WTC-7 yet? Or that the BBC knew about WTC-7 collapse and told the public 20 minutes before it happened? How about WTC-1 and WTC-2 destroying themselves at near free-fall speeds?
</p>
<blockquote><p>3. You never had any integrity. You were stating your own trues as facts and they are nonfactual they are based upon empirical and not factual reasoning base upon physical evidence.</p></blockquote>
<p>You who ran away from Truth & Shadows with the false claim of censorship like a scaredy-cat. You who lacks the integrity to properly credit authors throughout your site. You who lacks the integrity to FIX a massive formatting fuck-up done at your hands or to REMOVE the article in question. You who has had lie after lie exposed in both small things and large.
<br>
<br>Don't go lecturing me about integrity.
</p>
<blockquote><p>4. The Factual evidence is faring well as watch the steady decline in the 911truth movement as they lack any credibility or ability to speak about the facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ooooo! I guess we can chalk up this statement about <i>"the decline in the 911Truth Movement"</i> as one of those <i>"self-trues"</i> you've been harping about, eh?
<br>
<br>After more than 11 years, maybe there is some validity to the movement and its activism sputtering down, but that does not mean that there is any decline whatsoever in the numbers of people on the planet who KNOW that everything the government told us was a pack of lies and is defended by a pack of liars, such as yourselves. The numbers of people coming to awareness of this fact is increasing.
</p>
<blockquote><p>5. None of your transference hides your ignorance of the subjet you attempt to discuss</p></blockquote>
<p>I noticed that you don't have the intellectual balls to discuss it or to even intelligently defend your lies. The only question remaining in my mind is whether you know them to be lies or are simply deluded into believing lies as <i>"self-trues"</i>.
<br>
<br>Here is a final piece for your <i>"committee"</i> to chew on, particularly if any are US Citizens. Treason. Yep, if any are US Citizens, then their participation in the propagation of the lies of 9/11 to continue to dupe the population will be deemed treason, particularly when the facts of the event are that nukes were used.
<br>
<br>You were incapable of ignoring me before. Let us hope with this latest email from me you will be able to improve upon your ignoring efforts. But if you can't contain yourself and feel you must respond, Truth & Shadows awaits.
<br>
<br>// Señor El Once
</p>
</div><!-- section 29 -->
<a name="x30"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x30" class="tiny">x30</a>
Mr. DGW : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">Enhanced Radiation Warhead</a></p>
<p>2013-06-21</p>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: none;">
<p>{Email from Mr. DGW to SEO and Mr. OneOhOne. Pay attention to the nested levels to figure out who is writing what. <span style="color:red">Mr. DGW's responses are in red.</span> His original formatting was not so pretty.}</p>
<!--
-->
<blockquote><p>{Indentations at this level represent SEO's words.}</p>
<p>From: {SEO} <!-- -->
<br>Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 13:24
<br>To: Mr. DGW, Mr. OneOhOne <!-- -->
<br>Subject: Re: Follow your own advice, Mr. CAWS<
<br>Dear Mr. A.L.OneOhOne, Mr. Wilks, and others on <i>"the Committee",</i>
<br>
<br>For a brief moment, let us set aside all of <i>"the committee's"</i> communications with me that have transpired so far on the theme of 9/11.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
<br>My assumptions are that <i>"the Committee"</i> believes all aspects of the official government story on 9/11 and that it finds no unexplained or poorly explained 9/11 anomalies worth questioning. <i>"The Committee"</i> can give the US Government, its agencies, and a complicit media such marks for trustworthiness and integrity, because it has a history of honesty in all its actions and dealings. This assumption is based on <i>"the Committee's"</i> fawning over the infallibility of the government sponsored reports on the events of 9/11.
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">Facts linked to physical evidence tell what happened factually on an forensic level. Backed by observations of active participants and correlation of their observations of the incident.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>If I am incorrect in my assumptions, please enlighten me. What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion? If the government has a history of dishonesty in its actions and dealings, what are some historical events that fall into this dishonest category?
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">We are focusing on the events on 91101 and leading up to the attack. Now the dishonesty starts at muddying the well with other non- related incidents.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
<br><blockquote>Actually I can spot the frauds and those whom use unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence of the incident to back their findings.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>If this is the case, Mr. OneOhOne, why have you not turned your <i>"keen eye for frauds and unsubstantiated truths"</i> onto the baloney fed to us by the government and media about 9/11? Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim?
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">Simple misquote and that was covered by the BBC already so plop another case of reporter error and misuse by a bias researcher trying to push a false truth.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
<br><blockquote>Ergo, you are not educated in Nuclear physics or in Nuclear Chemical and Biological offensive and defensive weapons effect, use, and abatement. This is shown by your ignorance of Neutron Bombs and gamma radiation being straight line ionizing radiation. </blockquote>
<br>
<br>So if your education in nuclear physics is so superior to mine, explain the significance of what you just wrote.
<br>
<br>While you're at it, explain the primary radiation released by a neutron bomb. Hint: it is not gamma radiation.
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armor or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centers only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft. In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armored ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981
<br>
<br>Now that is a neutron bomb primary effects. Now here is where you </span></p>
<p>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
<blockquote>The radiological decay of thorium and the type of thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust is not associated with a neutron bomb...</blockquote>
<p>True, but it is associated with fission. Fission-triggered-fusion is where that comes into play, of which neutron bombs are variants.
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
<blockquote>[Thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust] is however connected to UPS systems and electronic components as the uranium also is connected to paint, ceramics, and plastics.</blockquote>
<p>Prove it, otherwise you earn the label <i>"fraud who uses unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence."</i>
<p><span style="color:red">Already proven before your erroneous statements that it was not fission but another source.
<br>
<br>Interpretation
<br>The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.
<br>The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.
<br>It is important to note that the total chemical analyses presented in this section do not provide an indication of the metals in the dusts and girder coating materials that may potentially be bioavailable (readily assimilated by organisms). For example, heavy metals, such as lead, may occur in forms that range from highly soluble to highly insoluble in water or body fluids. Consequently, high concentrations of total lead in dust samples may or may not translate into elevated concentrations of readily bioavailable lead. Chemical leach tests such as those presented in the next section of this study aid in understanding potential release and bioavailability of heavy metals and other constituents from the girder coatings and dust samples.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html" target="_blank">Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]</a> in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust.
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red"><a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/" target="_blank">http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/</a>
<br>is the correct address of the
<br>Sorry to say that Non-thermite is not found more like rustproofing paint burns in an acetylene torch. Also since there is no Radiological or gamma burst associated with the WTC collapses</span></p>
<blockquote><p>
<br><blockquote><b>Barium and Strontium:</b> Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
<br>
<br><b>Thorium and Uranium:</b> These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
<br>
<br><b>Lithium:</b> With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
<br>
<br><b>Lanthanum:</b> Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Yttrium:</b> The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
<br>
<br><b>Chromium:</b> The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
<br>
<br><b>Tritium:</b> A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
<br><blockquote>As was also pointed out the aftermath and site cleanup included deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors so no again no radiation signatures that are attributed to an neutron bomb.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything?
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">Your statement demonstrates either your own ignorance or skew as to what level of gamma radiation signature a neutron bomb would give off and its duration.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>Ever hear of Big Ivan from 1961, the largest nuclear detontation ever? It reduced radioactive output by 97% and left little & short-lived radioactive elemtns. Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect. A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">Bullshit it does not and the problem here is a term you don't understand Fusion and Fission they are two different processes and in your misapplied nuclear physics </span></p>
<blockquote><p>
<br>Here's something from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb" target="_blank">Wikipedia on neutron bombs</a>:
<br><blockquote>A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. <b>The weapon's X-ray mirrors and radiation case</b>, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of <b>chromium or nickel</b> so that the neutrons can escape. <b>The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.</b>
<br>
<br>The "usual" nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. ... In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV)</blockquote>
<br>
<br>Recall that chromium and nickel were measured in significant quantities by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices.
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">Actually they do not and if you looked at the lack of a Gamma Burst then all of your empirical Nuclear Truth goes to you are creating a false appeal ad hoc.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
<br><blockquote>Also the bent steel was taken out of the pile about two months after the collapse. So here you don't even have the honesty of saying yes it was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile by the fires beneath it in the parking garage.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>No, not at all. Here's me being honest: <i>"Yes [the bent steel] was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile."</i> Satisfied?
<br>
<br>Now if you want examples of dishonesty, you can't even admit that the source for the heat that bent the steel is one of those anomalous things that is being covered over.
<br>
<br>You use the term <i>"fires"</i>. What fires? What was their source? You seem to be implying that it was from cars in the parking garage. FAIL.
<br>
<br>How were the fires in those cars in the parking garage ignited? Gee, the aircraft impacts and resulting fires were 80-90 stories ABOVE the parking garage. How did they get transmitted through 80-90 "pancake" layers to ignite the cars? Keeping with the premise, the major combustible element of those vehicles was gasoline, which requires oxygen to burn. Available oxygen under the rubble was consumed quickly. How long could those vehicles have burned (without oxygen)? [Hint: not many weeks as demonstrated by the hot-spots.] How hot could those fires have gotten? I'm just guessing here, but if gasoline doesn't cause the steel in auto engines to weaken and melt, I doubt that it could heat massive steel beams to a point where they could be bent into arches and horseshoes.
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">I am not speculating just stating actual observations of the aftermath and the fact that there were fires from cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers . Now these are hotspots in a 16 acre Bathtub That housed the old union pacific subway that the Towers were built upon. The station platforms were converted into parking garages. An underground mall storage vaults and other offices. There was oxygen, Hydrogen sulfide gas from seawater introduction and auxiliary generators near the communications complex under south WTC tower. So in looking at the steel you have to take into the whole observation that it was heated by secondary fires in some areas where there was still a connection to the entrance ramps air literally was pulled in so you had active fires in some areas acting like blast furnaces for short duration. Problem these are underground in a structure and are a whole different creature the first car catches fire gasoline moves to lowest are secon and soo full blown multiple fires with metal transmissions that contain the same elements found in the dust samples and groundwater samples.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>I'm fine with you speculating, but you need to take that speculation a few steps further and outside the box of the official story -- which I assume you champion 100%.
<br>
<br>My premise is that the neutron nuclear reaction's heat was so intense, it quickly heated steel to a pliable state to create arches and horseshoes. These beams, however, weren't the closest. Analysis of the dust even from the lobbies of neighboring buildings shows significant quantities of tiny iron spheres. [How does gravity or jet fuel fires or car fires explain the creation of those iron spheres that were ejected into the lobbies of other buildings?]
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">Actually Kentic energy transfer within the collapse does explain it </span></p>
<blockquote><p>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
<br><blockquote>Yes that [from the parking garage] is where some of the cars came from that Dr. Woods misidentified and so did you. When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>If I understand your wanking lie correctly, you believe (a) <span style="color:red">that the cars came from first levels of garages and from street level in front of the buildings</span>; (b) some cars were torched in the lower basements of the towers; (b) fires from these cars were so hot and so long, they caused steel beams to bend into arches and horseshoes; (c)_ these cars were excavated from the parking garages and towed to the bridge and other places.
<br>
<br>Bullshit.
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">No bullshit. I had to correct your misleading and inaccurate statement keeps it factual and hopefully prevents you from confusing your truths or opinion from the facts..</span></p>
<blockquote><p>A news reporter (Vince ?) documented torched vehicles along West Broadway before WTC-7 came down. Likewise, police helicopters documented torched vehicles in a parking lot caticorner from the towers before WTC-7 came down. Eye witness accounts document vehicles <i>"popping off."</i>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">Yes after WTC south collapsed they were hit by pieces of the south tower.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>Ain't none of those cars done come from the underground parking garage, Mr. OneOhOne, as you seem to imply.
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">Well that is a boldfaced lie and discredits your lack of knowledge about the vehicles being towed there.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>Oh, and before I forget. You mentioned:
<br><blockquote>When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">No I stated the Facts and the statement still applies to your erroneous statements.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>First of all, the picture in question was never posted on Truth & Shadows where the discussion transpired, so I can't be accused of ignoring it. Mr. Quinazagga did all sorts of enhancements to posting before putting on his blog, and the addition of the picture was one of them.
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">So it points out also it was put on Truth and Shadows so again lie and use weasel words.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>Secondly, -- you fucking liars -- the photo does ~not~ show wreckers moving destroyed vehicles <i><b>into</b></i> the holding lot! No, the photo shows a wrecker removing destroyed vehicles from the aforementioned caticorner parking lot. Many pictures of this lot exist that show it while vehicles are still ablaze and before the dust of the towers has settled.
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">Yes you are a liar and you don't realize the fact it was a holding lot for cars taken off the street after the WTC tower collapses and placed there. Yes the fires were after wtc south collapsed. Caused by debris from the tower.</span></p>
<blockquote><p>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
<br><blockquote>The committee recognized your own propaganda as sell my opinion as truth. That is a fallacy called self-truth.</blockquote>
<p>I recognize that the committee and its troll patrol have issues with the English language, and are coining their own phrase <i>"self-truth"</i> that doesn't have any meaning in the English language.
</blockquote>
<p>Yes it does it means you create a truth that is only based in your opinion and it is not factual it is delusional. It is a form of lying. You continue to attempt to mirror so let us just stop the propaganda dance you do.
<br>
<br><span style="color:red">We have no problem with the English language or seeing through a troll. Trolls are devious and this deflection instead of owning up to the fact that you falsely state an opinion as truth means you sell a self-truth that is unsubstantiated factually.</span>
<br>
<br><span style="color:red">We can also see the difference between Active collapse, rescue after collapse, search and rescue, aftermath and recovery operations. These are terms you and other truthers are unaccustomed to.</span>
</p>
</div><!-- section 30 -->
<a name="x31"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x31" class="tiny">x31</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_31');">Another data point to the integrity trend line</a></p>
<p>2013-06-24</p>
<div id="sect_31" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. DGW and <i>"the committee,"</i><br />
<br />
You are a published author, the owner of a publishing company, and the owner of a blog. Please demonstrate more proficiency in this regards by paying attention to wordsmithing details, such as incomplete sentences and formatting that will more easily differentiate the words of the participants in this discussion.<br />
<br />
Your research efforts improved slightly, although the data point represented by your analysis of such still fits in with the integrity trend line I have for you.
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}
<br>My assumptions are that <i>"the Committee"</i> believes all aspects of the official government story on 9/11 and that it finds no unexplained or poorly explained 9/11 anomalies worth questioning. <i>"The Committee"</i> can give the US Government, its agencies, and a complicit media such {good} marks for trustworthiness and integrity, because it has a history of honesty in all its actions and dealings. This assumption is based on <i>"the Committee's"</i> fawning over the infallibility of the government sponsored reports on the events of 9/11.<br />
<br />
If I am incorrect in my assumptions, please enlighten me. What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion? If the government has a history of dishonesty in its actions and dealings, what are some historical events that fall into this dishonest category?
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Facts linked to physical evidence tell what happened factually on an forensic level. Backed by observations of active participants and correlation of their observations of the incident.<br />
<br>We are focusing on the events on 91101 and leading up to the attack. Now the dishonesty starts at muddying the well with other non- related incidents.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>
{SEO}:<br />
Mr. DGW, it is not dishonest to pose questions that would help establish a common footing for further discussions so that we don't have to argue over things that we might already agree on. It is not dishonest to pose questions that would help readers guage your open-mindedness or agenda. <br />
<br />
What does it mean if you cannot: find fault with the government; can't acknowledge other historical instances of false-flag events; can't perceive recent instances when the corporate media acted as an integrated branch of government as <i>"the scribe hired by the victor to write history according to its desires?"</i><br />
<br />
You weren't expected to offer up details on other non-9/11 events (i.e., JFK, RFK, MLK, Gulf of Tonkin, ...), so even I can understand your reluctance to <i>"muddy the well"</i> in this regard.<br />
<br />
However, the direct 9/11 question remains that you're avoiding: <i>"What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion?"</i> If you can't acknowledge as valid some of the many things that fuel the 911TM's ire, then perhaps you aren't being honest and expose an agenda. On this front, you might be tempted to frame those valid anomalies-to-be-questioned as <i>"human error or incompetence, and inconvenient coincidences"</i>... Woes to the miniscule probability of coincidence after coincidence happening.<br />
<br />
Further, if my assumption is correct into your unwaivering belief and support into the official conspiracy theory (OCT) as presented by the government and corporate media, then you will have to defend it much better. You see, the OCT and its supporting documentation made lots of unsubstantiated assumptions and stilted itself to many unscientific conclusions to support its larger agenda in the world. As such, it makes deductive arguments to make its case about 9/11 who, what, how, why. [Because of A, then B. Because of B, then C... Because of Y, then Z.] Logically, if any of those deductive arguments are proven wrong, like for being based on unsubstantiated assumptions and ignoring all other possibilities, then major holes get poked into the OCT. [M is wrong and Q is wrong, so conclusion Z can't be reached.] It falls like a house of cards.<br />
<br />
The 9/11TM, on the other hand, is making a cummulative argument, and you'd know this if your were familiar with any of David Ray Griffin's work. Quite possibly various points that undergird the 9/11TM's position can be proven wrong; this is actually welcomed, because it trims the fat and hones the case. However, the weight of the combined remaining unaddressed issues makes the case for how the world was lied to and manipulated and that continues to this day... and might even be embodied by your and <i>"the committee's"</i> efforts.
</p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
<blockquote><p>Actually I can spot the frauds and those whom use unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence of the incident to back their findings.</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />If this is the case, Mr. OneOhOne, why have you not turned your <i>"keen eye for frauds and unsubstantiated truths"</i> onto the baloney fed to us by the government and media about 9/11? Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim?
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Simple misquote and that was covered by the BBC already so plop another case of reporter error and misuse by a bias researcher trying to push a false truth.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Not so fast, Mr. DGW. Cummulative arguments are at play here, and you've lamely tried to address only one of them. Furthermore, readers should make their own decision after viewing the BBC piece.
</p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
<br><blockquote>Ergo, you are not educated in Nuclear physics or in Nuclear Chemical and Biological offensive and defensive weapons effect, use, and abatement. This is shown by your ignorance of Neutron Bombs and gamma radiation being straight line ionizing radiation. </blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />So if your education in nuclear physics is so superior to mine, explain the significance of what you just wrote.
<br>
<br>While you're at it, explain the primary radiation released by a neutron bomb. Hint: it is not gamma radiation.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armor or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centers only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft. In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armored ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981
<br>
<br>Now that is a neutron bomb primary effects. Now here is where you </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Very good, Mr. DGW. I commend you on your copying-and-pasting effort for its relevance, but <b>~not~</b> on your ability: (a) to attribute the abstract properly to its correct source (such as <a href="http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/neutron%20bomb">http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/neutron%20bomb</a>); (b) to offer up analysis based on your own understanding and in your own words; and (b) to deviate in thought from the framing it puts forth of a omni-directional spherical neutron emission for its intended application on the battlefield.<br />
<br />
I dispute nothing from what you have quoted, which ironically puts us into agreement.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, neutron bombs have other configurations. In particularly, the neutrons -- instead of a spherical emission -- can be aimed, which then puts them into the classification of weapons known as DEW (incompletely speculated by Dr. Wood). <br />
<br />
The first deviation in thought from the original application where neutrons are used to kill life forms indiscriminately, would be targeting the neutrons in a manner that focuses them where they can do the most damage and then throws the rest away, rather wastefully into the sky. The second deviation from the framing above is any semblance of using the released energy efficiently or to its maximum capabilities possible. No, one needs to think of wasting the energy, but in a manner that at the same time reduces collaterial damage to life forms.
</p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
<br><blockquote>The radiological decay of thorium and the type of thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust is not associated with a neutron bomb...</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />True, but it is associated with fission. Fission-triggered-fusion is where that comes into play, of which neutron bombs are variants.
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
<br><blockquote>[Thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust] is however connected to UPS systems and electronic components as the uranium also is connected to paint, ceramics, and plastics.</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />Prove it, otherwise you earn the label <i>"fraud who uses unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence."</i></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Already proven before your erroneous statements that it was not fission but another source.
<br></span>
</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Not so fast, Mr. DGW. I've seen this same game played with tritium. Namely, the reports typically have a slightly skewed purpose, like <i>to identify "probable sources"</i> for the anomalous element. The skew is that <i><b>not all</b> "probable sources"</i> were identified or explored, because they held to the assumptions of <i>"a pile-driver driven by gravity decimating the towers"</i>, therefore the anomalous elements could only be attributed to office equipment. The report succeeds in its purpose, but that does not mean: (a) if it assumptions had been lifted, the conclusions would be the same; or (b) this in its present skewed form definitively debunks the alternative of multiple neutron nuclear DEW.</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{<strike><s>DGW:</s></strike> <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/">http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/</a>:}<br>Interpretation
<br>The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.<br />
<br>The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.<br />
<br>It is important to note that the total chemical analyses presented in this section do not provide an indication of the metals in the dusts and girder coating materials that may potentially be bioavailable (readily assimilated by organisms). For example, heavy metals, such as lead, may occur in forms that range from highly soluble to highly insoluble in water or body fluids. Consequently, high concentrations of total lead in dust samples may or may not translate into elevated concentrations of readily bioavailable lead. Chemical leach tests such as those presented in the next section of this study aid in understanding potential release and bioavailability of heavy metals and other constituents from the girder coatings and dust samples.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Copy-&-paste and lacking any semblance of personal understanding.
</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}<br />As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html" target="_blank">Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]</a> in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br><a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/" target="_blank">http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/</a>
<br>is the correct address of the </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Not so fast in your sleight of hand. We're talking two different reports both based on the same data of samples collected by the USGS. The difference in Prager's report is the correlation of elements from sample to sample that reveals other conclusions. <br />
<br />
Where's the official debunking of Jeff Prager's analysis of the public USGS data? Let this be a clue that to date it has been ignored, because to address it, validates it.
</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Sorry to say that Non-thermite is not found more like rustproofing paint burns in an acetylene torch. Also since there is no Radiological or gamma burst associated with the WTC collapses</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
No skin off of my nose whether or not the dust contains nano-thermite, because I think that was a limited hang-out to distract from the nuclear evidence. Be that as it may, substantiate your claim in more detail, and I'm sure you'd become the darling of the 911TM.<br />
<br />
With regards to your claim of <i>"no Radiological or gamma burst associated with the WTC collapses,"</i> (a) you don't know what you're talking about with your <i>"radiological burst"</i>; and (b) how can you be so sure there was <i>"no gamma burst"</i> when the <b>shaped-nuclear charges</b> were detonated (1) within the towers within the core areas thus being shielded, (2) directed upwards with the highly energetic neutron emissions.
</p>
<blockquote><blockquote>
<blockquote><p><b>{Jeff Prager paraphrased:}<br />Barium and Strontium:</b> Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
<br>
<br><b>Thorium and Uranium:</b> These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
<br>
<br><b>Lithium:</b> With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
<br>
<br><b>Lanthanum:</b> Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Yttrium:</b> The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
<br>
<br><b>Chromium:</b> The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
<br>
<br><b>Tritium:</b> A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
<br><blockquote>As was also pointed out the aftermath and site cleanup included deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors so no again no radiation signatures that are attributed to an neutron bomb.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything?
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Your statement demonstrates either your own ignorance or skew as to what level of gamma radiation signature a neutron bomb would give off and its duration.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />This is a rather snippy, unprofessional, and unhelpful comment that disproves nothing and is substantiated by nothing, and you are trying to pass it off as reasoned debate? My question remains open: What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything?<br />
<br />
You statement in context with mine seems to imply that the reason the lower basement subfloors were deconstructed had to do with lingering gamma radiation. Owing to the unique configuration of a neutron DEW, I do not believe 9/11 had significant levels of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and those levels themselves quickly dissipated.<br />
<br />
However, were I to speculate why the lower basement subfloors underwent deconstruction, my answer would be (a) physical damage from the <i>"kinetic energy transfer"</i> of material falling from great heights onto them, and (b) embrittlement, which is an after-effect of neutron radiation. The Banker's Trust building received damage to its face from flung-pieces of WTC tower steel wall assemblies, however, this and other damage was repaired. Still, after those repairs were completed and before occupancy, the Banker's Trust building was <i>"pulled."</i> Why? I speculate <a href=""><i>"embrittlement"</i></a> as if one or more of the neutron devices became misaligned or mis-aimed during the chaos of the pulverization.
</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}<br />Ever hear of Big Ivan from 1961, the largest nuclear detontation ever? It reduced radioactive output by 97% and left little & short-lived radioactive elemtns. <b>Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect.</b> A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Bullshit it does not and the problem here is a term you don't understand Fusion and Fission they are two different processes and in your misapplied nuclear physics </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
You need to be a tad more specific with regards to what you are calling <i>"bullshit"</i> and substantiating it, otherwise loyal readers won't know what you are referring to and will logically think the understanding problem is yours.<br />
<br />
If your comment referred to the statement -- <i>"Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation"</i> --, then I partly agree. This was slightly re-worded hyperbole from Jeff Prager that I re-used with full knowledge that it didn't apply 100%. The point of Mr. Prager's hyperbole was that (short-lived) neutron radiation is the primary output of a neutron device. In truth, some alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are generated by neutron devices, but their levels and short-duration are starkly limited compared to unfettered fission or fusion devices.<br />
<br />
Fission and fusion are indeed two different processes. What we're talking about on 9/11 is both. Fission-triggered-fusion configured as a neutron device. Got it? Fission is necessary to get the initial energy required to initiate fusion.
</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}<br />
Here's something from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb" target="_blank">Wikipedia on neutron bombs</a>:
<br><blockquote>A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. <b>The weapon's X-ray mirrors and radiation case</b>, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of <b>chromium or nickel</b> so that the neutrons can escape. <b>The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.</b>
<br>
<br>The "usual" nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. ... In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV)</blockquote>
<p>Recall that chromium and nickel were measured in significant quantities by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Actually they do not and if you looked at the lack of a Gamma Burst then all of your empirical Nuclear Truth goes to you are creating a false appeal ad hoc.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
<i>"Saying something isn't, does not make is so"</i> without substantiation. Your beef isn't with me, hombre. It is with Jeff Prager.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/" rel="nofollow">Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11</a> By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager<br />
<br />
Prove the authors of the above article wrong, and I'll apologize and start singing a different tune.
</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
<br><blockquote>Also the bent steel was taken out of the pile about two months after the collapse. So here you don't even have the honesty of saying yes it was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile by the fires beneath it in the parking garage.</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>No, not at all. Here's me being honest: <i>"Yes [the bent steel] was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile."</i> Satisfied?
<br>
<br>Now if you want examples of dishonesty, you can't even admit that the source for the heat that bent the steel is one of those anomalous things that is being covered over.
<br>
<br>You use the term <i>"fires"</i>. What fires? What was their source? You seem to be implying that it was from cars in the parking garage. FAIL.
<br>
<br>How were the fires in those cars in the parking garage ignited? Gee, the aircraft impacts and resulting fires were 80-90 stories ABOVE the parking garage. How did they get transmitted through 80-90 "pancake" layers to ignite the cars? Keeping with the premise, the major combustible element of those vehicles was gasoline, which requires oxygen to burn. Available oxygen under the rubble was consumed quickly. How long could those vehicles have burned (without oxygen)? [Hint: not many weeks as demonstrated by the hot-spots.] How hot could those fires have gotten? I'm just guessing here, but if gasoline doesn't cause the steel in auto engines to weaken and melt, I doubt that it could heat massive steel beams to a point where they could be bent into arches and horseshoes.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>I am not speculating just stating actual observations of the aftermath and the fact that there were fires from cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers . Now these are hotspots in a 16 acre Bathtub That housed the old union pacific subway that the Towers were built upon. The station platforms were converted into parking garages. An underground mall storage vaults and other offices. There was oxygen, Hydrogen sulfide gas from seawater introduction and auxiliary generators near the communications complex under south WTC tower. So in looking at the steel you have to take into the whole observation that it was heated by secondary fires in some areas where there was still a connection to the entrance ramps air literally was pulled in so you had active fires in some areas acting like blast furnaces for short duration. Problem these are underground in a structure and are a whole different creature the first car catches fire gasoline moves to lowest are secon and soo full blown multiple fires with metal transmissions that contain the same elements found in the dust samples and groundwater samples.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>You aren't speculating?!! Then where's your source to your <b><i>new</i></b> theory (one that I have never heard before, neither from the government nor from the 9/11TM) about <i>"cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers"</i> having fires of any consequence? Where's your physics that proves uncontrolled burns of gasoline can reach sustained temperatures sufficient to weaken steel to create horseshoes and arches?<br />
<br />
Ponder this: (1) How long can a typical economy car idle with a full tank of gasoline? (2) How long can it idle in a contained space, like a closed garage or buried under rubble? Due to the oxygen constraints, the latter #2 is shorter than the former #1. (3) How long can gasoline burn that is spilled out of a ruptured gas tank, an uncontrolled situation? My educated guess is that #3 is significantly less than either #1 or #2. Moreover, my educated opinion is that #1-#3 are all significantly shorter than the measured duration of many of the hot-spots [several weeks].<br />
<br />
<i>"[A]ctual observations"</i> do not substantiate your (new) theory that <i>"cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers"</i> had fires of sufficient magnitude and duration (without fresh air) to heat steel beams sufficiently to bend them into arches and horseshoes.<br />
<br />
Now if the under-rubble hot-spots were unspent but fizzling remnants of the redundant nuclear devices that decimated the WTC, it is much easier to fathom (a) sufficient temperatures to weaken steel and (b) long hot-spot duration without regular sources of oxygen.</p>
<p>Here's the lot catticorner to the towers. Cars were not towed here; they were damaged in place here.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toastedlot_93a1f7e6e7.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toastedlot_93a1f7e6e7.jpg</a><br />
<br />
Here's a sequence that shows the catticorner lot before the dust clouds roll in and that soon vehicles in that lot went ablaze.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC101_toasted.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC101_toasted.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC106.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC106.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toasted_lot_merc.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toasted_lot_merc.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg</a><br />
<br />
This next one is the image <i>deceitfully</i> used by your committee to say that cars were towed <b>to</b> the lot catticorner. [sarcasm] Look how <i>"crushed"</i> and <i>"torched"</i> the vehicle from the WTC garages looks! [\sarcasm] In reality, the previous images show those vehicles catching fire in place, and the following image depicts the cleaning up of that catticorner parking lot.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg</a><br />
<br />
Vehicles torched next to WTC-7.
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image157.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image157.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image17swamp.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image17swamp.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg</a><br />
</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}<br />I'm fine with you speculating, but you need to take that speculation a few steps further and outside the box of the official story -- which I assume you champion 100%.
<br>
<br>My premise is that the neutron nuclear reaction's heat was so intense, it quickly heated steel to a pliable state to create arches and horseshoes. These beams, however, weren't the closest. Analysis of the dust even from the lobbies of neighboring buildings shows significant quantities of tiny iron spheres. [How does gravity or jet fuel fires or car fires explain the creation of those iron spheres that were ejected into the lobbies of other buildings?]
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Actually Kentic energy transfer within the collapse does explain it </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
No, it does not. But if you think it does, then explain it in your own words to demonstrate your superior understanding of physics.<br />
<br />
My inferior understanding of Newton's physics says that if one (assumed) feature of a steel structure's decimation is that only the force of gravity was acting on it while a second (observable) feature is <i>near free-fall speeds</i>, then the decimation <b>cannot</b> pulverize content and <b>cannot</b> eject content, because both consume large amounts of kinetic energy that would slow the decimation well outside the range of <i>near free-fall speeds.</i> The only way to balance the energy equation is to add more energy to it (like to pulverize and take structure out of the way). <br />
<br />
My inferior understanding of Newton's physics and construction is that steel structures have thicker & heavier beams in the lower part of the building and grow relatively thinner & lighter towards the top of the structure (albeit over-designed for the expect loads), because the top beams don't need to support as much weight. Thus, it does not make sense that a pile-driver consisting of approximately the top 1/5 of a steel structure could decimate more than 1/5 of the structure immediately below it, let alone 4/5 (or really 5/5). Even if 10 or more stories were "vaporated" to give that 20-30 story-high pile-driver sudden free-fall equivalent to the distance of 10 floors, the observed decimation exhibiting pulverization, energetic ejection of materials, and near <i>near free-fall speeds</i> is not possible... without adding energy.<br />
<br />
But please, explain where this is wrong. </p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
<br><blockquote>Yes that [from the parking garage] is where some of the cars came from that Dr. Woods misidentified and so did you. When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
If I understand your wanking lie correctly, you believe (a) <span style="color:red">that the cars came from first levels of garages and from street level in front of the buildings</span>; (b) some cars were torched in the lower basements of the towers; (b) fires from these cars were so hot and so long, they caused steel beams to bend into arches and horseshoes; (c)_ these cars were excavated from the parking garages and towed to the bridge and other places.
<br>
<br>Bullshit.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>No bullshit. I had to correct your misleading and inaccurate statement keeps it factual and hopefully prevents you from confusing your truths or opinion from the facts..</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Your correction to your wanking lie hasn't helped it one bit. Again, refer to the images linked above that show the cars in the parking lot getting torched before the dust of a tower had settled; that show cars along West Broadway and next to WTC-7 torched before WTC-7 was pulled.<br />
<br />
How did they get torched? And why not flags, trees, leaves, paper, humans, and other more combustible things?</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}<br />A news reporter (Vince ?) documented torched vehicles along West Broadway before WTC-7 came down. Likewise, police helicopters documented torched vehicles in a parking lot caticorner from the towers before WTC-7 came down. Eye witness accounts document vehicles <i>"popping off."</i>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Yes after WTC south collapsed they were hit by pieces of the south tower.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Really? What pieces? Let's see some pictures. Look up <a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html">EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony</a>, as well as that of others. El, she wasn't hit by a piece of tower, but she was hit by the door of a vehicle that laterally popped right off of its hinges and slammed her into a wall. How did that happen? [Hint: errant EMP slipping out of the buildings and a neutron nuclear explosion comes pretty close.]</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}<br />Ain't none of those cars done come from the underground parking garage, Mr. OneOhOne, as you seem to imply.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Well that is a boldfaced lie and discredits your lack of knowledge about the vehicles being towed there.</span></p></blockquote>
<p><p>{SEO:}<br />Au Contraire! Your corrected statement and your contradition remain bold-faced lies.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}<br />Oh, and before I forget. You mentioned:
<br><blockquote>When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>No I stated the Facts and the statement still applies to your erroneous statements.</span></p></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}<br />First of all, the picture in question was never posted on Truth & Shadows where the discussion transpired, so I can't be accused of ignoring it. Mr. Quinazagga did all sorts of enhancements to posting before putting on his blog, and the addition of the picture was one of them.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>So it points out also it was put on Truth and Shadows so again lie and use weasel words.</span></p></blockquote>
<p><p>{SEO:}<br />No, nothing you've said is true.<br />
<br />
Mr. Quinazagga attempted a confused posting on T&S that was rejected, owing to the poor attribution of who wrote what [that is still reflected in a majority of what you or the committee write to me.] I only know about <i>"a confused posting"</i> but not of its actual contents, because Mr. McKee told Mr. Quinazagga in a posting to improve it and re-submit it. [Evidently, <i>"the confused posting"</i> was posted on Mr. Quinazagga's blog, though hard to say whether or not it improved anything.] The date stamps prove that Mr. Quinazagga subsequently posted comments to T&S, which rational readers can only assume was the requested improved posting, and this is from where discussion on T&S commenced. Mr. Quinazagga's posting on the Quinazagga blog has differences.
</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}<br />Secondly, -- you fucking liars -- the photo does ~not~ show wreckers moving destroyed vehicles <i><b>into</b></i> the holding lot! No, the photo shows a wrecker removing destroyed vehicles from the aforementioned caticorner parking lot. Many pictures of this lot exist that show it while vehicles are still ablaze and before the dust of the towers has settled.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Yes you are a liar and you don't realize the fact it was a holding lot for cars taken off the street after the WTC tower collapses and placed there. Yes the fires were after wtc south collapsed. Caused by debris from the tower.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
In the linked images above [according to your fucking lying premise] how could the vehicles crushed and burned UNDER the towers be so quickly towed to the lot catticorner from the towers BEFORE the dust of the towers had even settled?</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Mr. OneOhOne continues:
<br><blockquote>The committee recognized your own propaganda as sell my opinion as truth. That is a fallacy called self-truth.</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />I recognize that the committee and its troll patrol have issues with the English language, and are coining their own phrase <i>"self-truth"</i> that doesn't have any meaning in the English language.
</blockquote>
<p><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Yes it does it means you create a truth that is only based in your opinion and it is not factual it is delusional. It is a form of lying. You continue to attempt to mirror so let us just stop the propaganda dance you do.
<br>
<br>We have no problem with the English language or seeing through a troll. Trolls are devious and this deflection instead of owning up to the fact that you falsely state an opinion as truth means you sell a self-truth that is unsubstantiated factually.
<br>
<br>We can also see the difference between Active collapse, rescue after collapse, search and rescue, aftermath and recovery operations. These are terms you and other truthers are unaccustomed to.</span>
</p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Oooo! I'm excited to learn about the bullshit you'll spin about these concepts that you made up as being significant to the discussion.<br />
<br />
In summary, you have neither (a) debunked that 9/11 was neutron nuclear DEW nor (b) substantiated that the government's version [that adds no energy to gravity at all to achieve observable outcomes] is even remotely possible. Because that version defies physics the <i>troll mirror</i> that you hold up to me reflects you.</p>
<p>But hey, you & your committee are such experts on these things, I encourage you to take it up with:<br />
<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/" rel="nofollow">Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11</a> <br />
By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager<br />
<br />
I wish I could say that I've enjoyed the debate and kicking your asses, but I didn't, because your <i>"committee of clowns"</i> is so disenguous on everything, so stilted, so infallible, so gullible when it comes to actions of the US government, clearly there will never be any <i>"Ah-ha! Mea culpa!"</i> moment coming from your side on ANYTHING anomalous. <br />
<br />
Just be weary of the "T" and "P" words also reflected in your staunch actions: treason and propaganda.<br />
//</p>
</div><!-- section 31 -->
<a name="x32"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x32" class="tiny">x32</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">Government is Lying</a></p>
<p>2013-06-27</p>
<div id="sect_32" style="display: none;">
<p>- <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU">9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying </a><br /><br />
<br />- <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=BkPRskciqVM&feature=endscreen">9-11 WTC Biggest Gold Heist in History: $300 Billion in Bars </a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 32 -->
<a name="x33"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x33" class="tiny">x33</a>
Mr. DGW : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_33');">Ad-hoc augment and unfounded self-truth no foundation in facts.</a></p>
<p>2013-06-26</p>
<div id="sect_33" style="display: none;">
<p>On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM, {Mr. DGW} wrote:</p>
<!--
<p> </p><div>
-->
<p><b>From:</b>{Señor El Once}
<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 24, 2013 12:36
<br><b>To:</b> {Mr. DGW}
<br><b>Cc:</b> {Mr. OneOhOne}
<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: Follow your own advice, Mr. CAWS</p>
<p>Dear Mr. DGW and <i>"the committee,"</i>
<br>
<br>You are a published author, the owner of a publishing company, and the owner of a blog. Please demonstrate more proficiency in this regards by paying attention to wordsmithing details, such as incomplete sentences and formatting that will more easily differentiate the words of the participants in this discussion.
<br>
<br>Your research efforts improved slightly, although the data point represented by your analysis of such still fits in with the integrity trend line I have for you. </p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>My assumptions are that <i>"the Committee"</i> believes all aspects of the official government story on 9/11 and that it finds no unexplained or poorly explained 9/11 anomalies worth questioning. <i>"The Committee"</i> can give the US Government, its agencies, and a complicit media such {good} marks for trustworthiness and integrity, because it has a history of honesty in all its actions and dealings. This assumption is based on <i>"the Committee's"</i> fawning over the infallibility of the government sponsored reports on the events of 9/11.
<br>
<br>If I am incorrect in my assumptions, please enlighten me. What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion? If the government has a history of dishonesty in its actions and dealings, what are some historical events that fall into this dishonest category? </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Facts linked to physical evidence tell what happened factually on an forensic level. Backed by observations of active participants and correlation of their observations of the incident.
<br>
<br>We are focusing on the events on 91101 and leading up to the attack. Now the dishonesty starts at muddying the well with other non- related incidents.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO}:
<br>Mr. DGW, it is not dishonest to pose questions that would help establish a common footing for further discussions so that we don't have to argue over things that we might already agree on. It is not dishonest to pose questions that would help readers gauge your open-mindedness or agenda.
<br>
<br>What does it mean if you cannot: find fault with the government; can't acknowledge other historical instances of false-flag events; can't perceive recent instances when the corporate media acted as an integrated branch of government as <i>"the scribe hired by the victor to write history according to its desires?"</i>
<br>
<br>You weren't expected to offer up details on other non-9/11 events (i.e., JFK, RFK, MLK, Gulf of Tonkin, ...), so even I can understand your reluctance to <i>"muddy the well"</i> in this regard.
<br>
<br>However, the direct 9/11 question remains that you're avoiding: <i>"What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion?"</i> If you can't acknowledge as valid some of the many things that fuel the 911TM's ire, then perhaps you aren't being honest and expose an agenda. On this front, you might be tempted to frame those valid anomalies-to-be-questioned as <i>"human error or incompetence, and inconvenient coincidences"</i>... Woes to the miniscule probability of coincidence after coincidence happening.
<br>
<br>Further, if my assumption is correct into your unwaivering belief and support into the official conspiracy theory (OCT) as presented by the government and corporate media, then you will have to defend it much better. You see, the OCT and its supporting documentation made lots of unsubstantiated assumptions and stilted itself to many unscientific conclusions to support its larger agenda in the world. As such, it makes deductive arguments to make its case about 9/11 who, what, how, why. [Because of A, then B. Because of B, then C... Because of Y, then Z.] Logically, if any of those deductive arguments are proven wrong, like for being based on unsubstantiated assumptions and ignoring all other possibilities, then major holes get poked into the OCT. [M is wrong and Q is wrong, so conclusion Z can't be reached.] It falls like a house of cards.
</p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />
Ad-hoc augment and unfounded self-truth no foundation in facts. </span></p>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
The 9/11TM, on the other hand, is making a cummulative argument, and you'd know this if your were familiar with any of David Ray Griffin's work. Quite possibly various points that undergird the 9/11TM's position can be proven wrong; this is actually welcomed, because it trims the fat and hones the case. However, the weight of the combined remaining unaddressed issues makes the case for how the world was lied to and manipulated and that continues to this day... and might even be embodied by your and <i>"the committee's"</i> efforts. </p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DRW:}<br />
David Ray Griffin's work is academic fraud and represents inaccuracies of empirical reasoning without facts to back himself up.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Mr. OneOhOne wrote: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Actually I can spot the frauds and those whom use unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence of the incident to back their findings.</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br>
<br>{SEO:}
<br>If this is the case, Mr. OneOhOne, why have you not turned your <i>"keen eye for frauds and unsubstantiated truths"</i> onto the baloney fed to us by the government and media about 9/11? Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim? </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Simple misquote and that was covered by the BBC already so plop another case of reporter error and misuse by a bias researcher trying to push a false truth.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Not so fast, Mr. DGW. arguments are at play here, and you've lamely tried to address only one of them. Furthermore, readers should make their own decision after viewing the BBC piece. </p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />
The word is</span> <span style="color:red">Cumulative o.k. and readers don't need to take your opinions as truth. They require facts not fodder as you give them. The go to the BBC that explains what happened and it is a reporter's error in reading the NYFD report and the NYPD reports coming in.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Mr. OneOhOne wrote: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ergo, you are not educated in Nuclear physics or in Nuclear Chemical and Biological offensive and defensive weapons effect, use, and abatement. This is shown by your ignorance of Neutron Bombs and gamma radiation being straight line ionizing radiation. </p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>So if your education in nuclear physics is so superior to mine, explain the significance of what you just wrote.
<br>
<br>While you're at it, explain the primary radiation released by a neutron bomb. Hint: it is not gamma radiation. </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and <u>gamma radiation</u>, which can penetrate armor or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centers only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft. In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armored ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981
<br>
<br>Now that is a neutron bomb primary effects. Now here is where you </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Very good, Mr. DGW. I commend you on your copying-and-pasting effort for its relevance, but <b>~not~</b> on your ability: (a) to attribute the abstract properly to its correct source (such as <a href="http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/neutron%20bomb" target="_blank">http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/neutron%20bomb</a>); (b) to offer up analysis based on your own understanding and in your own words; and (b) to deviate in thought from the framing it puts forth of a omni-directional spherical neutron emission for its intended application on the battlefield.
<br>
<br>I dispute nothing from what you have quoted, which ironically puts us into agreement.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, neutron bombs have other configurations. In particularly, the neutrons -- instead of a spherical emission -- can be aimed, which then puts them into the classification of weapons known as DEW (incompletely speculated by Dr. Wood). </p>
<p>
<br>The first deviation in thought from the original application where neutrons are used to kill life forms indiscriminately, would be targeting the neutrons in a manner that focuses them where they can do the most damage and then throws the rest away, rather wastefully into the sky. The second deviation from the framing above is any semblance of using the released energy efficiently or to its maximum capabilities possible. No, one needs to think of wasting the energy, but in a manner that at the same time reduces collaterial damage to life forms. </p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Mr. OneOhOne wrote: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The radiological decay of thorium and the type of thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust is not associated with a neutron bomb...</p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>True, but it is associated with fission. Fission-triggered-fusion is where that comes into play, of which neutron bombs are variants.
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne wrote: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>[Thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust] is however connected to UPS systems and electronic components as the uranium also is connected to paint, ceramics, and plastics.</p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Prove it, otherwise you earn the label <i>"fraud who uses unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence."</i></p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Already proven before your erroneous statements that it was not fission but another source. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Not so fast, Mr. DGW. I've seen this same game played with tritium. Namely, the reports typically have a slightly skewed purpose, like <i>to identify "probable sources"</i> for the anomalous element. The skew is that <b><i>not all</i></b><i> "probable sources"</i> were identified or explored, because they held to the assumptions of <i>"a pile-driver driven by gravity decimating the towers"</i>, therefore the anomalous elements could only be attributed to office equipment. The report succeeds in its purpose, but that does not mean: (a) if it assumptions had been lifted, the conclusions would be the same; or (b) this in its present skewed form definitively debunks the alternative of multiple neutron nuclear DEW.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><s><span style="color:red">:</span></s><span style="color:red"> </span><span style="color:red">:}
<br>Interpretation
<br>The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.
<br>
<br>The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.
<br>
<br>It is important to note that the total chemical analyses presented in this section do not provide an indication of the metals in the dusts and girder coating materials that may potentially be bioavailable (readily assimilated by organisms). For example, heavy metals, such as lead, may occur in forms that range from highly soluble to highly insoluble in water or body fluids. Consequently, high concentrations of total lead in dust samples may or may not translate into elevated concentrations of readily bioavailable lead. Chemical leach tests such as those presented in the next section of this study aid in understanding potential release and bioavailability of heavy metals and other constituents from the girder coatings and dust samples.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Copy-&-paste and lacking any semblance of personal understanding. </p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">Your problem is you are being presented facts not you over inflated unsubstantiated self-truth . So what if it is Cut and paste it does not change the fact. Your problem is the facts speak for themselves and expose the lies you call truth. You problem with denial is not mine or my staff's. The problem is the</span> <span style="color:red">tritium and strontium are not isotopes one finds from a neutron bomb detonation. You also don't know the difference beteen Fusion and Fission You do not understand energy transfer during collapse through the structure or the kinetic energy transfer that occurred </span></p>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html" target="_blank">Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]</a> in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust. </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br></span><a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/" target="_blank">http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/</a><span style="color:red">
<br>is the correct address of the </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Not so fast in your sleight of hand. We're talking two different reports both based on the same data of samples collected by the USGS. The difference in Prager's report is the correlation of elements from sample to sample that reveals other conclusions.
<br>
<br><span style="font-family:"Plantagenet Cherokee","serif";color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span style="color:red"> </span></p>
<p>
<br>Where's the official debunking of Jeff Prager's analysis of the public USGS data? Let this be a clue that to date it has been ignored, because to address it, validates it. </p>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Sorry to say that Non-thermite is not found more like rustproofing paint burns in an acetylene torch. Also since there is no Radiological or gamma burst associated with the WTC collapses so the source of the fires are derbies from the south tower collapse and wtc7 collapse.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>No skin off of my nose whether or not the dust contains nano-thermite, because I think that was a limited hang-out to distract from the nuclear evidence. Be that as it may, substantiate your claim in more detail, and I'm sure you'd become the darling of the 911TM.
<br>
<br>With regards to your claim of <i>"no Radiological or gamma burst associated with the WTC collapses,"</i> (a) you don't know what you're talking about with your <i>"radiological burst"</i>; and (b) how can you be so sure there was <i>"no gamma burst"</i> when the <b>shaped-nuclear charges</b> were detonated (1) within the towers within the core areas thus being shielded, (2) directed upwards with the highly energetic neutron emissions. </p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p> </p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-right:1.5in"><b>{Jeff Prager paraphrased:}
<br>Barium and Strontium:</b> Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets. </p>
<p style="margin-right:1.5in"> </p>
<p style="margin-right:1.5in"><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Source cars in garages and office equipment non-isotope non-DEW or nuke. </span>
<br>
<br><b>Thorium and Uranium:</b> These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place. </p>
<p style="margin-right:1.5in"><span style="color:red"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:1.5in"><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Source Paint and ceramic glazes used in the building and emergence signs.</span></p>
<p>
<br><b>Lithium:</b> With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Source: Uninterruptible power supply batteries.</span>
<br>
<br><b>Lanthanum:</b> Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Yttrium:</b> The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
<br>
<br><b>Chromium:</b> The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation. <span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:1.5in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Plantagenet Cherokee","serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p>
<br>
<br><b>Tritium:</b> A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Found in emergency signing present on every floor of each tower non-isotope.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>
<br>
<br>Mr. OneOhOne continues: </p>
<p>As was also pointed out the aftermath and site cleanup included deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors so no again no radiation signatures that are attributed to an neutron bomb.</p>
<p>
<br>
<br>What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything? </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Your statement demonstrates either your own ignorance or skew as to what level of gamma radiation signature a neutron bomb would give off and its duration.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>This is a rather snippy, unprofessional, and unhelpful comment that disproves nothing and is substantiated by nothing, and you are trying to pass it off as reasoned debate? My question remains open: What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything?<span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Good because once again you are trying to push a use of a fission device through fiction.</span></p>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>You statement in context with mine seems to imply that the reason the lower basement subfloors were deconstructed had to do with lingering gamma radiation. Owing to the unique configuration of a neutron DEW, I do not believe 9/11 significant levels of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and those levels themselves quickly dissipated.
<br>
<br>However, were I to speculate why the lower basement subfloors underwent deconstruction, my answer would be (a) physical damage from the <i>"kinetic energy transfer"</i> of material falling from great heights onto them, and (b) embrittlement, which is an after-effect of neutron radiation. The Banker's Trust building received damage to its face from flung-pieces of WTC tower steel wall assemblies, however, this and other damage was repaired. Still, after those repairs were completed and before occupancy, the Banker's Trust building was <i>"pulled."</i> Why? I speculate <i>"embrittlement"</i> as if one or more of the neutron devices became misaligned or mis-aimed during the chaos of the pulverization. </p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Ever hear of Big Ivan from 1961, the largest nuclear detontation ever? It reduced radioactive output by 97% and left little & short-lived radioactive elemtns. <b>Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect.</b> A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation. </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Bullshit it does not and the problem here is a term you don't understand Fusion and Fission they are two different processes and in your misapplied nuclear physics lesson you negate energy transfer. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>You need to be a tad more specific with regards to what you are calling <i>"bullshit"</i> and substantiating it, otherwise loyal readers won't know what you are referring to and will logically think the understanding problem is yours.
<br>
<br>If your comment referred to the statement -- <i>"Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation"</i> --, then I partly agree. This was slightly re-worded hyperbole from Jeff Prager that I re-used with full knowledge that it didn't apply 100%. The point of Mr. Prager's hyperbole was that (short-lived) neutron radiation is the primary output of a neutron device. In truth, some alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are generated by neutron devices, but their levels and short-duration are starkly limited compared to unfettered fission or fusion devices.
<br>
<br>Fission and fusion are indeed two different processes. What we're talking about on 9/11 is both. Fission-triggered-fusion configured as a neutron device. Got it? Fission is necessary to get the initial energy required to initiate fusion. </p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Here's something from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb" target="_blank">Wikipedia on neutron bombs</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. <b>The weapon's X-ray mirrors and radiation case</b>, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of <b>chromium or nickel</b> so that the neutrons can escape. <b>The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.</b>
<br>
<br>The "usual" nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. ... In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV)</p></blockquote>
<p>Recall that chromium and nickel were measured in significant quantities by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices. </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Actually they do not and if you looked at the lack of a Gamma Burst then all of your empirical Nuclear Truth goes to you are creating a false appeal ad hoc.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br><i>"Saying something isn't, does not make is so"</i> without substantiation. Your beef isn't with me, hombre. It is with Jeff Prager.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/" target="_blank">Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11</a> By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
<br>
<br>Prove the authors of the above article wrong, and I'll apologize and start singing a different tune. </p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Mr. OneOhOne continues: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Also the bent steel was taken out of the pile about two months after the collapse. So here you don't even have the honesty of saying yes it was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile by the fires beneath it in the parking garage.</p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>No, not at all. Here's me being honest: <i>"Yes [the bent steel] was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile."</i> Satisfied?
<br>
<br>Now if you want examples of dishonesty, you can't even admit that the source for the heat that bent the steel is one of those anomalous things that is being covered over.
<br>
<br>You use the term <i>"fires"</i>. What fires? What was their source? You seem to be implying that it was from cars in the parking garage. FAIL.
<br>
<br>How were the fires in those cars in the parking garage ignited? Gee, the aircraft impacts and resulting fires were 80-90 stories ABOVE the parking garage. How did they get transmitted through 80-90 "pancake" layers to ignite the cars? Keeping with the premise, the major combustible element of those vehicles was gasoline, which requires oxygen to burn. Available oxygen under the rubble was consumed quickly. How long could those vehicles have burned (without oxygen)? [Hint: not many weeks as demonstrated by the hot-spots.] How hot could those fires have gotten? I'm just guessing here, but if gasoline doesn't cause the steel in auto engines to weaken and melt, I doubt that it could heat massive steel beams to a point where they could be bent into arches and horseshoes. </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>I am not speculating just stating actual observations of the aftermath and the fact that there were fires from cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers . Now these are hotspots in a 16 acre Bathtub That housed the old union pacific subway that the Towers were built upon. The station platforms were converted into parking garages. An underground mall storage vaults and other offices. There was oxygen, Hydrogen sulfide gas from seawater introduction and auxiliary generators near the communications complex under south WTC tower. So in looking at the steel you have to take into the whole observation that it was heated by secondary fires in some areas where there was still a connection to the entrance ramps air literally was pulled in so you had active fires in some areas acting like blast furnaces for short duration. Problem these are underground in a structure and are a whole different creature the first car catches fire gasoline moves to lowest are second and so full blown multiple fires with metal transmissions that contain the same elements found in the dust samples and groundwater samples.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>You aren't speculating?!! Then where's your source to your <b><i>new</i></b> theory (one that I have never heard before, neither from the government nor from the 9/11TM) about <i>"cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers"</i> having fires of any consequence? Where's your physics that proves uncontrolled burns of gasoline can reach sustained temperatures sufficient to weaken steel to create horseshoes and arches?</p>
<p>
<br>Ponder this: (1) How long can a typical economy car idle with a full tank of gasoline? (2) How long can it idle in a contained space, like a closed garage or buried under rubble? Due to the oxygen constraints, the latter #2 is shorter than the former #1. (3) How long can gasoline burn that is spilled out of a ruptured gas tank, an uncontrolled situation? My educated guess is that #3 is significantly less than either #1 or #2. Moreover, my educated opinion is that #1-#3 are all significantly shorter than the measured duration of many of the hot-spots [several weeks].
<br>
<br><i>"[A]ctual observations"</i> do not substantiate your (new) theory that <i>"cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers"</i> had fires of sufficient magnitude and duration (without fresh air) to heat steel beams sufficiently to bend them into arches and horseshoes.
<br>
<br>Now if the under-rubble hot-spots were unspent but fizzling remnants of the redundant nuclear devices that decimated the WTC, it is much easier to fathom (a) sufficient temperatures to weaken steel and (b) long hot-spot duration without regular sources of oxygen.</p>
<p>Here's the lot catticorner to the towers. Cars were not towed here; they were damaged in place here.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg</a><span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />The flattened tires and intact wheel hub on the first car proves Cars were brought on flatbed trailer shown in other lot and unloaded. Most of them originated from the parking garages or streets near the towers.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">The date on the photo from the AP is two weeks after 91101</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">They did not originate there stop with the bullshit and show time date of photo also name of source or photographer. Not shown on her site. </span></p>
<p>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toastedlot_93a1f7e6e7.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toastedlot_93a1f7e6e7.jpg</a>
<br>
<br>Here's a sequence that shows the catticorner lot before the dust clouds roll in and that soon vehicles in that lot went ablaze.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif</a><span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Dust clouds above the parking lot no fires on parking lot. Note the fire trucks at the rally point Vesey and Broadway they are not on fire. </span></p>
<p>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg</a><span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC101_toasted.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC101_toasted.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC106.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC106.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toasted_lot_merc.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toasted_lot_merc.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg</a>
<br>
<br>This next one is the image <i>deceitfully</i> used by your committee to say that cars were towed <b>to</b> the lot catticorner. [sarcasm] Look how <i>"crushed"</i> and <i>"torched"</i> the vehicle from the WTC garages looks! [\sarcasm] In reality, the previous images show those vehicles catching fire in place, and the following image depicts the cleaning up of that catticorner parking lot.</p>
<p><span style="color:red"><a href="http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet" target="_blank">http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet</a></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">This proves you are an accomplished liar.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />BTW: Infowarsmedia does not own the rights to any of the photos displayed. Nor can the copyright them. </span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Do you have links to the source photos? Answer is Dr. Judy Woods does not. She took them from stills on other 911truth sites to prove her pove that is not substantiated by any of these Arial photos. 2. Gamma burst and EMF/EMP make these photos impossible as the NYPD helicopter is not shielded against them.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Therefore, No such weapons were used nor was thermite used.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red"> </span></p>
<p>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg</a>
<br>
<br>Vehicles torched next to WTC-7. <a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image157.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image157.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image17swamp.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image17swamp.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg</a></p>
<p><span style="color:red">These pictures are taken along the street that goes between the postal building and WTC7, and are about a block north of WTC7, before WTC7 "faints</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Interesting location seeming it is the same location WTC7 Fell over during rush Hour and the same location was damaged by debris from south tower.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red"><a href="http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet" target="_blank">http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet</a></span></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>I'm fine with you speculating, but you need to take that speculation a few steps further and outside the box of the official story -- which I assume you champion 100%.
<br>
<br>My premise is that the neutron nuclear reaction's heat was so intense, it quickly heated steel to a pliable state to create arches and horseshoes. These beams, however, weren't the closest. Analysis of the dust even from the lobbies of neighboring buildings shows significant quantities of tiny iron spheres. [How does gravity or jet fuel fires or car fires explain the creation of those iron spheres that were ejected into the lobbies of other buildings?] </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Actually Kenotic energy transfer within the collapse does explain it. Also the spheres and paint chips all are explained within the dust and separation of components also interior contents.. There was no neutron action or heating that occurred. The subway tunnel shown in the photo is the only source of fire near wtc 7 that caused secondary fires. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>No, it does not. But if you think it does, then explain it in your own words to demonstrate your superior understanding of physics.
<br>
<br>My inferior understanding of Newton's physics says that if one (assumed) feature of a steel structure's decimation is that only the force of gravity was acting on it while a second (observable) feature is <i>near free-fall speeds</i>, then the decimation <b>cannot</b> pulverize content and <b>cannot</b> eject content, because both consume large amounts of kinetic energy that would slow the decimation well outside the range of <i>near free-fall speeds.</i> The only way to balance the energy equation is to add more energy to it (like to pulverize and take structure out of the way).
<br>
<br>My inferior understanding of Newton's physics and construction is that steel structures have thicker & heavier beams in the lower part of the building and grow relatively thinner & lighter towards the top of the structure (albeit over-designed for the expect loads), because the top beams don't need to support as much weight. Thus, it does not make sense that a pile-driver consisting of approximately the top 1/5 of a steel structure could decimate more than 1/5 of the structure immediately below it, let alone 4/5 (or really 5/5). Even if 10 or more stories were "vaporated" to give that 20-30 story-high pile-driver sudden free-fall equivalent to the distance of 10 floors, the observed decimation exhibiting pulverization, energetic ejection of materials, and near <i>near free-fall speeds</i> is not possible... without adding energy.
<br>
<br>But please, explain where this is wrong. </p>
<p>Try reading the reports on energy transfer and understand what occurred was within regular physics and kinetic energy transfer. Also a collapse of a 2,000foot tall office building 1 acre square </p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Mr. OneOhOne continues: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Yes that [from the parking garage] is where some of the cars came from that Dr. Woods misidentified and so did you. When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>If I understand your wanking lie correctly, you believe (a) <span style="color:red">that the cars came from first levels of garages and from street level in front of the buildings</span>; (b) some cars were torched in the lower basements of the towers; (b) fires from these cars were so hot and so long, they caused steel beams to bend into arches and horseshoes; (c)_ these cars were excavated from the parking garages and towed to the bridge and other places.
<br>
<br>Bullshit. </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>No bullshit. I had to correct your misleading and inaccurate statement keeps it factual and hopefully prevents you from confusing your truths or opinion from the facts..</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Your correction to your wanking lie hasn't helped it one bit. Again, refer to the images linked above that show the cars in the parking lot getting torched before the dust of a tower had settled; that show cars along West Broadway and next to WTC-7 torched before WTC-7 was pulled.<span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">You just debunked yourself again because those cars were parked before the wtc7 collapse and were hit by debris from wtc 7 and wtc 1.</span></p>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>How did they get torched? And why not flags, trees, leaves, paper, humans, and other more combustible things?</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>A news reporter (Vince ?) documented torched vehicles along West Broadway before WTC-7 came down. Likewise, police helicopters documented torched vehicles in a parking lot caticorner from the towers before WTC-7 came down. Eye witness accounts document vehicles <i>"popping off."</i> </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Yes after WTC south collapsed they were hit by pieces of the south tower.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Really? What pieces? Let's see some pictures. Look up <a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html" target="_blank">EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony</a>, as well as that of others. El, she wasn't hit by a piece of tower, but she was hit by the door of a vehicle that laterally popped right off of its hinges and slammed her into a wall. How did that happen? [Hint: errant EMP slipping out of the buildings and a neutron nuclear explosion comes pretty close.]</p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Nope they are straight line devices they don't Slip out flow around mystically. </span></p>
<p><span style="color:red"> Tritium is found in emergency signing for the WTC stairwells and emergency stairs as well as evacuation routes. </span></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Ain't none of those cars done come from the underground parking garage, Mr. OneOhOne, as you seem to imply. </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Well that is a boldfaced lie and discredits your lack of knowledge about the vehicles being towed there.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Au Contraire! Your corrected statement and your contradition remain bold-faced lies.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Oh, and before I forget. You mentioned: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.</p></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>No I stated the Facts and the statement still applies to your erroneous statements.</span></p></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>First of all, the picture in question was never posted on Truth & Shadows where the discussion transpired, so I can't be accused of ignoring it. Mr. Quinazagga did all sorts of enhancements to posting before putting on his blog, and the addition of the picture was one of them. </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>So it points out also it was put on Truth and Shadows so again lie and use weasel words.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>No, nothing you've said is true.</p>
<p><span style="color:red">Sorry everything I said was fact not your truth which is a fabricated lie</span>.</p>
<p><a href="http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet" target="_blank">http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet</a><span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Photos taken from Flicker and then reposted by Alex </span></p>
<p>Mr. Quinazagga attempted a confused posting on T&S that was rejected, owing to the poor attribution of who wrote what [that is still reflected in a majority of what you or the committee write to me.] I only know about <i>"a confused posting"</i> but not of its actual contents, because Mr. McKee told Mr. Quinazagga in a posting to improve it and re-submit it. [Evidently, <i>"the confused posting"</i> was posted on Mr. Quinazagga's blog, though hard to say whether or not it improved anything.] The date stamps prove that Mr. Quinazagga subsequently posted comments to T&S, which rational readers can only assume was the requested improved posting, and this is from where discussion on T&S commenced. Mr. Quinazagga's posting on the Quinazagga blog has differences. </p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Secondly, -- you fucking liars -- the photo does ~not~ show wreckers moving destroyed vehicles <b><i>into</i></b> the holding lot! No, the photo shows a wrecker removing destroyed vehicles from the aforementioned caticorner parking lot. Many pictures of this lot exist that show it while vehicles are still ablaze and before the dust of the towers has settled. </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Yes you are a liar and you don't realize the fact it was a holding lot for cars taken off the street after the WTC tower collapses and placed there. Yes the fires were after wtc south collapsed. Caused by debris from the tower.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>In the linked images above [according to your fucking lying premise] how could the vehicles crushed and burned UNDER the towers be so quickly towed to the lot catticorner from the towers BEFORE the dust of the towers had even settled?</p>
<p><span style="color:red">Because they did not burn that was the subway entrance you see. So recovery photos. </span></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Mr. OneOhOne continues: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The committee recognized your own propaganda as sell my opinion as truth. That is a fallacy called self-truth.</p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>I recognize that the committee and its troll patrol have issues with the English language, and are coining their own phrase <i>"self-truth"</i> that doesn't have any meaning in the English language. </p></blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Yes it does it means you create a truth that is only based in your opinion and it is not factual it is delusional. It is a form of lying. You continue to attempt to mirror so let us just stop the propaganda dance you do.
<br>
<br>We have no problem with the English language or seeing through a troll. Trolls are devious and this deflection instead of owning up to the fact that you falsely state an opinion as truth means you sell a self-truth that is unsubstantiated factually.
<br>
<br>We can also see the difference between Active collapse, rescue after collapse, search and rescue, aftermath and recovery operations. These are terms you and other truthers are unaccustomed to.</span> </p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Oooo! I'm excited to learn about the bullshit you'll spin about these concepts that you made up as being significant to the discussion.</p>
<p><span style="color:red">O.k. Go educate yourself on DEW devices and their signatures and isotope's created from Fission and Fusion devices.</span>
<br>
<br>In summary, you have neither (a) debunked that 9/11 was neutron nuclear DEW nor (b) substantiated that the government's version [that adds no energy to gravity at all to achieve observable outcomes] is even remotely possible. Because that version defies physics the <i>troll mirror</i> that you hold up to me reflects you.</p>
<p><span style="color:red">Wow did your I.Q, Drop just now Barium and Strontium are used in Automobiles and there were a lot in the vicinity also </span></p>
<p>But hey, you & your committee are such experts on these things, I encourage you to take it up with:
<br><a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/" target="_blank">Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11</a>
<br>By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
<br>
<br>I wish I could say that I've enjoyed the debate and kicking your asses, but I didn't, because your <i>"committee of clowns"</i> is so disenguous on everything, so stilted, so infallible, so gullible when it comes to actions of the US government, clearly there will never be any <i>"Ah-ha! Mea culpa!"</i> moment coming from your side on ANYTHING anomalous. </p>
<p><span style="color:red">Boils down to you can have your own truth just can't create your own empirical opinion and pass it off as facts. The Dr Judy Woods data is bogus information without taking all the other sources for the non-isotopic tritium Barium and Strontium. All of which are linked to Building materials found in the WTC towers. If you think you kicked anyone's asses well you did it to yourself. You are a poor researcher whom is behind the curve </span>
<br>
<br>Just be weary of the "T" and "P" words also reflected in your staunch actions: treason and propaganda.
<br>//<span style="color:red"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Just because you haven't a clue about fission and fusion devices also about the isotopes involved in such detonations. Also You negate the </span><span style="color:red">Tritium illumination on exit signs and the use of it in emergence exit signs. You also have no clue about how a Neutron bomb works it is a fusion devise not a fission device big difference in Gamma output and which would have killed the pilot and grounded the helicopter. The problem is you don't have the isotopes nor do you have the damage to living bodies or anything to prove DEW devices. You presented empirical truth without facts and got your ass handed to you. And this time Alex Jones actually helped verify the source because he also thinks Dr judy Woods is a fraud. </span><span style="color:red">
<br>
<br></span><span style="color:red"><a href="http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-scams-junk-science-of-dr-judy-wood_6336.html" target="_blank">http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-scams-junk-science-of-dr-judy-wood_6336.html</a></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />This proves you don't research fully and yes she gets her ass handed to her just like you did.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />The fence should have melted as well.</span>
</div><!-- section 33 -->
<a name="x34"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x34" class="tiny">x34</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">dissembling and deceit remain</a></p>
<p>2013-06-26</p>
<div id="sect_34" style="display: none;">
<p></p>
<p>Dear Mr. DGW,<br />
<br />
Your committee is trying, but the dissembling and deceit remain. I've tried to cut out extra parts of our discussion to focus on what you wrote.
</p>
<p>{--deleted--}</p>
<blockquote><p>
{SEO}:
<br>Further, if my assumption is correct into your unwaivering belief and support into the official conspiracy theory (OCT) as presented by the government and corporate media, then you will have to defend it much better. You see, the OCT and its supporting documentation made lots of unsubstantiated assumptions and stilted itself to many unscientific conclusions to support its larger agenda in the world. As such, it makes deductive arguments to make its case about 9/11 who, what, how, why. [Because of A, then B. Because of B, then C... Because of Y, then Z.] Logically, if any of those deductive arguments are proven wrong, like for being based on unsubstantiated assumptions and ignoring all other possibilities, then major holes get poked into the OCT. [M is wrong and Q is wrong, so conclusion Z can't be reached.] It falls like a house of cards.
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />
Ad-hoc augment and unfounded self-truth no foundation in facts. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Sums up your response to my email very well.</p>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}<br />
The 9/11TM, on the other hand, is making a cummulative argument, and you'd know this if your were familiar with any of David Ray Griffin's work. Quite possibly various points that undergird the 9/11TM's position can be proven wrong; this is actually welcomed, because it trims the fat and hones the case. However, the weight of the combined remaining unaddressed issues makes the case for how the world was lied to and manipulated and that continues to this day... and might even be embodied by your and <i>"the committee's"</i> efforts. </p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}David Ray Griffin's work is academic fraud and represents inaccuracies of empirical reasoning without facts to back himself up.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Without specifics and substantiation, your assessment has no merit. Just words.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>{--deleted--}<br />
{SEO:}
<br>Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim? </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}
<br>Simple misquote and that was covered by the BBC already so plop another case of reporter error and misuse by a bias researcher trying to push a false truth.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Not so fast, Mr. DGW. Cumulative arguments are at play here, and you've lamely tried to address only one of them. Furthermore, readers should make their own decision after viewing the BBC piece. </p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />
Readers don't need to take your opinions as truth. They require facts not fodder as you give them. The go to the BBC that explains what happened and it is a reporter's error in reading the NYFD report and the NYPD reports coming in.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
I have zero expectations that readers would take my <i>"opinions as truth"</i> without first validating them. I encourage them, in fact, to do just that. <i>"Distrust but verify."</i><br />
<br />
A reporter's errors? Are your sure? As you wrote, she was just reading <i>"the NYFD report and the NYPD reports coming in."</i> No error there on the BBC's part, I agree; just stenographers of the victor's history.<br />
<br />
So why were NYFD and NYPD reports coming in AT LEAST TWENTY MINUTES EARLY that said that the Solomon Brother's building (WTC-7) had collapsed? In my books, this demonstrates NYFD & NYPD foreknowledge and complicity, made even more damning by the WTC-7's 2.25 seconds gravitational acceleration.<br />
<br />
{--deleted--}
</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red"><s><strike>DGW:</strike></s> <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/" target="_blank">http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/</a> }
<br>Interpretation
<br>The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.
<br>
<br>The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.
<br>
<br>It is important to note that the total chemical analyses presented in this section do not provide an indication of the metals in the dusts and girder coating materials that may potentially be bioavailable (readily assimilated by organisms). For example, heavy metals, such as lead, may occur in forms that range from highly soluble to highly insoluble in water or body fluids. Consequently, high concentrations of total lead in dust samples may or may not translate into elevated concentrations of readily bioavailable lead. Chemical leach tests such as those presented in the next section of this study aid in understanding potential release and bioavailability of heavy metals and other constituents from the girder coatings and dust samples.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Copy-&-paste and lacking any semblance of personal understanding. </p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />
Your problem is you are being presented facts not you over inflated unsubstantiated self-truth . So what if it is Cut and paste it does not change the fact. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Cut-&-paste is one thing. I enjoy a good quotation just like the next person. The issue is relevance, analysis, and exhibiting personal understanding. The report you linked was good, but it was incomplete. Can you say: <i>"distracting dog & pony show?"</i><br />
<br />
The report that you site had the <i>"bent scope"</i> of determining asbestos content and relative health effects, no? It was based on some assumptions that were valid, namely that the WTC towers were <i>"white elephants"</i> with regards to their usage of asbestos, making them too costly to fix and (due to the environmental impacts) too costly to destroy [unless you insure them against terrorist attacks, fake such an event, and have insurance money pay for the rebuilding.] <br />
<br />
However that same report had other assumptions, like that <i>"terrorists on planes wrought all of the observed destruction."</i> Thus, the <i>"bent scope"</i> could rationally omit further analysis of the same dust that might show correlations in other elements which can only be attributed to nuclear methods.<br />
<br />
As I wrote before:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html" target="_blank">Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]</a> in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust. </p>
<p>{SEO:}
<br>Not so fast in your sleight of hand. We're talking two different reports both based on the same data of samples collected by the USGS. The difference in Prager's report is the correlation of elements from sample to sample that reveals other conclusions.
<p>Where's the official debunking of <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html" target="_blank">Jeff Prager's analysis</a> of the public USGS data? Let this be a clue that to date it has been ignored, because to address it, validates it. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Your problem is the facts speak for themselves and expose the lies you call truth. You problem with denial is not mine or my staff's. </span></p>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Don't go projecting your problems and issues onto me.</p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />The problem is the tritium and strontium are not isotopes one finds from a neutron bomb detonation. You also don't know the difference beteen Fusion and Fission You do not understand energy transfer during collapse through the structure or the kinetic energy transfer that occurred </span></p>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
The problem is that neutron devices are special configurations of <i>"fission-triggered-fusion."</i> Tritium is precisely one of the things that would be found from such a detonation. Don't go projecting your weaknesses and lack of (Newtonian and Nuclear) physics understanding onto me. You just blew it.<br />
<br />
Tell you what. You should locate the official NIST or other government agency reports that explain how the cumulative evidence doesn't point to nukes. Hint: You won't find them. At best, you'll find (a) a <i>"bent scoped"</i> study on tritium and (b) something produced by Dr. Steven Jones from the 9/11TM, but this has several issues, one of which is acknowledging tritium yet ~not~ considering neutron bombs. In the grand scheme of things, that is a pretty glaring omission for a nuclear physicists to make. </p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><b>{Jeff Prager paraphrased:}
<br>Barium and Strontium:</b> Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Source cars in garages and office equipment non-isotope non-DEW or nuke. </span>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Thorium and Uranium:</b> These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Source Paint and ceramic glazes used in the building and emergence signs.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>
<br><b>Lithium:</b> With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Source: Uninterruptible power supply batteries.</span>
<blockquote><p><b>Lanthanum:</b> Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>Yttrium:</b> The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
<br>
<br><b>Chromium:</b> The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation. </p>
<p><b>Tritium:</b> A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Found in emergency signing present on every floor of each tower non-isotope.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Ho-hum, Mr. DGW. Because you aren't doing a very good job of it, I repeat:</p>
<blockquote>Where's the official debunking of <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html" target="_blank">Jeff Prager's analysis</a> of the public USGS data? </blockquote>
<p><i><b>"Correlation"</b></i> is the key word that trips you up, so tiny that you probably didn't see it in your reading of Mr. Prager's paper. Sample-to-sample in far flung places near the WTC, the USGS data displays <i><b>"correlations"</b></i> between elements. <i>"For every m parts of element A discovered in a sample, n parts of element B were also present."</i> The correlations sample-to-sample could only be possible if the elements were correlated from the beginning (e.g., part of the destructive mechanism). Office equipment, exit signs, cars in garages, uninterruptible power supply batters, etc. were not distributed through the WTC towers or complex in any manner that could lead to <i><b>"correlations"</b></i> between their base elements.<br />
<br />
Worse, the <i><b>"correlations"</b></i> between elements spell out a recipe for nuclear methods.<br />
<br />
But you run along, now, and find those official government reports that disprove the <i><b>"correlations"</b></i> between elements in the dust.</p>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}
<br><i>"Saying something isn't, does not make is so"</i> without substantiation. Your beef isn't with me, hombre. It is with Jeff Prager.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/" target="_blank">Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11</a> By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
<br>
<br>Prove the authors of the above article wrong, and I'll apologize and start singing a different tune. </p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Where's your source to your <b><i>new</i></b> theory (one that I have never heard before, neither from the government nor from the 9/11TM) about <i>"cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers"</i> having fires of any consequence? Where's your physics that proves uncontrolled burns of gasoline can reach sustained temperatures sufficient to weaken steel to create horseshoes and arches?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>{--deleted--}</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Here's the lot catticorner to the towers. Cars were not towed here; they were damaged in place here.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg</a></p></blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />The flattened tires and intact wheel hub on the first car proves Cars were brought on flatbed trailer shown in other lot and unloaded. Most of them originated from the parking garages or streets near the towers.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">The date on the photo from the AP is two weeks after 91101</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">They did not originate there stop with the bullshit and show time date of photo also name of source or photographer. Not shown on her site. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I will refrain from calling you names for your crappy analysis. Did you <i><b>really</b></i> look at all of the pictures in sequence and compare them one to another? I think not.<br />
<br />
You can <b><i>correlate</i></b> off of buildings and various configurations of parked vehicles from picture to picture from the earliest ones that show flames coming from vehicles to those taken <i>"from the AP ... two weeks after 91101"</i>.<br />
<br />
Yeah, sure, I bet you could find a handful of vehicles that were towed there, straw-man. But what about the vehicles that weren't?</p>
<p>I'll simplify things for you. Let's assume that the following image was taken well after 9/11. <br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg</a>
<br />
As a reference point, note the car next to the two individuals walking by and how it is parked in a manner that blocks two or three other cars. Note also behind it the burned out van that has a portion of its blue bumper not burned.<br />
<br />
While that image is still displayed, load the following image into a new tab of your browser. This was taken from a police helicopter just after the 2nd tower went down.<br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg</a>
<br />
<br />
The car parked funny is near the lower right-hand corner. Notice the string of cars ON FIRE, including the blue van? Look for those same vehicles in the following image:<br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg</a><br />
<br />
Whether or not destroyed vehicles were towed to this lot at a later point in time is immaterial. What remains germaine is that a significant number of vehicles in that parking lot were destroyed in place, and <b><i>correlation</i></b> between the photos does ~not~ put them at any other location, like your very lame and deceitful premise of being in the garages of the WTC.
</p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>{SEO:}<br>
Here's a sequence that shows the catticorner lot before the dust clouds roll in and that soon vehicles in that lot went ablaze.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif</a></p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Dust clouds above the parking lot no fires on parking lot. Note the fire trucks at the rally point Vesey and Broadway they are not on fire. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>The same helicopter that took the above picture also took the other one from the parking lot with vehicles on fire. Same time frame.<br />
<br />
Your straw-man fire trucks were obviously ~not~ line of sight from an EMP slipping out through window slits and falling debris. Study this one also within the same time frame:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg</a>
<br />
<br />
{--deleted--}
</p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>{SEO:}
<br>This next one is the image <i>deceitfully</i> used by your committee to say that cars were towed <b>to</b> the lot catticorner. [sarcasm] Look how <i>"crushed"</i> and <i>"torched"</i> the vehicle from the WTC garages looks! [\sarcasm] In reality, the previous images show those vehicles catching fire in place, and the following image depicts the cleaning up of that catticorner parking lot.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg</a>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<a href="http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet" target="_blank">http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet</a></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">This proves you are an accomplished liar.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
I complained before about you projecting your weaknesses onto me. Well, don't go pawning your strengths (e.g., lies, deceit, bait-&-switch, straw-men) onto me either!<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/080.jpg">first image on the page</a> is of WTC-7 on 2001-09-18. It shows cars stacked on top of one another, a torched bus, and vehicles stacked onto of the bus. <br /><br />
<br />
The following images also show WTC-7, but on 2001-09-11 some time between 10:30 and 5:20, because WTC-7 is right there still standing (just to the right of the burning building and to the left of the torched bus). In these pictures,
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg</a><br />
<br />
Gee, an astute observer can see many of the same vehicles including the bus, only PRIOR to them being stacked on top of one another. In the images above, none of them came from the garages of the WTC.
</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Do you have links to the source photos? Answer is Dr. Judy Woods does not. She took them from stills on other 911truth sites to prove her pove that is not substantiated by any of these Arial photos.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>My understanding is that she got them from official sources. She did her best to link to the source, but many links today are now broken (because the source images were moved or whatnot.) DOESN'T MATTER! Why? <br />
<br />
(a) Because these photos are nuggets of truth that are valid regardless of what theory is taped onto them. They represent evidence that has to be explained, and your lame gravity pile-drivers do ~not~.<br />
<br />
(b) Because these photos -- coming from official sources originally -- have ~never~ been disputed! </p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br /> 2. Gamma burst and EMF/EMP make these photos impossible as the NYPD helicopter is not shielded against them.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Either you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying and have missed the salient points, or you have been paying attention and are deceitfully skewing the information.<br />
<br />
It may be true that a helicopter may not shielded from <i>"Gamma burst and EMF/EMP"</i>. Your deceit is in forgetting my often stated premise that (a) the neutron nuclear devices were detonated within the steel towers, probably within the core area. Can you say shielding? (b) The helicopter was at a significant distance from the demolition using a zoom-in lens. "Inverse square of the distance" in terms of EMP magnitude reaching the helicopter. (c)_ The neutron devices were aimed upwards, and the helicopter was not flying over the top. (d) The EMP side-effects were mostly mitigated, although timing of detonations plus the chaos of falling debris and window slits presented "gaps of oppportunity".</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Therefore, No such weapons were used nor was thermite used.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Therefore, gravity caused all of this? El-Oh-El, you are such a wanking liar. Prove it, liar.</p>
<p>{--deleted--}</p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>{SEO:}
<br>Your correction to your wanking lie hasn't helped it one bit. Again, refer to the images linked above that show the cars in the parking lot getting torched before the dust of a tower had settled; that show cars along West Broadway and next to WTC-7 torched before WTC-7 was pulled.<span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />
You just debunked yourself again because those cars were parked before the wtc7 collapse and were hit by debris from wtc 7 and wtc 1.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>No, you correction to your correction proves you still... a fucking liar. None of the vehicles in question were hit by debris from WTC-7, because they were all photographed and proven torched ~before~ WTC-7 was demolished. Maybe you have a case for them being hit by debris from WTC-1, but you have no case, no evidence, nada for that debris being <b>"flaming debris"</b> (caused by gravity and jet-fuel/office-furnishing fires, no less). If there was flaming debris, why was it so selective (e.g., sheet metal in cars and not people, flags, trees, leaves)? </p>
<p>{--deleted--}</p>
<blockquote><p>{SEO:}
<br> Look up <a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html" target="_blank">EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony</a>, as well as that of others. El, she wasn't hit by a piece of tower, but she was hit by the door of a vehicle that laterally popped right off of its hinges and slammed her into a wall. How did that happen? [Hint: errant EMP slipping out of the buildings and a neutron nuclear explosion comes pretty close.]</p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Nope they are straight line devices they don't Slip out flow around mystically. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:} Agreed. Gaps in the debris and/or window slits allowed those straight-line side-effects to vector out.</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red"> Tritium is found in emergency signing for the WTC stairwells and emergency stairs as well as evacuation routes. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>Obviously, you didn't understand the report (and its <i>"bent scope"</i> skew). Given the assumption that the gravity pile-driver caused the destruction, they <i>speculated</i> into <i>probable</i> sources for the tritium measured in the water leaving the WTC complex. They did not speculate it was <i>"emergency signing for the WTC stairwells and emergency stairs"</i>... No, no, no. They said it was the emergency signage <i>from the impacting aircrafts.</i> And when their speculative wild-ass models for this didn't work out, they included gun sights from weapons stored at the WTC without determining (a) what weapons were originally in the WTC complex, (b) where they were stored within the WTC complex, and (c)_ correlating with the number of weapons that were recovered from the debris [damaged or not].</p>
<p>{--deleted--}</p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>{SEO:}
<br>Oooo! I'm excited to learn about the bullshit you'll spin about these concepts that you made up as being significant to the discussion.</p></blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">O.k. Go educate yourself on DEW devices and their signatures and isotope's created from Fission and Fusion devices.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
My education on neutron DEW devices may have gaps, but nothing -- in all of your postings -- demonstrates that you know more (or that your <i>committee</i> knows more) or has anything that could improve my education. </p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>{SEO:}
<br>In summary, you have neither (a) debunked that 9/11 was neutron nuclear DEW nor (b) substantiated that the government's version [that adds no energy to gravity at all to achieve observable outcomes] is even remotely possible. Because that version defies physics the <i>troll mirror</i> that you hold up to me reflects you.</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />
Wow did your I.Q, Drop just now Barium and Strontium are used in Automobiles and there were a lot in the vicinity also </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Or did yours just drop instead? The Barium and Strontium in question came from the dust samples. And they came in <i><b>correlated</b></i> quantities. </p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>But hey, you & your committee are such experts on these things, I encourage you to take it up with:
<br><a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/" target="_blank">Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11</a>
<br>By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
<br>
<br>I wish I could say that I've enjoyed the debate and kicking your asses, but I didn't, because your <i>"committee of clowns"</i> is so disenguous on everything, so stilted, so infallible, so gullible when it comes to actions of the US government, clearly there will never be any <i>"Ah-ha! Mea culpa!"</i> moment coming from your side on ANYTHING anomalous. </p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />
Boils down to you can have your own truth just can't create your own empirical opinion and pass it off as facts. The Dr Judy Woods data is bogus information without taking all the other sources for the non-isotopic tritium Barium and Strontium. All of which are linked to Building materials found in the WTC towers. If you think you kicked anyone's asses well you did it to yourself. You are a poor researcher whom is behind the curve </span></blockquote>
<p>Building another straw-man, I see. (a) The pictures from Dr. Wood's website and book are not <i>bogus.</i> Quite the contrary, they are valid evidence that must be explained by whatever theory-du-jour is being peddled. (b) I'm not championing any of Dr. Wood's work except the nuggets of truth, the evidence.</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />Just because you haven't a clue about fission and fusion devices also about the isotopes involved in such detonations.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
If my understanding of nuclear physics is so inferior to yours, <b>show, don't tell.</b> Enlighten me, don't insult me. Be sure to that you are also talking about a fission-triggered-fusion neutron device, okay?</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br /> Also You negate the Tritium illumination on exit signs and the use of it in emergence exit signs. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
No, you negate that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about regarding exit signs. Tritium was used in aircraft exit signs, not building exit signs (if you read the report). You fucked up.</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />You also have no clue about how a Neutron bomb works it is a fusion devise not a fission device big difference in Gamma output and which would have killed the pilot and grounded the helicopter. The problem is you don't have the isotopes nor do you have the damage to living bodies or anything to prove DEW devices. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
If my understanding of nuclear physics is so inferior to yours, enlighten me, don't insult me. Without the understanding to back-up your bravado, all you are is words... words that over and over are proven to be lies.<br />
<br />
With regards to the damage to living bodies, you negate that I've explained over-and-over the unique configuration of the neutron device -- that of a shaped nuclear charge. You negate the likely direction that the device was aimed that would avoid too much collateral damage, like to a helicopter. Can you say <i>"up?"</i> That's where it was targeted. The helicopter wasn't up or directly overhead with respect to the towers.
</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />You presented empirical truth without facts and got your ass handed to you. And this time Alex Jones actually helped verify the source because he also thinks Dr judy Woods is a fraud. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
So what? Had you been paying attention, I've discovered enough discrepancies in her work to potentially come to the same conclusion. Doesn't mean her pictorial evidence or other nuggets of truth from her work are fraudulent.</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red"><a href="http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-scams-junk-science-of-dr-judy-wood_6336.html" target="_blank">http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-scams-junk-science-of-dr-judy-wood_6336.html</a></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />This proves you don't research fully and yes she gets her ass handed to her just like you did.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br />
Nope, it doesn't prove squat, Mr. DGW. I am very familiar with Mr. OneBornFree having debated him many times on Truth & Shadows and observed his dishonest behavior. Like you, he's a government shill. Unlike you, the obtuse postion (ala Simon Shack) he has taken in the past has been: <i>"All of the 9/11 imagery has been tainted and hasn't been validated so can't be used to explain squat... Errr... They used dynomite to destroy the WTC complex, but did all of this manipulation of the imagery to get the public to 'see' something else."</i> <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, I thank you for the recent links to Mr. OneBornFree's work. (a) However, those efforts are so recent, they can't really be foisted up as having been missed. (b) Debunking Dr. Wood is no skin off my nose or off my premise of neutron nuclear DEW. (c)_ I'll bet you that once I start exploring Mr. OneBornFree's work, it'll be full of holes JUST LIKE YOUR WORK (AND BELIEFS) ARE FULL OF HOLES, Mr. DGW, making both him and you on the same disinformation team, and traitors to both TRUTH and the republic.<br />
<br />
Check out this quote from Mr. OBF:</p>
<blockquote><p><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31XyPwgu5dy7-ubMuH69AqAd10hTq5YYZSGUHhkKbKi3kPDp6ZOvyxJVNLuMDBThGtiIPBJAW5qc4ajcBoPInN16e3jBBjWP9gVU_Ya-8aPh1PubRYplM39UjoziWwunxs4gonEDR0Ak/s1600/Picture+11.png">https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31XyPwgu5dy7-ubMuH69AqAd10hTq5YYZSGUHhkKbKi3kPDp6ZOvyxJVNLuMDBThGtiIPBJAW5qc4ajcBoPInN16e3jBBjWP9gVU_Ya-8aPh1PubRYplM39UjoziWwunxs4gonEDR0Ak/s1600/Picture+11.png</a>
<br />
The above photo, used on the cover of Prof. Judy Wood's book <a href="http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/">"Where Did The Towers Go"</a>, is a proven fraud, a pure, fabricated, 100% digital creation, not in any way a genuine photograph of a 9/11 event.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. OBF and Mr. Simon Shack (just like you) often say something is <i>"a proven fraud"</i> without actually substantiating it. When I get the time and feel the need for kicks-and-giggles, I'll review Mr. OBF's disinfo work.</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br />The fence should have melted as well.</span></blockquote>
<p>No, but it is no surprise that your "superior" understanding of physics has grasped why. So I'll use my inferior understanding of physics to explain it to you and your <i>committee.</i><br />
<br />
The damage an EMP can do is inversely proportional to the distance from the source. An EMP effectively induces Eddy electrical currents in metalic things, like vehicle sheet metal. The larger the magnitude of the EMP incident on the sheet metal, the larger the Eddy currents. The larger the Eddy currents, the more heat is generated. If the EMP incidence is great enough, it will cause things with lower combustible points to burn, like the paint on the sheet metal of vehicles or things touching the metal like plastic door handles, rubber seals on doors/windows, plastic gas caps, etc. Steel-belted tires and steering wheels could also be very effective "secondary windings" to snag energy from an incident EMP; get enough current going through those windings and the tires/steering wheel can burst into flame.<br />
<br />
The chain link fence, while metal wire, also has lots air space between its wires which can help keep it cool to any induced Eddy currents (assuming the metalic & electric conductive properties of the fence are similar to that of sheet metal.) And even if the chain fence did heat up excessively, what is on the metal of the fence or touching it that could burn?<br />
<br />
And because I know you will purposely forget it in your skewed response, the above is dependent on being line-of-sight with the EMP.<br />
<br />
So, not many data points from this exchange deviate from your (negative) integrity trend line. Treasonous fucking liars.<br />
//
</p>
</div><!-- section 34 -->
<a name="x35"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x35" class="tiny">x35</a>
Mr. DGW : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_35');">a lie stating there is an "official version" and the "911truther truth" </a></p>
<p>2013-06-26</p>
<div id="sect_35" style="display: none;">
<!--
-->
<!--
-->
<p><b><span>From:</span></b>< {SEO}<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 26, 2013 17:28<br>
<b>To:</b> {Mr. DGW}<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Follow your own advice, Mr. CAWS good admitted for you</p>
<p>Dear Mr. DGW,<br><br>Your committee is trying, but the dissembling and deceit remain. I've tried to cut out extra parts of our discussion to focus on what you wrote. </p>
<p>{--deleted--}</p>
<p><span style="color:red">You came peddling a lie stating there is an "official version" and the "911truther truth" and the response you can have your own truth empirically without facts it is a lie. What happened is 91101 was a terrorist attack it was a proxy attack using the same group proxy warriors that America Used and then discarded. </span></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>{SEO}: <br>Further, if my assumption is correct into your unwaivering belief and support into the official conspiracy theory (OCT) as presented by the government and corporate media, then you will have to defend it much better. You see, the OCT and its supporting documentation made lots of unsubstantiated assumptions and stilted itself to many unscientific conclusions to support its larger agenda in the world. As such, it makes deductive arguments to make its case about 9/11 who, what, how, why. [Because of A, then B. Because of B, then C... Because of Y, then Z.] Logically, if any of those deductive arguments are proven wrong, like for being based on unsubstantiated assumptions and ignoring all other possibilities, then major holes get poked into the OCT. [M is wrong and Q is wrong, so conclusion Z can't be reached.] It falls like a house of cards. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Ad-hoc augment and unfounded self-truth no foundation in facts. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>Sums up your response to my email very well.</p>
<p><span style="color:red">Yep denial of reality 101 "There is an official version that has facts" and here is our 911truther syndicated lies for profit and politacal change. We don't have to be factual just Empirically </span></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>{SEO:}<br>The 9/11TM, on the other hand, is making a cummulative argument, and you'd know this if your were familiar with any of David Ray Griffin's work. Quite possibly various points that undergird the 9/11TM's position can be proven wrong; this is actually welcomed, because it trims the fat and hones the case. However, the weight of the combined remaining unaddressed issues makes the case for how the world was lied to and manipulated and that continues to this day... and might even be embodied by your and <i>"the committee's"</i> efforts. </p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}David Ray Griffin's work is academic fraud and represents inaccuracies of empirical reasoning without facts to back himself up.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>Without specifics and substantiation, your assessment has no merit. Just words.<span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">There is massive substitution </span></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>{--deleted--}<br>{SEO:} <br>Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim? </p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:} <br>Simple misquote and that was covered by the BBC already so plop another case of reporter error and misuse by a bias researcher trying to push a false truth.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:} <br>Not so fast, Mr. DGW. Cumulative arguments are at play here, and you've lamely tried to address only one of them. Furthermore, readers should make their own decision after viewing the BBC piece. </p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Readers don't need to take your opinions as truth. They require facts not fodder as you give them. The go to the BBC that explains what happened and it is a reporter's error in reading the NYFD report and the NYPD reports coming in.</span><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>I have zero expectations that readers would take my <i>"opinions as truth"</i> without first validating them. I encourage them, in fact, to do just that. <i>"Distrust but verify."</i><br><br>A reporter's errors? Are your sure? As you wrote, she was just reading <i>"the NYFD report and the NYPD reports coming in."</i> No error there on the BBC's part, I agree; just stenographers of the victor's history.<br><br>So why were NYFD and NYPD reports coming in AT LEAST TWENTY MINUTES EARLY that said that the Solomon Brother's building (WTC-7) had collapsed? In my books, this demonstrates NYFD & NYPD foreknowledge and complicity, made even more damning by the WTC-7's 2.25 seconds gravitational acceleration.<span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">No in your opinion which has no basis in fact it is your own opinion (Group think) that edges on delusional thinking. You just had a major collapse of an 2,000 foot tall office building and it hit WTC 7 setting it ablaze Major damage reported by NYFD and the order was to pull the command team back to secondary fall back positions. The word pull is not a demolition term in firefighting lingo so any father use of it in regards to demolition is key wording and disinformation.</span></p>
<p><br><br>{--deleted--} </p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><s><span style="color:red">DGW:</span></s><span style="color:red"> <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/" target="_blank">http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/</a> } <br>Interpretation <br>The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials. <br><br>The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts. <br><br>It is important to note that the total chemical analyses presented in this section do not provide an indication of the metals in the dusts and girder coating materials that may potentially be bioavailable (readily assimilated by organisms). For example, heavy metals, such as lead, may occur in forms that range from highly soluble to highly insoluble in water or body fluids. Consequently, high concentrations of total lead in dust samples may or may not translate into elevated concentrations of readily bioavailable lead. Chemical leach tests such as those presented in the next section of this study aid in understanding potential release and bioavailability of heavy metals and other constituents from the girder coatings and dust samples.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:} <br>Copy-&-paste and lacking any semblance of personal understanding. </p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Your problem is you are being presented facts not you over inflated unsubstantiated self-truth . So what if it is Cut and paste it does not change the fact. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>Cut-&-Paste is one thing. I enjoy a good quotation just like the next person. The issue is relevance, analysis, and exhibiting personal understanding. The report you linked was good, but it was incomplete. Can you say: <i>"distracting dog & pony show?"<span style="color:#1f497d"></span></i></p>
<p><span style="color:red">The report was complete</span><span style="color:red"> and factual to a tee you just denied it like normal and fell back upon the indoctrinated fantasy you perceive as truth.</span></p>
<p><br><br>The report that you site had the <i>"bent scope"</i> of determining asbestos content and relative health effects, no? It was based on some assumptions that were valid, namely that the WTC towers were <i>"white elephants"</i> with regards to their usage of asbestos, making them too costly to fix and (due to the environmental impacts) too costly to destroy [unless you insure them against terrorist attacks, fake such an event, and have insurance money pay for the rebuilding.] <span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Ad-hoc and general undereducated hearsay. Since you really show your ignorance here about insurance and liability on the WTC towers and complex so your self created truth is relegated to your opinion that has no merit to it in facts.</span></p>
<p><br>However that same report had other assumptions, like that <i>"terrorists on planes wrought all of the observed destruction."</i> Thus, the <i>"bent scope"</i> could rationally omit further analysis of the same dust that might show correlations in other elements which can only be attributed to nuclear methods.<span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">The other report is inaccurate and not factual. So is your statement it is more proof of irrational and illogical thinking of a bent scope determined on proving a fantasy of mni-nukes. They did not exist and were not present. You have failed to provide facts to back your truth.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red"> </span></p>
<p><br><br>As I wrote before: </p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>{SEO:} <br>As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html" target="_blank">Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]</a> in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust. </p>
<p>{SEO:} <br>Not so fast in your sleight of hand. We're talking two different reports both based on the same data of samples collected by the USGS. The difference in Prager's report is the correlation of elements from sample to sample that reveals other conclusions. </p>
<p>Where's the official debunking of <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html" target="_blank">Jeff Prager's analysis</a> of the public USGS data? Let this be a clue that to date it has been ignored, because to address it, validates it. </p></blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Your problem is the facts speak for themselves and expose the lies you call truth. You problem with denial is not mine or my staff's. </span></p>
<p>{SEO:}<br>Don't go projecting your problems and issues onto me.</p>
<p><span style="color:red">No stating observer able patterned facts that you exhibit.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>The problem is the tritium and strontium are not isotopes one finds from a neutron bomb detonation. You also don't know the difference beteen Fusion and Fission You do not understand energy transfer during collapse through the structure or the kinetic energy transfer that occurred </span></p>
<p>{SEO:}<br>The problem is that neutron devices are special configurations of <i>"fission-triggered-fusion."</i> Tritium is precisely one of the things that would be found from such a detonation. Don't go projecting your weaknesses and lack of (Newtonian and Nuclear) physics understanding onto me. You just blew it.<br><br>Tell you what. You should locate the official NIST or other government agency reports that explain how the cumulative evidence doesn't point to nukes. Hint: You won't find them. At best, you'll find (a) a <i>"bent scoped"</i> study on tritium and (b) something produced by Dr. Steven Jones from the 9/11TM, but this has several issues, one of which is acknowledging tritium yet ~not~ considering neutron bombs. In the grand scheme of things, that is a pretty glaring omission for a nuclear physicists to make. </p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><b>{Jeff Prager paraphrased:} <br>Barium and Strontium:</b> Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets. </p></blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Source cars in garages and office equipment non-isotope non-DEW or nuke. </span></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><b>Thorium and Uranium:</b> These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place. </p></blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Source Paint and ceramic glazes used in the building and emergence signs.</span></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><br><b>Lithium:</b> With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place. </p></blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Source: Uninterruptible power supply batteries.</span> </p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><b>Lanthanum:</b> Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium. <br><br><br><b>Yttrium:</b> The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium. <br><br><b>Chromium:</b> The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation. </p>
<p><b>Tritium:</b> A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.</p></blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Found in emergency signing present on every floor of each tower non-isotope.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>Ho-hum, Mr. DGW. Because you aren't doing a very good job of it, I repeat:</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Where's the official debunking of <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html" target="_blank">Jeff Prager's analysis</a> of the public USGS data? </p></blockquote>
<p><b><i>"Correlation"</i></b> is the key word that trips you up, so tiny that you probably didn't see it in your reading of Mr. Prager's paper. Sample-to-sample in far flung places near the WTC, the USGS data displays <b><i>"correlations"</i></b> between elements. <i>"For every m parts of element A discovered in a sample, n parts of element B were also present."</i> The correlations sample-to-sample could only be possible if the elements were correlated from the beginning (e.g., part of the destructive mechanism). Office equipment, exit signs, cars in garages, uninterruptible power supply batters, etc. were not distributed through the WTC towers or complex in any manner that could lead to <b><i>"correlations"</i></b> between their base elements.<br><br>Worse, the <b><i>"correlations"</i></b> between elements spell out a recipe for nuclear methods.<br><br>But you run along, now, and find those official government reports that disprove the <b><i>"correlations"</i></b> between elements in the dust.</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>{SEO:} <br><i>"Saying something isn't, does not make is so"</i> without substantiation. Your beef isn't with me, hombre. It is with Jeff Prager. <br><br><a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/" target="_blank">Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11</a> By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager <br><br>Prove the authors of the above article wrong, and I'll apologize and start singing a different tune. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Where's your source to your <b><i>new</i></b> theory (one that I have never heard before, neither from the government nor from the 9/11TM) about <i>"cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers"</i> having fires of any consequence? Where's your physics that proves uncontrolled burns of gasoline can reach sustained temperatures sufficient to weaken steel to create horseshoes and arches?</p></blockquote>
<p>{--deleted--}</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Here's the lot catticorner to the towers. Cars were not towed here; they were damaged in place here. <br><br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg</a></p></blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>The flattened tires and intact wheel hub on the first car proves Cars were brought on flatbed trailer shown in other lot and unloaded. Most of them originated from the parking garages or streets near the towers.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">The date on the photo from the AP is two weeks after 91101</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">They did not originate there stop with the bullshit and show time date of photo also name of source or photographer. Not shown on her site. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>I will refrain from calling you names for your crappy analysis. Did you <b><i>really</i></b> look at all of the pictures in sequence and compare them one to another? I think not.<br><br>You can <b><i>correlate</i></b> off of buildings and various configurations of parked vehicles from picture to picture from the earliest ones that show flames coming from vehicles to those taken <i>"from the AP ... two weeks after 91101"</i>.<br><br>Yeah, sure, I bet you could find a handful of vehicles that were towed there, straw-man. But what about the vehicles that weren't?</p>
<p>I'll simplify things for you. Let's assume that the following image was taken well after 9/11. <br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg</a> <br>As a reference point, note the car next to the two individuals walking by and how it is parked in a manner that blocks two or three other cars. Note also behind it the burned out van that has a portion of its blue bumper not burned.<br><br>While that image is still displayed, load the following image into a new tab of your browser. This was taken from a police helicopter just after the 2nd tower went down.<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg</a> <br><br>The car parked funny is near the lower right-hand corner. Notice the string of cars ON FIRE, including the blue van? Look for those same vehicles in the following image:<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg</a><br><br>Whether or not destroyed vehicles were towed to this lot at a later point in time is immaterial. What remains germaine is that a significant number of vehicles in that parking lot were destroyed in place, and <b><i>correlation</i></b> between the photos does ~not~ put them at any other location, like your very lame and deceitful premise of being in the garages of the WTC. </p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>{SEO:}<br>Here's a sequence that shows the catticorner lot before the dust clouds roll in and that soon vehicles in that lot went ablaze. <br><br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif</a></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Dust clouds above the parking lot no fires on parking lot. Note the fire trucks at the rally point Vesey and Broadway they are not on fire. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>The same helicopter that took the above picture also took the other one from the parking lot with vehicles on fire. Same time frame.<br><br>Your straw-man fire trucks were obviously ~not~ line of sight from an EMP slipping out through window slits and falling debris. Study this one also within the same time frame:<br><br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg</a> <br><br>{--deleted--} </p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>{SEO:} <br>This next one is the image <i>deceitfully</i> used by your committee to say that cars were towed <b>to</b> the lot catticorner. [sarcasm] Look how <i>"crushed"</i> and <i>"torched"</i> the vehicle from the WTC garages looks! [\sarcasm] In reality, the previous images show those vehicles catching fire in place, and the following image depicts the cleaning up of that catticorner parking lot.<br><br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg</a> </p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<a href="http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet" target="_blank">http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet</a></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">This proves you are an accomplished liar.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>I complained before about you projecting your weaknesses onto me. Well, don't go pawning your strengths (e.g., lies, deceit, bait-&-switch, straw-men) onto me either!<br><br>The <a href="http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/080.jpg" target="_blank">first image on the page</a> is of WTC-7 on 2001-09-18. It shows cars stacked on top of one another, a torched bus, and vehicles stacked onto of the bus. <br><br><br>The following images also show WTC-7, but on 2001-09-11 some time between <span tabindex="0" class="aBn" data-term="goog_480926760"><span class="aQJ">10:30 and 5:20</span></span>, because WTC-7 is right there still standing (just to the right of the burning building and to the left of the torched bus). In these pictures, <a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg</a><br><br>Gee, an astute observer can see many of the same vehicles including the bus, only PRIOR to them being stacked on top of one another. In the images above, none of them came from the garages of the WTC. </p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Do you have links to the source photos? Answer is Dr. Judy Woods does not. She took them from stills on other 911truth sites to prove her pove that is not substantiated by any of these Arial photos.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>My understanding is that she got them from official sources. She did her best to link to the source, but many links today are now broken (because the source images were moved or whatnot.) DOESN'T MATTER! Why? <br><br>(a) Because these photos are nuggets of truth that are valid regardless of what theory is taped onto them. They represent evidence that has to be explained, and your lame gravity pile-drivers do ~not~.<br><br>(b) Because these photos -- coming from official sources originally -- have ~never~ been disputed! </p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>2. Gamma burst and EMF/EMP make these photos impossible as the NYPD helicopter is not shielded against them.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>Either you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying and have missed the salient points, or you have been paying attention and are deceitfully skewing the information.<span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Not at all I just know the nature of the proposed device and what its capabilities are and both you and Dr. woods do not.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red"> The problem here it would have Knocked the NYPD helicopter out of the air at the altitude they were at also </span></p>
<p><br><br>It may be true that a helicopter may not shielded from <i>"Gamma burst and EMF/EMP"</i>. Your deceit is in forgetting my often stated premise that (a) the neutron nuclear devices were detonated within the steel towers, probably within the core area. Can you say shielding? (b) The helicopter was at a significant distance from the demolition using a zoom-in lens. "Inverse square of the distance" in terms of EMP magnitude reaching the helicopter. (c)_ The neutron devices were aimed upwards, and the helicopter was not flying over the top. (d) The EMP side-effects were mostly mitigated, although timing of detonations plus the chaos of falling debris and window slits presented "gaps of oppportunity".</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Therefore, No such weapons were used nor was thermite used.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>Therefore, gravity caused all of this? El-Oh-El, you are such a wanking liar. Prove it, liar.</p>
<p><span style="color:red">Yes you are Already proven without a doubt. You don't know Fusion from fission. And your ignorance about Gamma burst radiation is comical. None of what you state is plausible not even with a small nuke or nutron bomb. </span></p>
<p><span style="color:red"> </span></p>
<p>{--deleted--}</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>{SEO:} <br>Your correction to your wanking lie hasn't helped it one bit. Again, refer to the images linked above that show the cars in the parking lot getting torched before the dust of a tower had settled; that show cars along West Broadway and next to WTC-7 torched before WTC-7 was pulled.</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>You just debunked yourself again because those cars were parked before the wtc7 collapse and were hit by debris from wtc 7 and wtc 1.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>No, you correction to your correction proves you still... a fucking liar. None of the vehicles in question were hit by debris from WTC-7, because they were all photographed and proven torched ~before~ WTC-7 was demolished. Maybe you have a case for them being hit by debris from WTC-1, but you have no case, no evidence, nada for that debris being <b>"flaming debris"</b> (caused by gravity and jet-fuel/office-furnishing fires, no less). If there was flaming debris, why was it so selective (e.g., sheet metal in cars and not people, flags, trees, leaves)? </p>
<p>{--deleted--}</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>{SEO:} <br>Look up <a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html" target="_blank">EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony</a>, as well as that of others. El, she wasn't hit by a piece of tower, but she was hit by the door of a vehicle that laterally popped right off of its hinges and slammed her into a wall. How did that happen? [Hint: errant EMP slipping out of the buildings and a neutron nuclear explosion comes pretty close.]</p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Nope they are straight line devices they don't Slip out flow around mystically. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:} Agreed. Gaps in the debris and/or window slits allowed those straight-line side-effects to vector out.</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red"> Tritium is found in emergency signing for the WTC stairwells and emergency stairs as well as evacuation routes. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>Obviously, you didn't understand the report (and its <i>"bent scope"</i> skew). Given the assumption that the gravity pile-driver caused the destruction, they <i>speculated</i> into <i>probable</i> sources for the tritium measured in the water leaving the WTC complex. They did not speculate it was <i>"emergency signing for the WTC stairwells and emergency stairs"</i>... No, no, no. They said it was the emergency signage <i>from the impacting aircrafts.</i> And when their speculative wild-ass models for this didn't work out, they included gun sights from weapons stored at the WTC without determining (a) what weapons were originally in the WTC complex, (b) where they were stored within the WTC complex, and (c)_ correlating with the number of weapons that were recovered from the debris [damaged or not].</p>
<p><span style="color:red">No I understood his fraudulent report and his bias reporting he did the same exact thing you are. WTC 6 was the customs house and they had evidence lockers with weapons that were recovered </span></p>
<p>{--deleted--}</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>{SEO:} <br>Oooo! I'm excited to learn about the bullshit you'll spin about these concepts that you made up as being significant to the discussion.</p></blockquote>
<p><span style="color:red">O.k. Go educate yourself on DEW devices and their signatures and isotope's created from Fission and Fusion devices.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>My education on neutron DEW devices may have gaps, but nothing -- in all of your postings -- demonstrates that you know more (or that your <i>committee</i> knows more) or has anything that could improve my education. </p>
<p><span style="color:red">Gaps hell you are so far away from facts that make statements that expose you as an complete fool. You merely think by stating an ignorant falsity that it will empirically become real.</span></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>{SEO:} <br>In summary, you have neither (a) debunked that 9/11 was neutron nuclear DEW nor (b) substantiated that the government's version [that adds no energy to gravity at all to achieve observable outcomes] is even remotely possible. Because that version defies physics the <i>troll mirror</i> that you hold up to me reflects you.</p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Wow did your I.Q, Drop just now Barium and Strontium are used in Automobiles and there were a lot in the vicinity also </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>Or did yours just drop instead? The Barium and Strontium in question came from the dust samples. And they came in <b><i>correlated</i></b> quantities. </p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>But hey, you & your committee are such experts on these things, I encourage you to take it up with: <br><a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/" target="_blank">Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11</a> <br>By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager <br><br>I wish I could say that I've enjoyed the debate and kicking your asses, but I didn't, because your <i>"committee of clowns"</i> is so disenguous on everything, so stilted, so infallible, so gullible when it comes to actions of the US government, clearly there will never be any <i>"Ah-ha! Mea culpa!"</i> moment coming from your side on ANYTHING anomalous. </p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Boils down to you can have your own truth just can't create your own empirical opinion and pass it off as facts. The Dr Judy Woods data is bogus information without taking all the other sources for the non-isotopic tritium Barium and Strontium. All of which are linked to Building materials found in the WTC towers. If you think you kicked anyone's asses well you did it to yourself. You are a poor researcher whom is behind the curve </span></p></blockquote>
<p>Building another straw-man, I see. (a) The pictures from Dr. Wood's website and book are not <i>bogus.</i> Quite the contrary, they are valid evidence that must be explained by whatever theory-du-jour is being peddled. (b) I'm not championing any of Dr. Wood's work except the nuggets of truth, the evidence.</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Just because you haven't a clue about fission and fusion devices also about the isotopes involved in such detonations.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>If my understanding of nuclear physics is so inferior to yours, <b>show, don't tell.</b> Enlighten me, don't insult me. Be sure to that you are also talking about a fission-triggered-fusion neutron device, okay?</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>Also You negate the Tritium illumination on exit signs and the use of it in emergence exit signs. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>No, you negate that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about regarding exit signs. Tritium was used in aircraft exit signs, not building exit signs (if you read the report). You fucked up.</p>
<p><span style="color:red">Correction Dumbass you fucked up because you never did any independent research ad rely on academic frauds to spoon feed you fodder instead of facts.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">. </span></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>You also have no clue about how a Neutron bomb works it is a fusion devise not a fission device big difference in Gamma output and which would have killed the pilot and grounded the helicopter. The problem is you don't have the isotopes nor do you have the damage to living bodies or anything to prove DEW devices. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>If my understanding of nuclear physics is so inferior to yours, enlighten me, don't insult me. Without the understanding to back-up your bravado, all you are is words... words that over and over are proven to be lies.<br><br>With regards to the damage to living bodies, you negate that I've explained over-and-over the unique configuration of the neutron device -- that of a shaped nuclear charge. You negate the likely direction that the device was aimed that would avoid too much collateral damage, like to a helicopter. Can you say <i>"up?"</i> That's where it was targeted. The helicopter wasn't up or directly overhead with respect to the towers. </p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>You presented empirical truth without facts and got your ass handed to you. And this time Alex Jones actually helped verify the source because he also thinks Dr judy Woods is a fraud. </span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>So what? Had you been paying attention, I've discovered enough discrepancies in her work to potentially come to the same conclusion. Doesn't mean her pictorial evidence or other nuggets of truth from her work are fraudulent.</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red"><a href="http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-scams-junk-science-of-dr-judy-wood_6336.html" target="_blank">http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-scams-junk-science-of-dr-judy-wood_6336.html</a></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>This proves you don't research fully and yes she gets her ass handed to her just like you did.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>{SEO:}<br>Nope, it doesn't prove squat, Mr. DGW. I am very familiar with Mr. OneBornFree having debated him many times on Truth & Shadows and observed his dishonest behavior. Like you, he's a government shill. Unlike you, the obtuse postion (ala Simon Shack) he has taken in the past has been: <i>"All of the 9/11 imagery has been tainted and hasn't been validated so can't be used to explain squat... Errr... They used dynomite to destroy the WTC complex, but did all of this manipulation of the imagery to get the public to 'see' something else."</i> <br><br>Meanwhile, I thank you for the recent links to Mr. OneBornFree's work. (a) However, those efforts are so recent, they can't really be foisted up as having been missed. (b) Debunking Dr. Wood is no skin off my nose or off my premise of neutron nuclear DEW. (c)_ I'll bet you that once I start exploring Mr. OneBornFree's work, it'll be full of holes JUST LIKE YOUR WORK (AND BELIEFS) ARE FULL OF HOLES, Mr. DGW, making both him and you on the same disinformation team, and traitors to both TRUTH and the republic.<span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Thanks for telling the truth about your own self you came here stating a delusional unfounded self perpetuating truth with nothing but your opinion to back it up. </span></p>
<p><span style="color:red"> Factual truth "The paper was not near the fire"</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">As promised, here are some plausible explanations. Thanks for your interest, casseia, and I would like to hear if you have any other ideas ----</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Before addressing the burnt paper, it is instructive to note how vehicles typically burn. A video of a fire in the K-Mart parking lot shows a minivan aflame, and illustrates several pertinent points: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoIyk5Df58" title="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoIyk5Df58" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoIyk5Df58</a><br>- The pavement underneath the minivan is ablaze<br>- The car in the immediate vicinity of the minivan catches fire demonstrating how an entire parking lot or underground parking garage of cars parked close together, as is the case in NYC, can burn serially<br>- The driver-side front tire of the minivan is completely burned off<br>- The driver-side door handle is missing<br>- The burnt minivan resembles many of the same characteristics as burnt vehicles at ground zero including missing headlights and deformed hood</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Some paper had to burn, especially since vehicle fires leak fluid and drip melted organics onto the ground beneath the vehicle. The ground beneath the vehicle is usually engulfed in flames at some point during the vehicle fire. Any paper located beneath the vehicle would surely have caught fire, and some paper, judging by the density of paper debris on the streets, was surely located beneath some of the aflame vehicles in photographs.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">How do you distinguish between burning paper and other burning organic material from the photographs that exist? You can't. Some of the pictures could very well show paper burning but is indistinguishable from other organic materials which are concurrently burning</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Furthermore, single sheets of loose paper dominated the surrounding streets where most pictures exist of vehicle fires. That is to say, large books were not present, only single sheets of loose paper. A single sheet of paper will completely burn in seconds. Statistically speaking, the probability of photographing single sheets of paper on fire is low compared to that of the vehicle fires.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Why is there no burnt paper seen in photographs? Spotting small, crumpled, black remains of burnt single sheets of paper from photographs is near impossible upon a background consisting of various sorts of debris and dust. Burned bits of paper probably are in the photographs but near impossible to distinguish from other debris. Almost no photographs exist of close-up shots of the ground.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Lastly, I do recall seeing a photograph of a stack of charred compressed papers in the rubble pile at GZ. I cannot find this photograph, but I do recall seeing it. It is one of the few photographs taken at a zoom level where you can clearly distinguish the charred stack of paper from other debris. However, this was the only photograph I ever recall seeing of burnt paper.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Facts are more accurate in telling what happened than fictional self-created truth </span></p>
<p><br><br>Check out this quote from Mr. OBF:</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31XyPwgu5dy7-ubMuH69AqAd10hTq5YYZSGUHhkKbKi3kPDp6ZOvyxJVNLuMDBThGtiIPBJAW5qc4ajcBoPInN16e3jBBjWP9gVU_Ya-8aPh1PubRYplM39UjoziWwunxs4gonEDR0Ak/s1600/Picture+11.png" target="_blank">https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31XyPwgu5dy7-ubMuH69AqAd10hTq5YYZSGUHhkKbKi3kPDp6ZOvyxJVNLuMDBThGtiIPBJAW5qc4ajcBoPInN16e3jBBjWP9gVU_Ya-8aPh1PubRYplM39UjoziWwunxs4gonEDR0Ak/s1600/Picture+11.png</a> <br>The above photo, used on the cover of Prof. Judy Wood's book <a href="http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/" target="_blank">"Where Did The Towers Go"</a>, is a proven fraud, a pure, fabricated, 100% digital creation, not in any way a genuine photograph of a 9/11 event.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. OBF and Mr. Simon Shack (just like you) often say something is <i>"a proven fraud"</i> without actually substantiating it. When I get the time and feel the need for kicks-and-giggles, I'll review Mr. OBF's disinfo work.</p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="color:red">{DGW:}<br>The fence should have melted as well.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>No, but it is no surprise that your "superior" understanding of physics has grasped why. So I'll use my inferior understanding of physics to explain it to you and your <i>committee.</i><br><br>The damage an EMP can do is inversely proportional to the distance from the source. An EMP effectively induces Eddy electrical currents in metalic things, like vehicle sheet metal. The larger the magnitude of the EMP incident on the sheet metal, the larger the Eddy currents. The larger the Eddy currents, the more heat is generated. If the EMP incidence is great enough, it will cause things with lower combustible points to burn, like the paint on the sheet metal of vehicles or things touching the metal like plastic door handles, rubber seals on doors/windows, plastic gas caps, etc. Steel-belted tires and steering wheels could also be very effective "secondary windings" to snag energy from an incident EMP; get enough current going through those windings and the tires/steering wheel can burst into flame.<br><br>The chain link fence, while metal wire, also has lots air space between its wires which can help keep it cool to any induced Eddy currents (assuming the metalic & electric conductive properties of the fence are similar to that of sheet metal.) And even if the chain fence did heat up excessively, what is on the metal of the fence or touching it that could burn?<br><br>And because I know you will purposely forget it in your skewed response, the above is dependent on being line-of-sight with the EMP.<br><br>So, not many data points from this exchange deviate from your (negative) integrity trend line. Treasonous fucking liars.<span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Yes you are spreading unsubstantiated lies as your truths Yes we are holding facts you a bucket of unsubstantiated bunk and junk science. EMP if present would have knocked the helicopter out of the air as the propagation of the DEW wave. That is what you describe and it is implausible here as you can't have it both ways.</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red"><a href="http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg" target="_blank">http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg</a></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">The fire is coming from the subway not from the lot. There are secondary fires caused by debris from wtc south Tower That is obvious. </span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">BTW: Yes Gama burst goes through concrete and steel armor Lead shielding stops it To put the nail in the coffin here of DEW Nukes N bombs act</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Go read some facts do some real independent research</span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:20.0pt;font-family:Times-Bold">The Overwhelming Implausibility of</span></b></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:20.0pt;font-family:Times-Bold">Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish</span></b></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:20.0pt;font-family:Times-Bold">the World Trade Center Towers</span></b></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:Times-Bold">(Updated 4/12/07)</span></b></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Times-BoldItalic">Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics</span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span style="font-family:Times-BoldItalic">Co-author: Matt Sullivan</span></i></b></p>
<p><span style="color:red"><a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pd" target="_blank">http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pd</a></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Also another factual report</span></p>
<p><span style="color:red"><a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/the-damage-to-wtc-bldg-3-and-6-debate-between-controlled-demolition-and-beam-weapons-by-tony-szamboti.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/the-damage-to-wtc-bldg-3-and-6-debate-between-controlled-demolition-and-beam-weapons-by-tony-szamboti.pdf</a></span></p>
<p>// </p>
</div><!-- section 35 -->
<a name="x36"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x36" class="tiny">x36</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_36');">You are a WINNER!!!</a></p>
<p>2013-06-27</p>
<div id="sect_36" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. DGW,</p>
<p><i>"You win. You've fully and completely convinced me of everything you've ever written. You are such a scholar and a gentleman, with the backing of a stellar <b>"committee"</b>. I stand in awe, both of your research ability as well as your analysis thereof. Woes to me that I ever could have believed anything else but your salient version of things."</i></p>
<p>Satisfied?</p>
<p><i>"Agree with the adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him, ..."</i></p>
<p>Whether in debate or in life, when dealing with someone who hasn't the smallest bit of wiggle room in their <b>opinions</b> to acknowledge when certain <b>elements of their belief foundation are not factual</b> and who will not perform any re-evaluation of their opinions due to this, then it is probably time to admit admit defeat... Just to get the fuck away from them.</p>
<p>You and your <i>committee</i> have been fucking with me, I know. Very little of what you've written have you been serious about, except in a saluting way -- <i>"Ours in not to question why, ours is but to do or die."</i></p>
<p>Think about this.</p>
<p>The NSA Echelon spying can cut both ways. The government shouldn't be monitoring the people; the people should be monitoring the government.</p>
<p>Your lying emails and postings will document your complicity in treasonous actions. Such pride your decendants will have not. </p>
<p>Now go back to satisfying your <i>"300,000 daily readers."</i> I've been a distraction for your attentions, but please no more.</p>
<p>// Señor El Once</p>
</div><!-- section 36 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part1 -->
<a name="x37"></a><hr>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part2');">Part 2: Rising up to the challenge</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part2" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb:
<br>
<br>I sent an email -- the first entry -- to a dozen or so people with whom I had had 9/11 discussions in the past. I got a response from Dr. James Fetzer and Mr. Daniel Wilks. The stiltedness of Daniel Wilks & his committee remains. Not only can he not format an entry to make it more readable, he does not attribute authorship appropriately. He may still have a blog, but the one discussed above no longer exists. It is interesting the work that he re-purposes from Ken Doc without giving attribution.</p>
<p>My debate opponents in the discussion below unravel as disinformation operatives. Although they call themselves a committee, it is clearly a team of members with different roles and rules of engagement in maintaining their agenda.<br />
<br />
They engage by poorly formatted copy and paste. They are avoiding the source material, not to mention participating on my home court. They try to re-frame the discussion back to Dr. Judy Wood and her work, a topic where they have prepared responses: copy-and-paste from Ken Doc without attribution.
<br>
<br>I don't blame them for trying to move the goal posts into Dr. Wood, but I don't have to take it. The topic is FGNW. Particularly when so poorly executed, from presentation formatting to rebuttal comments. No attention to detail in their reading, rebuttal subject, or word formatting. Which cuts the committee multiple ways.
<br>
<br>Why is a committee using the email address of a singular entity? As a committee and peer-review of the effort, though, the shoddy work puts them all to shame.
<br>
<br>I don't need the carousel.
<br>
<br>
<br>mcb: end}
</p>
<a name="x38"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x38" class="tiny">x38</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_38');">an update on my evolution in thought regarding the WTC destruction</a></p>
<p>2016-05-18</p>
<div id="sect_38" style="display: none;">
<p>Hey 9/11 Internet Acquaintances!
<br>
<br>I've corresponded with you in the past on topics related to 9/11. I wanted to give you an update on my evolution in thought regarding the WTC destruction. My hobby-horse is fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW).
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br>
<br>The above work addresses concerns raised by those (a) who say "no radiation = no nukes" and (b) who say "it was DEW" ala Dr. Judy Wood.
<br>
<br>++++ Boring details ++++
<br>
<br>Common games in the concerted disinformation effort to keep public awareness from landing on FGNW were:
<br>
<br>(1) Incomplete & malframed premises. Applies to Dimitri K.'s "deep under ground nuke" as well as Dr. Judy Wood's directed energy weapons (DEW) from "Where did the towers go?". The former doesn't match the observed destruction; the latter doesn't power DEW with anything real world and ignores wavelength optics through the atmosphere as a limiting factor. Applies to Dr. Jones & Dr. Wood with regards to how they frame nuclear devices: big yields, lots of radiation.
<br>
<br>(2) Glaring omissions. Applies to Dr. Steven Jones in (a) his "no nukes" paper and (b) his nano-thermite (NT) premise. FGNW and work by Dr. Andre Gsponer were missing from the former; the latter doesn't provide the explanation for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. The math is missing that shows NT in any combination with conventional chemical based explosives implying huge quantities & a major logistics challenge to account for the observed overkill & unnecessary pulverization; but then becoming massively unrealistic & improbable quantities when getting the same to account for the duration of the hot-spots.
<br>
<br>(3) Faulty assumptions and arguments. A chief error is assuming mutual exclusivity in destruction mechanisms. A related error is assuming one explanation for all observed destructive features & WTC buildings.
<br>
<br>(4) Blatant unobjectivity & attempted book reports without having or reading the book. "Content" is probably more applicable than "book". A given is that, in order to succeed even for a short time, all disinformation has to have a solid foundation of truth before introducing the disinfo skew. The belligerent refusal to venture into the maw of disinformation sources to retrieve still valid nuggets of truth is a sign of unobjectivity in the participant, if not a disinfo agenda.
<br>
<br>(5) Building on #3 and #4, the inability to form alliances and marry. Because Dr. Wood's DEW needs power (and because she stops short of make & model), the natural grow path for DEW is towards nuclear power sources. Likewise, the natural growth path for nuclear devices is towards DEW. In fact, all FGNW are technically classified as DEW. Yet do you see objective supporters of DEW or nuclear devices borrowing nuggets of truth from the other? Do you see them modifying their views based on new analysis and information? No.
<br>
<br>I repeat: nearly all FGNW are technically DEW. FGNW are designed for tactical yields. Being fusion based and closely related to neutron devices, their radiation side-effects are short-lived. However, tritium is a signature trace element, and lo and behold the song-and-dance & stilted reports that lamely tried to explain away tritium being measured (even haphazardly) and necessitating redefinition of "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than previously.
<br>
<br>Targeted neutron emissions from FGNW has a significantly higher & deeper coupling of energy to the target. Energy coupling is the reason why the WTC didn't have conventional chemical-based explosives (even mixed with nano-thermite) as the primary mechanism of destruction. Conventional controlled demolition uses shockwaves through the medium of air and such over-pressurization of air would be very LOUD, particularly for the observed pulverization. Didn't happen on 9/11. FGNDs do not have this problem, because the deeper & direct coupling of energy creates the shockwave within the material (target).
<br>
<br>It has amazed me that the 9/11 nuclear camp and the 9/11 DEW camp have been unable to tie the knot and get married, and how no learned PhD's on the 9/11 TM payroll ever made the love connection, most of them insisting on parking understanding in the nano-thermite cul-de-sac that can't even go the distance on the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>
<br>The reason for such obstruction? The whiff of "nuclear anything" on 9/11 would have had, could have had, should have had massive figurative nuclear fall-out in our government and its institutions, as well as with the ill-got gains expected at home and abroad.
<br>
<br>What you do with this is up to you. Such figurative nuclear fall-out from 9/11 nuclear revelations is still possible.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 38 -->
<a name="x39"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x39" class="tiny">x39</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_39');">EMF and EMF propagation</a></p>
<p>2016-05-20</p>
<div id="sect_39" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wilks,
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br><blockquote>"It comes down to EMF and EMF propagation..."</blockquote>
<br>
<br>Based on my research into FGNW, I disagree that "electromagnetic fields" and their propagation are what 9/11 at the WTC boils down to. Instead, I say it comes down to (1) directed electromagnetic energy at wavelengths on the order of molecular distances and (2) neutron emissions. Refer to section 14 of my article.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
<br>
<br><blockquote>"and (it comes down to) the fact that no thermite was found in any of the WTC debries."</blockquote>
<br>
<br>I agree that no thermite was found in any of the WTC dust. NT is a distraction.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br><blockquote>Also all the steel was recovered...</blockquote>
<br>
<br>No it wasn't. Large amounts were recovered, but not all. This is discussed in the comments under the article at:
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html?showComment=1459635743007#c2369135544535447674
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br><blockquote>no dustification</blockquote>
<br>
<br>I also disagree, but it really boils down to what does "dustification" mean. The RJ Lee Group when analyzing the dust in the lobby of a neigbhoring building discovered a high percentage of iron spheres. (NT tried to associate this with a thermitic reaction, but the calculated quantities of such were obscene.) Such iron spheres indicate (1) where some of the steel went and (2) energy requirements to turn steel into iron spheres.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br><blockquote>no explosives or any other fantasies</blockquote>
<br>
<br>Mutual exclusivity is a game of disinfo agents.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br><blockquote>(no fantasies) other than a structual collapse of the WTC towers.</blockquote>
<p>You are correct that structural collapse of the WTC towers without any influx of energy is a fantasy, but you are incorrect in the implication that the WTC towers' destruction was not aided.
<br>
<br>The WTC towers exhibited free-fall speeds AND pulverization AND ejection of content. Very basic physics proves this an impossibility, unless energy is added.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 39 -->
<a name="x40"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x40" class="tiny">x40</a>
Daniel Wilks : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">holding the line of the official conspiracy theory & its unscientific findings</a></p>
<p>2016-05-22</p>
<div id="sect_40" style="display: none;">
<p>2016-05-20 (Part 1/6)
<br>Daniel Wilks
<br>
<br>The results of the investigations are not "exclusive" Nor was there free fall speeds achieved in regard to the WTC tower collapses. There is Horizontal, lateral and vertical loading of each structure and substructures below them within the fishbowl. You take in effects the mechanical layout of the structure as well as the 1 acre footprint of each tower. The dynamics of each collapse has to be looked at individually so yes the impact of the jet liner started fires that weakened structural connections and floors via heat and other secondary in building devices UPS systems and the damage from the plane. WTC south was cut like a tree by the initial Airliner impact and fires. Now the collapse of such a massive structure has resistance it is further proven in http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf That your free fall statement is not accurate.
<br>
<br>But it explains the Pulverization of concrete and energy transfer.
<br>http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
<br>
<br>In order to understand how the world famous "Twin Towers" fell in the aftermath of two commercial aircraft impacts we need to understand the underlying physics of the processes involved. We have therefore developed a simple collision theory based on a detailed analysis of the well known, and much discussed, collapse events. This you have not done independently as you incorporate fictional research by Dr judy woods which should be excluded due to the fact it is a work of fiction based on the Fraud she commit ed with the speculative misrepresentation of damage to vehicals that already had the cause of damage recorded before they were moved by NYPW.
<br>
<br>There is no argument as to the ineffective and implausiblity of DEW on 91101 as well as the primary fact that basement levels were left inteact and had to be deconstructed. Also reflections of the sun on the WTC glass don't make for lasers.
<br>
<br>
<br>Fact the WTC towers nor Buildng 7 exhibited free fall the collapses were less than that speed. The aother thing is WTC 7 was hit by the top of wtc south that caused a 20 story gash in the SW side and also additional damage when the tower on the roof of WTC south speared wtc 7. The Con Edison plant did catch fire this combined with emergency generators on site and fuel supply systems being ruptured. This is why WTC 7 collapsed toward the damaged area and rolled over towrd the postal/federal building.
<br>
<br>
<br>As for games of Disinfo go 911truth is nothing more than disinfo and it gose for most researchers whom are just recanting others research and making a profit off it.
<br>
<br>2016-05-20 (Part 2/6)
<br>Daniel Wilks
<br>
<br>In addition Dr Judy woods misrepresents the Damage of WTC 6 as caused by an DEW when in fact WTC 6 was impacted by south tower collapse and the fires inside that reached evidence lockers from the port authority. Yes it was the customs houst it was the only building housing explosives and munitions ceased and held as customs evidence. Photos of the after math of the collapse show collapse patterns of wtc south and they show the path leading to WTC 7 it is from the upper floors of
<br>WTC south
<br>
<br>Theses are impact related not DEW related and are misrepresented by Dr Woods and you, The cause for the damage is verified not to be DEW, Therefor, your argument is moot.
<br>
<br>As this shows clearly the cause of the damage
<br>
<br>This proves Dr. Judy woods is speculating and fabricating disinformation and you have bought into a red herring.
<br>
<br>2016-05-20 (Part 3/6)
<br>Daniel Wilks
<br>
<br>Another thing you omit Seawater introduction into the derbies field hot spots and the creation of hydrogen Sulfide Gas. This is the reason there were extended fires in the underground parking areas that still housed cars and remains of the mall that was under the 16 acre complex.
<br>
<br>2016-05-21 (Part 4/6)
<br>Daniel Wilks
<br>
<br>After reading your blog it still screams the fact that you really have no idea of what you are trying to talk about probably because your limited knowledge through internet databases and intentional misleading information on " tritium is a signature trace element" Ok genus what Tritium isotope has to be present for the verifcation of a neutron bomb. I will tell you this much it is not the same that is found in glow sticks and emergency signage as was in both of the WTC towers. Hmm seemes that you are not a nuclear physicist and should not be ranting about DEW if you have no operational knowledge of the weapons or an understanding that Hutchenson faked his research so again red herring.
<br>
<br>2016-05-21 (Part 5/6)
<br>Daniel Wilks
<br>
<br>In closing there are a few documents Dr. Woods should be aware of that already report the facts that is
<br>FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) She apparently failed to read it and so did you. The fabication starts when you are trying to deny the factual and replace it with what did not occur because you and Dr. Woods are making a profit off of this hussel.
<br>
<br>2016-05-22 (Part 6/6)
<br>Daniel Wilks
<br>
<br>I am not wasting any time here arguing with an individual whom is in denial of facts and I have read your blog. Know Nuclear physicists that work in regards to weaponized DEW and neutron bombs as well as nuclear explosives. You mentioned that the research of such is a hobby not a profession and certainly not of any expertise in the FGNW Feild nor is Dr woods whom just makes assumptions based on logical failures. The problem is the cause for the WTC tower collapses already has been established and since you cannot answer what isotope of tritium must be present to prove FGNW use it is obvious you are outside your field of expertise Anyone with Military CBRN training can spot the "talking head" that does not have a clue about what they are talking about. In the case of Dr wood's book it is a great work of fiction sorry but that is what it is. She fails to actually forensically look at anything as she is not even educated in that field nor is book entirely her work. Herfriend helped her research it and write it so this tells me she will gladly take credit for another author's work. She used photos from infowars on her website. To boot
<br>.John Hutchison is a video faker, pure and simple. He's been making odd little videos for over 25 years, claiming to have produced bizarre and powerful energy effects. In his videos, objects are seen spontaneously flying upwards, and moving around with no apparent cause. Samples bend or bulge instantly. Bent pieces of metal appear to defy gravity, leaning sideways but not falling over.
<br>
<br>A recent (Novemeber 2007) Hutchison video depicts a toy battleship floating in a tub of water. The ship moves around, little flames instantly appear and then disappear on the deck, the water has patterns of ripples which come and go just as immediately. Another 2007 offering shows a Red Bull Can, leaning over sideways, but not falling all the way onto the table top. The can bends in the middle, and eventually flies upwards out of the picture.
<br>
<br>Hutchison also presents video of metal samples which he says have been transformed by the "Hutchison Effect". A butter knife is embedded in some other kind of metal. A metal rod is bent. A copper pipe is bent into a U-shape. A pile of tiny chunks lays next to the scarred sample which spawned it.
<br>
<br>I'll dispense with the metal samples before moving on to the video fakery. The butter knife is probably stainless steel, the surrounding metal looks like a very soft aluminum. He poured liquid aluminum around the knife, and when it cooled, he ground off the face. The bent metal is . . . bent metal. He heated up pieces of metal and bent them. Notice that the samples are charred in the area of the bend. He took a grinder and attacked the one sample, gouging out a pile of little metal chunks. So what?
<br>
<br>
<br>You simply cannot understand that Jhon Hutchingson is a fraud just like the misleading assumptions Dr woods makes about the damage to Cars WTC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All of Dr woods assumptions are not scientific they are imaginative. When parts of the WTC towers have been recovered from the same buildings you and her falsely claim were caused by DEW. Empirical reasoning no it is simply disseminating disinfo as she has no expertise the feild of nuclear physics or in FGNW yes you even make a very idiotic claim of directed nuclear explosives and still can't understand the isotopes are not there so it did not occur.
<br>
<br>Radiation in the fishbowl caused by construction of the union pacific subway station that was converted into parking and into an underground mall as well as wtc south was built on the main portion of the subway station that was revamped as parking space when the PATH station was put in. Yes Concrete is slightly radioactive even more so if you have re bar in it add other debries from the structure and cars lighting and there you have the sources.
<br>
<br>Also, there is no factual proof to the piles were still heated after September 23 2001. USGS and NASA " Dozens of hot spots are seen on September 16, but most had cooled or the fires had been put out by September 23." http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 40 -->
<a name="x41"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x41" class="tiny">x41</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_41');">acknowledging receipt of the 6 emails</a></p>
<p>2016-05-22</p>
<div id="sect_41" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wilks,
<br>
<br>Thank you for your many replies. You probably shouldn't have, at least until you read my blog posting and its comments so far. If you would have waited until you read it, your many emails might not be.
<br>
<br>I promise to address them later (a few days) point by point. Up front I can tell you that you miss the mark by bringing Dr. Wood into the discussion as you do. My work stands on her work's shoulders, but doesn't depend it, because nuggets of truth once identified remain true even when extracted for use in a deviant premise.
<br>
<br>If you really want to discuss this, please data-mine your emails and post some comments to the blog. I'd prefer to see your position made more public as well as my response, or we're just wasting time.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 41 -->
<a name="x42"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x42" class="tiny">x42</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">assure that the material is relevant to the discussion</a></p>
<p>2016-05-24</p>
<div id="sect_42" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wilks,
<br>
<br>Again thank you for your six part reply made over three days (May 20-22). Alas, if you are going to copy-&-paste portions of your response, (a) you should assure that the material is relevant to the discussion and (b) you shouldn't promote explanations that themselves have major issues & have been debunked.
<br>
<br>In your part 1/6, you reference the work of F.R. Greening and write: <i>your free fall statement is not accurate.</i> Mr. Greening has <i>"blinded you with science"</i> and lots of equations. Too bad Mr. Greening's <a href="http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf">reference paper</a> is full of faulty assumptions and errors, and does not match the observed destruction. Therefore, his analysis is wrong.
<br>
<br>[1] The assumption of <i>"an upper block of n floor"</i> is the first error from Mr. Greening, because it does not match video evidence. Those n floor <i>"accordioned"</i> in on themselves before the collapse wave progressed below the impact point of the aircraft. It did this at a constant rate of 2/3 gravitational acceleration (refer to the work of David Chandler.) Greening doesn't explain how this was possible. What acted on those upper n floors? How did they get decimated?
<br>
<br>[2] For the sake of discussion, let's continue with Mr. Greening's premise of an initial mass impacting a floor below it <i>"is sufficient to rupture not only the vertical columns supporting the impacted floor but also the steel truss supports that span the gap between the outer perimeter wall and the inner core of the building."</i> Too bad that this also doesn't match the video evidence which plainly shows (a) wall assemblies being pushed outside the destruction path and (b) a <i>"spire"</i> of inner core remaining for a second, most visible with WTC-1, but a similar anomaly is present with WTC-2. This means that the initial mass did ~not~ rupture the vertical columns supporting the impacted floors.
<br>
<br>[3] Mr. Greening assumes that the descending mass grew neatly in increments of individual floor mass, m<sub>f</sub>. Video evidence shows building content being ejected outside the path of greatest resistance, and therefore any enlarged mass did not happen in such discrete increments.
<br>
<br>[4] The structural strength of floor x was greater than the structural strength of floor x+1. Thickness of the sheets used in the hollow box columns of wall assemblies became thinner the higher you are in a tower, because they didn't have to support has much weight. Therefore, the weight or mass of building components at each floor became less as you go up.
<br>
<br>[5] Although Mr. Greening calculates new velocities after each floor impact as dictated by conservation of momentum, Mr. Greening assumes the newly calculated velocity (v<sub>2</sub>) is constant over the distance of a floor h<sub>f</sub> until hit hits the next floor. Velocity was not constant. The new mass would start at v<sub>2</sub> and accelerate under the forces of gravity over the distance of a floor h<sub>f</sub> to equate to a new v<sub>3</sub> at impact with next floor.
<br>
<br>These faulty assumptions and analysis allowed Mr. Greening to pull out of his ass (with no supporting calculations) a stage 1 collapse time of 11.6 (and 9.7) seconds, to which he adds a stage 2 collapse time of 1 (and 1.8) seconds. All of his mumbo-jumbo still puts both towers collapse WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR for free-fall.
<br>
<br>Mr. Greening erroneously concludes:
<br><blockquote>The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer model used in the calculations.</blockquote>
<p>Reminds of a physics teacher analogy. Professor A perform an elaborate calculation on the blackboard and discovers his final answer to be negative of what he aimed to prove. Professor B who watched the proof concludes: <i>"An odd number of mistakes."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Greening's goal was to be able to state: <i>"Such (an unknown additional) source of energy does not appear to have been involved in the collapse of the twin towers"</i> because his munged calculations match the actual destruction times within the margin of error for free-fall.
<br>
<br>In this opening gambit, Mr. Wilks, your beliefs are pinned to error-prone analysis whose goal was to distract with faulty physics from the true nature of the destruction. Although you expressed a <i>"need to understand the underlying physics of the processes involved,"</i> you obviously don't.
<br>
<br>At a point in time when you still had not read my blog that I had not <i>"developed a simple collision theory base on a detailed analysis"</i>. Too bad that I had and it is contained in the first section of my article.
<br>
<br>Moreover, (1) destruction within the margin of error of free-fall speeds, (2) content pulverization, and (3) content ejection -- all observed -- defy physics, <i>unless energy was added from other sources</i> is as simple a collision theory as it gets.
<br>
<br>Still at a point in time when you had not read my blog, you claim ignorantly that <i>"[I] incorporate fictional research by Dr judy woods which should be excluded due to the fact it is a work of fiction based on the Fraud she commit ed with the speculative misrepresentation of damage to vehicals that already had the cause of damage recorded before they were moved by NYPW."</i> Major fail, Mr. Wilks. I'd ask you to substantiate your claims, but you can't. FTR, I include evidence of vehicle damage collected by Dr. Wood, but do not use her analysis or conclusions.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"There is no argument as to the ineffective and implausiblity of DEW on 91101..."</i>
<br>
<br>Still at a point in time when you had not read my blog, you have defined what you mean by DEW, so there is ample room for argument. The fact of the matter is that all fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND) fall into the category of DEW, would be totally effective, and are totally plausible.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Fact the WTC towers nor Buildng 7 exhibited free fall the collapses were less than that speed."</i> Fact: you are wrong. Already proven with WTC-1 and WTC-2 were within margin of error for free-fall. Further, according to NIST, WTC-7 had a stage 2 of its collapse that spanned 8 floors or over 100 feet that was indistinguishable from free-fall.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"WTC 7 collapsed toward the damaged area and rolled over towrd the postal/federal building."</i> This is wrong. WTC-7 did not roll onto any other buildings, and certainly not the postal/federal building. It fell into its own footprint.
<br>
<br>I don't charge money for my research, therefore no profit is possible.
<br>
<br>Still at a point in time when you had not read my blog, you continued in your Part 2/6 by bringing Dr. Judy Wood back into the discussion, assuming in a brain-dead fashion that this was part of my premise. Fail.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Photos of the after math of the collapse show collapse patterns of wtc south and they show the path leading to WTC 7 it is from the upper floors of
<br>WTC south."</i> This is a stupid error and is completely wrong. WTC-1 and WTC-2 were both completely destroyed for several hours before WTC-7 came down. WTC-7 did not have any crippling portion of WTC-2 (south) on it.
<br>
<br>Quite possibly you meant WTC-6 as being impacted by WTC-2. Alas, photos of the aftermath does not provide sufficient "weighty" debris from WTC-2 to merit the giant crater that was bored into WTC-6 with such symmetry and straightness with regards to the hole bored.
<br>
<br>Part 2/6 tries mightily to conflate my work with Dr. Wood, and for this reason fails. You would have had to read my article to know how much or how little of Dr. Wood's research that I re-purpose. This you had not done.
<br>
<br>Still at a point in time when you had not read <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">my blog</a>, you continued in your Part 3/6 by saying I <i>"[omitted] seawater introduction into the derbies field hot spots and the creation of hydrogen Sulfide Gas."</i> Provide some substantiation about how hydrogen sulfide gas could have been created and affected the duration of hot-spots.
<br>
<br>I'll chalk it up to you talking through your ass. Based on your (faulty) premise of no extra energy sources, then we're talking about jet fuel (largely burned off) and office furnishing fires that might have ignited diesel fuel. Unfortunately, all of these fires require oxygen to burn which would have been in shorter supply under the rubble... and most definitely when under (sea) water. Should have been snuffed. They weren't, so if there was this huge presence of (sea) water [which there actually wasn't; the bathtub by and large held back the Hudson River], it did not affect the true hot-spot sources [that I say were fizzled FGND.]
<br>
<br>In part 4/6 of your response, you claim that you read <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">my blog article</a>. You don't address a single point from the article, yet claim <i>"[I] really have no idea of what [I am] trying to talk about probably because [my] limited knowledge through internet databases and intentional misleading information on 'tritium is a signature trace element.'"</i>
<br>
<br>Too bad that tritium is a trace element of FGND, and you have no internet databases or substantiation to refute this. Fail, Mr. Wilks.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"Ok genus what Tritium isotope has to be present for the verifcation of a neutron bomb."</i> Because you are obviously the (spelling) "genus" here, why don't you tell me?
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"I will tell you this much [the Tritium isotope of a neutron bomb] is not the same that is found in glow sticks and emergency signage as was in both of the WTC towers."</i>
<br>
<br>I will tell you this much, you do shitty research even into the reports that try to account for the measure tritium and dispel nuclear devices. Case in point: none of the emergency signage of both WTC towers used tritium. Instead, the <i>"Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center"</i> attributed the tritium first to the emergency signage of the impacting aircraft, second to sights from weapons stored at the WTC, and third to watches and time pieces, and even then due to the inadequate sample sizes, delays in measurement, and redefinition of trace levels could they achieve the objectives of the report, which was to see if building content might possibly, remotely account for tritium.
<br>
<br>I don't even think glow sticks were a trendy thing in 2001, and even if they were, they weren't speculated to have been significantly represented in the content of the towers.
<br>
<br>You then go on to spew: <i>"Hmm seemes that you are not a nuclear physicist and should not be ranting about DEW if you have no operational knowledge of the weapons..."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Wilks, you are not a nuclear physicist. Worse, you don't have even a basic understanding Newtonian physics, which is why Mr. Greening duped you so badly with his faulty research paper.
<br>
<br>My information comes from public sources, but of course, not from any <i>"operational knowledge of the weapons."</i> Doesn't mean it is wrong.
<br>
<br>You continue with a non-sequitor: <i>"(you have no) an understanding that Hutchenson faked his research so again red herring."</i>
<br>
<br>The true red herring here is you, Mr. Wilks, even bringing up the name Hutchison. Not mentioned even once in my derivative work. Fail.
<br>
<br>In Part 5/6 after supposedly reading my article, you again bring up Dr. Wood, as if her premise were mine. It is not.
<br>
<br>You then mention in passing <i>"FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002)"</i> and make the claim that I failed to read it. This, you don't know. What is known is that you didn't read it, because you provided nothing from this source to refute anything I've written.
<br>
<br>Maybe you should read: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
<br>
<br>It'll point out several of its errors. Did you know <i>"W. Gene Corley, Ph.D, Senior Vice President of Construction Technologies Laboratory in Skokie, IL, served as principal investigator. Corley was also the principal investigator for FEMA's study of the 1995 Murrah Federal Office Building attack"</i>? Quite the coincidence given that the 1995 Murrah building had its own cover-up & patsies to its true causes.
<br>
<br>You conclude part 5/6 with the faulty charge that <i>"[I] and Dr. Woods are making a profit off of this hussel."</i> I am not associated with Dr. Wood, and have no mechanisms in place for making a profit. Fail.
<br>
<br>In part 6/6, you begin: <i>"I am not wasting any time here arguing with an individual whom is in denial of facts..."</i> Which facts are those? How about you point out specific ones from my article that you claim to have read?
<br>
<br>With poor grammar and punctuation, you seem to ask: <i>"Know Nuclear physicists that work in regards to weaponized DEW and neutron bombs as well as nuclear explosives."</i> That's a red herring, because anybody you or I would know who worked in nuclear physics, weaponized DEW, or neutron bombs would have signed oaths with strict penalties from discussing it.
<br>
<br>Your grammar challenged part 6/6 then goes on to associate me with Dr. Wood. Fail.
<br>
<br>You wrote: <i>"The problem is the cause for the WTC tower collapses already has been established..."</i> Substantiate this. Otherwise, it is you have have the logical fallacy.
<br>
<br>Another logical fallacy was: <i>"since you cannot answer what isotope of tritium must be present to prove FGNW use it is obvious you are outside your field of expertise."</i> Other than the courteous reply to acknowledge receipt of your many emails, I had not had time to research tritium isotypes, so it isn't a matter of not being able to answer.
<br>
<br>You seem to imply that you might be a <i>"[someone] with Military CBRN training [who] can spot the 'talking head' that does not have a clue about what they are talking about."</i> In your case, you'd just have to look in the mirror. Case in point in part 6/6, you then go on and on text that from its formatting is obviously copy-and-pasted. Worse, NONE OF IT IS APPLICABLE. I'm not championing Dr. Wood, or John Hutchison.
<br>
<br>With six or so meaty copy-&-paste paragraphs to go in part 6/6, I've stopped my point-by-point analysis of your multi-part reply, because it wasn't relevant. It demonstrated that you didn't understand my work, if it doesn't prove you didn't read it. Therefore, the finger gets pointed at you for being the <i>"the 'talking head' who does not have a clue about what they are talking about."</i>
<br>
<br>However, the above makes for a great re-purposing on my blog. The world still has idiots who defend the official 9/11 conspiracy theory VERY POORLY.
<br>
<br>Before on your blog when I had exchanges with you, you were an idiot and couldn't defend your beliefs, let alone dissuade me from mine. Nothing has changed.
<br>
<br>If your future effort to reply to me is going to be just as stupid and unsubstantiated, you shouldn't even bother. I desire an intellectual exchange, not a moronic one.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 42 -->
<a name="x43"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x43" class="tiny">x43</a>
Daniel Wilks : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_43');">discussion into the weeds</a></p>
<p>2016-05-25</p>
<div id="sect_43" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Daniel Wilks,</b>
<br>Part 1/7(B)
<br>Then stop denying facts the problem is you did not read the FEMA report sand there is no logical failure only a proof positive of delusional personality that i am addressing. You deny the fact sand then try to say free fall when it did not occur.
<br>
<br>Maxwell you simply have no clue as to what you are talking about when it comes to buildin "<i>Know Nuclear physicists that work in regards to weaponized DEW and neutron bombs as well as nuclear explosives."</i> That's a red herring, because anybody you or I would know who worked in nuclear physics, weaponized DEW, or neutron bombs would have signed oaths with strict penalties from discussing it." No you again have no clue what you are speaking about so you make a strawman argument and invalid statements regarding DEW and <i>weaponized use.</i> If it were true there would be nothing on the internet about it. Also You simply cannot argue with someone whom denies the factual reality of 91101 and also is willing to fabricate a conspiracy to create asocial enterpenuership. You just make speculations that are not scientific just like your fake news from sand hook.
<br>
<br>Part 2/7(B)
<br>In closing there are a few documents Dr. Woods should be aware of that already report the facts that is
<p>
FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) She apparently failed to read it and so did you. The fabrication starts when you are trying to deny the factual and replace it with what did not occur because you and Dr. Woods are making a profit off of this hussel. </p>
<p>
<br><br> <i>"The problem is the cause for the WTC tower collapses already has been established..."</i> Substantiate this. Otherwise, it is you have have the logical fallacy.
<br>
<br><br>
<br><br>Wait up before you lie about reading the
<p>FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) because you would have no basis for your baseless arguments.</p>
<p>I guess that is why you fail in court.
<br>
<br>Part 3/7(B)
<br>It helps to use the final FEMA reports not the preliminary ones. also not reading the orignal documents is about as scientificly accurate as gussing the full collapse times from vidieo sources. As NIST points out, sections of both cores remained standing after the collapse, and any time of total collapse should include the time it took for these structures to fall as well. There's just no way to get a handle on a precise time for total collapse of these buildings. AE911Truth's attempt to do so in order to claim "near free fall acceleration" shows their unscientific methods of investigation<img class="ajT" src="//ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif">
<br>
<br>Part 4/7(B)
<br>Again thank you for your six part reply made over three days (May 20-22). Alas, if you are going to copy-&-paste portions of your response, (a) you should assure that the material is relevant to the discussion and (b) you shouldn't promote explanations that themselves have major issues & have been debunked. <br>
<br><br>
Dude take your own advice and apply it to your blog and to your baseless research. It is based in assumption of a DEW that never happened. Why because you lack understanding of DEWs and really so does Dr Wood. she bases her assumptions on fictional DEW. The fact is even the director of DEW research has told her it is not possible at that time to do so although an interesting idea. No strontium 290 was present at the WTC complex or more important within the steel neutron activation it would make many building materials in WTC complex, such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc" title="Zinc" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);font-family:sans-serif;;background-image:none;background-repeat:initial" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc&source=gmail&ust=1464362807460000&usg=AFQjCNFcTUd4uiGdC2j5We0xwWPrBBwF_Q">zinc</a> coated steel/galvanized steel highly radioactive and would not produce the rubble piles that workers could walk upon. Therefor your whole assumption falls apart due to a lack of operational knowledge of the weapons you are assuming were used on 91101 asa form of denial of reality.
<br>
<br>Part 5/7(B)
<br>Here is your major fail
<p style="color:black;margin:0.3em 0px 0px;overflow:hidden;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:0px;border-bottom-style:none;font-size:1.2em;line-height:1.6;font-family:sans-serif;background-image:none;background-repeat:initial">Self-powered lighting</p>
<img class="CToWUd" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjXjUMh3nh0GHXL7AFYW7bZ-joEFw9v6wi91w5hPphzwZ-EIje5EZBHEZX9GED-3YRdV4KfJCaYdEh4FP-NDMTaezglrrzx3dXaU1XsIoAGR492c50wNMxWja_0vglJnJnzs3kCJfl_N_HECXbe6gFOLd875KRyfbbprRAdxaTIIPzYf16BZylA9ltFMfbwv_v4-DL96QXprTuxbNuZTUhGVM_Y=s0-d-e1-ft" style="border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);vertical-align:middle;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" height="255" width="170"><hr>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tritium-watch.jpg" title="Enlarge" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);display:block;text-indent:15px;white-space:nowrap;overflow:hidden;width:15px;min-height:11px;background:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url("")" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tritium-watch.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNFfNpnyNQCK-zIp33tVxAnfeRQOgA"></a><hr>
<br>
<br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Military_Watch" title="Swiss Military Watch" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Military_Watch&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNGHxp2tL023CiSc0Vzk0H6f3BN8yA">Swiss Military Watch</a> Commander model with tritium-illuminated face
<br> Tritium illumination
<p>The emitted electrons from the radioactive decay of small amounts of tritium cause phosphors to glow so as to make self-powered lighting devices called betalights, which are now used in firearm night sights, watches, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_sign" title="Exit sign" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_sign&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNE_BhjNCcgCuHNMIsUviCac97ErsQ">exit signs</a>, map lights, knives and a variety of other devices. As well as Glowsticks used i rescue operations , emergency lighting,signage, exit signs, and as well as some computer screens.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">Also another problem is a lack of your understanding theses effects cannot be negated. <br></p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">Upon detonation, a 1 kiloton neutron bomb near the ground, in an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_burst" title="Air burst" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_burst&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNEcBQJXLMv4HEZ2O-0vzXCmqxsXBg">airburst</a> would produce a large blast wave, and a powerful pulse of both thermal radiation and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation" title="Ionizing radiation" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNH1RJ3tKXvWIOdeGeYM2QiN5MBzIQ">ionizing radiation</a>, mostly in the form of fast (14.1 MeV) neutrons. The thermal pulse would cause <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_degree_burn" title="Third degree burn" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_degree_burn&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNHEGDNGL3SXiduSpAaK2y5UC-QXHw">third degree burns</a> to unprotected skin out to approximately 500 meters. The blast would create at least 4.6 psi out to a radius of 600 meters, which would severely damage all non-reinforced concrete structures, at the conventional effective combat range against modern <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_battle_tank" title="Main battle tank" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_battle_tank&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNEGNyLhLu20ze9mMAYmPD57FDfh9A">main battle tanks</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_personnel_carrier" title="Armored personnel carrier" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_personnel_carrier&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNG3aBSGk7b48YiNlCGUASIo35w_bw">armored personnel carriers</a> (<690-900 m) the blast from a 1 kt neutron bomb will destroy or damage to the point of non-usability almost all un-reinforced civilian buildings. Thus the use of neutron bombs to stop an enemy armored attack by rapidly incapacitating the crew with a dose of 8000+ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad_(unit)" title="Rad (unit)" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad_(unit)&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNHiMYOv-nnLF2WMWU1D_MoB_O-cxw">rads</a> of radiation,<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#cite_note-Fact-index.2C_neutron_bomb-48" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb%23cite_note-Fact-index.2C_neutron_bomb-48&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNFvtPcGU2I0PWK2o3UhARZ6uUObJQ">[48]</a></sup> which would require exploding large numbers of them to blanket the enemy forces, would also destroy all normal civilian buildings in the same immediate area ~600 meters,<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#cite_note-Fact-index.2C_neutron_bomb-48" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb%23cite_note-Fact-index.2C_neutron_bomb-48&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNFvtPcGU2I0PWK2o3UhARZ6uUObJQ">[48]</a></sup><sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#cite_note-49" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb%23cite_note-49&source=gmail&ust=1464362807480000&usg=AFQjCNGbstaciOnjhH0szDZ0HYU4TaHEEg">[49]</a></sup> and via neutron activation it would make many building materials in the city radioactive, such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc" title="Zinc" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNGlimW3FlS-I7kvfHZHNt76P_Q6SA">zinc</a> coated steel/<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanized_steel" title="Galvanized steel" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanized_steel&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNHJY5ynvN0uHGsUDwM8O7cxOMg3Bw">galvanized steel</a> (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#Use_as_an_area_denial_weapon" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb%23Use_as_an_area_denial_weapon&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNGvvdrvc_u0nKw_uxWDJIjAEuoL-w">area denial use</a> below). Although at this ~600 meter distance the 4-5 psi blast <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpressure" title="Overpressure" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpressure&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNH72De7UMSZ4UQIhowbw6v1mXpPFA">overpressure</a> would cause very few direct casualties because liquid-filled objects such as a human body are resistant to gross overpressure, the powerful winds produced by this overpressure can throw bodies into objects or throw objects, including window glass at high velocity, both with potentially lethal results, rendering casualties highly dependent on surroundings, including on if the building they are in collapses.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#cite_note-50" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb%23cite_note-50&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNEHeBRGrr-u8gbmrVRe4hGTpSpWiQ">[50]</a></sup> The pulse of neutron radiation would cause immediate and permanent incapacitation to unprotected outdoor humans in the open out to 900 meters,<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#cite_note-Kistiakovsky-6" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb%23cite_note-Kistiakovsky-6&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNG2mnv4USUEwl8YflEhrHmd93ID5Q">[6]</a></sup> with death occurring in one or two days. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose" title="Median lethal dose" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNGh4Pjfot7frp9ns3E8d1Po1BZgnA">median lethal dose</a> (LD<sub style="line-height:1;font-size:11.2px">50</sub>) of 600 rads would extend to about 1350-1400 meters for those unprotected and outdoors,<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#cite_note-Fact-index.2C_neutron_bomb-48" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb%23cite_note-Fact-index.2C_neutron_bomb-48&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNH7pUJfrT8DqdoJ3f5IJZRyzSVM0w">[48]</a></sup> where approximately half of those exposed would die of radiation sickness after several weeks.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">However a human residing within, or simply shielded by, at least one of the aforementioned concrete buildings with walls and ceilings 30 cm (12 in) thick, or alternatively of damp <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil" title="Soil" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNGMonw2PfsrWQIiDLcGe05nMh-1CQ">soil</a> 24 inches thick, would receive a neutron radiation exposure reduced by a factor of 10.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#cite_note-51" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb%23cite_note-51&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNH0gyP87V6z2W3rQ-1LApwXBJjigQ">[51]</a></sup><sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#cite_note-web.mit.edu-52" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb%23cite_note-web.mit.edu-52&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNE0HxVp_zN1M5bFqy7xgTqlehWh3g">[52]</a></sup> Even near ground zero, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basement" title="Basement" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basement&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNFl6kcS8IpMF8crCqJPr2H0CV0Qng">basement</a> sheltering or buildings with similar radiation shielding characteristics, would drastically reduce the radiation dose.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#cite_note-53" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb%23cite_note-53&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNHb4dSLFUIMiQFjMxTSqxiJ6r5SsQ">[53]</a></sup></p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">Furthermore, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_absorption" title="Neutron absorption" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_absorption&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNFI6a7wM-ioLW6gfqLp2ywu6xBMHw">neutron absorption</a> spectrum of air is disputed by some authorities and depends in part on absorption by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen" title="Hydrogen" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNEIMFHH_9DYPy5rHM9TOAI9HY6Hhw">hydrogen</a> from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor" title="Water vapor" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNGMjwp_-tuXx1DcO0Xzd9aFOS5zJg">water vapor</a>. Thus, it might vary exponentially with humidity, making neutron bombs far more deadly in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_climate" title="Desert climate" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_climate&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNH2xXhsB9dkmY5bOGn7jhrtZspE4Q">desert climates</a> than in humid ones.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#cite_note-Fact-index.2C_neutron_bomb-48" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb%23cite_note-Fact-index.2C_neutron_bomb-48&source=gmail&ust=1464362807481000&usg=AFQjCNH7pUJfrT8DqdoJ3f5IJZRyzSVM0w">[48]</a></sup></p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px">
<br>So what if it is cut and paste it is fact no matter what the yield there are direct isotopes traceable to the weapon. Strontium 290 and a specific Isotope of tritium that emits releases an 18 Kev beta particle. Now this could be a byproduct of seawater being used on the hotpots as well as hydrogen sulfide production.
<br>
<br>Part 6/7(B)
<br>Still at a point in time when you had not read my blog, you claim ignorantly that <i>"[I] incorporate fictional research by Dr judy woods which should be excluded due to the fact it is a work of fiction based on the Fraud she commit ed with the speculative misrepresentation of damage to vehicals that already had the cause of damage recorded before they were moved by NYPW."</i> Major fail, Mr. Wilks. I'd ask you to substantiate your claims, but you can't. FTR, I include evidence of vehicle damage collected by Dr. Wood, but do not use her analysis or conclusions. <br>
<br>
<br>
Your fail FTR they are all recorded by NYFD and have GPS tags on the so your assumptions on the cause of damages to vehicals is fabrication.
<br><br>
<a href="http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1688/find-a-vehicle-that-was-moved-due-to-an-event" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1688/find-a-vehicle-that-was-moved-due-to-an-event&source=gmail&ust=1464362807487000&usg=AFQjCNFT2drZz-mfXjwo4o_AU0UK3oMHVw">http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1688/find-a-vehicle-that-was-moved-due-to-an-event</a><br><br>wow verification that NYPW moved the cars and vehicals due to the terrorist attack on 91101 again you failed to research facts about NYCPW.
<br>
<p>Part 7/7(B)
<br>2016-05-26
<br>
<br>
<p><b>You failed in each of these areas and </b></p>
<p><b>1- the correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission.</b></p>
<p><b>2- the massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization.</b></p>
<p><b>3- the pulverized remains.</b></p>
<p><b>4- the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.</b></p>
<p><b>5- the damage to distant vehicles along Broadway and in the park lot.</b></p>
<p><b>All proved to be storage for cars removed from WTC complex underground garages and ascent streets. Sorry facts you have not been able to change for 15 years to date no matter how much. Empr</b></p>
<p><b>6- the damage to Banker's Trust eventually leading to its demolition despite having been "fixed".</b></p>
<p><b>7- the first-responder ailments.</b></p>
<p><b>8- the security around the WTC.</b></p>
<p><b>9- the rapid destruction of evidence.</b></p>
<p><b>10- the lack of testing on the evidence.</b></p>
<p><b>11- the elevated tritium levels.</b></p>
<p><b>12- the relatively low decibel measurements during the destruction (e.g., can't be brissant explosives).</b></p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>you make yous living by saying "no" and ridiculing other's work. Then fails to provide adequate substantiation for his own theories..."</b></p>
<p>Mere trace amounts of Iodine-131 (produced in fission reactions) found in Hudson River sediments "Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. The top 3 cm of silt contained layers with unnaturally high concentrations of copper, strontium, and zinc from the towers, says Sarah D. Oktay, a geochemist... "Oktay and her colleagues also found that the sediments contain small but measurable quantities of iodine-131, a human-made radioactive isotope with a half-life of about 8 days. Total iodine concentrations were actually lower in the [WTC] debris-filled layers, which means the source of the element probably isn't related to the attacks. Also, the iodine probably didn't leak from nuclear power plants upstream because other telltale radioactive isotopes didn't turn up. Instead, says Oktay, the iodine-which is used in various medical treatments and sometimes carried home internally by patients-probably entered the river through local sewage systems. The researchers report their findings in the Jan. 21 Eos."
5
So, Iodine concentrations were LESS in the upper debris layers associated with the WTC dust! And Iodine-131 (produced in fission reactions) was only found in very low-level trace amounts anyway. These data provide strong evidence against "mini-nuke-caused-WTC-destruction" hypothesis involving fission reactions, including a "small" fission bomb to set-off a fusion bomb.
<br>
<br>The problem here again is you fail to prove and of your assumptions as theory has a foundation in facts not fiction. Where are the signifigat radilogical signatures?
</p>
<br>
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Daniel Wilks <<a href="mailto:phantasypublishing@gmail.com">phantasypublishing@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<br><blockquote>
<br>Still at a point in time when you had not read my blog, you claim ignorantly that <i>"[I] incorporate fictional research by Dr judy woods which should be excluded due to the fact it is a work of fiction based on the Fraud she commit ed with the speculative misrepresentation of damage to vehicals that already had the cause of damage recorded before they were moved by NYPW."</i> Major fail, Mr. Wilks. I'd ask you to substantiate your claims, but you can't. FTR, I include evidence of vehicle damage collected by Dr. Wood, but do not use her analysis or conclusions.
<br>
<br>
Your fail FTR they are all recorded by NYFD and have GPS tags on the so your assumptions on the cause of damages to vehicals is fabrication.
<a href="http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1688/find-a-vehicle-that-was-moved-due-to-an-event">http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1688/find-a-vehicle-that-was-moved-due-to-an-event</a>
<br>
<br>wow verification that NYPW moved the cars and vehicals due to the terrorist attack on 91101 again you failed to research facts about NYCPW
.
<br>
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Daniel Wilks <<a href="mailto:phantasypublishing@gmail.com">phantasypublishing@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<br><blockquote>
It comes down to EMF and EMF propagation and the fact that no thermite was found in any of the WTC debries. Also all the steel was recovered no dustification no explosives or any other fantasies other than a structual collapse.of the WTC towers.
<br>
<br>
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Maxwell C. Bridges <<a href="mailto:maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us">maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us</a>> wrote:
<br><blockquote>
Hey 9/11 Internet Acquaintances!
<br>
<br>I've corresponded with you in the past on topics related to 9/11. I wanted to give you an update on my evolution in thought regarding the WTC destruction. My hobby-horse is fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW).
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html</a>
<br>
<br>The above work addresses concerns raised by those (a) who say "no radiation = no nukes" and (b) who say "it was DEW" ala Dr. Judy Wood.
<br>
<br>
++++ Boring details ++++
<br>
<br>Common games in the concerted disinformation effort to keep public awareness from landing on FGNW were:
<br>
<br>(1) Incomplete & malframed premises. Applies to Dimitri K.'s "deep under ground nuke" as well as Dr. Judy Wood's directed energy weapons (DEW) from "Where did the towers go?". The former doesn't match the observed destruction; the latter doesn't power DEW with anything real world and ignores wavelength optics through the atmosphere as a limiting factor. Applies to Dr. Jones & Dr. Wood with regards to how they frame nuclear devices: big yields, lots of radiation.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
No proof of nukes no isotopes and the steel exhibits normal radiation after collapse
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br>(2) Glaring omissions. Applies to Dr. Steven Jones in (a) his "no nukes" paper and (b) his nano-thermite (NT) premise. FGNW and work by Dr. Andre Gsponer were missing from the former; the latter doesn't provide the explanation for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. The math is missing that shows NT in any combination with conventional chemical based explosives implying huge quantities & a major logistics challenge to account for the observed overkill & unnecessary pulverization; but then becoming massively unrealistic & improbable quantities when getting the same to account for the duration of the hot-spots.
<br>
<br>(3) Faulty assumptions and arguments. A chief error is assuming mutual exclusivity in destruction mechanisms. A related error is assuming one explanation for all observed destructive features & WTC buildings.
<br>
<br>(4) Blatant unobjectivity & attempted book reports without having or reading the book. "Content" is probably more applicable than "book". A given is that, in order to succeed even for a short time, all disinformation has to have a solid foundation of truth before introducing the disinfo skew. The belligerent refusal to venture into the maw of disinformation sources to retrieve still valid nuggets of truth is a sign of unobjectivity in the participant, if not a disinfo agenda.
<br>
<br>(5) Building on #3 and #4, the inability to form alliances and marry. Because Dr. Wood's DEW needs power (and because she stops short of make & model), the natural grow path for DEW is towards nuclear power sources. Likewise, the natural growth path for nuclear devices is towards DEW. In fact, all FGNW are technically classified as DEW. Yet do you see objective supporters of DEW or nuclear devices borrowing nuggets of truth from the other? Do you see them modifying their views based on new analysis and information? No.
<br>
<br>I repeat: nearly all FGNW are technically DEW. FGNW are designed for tactical yields. Being fusion based and closely related to neutron devices, their radiation side-effects are short-lived. However, tritium is a signature trace element, and lo and behold the song-and-dance & stilted reports that lamely tried to explain away tritium being measured (even haphazardly) and necessitating redefinition of "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than previously.
<br>
<br>Targeted neutron emissions from FGNW has a significantly higher & deeper coupling of energy to the target. Energy coupling is the reason why the WTC didn't have conventional chemical-based explosives (even mixed with nano-thermite) as the primary mechanism of destruction. Conventional controlled demolition uses shockwaves through the medium of air and such over-pressurization of air would be very LOUD, particularly for the observed pulverization. Didn't happen on 9/11. FGNDs do not have this problem, because the deeper & direct coupling of energy creates the shockwave within the material (target).
<br>
<br>It has amazed me that the 9/11 nuclear camp and the 9/11 DEW camp have been unable to tie the knot and get married, and how no learned PhD's on the 9/11 TM payroll ever made the love connection, most of them insisting on parking understanding in the nano-thermite cul-de-sac that can't even go the distance on the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>
<br>The reason for such obstruction? The whiff of "nuclear anything" on 9/11 would have had, could have had, should have had massive figurative nuclear fall-out in our government and its institutions, as well as with the ill-got gains expected at home and abroad.
<br>
<br>What you do with this is up to day. Such figurative nuclear fall-out from 9/11 nuclear revelations is still possible.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>You're spreading propaganda / disinformation. You run away when you are challenged. Examples here:</p>
<p>You've developed a reputation for running away from challenges to your propaganda.</p>
<p>The more you run, the more obvious you become.</p>
</blockquote>
</div><!-- section 43 -->
<a name="x44"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x44" class="tiny">x44</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_44');">very little intellectual growth</a></p>
<p>2016-05-26</p>
<div id="sect_44" style="display: none;">
<p>2016-05-26
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Wilks,
<br>
<br>Your responses show very little intellectual growth since I last had exchanges with you <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-17605">almost exactly three years ago</a>. The multiple replies in a short space of time suggest team involvement. The voice and formatting are different between replies, with the only consistency being how poorly formatted they were and largely cut-&-paste.
<br>
<br>Some of the team members appear to be bots who are a bit slow to adjust their algorithms to my content. As such, they paste irrelevant red-herring content (e.g., Dr. Judy Wood) that have little to do with my topic.
<br>
<br>Let me help even the playing field. In my last reply to you:
<br>(1) I went through each of your arguments point-by-point.
<br>(2) I went into your source material and showed where it was in error.
<br>(3) When I didn't debunk source material outright, I provided reference links that did.
<br>(4) The supporting material for my deviant nuclear premise is sourced.
<br>
<br>Whereas you have tried to throw down various reports (A1) to substantiate your views, you fail if the blogosphere has debunking rebuttals (B1). Your substantiation or arguments C1 should have evolved to adequately address the rebuttals (B1).
<br>
<br>You haven't been doing this, and it shows. It reflects on your research abilities, your understanding, your honesty, and your agenda when you park yourself at A1.
<br>
<br>Every good lawyer only asks questions in court that they already know the answer to. In "The Art of War", you are taught to know your enemy. For you to be throwing down ancient A1 substantiation from the government that a simple google search reveals to have multiple websites and blogs almost as old whose B1 rips A1 a new asshole, it discredits you.
<br>
<br>From your Part 2/7(B):
<br><blockquote>... Then stop denying facts the problem is you did not read the FEMA report...</blockquote>
<p>The FEMA report isn't relevant to my FGNW premise, and you have data-mined nothing to show how it might be relevant. I can assure you that not only have I read it, but I can also easily google lots of references that expose its many flaws.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br><blockquote>If (DEW and weaponized use) were true, there would be nothing on the internet about it.</blockquote>
<p><i>"Nothing"</i> is an over-generalization that trips you up. Refer to <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Section 15 Directed Energy and Section 27. Nuclear Scientific Research</a>.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br><blockquote>Also You simply cannot argue with someone whom denies the factual reality of 91101 and also is willing to fabricate a conspiracy to create asocial enterpenuership...</blockquote>
<p>A point of agreement between us. Except that that "social entrepreneurship" doesn't apply to me, but does apply to your PhantasyPublishing. I bet (not) you got a lot of hate mail from <i>"300,000 daily readers"</i> who discovered that your web site suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.
<br>
<br><blockquote>You just make speculations that are not scientific just like your fake news from sand hook.</blockquote>
<p>You haven't pointed out specifics on what makes my FGNW <i>"not scientific."</i> Your Sandy Hook reference? Doesn't really apply to me. Not my hobby-horse. Ergo, an example of a bot copy-and-paste error.
<br>
<br>Part 2/7(B) is largely a copy-&-paste repeat from your previous part 5/6. Ho-hum. Already addressed. You wrote:
<br><blockquote>Wait up before you lie about reading the FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) because you would have no basis for your baseless arguments.</blockquote>
<p>The ground rules for when you call someone a liar are:
<br>
<br>* You have to substantiate what makes their statement false or a lie.
<br>
<br>* Without substantiation, your accusation of lying is an ad hominem attack and can legitimately be turned against you as being the true liar.
<br>
<br>You haven't proved applicability of the report to this FGNW discussion. Not only have I read FEMA report (A1), but I've also read the (B1) rebuttals that rip it a new one. To my knowledge, no C1 rebuttals address the B1 concerns. Given your stilted attitude, it would be a safe bet that you and your team either haven't read the B1 debunking or are forbidden from acknowledging the validity of the errors pointed out.
<br>
<br>Your Part 3/7(B) sheds no new light on the discussion. Your copy-&-paste fails: inapplicable.
<br>
<br>You wrote in Part 4/7(B):
<br><blockquote>Dude take your own advice and apply it to your blog and to your baseless research. It is based in assumption of a DEW that never happened. Why because you lack understanding of DEWs and really so does Dr Wood.</blockquote>
<p>Ho-hum. I'm not promoting DEW or Dr. Wood. I've told you this multiple time. My hobby-horse is FGNW. Another bot copy-&-paste fail.
<br>
<br>Second, if you don't substantiate with specifics what makes my research <i>"baseless"</i>, well... doofus, it just makes your claim baseless.
<br>
<br>Another bot copy-&-paste fail with your comment:
<br><blockquote>No strontium 290 was present at the WTC complex or more important within the steel neutron activation it would make many building materials in WTC complex, such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc">zinc</a> coated steel/galvanized steel highly radioactive and would not produce the rubble piles that workers could walk upon.</blockquote>
<p>The first sentence is factually wrong. Refer to <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Section 11</a> that in turn data mines <a href="https://archive.org/details/CharacterizationOfTheDustsmokeAerosolThatSettledEastOfTheWorldTrade_552">Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al</a>. Table 2 lists various inorganic elements and metals, including Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), and Uranium (U). The USGS also measures this.
<br>
<br>You cannot prove your contention about the alleged lack of neutron activation. We have no record of such being systematically measured, and we certainly don't have any reports documenting the findings (that aren't full of holes.)
<br>
<br>Secondly, you malframe FGNW to fit your pre-conceived notions. Energy expelled at a specific wavelength and directed would have its own effects. If neutron expulsion were part of it, it too could have been aimed and would not have "radiated" everything. Just mostly the debris that the cover-up carted up for recycling.
<br>
<br>I'll throw this poorly written sentence right back at you as being applicable more to you than me:
<br><blockquote>Therefor your whole assumption falls apart due to a lack of operational knowledge of the weapons you are assuming were used on 91101 asa form of denial of reality.</blockquote>
<p>In your Part 5/7(B), you did such a crappy job of bot copy-&-paste, I can't tell where you've put your own words in. Refer to <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Section 10</a> that dives into <a href="http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf">Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center</a>, which could conceivably be where you are getting your information from... Except that your information is wrong:
<br><blockquote>... self-powered lighting devices called betalights, which are now used in firearm night sights, watches, exit signs, map lights, knives and a variety of other devices. As well as Glowsticks used i rescue operations , emergency lighting,signage, exit signs, and as well as some computer screens.</blockquote>
<p>Most of those items listed do not apply to the WTC for September 2001. The alleged aircraft had such emergency exit signs, but the towers did not. It was complete and utter unfounded speculation on the report's part to claim (1) aircraft exit signs, (2) firearm night sights, and (3) time pieces accounted for the haphazard measurement of tritium at only a couple of locations, and delayed.
<br>
<br>My premise is FGNW, which admittedly would be a close cousin of the neutron bomb.
<br>
<br><blockquote>So what if it is cut and paste</blockquote>
<p>If it isn't applicable, it isn't applicable. Further, if it can't be read and/or if it can't be observed where the copy-&-paste starts and stops so that your words can be recognized, then it is plagiarism and a form of dishonesty (that only re-enforces the trend line for you.)
<br>
<br><blockquote> it is fact no matter what the yield there are direct isotopes traceable to the weapon.</blockquote>
<p>Measurements not taken or results suppressed does not equate to traceable isotopes of tritium not ever being present. So "sure" were "they" that airplanes and gravity-driven pile-drivers did the damage, "they" wouldn't even let Fire Investigators test for the usual range of accelerants and wouldn't let them at the debris until much later.
<br>
<br><blockquote>Strontium 290 and a specific Isotope of tritium that emits releases an 18 Kev beta particle. Now this could be a byproduct of seawater being used on the hotpots as well as hydrogen sulfide production.</blockquote>
<p>Substantiate your claim (a) of what would be a by-product of seawater on hotspots and (b) that they used sea water. It was the Hudson River (that I assume was largely fresh water) that flowed by.
<br>
<br>What doesn't add up in your hypnotism is that if the hot-spots were "normal" fires, why did they burn so long even when doused with millions of gallons of water.
<br>
<br>You wrote in Part 6/7(B) referring to vehicle damage:
<br><blockquote>Your fail FTR they are all recorded by NYFD and have GPS tags on the so your assumptions on the cause of damages to vehicals is fabrication.</blockquote>
<p>Such a lame rebuttal. To prove that you read my article, you tell me in your own words what I think causes the damage to vehicles. I'll give you a hint: It isn't what Dr. Wood promotes. You keep conflating me with her, you think you can smear me with mistakes that she made.
<br>
<br><blockquote>wow verification that NYPW moved the cars and vehicals due to the terrorist attack on 91101 again you failed to research facts about NYCPW</blockquote>
<p>To your point, many cars pictured at the bridge were towed there; they weren't destroyed there. This is a major flaw in Dr. Wood's work.
<br>
<br>However, the cars along West Broadway and in the car park are observed as being shortly after the towers came down. Ho-hum. Refer to <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Section 23</a>. Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars. In particular, watch the videos from Vince Dementri. No time for them to get towed here between towers falling and while WTC-7 still standing.
<br>
<br>Your reading failed.
<br>
<br>In Part 7/7(B) on 2016-05-26, you wrote the following hypnotic suggestion:
<br><blockquote>You failed in each of these areas and
<br>
<br>1- the correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission.
<br>2- the massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization.
<br>3- the pulverized remains.
<br>4- the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
<br></blockquote>
<p>On the contrary, you failed in each of the above. You don't address specifics in any of those areas.
<br>
<br><blockquote>5- the damage to distant vehicles along Broadway and in the park lot.
<br>All proved to be storage for cars removed from WTC complex underground garages and ascent streets. Sorry facts you </blockquote>
<p>You are proven factually wrong (via Vince Dementri's videos) & tons of pictures of burning vehicles from the air before the dust has settle. You prove yet again to not having read my article. That demonstrates some special kind of ignorance.
<br>
<br><blockquote>6- the damage to Banker's Trust eventually leading to its demolition despite having been "fixed".
<br>7- the first-responder ailments.
<br>8- the security around the WTC.
<br>9- the rapid destruction of evidence.
<br>10- the lack of testing on the evidence.
<br>11- the elevated tritium levels.
<br>12- the relatively low decibel measurements during the destruction (e.g., can't be brissant explosives).</blockquote>
<p>Your hypnotic suggestion that I fail on the above? Prove it. One-by-one. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
<br>
<br>Another copy-&-paste fail:
<br><blockquote>you make yous living by saying "no" and ridiculing other's work.</blockquote>
<p>Talking about yourself, I see. You don't know how I make my living.
<br>
<br><blockquote>Then fails to provide adequate substantiation for his own theories..."</blockquote>
<p>That final errant double-quotation mark. Another bot copy-&-paste error. Fail. Provide your source for that.
<br>
<br>Your Iodine-131 bot copy-&-paste: provide your source. Specify its relevance. And be sure to frame the FGNW properly. Whether or you or the source, the phrase <i>"mini-nuke-caused-WTC-destruction" hypothesis involving fission reactions, including a "small" fission bomb to set-off a fusion bomb.</i> already hints to how it attempts to frame the discussion away from FGNW.
<br>
<br><blockquote>The problem here again is you fail to prove and of your assumptions as theory has a foundation in facts not fiction. Where are the signifigat radilogical signatures? </blockquote>
<p>Ho-hum. Can you say "tritium"? That's the leading radiological signature that has not been adequately explained. Give Section 14 a good read.
<br>
<br>The problem here again is that you failed to read my work, aren't referencing specific passages from my work, and certainly aren't refuting specifics with applicable specifics, making your rebuttal <i>"a theory with a foundation in fiction."</i>
<br>
<br><blockquote>No proof of nukes no isotopes and the steel exhibits normal radiation after collapse </blockquote>
<p>Ho-hum. Sure, because of the suppression of measurements, analysis of measurements, and publication of analysis (and all three), you are enabled to say <i>"no proof of nukes"</i>, while at the same time, I am enabled to say <i>"no proof of no nukes."</i> If we were being fair with one another, we'd say that no proof was published one way or another, so this point of contention should be taken off of the table, while the bulk of the other evidence (that you continue to ignore) is used to make the case.
<br>
<br><blockquote>You're spreading propaganda / disinformation.</blockquote>
<p>Dude, if I am wrong and you can prove it with substantiation and properly applied science to all of the evidence, then what I'm spreading is "misinformation", not "disinformation," because I honestly and sincerely believe my premise. Furthermore, if proven wrong -- which is why I've earnestly sought a reasoned rational discussion with you (that still eludes you) --, I will publicly apologize and spread a different message.
<br>
<br><blockquote>You run away when you are challenged. Examples here: You've developed a reputation for running away from challenges to your propaganda. The more you run, the more obvious you become.</blockquote>
<p>This is one of those bot copy-&-paste WTF moments. WTF are you talking about? Please substantiate. EARLY WARNING: Failure to provide links and specific examples will henceforth peg you as a liar.
<br>
<br>Oh, and while you're searching for links (look through my blog to see where I've participated), banishment isn't the same as running away.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 44 -->
<a name="x45"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x45" class="tiny">x45</a>
Daniel Wilks : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_45');">one that brings in fantasy</a></p>
<p>2016-05-27</p>
<div id="sect_45" style="display: none;">
<p>From: Daniel Wilks <phantasypublishing@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:47:30 -0500 Subject: Re: 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation To: "Maxwell C. Bridges" <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us> </p>
<p>Thanks for exposing yourself again as one that brings in fantasy </p>
<p>Letter received and corrected due to author's willful omissions of = facts. </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>Dear Mr. Wilks, </p>
<p>Your responses show very little intellectual growth since I last had exchanges with you almost exactly three years ago http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-17605. The multiple replies in a short space of time suggest team involvement. The voice and formatting are different between replies, with the only consistency being how poorly formatted they were and largely cut-&-paste. </p>
<p>Some of the team members appear to be bots who are a bit slow to adjust their algorithms to my content. As such, they paste irrelevant red-herring content (e.g., Dr. Judy Wood) that have little to do with my topic. </p>
<p>Let me help even the playing field. In my last reply to you: (1) I went through each of your arguments point-by-point. </p>
<p> (2) I went into your source material and showed where it was in error. (3) When I didn't debunk source material outright, I provided reference links that did. </p>
<p> (4) The supporting material for my deviant nuclear premise is sourced. </p>
<p>Whereas you have tried to throw down various reports (A1) to substantiate your views, you fail if the blogosphere has debunking rebuttals (B1). Your substantiation or arguments C1 should have evolved to adequately address the rebuttals (B1). </p>
<p>You haven't been doing this, and it shows. It reflects on your research abilities, your understanding, your honesty, and your agenda when you park yourself at A1. </p>
<p>Every good lawyer only asks questions in court that they already know the answer to. In "The Art of War", you are taught to know your enemy. For you to be throwing down ancient A1 substantiation from the government that a simple google search reveals to have multiple websites and blogs almost as old whose B1 rips A1 a new asshole, it discredits you. </p>
<p>From your Part 2/7(B): </p>
<p>... Then stop denying facts the problem is you did not read the FEMA report... </p>
<p>The FEMA report isn't relevant to my FGNW premise, and you have data-mined nothing to show how it might be relevant. I can assure you that not only have I read it, but I can also easily google lots of references that expose its many flaws. </p>
<p>You wrote: </p>
<p>If (DEW and weaponized use) were true, there would be nothing on the internet about it. </p>
<p>*"Nothing"* is an over-generalization that trips you up. Refer to Section 15 Directed Energy and Section 27. Nuclear Scientific Research http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html. </p>
<p>You wrote: </p>
<p>Also You simply cannot argue with someone whom denies the factual reality of 91101 and also is willing to fabricate a conspiracy to create asocial enterpenuership... </p>
<p>A point of agreement between us. Except that that "social entrepreneurship" doesn't apply to me, but does apply to your PhantasyPublishing. I bet (not) you got a lot of hate mail from *"300,000 daily readers"* who discovered that your web site suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service. </p>
<p>You just make speculations that are not scientific just like your fake news from sand hook. </p>
<p>You haven't pointed out specifics on what makes my FGNW *"not scientific."* Your Sandy Hook reference? Doesn't really apply to me. Not my hobby-horse. Ergo, an example of a bot copy-and-paste error. </p>
<p>Part 2/7(B) is largely a copy-&-paste repeat from your previous part 5/6. Ho-hum. Already addressed. You wrote: </p>
<p>Wait up before you lie about reading the FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) because you would have no basis for your baseless arguments. </p>
<p>The ground rules for when you call someone a liar are: </p>
<p>* You have to substantiate what makes their statement false or a lie. </p>
<p>* Without substantiation, your accusation of lying is an ad hominem attack and can legitimately be turned against you as being the true liar. </p>
<p>You haven't proved applicability of the report to this FGNW discussion. Not only have I read FEMA report (A1), but I've also read the (B1) rebuttals that rip it a new one. To my knowledge, no C1 rebuttals address the B1 concerns. Given your stilted attitude, it would be a safe bet that you and your team either haven't read the B1 debunking or are forbidden from acknowledging the validity of the errors pointed out. </p>
<p>Your Part 3/7(B) sheds no new light on the discussion. Your copy-&-paste fails: inapplicable. </p>
<p>You wrote in Part 4/7(B): </p>
<p>Dude take your own advice and apply it to your blog and to your baseless research. It is based in assumption of a DEW that never happened. Why because you lack understanding of DEWs and really so does Dr Wood. </p>
<p>Ho-hum. I'm not promoting DEW or Dr. Wood. I've told you this multiple time. My hobby-horse is FGNW. Another bot copy-&-paste fail. </p>
<p>Second, if you don't substantiate with specifics what makes my research *"baseless"*, well... doofus, it just makes your claim baseless. </p>
<p>Another bot copy-&-paste fail with your comment: </p>
<p>No strontium 290 was present at the WTC complex or more important within the steel neutron activation it would make many building materials in WTC complex, such as zinc <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc"> coated steel/galvanized steel</a> highly radioactive and would not produce the rubble piles that workers could walk upon. </p>
<p>The first sentence is factually wrong. Refer to <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Section 11</a> that in turn data mines Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al <a href="https://archive.org/details/CharacterizationOfTheDustsmokeAerosolThatSettledEastOfTheWorldTrade_552">. Table 2</a> lists various inorganic elements and metals, including Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), and Uranium (U). The USGS also measures this. </p>
<p>You cannot prove your contention about the alleged lack of neutron activation. We have no record of such being systematically measured, and we certainly don't have any reports documenting the findings (that aren't full of holes.) </p></blockquote>
<p>(yes and therefor since Neutron activation never occurred nor did any use FGNW or any thin close to a neutron bomb sorry to say your ignorance of the devices is glaring) </p>
<blockquote><p>Secondly, you malframe FGNW to fit your pre-conceived notions. Energy expelled at a specific wavelength and directed would have its own effects. If neutron expulsion were part of it, it too could have been aimed and would not have "radiated" everything. Just mostly the debris that the cover-up carted up for recycling. </p></blockquote>
<p>(Stop this is you fantasizing and speculating based on zero physical knowledge of FGNW You fail to prove any of the following occurred in regards to WTC 1 and 2 collapse nor does it negate the damage to other buildings including wtc 7 from the collapse of south tower. </p>
<p>- Hot fission bomb: soft X-rays and some fission neutrons; </p>
<p>- H-bomb: soft X-rays and some fission and fusion neutrons; </p>
<p>- Pure fusion bomb: 14 MeV neutrons and soft X-rays; </p>
<p>- Pure isomer bomb: 0.1 to 5 MeV gamma-rays; </p>
<p>- Pure positron bomb: 0.511 MeV gamma-rays; </p>
<p>- Pure antiproton bomb: ~ 200 MeV pions and gamma-rays. </p>
<p>Because most of the energy of a DT-based FGNW is in the form of highly penetrating neutrons, almost all of the forwards going energy is coupled into any target located less than a few meters away from the point of detonation= . This implies a coupling coefficient of almost 50%, that is ten times higher than for any conventional or previous generation nuclear weapons. </p>
<p>So where is the signature in WTC steel? It does not exist nor did the use of FGNW.) </p>
<blockquote><p>I'll throw this poorly written sentence right back at you as being applicable more to you than me: </p>
<blockquote><p>Therefore, your whole assumption falls apart due to a lack of operational knowledge of the weapons you are assuming were used on 91101 as a form of denial of reality.</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>(The statement is entirely accurate you failed to prove any neutron activation of steel also since you do not know anything about FGNW it is obviously beyond your level of education to discuss it without fabrication on your part by attempting to put the stink on me.) </p>
<blockquote><p>In your Part 5/7(B), you did such a crappy job of bot copy-&-paste, I can't tell where you've put your own words in. Refer to <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Section 10</a> that dives into <a href="http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf">Study of Traces of Tritium</a> at the World Trade Center , which could conceivably be where you are getting your information from... </p>
<p>Except that your information is wrong:</p></blockquote>
<p>(Thanks for your opinion and it is comedy as you are oblivious to any real physical facts about the emergency markings in the WTC towers. It is your lack of research and knowledge of the WTC towers is now glaringly evident. Mr. Wilks is correct in what he stated as and is backed up by the following facts that you intentionally try to distract from again by mentioning the 767 aircraft which you really know about as much as you do the WTC towers. </p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>... self-powered lighting devices called betalights, which are now used in firearm night sights, watches, exit signs, map lights, knives and a variety of other devices. As well as Glowsticks used in rescue operations , emergency lighting,signage, exit signs, and as well as some computer screens..</p></blockquote>
<p>Most of those items listed do not apply to the WTC for September 2001.</p></blockquote>
<p>(Yes they do and your response below is the observable omission of facts as you don't have a clue about the emergency sinage in either WTC towe= rs let alone WTC 6 or 7) </p>
<blockquote><p>The alleged aircraft had such emergency exit signs, but the towers did not. It was complete and utter unfounded speculation on the report's part to claim (1) aircraft exit signs, (2) firearm night sights, and (3) time pieces accounted for the haphazard measurement of tritium at only a couple of locations, and delayed.</p></blockquote>
<p>(thank you for you display of utter willful ignorance of facts. </p>
<p>Read this as it is fully documented and verified. </p>
<p>source </p>
<p>http://plsafety.org/news/10-years-after-911-how-photoluminescent-path-marki= ngs-are-making-buildings-safer/ </p>
<p>quote </p>
<p> =E2=80=9CThe NIST study also documented the increased rate of occupant evac= uation with photoluminescent egress markings. After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center complex, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey added Photoluminescent Egress Markings to all emergency stairwells in the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2. Although causalities in the 1993 bombing were significantly less than on 9/11, the loss of power due to the bomb blast was almost instantaneous. Because of this, it took more than 6 hours to totally evacuate the Twin Towers in the dark. Recognizing the need to improve the evacuation times, the Photoluminescent Exit Path Markings were added to improve egress rates in the event of another power failure. On September 11, 2001, the total elapsed time between the first airplane impact on the first tower until the collapse of the second tower was only 102 minutes. Even with the failure of the emergency back-up power systems more than 16,000 people escaped during that time, many in total darkness. The twin towers Photoluminescent Exit Path Marking Systems worked=E2=80=93e= ven when the back-up electrical lighting systems failed.=E2=80=9D </p>
<p>So again you don't know what you are talking about because you have= not researched it.) </p>
<blockquote><p>My premise is FGNW, which admittedly would be a close cousin of the neutron bomb.</p></blockquote>
<p>(yep and you have failed to provide physical proof of use on the WTC towers on 91101 if the signatures are not there of explosives or Nuclear fission or fusion then you are spouting a delusional belief. Where is the coupling effect in the steel or building materials? It is not there case closed. ) </p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>So what if it is cut and paste</p></blockquote>
<p>If it isn't applicable, it isn't applicable. Further, if it can't be read and/or if it can't be observed where the copy-&-paste starts and stops so that your words can be recognized, then it is plagiarism and a form of dishonesty (that only re-enforces the trend line for you.)</p></blockquote>
<p>you have a promising career as a comic because that line is junk just as fantasy bots ect to distract from facts you place fiction to create a smokescreen. More like, your unwillingness or inability to make your case and defend your theory in a civilized manner, your closed-mindedness, and your paranoid insults - which, I have so far only witnessed coming from faithers, debunksters, trusters, and scientifically illiterate reality deniers - too obviously are a systemic attempt at sowing discord; even the flat-earthers were more friendly forwarding their theories, but I'm sure you are too well aware of that, so: shame on you for playing the divide et impera game.) </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>it is fact no matter what the yield there are direct isotopes traceable to the weapon.</p></blockquote>
<p>(this is correct and you have a failure to produce physical proof of Maxwell C. Bridges FGNW pet hobby horse fantasy) </p>
<blockquote><p>Measurements not taken or results suppressed does not equate to traceable isotopes of tritium not ever being present. So "sure" were "they" that airplanes and gravity-driven pile-drivers did the damage, "they" wouldn't even let Fire Investigators test for the usual range of accelerants and wouldn't let them at the debris until much later. </p>
<blockquote><p>Strontium 290 and a specific Isotope of tritium that emits releases an 18 Kev beta particle. Now this could be a byproduct of seawater being used on the hotpots as well as hydrogen sulfide production.</p></blockquote>
<p>Substantiate your claim (a) of what would be a by-product of seawater on hotspots and (b) that they used sea water. It was the Hudson River (that I assume was largely fresh water) that flowed by. </p></blockquote>
<p>(Your assumptions are incorrect. https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/highlight/fireboat.htm =E2=80=9Cup adjacent to the World Trade Center site to provide pumping capa= city, as hydrants were not working. The fireboat joined New York Fire Department boats on the sea wall in North River, the closest proximity possible to World Trade Center 2, to provide the only water available at the site. Fire hoses wielded from the fireboat Wednesday provided the only area at the site that was not covered by choking dust. This area later became the main supply center for the emergency crews. The John J. Harvey worked non-stop at the site until Friday night, September 14, after hydrants had been restored.=E2=80=9D Salt water was introduced into the site and this accou= nt for Hydrogen sulfide generation and the elevated levels of Tritium as they match with Atlantic ocean water. </p>
<blockquote><p>What doesn't add up in your hypnotism is that if the hot-spots were "normal" fires, why did they burn so long even when doused with millions of gallons of water. </p>
<p>You wrote in Part 6/7(B) referring to vehicle damage: </p>
<p>Your fail FTR they are all recorded by NYFD and have GPS tags on the so your assumptions on the cause of damages to vehicles is fabrication. </p>
<p>Such a lame rebuttal. To prove that you read my article, you tell me in your own words what I think causes the damage to vehicles. I'll give you a hint: It isn't what Dr. Wood promotes. You keep conflating me with her, you think you can smear me with mistakes that she made. </p>
<blockquote><p>wow verification that NYPW moved the cars and vehicles due to the terrorist attack on 91101 again you failed to research facts about NYCPW</p></blockquote>
<p>To your point, many cars pictured at the bridge were towed there; they weren't destroyed there. This is a major flaw in Dr. Wood's work. </p></blockquote>
<p>(Your's as well as you make similar claims about the cause of damag= e to the cars and the NYPW not towing cars off before WTC 7 collapsed when in fact they did move them during emergency response. </p>
<blockquote><p>However, the cars along West Broadway and in the car park are observed as being shortly after the towers came down. Ho-hum. Refer to <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Section 23</a>. Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars. In particular, watch the videos from Vince Dementri. No time for them to get towed here between towers falling and while WTC-7 still standing. </p>
<p>Your reading failed.</p></blockquote>
<p>(Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars Sorry there was no thermite present so fabrication on your part and this is just what you do make stuff up) </p>
<blockquote><p>In Part 7/7(B) on 2016-05-26, you wrote the following hypnotic suggestion:</p></blockquote>
<p>(Really Hypnotic that is funny as your lack of proof. And yes you did fail in the areas.
<blockquote><blockquote><p>You failed in each of these areas and </p>
<p>1- the correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission. 2- the massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization. 3- the pulverized remains. 4- the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.</p></blockquote>
<p>On the contrary, you failed in each of the above. You don't address specifics in any of those areas.</p></blockquote>
<p>(Actually it has been done three years ago and the statement is factual you have failed in each of these areas and continue to fabricate opinions without any physical evidence.) </p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>5- the damage to distant vehicles along Broadway and in the park lot.</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>(All proved to be storage for cars removed from WTC complex underground garages and ascent streets. Sorry facts you omit) </p>
<blockquote><p>You are proven factually wrong (via Vince Dementri's videos) & tons of pictures of burning vehicles from the air before the dust has settle. You prove yet again to not having read my article. That demonstrates some special kind of ignorance.</p></blockquote>
<p>(Yes it does show your willingness to add an unfounded opinion to a report made by another which is fabrication as I have looked at the footage it does not support your opinions) </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><blockquote><p>6- the damage to Banker's Trust eventually leading to its demolition despite having been "fixed". 7- the first-responder ailments. 8- the security around the WTC. 9- the rapid destruction of evidence. 10- the lack of testing on the evidence. 11- the elevated tritium levels. 12- the relatively low decibel measurements during the destruction (e.g., can't be brissant explosives).</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>Your hypnotic suggestion that I fail on the above? Prove it. One-by-one. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out your ass.</p>
<p>(Yes in this case you are blowing smoke out of your ass as you don'= t seem to do any further research try looking at the archives http://wtcdata.nist.gov/) </p>
<blockquote><p>Another copy-&-paste fail:</p></blockquote>
<p>(thank you for your opinion it is not factual as you will soon understand.)
<blockquote><blockquote><p>you make yous living by saying "no" and ridiculing other's work.</p></blockquote>
<p>Talking about yourself, I see. You don't know how I make my living. </p></blockquote>
<p>(We have seen your fraudulent work on Sandy Hook Elementary shootings and on the Boston Marathon Bombing both came out after Hasive created the fake news article. ) </p>
<blockquote><p>Then fails to provide adequate substantiation for his own theories=E2=80=A6= "</p></blockquote>
<p>That final errant double-quotation mark. Another bot copy-&-paste error. Fail. Provide your source for that.</p>
<p>(Why it is an accurate statement which you are proving with each keystroke that your whole FGNW theory is bunk. Especially when the final not preliminary FEMA report nullifies your baseless claims and that is why you choose to ignore it or try to outsource a website that is not creatable because again all of the arguments of supposed errors are made from the preliminary reports.) </p>
<blockquote><p>Your Iodine-131 bot copy-&-paste: provide your source. Specify its relevance.</p></blockquote>
<p>(If you don't know then you should not be discussing FGNW because y= ou obviously have no clue about Radiological signatures from fission or fusion.) </p>
<blockquote><p>And be sure to frame the FGNW properly. Whether or you or the source, the phrase *"mini-nuke-caused-WTC-destruction" hypothesis involving fission reactions, including a "small" fission bomb to set-off a fusion bomb.* alre= ady hints to how it attempts to frame the discussion away from FGNW.</p></blockquote>
<p>( Nobody is Framing or buying into a fantasy and a strawman argument. How about you prove the existence of iodine-131 or any isotope traces for the fabricated FGNW or better yet can you show the agents that prove the use of nuclear explosives also fabricated use in regards to 91101 and the WTC towers. The answer is no you have not and cannot. They do not exist and were never physically present at the WTC complex on 9101. Since there was no use of FGNW in regards to the collapse of the WTC towers which has been proven already that your outside websites are fabricating their own lies without physical proof just as your failure to research the WTC collapse or the physical structures of either tower. </p>
<p>The problem here again is you fail to prove and of your assumptions as theory has a foundation in facts not fiction. Where are the significant radiological signatures?) </p>
<blockquote><p>Ho-hum. Can you say "tritium"? That's the leading radiological signature that has not been adequately explained. Give Section 14 a good read. </p>
<p>The problem here again is that you failed to read my work, aren't referencing specific passages from my work, and certainly aren't refuting specifics with applicable specifics, making your rebuttal *"a theory with a foundation in fiction."*</p></blockquote>
<p>(Sorry but that is your logical failure as there is no proof of nukes no isotopes and the steel exhibits normal radiation after the WTC tower collapses on 91101. Also how many cases of radiation sickness were there caused by the emissions from the steel? None.) </p>
<blockquote><p>Ho-hum. Sure, because of the suppression of measurements, analysis of measurements, and publication of analysis (and all three), you are enabled to say *"no proof of nukes"*, while at the same time, I am enabled to say *= "no proof of no nukes."* If we were being fair with one another, we'd say that no proof was published one way or another, so this point of contention should be taken off of the table, while the bulk of the other evidence (that you continue to ignore) is used to make the case. </p>
<p>You're spreading propaganda / disinformation.</p></blockquote>
<p>(is that a comic reply or are you being serious You are the one that tries to say lithium and tritium were not present in the WTC towers. Then are proven wrong and go on to prove you don't have any idea what you ar= e talking about in regards to the physical structure of either WTC tower. To even start to read a report from someone whom shows willful omission of facts. Is to support their delusions.) </p>
<blockquote><p>Dude, if I am wrong and you can prove it with substantiation and properly applied science to all of the evidence, then what I'm spreading is "misinformation", not "disinformation," because I honestly and sincerely believe my premise. Furthermore, if proven wrong -- which is why I've earnestly sought a reasoned rational discussion with you (that still eludes you) --, I will publicly apologize and spread a different message. </p>
<blockquote><p>You run away when you are challenged. Examples here: You've developed a reputation for running away from challenges to your propaganda. The more you run, the more obvious you become.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is one of those bot copy-&-paste WTF moments. WTF are you talking about? Please substantiate. EARLY WARNING: Failure to provide links and specific examples will henceforth peg you as a liar. </p>
<p>Oh, and while you're searching for links (look through my blog to see where I've participated), banishment isn't the same as running away. </p></blockquote>
<p> http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/WTCchemistrytable.html </p>
<p>Also this proves no there was no use of FGNW in regards to the collapse of the WTC towers </p>
<p>*Chemistry Table 1.* This Table summarizes data for major elements and all trace elements analyzed in the WTC dust and beam coating samples. Some elements (such as mercury and tin) were not analyzed in these samples. Major elements are listed in percent concentration and trace elements are listed in parts per million concentration. One percent equals 10,000 parts per million. ------------------------------ </p>
<p>*Chemistry Table 1* </p>
<p> </p>
</div><!-- section 45 -->
<a name="x46"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x46" class="tiny">x46</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">your responses leave much to be desired</a></p>
<p>2016-05-31</p>
<div id="sect_46" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. DW (and illustrious teammates),</p>
<p>For someone who in the past boasted about his publication prowess, your responses leave much to be desired in the realms of authoring & formatting that would improve the chances of a reader being able to understand your case. To your (dis)credit, such sloppy attention to readability obfuscates the fact that your arguments are weak.</p>
<p>You wrote:
<blockquote><p>(yes and therefor since Neutron activation never occurred nor did any use FGNW or any thin close to a neutron bomb sorry to say your ignorance of the devices is glaring) </p></blockquote>
<p>Provide substantiation to your hypnotic suggestion that <i>"neutron activation never occurred."</i> As mentioned before, (a) not systematically and thoroughly sampling for X, (b) not analyzing all data for X or omitting data for X, and/or (c)_ not publishing detailed reports with the results of thorough sampling for X are ~NOT~ equivalent to <i>"X never occurring."</i> </p>
<p>Refer to <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html">Section 11</a>, because it details the many blatant flaws in the one report that I am aware of (<i>"Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001"</i> by The Paul Lioy et al.) that tried plug the fiction of <i>"no neutron activation."</i></p>
<p>Furthermore, if there was <i>"no neutron activation"</i>, there would have been no need for Bloomberg to attempt legislation that prevented Geiger counters from being used in NYC. </p>
<p>I wrote:
<blockquote><p>Secondly, you malframe FGNW to fit your pre-conceived notions. Energy expelled at a specific wavelength and directed would have its own effects. If neutron expulsion were part of it, it too could have been aimed and would not have "radiated" everything. Just mostly the debris that the cover-up carted up for recycling. </p></blockquote>
<p>Your response furthers the malframe that you were told to avoid:
<blockquote><p>(Stop this is you fantasizing and speculating based on zero physical knowledge of FGNW You fail to prove any of the following occurred in regards to WTC 1 and 2 collapse nor does it negate the damage to other buildings including wtc 7 from the collapse of south tower. </p>
<p>- Hot fission bomb: soft X-rays and some fission neutrons; </p>
<p>- H-bomb: soft X-rays and some fission and fusion neutrons; </p>
<p>- Pure fusion bomb: 14 MeV neutrons and soft X-rays; </p>
<p>- Pure isomer bomb: 0.1 to 5 MeV gamma-rays; </p>
<p>- Pure positron bomb: 0.511 MeV gamma-rays; </p>
<p>- Pure antiproton bomb: ~ 200 MeV pions and gamma-rays. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>I do ~not~ have to prove that any of the above occurred, because none of them are my FGNW premise. You are again malframing my premise. Refer to Section 14.</p>
<p><blockquote><p>Because most of the energy of a DT-based FGNW is in the form of highly penetrating neutrons, almost all of the forwards going energy is coupled into any target located less than a few meters away from the point of detonation= . This implies a coupling coefficient of almost 50%, that is ten times higher than for any conventional or previous generation nuclear weapons. </p></blockquote>
<p>Correct.</p>
<p><blockquote><p>So where is the signature in WTC steel? It does not exist nor did the use of FGNW.)</p></blockquote>
<p>To re-iterate, just as I have no proof that the signature was present, you have no proof that the signature wasn't present. The cover-up guaranteed this in the shoddy reports that were published. Refer to section 8 and section 26 for data points in the trend line. If you were being reasonable, we would agree that our mutual inability to substantiate this either way takes this off of the table, and the weight of the other evidence would make the case. </p>
<p>You wrote:
<blockquote><p>... you are oblivious to any real physical facts about the emergency markings in the WTC towers. It is your lack of research and knowledge of the WTC towers is now glaringly evident.</p></blockquote>
<p>For the purposes of discussion, let's assume that the WTC had all of the devices in Mr. DW's list:
<blockquote><p>... self-powered lighting devices called betalights, which are now used in firearm night sights, watches, exit signs, map lights, knives and a variety of other devices. As well as Glowsticks used in rescue operations , emergency lighting,signage, exit signs, and as well as some computer screens..</p></blockquote>
<p>If the above were true, then the error isn't mine. The mistake was made by <i><a href="http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf">"Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center"</a></i> by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams. To my knowledge, this is the ~only~ report that attempts to explain -- via shoddy sampling & scope limits -- the fact that any tritium was measured at all. </p>
<p>Why didn't these expert researchers commissioned by the government speculate into glowsticks and emergency lighting within the towers (as opposed to just the aircraft's exit signs)? Because such wasn't present. </p>
<p>If there is any truth (which I doubt) to your argument about all of the other potential tritium sources within the WTC, then your beef isn't with me, but with the authors of the above report. Be that as it may, you are making the claim that all of the above were present, therefore the onus is on you to substantiate it.</p>
<p>You message said:
<blockquote><p>"Mr. Wilks is correct in what he stated..."</p></blockquote>
<p>Here is proof that Mr. DW has a team (or <i>"committee"</i>) involved. Could it be Mr. EB? Or maybe Mr. OneOhOne? The only thing wrong with this team effort is that when the teammates are not identified, then the authored work is assumed to be exclusively Mr. DW's with the dishonesty cutting both ways: (a) Mr. DW is committing plagiarism, and (b) the authoring mistakes and factual errors are assumed to be the stupidity of Mr. DW's alone.</p>
<p>A teammate submitted: https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/highlight/fireboat.htm
<blockquote><p>The fireboat joined New York Fire Department boats on the sea wall in North River, the closest proximity possible to World Trade Center 2, to provide the only water available at the site. ... Salt water was introduced into the site and this account for Hydrogen sulfide generation and the elevated levels of Tritium as they match with Atlantic ocean water. </p></blockquote>
<p>However, the teammate has not substantiated (a) the claim that salt water added to the pile would produce hydrogen sulfide, or (b) the claim that that salt water added to the pile would account for elevated levels of tritium. You are making the claim, so the onus is on you to substantiate it. </p>
<p>I believe that the above is this teammate talking through his ass, because if it had any truth (particularly #b) , then the more educated authors of <i>"Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center"</i> would have included this in their analysis. </p>
<p>I wrote:
<blockquote><p>[M]any cars pictured at the bridge were towed there; they weren't destroyed there. This is a major flaw in Dr. Wood's work.</p></blockquote>
<p>One of the teammate says:
<blockquote><p>(Your's as well as you make similar claims about the cause of damage to the cars and the NYPW not towing cars off before WTC 7 collapsed when in fact they did move them during emergency response.</p></blockquote>
<p>This teammate did not understand the situation (probably on purpose), and therefore gave a completely bogus response. The situation was that many images exist of vehicles still on fire along West Broadway and the car park at a time when WTC-7 was still standing. Nobody on your team has adequately explained how <i>"an alleged gravity-driven pulverization"</i> could have accounted for the damage to these vehicles.</p>
<p>Further, the teammate makes the unsubstantiated claim that the NYPW towed damage vehicles to the West Broadway and the car park in the morning of 9/11 (and before Vince Dementri's video and before WTC-7 was demolished). Again, you make the claim, so the onus is on you to substantiate it. </p>
<p>Section 23 isn't a complete set of images, but it is sufficient to prove you wrong. Tow-trucks allowed into the area specifically around WTC-7 before WTC-7 came down? Didn't happen, and there was no evidence (e.g., tracks in the dust) in Vince's video to go with your claim.</p>
<p>You wrote:
<blockquote><p>(Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars Sorry there was no thermite present so fabrication on your part and this is just what you do make stuff up) </p></blockquote>
<p>The fabrication is entirely on your part and demonstrates that your teammate didn't read or understand the source material. I do not champion thermitic particulates as the primary cause for vehicle damage; but others in the 9/11TM do. Section 23 debunks the premise of thermitic particulates being responsible for the vehicle damage.</p>
<p>In Part 7/7(B) on 2016-05-26, your team made the hypnotic claim that my premise failed in 12 different areas, but true to its hypnotic nature did not explain point-by-point why for ~any~ of them. When this failing was pointed out, all your teammate could muster was another unsubstantiated hypnotic suggestion: <i>"And yes you did fail in the areas."</i> And, no, you continue to fail to make even a half-assed case in any of these areas. </p>
<p><blockquote><p>(Actually it has been done three years ago ....) </p></blockquote>
<p>Liar. If it had been done three years ago, you could copy-&-paste from such effort and be done.</p>
<p>Referring again to the vehicles along West Broadway, your teammate writes the following fabrication / lie:
<blockquote><p>(All proved to be storage for cars removed from WTC complex underground garages and ascent streets. Sorry facts you omit)</p></blockquote>
<p>Liar. Look at Vince's videos again from before WTC-7 came down. Substantiate your claim that cars were towed from the underground garages at the WTC complex BEFORE WTC-7 came down. Didn't happen, liar.</p>
<p>Based on where your response has been headed, it should not surprise me that your team would write:
<blockquote><p>(Yes it does show your willingness to add an unfounded opinion to a report made by another which is fabrication as I have looked at the footage it does not support your opinions) </p></blockquote>
<p>Ignore the context (Dr. Wood) but focus on the evidence (burning cars) in the following URLs.</p>
<p>
The following image [Figure 66(o)] shows many vehicles along West Broadway on fire. Before WTC-7 came down. Note that paper and trees are not on fire.</p>
<p>http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image175.jpg</p>
<p>Figure toast 8 from the car park shows vehicles on fire. How did that happen?
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg</p>
<p>Figure 8(a) shows those same vehicles [from Figure 66(o)] along West Broadway not on fire any more. But you can see WTC-5 (I believe, or WTC-6) in the background on fire, and you can definitely see WTC-7 still standing. How and when exactly did these vehicles get towed here?</p>
<p>http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg</p>
<p>And all of this dovetails the video of CBS reporting coming out of WTC-7...</p>
<p>Another hint to the team:
<blockquote><p>(We have seen your fraudulent work on Sandy Hook Elementary shootings and on the Boston Marathon Bombing both came out after Hasive created the fake news article. ) </p></blockquote>
<p>The team will have to be more specific: (a) About which Sandy Hook & Boston Marathon Bombing work you are referring, because I have so little; it wasn't may hobby-horse. (b) About what makes it fraudulent. Otherwise, your paragraph has more the whiff of being a distraction and a lame attempt at guilt-by-association.</p>
<p>Your team writes:
<blockquote><p>(Why it is an accurate statement which you are proving with each keystroke that your whole FGNW theory is bunk. Especially when the final not preliminary FEMA report nullifies your baseless claims and that is why you choose to ignore it or try to outsource a website that is not creatable because again all of the arguments of supposed errors are made from the preliminary reports.) </p></blockquote>
<p>Hypnotism. </p>
<p>To my knowledge, the final FEMA report make no mention of any cause -- conventional or nuclear -- that could be construed as controlled demolition. It went to great lengths to not give details, not give its modeling, not give its reasoning, and to avoid all of the blatant indications of controlled demoliion. </p>
<p>But if you claim that the final FEMA report, that has no mention of FGNW, <i>"nullifies [my] baseless claims (of FGNW)"</i>, then prove it. Should be really easy. But no! We all know that your team is talking through your ass.</p>
<p>Your "committee" or "team" should recruit some new members. Someone who can write and format would be helpful, because you could lose for poor presentation of your lame answers... which is probably by design.</p>
<p>You inspire me to publish our email exchanges from three years ago together with this round. Although your committee can't execute on what it was charged (e.g., debunk anything except gravity-driven pile-driver), it can certainly prove the existence of coordinated teams of disinfo agents deployed into cyber-space to obfuscate 9/11. Kudos.</p>
<p>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 46 -->
<a name="x47"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x47" class="tiny">x47</a>
Daniel Wilks & the committee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_47');">DISINFO: "Toasted Cars"</a></p>
<p>2016-06-02</p>
<div id="sect_47" style="display: none;">
<p>from: Daniel Wilks <phantasypublishing@gmail.com>
<br>to: "Maxwell C. Bridges" <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>date: Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:28 AM
<br>subject: More proof of your inaccurate assumptions of FGNW use on 91101
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331064000&usg=AFQjCNFgA045vIvLfiUvq2P4VLZF70uzsg"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEju3Sr6SJF-3hpkAl2Gn7AEBMtT5bo1XLMv9MkoFMcLWc8cyU_zZumwS03mHIRUY5XY8CWjR_vDlECLdHahnywa7IwG_UnSF049He6GYLqyoGWmNDeuCLlKp4g_lS6PoixGTxfWVpuN5YMWGnXaoZFIMYRnSB5CPL5J3cpuIEB6mjoQW1bZVAoapQz8g-Z_dKA=s0-d-e1-ft" style="border:5px solid rgb(242,242,242);margin:0px 10px 0px 0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent" height="90" width="150"><b>DISINFO: "Toasted Cars"</b></a>
<hr>
<p><strong style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent">DISINFO: Direct Energy Weapons caused the "Toasted Cars"</strong></p>
<p>Judy Wood supporters always bring up the claim that Space Beams "Toasted" all the cars at GZ from her Directed Energy Weapon. Here is her evidence followed by my rebuttal.</p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/judywooddisinfotoasted.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/judywooddisinfotoasted.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNGq1SUswuVBaBP7cTRlaxLbaPD_Lg">
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEggm9HnfdVFpYhHzf42V04hqHVN4koLAZ8-_Km6l7efzXTjK4rFiSj6Tcz3x7GQk7Yj0DeHg6IruE7TAXHp4PsO_1ea27JnKftw8Ry7h9lXjM7mHbCH8_ffkOLyikluPEtRvFOLKdvi_18v3wnnu9-Qmo1vHNPcZ_bAW2aGfhKw7dKPNPODMIIZSHFnZIWA11L7CnYZ=s0-d-e1-ft&h=198" alt="judywooddisinfotoasted" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="198" width="300"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/toastedcars.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/toastedcars.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNGGvEhZXoPrDBMrmQLdWEpCTsND5A"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEhhEwqXSIZlnfeW9zUVdjadJndf-TBPjFCxXLicj1FoEldrPayuunwg5_ICEI5ZJALWxix7P97qoph1WeEpA9kcjT1WokmpCPisVisgc9zdL2gMbZCppHtV-HvcH3UXB7xYGWTOFIJ5z7dIIrSkYXFAk9N78P1QpwCDaoUQosqCb_5KuZGX7V_T-Q=s0-d-e1-ft&h=179" alt="toastedcars" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="179" width="300"></a><br>----<br>"Toasted Cars". She uses the unscientific term of "toast/toasted" over 50 times in this article.<br><span style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent"><a href="http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNFMN9I4-GXBULOC0ZkrRKLvKF002A">drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html</a></span><br><span style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent"><a href="http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNHa4hktl5xZVe_KbwLB9_ftavGucg">drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg</a></span><br>-----<br>"Toasted Cars" Miles/Blocks away from GZ. (Police car #2723)<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/11_policeCar_DSC079" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/11_policeCar_DSC079&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNG2KSZLhf33CArXApC99Fzg3PBIgg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/11_policeCar_DSC079</a><br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/policecar3.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/policecar3.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNGynM81S06-ITC7i_zGyLWYnpctfg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/policecar3.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/21.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/21.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNGeS4QuUgzvW4SxIdUNlxtsjIFokw">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/21.jpg</a><br>---<br>9/11 Burning Cars Across From WTC 7<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dtLsTNmapY" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3D0dtLsTNmapY&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNHXRzvZtXSbsb1gv19JgteGSPPteg">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dtLsTNmapY</a></p>
<p>"Why were cars burning but the paper was not?" - Judy Wood<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF97uHGJM_Q&amp" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DuF97uHGJM_Q%26amp&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNFdedwTSZPKP_hYvmJSwfITFNXfCw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF97uHGJM_Q&amp</a>;<br>----<br>"Explain the firetruck missing its engine ..." - Judy Wood<br>----<br>9/11 Meltdown<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_TWGSdtWmo" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DK_TWGSdtWmo&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNESKk3riLg--WVBYoGtRN-f0ByvTg">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_TWGSdtWmo</a><br>----</p>
<p><strong style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent">REBUTTAL</strong></p>
<p>Here is a short paper written by Greg Jenkins that refutes the hypothesis of a DEW's and explains the "Toasted Cars" with science.</p>
<p>DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence<br><a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNHLm_QufE6tC15cOzec5fiPnabfWw">http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf</a><br>---<br>Richard Gage asked about Judy Wood: Conspiracy Con 2013<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JqoYrXcjTA" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3D7JqoYrXcjTA&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNFdhBtYlsoB0Y45QTW86jFeaTkCJw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JqoYrXcjTA</a><br>"So these cooling falling molten iron droplets coold easily account for the so called "toasted cars." @<span tabindex="0" class="aBn" data-term="goog_1817434435"><span class="aQJ">5:50</span></span><br>---<br>Cars Were Not Burned By Energy Beams<br><a href="http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/wtc/burnedcars/" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/wtc/burnedcars/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNG-4-O8uiz1-pwpdhmi4RFMML7vXw">http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/wtc/burnedcars/</a></p>
<p>Really Nutty 9-11 Physics (Regarding "toasted cars")<br><a href="http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics0.HTM" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics0.HTM&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNExOAgL5PQEDCSkwpZ2tETYDcWgUw">http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics0.HTM</a><br>----<br>Judy Wood "Toasted" cars DEBUNKED in HD (again)<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjXMiyH4NkY" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DbjXMiyH4NkY&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNGRVYhXvz-Cwlg96JXUrKPf8VBHuw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjXMiyH4NkY</a><br>----<br>"Partially unignited thermite, thermate, and/or nano-thermite falling through the air as it continued to react would have produced molten iron droplets. A still-reacting thermitic mixture drifting down onto the cars in the dust plumes could easily account for the singeing of their paint and even igniting the cars (since the highly exothermic thermite reaction can quickly reach temperatures exceeding 4000 °F). A reporter and a firefighter (see the last two links at the end of this article), and perhaps others, described the dust cloud as feeling hot - whereas Wood claims that the dust clouds were cool."<br><a href="http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/505-faq-3.html" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/505-faq-3.html&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNGzWf2dGh0EHKsXReuzUBf7Ogqf0Q">http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/505-faq-3.html</a><br>----<br><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/toastedcarsmeme1.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/toastedcarsmeme1.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNF9CQZWtEJaEk-YTJ-nvTSRzeoM3w"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEikITjrdal-iNFlwi1hCBk6dAJBCKQhrdCIYXuehjaPddtZI1skRDsggLvIiEiqryT5ahLjNQjzrlL5CQp9jwOEQLbpDgeWHaJsKRaZ-XOGQvVWAeZ4Sryu4g6H2ZcYjp0J8gwjI2b44LG8neE_1jNIqjyOW_PcUiV9l0j91iO8F9cNp9VY156oibv959kG=s0-d-e1-ft&h=225" alt="toastedcarsmeme1" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="225" width="300"></a></p>
<p>It's quite possible that a Pyroclastic flow could do that, explosions mixed with Nano Thermite produces a lot of heat.</p>
<p>Did the dust clouds burn everything in their path? No. Why? Because the "hot stuff" was SPREAD OUT in the dust cloud...</p>
<p>Here are a few witnesses of the hot debris cloud:</p>
<p>"When I was running, some hot stuff went down by back, because I didn't have time to put my coat back on, and I had some - well, I guess between first and second degree burns on my back." - Marcel Claes, FDNY Firefighter</p>
<p>"Then the dust cloud hits us. Then it got real hot. It felt like it was going to light up almost." -Thomas Spinard, FDNY Engine 7</p>
<p>"A wave - a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block." - David Handschuh, New York's Daily News</p>
<p>"And then we're engulfed in the smoke, which was horrendous. One thing I remember, it was hot. The smoke was hot and that scared me" - Paramedic Manuel Delgado</p>
<p>"I remember making it into the tunnel and it was this incredible amount of wind, debris, heat...." - Brian Fitzpatrick FDNY Firefighter</p>
<p>"A huge, huge blast of hot wind gusting and smoke and dust and all kinds of debris hit me" - Firefighter Louis Giaconelli</p>
<p>"This super-hot wind blew and it just got dark as night and you couldn't breathe" - Firefighter Todd Heaney</p>
<p>The cars are going to get hit with some of this "hot stuff" as well, but it can't "brush itself off". You can start a car on fire with a cigarette butt!</p>
<p>The cars we're burned by the debris cloud, while most of the people obviously did not let themselves get burned by tiny little ashes/or "hot stuff"<br>-----<br>WTC Tower 2 Debris Crushes Marriott, slow motion<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixNOf3up3HU" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DixNOf3up3HU&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNFCYpy0PnyI8-kYZkZXLLZFpKYoAA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixNOf3up3HU</a></p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/embassysweetshotelcloud.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/embassysweetshotelcloud.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNFfEuB7Af2Tn4cWlAzo2ke4TR3MpA"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEivlZw0nDWEMZRHMY2SRv09z8xkfMnpptxsz7n78mhLnVk02mp9ZtbFDDL4lhgm1JW1Xbpp-gH2Wjn5Nkb4tvQHG103Q6AGu9iUmj4GNW8XVRDGL5j1GlheK6I1TJEnsStUqK5wL29mbaifWsbb8cnV6NA5rdXOEvg9WkxFqjTpG5ICzSUxZRqbCt4ihoHB7r9-pNlWVA=s0-d-e1-ft&h=197" alt="embassysweetshotelcloud" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="197" width="300"></a></p>
<p>In this video you can clearly see the pyroclastic flow cover all of the cars.</p>
<p>The first photo is at the Embassy Suites parking lot. Some of these cars were most likely towed there to make access for emergency vehicles. As seen here:</p>
<p></p>
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/parkinglotembassysuites2/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/parkinglotembassysuites2/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNEOl7q4nlu8y2vFItD2zAZ3cVud8g"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEji9szJxFmZ2FWTlF2_bDgKANqkNymCpKUt5YOOYTnhA3i7ZALok_YvETHu1OmF0P8TfdNI4VQE_4WT-qEWGPWIwWUcFTdAJcxPiMaHi5uxQSgw60II_fXlMu-QKUHaoRH_CDCvTRTFPGqEF0yEZfXFtnQ6MkHrjy0aMntZYRtPjlVTiVlfD-wRNkXHFJmyHAm6zLrU7A=s0-d-e1-ft&h=90" alt="parkinglotembassysuites2" style="border:2px solid rgb(207,207,207);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="90" width="150"></a><hr>
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/olympus-digital-camera-2/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/olympus-digital-camera-2/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNFsHMx1XP9U6a2zEKIpZkQsRUfMtQ"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEhgYgI6g1MxtU3crkQFZxAfoaZEpt6L75z7MgteFDNt2AqnTF6QO6WC2UcILEFsQ5DrP1DGBPDQKKaIg3qXAjj1lQdOAsUfrgoSGZqFLsp4qMJNAH6yPNaXAlKtw6OwJubxkRGgV8zHNpz8D2NO4BiBV9W3G6R3esTEGdk1R3-u-cj01MH7-9JeuTYiFah8ASUBoCsYxQ=s0-d-e1-ft&h=113" alt="OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA" style="border:2px solid rgb(207,207,207);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="113" width="150"></a><hr>
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/parkinglotembassysuites1/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/parkinglotembassysuites1/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNGKJY4a1EHUGTzLwg7uZN6i_nyMYA"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEhpmyF1qDRfZn9GcDpWOpaG5RGpcOdmHu3PIYRPmAgPFYC8huH8kgKTzhP-A32jjRW4EXE4LiMWSRkWZ_padNsHKCNaBVfhfQrF1o2VFdO1YYSuA3w5Je9xjZUBSfGES9W9GFdZAe3sfGv1oWECF7LXlNUIj8bMyI1aQmJecuLm9sDY_Y84iIYrWZdrLEJjD7FOXZMInyQ=s0-d-e1-ft&h=121" alt="parkinglotembassysuites1" style="border:2px solid rgb(207,207,207);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="121" width="150"></a><hr>
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/parking-lot3/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/parking-lot3/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNG1181BgTrOxtoIjgeKKF0twXEaPg"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgoljfGUuvAO3aoiyaecqGIfrQ3rjrB63V68BlYsho9sgcf5S5rjJdW5kDHLX5b8i2YEtBT3BizHQg4IRBia5SLy9iuI1TtXOhD543ZE70FuyZblmhHprizD8qviUvbWmDoZASpWPJ8UPj6a7MOa8McWPcCaLzITQ9_7zs8cZM9iaT5B-Z090f8gKA=s0-d-e1-ft&h=150" alt="parking lot3" style="border:2px solid rgb(207,207,207);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="150" width="113"></a><hr>
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/parking-lot2/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/parking-lot2/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNF3viheflW9ghqyK34IjpQaFzkPfA">
<img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEhP8z4Q1D0knIY-v3lslV1ax0Oa0LiMDi7zQ62FfXiroWUmhNO-I-ey2eNmc14Tzc_3MCpy4MMUtaIVQEDe9DWgJp7Z8iJotX2ZjOM6odwL7Z7mKib2E5B2bKPWCo4MSOnBWUUybQs1OWZdVZgV-OjrPPQbD1TdpIZI3uvzt6OElN5otgpCDG_iBME=s0-d-e1-ft&h=110" alt="parking lot2" style="border:2px solid rgb(207,207,207);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="110" width="150"></a><hr>
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/parkinglotembassysuites6/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/parkinglotembassysuites6/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNHV83Qc1kgNuW_wcYsx1-PmDElwjw"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjrONpZMWLNYZeGX_flslSW5ar5ktjFqvICbyD3-Z-avpNN5dp4KlUq8hxncQp1LjKZn-ZLc9jFib7Kg9fvwYGd7o1npAOa0uymxNJ6Kkf-JdccYSDa-tieHYAQQp8_rxX-koS0fnuy-ppf_dbpuK2fIb5-CcFqsDEjnLY_LveApVWSjRa9wOW7dYRUtBp8CXfanKBy8dE=s0-d-e1-ft&h=113" alt="parkinglotembassysuites6" style="border:2px solid rgb(207,207,207);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="113" width="150"></a><hr>
<br>
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/judwoodytoastedcars2/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/judwoodytoastedcars2/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNFoqr9AtCF5_1nm9DQVk-_MFh33gA"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEih6stoOWWhdWEljiOR_nFTuI-ckhKHUq4if4JgY_LclS15eoZlNd36Gws6iQ1EJYV9b_IRiMxBjGkTx61cnUypAc6lIN90l1mIHOcd57P-M2aIPxOK3T9FhM5QQdseWYin-YdajiW0lrCtun9rKmyryKcY1dmnQizqHuox34voQSZrMNxOqvuGbPEybxPLfIiafA=s0-d-e1-ft&h=112" alt="judwoodytoastedcars2" style="border:2px solid rgb(207,207,207);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="112" width="150"></a><hr>
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/mr52b965bf.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/mr52b965bf.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNHIDoEwH9236Pox8MgJjaknkuqxnw">http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/mr52b965bf.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/kb52b965bd.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/kb52b965bd.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNFoIygiT5UNM-ANQr_U-gwn1wjZZw">http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/kb52b965bd.jpg</a><br>
<a href="http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lf52b965c4.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lf52b965c4.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331065000&usg=AFQjCNEtNPHhkdV20gnQlLMEYfT4z-KPZA">http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lf52b965c4.jpg</a><br>----<br>Judy can't keep her stories straight, first she claims DEW's caused all the rusted cars but then she shows us a picture of cars burning above. So which is it? Did "Space Beams" cause the rust or cause the fires? Here is live footage of it....
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/burntcarsdementricbs.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/burntcarsdementricbs.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNFFgq-VmmZs9HMbyh2HKxHr6yc7DQ"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEhR7Krvm72olPjh8RLET2-K0RQwd0Grxy87DoKWM1zoEMqaqrBDHTF1Tyn0-9v-VRCjs9DxVcPJ_XesBht8Np1uLgmsx5HsrstIuqcPE302FAUz9PFY5S6-ZW4ov2eQWJcPRPG6-28vECJj1N3PO2UDWwBsDEkjiWF-WHSM2sQrlfktyZaVrJM9VFv7_iCgf-f8WA=s0-d-e1-ft&h=109" alt="burntcarsdementricbs" style="border:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="109" width="150"></a> <a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/burntcars.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/burntcars.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNHHFX-cP8OAsZqi5AqAg5zgoBCykg"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEh3eZVHvJtGITQknFCC_R83Ue_ot9rUW__jrCsska-uW38UuichTejcqNOwDN0Qh4tfmzEqMtJKOQhcmDS53TXhUSvBVZ0wmTPXfRonntOsQhxQLK2J-avGNwrMEocoaORXR5tRab7yI-63dIUl1g8nIh_-Tq1AIHKI-UnXapUF18YNdgl9NA=s0-d-e1-ft&h=98" alt="burntcars" style="border:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="98" width="150"></a></p>
<p>911 ~ Vince Dementri CBS 2 (@ 2 minutes)<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fk_bmFe8Zg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3D4Fk_bmFe8Zg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNFOTXmzUBUWenY0Qj5IgR3roxrlZw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fk_bmFe8Zg</a></p>
<p>NIST FOIA: WTC7 Fires Between Approx. <span tabindex="0" class="aBn" data-term="goog_1817434436"><span class="aQJ">3:42pm and 4:05pm</span></span> (Vince DeMentri, WCBS Raw)<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRKCSmnR3ow" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DdRKCSmnR3ow&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNG0_I0i8T353vJjc9Bia29hLw4T6g">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRKCSmnR3ow</a></p>
<p>Dementri does say "this must have been Ground Zero where this blew up". Suggesting that the vehicles may have been towed behind B7. He's standing at West Broadway and Barclay.</p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/toastedcarsinsetpyroclastic.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/toastedcarsinsetpyroclastic.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNEYxJHpHH2uY9TYXJvPoktoCuEuBA"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEg0heGu11d97KjKL65riw5EMeOLmrOf6pUMgUMUV_yZpbz16YRtjhNCmGexBEZgsTIuhoZ2YCfdd6hnagLyxDVxxsdqU9yYE3lj7HGWEJItWKEx6NJEm6MuaD_xWXITnLuJoS8gbcOYLCl0xDQXWmLFqAQ_09o9L8OF_PZV2lrkU904VKpITm9NnzTXa-Grh6mSL9Y6TmVEjjE=s0-d-e1-ft&h=300" alt="toastedcarsinsetpyroclastic" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="300" width="229"></a><br>----</p>
<p><strong style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent">COP CAR #2723</strong></p>
<p>Judy Claims cop car #2723 was damaged like this a mile away from gz.</p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/copcar2723a.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/copcar2723a.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNH5NoaFWMNLeJ6INNMV3NqmWyIUrw"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEi5JfuxUTu9EG_rkkk1N16tDv48vh1AOk2XkCHQ2E2fUbus-bcZuDOh06cKRD2jfgqfCAuRDQ0I2lu1X9S7rOnSgjOTxFfCntNNgTV9B9vDQZiu3WbEUsO-fVz-GjlZqyIW2FlcZSNyGmOL_Pp_ugg-xcNCgmFCAxOhIL4DEKv6l24Ua0OZZ1zG7w=s0-d-e1-ft&h=113" alt="copcar2723a" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="113" width="150"><br></a></p>
<p>Cop car #2723 in two different spots. Proving it was towed!<br><a href="http://www.i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/car2723wtc.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/car2723wtc.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNEeGTdAFe9ilC7pq12u9ZMVrc51-Q">http://www.i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/car2723wtc.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/2723.png" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/2723.png&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNHt53apb4JdfaPFfFxt_KrMsQdLFg">http://www.i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/2723.png</a></p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/copcar2723b.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/copcar2723b.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNGMhj5kOAx_IzavBgSpB_QRGyUCzA"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEh06G5fD-direTQsAUwQm8nu0DxJ0_h-HDhERoFY67mOJlh7yBjxBtJuyTYNnSl8tgJAmUi-YAe5b3Wih42b0-fWfw4_89fBd4gR6zpcbTLLf0sOkFck3V1VQi0e-CYuW2ky59p2o_LBj7RpRuIs1Bfc7LUOwDxr8Vp0-O8oD_yOuVu1vcV6Ze59A=s0-d-e1-ft&h=113" alt="copcar2723b" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="113" width="150"></a></p>
<p>JREF Threads about this: They came in handy here.<br><span style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent"><a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=208961" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t%3D208961&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNGwhibSGxQlVMzrGXYUyq1YFy73Uw">forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=208961</a></span><br><span style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent"><a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189087" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t%3D189087&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNFyBaK8wRook7xDCBNbQzwUKWM_yw">forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189087</a></span></p>
<p>Cars don't park on the side of highways, double parked! Do you see parking lines? This is the shoulder of a road. Not parking spots. The vehicles were TOWED there to make room for emergency vehicles to get to Ground zero!<br><a href="http://www.inlinethumb32.webshots.com/1311/1022378952031921077S600x600Q85.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.inlinethumb32.webshots.com/1311/1022378952031921077S600x600Q85.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNHFTE5dmuvgA6n5kcNQ9XlhLJ06_w">http://www.inlinethumb32.webshots.com/1311/1022378952031921077S600x600Q85.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1026275165001123068S600x600.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1026275165001123068S600x600.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNEf5wQnVaxGVwM9ZJWyqPTWLpkodw">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1026275165001123068S600x600.jpg</a><br>----<br>Here's video of a car being loaded onto a flatbed. @12 seocnds</p>
<p>9/11 Ground Zero Demolition Debris Removal Operations 9/15/2001 ITN<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ot7UCVsUaU" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3D2Ot7UCVsUaU&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNESo3txZhqDvrVC_FY3jj12EpsmOA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ot7UCVsUaU</a><br>----</p>
<p><strong style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent">"What happened to the Firetrucks Engine?"</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/firetruckwtc.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/firetruckwtc.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNHrX5RgcUyko6bQTaOl3P3CPJ5OxQ"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgHW-SBIEnuHPcYpRxYq3_szQyUXd8_mEYE99lSfmC6sOGVe0h0rRG07izDlbomsuS8TxwsMnkernsFEuh6agWky8EYwSbchZ2163axIwtciX0oJxuWe0UQID12uuCO68-Fu6EqIgWhkgzddmC81dWhA-XUt6NfTri5Q6wZmDTTdrdCjvQnCmdC2h4=s0-d-e1-ft&h=111" alt="firetruckwtc" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="111" width="150"></a></p>
<p>If Judy did some research on fire trucks she would know that the engine is not under the driver seat but under the middle cab. So, it's not missing. It's right here.<br><a href="http://www.westshorefire.com/images/equipment_repair/firetrucks_up600.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.westshorefire.com/images/equipment_repair/firetrucks_up600.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNG3cPEQ1c8hGLa7BzhHUEaG-Loumg">http://www.westshorefire.com/images/equipment_repair/firetrucks_up600.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/imgs/media.images/11664/art2026381.widea.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/imgs/media.images/11664/art2026381.widea.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNGd-jnCQWudoZLFKLTNBsaTZYmBOg">http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/imgs/media.images/11664/art2026381.widea.jpg</a><br>----</p>
<p>Here are more pics of "toasted" cars in the basement of the WTC. How did "Space Beams" damage these cars but not the roof or steel columns around it? Because it's not space beams. It looks more like oxidation and high temperature corrosion to me. Perfectly normal for a car fire. Judy Wood, how did your weapon "dustify" the thick steel inside the towers but only managed to "Toast" the cars in the basement and the streets?</p>
<p></p>
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/carstoastedbasementwtc/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/carstoastedbasementwtc/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNFWfVPdHwuJmmRqFCHeggR2DXvWJQ"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgGEBlMgTe2JzYyMfk4ZkmLKk8Hm5JzeZXyT-58fA7e_PnMj7ntTXedZCf3TPQ5uM3nHU4XBHe4MeT2k5G9m9q19gUPFhwvkf2rNrywvBai78UmEorEO-C9VfSGNcvXV63985CW-Xqbhyphenhyphenx0eF1QLG-qWQ3dHsnhknvf0ZfdgpvRmOPSkmpuZq8o4zr4QLISu-tYfFw7=s0-d-e1-ft&h=113" alt="carstoastedbasementwtc" style="border:2px solid rgb(207,207,207);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="113" width="150"></a><hr>
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/carstoastedbasementwtc2/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/carstoastedbasementwtc2/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNEK34xCYCyduZv3utRZPJUZaOW74g"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEihg8ADr4i47_O7iaUHQHbsR52c9I4bb49o2Cstgmd-DjUJfLMIbLpelxW3nruUwXAV7GhU9_iNhe5vTk58Q7u8h1KRz8g8f6Grk7kUziMLiTrqgHFwBP8VIRFK8Zd2g5jzKJg59TxKn-ksrMJL3k9Phr5hraB1gvud24MICzn4B6LUd8C19YNcy3w8P_z3anz_2OUR1g=s0-d-e1-ft&h=113" alt="carstoastedbasementwtc2" style="border:2px solid rgb(207,207,207);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="113" width="150"></a><hr>
<br style="clear:both">
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/carstoastedbasementwtc3/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/carstoastedbasementwtc3/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNECnOU-zVhP2U2nCp2kaZBQvhcAoA"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgksedEenIu1pnfn34JQHdQKbgggtEq7vzfQMh9e13f4P2_1l0hH1wAI30hRrTfFQo-kPSj9jPdsUjxGQbdYNABUCkNNYRg1XSbEzh-lpxWG6LMudOYLRYMw0__j4AZAEdTthBPZjxM3XWjcgA2gq9_ZQt9pc6abIoinuCgifuvSMzb3Veny7l-mVr3L3qokUGLwqgjgA=s0-d-e1-ft&h=113" alt="carstoastedbasementwtc3" style="border:2px solid rgb(207,207,207);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="113" width="150"></a><hr>
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/carstoastedbasementwtc4/" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/carstoastedbasementwtc4/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNG4AIAohSFQEfkvyaEjcVQier2fWw"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEj0T4mRI9UjM-KpjU_QZph4TbWXI_w25FHlpO4sBkiIE4-Jo8QGHeswkVPDxC9OQVf7pFkEuVILbcmimV4sFTluM443OhTOi9aKaOc6lBmfKhAMpATMGXfZDdeXOJr4cnE71ib77iYTIyiyuCfWnlhR7hV-3W7vM8izX7x1mP-ibwYWX_SF1egKNrmNoTK2-bVn8USSSg=s0-d-e1-ft&h=113" alt="carstoastedbasementwtc4" style="border:2px solid rgb(207,207,207);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="113" width="150"></a><hr>
<br style="clear:both">
<br><a href="http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%201" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%25201&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNE5RFb_EMidG5FWELtyIQ8yAx9xcw">http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%201</a><br><a href="http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%202" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%25202&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNFF9aBYdWJt_-x8eHw1I0PjrwUFFw">http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%202</a><br><a href="http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%205" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%25205&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNHT4p5rmubyu7u8Xd-r2TLEt096Wg">http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%205</a><br><a href="http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%206" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%25206&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNGfbYZEKJ-PfvRY-GFMHY8Uaf2C4g">http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%206</a><br><a href="http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%207" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%25207&source=gmail&ust=1465922331066000&usg=AFQjCNFVc6QAskkiJthbZ3iatEP0lFoYyA">http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%207</a><br>----
<p></p>
<p><strong style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent">"Paper doesn't burn"</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/paperfire.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/paperfire.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNH-4htVn0e9IGjOkzubqD6YneMrwg"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEi_GTAHG8aIHinFJzTeb_m4a1CqzWUXRLtyanRtW7fIjn1fLBOpBVfvzBI3Ar4OmCMki96rtvW1YkoI4yvZeqwn72F4gHkTpa2KeCWc7uUdNmVRDda1wZ9FjoSbS1HdtSKZtVgy1xE6VtCgB_LEU9djaNzdRc_8M11Guh64Co2JQy0T19KCHEc=s0-d-e1-ft&h=300" alt="paperfire" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="300" width="200"></a></p>
<p>As for the paper, Heat rises! The paper was also covered in dust, acting as a fire retardant. With the door handles, they are made of plastic which burns very easily. Many car parts are also made out of aluminum which has a much lower melting point than steel. In regards to the photo, the paper is not in the fire. The flame actually has to make contact with the paper.</p>
<p>9/11/2001: Many cars burned but papers not (@ 20 seconds)<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF97uHGJM_Q" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DuF97uHGJM_Q&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNFjxeFdh-VRJFP3W7bv_t0NYYR5BQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF97uHGJM_Q</a><br>----</p>
<p><strong style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent">EXAMPLES OF CAR FIRES</strong></p>
<p>How about these cars, did "Space Beams" cause all these cars to burn and rust?<br><a href="http://www.newprophecy.net/Burned_cars_seen_near_plume_of_black_smoke_in_Misrata.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.newprophecy.net/Burned_cars_seen_near_plume_of_black_smoke_in_Misrata.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNHuTNJlau65845H4RH5khbPyIKuHQ">http://www.newprophecy.net/Burned_cars_seen_near_plume_of_black_smoke_in_Misrata.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVNxpTk6XQ&amp" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DEoVNxpTk6XQ%26amp&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNFAyGV5CxP_KQcaOD0OJWD1as2e6Q">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVNxpTk6XQ&amp</a>;<br><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200810/r307732_1347542.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200810/r307732_1347542.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNFGPFbB1JhN1KQpEd0eWUNaPDrisA">http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200810/r307732_1347542.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.fbcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1623785_10202544010955298_206048485_n.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.fbcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1623785_10202544010955298_206048485_n.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNH1ZFRKvfQ8zEhsP0BNMugmZyQK3g">http://www.fbcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1623785_10202544010955298_206048485_n.jpg</a></p>
<p>Video of Burning and Burnt Cars from 9/11 and following days.<br><a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37e_1190735905" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i%3D37e_1190735905&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNEJnCVgxnPz1g0Hn_3efOIU7Ka4wg">http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37e_1190735905</a></p>
<p>Burnt/Rusted cars (Google Search)<br><a href="http://www.google.ca/search?q=burnt+cars&client=safari&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SqIGU7SkIMO7oQSLzIKQAg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAA&biw=320&bih=372" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.google.ca/search?q%3Dburnt%2Bcars%26client%3Dsafari%26hl%3Den%26source%3Dlnms%26tbm%3Disch%26sa%3DX%26ei%3DSqIGU7SkIMO7oQSLzIKQAg%26ved%3D0CAgQ_AUoAA%26biw%3D320%26bih%3D372&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNEwUIzMvC5Kgkc1cyQnHy9JmlJxLg">http://www.google.ca/search?q=burnt+cars&client=safari&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SqIGU7SkIMO7oQSLzIKQAg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAA&biw=320&bih=372</a></p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/rustedcars5.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/rustedcars5.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNFSHLS-6w3Ab3XGSXaaEhFQMhaQOA"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEhM8Tcs5V2z8Lq2XxRjLwRngOJ52jFr6umD-Ipp_YFwIapY4kiWda822MVHwkCAcaEs078_skEFolO8WhiRBfgkQFy4fLJlT9k-EnBuHjhSUw_i5QqYFb1PpNJumoZIBI3dZuqvCnoXo7Q6pWCoc1NpSBHVW17XdisfxV4X2s4cKbdZ1lbf1-7R0Q=s0-d-e1-ft&h=280" alt="rustedcars5" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="280" width="300"></a><br>----<br><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/misratatoastedcars.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/misratatoastedcars.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNHbn1OlazuyrN5A5l_evybkyel81Q"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEi-1hyNeuQRao3HjzbKNL1dwPMXkKj4UjRrxXPoehtFr93tYcN2j8g_sPrvZZaCsW5Ht2IF2J6sMk0EOLqScFGtGExofqzVFBS0hu8ozv8n3WweT7lNsmi9qG2G8bUTo217oupG20_JQjovNGbIMvbk7q-dEGqDrGtduOrvp0mmyBVijxBWUzvG3ueLR8vv8FI=s0-d-e1-ft&h=169" alt="misratatoastedcars" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="169" width="300"></a></p>
<p>"Burnt out: Wrecked cars are seen next to a plume of black smoke in the port of Misrata yesterday"</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381068/Hundreds-dead-bodies-streets-city-reduced-rubble-Full-horror-Misrata-siege-finally-emerges.html" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381068/Hundreds-dead-bodies-streets-city-reduced-rubble-Full-horror-Misrata-siege-finally-emerges.html&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNGNWl9IsIF3DMWzA3V3iNAwTdnCsg">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381068/Hundreds-dead-bodies-streets-city-reduced-rubble-Full-horror-Misrata-siege-finally-emerges.html</a><br>----<br>High-rise tower catches fire in Emirati city of Sharjah<br><a href="http://www.am590theanswer.com/news/articles/high-rise-tower-catches-fire-in-emirati-city-of-sharjah" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.am590theanswer.com/news/articles/high-rise-tower-catches-fire-in-emirati-city-of-sharjah&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNHMdSQES_szUn3i80yb5bqTnCtZgA">http://www.am590theanswer.com/news/articles/high-rise-tower-catches-fire-in-emirati-city-of-sharjah</a></p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/toastedcarsfirechina.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/toastedcarsfirechina.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNHhYsslfwVthr_bYkz3QmJmtZfQhg"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEhU4uvl0eUuW0B6uh91Ap6zBQFejoiZEdggyGJX0Vsr8kveM7SqCHN4iIy0Za9XB8q_iRhl3G3u9qaeg55RqwWQtV-TdsaHJOvKUYr56ZXCQG-GTW-f_l7SvFSi4aWEblEeo_-Mm8K8dt8AyODn0MHWnSGFi36fPo0GRrHt5gVoeY0vTEhwiFqDtls61iGQoB20=s0-d-e1-ft&h=91" alt="toastedcarsfirechina" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="91" width="150"></a><br>-----<br>Tianjin explosions: dozens feared dead in blasts at Chinese port<br><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/13/china-explosions-dozens-feared-dead-blasts-port-tianjin" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/13/china-explosions-dozens-feared-dead-blasts-port-tianjin&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNEyTkmtIePOEg0PUCmGAwcB0bWAAw">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/13/china-explosions-dozens-feared-dead-blasts-port-tianjin</a></p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/toastedcarschinablast.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/toastedcarschinablast.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNHOqjRFmZzHbFrs6SraZ18pCgB5Hg"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjNlPtvsA9sc40hPXyysGn7BJcbIIxoR8z1d2q46n6E2dn2TZ7osmyFSnf1faEbc1lkC99Sbm0-ojLtb7Sv7IpTpqoHCvMU4uAGHZk0tfSsr3s0fo9DLHA4bx9sFpe7_Yzy6obYbD5IOOrSowdJql5Ag3pw5sRv4kx_XUHYV4tDwn2AnW6jGuInhy0tHSPuk_IKjQ=s0-d-e1-ft&h=84" alt="toastedcarschinablast" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="84" width="150"></a><br>-----<br>Lockheed Martin's laser can stop a truck from over a mile away<br><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/04/lockheed-martin-laser-athena-test/" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/04/lockheed-martin-laser-athena-test/&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNEVvOkdYh6SXXR_zV_qqJkprufShw">http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/04/lockheed-martin-laser-athena-test/</a></p>
<p>"Lasers have staggering range, can attack land or air-based targets and are dirt-cheap to fire, making them ideal for a military with one eye on the budget. Now, Lockheed Martin has worked out that the technology could also be used for stopping a car without resorting to lethal force. The company has been testing out a new fiber-optic laser, called ATHENA, which was able to burn through the engine manifold of a truck that was over a mile away."</p>
<p>This is what a real D.E.W does to a vehicle.</p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/dewcarexample.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/dewcarexample.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922331067000&usg=AFQjCNHZLxS650h7kaZw03Ml2u1URkRLbQ"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjavDZsmyRzFWJMJtoboJDuLf9kLD9FULsoHuRykAhqmC7VCzvFbhiP8pDgUZ4fuy2n41i-cF00suxoS-rHsv_uy6NR3W6Qm8oF2UgxBV9rW2Z2l_I_2RLH-hLdnvICvmzUFD9-2gjWeaiP50ISxoXwgXkfNZZ7QSIqLtFXKo8eOpdtUsPOBVx7sdeY=s0-d-e1-ft&h=172" alt="dewcarexample" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="172" width="300"></a><br>-------</p>
<p><strong style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent">CONCLUSION:</strong></p>
<p>The "toasted cars" were damaged by falling debris from the towers collapse and were towed to this spot to make way for emergency/rescue vehicles. As for the rust, I gave many examples of car fires above, all which show rust. Several cars were on fire even before the towers collapsed. There is nothing scientific about her theories. Judy Wood is disinformation and her "empirical evidence" is base upon speculation and assumptions which have been refuted time and time again.</p>
</div><!-- section 47 -->
<a name="x48"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x48" class="tiny">x48</a>
Daniel Wilks & the committee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_48');">Moving goal posts into Dr. Wood</a></p>
<p>2016-06-02</p>
<div id="sect_48" style="display: none;">
<br>from: Daniel Wilks <phantasypublishing@gmail.com>
<br>to: "Maxwell C. Bridges" <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>date: Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:46 PM
<p><b>DISINFO: The WTC Spire "Dustified"</b></p1>
<a href="https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-the-wtc-spire-dustified/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to DISINFO: The WTC Spire "Dustified"" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-the-wtc-spire-dustified/&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNFSAv6CibQDV8zTTybo-vU2IbWZgg"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEguRwkDhVJaRS7t1kfe88zsJAOdWJbG64WmpwFtrjGBqKhZe7o4GH0gIa47eWuHrPd5rDSXVWT4o28Rp031gR-Iz6n41Pnw6MsEqClrkcFjJbXAsjv2vI_HU9opXae8MlvxkiccJPeijB1OcR4aEVPJngdDJLm-MBduX4BFno-nWlk=s0-d-e1-ft" alt="DISINFO: The WTC Spire "Dustified"" title="DISINFO: The WTC Spire "Dustified"" style="border:5px solid rgb(242,242,242);margin:0px 10px 0px 0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent" height="57" width="150"></a><hr>
<p><strong style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent">DISINFO: The WTC Spire "Dustified"</strong></p>
<p>Here is a picture that Judy Wood likes to use as proof that DEW's were used to bring down the Towers. She claims that this spire turns to dust. Here is her poor quality videos.<br>"Dustified"<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyM9y2xo4RQ" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DkyM9y2xo4RQ&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNFBxSkIESe7lyNQa5YIBbQZ7bkyJg">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyM9y2xo4RQ</a><br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3Ddzm2wfiXdW4&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNH_9qj7i92dok9QjsP8GXu11BEzSQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4</a></p>
<p>"The Steel turned to dust" - Judy Wood</p>
<p>"I'm not saying there is absolutely no debris, because someone may have had some, like, pennies on their windowsill that fell out. They might be falling down. But it's not a significant volume of material." - Judy Wood</p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dustified.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dustified.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNFa3wpafxxnszcnauuT1GV8OgoXLA"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEijE6-xGRgl5haWfAWV5FQVcHZ-5DtK1mvg7V8Wj5fJa_Jq2meposuwUcOKirfVQ_WmYidVRpqRLafEOHBltxHOZpcO_8TghGLLWb7zh4ImMrhQPjqAhB6mwNt1AnGVTTvIzpPGOmmsW7bft86Bbnph1WZkb_ZVA6hmmmpTKrmhn93vjOcIq1o=s0-d-e1-ft&h=229" alt="dustified" style="border:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="229" width="604"></a><br>------</p>
<p><strong style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent">REBUTTAL</strong></p>
<p>First of all, Judy Wood does not source these 5 frames that she uses. The first 3 frames shows it falling and then the last 2 frames are not in sync. They are several seconds later. Why does Judy Wood not source where she got the video footage from?</p>
<p>Now let's watch from a better angle and quality. Video of the Spire that Judy Wood does not want to show you.</p>
<p>WTC1 Spires Dropped-not vaporized NIST FOIA: WTC1 Collapse (WNBC Dub10 54)<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um64B1NZXes&amp" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DUm64B1NZXes%26amp&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNFfQRT41rjLW-UzIW96LZIDIDmrsA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um64B1NZXes&amp</a>; (<span tabindex="0" class="aBn" data-term="goog_1817434437"><span class="aQJ">1:00</span></span>)<br>-----<br>@<span tabindex="0" class="aBn" data-term="goog_1817434438"><span class="aQJ">1:00</span></span><br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um64B1NZXes" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DUm64B1NZXes&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNGAe5Rg7-uERfwUcLu9msnzkAWfkQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um64B1NZXes</a><br><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dustifiednot3.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dustifiednot3.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNHo9mZ8lJlFsD6Xis99KpGB_VEXBw"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEihbN_9-gNJMcO3t-RJzGfK-QnnDDPUHYfbyez47fKhU1pOIN5NGINNzRcSsDGk0p17SkVNZiDCcw8YBHaNz4cm7Q_pNXCvklGSTdwUKXTFRfVRz4LfVSLmh0dVMXowrtcdODD2wBZgQoazCpcS2-RAmA7E0r494Fb7JWXYDjJWe23tOamH4p4Rra8=s0-d-e1-ft&h=56" alt="dustifiednot3" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="56" width="300"></a><br>-----<br>@45 Seconds<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K33s99I2dcU" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DK33s99I2dcU&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNHpJ6ZCTzSDVbbIgCRJmmB7JY08KQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K33s99I2dcU</a><br><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/spirefallframes.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/spirefallframes.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNFBmsKL4-uNvM5KuZ2UVkbmu4KCTA"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEj9C-Mpq6rmNaT6bowypcndvPi5sbE9K2cnvIBa3JDK7-OC11HsTUM0g_DUzaF4_vc3UERPUlEELLfgE9j-9fW8dDahH6u_Air8l-HkBezwbymrVt43xH5bdL9qM8HrBLwh2uCw_2sSdoqOBgnYU_oMZzHwFPLW46JgNhoux8LWe430i97Ef8DEovi1Mg=s0-d-e1-ft&h=84" alt="spirefallframes" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="84" width="300"></a><br>----<br>@<span tabindex="0" class="aBn" data-term="goog_1817434439"><span class="aQJ">2:14</span></span><br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HbD_Q6kmh8" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3D3HbD_Q6kmh8&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNEYaE7iUQKdyg1bjcLKoRkvrJfCXA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HbD_Q6kmh8</a>
<br><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dustified-not.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dustified-not.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNGbJIDnlIEtZ4oyILa5lwDaoQUESg"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEgx8v9Bh1caqeLrBWX_J0IqgZFk-a8o2y7B-Ti1IRV1QN3mbFJsrWKVLuNdIsGCGrzdffnUH9PAnugbQoWXle8I1bMDbtiXz1coMibDFKhyphenhyphen4JWB3sXJ5J1dyswbbtJ1O3DNEG4I8c6gU4XBwmZ4j8aVVFmvE7JkmEnFsF6K39k-fGGlBHBOsrhLPMvU=s0-d-e1-ft&h=182" alt="dustified not" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="182" width="300"></a><br>-----<br>North Tower Spire Close Up<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wozwfj2WM0" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3D8wozwfj2WM0&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNFep2YDkyRZth8C0xcKTzT0pRmOcg">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wozwfj2WM0</a><br>-----<br>Photo of Spire before it fell.</p>
<p><a href="https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/spireimage.jpg" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/spireimage.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNEU_el1SWJAJqT8Oudl_brbbIAN6A"><img class="CToWUd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjahcavkcZ32DvG4XOvVVIGxGg-plquQBdb3ZIYRudgfLBToZR-RGZGgBY7tmYGKADaL36mRvIsH0yk3wJuV6lyFYuMgV0un48FuGAIWgKHF-YJgTRCSGe45hJin15P_wflWv6Z0oxFWJQf_45OU3oKBUCUWpZP0yTipQq-HXzRQGLnOoquforU=s0-d-e1-ft&h=123" alt="spireimage" style="border:none;margin:0px auto;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;display:block;text-align:center;max-width:98%;width:auto;min-height:auto;background:transparent" height="123" width="150"></a><br>------<br>WHAT STEEL TURNED TO DUST? I SEE MORE THAN JUST PENNIES.<br><a href="http://www.dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployments/NYC-WTC2001/images/LER049.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployments/NYC-WTC2001/images/LER049.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNHch9ehfqLya9mjhUuz85l7j7eltg">http://www.dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployments/NYC-WTC2001/images/LER049.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNGWZQy3HmHQfHa6yge43RbtNN1Hzw">http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.cavegrad.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a5a3096a970c0120a5bacf28970c-800wi" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.cavegrad.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a5a3096a970c0120a5bacf28970c-800wi&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNEsNBrHQufaJclkc8imN7Qv98ZoaQ">http://www.cavegrad.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a5a3096a970c0120a5bacf28970c-800wi</a><br><a href="http://www.ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2007/04/29/september_11_ground_zero.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2007/04/29/september_11_ground_zero.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNE0wEgdBKr880DYNy9PIs2us-Nhyw">http://www.ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2007/04/29/september_11_ground_zero.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.static.howstuffworks.com/gif/wtc-6.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.static.howstuffworks.com/gif/wtc-6.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922329516000&usg=AFQjCNGcDVWUkHWhwnaFwC0rll6PEbVPiw">http://www.static.howstuffworks.com/gif/wtc-6.jpg</a><br><a href="http://www.stopviolence.com/images/9-11/groundzero-cut.jpg" rel="nofollow" style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,113,187);outline:none;background:transparent" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.stopviolence.com/images/9-11/groundzero-cut.jpg&source=gmail&ust=1465922329517000&usg=AFQjCNFId0Ujbhdi6FZ7aiHZtvFZerr3Pg">http://www.stopviolence.com/images/9-11/groundzero-cut.jpg</a><br>------<br>How did DEW's manage to only "toast" the cars but "dustified" the towers?</p>
<p>Judy Wood is full of it. Her job is to have people looking at pointless arguments while obfuscating the hard evidence of Controlled demolition and Nano thermite found in the dust. She is a plant in this movement.<br>------</p>
<p><strong style="border:0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent">CONCLUSION: DISINFO</strong></p>
<p>It's clear to see that this Spire did not turn to "dust", it simply fell. I can agree that the concrete was pulverized into dust but the 1.6 Million tons of steel and debris that was recovered was spread out over a 600' radius.</p>
</div><!-- section 48 -->
<a name="x49"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x49" class="tiny">x49</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_49');">acknowledge receipt of your emails</a></p>
<p>2016-06-08</p>
<div id="sect_49" style="display: none;">
<p>from: Maxwell C. Bridges <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>to: Daniel Wilks <phantasypublishing@gmail.com>
<br>date: Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:32 PM
<br>subject: Re: 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Wilks,
<br>
<br>I was out of town and off the grid over a long weekend, so only recently saw the many messages from your committee from June 2.
<br>
<br>I may (or may not) get around to composing replies to the committee. I don't find you very sincere (see below).
<br>
<br>I appreciate the effort to compose your work off-line in Word, but owing to the perceived insincerity, the only certain thing is that I will not open Word or Excel attachments from you. If you want me to read it, save it as a PDF and resend. (Or publish it to a blog.)
<br>
<br>In scanning the many messages, the first noted instance of insincerity was in your malframing of images of vehicles along West Broadway and the car park. In my scan, I do not recall seeing you address the vehicles along West Broadway and the timing of image being before WTC-7 came down. Further, you conflate images of the car park from 9/17 with those taken on 9/11 before WTC-7 came down and even while the dust from freshly destroyed WTC-1 was still billowing about that documented vehicle fires. Ends up being a despicable, lying trick on your part.
<br>
<br>Similarly, whereas the 2345(?) police car was towed to the bridge after destruction, it does not negate the facts (1) that images of the same car on fire but in a different location exist and (2) that the vehicle fire defies explanation by those who champion "gravity-driven pile-drivers."
<br>
<br>Maybe this weekend or next week, I'll consider drafting a detailed response. Don't hold your breath or expect anything before then.
<br>
<br>Have a good week.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 49 -->
<a name="x50"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x50" class="tiny">x50</a>
Daniel Wilks : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">Diving deeper into the woods</a></p>
<p>2016-06-09</p>
<div id="sect_50" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br>from: Daniel Wilks <phantasypublishing@gmail.com>
<br>to: "Maxwell C. Bridges" <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>date: Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:31 PM
<br>subject: Re: 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation
</p>
<p>Dear El Senior (Maxwell) </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dear Mr. Wilks,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I was out of town and off the grid over a long weekend, so only recently saw the many messages from your committee from June 2.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I may (or may not) get around to composing replies to the committee. I don't find you very sincere (see below). </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I appreciate the effort to compose your work off-line in Word, but owing to the perceived insincerity, the only certain thing is that I will not open Word or Excel attachments from you. If you want me to read it, save it as a PDF and resend. (Or publish it to a blog.)</p>
<p>(Already have and this is the full exposure of your willingness to lie in order to fabricate your new fiction regarding the denial of reality called delusion and decent in to such) </p>
<p> </p>
<p>In scanning the many messages, the first noted instance of insincerity was in your malframing of images of vehicles along West Broadway and the car park. </p>
<p>(Yes it showed the photos were taken after the collapse of wtc 7 and therefore all of your following commentary is your opinion not based on any facts.)</p>
<p> Further, you conflate images of the car park from 9/17 with those taken on 9/11 before WTC-7 came down and even while the dust from freshly destroyed WTC-1 was still billowing about that documented vehicle fires. Ends up being a despicable, lying trick on your part.</p>
<p>(further the photos you did not scan and instead grabbed from Dr Judy wood's fraud site which means you are just repeating fiction. Also, since you have no time date or location all of your assumptions are incorrect. How about the photos were on 91201 and 91701 so you have nothing once again you are defeated by simple google search and going to AP archives. So that one fact and the fact that you cannot prove any of the radiological signatures were present on 91101 . Also paint chips are not thermite so when you lie about thermite the time photos were taken of vehicles and ignore the real cause of damage.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Similarly, whereas the 2345(?) police car was towed to the bridge after destruction, it does not negate the facts (1) that images of the same car on fire but in a different location exist and (2) that the vehicle fire defies explanation by those who champion " gravity-driven pile-drivers."</p>
<p>(you are funny as you show photos that Dr woods lied about and claim you don't back her delusions, yet, speak about postal trucks and police cars removed from their location where they were damaged.) </p>
<p>Maybe this weekend or next week, I'll consider drafting a detailed response. Don't hold your breath or expect anything before then.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Have a good week.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(I am having a great week and have been at the CMA awards and fest in Nashville. You have fun creating your work of fiction as that is what you create as you have failed to prove any of your opinionated baseless claims. The fact is your lack of knowledge in regards to the clearing of roads and movement of two separate NYPD police cars one shown on 91101 and another on 91201 both have different numbers so different units and different cars. Good strawman arguments but still just fiction because facts eliminate your fake victim status. The lie here is the one you are selling. <i>"O, what a tangled web you weave when you practice to deceive"</i> </p>
<p>You have a great promising career in writing fiction about 91101 but nothing you have exchanged was factual. You omit the impact of the debris from the WTC towers and the collapse debris impact upon WTC 7 and have no idea of what caused wtc 7 to collapse. You are not a building engineer and you never have spoken to the WTC 7 Building Engineer I have and can pm him anytime or e mail him. That is how I know you misrepresent facts and replace them with delusions that never occurred on 91101.</p>
<p> The reality of 91101 is that you choose to create fiction to deny the facts and good at it biding your target audience is not educated. The argument against nukes being used at WTC on 9/11 is easy and simple, because there is simply zero evidence. Those making the argument for nukes, and DEW are cranks and charlatans.)
</div><!-- section 50 -->
<a name="x51"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x51" class="tiny">x51</a>
Daniel Wilks : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_51');">can't stop lying</a></p>
<p>2016-06-09</p>
<div id="sect_51" style="display: none;">
<p><br>from: Daniel Wilks <phantasypublishing@gmail.com>
<br>to: "Maxwell C. Bridges" <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>date: Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:44 PM
<br>subject: Re: 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation
<br>
<br><b>Maxwell Bridges can't stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely. Understand he is just another fictional writer he has no facts to back his delusions.</b>
<br>
<br>from: Daniel Wilks <phantasypublishing@gmail.com>
<br>to: "Maxwell C. Bridges" <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us>
<br>date: Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:50 PM
<br>subject: 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation
<br>
<br>{mcb: empty email except included originals of previous emails in chain. Might have had some payload, like a file "max1.docx", which I didn't open.}
<br>{mcb: Extracted from Max1.docx open in Word's safe mode. This version does not contain my original comments; they were removed to allow proper highlighting of these new comments brought to the discussion.}
<br>
<br>+++
<br>{Max you are a bad liar that has no degree of knowledge on how fission/fusion devices work nobody is referring to your fiction as DOD and actual reports on the physical use of FGNW are more accurate as they are written by Nuclear physics that understand that since you failed to prove any neutron activation of steel it just comes down to the fact is it is a fantasy and logical fail to come up with excuses and fantasy instead of physical facts.
<br>
<br>Thanks for your opinion and it is comedy as you are oblivious to any real physical facts about the emergency markings in the WTC towers. It is your lack of research and knowledge of the WTC towers is now glaringly evident. Mr. Wilks is correct in what he stated as and is backed up by the following facts that you intentionally try to distract from again by mentioning the 767 aircraft which you really know about as much as you do the WTC towers.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>{it is time for you to produce valid evidence of radiation sickness due to exposure to the steel from wtc towers. Here is the problem they made a warship out of it and not a single crewmate has had radiation sickness from the WTC steel. Yes I have proof no fusion or fission of any sort took place and it has been presented to you over an d over again. "
<br>
<br>+++
<br>{ yes and your failure to properly quote Wilks shows you refabricating your claim this means again yes you do have to prove the steel was radioactive and had
<br>+++
<br>{Sorry to say the fact that sweater was used is physical fact and it produces chemical reations with hot steel that do create hydrogen sulfide gas also since you have no clue about chemistry or Nuclear physics or weaponization
<br>+++
<br>{really from photos of holding lots that the cars were towed to and they were taken on 91701 not on 91101 do again fail on your assumed cause as this is the same parking lot fires that were clearly being put out by fire personnel so just give this fantasy a rest because it did not happen on 91101
<br>The answer to this is that Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices are still on the drawing table as of late date of July 2014. They are on the "military wish list", they are being "outlawed in concept" by anti-nuclear watchdog organizations. But there is no proof of the existence of any such operative 4th gen nukes. So there were none in production in 2001 or previous and this would place your whole assumption and Dr judy wood's under fraudulent research therefor dismissed as very strong delusions without any physical proof to back them .
<br>+++
<br>{you are pathetic using the word Hypnotism is just proving you are ignorant. No you case failed when you could not verify the effects of a Fission/Fusion device on WTC steel which because there were no cases of radiation sickness you whole basis is gone.}
<br>+++
<br>{Duh you used the same lame DEW proof as a holding lot from September 17 2001 and failed to realize that it was not from 91101. Wilks never has been a liar you and Dr. woods show a photo of a storage yard on September 17 2001 as DEW proof and falsely claim it was taken on 91101 Wilks exposed this three years ago and you still persist with a lie. To support a delusional assumption of any Nuclear device being used because no physical evidence existed on 91101 or ever was there.}
<br>+++
<br>{we are supposed to take this from an person that failed to do an image search and found out that the photo was misrepresented from dr Judy woods whom you don't back her claims according to your own statements yet quite her debunked assumptions because these photos prove the road was cleared by
<br>(All proved to be storage for cars removed from WTC complex underground garages and ascent streets. Sorry facts you omit}
<br>{http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread853633/pg13}
<br>+++
<br>{Maxwell C. Bridges you are a con man that is what you are doing a fabricated conspiracy hussel with no proof to anything you asserting. You were shut down three years ago and again now because you have no proof of the fictional Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices they did not exist at the time of the incident so you have nothing not even a radiological signature as Wilks has pointed out."
<br>+++
<br>{Note image Google image search proves her pictures are already copyrighted previously to her false claims of copyright and she does not hold the registration numbers to the copyright and patent office to those photos. They bear the time and date state September 17.2001 so these are not proof of DEW but a willing ness to deceive people through a delusion that did not occur as a cause. You have logically failed to produce any proof of DEW or Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices that were not present on or before 91101 nor was any form of controlled demolition.}
<br>
<br>{So you quote from a fraudulent researcher's site that is like you a scam artist making assumptions and being a talking head for fantasy because no physical evidence backs either assumptions so it is you whom speaks out of his ass in the end.}
<br>+++
<br>{So you quote from a fraudulent researcher's site that is like you a scam artist making assumptions and being a talking head for fantasy because no physical evidence backs either assumptions so it is you whom speaks out of his ass in the end.}
<br>+++
<br>{http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread853633/pg13}
<br>
<br>The origin of the parking lot fire appears to be from the burnt out shack pointed out by the orange arrow.
<br>
<br>The remnants of the shack can also be seen in this photo.
<br>
<br>And you can see it's still ablaze in this photo but most of the car fires have been put out.
<br>
<br>The shack most likely housed a gas vent which had underground pipe damage during the collapse. The fire started there and chain reacted through the cars.
<br>There were reports of a gas explosion, this is most likely the source of those reports. It's the only evidence of one happening.
<br>
<br>So why would the firemen put out the car fires and leave the shack to burn ? It's a really really bad idea to put out a gas fire. It's a much better idea to let it burn until someone turns off the gas.
<br>
<br>You say you have 20 20 vision... Why don't you use it ?
<br>+++
<br>{we have already proved I is you whom is talking out of his ass when FGNW are theoretical and none have been created or produced and the just turned up in 2013 so they were not present on 91101 simply put they were not used and you lack any physical proof they were used so just stop the delusion.}
<br>+++
<br>{ I would not bother because it would prove you to be delusional El senior aka: yes it will prove that you know nothing about what you type and are trying to place nukes at WTC towers or at the WTC center sit for which no proof even the dust results prove no isotopes or radioactive steel.
<br>http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
<br>This is the URL Max Bridges posted on T&S ... it is the exact article by Andre Gsponer that I quoted from in my rebuttal above, which notes that this dialog pertaining to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons is all framed in the future-tense. In other words the whole thing is based on conjecture; what might be developed within the next 20 years or so.
<br>Bridges should have noted such himself - but he will never admit that his entire gambit is based on conjecture spun to Woowooland by disingenuous rhetoric.
<br>But it is a good article on nuclear physics, so anyone wishing to discover how totally full of shit Bridges is, would do well to read it. Debating whether nukes were used at WTC on 9/11 is like debating whether Martians actually attacked Earth during Orson Welles' broadcast of War Of The Worlds in 1938. }
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 51 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part2 -->
<a name="x52"></a><hr>
<h2 style="text-align: left;"><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part3');">Part 3: Attack Blogs and Cyberbullying</a></h2>
<div id="sect_part3" style="display: none;">
<p>{ mcb: <br>
<br>
The initial entries to this section were originally made as comments <i><b>~under~</b></i> this article. Some time later, the author decided to remove them (although this left a placeholder.) The comments were public and had been saved, so could easily be re-created. Later, more comments were submitted by the same author to be approved by MCB; <b>and they are approved,</b> but with a slightly different publication path and time schedule. </p>
<p>In effect, Part 3 pulled published and unpublished comments from the comment section <i><b>~below~</b></i> this article <i><b>~into~</b></i> this article (along with some emails), and then resets the comments section to a clean slate.</p>
<p>//}</p>
<a name="x53"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x53" class="tiny">x53</a>
phantasypublishing : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_53');">Maxwell, you are the disinformation agent</a></b></p>
<p>2018-03-28</p>
<div id="sect_53" style="display: none;">
<p> phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at March 28, 2018 at 12:08 PM
<br> {mcb: After 2018-04-03: "This comment has been removed by the author."}
<br>
<br>Actually, Maxwell, you are the disinformation agent you print fictional statements about Phatasypublishing and basically write an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying. Since you have no background in Nuclear physics or Metallurgical sciences you cannot make any of the false and misleading claims about nukes or their non existent use on 91101. You simply lack the technical expertise to comment on the subject matter and ever keystroke proves you to be an misinformed fool. You already showed that in the email exchange that you lost.
<br>We can substantiate the cars were moved from underground garages and other areas to staging areas for removal
</p>
</div><!-- section 53 -->
<a name="x54"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x54" class="tiny">x54</a>
phantasypublishing : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">plagiarism example</a></b></p>
<p>2018-03-28</p>
<div id="sect_54" style="display: none;">
<p>Posted by phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at March 28, 2018 at 12:21 PM
<br> {mcb: After 2018-04-03: "This comment has been removed by the author."}
<br>When each jet cut its way into a building, it took with it parts of walls and ceilings, Simensen said. Steel bars in those walls would have gashed its fuel tanks, which would have caught fire. With the plane positioned somewhere in the middle of the building, blanketed in debris and with no route for heat to escape, the temperature would have rapidly escalated, reaching 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit), the melting point of aluminum - of which there was 30 tons in each plane fuselage - within an hour. The molten aluminum would then have heated up further to between 800 and 850 C (1,470 and 1,560 F).
<br>
<br>"Then molten aluminum becomes [as liquid as] water and has so much heat that it will flow through cracks in the floor and down to the next floor," Simensen explained in an email. There was an automatic sprinkler system installed in each ceiling, and it was filled with water. "When huge amount of molten aluminum gets in contact with water, a fierce exothermic reaction will take place, enormous amount of hydrogen is formed and the temperature is locally raised to 1,200 to 1,500 C," or 2,200 to 2,700 F.
<br>
<br>Chaos rapidly ensues: "A series of explosions will take place and a whole floor will be blown to pieces," he wrote. "Then the top part of the building will fall on the bottom part, and the tower will collapse within seconds." This is what Simensen believes happened in the two World Trade Center towers.
<br>
<br>This isn't obscure chemistry, Simensen says; the U.S. Aluminum Association has recorded 250 accidental molten aluminum/water explosions worldwide since 1980. "Alcoa in Pittsburgh [the worldwide leader in aluminum production] has done a series of such explosions in special laboratory in order to understand what can prevent such explosions and what are the most dangerous situations," he wrote. "For instance they let 30 kilograms [66 pounds] of aluminum react with 20 liters [5.3 gallons] of water, which resulted in a large hole 30 meters [98 feet] in diameter, and nothing left of the laboratory."
<br>
<br>The third tower
<br>
<br>A third building, World Trade Center 7, fell eight hours after the others. Scientists explained that this happened because of fires that ignited in the building upon the collapse of WTC 1, but some conspiracy theorists take it as further proof that the impacts of the hijacked airplanes weren't what brought any of the buildings down.
<br>
<br>Simensen says his theory does not challenge the accepted scientific explanation of the collapse of WTC7.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Full summary
<br>
<br>Oh BTW WTC 1 is the north tower and it is confirmed it did impact WTC 6 and 7. problem is you could not figure out the logistics of either WTC tower or the location of WTC 7 So this proves you know nothing logistically about the WTC site. Since there is no isotope or radioactive steel to prove your nuclear scam and Also Dr woods was told the device she lied about did not exist in 2001. So again You have been proven not to to have any expertise on what you are talking about and are incompetent to speak about WTC 1 and WTC 2 because you don't even know their location in the WTC complex. That just verifies what we have known all along. You area talking head with zero scientific knowledge and saying you can look at a Collapse of two skyscrapers and say DEW or Nuke is total idiocy Nor can you determine free fall by that either.
<br>
<br>We are done with you as you have proven yourself to be an incompetent researcher.
</p>
</div><!-- section 54 -->
<a name="x55"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x55" class="tiny">x55</a>
phantasypublishing : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_55');">you do not have any permission</a></b></p>
<p>2018-03-28</p>
<div id="sect_55" style="display: none;">
<p>Posted by phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at March 28, 2018 at 12:28 PM
<br>{mcb: After 2018-04-10: "This comment has been removed by the author." It should noted that the comments before and after this were removed 2018-04-03. This one wasn't removed until after it was pointed out.}
<br>
<br>
<br>Maxwell C. Bridges you do not have any permission to post any private email from Phantasy publishing on your blog at all. Remove all content within 24 hrs that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff.
</p>
</div><!-- section 55 -->
<a name="x56"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x56" class="tiny">x56</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">four part response about living up to "phantasypublishing" namesake</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html?showComment=1522793159628#c5673423779002644486">2018-04-03</a></p>
<div id="sect_56" style="display: none;">
<p>April 3, 2018 at 3:07 PM
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Phantasypublishing, Part 1/4
<br/>
<br/>I apologize for my tardiness in approving your three comments, waiting until I had time to compose a worthy response. I thank you for validating that the above discussions did transpire.
<br/>
<br/>In your comments, you live up to the proper spelling of your namesake: <i>"Fantasy Publishing."</i> You wrote the fantasy:
<blockquote><p><i>"... you print fictional statements about Phatasypublishing and basically write an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying."</i></p></blockquote>
<p>The above article consists of "real" (not "fictional") exchanges between your committee (hereafter simply as "you") and me {MCB}, whether on various public blogs (including yours, now de-commissioned) or through email. I, at least, attempted a rational discussion with you about 9/11 themes. My blog preserves my words and the context for my words, which meant re-purposing some of your words being responded to. Such techniques in old school publishing -- not fantasy publishing -- is called "quoting" and giving proper accreditation towards authorship.
<br/>
<br/>The exchanges which occurred on ~public~ blogs had no expectations of privacy. No demands for keeping emails private were ever expressed. But even graciously accepting this faulty premise as valid for a brief moment, such privacy was first breeched by you by expanding the email recepients to "the committee." Fail.
<br/>
<br/>Further, the seed email for part 2 was sent by me <i>"to a dozen or so people with whom I had had 9/11 discussions in the past."</i> It had no expectation of privacy. Worse, anybody Googling me at any point in time such as after receiving the seed email or during a discussion to ask <i>"who the F is this {MCB}"</i> would have found my blog that consists entirely of me re-purposing my words written in exchanges with other to get at 9/11 Truth.
<br/>
<br/>You call the above <i>"an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying."</i>
<br/>
<br/>You are too funny, Mr. Phantasypublishing. Go ahead and take me to court, el-oh-el!
<br/>
<br/>If it gets that far (and it won't), the judge will ask both of us: Were we the original authors of the words attributed to each of us (me, you, and your committee) in this blog posting? Affirmative. Does the blog posting accurately represent the original discussion context? Affirmative. [I use Google's gmail, so it'll be easy for authorities to validate.]
<br/>
<br/>Sincere cyber debate participants in the 9/11 realm often re-use their own words, in part or in whole, when they go from one forum or venue to another, be they blogs, websites, emails, or publications. If passages from the "alleged private" emails can be found published in other venues, then those "private" opinions are already public.
<br/>
<br/>I admit, I haven't and won't do this leg work into your public words (because they aren't that worthy), but know that it would be fruitful. How so? The errors in your responses (still in the original form, like email) display all the classic signs of piss-pour copy-and-pasting: bad and inconsistent formatting, incomplete sentences, context that doesn't flow, etc. You were copying it from some place, and I'm betting that the source was used in multiple public venues.
<br/>// Part 1/4
<br/>
<br/>Part 2/4
<br/>Of course, "cyberbullying" is the alleged crime. For the sake of the court records and for me to offer apologies, please identify specific passages authored by me where such deeds occurred aimed at you. The judge will also want to know what damages you have suffered from such.
<br/>
<br/>I'll give you this one concession. This blog article as a collection of our exchanges does damage your reputation, but the culprit isn't me; it is you. You (the committee) have such poor argumentative, writing, formatting, and organizational skills, they reflect badly on your "publishing" abilities. I certainly wouldn't use or recommend you, and this is before I opinion that I think you are a deceitful liar and government shill. The lack of honesty is for me a show-stopper.
<br/>
<br/>And there -- the accurate reflection of your publishing skills -- we have the real motivation for your after-thought: <i>"Maxwell C. Bridges you do not have any permission to post any private email from Phantasy publishing on your blog at all. Remove all content within 24 hrs that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff."</i>
<br/>
<br/>I don't need permission for reasons already given... and for it being well beyond the stature of limitations for when this "dastardly" alleged offense occurred. Showed up on my blog 2016-06-06, and your complaint 2018-03-28.
<br/>
<br/>Because I'm having fun, let's continue to rip you a new one. You wrote: <i>"Since you have no background in Nuclear physics or Metallurgical sciences you cannot make any of the false and misleading claims about nukes or their non existent use on 91101."</i>
<br/>
<br/>You don't know what my background is. But if that is the standard you are holding to, then you have no background (nor understanding) to be able to label my work <i>"false and misleading claims about nukes (on 9/11)."</i> If you can't point out what is "false or misleading", then you not only fail in convincing anyone of your position, but you expose yourself as a liar.
<br/>
<br/>Stop projecting your weaknesses onto me: <i>"You simply lack the technical expertise to comment on the subject matter ... "</i>
<br/>
<br/>You write typos and all: <i>"... and ever keystroke proves you to be an misinformed fool. You already showed that in the email exchange that you lost."</i> Well, if I lost the exchange(s) so badly, then why do you demand that your side -- the supposed "winning" side -- be removed? My guess is that maybe you weren't sincere and therefore didn't and don't stand behind your own words.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote: <i>"We can substantiate the cars were moved from underground garages and other areas to staging areas for removal"</i>
<br/>
<br/>So what? I'd even agree. The point your agenda won't let you admit is that no cars were moved from underground garages and other areas to staging areas (like all of West Broadway and the car park catticorner from WTC) for removal ~BEFORE~ WTC-7 came down. Torched cars that your pulverization at near gravitational acceleration with no energy added can't explain.
<br/>
<br/>// Part 2/4
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Part 3/4
<br/>Your second comment? Serves as an excellent example of your dishonesty.
<br/>
<br/>How so? Most of it, you didn't even write yourself, nor did you have the integrity to give credit where credit was due.
<br/>
<br/><a href="https://www.livescience.com/16179-twin-tower-collapse-model-squash-9-11-conspiracies.html">New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies</a> by Natalie Wolchover, September 22, 2011
<br/>
<br/>The judge will not look favorably upon this plagarism, and neither will any clients considering your "publishing" services. Fantasy is right.
<br/>
<br/>Ms. Wolchover wrote her article in 2011. I wrote my latest posting about FGNW in 2018. Mine is newer.
<br/>
<br/>My premise is fourth generation nuclear devices, and you have yet to identify any specific part of that premise as being faulty or in error.
<br/>
<br/>You wrote the following lie: <i>"Since there is no isotope or radioactive steel to prove your nuclear scam"</i>.
<br/>
<br/>If no tests for a given condition were ever undertaken or if such tests were delayed and scope limited to certain areas or samples, then you can't conclude such conditions didn't exist.
<br/>
<br/>But they did.
<br/>
<br/>Refer to section <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">9. Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras</a>
<br/>
<br/>It should be noted that FGNW aim the release of their highly energetic neutrons, so that most of the outer shell steel wall assemblies were never directly in the line of fire, and therefore wouldn't necessarily exhibit radioactive characteristics, particularly when tested days or weeks later.
<br/>
<br/>As for the steel directly in the line of fire of those highly energetic neutrons? An anomaly measured by the RJ Lee Group from the dust in the lobby of a neighboring building (Deutsches Bank, that they repaired but then decided to demolish anyway) was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres. You should look up the word "ablate."
<br/>
<br/>// Part 3/4
<br/>
<br/>Part 4/4
<br/>I just totally adored your "original" contribution to this rational discussion about 9/11 FGNW and defending the worthiness of your words.
<blockquote><p><i>"You have been proven not to to have any expertise on what you are talking about and are incompetent to speak about WTC 1 and WTC 2... That just verifies what we have known all along. You area talking head with zero scientific knowledge and saying you can look at a Collapse of two skyscrapers and say DEW or Nuke is total idiocy Nor can you determine free fall by that either."</i></p></blockquote>
<p>But this little gem from you inspires truly riotous joyful laughter:
<br/><i>"We are done with you as you have proven yourself to be an incompetent researcher."</i>
<br/>
<br/>Coming from <i>"the committee"</i> I assume (ergo the <i>"we"</i>) who did not attribute properly the authorship of most of the content of the very same comment, it is ironic who they prove to be <i>"an incompetent researcher."</i> But hardly 7 minutes later the true irony of their heartfelt promise -- <i>"We are done with you"</i> -- appears in the form of... [drum roll please]... another comment. Quite the failing of the integrity test to make a promise that is broken 7 minutes later.
<br/>
<br/>I already addressed once what appeared 7 minutes later in their broken promise:
<br/>
<br/><i>"Maxwell C. Bridges you do not have any permission to post any private email from Phantasy publishing on your blog at all. Remove all content within 24 hrs that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff."</i>
<br/>
<br/>Full summary:
<br/>
<br/><i>"Phantasy publishing"</i> lives up to its name in this brief continuation of the Part 1 and Part 2 discussions about 9/11 that were the content of my blog posting.
<br/>
<br/>When I look at <i>"the committee"</i> a little squinty-eyed, I swear if they don't reveal that their squad has a bot, whose AI is limited in not being able to talk intelligently, meaningfully, and originally on technical subjects. Generalizations, no deep dive into specifics. Locates quotes that don't apply, and plagarizes other's work as its own.
<br/>
<br/>The reason <i>"the committee"</i> wants all content removed that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff is: <i>legacy is a bitch for disinformation agents.</i> Too much exposes inconsistencies and lies (even plagarism), which is why <i>"Phantasy publishing"</i> eventually torpedoed its Quinazagga wordpress blog.
<br/>
<br/>And if there is any legitimacy to <i>"Phantasy publishing"</i> [I am not making a case either way, nor do I care], then yes, their reputation for "quality publishing" is called into question with each comment that contains blatant defects. It is the quality of their own words that dings their reputation, and could even be called against themselves <i>"an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying."</i> Talk about shooting themselves in the foot! With their own words.
<br/>
<br/>To the tactical disinfo squad behind <i>"the committee"</i>, you learn the important lesson here of <i>"taking ownership of your words"</i> and what can happen when others take control of your words. You can't as easily push the plunger and dynomite past project failures, clear the slate, and have no baggage for your online personas going into the next disinfo <i>"Phantasy publishing"</i> project. Your legacy... on my blog... such as it is... proves the existence of organized government trolls paid to infiltrate discussions on the internet and promote various agendas, but never the truth. The line from Scoobey-Doo: <i>"And it would have worked, too, if not for those pesky kids."</i> [Or if not for those pesky kids who saw Scoobey-Doo when originally aired now grown up.]
<br/>
<br/>Good thing they are done with me.
<br/>
<br/>// Part 4/4
</p>
</div><!-- section 56 -->
<a name="x57"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x57" class="tiny">x57</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_57');">personalized notification email</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-05</p>
<div id="sect_57" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Wilks,
<br>
<br>Because I was tardy in approving your comments and replying to them, I'd figure I'd give you notification that I responsed.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html?showComment=1522793159628#c5673423779002644486
<br>
<br>I had forgotten about the several spins years ago made on your carousel. When you complain about allegedly private email (that you exposed to a committee) being made public on my blog, I remind you of this passage also contained with in the collection and provides intention our our exchanges.
<br>
</p><blockquote><p>If you really want to discuss this, please data-mine your emails and post some comments to the blog. I'd prefer to see your position made more public as well as my response, or we're just wasting time.~Maxwell C. Bridges 2016-05-22</p></blockquote>
<p>I thank you for finally posting some comments to the blog.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 57 -->
<a name="x58"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x58" class="tiny">x58</a>
phantasypublishing : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">data mined your article</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-09</p>
<div id="sect_58" style="display: none;">
<p>Posted by phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at April 9, 2018 at 3:19 PM
<br>{mcb: Submitted to moderation 2018-04-09. Not approved and published the normal way; instead moved comment into content of article. Prevents it from being disappeared by author.}
<br>
<br>{mcb: For clarification purposes, Mr. Wilks posted the header to an email from me from 2016, an excerpt from my blog comment (2018), and inserted some comments but with the notable distinction that they lack any tagging, delination, or formatting to separate his words from mine.}
<br>
<br>
<br>from: Maxwell C. Bridges
<br>to: Daniel Wilks
<br>date: Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:39 PM
<br>subject: Re: 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation
<br>
<br>This proves you data mined your article and manipulated it into a true fascist appeal to emotion response pattern a common social engineering tactic
<br>I'll give you this one concession. This blog article as a collection of our exchanges does damage your reputation, but the culprit isn't me; it is you. You (the committee) have such poor argumentative, writing, formatting, and organizational skills, they reflect badly on your "publishing" abilities. I certainly wouldn't use or recommend you, and this is before I opinion that I think you are a deceitful liar and government shill. The lack of honesty is for me a show-stopper.
<br>
<br>And there -- the accurate reflection of your publishing skills -- we have the real motivation for your after-thought: "Maxwell C. Bridges you do not have any permission to post any private email from Phantasy publishing on your blog at all. Remove all content within 24 hrs that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff."
<br>
<br>I don't need permission for reasons already given...(Yes you do) and for it is well beyond the statute of limitations for when this "dastardly" alleged offense occurred. Showed up on my blog 2016-06-06, (Yep you control the date you place on your article) and your complaint 2018-03-28 Yes and having a record archived of our conversation along with email headers that give the trace information on the senders and receivers. Since there is no statute of limitations on Liable and printing fake news like you do Maxwell enjoy the consequences of having the full email exchanges published along with the parts you omitted since they refute your claims and render further discussion with you without any merit. As to the claims of government, operatives ect Show me a check stub or just shut yp with the phony fascist social engineering ploy.
<br>Sorry without any Strontium 290 or zinc-65 or HTO you have no basis for your speculation as there is no signature stops in the steel or building materials. so fail in the area of
<br>FGNW Just as I stated before on my blog you don't know about the weapon system so time for another fictionalized assumption.
</p>
</div><!-- section 58 -->
<a name="x59"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x59" class="tiny">x59</a>
phantasypublishing : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_59');">can't stop lying</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-09</p>
<div id="sect_59" style="display: none;">
<p>Posted by phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at April 9, 2018 at 6:32 PM
<br>{mcb: Submitted to moderation 2018-04-09. Not approved and published the normal way; instead moved comment into content of article. Prevents it from being disappeared by author.}
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges can't stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely. Understand he is just another fictional writer he has no facts to back his delusions. Corrected from your omission about Daniel Wilks and his commentary on you degeneration into a delusional rant
<br>"Phantasy publishing" lives up to its name in this brief continuation of the Part 1 and Part 2 discussions about 9/11 that were the content of my blog posting.
<br>
<br>When I look at "the committee" a little squinty-eyed, I swear if they don't reveal that their squad has a bot, whose AI is limited in not being able to talk intelligently, meaningfully, and originally on technical subjects. Generalizations, no deep dive into specifics. Locates quotes that don't apply, and plagarizes other's work as its own.
<br>
<br>The reason "the committee" wants all content removed that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff is: legacy is a bitch for disinformation agents. Too much exposes inconsistencies and lies (even plagarism), which is why "Phantasy publishing" eventually torpedoed its Quinazagga wordpress blog.
<br>
<br>And if there is any legitimacy to "Phantasy publishing" [I am not making a case either way, nor do I care], then yes, their reputation for "quality publishing" is called into question with each comment that contains blatant defects. It is the quality of their own words that dings their reputation, and could even be called against themselves "an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying." Talk about shooting themselves in the foot! With their own words.
<br>
<br>To the tactical disinfo squad behind "the committee", you learn the important lesson here of "taking ownership of your words" and what can happen when others take control of your words. You can't as easily push the plunger and dynomite past project failures, clear the slate, and have no baggage for your online personas going into the next disinfo "Phantasy publishing" project. Your legacy... on my blog... such as it is... proves the existence of organized government trolls paid to infiltrate discussions on the internet and promote various agendas, but never the truth. The line from Scoobey-Doo: "And it would have worked, too, if not for those pesky kids." [Or if not for those pesky kids who saw Scoobey-Doo when originally aired now grown up.]
<br>
<br>Maxwell, do you see how many grammar errors are in your own text? Man you can apply your fascist grammar cop to your self before trying to hit others for integrity try having a little yourself.
<br>Also here is a big thing for you to explain why did the fishbowl survive a nuclear blast? because there was no such device used.
<br>https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html
<br>You are refuted so are the use of any nuclear fusion device on 91101
</p>
</div><!-- section 59 -->
<a name="x60"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x60" class="tiny">x60</a>
phantasypublishing : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">Absolutely! It is astounding...</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-09</p>
<div id="sect_60" style="display: none;">
<p>Posted by phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at April 9, 2018 at 6:39 PM
<br>{mcb: Submitted to moderation 2018-04-09. Not approved and published the normal way; instead moved comment into content of article. Prevents it from being disappeared by author.
Note that it reads like a separate committee member posting under the same alias but mere minutes later.}
<br>Absolutely!
<br>It is astounding that people simply ascribe power and effect they wish for to the technology of their choice or imagination. Nukes at ground zero is no different in that respect than Judy Wood's steel-dustifying-space-a-beams. For that matter its no different than the ridiculous notion that a layer of thermete "paint" could melt the steel members of the towers or those silent high explosives are even possible.
</p>
</div><!-- section 60 -->
<a name="x61"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x61" class="tiny">x61</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_61');">will not venture to your lame blog</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-10</p>
<div id="sect_61" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Email.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Wilks,
<br>
<br>I don't know if you noticed, but in Part 2 of my blog posting <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html">"Playing Disinfo Games"</a>, I let you have the last words words (x50 and x51 comments.) Why? Because they were so muddled and fucked up in their reasoning, writing, and formatting, they didn't need me to wallow in their incoherence and point out their mud is dirty. Their failings spoke for themselves. They already fit the established trend-line.
<br>
<br>For a similar reason, I will not venture to your lame blog to converse with you.
<br>
<br><a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html">https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html</a>
<br>
<br><i>"Unfaithful in the small, unfaithful in the large."</i> Your formatting looks like crap; you don't know how to quote someone else's words and in many cases their words appear to be yours or vice versa. I tried not to expose your email address in what I re-purposed, yet you do this dishonorable and unkind act to me, so that bot's can vacuum it up and start sending me spam. Your lame efforts give the impression that I might have participated there. Similar to the already established dishonesty trend-line in your character, your efforts expose all of the reasons why no one should bother with your publishing services.
<br>
<br>Yes, my work has minor typos and errors, but not blatant ones and consistently crappy formatting that reflects poorly on everyone.
<br>
<br>I have not approved your three new comments yet. I'm on the fence about whether or not I should. If I do, it won't be until the weekend or later and it will be in conjunction with my response (that you aren't going to like.)
<br>
<br>Funny the two of three comments that you removed from my blog. They were mostly your original words, and it wasn't as if I didn't quote enough from them for readers to know what you said. And idiot that you are, you leave the one comment that wasn't even authored by you (nor was it properly credited) so as to keep in place the dishonesty trend-line that was first established by you on 2013-06-11. [Or maybe, idiot team that your committee is, someone else with the same handle posted the second comment and you didn't have permission to remove it.]
<br>
<br>For the record, I do not champion deep underground nukes. You would know that (a) if you had read my work, (b) you weren't dishonestly trying to set up a straw-man to lamely knock over, (c) your AI algorithms were so limited in what it can copy & paste.
<br>
<br>And with regards to this quote from you:
</p><blockquote> <p>Since there is no statute of limitations on Liable and printing fake news like you do Maxwell enjoy the consequences of having the full email exchanges published along with the parts you omitted since they refute your claims and render further discussion with you without any merit.</p></blockquote>
<p>There is no statute of limitations on murder, but there is on defamation, libel or slander, so if you are going to take me to court, be quick about it. Alas, even if you beat the clock, you have two huge hurdles that you can't overcome. (1) Identifying the defamation. If what offends you is proven to be true or a valid character trait, then it isn't defamation. (2) Identifying damages. If you can't prove monetarily or otherwise how the alleged defamation hurt you, then you'll never make it to court, because ain't no lawyer going to represent you if there's no cut in the winnings for him.
<br>
<br>You should have noticed that whenever I might have called you a name -- like "liar" --, I always accompanied it with proof: like the words you plagiarized from others that have happened just in our encounters alone three or four times over the years.
<br>
<br>You, on the other hand, haven't proven anything when you called me: "fascist", "a liar", etc. Devoid of explanation or proof, it becomes indeed just ad hominem and defamation.
<br>
<br>If you're so good at copying & pasting words, why don't you copy (several small) passages from my work and identify in between each what is wrong, false, or in error? You don't, because you are a weasel and a paid-to-post troll without the educational foundation or debunking prowess to take on my premise head-on.
<br>
<br>What is really sad about you. Not only do you attempt a lame straw-man into deep underground nukes, but you plagiarize the words from where you got it.
<br>
<br><a href="https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-nuke-cancer-from-9-11-presstv-gordon-duff.t3515/">https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-nuke-cancer-from-9-11-presstv-gordon-duff.t3515/</a>
<br>
<br>Dishonest to the core, you are.
<br>
<br>Needless to say, if there be any continuation to your tom foolery on my blog, it will be at my pleasure and your expense.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 61 -->
<a name="x62"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x62" class="tiny">x62</a>
phantasypublishing : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">you cant answer to the information</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-10</p>
<div id="sect_62" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Purposely copied over formatting from source to demonstrate how poorly it was done in the arriving email.}</p>
<p>from: phantasypublishing
<br>to: "Maxwell C. Bridges"
<br>date: Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:48 AM
<br>subject: Re: [Maxwell C. Bridges] New comment on Playing Disinfo Games.
<br>
<br></p><p style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.</p>
<br>
<p>******
<br>Yes, Maxwell, you cant answer to the information can you because it refutes all of your nuclear fiction.</p>
<p>Also, you cannot publish any of the content of this email as the notice tells you it is protected under federal privacy laws.
<br>
<br></p><p style="font-size:18px;font-weight:normal;margin:0px;padding:0px;display:block;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><a href="https://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/" style="color:rgb(102,0,153);text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">EPIC - Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA</a>
<br><br>Better read up on it </p>
<p></p>
</div><!-- section 62 -->
<a name="x63"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x63" class="tiny">x63</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_63');">disclaimer on your emails</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-10</p>
<div id="sect_63" style="display: none;">
<p>from: Maxwell C. Bridges
<br>to: phantasypublishing
<br>date: Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:39 AM
<br>subject: Re: [Maxwell C. Bridges] New comment on Playing Disinfo Games.
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Wilks,
<br>
<br>Whereas you now try to put a disclaimer on your emails to prevent me from re-purposing them, it doesn't do you any good if the email itself isn't worthy or has no valuable content. Furthermore, if your words get published by you to a public forum, then fair-use allows me access to them.
<br>
<br>Despite "publishing" in your blog name, it seems you don't grasp what that means, what its duties are, and what limitations it has. Here is the definition of fair-use.
<br>
</p><blockquote><p>"[B]rief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder."</p></blockquote>
<p>(a) Your blog does not have "brief excerpts" from me. And has precious little criticism from you in comparison.
<br>
<br>(b) What you claim is from me isn't completely. You've misquoted me in many places, because you try to insert your "criticism" in what your shoddy formatting tries to imply is my email, my posting, or my words. But owing to an ongoing complaint about your crappy formatting skills (and justifying that your publishing services are bogus), no one can easily tell where my words start/end and your criticism starts/ends. A line of asterix's doesn't cut it alone, because my source text also often contains such as does yours. You need to step up to the plate and clearly mark your words inserted into mine with something about your authorship. Like [PP] or [DW] along with starting/ending lines.
<br>
<br>(c) This is the third time I respectfully ask you to remove my email address from your fair-use. It is not easy to get to places on my blog where it is exposed, on purpose. I've already told you why, and it has to do with AI bots scraping your blog for email addresses to spam. Your outing of such (when such isn't required or justified) fits into the very definition of <b><i>cyberbullying</i></b>.
<br>
<br>Turns out, when you remove the header copied (with formats) from gmail and type in a better formatted heading TO ALL PASSAGES attributed to me, not only will you be able to do me the REQUESTED courtesy of removing my email, BUT your blog will gain some control over the formatting that presently overruns the right margin. (Underlying images and CSS definitions from gmail that don't match your blog's formats are what is causing the issue.)
<br>
<br>You want to be a publisher? Then act like one who is also responsible to accuracy, truth, and courtesy.
<br>
<br>You were pulling the same shit in 2013, which Part 1 documents pretty clearly and complains about. Plagiarist that you continue to be, you were re-purposing my words POORLY on your blog. You purposely screwed up the formatting and inserted your whacky text with no indication that such were from you.
<br>
<br>Finally, you claim that I <b>"cant answer to the information can you because it refutes all of your nuclear fiction."</b> The reason I can't respond to the plagiarized information from other sources is that it ("deep underground nukes") has nothing to do with my 9/11 premise of FGNW, which isn't as fictional as you imply. Despite your bluster, you obviously, still, after all this time, have neither read my premise nor followed links into my sources, such as Dr. Andre Gsponer.
<br>
<br>Just like your quinazzaga blog predecessor, your phantasypublishing blog has the same dishonest traits.
<br>
<br>You called my posting: <i>"an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying."</i> It wasn't, I proved why. But your recent blog efforts? They indeed are attack pieces that cross the line to cyberbullying. You expose my email; you misquote me; you plagiarize; you write and format poorly. My government dollars hard at work, eh?
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 63 -->
<a name="x64"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x64" class="tiny">x64</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');">Summary; attack blogs that cross the line to cyberbullying</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-11</p>
<div id="sect_64" style="display: none;">
<p>Some irony in this Part 3 is that the starting point for Part 1 was MCB discovering his words being plagiarized on the Quinazagga blog after an encounter on Truth & Shadows. The issues were that:
</p><ul>
<li>MCB wasn't initially given proper credit.</li>
<li>The re-purposing of MCB's words was so poorly formatted in the new venue, it reflected badly on mcb and the poster.</li>
<li>The re-publishing inserted commentary that was neither flagged nor formatted to distinguish a different author. It attributed to MCB words that didn't belong to MCB.</li>
<li>Many other articles on the site were plagiarized. They offer neither credit to the original author nor a link to the source. If any commentary was made, it could not be distinguished from the original author.</li>
</ul>
<p>Part 3, in a turnabout way, begins with phantasypublishing discovering that "their" words from blog exchanges and email exchanges were re-purposed by MCB in Parts 1 & 2 above. (phantasypublishing suggests they are a committee or more than one person, and although commenting with the same alias, sometimes says or does things to indicate more than one might be involved.)
<br>
<br><b>phantasypublishing</b> posted some comments.
</p><ul>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> calls MCB names and tries to discredit the Part 1 & 2 this article.</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> takes offense at the re-use of their words.</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> ries to refute the MCB's (FGNW) premise by plagiarizing someone else's earlier work that isn't applicable to the FGNW premise.</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> tries to make the claim that MCB doesn't have permission for such activities.</li>
<li>MCB handily rebutes his arguments.</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> removes the content of those comments (but not the placeholder indicating comments were made and by whom).</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> creates two blog <i>"attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying"</i> on 2018-04-09.</li>
<ol>
<li>
<a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html"><i>9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation a fictional work</i></a>. It consists of several emails exchanged from 2016-05-18 and 2016-05-25 between me and Mr. Wilks. Part 2 above already publishes my words and much of Mr. Wilks' words. When the entirety of his message wasn't included in Part 2, sufficient content from his message was quoted to indicate accurately what mcb was responding to.
<br>
<br>As can be seen in the newer Phantasy Publishing efforts, the content that mcb purposely omitted: (a) contained in most cases most of mcb words (b) poorly formatted and (c) sometimes with short comments from them inserted in between (d) sometimes, but not always, delineated or formatted to distinguish his words from my orignal.
<br>
<br>Because phantasypublishing's browser was in a wide configuration while viewing their Gmail, their copy actions to grab email header & time stamp information snagged HTML formats that they then inadvertently pasted into their article. When rendered, these wide-margin formats over-ride those of their blog and cause free-flowing text to over-run the right margins of their blog's content area. The email information exposes mcb email address to the world, but worse to AI bots who can scrape such data and spam mcb.
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html"><i>more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges</i></a>. It consists of the MCB four part blog comment from 2018-04-03. However, it misquotes, because (a) they inserted short comments (b) sometimes, but not always, delineated or formatted in a manner to distinguish their words from mcb orignal.
</li>
</ol>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> sends MCB an email with a disclaimer about the email being confidential. MCB email response.</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> makes three more comments under this article that were parked in the moderation queue. </li>
</ul>
</div><!-- section 64 -->
<a name="x65"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x65" class="tiny">x65</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_65');">The Response Plan</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-11</p>
<div id="sect_65" style="display: none;">
<p>MCB has a comment in phantasypublishing's moderationg queue asking them to remove all occurences of MCB's email address. This request was repeated in an email. This serves as another notice. {The main issue is that exposing my email address in a public forum allows detection and email spamming by web bots.}</p>
<p>The unpublished comment from MCB on phantasypublishing blog together with the unacted-on request to remove MCB's email address clearly demonstrate how discussions would go: one-sided in their favor and with a high probability (a) of not being published, (b) of being misquoted in their sloppy copies, and (c) of suffering bad formatting that dings the reputations of all participants. </p>
<p>phantasypublishing has a track record of removing their words later if control left in their power. This was exhibited by the three comments whose contents they removed and by the now long-disappeared Quinazagga blog.</p>
<p>In yet another reversal over control and ownership of words, this response plan does not engage on phantasypublishing's home court and keeps discussions here, while remaining fair, true, and faithful to all participant's words and efforts.</p>
<p>Part 3 pulled in all published and unpublished comments (& emails) from <i><b>~under~</b></i> this article <i><b>~into~</b></i> this article. The battle field remains here.</p>
</div><!-- section 65 -->
<a name="x66"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x66" class="tiny">x66</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">The Response: the battle field remains here.</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-11</p>
<div id="sect_66" style="display: none;">
<p>This entry in Part 3 was authored after <b>the response plan</b> was conceived regarding how to properly handle phantasypublishing's emails, attack blog articles, and comments to this blog.
<br><br>
This entry becomes the starting point for the now zeroed comment section. It addresses their last comments (now published above), odd's and end's from their last emails, and from their blog.
<br><br>
Expounding upon arguments already made into the legitimacy of re-purposing exchanges from email, let us start with some quotations from <a href="https://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/">ECPA sources</a> that phantasypublishing provided.</p>
<blockquote><p>ECPA does include important provisions that protect a person's wire and electronic communications from being intercepted by another private individual. In general, the statute bars wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping, possession of wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping equipment, and the use or disclosure of information unlawfully obtained through wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping. The Wiretap Act prohibits any person from intentionally intercepting or attempting to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication by using any electronic, mechanical or other device. To be clear, an electronic device must be used to perform the surveillance; mere eavesdropping with the unaided ear is not illegal under ECPA.</p></blockquote>
<p>I did not unlawfully intercept phantasypublishing's wire and electronic communications, so ECPA does not apply. phantasypublishing's disclaimer has similarities to an example disclaimer given at the ECPA link. </p>
<blockquote><p>This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.</p></blockquote>
<p>Allow me to call attention to the phrase in the disclaimer: <i>"for the sole use of the intended recipient."</i> Because I am the intended recipient of phantasypublishing emails, I alone can choose what <i>"use"</i> I deem appropriate. That <i>"use"</i> is demonstrated in the re-purposing being done. Even were that disclaimer on all previous emails, no foul has been committed.
<br><br>
Further research into <a href="https://www.exclaimer.com/email-signature-handbook/10065-email-disclaimer-examples">email disclaimers</a> not undertaken by phantasypublishing would have revealed: <a href="https://www.businessattorneyinaustin.com/annoying-email-confidentiality-disclaimers/"><i>Email Confidentiality Disclaimers: Annoying but Are They Legally Binding?</i></a></p>
<blockquote><p>Confidentiality obligations generally arise via contract, such as by signing a non-disclosure agreement (in my business law practice, I deal with NDAs a lot). Contracts, as you likely know, require both parties to agree - what the law calls a "meeting of the minds." Dropping a standard confidentiality disclaimer at the bottom of every company email doesn't unilaterally impose on a recipient of an email a duty of confidentiality. It does not unilaterally bind the recipient to an agreement regarding the email footer language since you can't unilaterally impose an obligation of confidentiality on someone. If they aren't already obligated to keep the information you share with them confidential (e.g., due to having signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or for some other reason), your email disclaimer isn't going to change that - the recipient is free to do what they want with your email.</p></blockquote>
<p>
Relating this to phantasypublishing's disclaimer, imagine they wrote words to the effect: <i>"the intended recipient is not permitted to publicly re-publish any content from this email, and any review, use, distribution, or disclosure outside of email is strictly prohibited."</i> The disclaimer blatently tries to impose unilaterally an obligation of confidentiality on me, which I was not previously obligated to. I would remain free to do what I want with your email. You wrote:
</p><blockquote><p>Also, you cannot publish any of the content of this email as the notice tells you it is protected under federal privacy laws.</p></blockquote>
<p>Wrong. As the intended recipient who has been granted by you <i>"sole use"</i> of your email, it falls <b><i>outside</i></b> the protection of federal privacy laws, and I most certainly <b><i>can</i></b> publish its content if my <i>"sole use"</i> can and has so decided.
<br><br>
Your committee, or AI algorithms, are being proven not all that intelligent.
<br><br>
Because this is so fun, let us continue into responding to your comments from 2018-04-09. After copying a header from a 2016-05-24 email, you proudly claim:
</p><blockquote><p>This proves you data mined your article and manipulated it into a true fascist appeal to emotion response pattern a common social engineering tactic {mcb: no period.}</p></blockquote>
<p>The email header doesn't prove squat. Instead, I explain where the content came from and give you credit. "Data mining" isn't a crime, neither is fair-use re-purposing your words for the sake of criticism that I have a lot of fun writing. I wouldn't call it <i>"manipulation"</i>, because I am fair and true to your original words, credit you, and provide more appealing formatting.
<br><br>
And then your stupid AI algorithms run completely off the rails with this gem: <i>"a true fascist appeal to emotion response pattern a common social engineering tactic!"</i> Woohoo! If you don't explain how my efforts are <i>"fascist,"</i> then you fail. In case you haven't noticed, my re-purposing of your words <b>MOCKS YOU</b> mercilessly, and laughter is indeed the <i>"emotion response pattern"</i> I desire from latter-day readers stumbling upon this tedious works.
<br><br>
I wrote: <i>"I don't need permission for reasons already given."</i> You replied: <i>"(Yes you do)."</i> To which I answer, <i>"No, I don't as has been proven one more time and that in the face of an attempted disclaimer."</i>
<br><br>
Regarding content showing up on my blog on 2016-06-06, you wrote: <i>"(Yep you control the date you place on your article)."</i> You are absolutely correct, I do control the date and time that I put on my blog articles, and plead guilty to pre-dating and post-dating content in a manner that does not agree with the actual date of when publishing activities occurred. However, the date stamps on individual entries are as accurate as I could get them with respect to when they happened, and the publish date of the entire piece is within its date scope. As I scratch the recesses of my recollection, maybe my collecting, collating, formatting, and publishing efforts were drastically procrastinated. Proof, Part 1 from 2013 didn't see the light of day (on the blog at least) until this compilation did: already three years procrastination. Maybe the work wasn't actually completed until the end of 2017 and then pre-dated to the 2016 date.
<br><br>
Doesn't matter. Copious reasons have already been given that permits me to re-use all content. I do so fairly. No defamation comes from me. You can't substantiate (a) financial damage or (b) that my words -- as opposed to yours -- were the source.
</p><blockquote><p>Yes and having a record archived of our conversation along with email headers that give the trace information on the senders and receivers. </p></blockquote>
<p>And your archived Gmail record of our conversation agrees with both my archived Gmail record and the dates published in this re-purposing.</p>
<blockquote><p>Since there is no statute of limitations on Liable and printing fake news like you do Maxwell.</p></blockquote>
<p>You meant <i>"libel"</i>, which as explained in an email, does have a statute of limitations. Maybe with my publication procrastination you could argue that today is still within that time period to take me to court. I encourage you to do so. The two things you don't have: (1) Defamation by me aimed at you. I substantiate the bad names (e.g., <i>"liar"</i>) that I call you, making them valid character traits and not defamation. Turnabout: plenty of defamation by you aimed at me, because you don't substantiate. Plenty of your own words not reflecting well on you. (2) Damages; you don't have any... except what your own words and publishing efforts reflect on you.
<br><br>
As for the charge of me <i>"printing fake news,"</i> I assume you mean my FGNW premise. Prove the premise fake -- section by section --, or be proven fake.
</p>
<blockquote><p>... enjoy the consequences of having the full email exchanges published along with the parts you omitted since they refute your claims and render further discussion with you without any merit. As to the claims of government, operatives ect Show me a check stub or just shut yp with the phony fascist social engineering ploy.</p></blockquote>
<p>Meh. I've already critiqued the failings of your efforts that makes them practically unreadable. The parts I omitted I was under no obligation to keep, let alone in their original form. Relevant passages from omitted emails were accurately quoted and credited. As your blog shows in publishing the "omitted" works, I made the correct editorial decision.
<br><br>
<i>"As to the claims of government operatives,"</i> you give me nothing to dissuade me from the belief that you are an agenda-defender, whether paid or for sport. You aren't open-minded, haven't reviewed my work, haven't vetted its sources, and try to debunk it not only by plagiarizing other people's work but also by choosing supposed debunking sources that are not even relevant to my FGNW premise. Further, those debunking sources have been proven to come from other OCT (official conspiracy theory) trolls who alone accept them as true, who ignore their errors and deficiencies, who ignore the debunking of those same debunking sources, and who doggedly keeps promoting them.
<br><br>
Rational, objective, and real people are more prone to admit <i>"I don't know; keep talking so I can weigh your words; let me check into it, and then I'll render my judgment."</i> They can change their minds in the presence of new information and new analysis.
</p><blockquote><p>Sorry without any Strontium 290 or zinc-65 or HTO you have no basis for your speculation as there is no signature stops in the steel or building materials.</p></blockquote>
<p>Sorry, but the USGS documents quite clearly the metals you list and more as fingerprints to nuclear use. You wrote "HTO" and conveniently forget that a whole dog-and-pony-show report was made on tritium, which was measured. You can't prove <i>"no signature stops in the steel or building materials,"</i> because they didn't allow anybody with credentials access to such materials to measure for such. At best, neither of us can use it as an argument, and the case will be decided based upon the proponderence of other evidence (that you avoid. Ho-hum.)</p>
<blockquote><p>so fail in the area of FGNW Just as I stated before on my blog you don't know about the weapon system so time for another fictionalized assumption.</p></blockquote>
<p>So fail in the area of debunking FGNW. Gotta dive into it section by section if you want to debunk it. The companion comment from three some hours later takes another tact.</p>
<blockquote><p>Maxwell Bridges can't stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely. Understand he is just another fictional writer he has no facts to back his delusions. Corrected from your omission about Daniel Wilks and his commentary on you degeneration into a delusional rant</p></blockquote>
<p>I'll just let that error filled comment sit and go right into the next one.</p>
<blockquote><p>Maxwell, do you see how many grammar errors are in your own text? Man you can apply your fascist grammar cop to your self before trying to hit others for integrity try having a little yourself.
<br>Also here is a big thing for you to explain why did the fishbowl survive a nuclear blast? because there was no such device used.
<br><a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html">https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html</a>
<br>You are refuted so are the use of any nuclear fusion device on 91101</p></blockquote>
<p>Discussion is here, not on phantasypublishing. And what is on your blog doesn't address FGNW. It addresses a straw-man in the form of <i>"deep underground nukes."</i> Six minutes later, you posted:</p>
<blockquote><p>Absolutely!
<br>It is astounding that people simply ascribe power and effect they wish for to the technology of their choice or imagination. Nukes at ground zero is no different in that respect than Judy Wood's steel-dustifying-space-a-beams. For that matter its no different than the ridiculous notion that a layer of thermete "paint" could melt the steel members of the towers or those silent high explosives are even possible.</p></blockquote>
<p>More inapplicable dribble in a straw-man that has precious little straw and doesn't get knocked down by your lame analysis, either. You're putting way too little effort into this and will never succeed, except in demonstrating the bent of a disinfo operative.</p>
<p>For shits and giggles, I went over to </p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html"><i>9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation a fictional work</i></a></li>
<li><a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html"><i>more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges</i></a></li>
</ul>
<p>With respect to the first blog posting, anything of importance that you wrote has been addressed in detail and in depth in Part 2 already. Ho-hum. Your only value-add is in exposing my email address to bots and spammers. Not very honorable of you at that, and this represents at least the fourth time I've humbly requested that you remove my email addresses from your <i>"scholarly effort."</i> My email address isn't relative to the discussion. [You may however reference my blog's URL: <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html">Maxwell C. Bridges.</a>]
<br><br>
With respect to the second blog posting, I've taken the liberty of extracting all obvious insertions by you into the re-purposed text from me.
</p>
<blockquote><p>********
<br>You should look up ionizing radiation and take into the reality While various <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source">neutron source</a> devices have been developed, some of them based on fusion reactions, none of them are able to produce an energy yield, either in controlled form for energy production or uncontrolled for a weapon. so no FGNW was used
<br>*******
<br>{mcb: removed mcb passages because more accurate source is here.}
<br>****
<br><i>Maxwell C. Bridges You are not only a liar but a bad one at that and Fascist such as yourself generally try to use this appeal to emotion to gain attention to a false portrayal of PhantasyPublishing sorry in this case you omitted sources and then lied about it. Just like changing your name to suit your agenda you try to change the opinion of the readership then attempting to make an false summery to a fictional exchange you never fully were truthful about.</i>
<br>*******
<br>{mcb: removed mcb passages because more accurate source is here.}
<br>******
Again information sharing is not plagiarism and your lack of knowledge about Cornell law University's private site called chillingeffects and false claims of copyright where there is no registered copyright number given. this resulted in an investigation from the FBI into why they are falsely acting as a government entity which they are not and therefore their whole censorship ploy is exposed. The article was written in 1988 and has a copyright that is registered to a staff member, not the fraudulent author.
<br>***
<br>{mcb: removed mcb passages because more accurate source is here.}
<br>******
<br>Again you made baseless bullshit statements that have no bearing on PhantasyPublishing Here is something for you since you can't read any of the WTC NIST reports you lack the technical expertise to discuss the impact of the jet airliners on each skyscraper. This is why you bring up some fictional Nuclear device Demolition and have no credibility in regards to any generation of Nuclear devices a matter of fact your response just closed the case on your delusion it is like arguing with a flat-earther from the space station orbiting above them
<br>
<br>Also all of your FGN {mcb: sic}
</p></blockquote>
<p>From the middle, sharing is plagiarism when the original author and/or link to the source material are not present, and when such shoddy efforts leave the impression that it is your work.</p>
<p>The above demonstrates a clear and fearful avoidance of tackling any specifics from my FGNW work. Piss pour punctuation, sentence structure, formatting, logic, reasoning, etc. provides insight into the author. All pretty funny particularly when the 2018-03-28 comment is considered: <i>"We are done with you as you have proven yourself to be an incompetent researcher."</i> Not one, but two blog postings that are collections of my work, four comments to this article, and one email document <i>"being done with me."</i>
<br><br>
You're not making a convincing counter-argument (to FGNW). You validate that your collected words -- whether on your blog, my blog, or email -- are more damaging to your public reputation and perceived intelligence than anything I write.
<br><br>
I would tell you to keep up the good work, as long as you do it elsewhere and don't involve me. {The real reason for the Response Plan is that it wraps everything together neatly into one package and could be considered complete. No further Parts are expected or desired.}
</p>
<p>//</p>
</div><!-- section 66 -->
<a name="x67"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x67" class="tiny">x67</a>
phantasypublishing : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_67');">with no registered copyright numbers on file to prove a legal copyright</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-16</p>
<div id="sect_67" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html?showComment=1523933118794#c9076346897579028794">April 16, 2018 at 9:45 PM</a>
<br>Another thing that Phantasypublishing did was to expose mcb as a pathological liar and fascist puppet The whole Truth and Shadows is a political propaganda machine whom gets their script from St. Petersburg in the Soviet Federation.
<br>How can MCB even come up with his fraudulent DMCA takedown with no registered copyright numbers on file to prove a legal copyright. So this censorship is how 911truther fascist try to suppress facts so they can manufacture fake news like Truth and shadows.
</p>
</div><!-- section 67 -->
<a name="x68"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x68" class="tiny">x68</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">When just one author is involved in the creation of a work, s/he can rightfully claim copyright.</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-17</p>
<div id="sect_68" style="display: none;">
<blockquote>
<p>From <a href="https://copyright.uslegal.com/authorship-in-copyright/">Authorship in Copyright</a></p>
<p><b>Copyright protection arises automatically once an original work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed; e.g., written, filmed, recorded. It does not require that a copyright notice be placed on the work, that the work be published, or that the work be deposited or registered with the Copyright Office or any other body.</b>
<br>
<br>
The author of a copyrighted work may be a person or an institution. Typically, the author of a work owns the copyright in the work. However, under the U.S. Copyright Law, for a work made for hire, that is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of employment or a specially ordered or commissioned work, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author.
</p>
<p>Copyright therefore protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. ... Under the U.S. Copyright Law, exclusive rights are granted to an author or owner of a copyrightable work... {mcb: e.g., literary work} ... The exclusive rights provided by copyright are completely divisible. Copyright in a work vests initially in the author or authors of the work. However, the author may assign some or all of his or her rights to another, e.g., to a publisher, if the work has appeared in a formal publication, who then becomes the owner of the rights assigned.... When just one author is involved in the creation of a work, s/he can rightfully claim copyright. ... A copyright owner now has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare spin-off works based on the copyrighted work, and to sell, perform and/or display the copyrighted work in public. ... The author of a derivative work is also entitled to copyright protection. Derivative work refers to a work that is based on, or modifies, one or more preexisting works. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to prepare or authorize the preparation of a derivative work based on the copyrighted work. If a derivative work, considered as a whole, represents an original work of authorship, it may be separately copyrightable. However in such cases, the copyright covers only original portions of the derivative work.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Contrary to <b>Phantasypublishing</b> assertions, MCB does not require <i>"registered copyright numbers on file to prove a legal copyright" on this blog.</i></p>
<p><i>"A copyright owner now has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare spin-off works based on the copyrighted work."</i> This is what has happened to text authored by MCB in email and in blog comments that now appears in a compilation work.</p>
</div><!-- section 68 -->
<a name="x69"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x69</a>
Maxwell C. Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_69');">Plagiarism charges run afoul</a></b></p>
<p>2018-04-17</p>
<div id="sect_69" style="display: none;">
<p>There I was, applying finishing touches to the comments rolled up into the article, when I notice (a) a comment on 2018-04-16 from <b>PhantasyPublishing</b> under <a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html">more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges</a> and (b) new or possibly overlooked commentary within posting directed at me.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Again you made baseless bullshit statements that have no bearing on PhantasyPublishing </p></blockquote>
<p>This may have been in reference to my assessment that "quality publishing" is called into question with each comment from <b>PhantasyPublishing</b> that contains blatant defects, which is proven not <i>"baseless."</i>
<br>
<br>I went on to spuculate:
</p><blockquote><p>Your legacy... on my blog... such as it is... proves the existence of organized government trolls paid to infiltrate discussions on the internet and promote various agendas, but never the truth.</p></blockquote>
<p>Here's my perspective on the matter. Truth always finds a way of coming out, but can often make the powers that be (PTB) uncomfortable when made too public. The effort, now 15+ years along, to suppress the 9/11 nuclear truth has had many phases that has roped the public and even the vast majority of the 9/11 Truth Movement within <i>"no 9/11 nukes"</i> confines. Yet, a solitary, truth-seeking, fanatical, OCD individual persists. His <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">FGNW premises</a> could become a dangerous seed for what grows in public thought.
<br>
<br>The PTB has gotten their minions to delete the FGNW message and ban its proponent in other venues, from certain Facebook forums to Let's Roll forums, to Clues forum, to 9/11 Blogger, to Quinazagga (and beyond). Archiving and publishing my own words was within my control through my website and blogging efforts. From <a href="https://copyright.uslegal.com/authorship-in-copyright/">Authorship in Copyright</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Copyright protection arises automatically once an original work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed; e.g., written, filmed, recorded. It does not require that a copyright notice be placed on the work, that the work be published, or that the work be deposited or registered with the Copyright Office or any other body.</b>
<br>...
<br>When just one author is involved in the creation of a work, s/he can rightfully claim copyright. ... A copyright owner now has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare spin-off works based on the copyrighted work, and to sell, perform and/or display the copyrighted work in public.
<br></p></blockquote>
<p>The <b>PhantasyPublishing</b> derivative works are simply the next disinformation tactic when they can't otherwise affect the medium of publication. The effort is purposely poorly done (a) from selection of the source to mock (e.g., not <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html">FGNW premises</a>), (b) to the shoddy publication efforts, (c) to straw-men arguments, (d) to weak reasoning. The short-term purpose is to distract me. The long-term purpose is to distract Google with lots of references to me so that its disinformation landing page bubbles up in searches done on MCB and my premise.
<br>
<br>{mcb: HybridRogue1 wrote two attack blog articles [<a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/">1</a>] [<a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/">2</a>]. <b>PhantasyPublishing</b> now has two [<a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html">1</a>][<a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html">2</a>]. Facebook has probably several postings in various forums attacking me as disinformation.}
<br>
<br><b>PhantasyPublishing</b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>Here is something for you since you can't read any of the WTC NIST reports you lack the technical expertise to discuss the impact of the jet airliners on each skyscraper. This is why you bring up some fictional Nuclear device Demolition and have no credibility in regards to any generation of Nuclear devices a matter of fact your response just closed the case on your delusion it is like arguing with a flat-earther from the space station orbiting above them</p></blockquote>
<p>I've been through the WTC NIST reports on other 9/11 carousel rides (on my blog) and do not desire another spin. Though as a benchmark into <b>PhantasyPublishing</b>'s agenda and mind-set, the committee has seemingly never typed into Google <i>"debunking WTC NIST reports"</i> to learn from many sources the many ways the WTC NIST reports have been analyzed point-by-point and found lacking, if not outright deceitful.
<br>
<br>The discussion is Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices or Weapons (FGND/FGNW); not faulty WTC NIST reports.
<br>
<br><b>PhantasyPublishing</b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>Also, all of your use of <a href="http://www.11syyskuu.net/military.htm">http://www.11syyskuu.net/military.htm</a> is obvious and it is refuted <a href="http://www.11syyskuu.net/H-device.htm">http://www.11syyskuu.net/H-device.htm</a> just as your false claims about the alleged encounter on
<br>Truth and Shadows that never occurred just like the inability to produce proof of a valid registered copyright</p></blockquote>
<p>Today (2018) is the first time I recall seeing <a href="http://www.11syyskuu.net/military.htm">http://www.11syyskuu.net/military.htm</a>. Based on the comments, it appears to have been authored in 2008. It has many nuggets of truth, such as its analysis of Dr. Steven Jones. Portions of the work align with my sources and my alternative analysis. However, the article limits itself to (a) singular and large nuclear device (b) positioned in the lowest levels. My FGNW premise is either (a) multiple and tactical nuclear devices positioned at various levels, or (b) singular pulsing tactical nuclear device dropped down the elevator shaft.
<br>
<br>I recall seeing <a href="http://www.11syyskuu.net/H-device.htm">http://www.11syyskuu.net/H-device.htm</a> before, because I've seen <a href="http://www.11syyskuu.net/military.htm">"Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11"</a> (2006) but it was a long time ago and my views have since deviated. The article you linked had a subtitle that said: <i>"WTC hydrogen bomb theory refuted,"</i> which is true. A conventional hydrogen bomb would have been to energetic for the observed 9/11 evidence. But if you closely follow the discussion (which <b>PhantasyPublishing</b> didn't and is another tell of disinformation agenda), it diverges into "mini-hydrogen bombs" plural and other deviants, just like FGNW does. As with many pages on the internet, it has broken links. Here is the fix to the link that says <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">"Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices"</a>.
<br>
<br><b>PhantasyPublishing</b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>Then again like the true fascist do they take the article and repurpose it for their own agenda propagation. The real facts are that from the start <i>Maxwell C. Bridges aka (El sienior) from Truth and Shadows was a fictional pseudonym
<br>and the works he used was public domain released on Usenet as a work of fiction by Walter Bartoo. There was never any proof of registered copyright given so there was no copyright.</i></p></blockquote>
<p>WTF? And you wouldn't know a true fascist even if you were saluting it.
<br>
<br><b>PhantasyPublishing</b>, you make the (poorly written and formatted) claim that I plagiarized from a certain <i>"Walter Bartoo"</i>. Unless <i>"Walter Bartoo"</i> is the Finnish Military Expert or those associated with his website, I do not know who this person is.
<br>
<br>The burden of proof for this plagiarism claim is on you, <b>PhantasyPublishing</b>. You must identify specific passages (a) from <i>"Walter Bartoo"</i> with URL and (b) from MCB with URL that are identical, and (c) that MCB is the one who copied. Failure to substantiate this claim will have you branded <i>"liar."</i>
<br>
<br><b>PhantasyPublishing</b> AI algorithms continue to dribble incoherently:</p>
<blockquote><p>Just as his empty claims of plagiarism and Maxwell C. Bridges continues to respond to phantastypublishing in his fictional blog thinking that MCB has not been given credit is complete and utter fiction. Illustratively, as he has gone to such a length to create a work of fiction which he wholeheartedly admits, is his own creation. The glaring fictional statement</p></blockquote>
<p>No, MCB's claim of <b>PhantasyPublishing</b>'s plariarism is not empty, met the burden of proof with URLs, and has rather long teeth. Part 1 of this work shows that it was an issue in 2013. Part 3 and <b>PhantasyPublishing</b>'s second comment shows that such remains an issue in 2018.
<br>
<br>I wrote in reference to <b>PhantasyPublishing</b>'s comment: </p>
<blockquote><p>"The above demonstrates a clear and fearful avoidance of tackling any specifics from my FGNW work."</p></blockquote>
<p><b>PhantasyPublishing</b> responded:</p>
<blockquote><p>No MCB it the FGNW work is from http://www.11syyskuu.net/military.htm
<br>
<br>You never give up your sources for the bogus claims you make.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Influenced from Finnish Military Expert? Most definitely. Not a crime. But neither the Expert nor associated websites were sources for my work beyond any direct quotations and proper attribution, otherwise I would have given them credit. When I started compiling and writing my FGNW premise, I had other reference material at my disposal commanding my attention, not dated speculative work (2006). To the degree you point out similarities, the danger is two independent research & speculation coming to parallel conclusions, as would be expected when chasing truth.
<br>
<br>And if you'd read, copious sources were provided in context (like <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">Dr. Andre Gsponer, for Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices</a>). How embarrassing (a) that you didn't see this <b>[because reading and tackling FGNW section-by-section is still verboten in your agenda-defending]</b> and (b) that you would foist the deceit of me not having sources. Everything written about 9/11 is a potential source: NIST, EPA, FEMA, 9/11 Commission Report, USGS, Dr. Steven Jones, RJLee Group, Dr. Wood, A&E9/11Truth, 9/11 Truth Movement. A problem that more clear thinkers need to see is that, regarding 9/11, almost everything published is disinformation (purposeful deceit) and misinformation (earnest belief in the error). The challenge becomes: to mine the valid nuggets of truth from the disinformation vehicles destined to crash and burn eventually, as designed.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>PhantasyPublishing</b> goes on the offensive: </p>
<blockquote><p>First, you are a no planer that falsely claims no planes hit the WTC towers on 91101 this repudiated dishonesty is typical of Fascist that are pushing an agenda and has no real interest in factual intellectual exchanges. The false use of plagiarism and creating a sideshow to cover up the fact that MCB acquired his knowledge from {mcb: sic}</p></blockquote>
<p>First, I <b><i>~was~</i></b> a no planer. I am no longer. I have seen the light, and the disinformation that duped me. I am a planer, and have apologized publicly for having led others astray.
<br>
<br>Beyond that, when I study your comment for what is worthy of rebuttal, I come up short. Bravo, well done. What you've written -- & how -- reflects of your inner essence.
<br>
<br>Make note: instead of going into my FGNW premise (section-by-section) with a real block or quote to then prove as disinfo, <b>PhantasyPublishing</b> makes the false claim regarding my Finnish Military source, quotes from it, and tries to debunk it: classic straw-man.
<br>
<br>+++ Begin <b>PhantasyPublishing</b>
</p>
<blockquote><p>If we looked at what MCB and his source <a href="http://911u.org/Physics/WTCenergySurplus.html">http://911u.org/Physics/WTCenergySurplus.html</a>
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p style="background-color: #aaaaaa; color: #333333; font-size: 14.6667px;">
<br>Of course, that still means that dozens of such devices would need to be reliably triggered in a precise sequence in the proximity of small directional thermonuclear events. Is such a feat possible? It is our belief that such a feat was possible but not 100% reliable. If it approached, say, 95% reliability, that would still be sufficient to mostly disintegrate the skyscrapers (and eradicate asbestos molecules) while creating the illusion of a(n overly rapid) gravitational collapse. If 35 such devices were used per tower and perhaps another 20 in WTC7, that would mean that around 90 devices were employed.<br>
<br>It is part of our dot-connecting hypothesis that the sources of energy responsible for the hot spots reported in the media (molten (<a href="http://911u.org/Physics/WTC_ruins_like_a_foundry_video.html">10</a>) and yellow- (<a href="http://911u.org/Physics/graphics/yellow-hotWTCruinsSept27.jpg">11</a>) and red-hot (<a href="http://911u.org/Physics/WTC_hot_ruins_video.html">9</a>) metal weeks after 9/11, "fires" which could not be extinguished for 99 days despite constant dousing with water <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070106103554/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/20/rec.athome.facts">12</a>) were some damaged small fissionless thermonuclear devices (IOW, the 5% that were duds) among the ruins, which released their energy slowly, at (tens of) thousands of degrees, instead of all at once, at (hundreds of) millions of degrees.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<h1 align="center">The Bombs in the WTC</h1>
<p><i>Note:</i> This drawing is schematic only. The actual towers were much taller and the observed arch of destruction of the energy-directed thermonuclear device was correspondingly more narrow.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div align="center">
<img src="http://www.11syyskuu.net/nuke.gif" width="80%">
</div>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The <i>Ground Zero</i> here is in the original sense of word, a nuclear blast site. The thermal energy may absorb heat at a rate of 10 E 23 ergs / cm<sup>2</sup> sec and near the bomb all surfaces may heat to 4000 °C or 7200 °F igniting or vapourizing violently. <i>Source: US Department of Defense & US Department of Energy, Glasstone – Dolan: 'The Effects of Nuclear Weapons'</i> (1980).</p>
<p>The thermonuclear bomb used was a 'pure' hydrogen bomb, so no uranium or plutonium at all. The basic nuclear reaction is Deuterium + Tritium > Alpha + n. The ignition of this is the fine part, either with a powerful beam array or antimatter (a very certain way to get the necessary effect of directed energy in order not to level the adjacent blocks of high-rise buildings, as well).</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>+++ End <b>PhantasyPublishing</b>
<br>
<br>My response? <i>"'True, dat' for the most part,'</i> which is why I did a faithful re-creation. Readers should note that (a) a FGNW would not have to be a "pure" hydrogen bomb; more importantly, the USGS measurements on the dust samples have the elements and decay elements expected in a fission reaction (as in possibly <i>"fission-triggered fusion"</i>). (b) FGNW need to be framed differently in terms of energy release from "thermonuclear bombs."
<br>
<br><b>PhantasyPublishing</b> writes a statement applicable to "thermonuclear bombs," not FGNW:</p>
<blockquote><p>OK here is where you look at the number of bombs needed and the radiological signatures of each Fission device, in short, each tower would be viewable from orbit because of the Gamma signatures coming from them making this whole WTC 91101 <span style="color: #202020; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> FGNW</span> scenario a good work of fiction. In short the physical impossible</p></blockquote>
<p>Most of the energy would have been radiated as neutrons, not gamma rays. You should read the works of Dr. Andre Gsponer, and then claim such remained <i>"a good work of fiction."</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>here is where you smokescreen distractionary articles fail you have not shown the following isotopes present at WTC after the towers were hit by jet airliners and FGNW used in fission demolition they are found in http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/257141.pdf.
<br>In short, this proves the utter implausibility of the use of FGNW on the WTC towers on 91101. It actually proves the 91101 Terroist attacks happened exactly as it did ref https://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks</p></blockquote>
<p>The www.dtic.mil link does not work, so it is ~impossible~ to use a gold standard to measure up to. Try <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html#x8">Section 8</a>, because it discusses the isotopes that were measured, as well as issues within those reports that make them unreliable as the definitive, last words on isotopes measured after 9/11.
<br>
<br>And your link to the History Channel's take on 9/11 as the definitive word? El-oh-el! Isn't that precious?!! A concise OCT statement. Disinformation throughout, most glaringly in what it omits. And more imortantly, you wrote: <i>"It actually proves the 91101 Terroist attacks happened exactly as it did (sic)"</i>. How cute? But, yanno, it actually proves nothing except what a gullible, flag-saluting, agenda-defender your persona is.
<br>
<br>To the disinfo squad behind "the committee", you learn the important lesson here of "keeping ownership of your words."
<br>
<br>I spoke too soon before, but maybe today it will become true: <i>"Good thing they are done with me."</i>
<br>
<br>// mcb
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 69 -->
<a name="x70"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x70" class="tiny">x70</a>
phantasypublishing : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">CyberBullying justification</a></p>
<p>2018-04-24</p>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: none;">
<p>phantasypublishing
<br><a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html?showComment=1524589364023#c2711149616525697488">April 24, 2018 at 12:02 PM</a>
<br>
<br>the fact is the Nuclear or alternative fake misrepresented and misguided attempts from MCB to try to pass off CyberBullying because his e mail was exposed. Well his use of his use of Wilks's name s the same low brow journalism to be expected from a fascist. Played back in the face of a fascist they do the normal nose up arrogant literary prance showing their delusions as the flow into text. Yea Wilks government agent and so is phantasypublishing. Yea MCB a delusional clown whom can't produce proof one of his fictional and comical statements. If this guy was taken into court he would be remanded to psychiatric treatment for delusions and paranoia. The FBI would cease his computers ect why because MCB fits this profile " Cyberstalking may be an extension of physical stalking,[11] and may have criminal consequences. A target's understanding of why cyberstalking is happening is helpful to remedy and take protective action. Among factors that motivate stalkers are envy, pathological obsession (professional or sexual), unemployment or failure with own job or life, or the desire to intimidate and cause others to feel inferior. The stalker may be delusional and believe he/she "knows" the target. The stalker wants to instill fear in a person to justify his/her status, or may believe they can get away with these actions (anonymity)."
<br>So by MCB's blog and fictional portrayal of Wilks and Phantasypublishing it illustrates on how to catch an Cyberstalker in his own web of bullshit
<br>
<br>phantasypublishing
<br><a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html?showComment=1524589411542#c9050806575473672276">April 24, 2018 at 12:03 PM</a>
<br>
<br>If any WTC survivor wanted to take you into court and you would loose horribly because your entire blog and demeanor as to being so illogical to come after someone whom proved you wrong and then you proceeded to fictionally say factual information was fictional. Well that is denial of reality of 91101 Terror attacks and most of the judiciary here would have you committed for psychiatric evaluation based on cyberstalking laws of Texas and also the fact that you made a false claim that you could use Emails after you were told they were not for public release. Since you went ahead and used them in a misleading edited and fictional maner MCB destroyed any credibility he may have had also he violated rule one of reporting don't try to put your twisted dementia into any correspondence between Daniel G Wilks or Phantasypublishing staff. We Are not part of the 911truther profit off 91101 terror attacks via Social entrepreneurship which is preditoral toward survivors of the 91101 terrorist attacks
</p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<a name="x71"></a><hr>
<p><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x71</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_71');">phantasy phublishing</a></p>
<p>2018-04-26</p>
<div id="sect_71" style="display: none;">
<p>The entity calling itself <i><b>phantasypublishing</b></i> is in my opinion either:
</p>
<ul>
<li>a non-native English speaker.</li>
<li>a ChatBot.</li>
<li>an uneducated idiot.</li>
<li>an uneducated, non-native English speaking bot.</li>
</ul>
<p>The knee-jerk reaction of <b>phantasypublishing</b> might be to label the above as libel and fitting into the category of cyberstalking. But when the assessment is proven true (and it will be), then it is isn't libel and becomes a validated (true) character trait.
<br>
<br>Worse for <b>phantasypublishing</b> is that their own words and publishing efforts do the most damage to their reputation, and all I'm doing in my fair-use commentary is point it out. For example, <b>phantasypublishing</b> wrote <a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html?showComment=1524589364023#c2711149616525697488">2018-04-24</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>the fact is the Nuclear or alternative fake misrepresented and misguided attempts from MCB to try to pass off CyberBullying because his e mail was exposed.</p></blockquote>
<p>The above sentence has multiple incomplete and incoherent thoughts that are poorly written, and for this reason isn't a fact at all. One exhibit of many that <b>phantasypublishing</b> might be a non-native English speaker.
<br>
<br>An indication that <b>phantasypublishing</b> might be a bot is that they seemingly have never looked up the definition of cyberstalking and do not relate them to my specific actions.
</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking">Cyberstalking</a> is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization. It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel. It may also include monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, or gathering information that may be used to threaten, embarrass or harass. ... Cyberstalking is often accompanied by real-time or offline stalking.</p></blockquote>
<p>I have consistently provided examples that prove my accusations true. The onus is on <b>phantasypublishing</b> to identify what is false, defamation, or libel in my work. We can easily dispute any claims of <i>"monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex"</i> in this work. Nor are can <b>phantasypublishing</b> identify any <i>"real-time or offline stalking."</i> At best, <b>phantasypublishing</b> can legitmately say that I have <i>"gathered information"</i> consisting of primarily my words commenting in a fair-use manner on their words. Threats and harrassment aren't present. Embarrassment is present, but it comes first and foremost from <b>phantasypublishing</b>'s blogging efforts that my commentary later makes fun of.
<br>
<br><b>phantasypublishing</b>'s association of MCB's blogging efforts with the terms <i>"cyberstalking"</i> and <i>"cyberbullying"</i> -- without substantiation -- fall squarely into the categories of <i>"libel"</i> and <i>"cyberbullying."</i>
<br>
<br><b>phantasypublishing</b> poorly writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Well his use of his use of Wilks's name s the same low brow journalism to be expected from a fascist.</p></blockquote>
<ol>
<li>I'm not a journalist; I am a US citizen exercising his right of free speech.</li>
<li>Use of Wilks' name and associating it with <b>phantasypublishing</b>? <a href="http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Quinazagga">Daniel's Phantasy Publishing Store</a> has already done that probably at Daniel Grant Wilks' own hand. <i>"Daniel Grant Wilks, was born on August 19, 1970 at 10:00 pm... He started Phantasypublishing in 1980."</i> At 10 years old, he was a real whipper-snapper publisher.</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> has repeatedly libeled me by calling me a <i>"fascist."</i>
<blockquote><p><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism">Fascism:</a> a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.</p></blockquote>
<p>Burden of proof is on you, <b>phantasypublishing</b>. Identify in my copious writings where I have ever championed fascism. You'll come up short but provide me with a huge opening to legitimately call you a <i>"liar."</i></p>
</li>
</ol>
<p><b>phantasypublishing</b> poorly writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Played back in the face of a fascist they do the normal nose up arrogant literary prance showing their delusions as the flow into text.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hoo-kay. Aside from me not being a fascist (and you not substantiating the claim ever), you haven't <i>"played anything back in (my) face."</i>
<br>
<br><b>phantasypublishing</b> poorly writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Yea Wilks government agent and so is phantasypublishing. Yea MCB a delusional clown whom can't produce proof one of his fictional and comical statements.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hoo-kay. <b>phantasypublishing</b> has yet to quote and analyze a single section from <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html"><i>9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case</i></a>, let alone section-by-section. The sections have their own linked substantiation (e.g., proof) that also need to be debunked in order to invalidate my FGNW premise. As such, <b>phantasypublishing</b> has no basis to falsely accuse me of being <i>"a delusional clown"</i> and my work <i>"fictional and comical,"</i> but instead gives me basis for calling <b>phantasypublishing</b> efforts as libel.
<br>
<br><b>phantasypublishing</b> poorly writes:
</p><blockquote><p>If this guy was taken into court he would be remanded to psychiatric treatment for delusions and paranoia.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hoo-kay. If I were taken to court (over my FGNW writings), it would validate my paranoia as real.
<br>
<br><b>phantasypublishing</b> poorly writes and quotes without links:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The FBI would cease his computers ect why because MCB fits this profile " Cyberstalking may be an extension of physical stalking,[11] and may have criminal consequences. A target's understanding of why cyberstalking is happening is helpful to remedy and take protective action. Among factors that motivate stalkers are envy, pathological obsession (professional or sexual), unemployment or failure with own job or life, or the desire to intimidate and cause others to feel inferior. The stalker may be delusional and believe he/she "knows" the target. The stalker wants to instill fear in a person to justify his/her status, or may believe they can get away with these actions (anonymity)."</p></blockquote>
<p>Looks like <b>phantasypublishing</b> is the true paranoid one. The deceitful inclusion of the uncredited quotation about <i>"physical stalking, and may have criminal consequences"</i> is a data point in the trend line of <b>phantasypublishing</b> being a liar.
</p>
<ol>
<li>I envy <i><b>NOTHING</b></i> about <b>phantasypublishing</b>.</li>
<li>The pathological obsession (professional or sexual) can be documented as coming from <b>phantasypublishing</b>, who was the first [in Part 1] to create a poorly formatted blog posting about me and badly quoting from me on the now-dead Quinzagga.</li>
<li>My blog is a collection of my words primarily with secondarily fair-use quotations (accurate, well formatted, and with proper accreditation) from those my words respond to. The trend line for me is consistent.</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> efforts [in Part 3 and <a href="https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/mor-fictional-delusional-response-by.html">more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges</a>] in the poor copy act demonstrates professional envy and pathological obsession.</li>
<li>Lots of examples of <b>phantasypublishing</b> trying to threaten me (e.g., with court) and to intimidate.</li>
</ol>
<p><b>phantasypublishing</b> poorly writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So by MCB's blog and fictional portrayal of Wilks and Phantasypublishing it illustrates on how to catch an Cyberstalker in his own web of bullshit</p></blockquote>
<p><b>phantasypublishing</b> is welcome to continue to believe the delusions of his own paranoid words and who gets caught <i>"in his own web of bullshit."</i>
<br>
<br><b>phantasypublishing</b> continues in a new comment three minutes later, poorly written and incoherent:
</p>
<blockquote><p>If any WTC survivor wanted to take you into court and you would loose horribly because your entire blog and demeanor as to being so illogical to come after someone whom proved you wrong and then you proceeded to fictionally say factual information was fictional.</p></blockquote>
<p>What would be the basis for <i>"any WTC survivor"</i> to take me to court? What crime have I committed against them? If you can't articulate an injury or crime, then all we have left is just more <i>"phantasy"</i> from you-know-who.
<br>
<br>BTW, I am more than open to be proven wrong, and when such a day arrives, I will immediately issue public apologies on all public venues under my control or where I participate.
<br>
<br>The issue has been and is, <b>phantasypublishing</b> has not quoted from a single section of my FGNW work -- let alone proven it wrong. After all this time, precious little evidence exists that <b>phantasypublishing</b> even read it. This is a data point fitting the trend-line that agenda-defenders (of the official conspiracy theory) are not permitted to read, wade into, quote, and legitimately debunk various (more truthful) premises. An agent tactic. Not the hallmark of an objective, open-minded, sincere, and real human.
<br>
<br><b>phantasypublishing</b> does not disappoint with another poorly written and incoherent sentence:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Well that is denial of reality of 91101 Terror attacks and most of the judiciary here would have you committed for psychiatric evaluation based on cyberstalking laws of Texas and also the fact that you made a false claim that you could use Emails after you were told they were not for public release.</p></blockquote>
<p>Aside from the bad writing, the repeated use of <i>"91101"</i> in <b>phantasypublishing</b> writings is fingerprint of a non-native English speaker (or a poorly educated one.) <b>phantasypublishing</b> could be forgiven being a non-native English speaker (and subsequently for all quirks in his writing), but he claims to having been born <i>"in Plaquemine, Louisiana and grew up playing in the swamps and forest of Louisiana, Alabama, and the beaches of the gulf coast."</i> He's had aspirations of being a writer and publisher of English content. So sad those endeavors continue to be.
<br>
<br>Because I'm having fun, I'll address one more time <i>"a false claim that (MCB) could use Emails after (MCB) were told they were not for public release"</i>.
</p>
<ol>
<li>All emails except one from <b>phantasypublishing</b> had no disclaimer that would attempt to prohibit publication.</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> and MCB do not have a written non-disclosure contract. Without such a mutual contract in place, an email disclaimer trying to impose one-sided restrictions on my actions and after-the-fact or retro-actively won't hold up in court.</li>
<li>The disclaimer (whether on one or all emails) was aimed at those who were ~NOT~ the intended recipient and tried to restrict their actions.</li>
<li>The disclaimer (whether on one or all emails) explicitly states that the intended recipient has <i>"sole use"</i> of them. Being that intended recipient, all of my actions have been within my <i>"sole use"</i>. </li>
<li>Even if all emails had confidentiality disclaimers under a non-disclosure agreement, the record shows that <b>phantasypublishing</b> was in breach first by copying them to <i>"the committee."</i></li>
<li>When <b>phantasypublishing</b> lamely re-purposes those same email exchanges to their blog, it invalidates any auspices of confidentiality and handily shoots down such arguments.</li>
</ol>
<p>I provided the <a href="https://www.businessattorneyinaustin.com/annoying-email-confidentiality-disclaimers/">Email Confidentiality</a> link before. It is testament to either <b>phantasypublishing</b>'s intellect or bot-algorithms (or both) that they didn't read it, didn't understand it, didn't incorporate its findings into their opinions, and didn't sway <b>phantasypublishing</b> from cranking a new spin on the same carousel by spouting the same unfounded assertions.
<br>
<br>I can't make this shit up; <b>phantasypublishing</b> does not disappoint with another poorly written and incoherent sentence:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Since you went ahead and used them in a misleading edited and fictional maner MCB destroyed any credibility he may have had also he violated rule one of reporting don't try to put your twisted dementia into any correspondence between Daniel G Wilks or Phantasypublishing staff.</p></blockquote>
<p>So I supposedly <i>"used (the email exchange) in a misleading edited and fictional (manner)"</i>? El-oh-el.
<br>
<br><b>phantasypublishing</b> needs to point out where my edits were misleading. Failure to do so renders such a complaint a lie. (I already have pointed out where <b>phantasypublishing</b> has edits that were misleading.) I would counter that my formatting added clarity to <b>phantasypublishing</b>'s screwed up text. As for using the emails in a <i>"fictional manner:"</i>
</p>
<ol>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b>'s comments validated that the email exchanges as published by MCB were real.</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b>'s efforts to re-purpose the email exchanges on his blog from Gmail source only further validates that the email exchanges were real.</li>
<li>Were this to end up in court, Google's Gmail database archives that both used will further validate the reality of the email exchanges.</li>
<li>To the extent that it isn't the purpose of this blog to preserve <b>phantasypublishing</b>'s words, what words it re-uses were accurately re-produced and are validated with <b>phantasypublishing</b>'s blog and Gmail. </li>
<li>Blogging isn't journalism (most of the time.) If anything, it falls into the category of editorials or opinion pieces. Are Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, and lots of others from Fox journalists? Nope. They are entertainers, or opinion speakers.</li>
</ol>
<p>Yanno. Emails used in a <i>"fictional manner"</i> unravels to be another data point in the trend line of <b>phantasypublishing</b> being a <b>liar</b> and props the door open for libel actions against them. (An agent-bot with an agenda from which it cannot waiver is also possible.)
<br>
<br><b>phantasypublishing</b> concludes their second comment from 2018-04-24 with the following glitch in their bot-algorithms, which is accurately quoted right on down to the missing punctuation:
</p>
<blockquote><p>We Are not part of the 911truther profit off 91101 terror attacks via Social entrepreneurship which is preditoral toward survivors of the 91101 terrorist attacks</p></blockquote>
<p>Another tell of a government agent (or agent-bot) is to turn the discussion from the facts -- such as everything that substantiates my FGNW premise -- and make it emotional and about the <i>"survivors of 9/11"</i>. <b>phantasypublishing</b> probably meant to write <i>"victims"</i> or <i>"families of the victims"</i>, but whatever the phrase, it doesn't apply to anything I've written regarding 9/11 FGNW. And if I did, the onus is on <b>phantasypublishing</b> to find such dastardly quotes from me to substantiate his claims of being preditory on its victims. <b>phantasypublishing</b> doesn't and hasn't. Without such, damn if that isn't another data point in the liar trend line. [I concede that 9/11 was domestic terrorist attack.]
<br>
<br><b>Conclusion:</b>
<br>
<br>The effectiveness of the algorithms of a government agent-bot is only as good as the database from which they draw their <i>"knowledge."</i> Garbage-in, garbage out.
<br>
<br>A notable trend-line of government agents is where they are willing to do battle from the perspective of both topics and home-court. They are ordered not to review in detail certain premises (e.g., FGNW), because the (disinfo) philosophy goes: if you address something even by countering it, you help validate it. If given a choice, they prefer to have the home-court advantage, so that they can delete or not allow errant comments, or outright ban the offender.
<br>
<br>Whether a bot or a live agent, their source database holds clues to their agenda and the limits of their conversation. They are quick to hold up the early work of Greening (e.g., pancake collapse), Popular Mechanics, or NIST reports while ignoring the fact that such works have been countered (if not debunked in a flaming fashion) many times over.
<br>
<br>Yes, the 9/11 TM has been seeded (sometimes purposely) with flagrant disinformation that even the best of us (myself included) can and have been duped by. This category includes beams from space, deep underground nukes, no planes at the WTC, holograms, and nano-thermite. The purpose of such endeavors is to collect valid nuggets of truth and ultimately bury or discredit such nuggets by parking public thought in a dead-end alley or by imploding the overarching premise. For example, both deep underground nukes and Dr. Wood's work have collected valid evidence of 9/11's nuclear fingerprints, yet both premises have fatal flaws that invalidate them.
<br>
<br>9/11 FGNW -- sometimes referred to as <i>"exotic (energy) weapons"</i> in the early 2000's -- was poo-poo-ed by the 9/11 Movement ultimately by a nuclear physics professor who tried to debunk nuclear involvement in a dubious manner and then inserted nano-thermite into the public 9/11 discourse. His debunking efforts framed nuclear considerations around large nuclear devices and proved in straw-man fashion how this wasn't observed; no mention of tactical nukes or fourth generation nuclear devices that even middling research at an institution of higher education would have exposed as being viable.
<br>
<br>The <b>phantasypublishing</b> agent-bot has repeatedly tried to debunk 9/11 FGNW through references to previous attacks/debunking of Dr. Wood's work and deep-underground nukes, or by holding discussion to NIST and Popular Mechanics benign and incorrect areas. The agent-bot's database contains nothing regarding the FGNW premise or the fingerprints of nuclear involvement leaking out all reports, such as the USGS report on the dust. The agent-bot will neither admit this nor go there.
<br>
<br>As is the trend line, the agent-bot did not review the <a href="https://www.businessattorneyinaustin.com/annoying-email-confidentiality-disclaimers/">Email Confidentiality</a> link previously, or chose not to incorporate their findings into its actions. Agent-bots have no qualms about cranking carousels or cycling through turf already addressed.
<br>
<br>P.S. If the public connection was not already made between <b>phantasypublishing</b> and <b>Daniel Grant Wilks</b> at his own volition, I would have endeavored not to expose his (real *cough*) name, affording him as much internet privacy as possible. I did not expose his email address.
<br>
<br>On the other side, I have gone to great efforts not to expose my email address in a public fashion. A fan or stalker will have to dig pretty deep on my blog to find it. I stand behind my words, which is why it is buried but still there. Many years ago after being ruthlessly "outed" by a disinfo agent on the losing side of 9/11 discussions, I stopped using it as an exposed identifier in comments made to forums. And nearly all forums using email as a log-in identifier have since modified their technology in a manner that does not expose email addresses in the forums anymore. (Facebook used to expose email addresses and phone numbers, but not anymore.)
<br>
<br>Why? Because web-bots scan pages for email addresses and use this data-mined information for spamming emails and other nefarious purposes. This alone is justification enough to expect proper, prompt, and courteous action on my simple request for <b>phantasypublishing</b> to edit his copy-&-paste work and remove my exposed email addresses.
<br>
<br>Why has <b>phantasypublishing</b> not acted on it? Many reasons come to mind.
</p>
<ul>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> is a bot and doesn't understand the request.</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> (bot or human) isn't very skilled as a writer or publisher and doesn't know how to edit his work. Pretty damning in and of itself.</li>
<li><b>phantasypublishing</b> is not honorable. They are a liar, proven repeatedly in their last two comments alone. Failure to act on my repeated request fits into their deceitful trend-line.</li>
<li>Repetition of my name and email address gives it gravitas in Google searches by others. Beyond the repetitive exposure, <b>phantasypublishing</b> may never act nefarioiusly on the information, but they provide the information as a tool for others (not just web-bots) to exploit.</li>
</ul>
<p>// mcb</p>
</div><!-- section 71 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part3 -->
<hr>
<p><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_part');"><b>Show All Parts</b></a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_part');"><b>Hide All Parts</b></a></p>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Show All</a> /
<a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All</a></p>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-81132693267203628112016-03-11T23:11:00.000-08:002017-12-29T09:38:19.287-08:00Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
</p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<hr>
<p>
This article makes the case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGND) were used on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center. In doing so, it discusses why the leading theory of Nano-Thermite proposed by many influential leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement does not go the whole distance and is therefore wrong. This work demonstrates evolution in the beliefs of the author when presented with new information, although much of this article's content has been published previously.
</p>
<a name='more'></a>
<p>Certain quotations reproduced in accordance with <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107">Section 107 of title 17</a> of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of <b>criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.</b>
</p>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a>
<a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
</p>
<a name="x1"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#1">1</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_1');">
Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices & 9/11</a></h2>
<div id="sect_1" style="display: none;">
<p>The official fabel about the World Trade Center (WTC) towers' destruction on 9/11 claims (1) that the building stories above the impact levels became massive pile drivers that acted solely under the forces of gravity to pulverize the underlying structures to the ground and (2) that no extra energy was added from unknown sources.
<br>
<br>However, many videos of the destruction of the WTC towers expose anomalies in the form of (1) destruction at free-fall speeds, (2) content pulverization, and (3) content ejection that defy physics, <i>unless energy was added from other sources.</i>
<br>
<br>Assuming the damage and fires from the impacting planes could have initiated the collapses of the towers (for which they were designed), the structure underneath the falling upper stories would have and should have resisted & slowed the destruction wave, if the collapse wasn't arrest completely well above ground level.
<br>
<br>The pulverization of content and the ejection of content are energy sinks that take away from the kinetic energy of a "pile driver" and logically would have further slowed the destruction from free-fall speeds. Moreover, as observed in many videos and discussed by physics teacher <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidChandler911">David Chandler</a>, the "pile driver" of upper stories accordianed in on themselves and weren't a cohesive mass anymore by the time the wave of destruction progressed below the levels where the airplanes impacted.
<br>
<br>From <a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/"><i>"BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7"</i></a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>A number of papers ... have measured the fall of WTC 1’s upper section and have observed that it never slowed down in the four seconds before it disappeared from view. Rather, its acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall, and there was never an observable deceleration, which would be required if the upper section had impacted and crushed the lower structure. A lack of deceleration would indicate with absolute certainty that the lower structure was destroyed by another force before the upper section reached it. ... One of the most noticeable features of the two buildings’ destruction was the near-total pulverization of... approximately 8.8 million square feet of 5.5-inch-thick lightweight concrete flooring. ... [T]he buildings’ steel structures were almost entirely dismembered... [V]irtually all of their steel skeletons were broken up into small pieces, with the core structures separated into individual members and the exterior columns broken up into three-story, prefabricated sections. ... As the concrete was being pulverized and the structures were being dismembered, a large percentage of the buildings’ materials was ejected upwards and laterally in an arclike manner far beyond the perimeters of the buildings... as far as 400 to 500 feet from each tower’s base.
</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Thus, the official government & media version of 9/11 events pertaining to the WTC cannot be true.</b>
</p>
<p>The leading theories within the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) and promoted heavily by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE9/11) suggest that nano-thermite (NT) was the primary mechanism of destruction at the WTC. This article doesn't dispute that NT might have been involved, but does dispute that NT could have been the primary mechanism of destruction.
<br>
<br><b><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGND)</a> are more likely sources for the WTC destruction.</b> This truth leaks out of all (government) reports, out of all objective analysis of the evidence, out of numerous "disinformation" sources, and out of the ongoing cover-up itself.
<br>
<br>The above paragraph risks triggering <a href="http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html"><i>"cognitive dissonance"</i></a> with readers who may have been involved with the 9/11TM in small or large measure. However, if such readers are <i>sincere seekers of truth</i> at their core, then they owe it to truth & themselves to stifle the cognitive dissonance and to continue reading.
<br>
<br>For the benefit of those with a belief in NT, it is addressed before the case is made for FGND.
<br></p></div><!-- section 1 -->
<a name="x2"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#2">2</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">
Slaughtering the Nano-Thermite Sacred Cow</a></h2>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: none;">
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>Prior to the demolition of the WTC buildings, the largest imploded building, Hudson’s Department Store was 2.2 million square feet with 33 levels and required 2,728 lbs of explosive. The WTC buildings were significantly stronger than the Hudson’s building. {<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/03/vt-nuclear-education-history-of-mini-nukes/">Source.</a>}</p></blockquote>
<p>The major anomalies that call NT into question as the primary mechanism of WTC destruction are:
<br>
<br>- Pulverization of content.
<br>- Duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>- Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies."
<br>- Vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car park.
<br>- Tritium and other evidence of nuclear involvement.
<br>- Shoddy analysis of NT and nuclear alternatives.
<br>
<br>If we assume briefly that NT was the main mechanism, how much would be required? Dr. Nils Harrit made some calculations to this end. He started with the analysis that the RJ Lee group did with dust from the lobby of a neighboring building, where they found 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust (see Table 3,p.28 in the <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/cache/nyenvirolaw_WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf">2003 Report</a>). Dr. Harrit wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>There were produced at least 0.0583 x 200000 = 11,660 tonnes = 11.6 kilo-tons of iron-rich spheres per tower. ... If we assume, that ALL the thermitic material should react to form iron spheres (please notice, that this is another highly conservative condition), RJ Lee Groups observation implies that:
<br>
<br>(10000 x 1000 x 1000)/70 = 143,000,000 kg = 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material was present in WTC2 prior to collapse. Of course, it is five times less [28k metric tons], if the iron oxide content is 50%. <b>Still, it's a lot.</b></p></blockquote>
<p>http://www.ae911truth.org/news/207-news-media-events-danish-high-court-harrit.html</p>
<blockquote><p>Hedegaard had earlier calculated, on his own, that at least 60 tons of thermite would have been needed to take down the Twin Towers, and on that basis he found it difficult to believe that controlled demolition had been used to level those two buildings.</p></blockquote>
<p></p></div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name="x3"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#3">3</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_3');">
Running the numbers on NT</a></h2>
<div id="sect_3" style="display: none;">
<p>NT is an incendiary, not an explosive. Therefore Dr. Steven Jones, who allegedly found energetic particles of NT in <b><i>his</i></b> dust samples, suggested that NT was mixed with something having more brisance, such as RDX.
<br>
<br>Unfortunately on paper, RDX or similar explosives exasperate getting NT to explain the second anomaly of under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months. NT has a burn rate of ~1,100 feet per second (f/s). RDX has a burn-rate of ~31,000 f/s. Hot-spots were several and burned for many weeks. <b>Simplify by considering only one hot-spot that burned 4 weeks = 28 days = 1,411,200 seconds.</b> As but one configuration and so it doesn't burn-up all at once, consider this explosive/incendiary material packed into an imaginary garden hose whose diameter we can ignore for the moment. To sustain such a hot-spot, the fuse-like hose packed with pure NT implies a length of 226,000 miles, while RDX implies 7,510,000 miles. Thus, a mixture of NT with RDX (or equivalent) would still result in something many hundreds of thousand miles long.
<br>
<br><b>Red flags</b> should be going up at this point, because those triple zeros to the left of the decimal point are significant. If we assume <i>"salting"</i> of the material in the pile and grossly simplified it down to "n" thousand miles and a hose diameter of a mere 1/8", the volume of material required (for one hot-spot) is still massive! The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources is stopped at RDX/NT. <b>Worst of all, this represents material that was unspent and left-over from its original task of pulverizing the towers.</b> In other words, add this to the gross estimates already provided by Dr. Harrit.
<br></p></div><!-- section 3 -->
<a name="x4"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#4">4</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_4');">
Test the Samples</a></h2>
<div id="sect_4" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Scott Creighton tried numerous times to get the Dr. Steven Jones to test his independently acquired WTC dust samples for standard industry explosive residues.
<br>
<br><a href="http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/some-straight-forward-questions-for-steven-jones-on-the-subject-of-his-research/">Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research</a> By Scott Creighton 2009-04-07.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Thermite and thermate would not be classified as a "high explosive" but rather a low-explosive. They are incendiary materials because though they burn at a relatively low rate of speed, the release a lot of energy when doing so.
<br>
<br>That is why you keep seeing energy comparisons being made by Jones in his new paper - but that energy he mentions translates mainly to heat output, not to the potential of creating a shock wave. It's that shock wave that produces the "explosive" effect that could pulverize concrete floors or shoot multi-ton steel beams across 300 feet of lower New York City. And it is the detonation velocity that creates the shock wave.
<br>...
<br>At long last, after being told that they were really more interested in pushing for political or legal action, Greg Roberts told me something quite amazing in one of his last emails to me.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"<em><b>However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. Thus, the potential costs of doing what you're proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered</b></em>." Roberts</p></blockquote>
<p>The idea that you wouldn't run a scientific test that is standard investigative procedure when an explosive is suspected, for any reason, let alone for "potential P.R." consequences… was astounding to me.
<br>...
<br><b>Here we are, looking for some deep-secret governmental agency capable of producing some mystery explosive, that may or may not have even had the detonation velocity capable of destroying the concrete floors in the first place, while everyone makes a point to cover their asses in the case of a future investigation by clearly stating they never LOOKED for standard to the industry explosive residues in the WTC dust samples.</b>
</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/neoliberal-byu-financed-and-peer-reviewed-prof-jones-flawed-research-in-order-to-support-bush-and-cheney/">9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and Peer-Reviewed Prof. Jones' Flawed Thermite Distraction Since Day One</a> By Scott Creighton 2010-05-26
</p>
<blockquote><p>Steven Jones is a physicist who has done work for the Idaho National Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy (Division of Advanced Energy Projects), and U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute. Not to mention the fact that Steven Jones was a professor at BYU.
<br>
<br>In several email attempts to get Jones to agree to run tests for residues of high explosives (PETN, RDX, TNT) in the dust in his possession, this highly decorated and experienced educator attempted to tell me there was no way to test for such residues and then he tried to tell me he didn't know how to test for the residues and would not have access to the equipment to do so.
<br>
<br>For Steven Jones to make the claim that NIST is "getting away with" not testing for explosive residue in the Ground Zero dust is one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever heard. Jones and Harrit and Roberts all make the claim in their "peer-reviewed paper" that they did NOT test for these finger prints of high explosives and that someone else should.
<br>...
<br>We can all understand why NIST doesn't run the tests; because they are a branch of the Department of Commerce and they essentially worked for the people who carried out 911. But Jones. Harrit, and Roberts are SUPPOSED to be a different story. They are SUPPOSED to be an unofficial investigation into the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
<br>
<br>Why would Jones, Harrit, Roberts, et al deliberately chose to not run these tests? And who exactly is "getting away" with not running them? NIST is condemned for it, Jones is given a pass.
</p></blockquote>
<p></p></div><!-- section 4 -->
<a name="x5"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#5">5</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_5');">
Sleight of Hand</a></h2>
<div id="sect_5" style="display: none;">
<p>http://www.ae911truth.org/news/207-news-media-events-danish-high-court-harrit.html</p>
<blockquote><p>In City Court, Villemoes had claimed that the WTC dust in the nano-thermite report could have been unauthentic. That charge gave Dr. Harrit a reason to submit the WTC dust as evidence to the High Court. In so doing, Dr. Harrit verified the authenticity of his dust samples by pointing to two photographs on page 24 in the nano-thermite report, which showed the same kind of iron microspheres found in the dust by RJ Lee Group in 2003 and by the US Geological Survey in 2005. He then held before Villemoes a plastic bag with his own sample of WTC dust, dragging a strong magnet along the side of the plastic, trying to make a little rim of black particles gather near the edges of the magnet. On the first attempt, Villemoes failed to see the black rim. But on the second try, he said he could see it, and Dr. Harrit told him that, since we all know that magnets attract iron, this was the iron microspheres being separated from the dust particles not containing iron. <b>This was proof that a thermitic reaction had taken place on 9/11, Dr. Harrit told Villemoes.</b></p></blockquote>
<p>Not necessarily.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 21</p>
<blockquote><p>Along with the pulverization, dismemberment, and explosive ejection of the buildings’ materials, we observed what Kevin Ryan describes as “high velocity bursts of debris ejected from point-like sources.”<sup>15</sup> According to Ryan, “[T]he demolition hypothesis suggests that these bursts of debris are the result of the detonation of explosive charges (squibs), placed at key points in the structure to facilitate the removal of resistance.”
</p></blockquote>
<p>Not necessarily. A thermitic reaction isn't the <b><i>only</i></b> way to create iron microspheres. The effects of FGNW depositing MeV neutron energy into the molecutes of steel is more than sufficient heat to create such microspheres. <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">Source for this quote.</a>}
</p>
<blockquote><p>[FGNW directed energy] will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
<br>
<br>The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. </p></blockquote>
<p></p></div><!-- section 5 -->
<a name="x6"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#6">6</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_6');">
Maintaining the Under-Rubble Fires</a></h2>
<div id="sect_6" style="display: none;">
<p>In Dr. Steven Jones and Mr. Kevin Ryan' paper, <a href="http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Ryan_EnvironmentalAnomalies.pdf"><i>"Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials,"</i></a> they make a good case that such explosive material could account for six or so spikes in the release of dangerous gases. The omission in their paper is that NT used in any combination with conventional explosives cannot explain what maintained the under-rubble hot-spots between those spikes. In September of 2012, Dr. Jones wrote: <i>"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite.)"</i>
<br>
<br>Nuclear devices are not without weaknesses. Used in tandem and when not aimed properly, their neutron emissions can cause neighboring devices to fail. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fizzle">Nuclear fizzle</a> occurs when a nuclear device fails to meet its expected yield. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukishima are examples of uncontrolled nucleared reactions. The FGND of 9/11 had much smaller nuclear payloads but could still result in a fizzling situations in under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>
<br>Let's take a brief one paragraph detour into perpetrator's agenda. <i>External terrorists</i> could have achieved their alleged goals with the plane hijackings and crashes into symbols of American power alone; destruction of said symbols would have been a lucky bonus. The same could be said about <i>internal terrorists</i> who just wanted to nudge the USA into war. When astute researchers <i>"follow the money"</i>, they'll learn that destruction of the WTC wasn't a lucky bonus, but a design goal in order to carry out major financial hiests. (Ditto for the newly renovated wing of the Pentagon into which the Office of Naval Intelligence and their recorded moved.) The <i>internal terrorists</i> wanting to scape-goat <i>external terrorists</i> could have achieved the WTC destruction using conventional means in a more prudent, scaled-back manner that wasn't so overtly <b>"OVERKILL"</b> and a glaring red flag. They would have known in the planning how many explosives were needed for destruction versus pulverization, which correlate in a practical sense to logistics. The premise of this article is that the observed overkill pulverization wasn't a design goal, but was a side-effect of the energetic FGND chosen.
<br>
<br>The case against NT as the primary mechanism of WTC destruction is already pretty solid with the above analysis from basic high school chemistry & math into NT quantities required for pulverization and maintenance of under-rubble hot-spots. <i>"That dog don't hunt"</i> for Occam Razor.
<br></p></div><!-- section 6 -->
<a name="x7"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#7">7</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_7');">
Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies."</a></h2>
<div id="sect_7" style="display: none;">
<p>However, some additional evidence will be presented to further the case: horse shoes, arches, and <i>"steel doobies."</i> David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: <b>"None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."</b> The images in this section have not been explained by others.
<br>
<br>The following are pictures of a core column that was bent into a horse shoe.
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDcryLGU8b9hdQMt3qcJ9TgQMnyyYoTmRjd4mVhc4wcw_GdZTbs11zhfh1MYyXqT_F2TFpTV6fRp7zMG0NfXi-ncWC8lY7HfRVHC5QsDB2lehDsCYigZicBt6NvivVVeXhBKy1k85C_UE/s320/core4.jpg">
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-SLS6f7yRvM4n1z865_jWcgae8_oSPTOgSpKJNTUh3I0ojr4NrNiV4naQRdU-TSJAq-HGOSUDXb1-S4wdLgTkqcFQlQt9q4u1isRLM0G2bwCc_1rwdxkORW5PQGFyTDOqHRVj9DEq6ak/s320/horseshoe_r1_c2.jpg" alt="">
<br>
<br>The following are pictures of bent beams.
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsP7M-3aYJoqCGw86yOT_uzcSR9M2O-gcqbQGXwc_n0lRVDEZ6grIJA6TnvT2LBRHtBI717Y9PkOCb8W9NvsXdIdmfyYoyvFULfye_2VM5IX1LEkn6L2T-D_6Cvdqbg0Vdw31zyittx8U/s320/DSCN0941_s.jpg" alt="">
<br>
<br>The images above suggest that they were <b><i>heated end-to-end</i></b> (as if in a furnace) in order to achieve the smooth arcing of those massive beams.
<br>
<br>If an incendiary or explosive is attached to a column in a localized fashion, how could it achieve end-to-end effects? Could the brisance of RDX blast a beam out of shape into a horse shoe or arch? RDX could probably blast a steel beam to pieces, but to get it to bend at a localized spot without fracture or stress marks is another matter. While fast & hot and designed to cut or tear where they were mounted, such "conventional" mechanisms come up short in explaining these smooth end-to-end bends.
<br>
<br>Some of the beams were named <i>"arches"</i> in Dr. Judy Wood's collection. However, this misrepresents their nature. These beams were heated end-to-end in a very short period of time by a heat source several orders of magnitude hotter than conventional or exotic chemical mechanisms. They didn't <i>"arch"</i> but instead <b><i>"sagged"</i></b> under the forces of gravity.
<br>
<br>The external wall assemblies were composed of three 30' box columns connected by three spandrels, as observed in the following image.
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_gTXU5ZcbXg_4ru2h5Hx6ONEStLtl727iGSri2Od6SjpUC-mSG5Z5nQ7M_6DdcKJTLEHxLTE6DKKjd8-9LlQfbIMYJU1XdukUGBlOO8hY1a6CneVApCNbxKb4HIweelIudtTgpYAEIW0/s1600/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg" alt="steel doobie in pile">
<br>
<br>However, what the above image (lower left-hand portion and on top of another intact wall assembly) and the ones below give away are wall assemblies that have been rolled up into <i>"steel doobies."</i>
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNv5Yc3UtjetnfikaKOrVQ8GH8CADY2mUmfDdK0gHrSwUaUqZI7FZ0cPC1wrG8TPBzrEPj2dKs1nLxPamKwV6s_PsE8BoyFsTn25BiywSyfCAjNoX0jRCOjcWwpMn-mPaRRqrlItLNJCE/s320/steel11_hires_s.jpg" alt="steel doobie">
<br>
<br><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJKJA40-wxwydEMPyDJ1xJwqeTpGrksxFO4f9XThIOUPDU5t4h_IIAXKx-Pa5_nywKBcnReVMxr8gvbrUr3honETaUK9KQSH9YQdad0GluQPVX2rU0coPwypc5FZNIpnpACt3AGYCBnfM/s320/LibertyDoobies.png" alt="Steel doobie at Libery Street">
<br>
<br>In the image above, the steel doobie stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris just left of center. This is Liberty Street, which means it got thrown out of the towers that distance as well.
<br>
<br>What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a "steel doobie"? If NT were used, what configuration would result in these effects? This article suggests that NT in any combination with other conventional chemical explosives or incendiaries could not have produced these artifacts.
<br></p></div><!-- section 7 -->
<a name="x8"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#8">8</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_8');">
Controlling the Opposition</a></h2>
<div id="sect_8" style="display: none;">
<p>An aspect of all large psychological operations is the concerted effort to lead public thought away from the truth. Information about 9/11 (like JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. before it) has been well seeded with disinformation to confuse and frustrate the public into giving up.
<br>
<br>Lenin wrote: <i>"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."</i> Such a strategy has been well known and followed for decades by various government agencies. 9/11 is no exception. Here are intial data points.
<br>
<br><b>9/11 Commission Report</b></p>
<blockquote><p>Didn't mention WTC-7. Saudi Arabia redacted from report. Senator Max Cleland resigned from the commission over White House stonewalling and lack of cooperation, calling the investigation <i>"compromised."</i> The Commission's Staff Director, Philip Zelikow, had conflicts of interest. Senator's Thomas Keen and Lee Hamilton from the 9/11 Commission have since said it wasn't the full and complete accounting of 9/11; they were frustrated with repeated misstatements from the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration; much of the operational information into the terrorist network was obtained through torture, was unreliable, and has been proven wrong. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed. Refer to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission">Criticism of the 9/11 Commission</a>.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>NIST Report on WTC-1/2</b></p>
<blockquote><p>Pre-concluded that the aircraft impacts with jet fuel & office furnishing fires combined with gravity was the reason for the sudden transition into their destruction. Out-of-scope was considering any type of controlled demolition or other mechanisms of destruction. Was scope-limited to possible causes for the <i>"initiation of the collapse,"</i> where analysis stopped. It did not mention any of the anomalies present in the destruction process after <i>"collapse initiation,"</i> such as the glaring energy sink of structure and content pulverization at free-fall speeds. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>NIST Report on WTC-7</b></p>
<blockquote><p>The draft version did not note the observable free-fall. The final version broke the observable portion of the collapse into three stages, acknowledged that stage 2 happened at a rate indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration (e.g., free-fall), but then in its conclusion it averaged together the three stages so that it could state truthfully that combined stages fell at speeds slower than free-fall. The computer model was never made public, and its simulation -- besides over-driving parameters -- did not resemble what was observed. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>EPA</b></p>
<blockquote><p>Issued false proclamations into the "healthiness" of the NYC air regarding all of the pollutants released in the WTC destruction. Downplayed the toxicity of the dust.</p></blockquote>
<p>The above represent data points in the trend line of <i>"politics outweighing science"</i> in terms of how government reports were manipulated. Government reports related to 9/11 cannot be trusted at face value.
<br></p></div><!-- section 8 -->
<a name="x9"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#9">9</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_9');">
Efforts to Debunk 9/11 Nuclear Devices</a></h2>
<div id="sect_9" style="display: none;">
<p>The principle documents used to support the erroneous belief that no nuclear devices being used on 9/11/2001 are:
<br>
<br>
<br>- <i>"<a href="http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf">Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center</a>"</i> by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
<br>
<br>- <i>"<a href="https://archive.org/details/CharacterizationOfTheDustsmokeAerosolThatSettledEastOfTheWorldTrade_552">Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001</a>"</i> by The Paul Lioy et al.
<br>
<br>- <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf">"Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers"</a> by Dr. Steven Jones.
<br>
<br>
<br></p></div><!-- section 9 -->
<a name="x10"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#10">10</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_10');">
Report 1: <i>Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center</i></a></h2>
<div id="sect_10" style="display: none;">
<p>Many reports pertaining to 9/11 exhibit the <i>"unscientific method"</i> of adopting a conclusion and manipulating efforts & information to fit that conclusion. For example, the security clamp-down of the WTC site prevented fire investigators for doing their job, and they rightfully complained. FEMA's investigators were not granted access to the site until the week of October 7. Part of the rationale (cover-up) went: <i>"We already know that airplanes damaged the towers and started fires, so we already know what caused the WTC destruction. Therefore, the efforts of fire investigators aren't needed."</i>
<br>
<br>Along those same lines, when the cover-up team knew what the true sources of destruction were, they could be pro-active in steering analysis about anomalous features. An excellent example of this is: <i>"<a href="http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf">Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center</a>"</i> by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams. This work was <i>"performed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48."</i>
<br>
<br>Tritium is a common feature in nearly all fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND). In order to prevent speculation from going to FGND, the study was <b><i>"scope limited"</i></b> to attribute tritium to RL devices that might already be in the contents of the WTC complex.
</p>
<blockquote><p>We became interested in the subject of tritium at WTC because of the <b><i>possibility</i></b> that tritium RL devices <b><i>could have been</i></b> present and destroyed at WTC... Tritium radio luminescent (RL) devices were investigated as <b><i>possible sources</i></b> of the traces of tritium at ground zero... Several sources of tritium were considered and analyzed, as consistent with the experimental data: i) EXIT signs in the buildings, ii) emergency signs on the airplanes, iii) fire and emergency equipment, iv) weaponry, and v) timepieces.</p></blockquote>
<p>Further, because the authors weren't looking at nuclear weapons as being the source for tritium or the destruction, (a) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (b) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.
<br>
<br>Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that ready binds with hydroxyl radicals to form tritiated water, (HTO or heavy water). It is thus diluted by water. From the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, <a href="http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Ryan_EnvironmentalAnomalies.pdf"><i>"Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials,"</i></a> millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile along with several rainfall events, some heavy.
<br>
<br>Sampling for tritium took place on 9/13 and 9/21. These delays are noteworthy because with this the study implies that tritium levels from 9/21 -- after much dilution from rain and firefighting efforts -- would be representative of tritium levels from 9/11. Samples were only taken in run-off from WTC-6 and not from around any of the other buildings or hot-spots. They stopped taking additional samples when their analysis indicated levels well below the EPA threshold for what constitutes a health risk.
<br>
<br>In addition to the shoddy sampling, the study re-defines <i>"trace or background levels"</i> to be 55 times greater than they were previously.(<a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x8">More details.</a>)
<br>
<br>The conclusion buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft exit signs yielded an HTO deposition fraction that was too high in comparison with historical incidents involving fire and tritium, yet was still too small to account for the tritium measurements.
<br>
<br>To fill the gap in tritium measured, they turn to a supposition about weapons' sights. Their modeling suggested a minimum of 120 so-equipped weapons were destroyed with leaking tritium. The study mentions <i>"evidence that weapons belonging to federal and law-enforcement agencies were present and destroyed at the WTC,"</i> but does not provide an accurate reporting (1) of how many total weapons needed to be accounted for, (2) of what weapons were recovered and with only minor damage, or (3) of where weapons were stored before the destruction and thereby being able to account for the tritium at the limited sampling locations. In other words, the extent that measured tritium came from weapons (and watches) becomes a big unsubstantiated assumption.
<br>
<br>The conclusion is a bit forced but in line with the <b><i>limited scope</i></b> of the study: <i>"This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which <b>would have complemented</b> the airplane source."</i>
<br>
<br>The authors of the study did an admirable job of supposing that tritium from consumer products (e.g., exit signs, weapons' sights) would leach into the water as HTO (tritiated or heavy water). Further, they succeeded in conveying the message that the lingering tritium was at benign levels with respect to human health.
<br>
<br>However, readers of the report must assume (a) that such consumer products existed in sufficient quantity within the WTC, (b) that the diluting HTO pathways to the scant few measuring locations were as they were so neatly story-boarded, and (c) that the measurements are complete and accurate.
<br>
<br>The bigger issue caused by this study is when it is later re-purposed by Dr. Steven Jones as the final word on tritium at the WTC: unquestioned and unchallenged.
<br></p></div><!-- section 10 -->
<a name="x11"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#11">11</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_11');">
Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al</a></h2>
<div id="sect_11" style="display: none;">
<p>The premise <i>"No Radiation = No Nukes"</i> has been cited as a reason why 9/11 did ~not~ involve nuclear devices. The measurement of tritium at the WTC cancels the left-hand side of the equation, but let's set this aside for the sake of discussion.
<br>
<br>The fiction in the 911TM about the WTC not having any radiation seems to come from the report: <i>"<a href="https://archive.org/details/CharacterizationOfTheDustsmokeAerosolThatSettledEastOfTheWorldTrade_552">Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001</a>"</i> by The Paul Lioy et al.
<br>
<br>Among its flaws:
<br>
<br>- Limited its analysis to <b>three (3)</b> <i>"representative"</i> dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
<br>
<br>- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
<br>
<br>- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
<br>
<br>- Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). The Lioy report only mentions <i>"Uranium"</i> twice: once in the methodology section and once in table 2 indicating metals found. Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
<br>
<br>The Lioy report states:</p>
<blockquote><p>We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.</p></blockquote>
<p>The tritium study re-define <i>"background levels"</i>, so this report might be following the same pattern. Except that this report provided <b>neither the measured values nor the values of what they <i>"background level"</i></b>.
<br>
<br>It is significant when they write: <i>"Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level."</i> For the gravity-driven-pile-drivers that the government attributes to the WTC tower destruction, nothing radioactive elevated to twice background level should have existed at all. Likewise, chemical explosives and incendiaries are not known for releasing radiation, so even <i>"slightly elevated beta activity"</i> should not be left around as a signature if such were the only cause of destruction.
<br>
<br>With regards to radiation, the argument is sometimes made that there is no proof of <i>"measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero"</i>. This has been proven wrong. On the flip side, the opposite cannot be proven: namely of <i>"<b>~no~</b> measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero."</i> Where are the reports that measure systematically, thoroughly, and timely all forms of radiation at or below background levels?
<br>
<br>The Lioy report characterizes the dust as:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]he particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-µm diameter) particles, not the fine (<2.5-µm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-µm diameter)... Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a "star-wars" beam destroying the Towers).</p></blockquote>
<p>This is a straw man created by splitting hairs with regards to the amount of these µm particles and by framing it as <i>"near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke)"</i>.
<br>
<br>First, Lioy does <b>~not~</b> state that there was <b>~no~</b> fine (<2.5-µm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-µm diameter) particles generated in the WTC destruction, because indeed there was and indeed this still represents a massive energy sink even if the greatest abundance of dust particles were supercoarse (>10-µm diameter). It takes much energy to make even the unregulated supercoarse dust particles.
<br>
<br>Second, they make no effort to describe <i>"mini-nuke"</i> correctly for the observed outcomes. They allow the imagination of the readers, formed by many years of nuclear weapons PR hype, to fill in the blanks.
<br>
<br>The <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/sample.location.html">USGS collected dozens of dust samples</a> with a methodolgy more rigorous and systematic than those of the tritium study, the Lioy report, or Dr. Jones.
</p>
<blockquote><p>A 2-person USGS crew collected grab samples from 35 localities within a 0.5 - 1 km radius circle centered on the World trade Center site on the evenings of September 17 and 18, 2001. ... Many of the streets bordering the collection locations were cleaned or were in the process of being cleaned at the time of sample collection. Given this limitation, collection of dust samples was restricted to undisturbed window ledges, car windshields, flower pots, protected areas in door entry ways, and steps. Occasionally, samples were collected from the sidewalk adjacent to walls that were afforded some degree of protection from the elements and cleanup process. </p></blockquote>
<p>The USGS samples had Thorium, Lanthanum, and Yttrium, which Lioy et al do not tabulate. Mr. Jeff Prager subsequently reviewed this USGS data in <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html">Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Barium and Strontium</b>: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
<br><b>Thorium and Uranium</b>: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
<br><b>Lithium</b>: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
<br><b>Lanthanum</b>: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
<br><b>Yttrium</b>: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
<br><b>Chromium</b>: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
<br><b>Tritium</b>: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes. </p></blockquote>
<p>The following is based on Mr. Prager's conclusion from <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html"><i>Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis</i></a> [8MB], but is modified for this venue. </p>
<blockquote><p> The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance.
<br>
<br>The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.
<br>
<br>The USGS report shows Barium and Strontium present and in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships.
<br>
<br>The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship and to other radionuclide daughter products.
<br>
<br>The dust samples provide an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. Nuclear weapon scientists, such as Dr. Jones, should have seized this data to analyze it and determine exactly what type of device produced it. </p></blockquote>
<p>Unfortunately, the Lioy report seems to fit the trend line of many other government reports. Rational thinkers have no basis for trusting it at face value.
<br>
<br></p></div><!-- section 11 -->
<a name="x12"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#12">12</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_12');">
Report 3: <i>Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers</i></a></h2>
<div id="sect_12" style="display: none;">
<p>Ask the average yeoman in the 9/11 Truth Movement (911TM) why 9/11 was supposedly <b>~not~</b> a nuclear event, their answer will undoubtedly reference the works of former BYU professor of (nuclear) physics, Dr. Steven Jones, such as his letter: <i><a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf">"Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers"</a></i> (2007).
<br>
<br>A keystone piece of <i>"evidence"</i> leading to Dr. Jones' <i>"no-nukes"</i> conclusions was that only miniscule amounts of tritium were measured. The source he sites is <i>"<a href="http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf">Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center</a>"</i> by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
<br>
<br>As discussed in the preceding section, this study achieved its scope-limited goals, but is deeply flawed in its shoddy sampling & analysis to be held up by Dr. Jones as the final authority on tritium at the WTC. The government study notes that they were "unable" to test at numerous places, especially deep underground where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed.
<br>
<br>This should have been a red flag for Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones in his paper accepts this report unchallenged, re-iterates "trace" as the re-defined level, supports the contention of its negligent health effects, and the frames the discussion as a large thermonuclear (fusion) bomb by writing:</p>
<blockquote><p>Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. (Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.) Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionth of a curie range.</p></blockquote>
<p>Dr. Jones also accepts unchallenged the Lioy report that characterizes the dust and smoke and does not even question its blatant flaws, such as sample size and location.
<br>
<br>Dr. Jones then introduces a blatant logic error, best summarized as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>"Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z <i><b>nor any other nuclear device.</b></i>"</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, he frames the discussion around certain types of nuclear weapons and legitimately states that the radiation signature did not match those. But rather than taking just those types off of the table, he takes <b>all nuclear devices</b> out of consideration. Other than airplane exit signs, police gun sights, and time pieces from the scope-limited tritium study, Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the radiation signature D (tritium), which is a signature of a fusion device.
<br>
<br><b>The blatant omission is fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND).</b>
<br>
<br><a href="http://isri.ch/wiki/_media/publications:ag-09-02.pdf">Dr. Andre Gsponer</a>, a Swiss physicist, has never written about 9/11 (to this author's knowledge), but he did write <i>"The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, and the Quest for Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons"</i> that was presented in 1997 and was in its seventh edition in September 2000. He also wrote the paper <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071"><i>"Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"</i></a> in 2005. Both were available before Dr. Jones' 2007 letter. These should have been included in his literature review.
<br>
<br>Public and university libraries do not have their databases in Google. A person on site at just about any university's engineering, math, and physics library will be able to dig up mountains of more references -- books, technical journals, etc. -- that specify at the time of writing where various nuclear technologies were at and where research was heading. [These would be the public records, and not anything hidden behind <i>"national security"</i> labels.]
<br>
<br>Yet seemingly Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Wood, and many others could be bothered to perform such research in their universities' libraries. Even a failed venture to find plausibility of nuclear means in the public space is a negative result worthy of publication and promotion, kind of like a hypothesis that testing disproved. However, this wasn't done, because the venture wouldn't have been a failure; it would have netted Andre Gsponer's work and that of many others.
<br>
<br>Dr. Jones then goes on to challenge:</p>
<blockquote><p>Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?</p></blockquote>
<p>This question is malframed in many ways: the nature of the device, how the energy and radiation were directed, and that large releases of tritium supposedly did not happen.
<br></p></div><!-- section 12 -->
<a name="x13"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#13">13</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_13');">
High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions</a></h2>
<div id="sect_13" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 30</p>
<blockquote><p>To guide our evaluation of the competing hypotheses, we will apply the third principle discussed earlier — <i>"None of the relevant evidence should be ignored"</i> — to the investigation of high-temperature chemical reactions.
<br>
<br>
<br>"Chapter 23: Explosions" of <b>NFPA 921</b>, which is the national guideline for fire and explosion investigations, states: <i>“All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all the physical damage criteria as well as any other significant data.”</i> On the potential use of exotic accelerants, including thermite, NFPA 921 advises: <i>“Indicators of exotic accelerants include…melted steel or concrete.”</i></p></blockquote>
<p>Included in "all available fuel sources" should have been nuclear options.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 32
</p>
<blockquote><p>Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings. A small selection is presented below:
<br>- Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the design of WTC 1 and WTC 2, told an audience: "We were down at the B-1 level and one of the firefighters said, 'I think you'd be interested in this.' And they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel flowing."<sup>2</sup>
<br>- FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." Other firefighters chimed in: "Like lava.""Like lava from a volcano."<sup>3</sup>
<br>- Ken Holden, the Commissioner of the NYC Department of Design and Construction, testified before the 9/11 Commission: "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."<sup>4</sup>
<br>...
<br>[S]tructural steel does not begin to melt until about 1,482°C (2,700°F).
<br>...
<br>NIST assumes that the only possible cause of “melting steel” would have been “the jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers,” which is an implausible hypothesis on its face.
</p></blockquote>
<p>AE9/11 asssumes that the only possible cause of the "melting steel" would have been nano-thermitic chemical reactions.
<br>
<br>In a <i>New York Times</i> article published in February 2002, James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected…from 7 World Trade Center…. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright…. A preliminary analysis at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [WPI]…suggests that sulfur released during the fires—no one knows from where — may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures.<sup>6</sup></p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 34
</p>
<blockquote><p>Three scientific studies have documented evidence in the WTC dust that indicates extremely high temperatures during the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 — and possibly WTC 7.
<br>
<br>Released in May 2004, the RJ Lee report titled WTC Dust Signature identified “[s]pherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature” in the dust.
<br>An earlier 2003 version of RJ Lee’s report observed:</p>
<blockquote><p>Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…. Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in the WTC dust…but are not common in normal office dust.</p></blockquote>
<p>The 2003 version also reported that while iron particles make up only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted 5.87 percent of the WTC dust.
<br>
<br>Iron does not melt until 1,538°C (2,800°F), which, as discussed above, cannot be reached by diffuse hydrocarbon fires. Still, even higher temperatures than 1,538°C were indicated by another discovery documented in RJ Lee’s report:</p>
<blockquote><p>The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.</p></blockquote>
<p>The 2003 version also referred to temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” For such vaporization to occur, lead would need to have been heated to its boiling point of 1,749°C (3,180°F).
<br>
<br>Released in 2005, a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) titled Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust identified “trace to minor amounts” of “metal or metal oxides” in the WTC dust and presented micrographs of these particles, two of which were labeled “Iron-rich sphere.”
</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 35
</p>
<blockquote><p>Published by Dr. Steven Jones and seven other scientists in early 2008, the paper Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction connected the dots between the earlier RJ Lee and USGS reports. It also provided new observations based on analysis of WTC dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones. According to the authors:</p>
<blockquote><p>The formation of spherules in the dust implies the generation of materials somehow sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes. The shape is retained as the droplet solidifies in the air.</p></blockquote>
<p>In addition to observing spherules of iron and silicates, their study discussed the presence of molybdenum spherules documented by the USGS study but not included in its report. (This additional data from the USGS study was obtained through a FOIA request.) Molybdenum is known for its extremely high melting point of 2,623°C (4,754°F).
<br>
<br>Jones’ study also discussed evidence of even higher temperatures contained in the RJ Lee report (quoting from the RJ Lee report):</p>
<blockquote><p>Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation)….</p></blockquote>
<p>These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. Dr. Jones and his coauthors observed:</p>
<blockquote><p>[I]f the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is indeed the result of “boiling and evaporation” of the material as the [RJ Lee] report suggests, we note the boiling temperature for aluminosilicate is approximately 2,760°C.</p></blockquote>
<p>They then provided a table (see Table 6 at left) summarizing the temperatures needed to account for the various evidence of high temperatures in the World Trade Center destruction, which they contrasted with the much lower maximum temperatures associated with the fires on September 11.
<br>...
<br>Table 6: Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required
<table>
<tbody><tr><td>PROCESS AND MATERIAL</td> <td>°C</td> <td>°F</td></tr>
<tr><td>To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel</td> <td>1,000</td> <td>1,832</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation)</td> <td>1,450</td> <td>2,652</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt iron (spherule formation)</td> <td>1,538</td> <td>2,800</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation)</td> <td>1,565</td> <td>2,849</td></tr>
<tr><td>To vaporize lead </td><td>1,740</td> <td>3,164</td></tr>
<tr><td>To melt molybdenum (spherule formation)</td> <td>2,623</td> <td>4,753</td></tr>
<tr><td>To vaporize aluminosilicates</td> <td>2,760</td> <td>5,000</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</p></blockquote>
<p></p></div><!-- section 13 -->
<a name="x14"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#14">14</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_14');">
FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift</a></h2>
<div id="sect_14" style="display: none;">
<p>{<a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf">Source</a> [or <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071"><i>"Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"</i></a>] for this section. <a href="http://isri.ch/wiki/_media/publications:ag-09-02.pdf">Dr. Andre Gsponer CV</a>}
<br>
<br>From decades of PR and hype of nuclear weapons, the public has been indocrinated with a common paradigm that such weapons always aim for high yields, lots of destruction, and lots of radiation. The <b>paradigm shift</b> for <i>fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND)</i> inverts this premise. Being based on fusion, much lower yields (tactical) and much reduced radiological impact are possible.
<br>
<br>FGND based on low-yield thermonuclear pellets triggered by compact non-fission primaries have yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc. A FGND using only 25 mg of deuterium-tritium (DT) could have a 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency.
<br>
<br>Different kinds of radiation can have a variety of effects, particularly for high-energy neutrons and gamma-rays that are very penetrating.
<br>
<br>- Generate a fireball (in air or a material).
<br>- Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).
<br>- Heat the surface of a material.
<br>- Accelerate or compress a material.
<br>- Transfer momentum to a material.
<br>- Heat the volume of a material.
<br>- Energize a working material.
<br>- Forge and project missiles.
<br>- Form and send high-velocity jets.
<br>- <i>Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it.</i> If surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
<br>
<br>Words like "pulverization" and "dustification" were used to describe the towers' destruction.
<br>
<br>Collateral effects of the above list of "mechanical" and "thermodynamical" effects are non-thermo-mechanical effects, such as an electromagetic pulse and prompt or delayed radiations.
<br>
<br>Conventional explosives (and 1st and 2nd generation nuclear devices) couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium, such as air, water, earth, rock, etc. FGND are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can product direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Let us suppose that the yield from an idealized <i>DT</i>-based FGNW consists of about 20% in soft X-rays and 80% in 14 MeV neutrons. Let us also take into account that relative to a surface at some distance from the point of explosion, 50% of each of these radiations will flow forwards, and 50% backwards.
<br>
<br>If we suppose that this weapon has a yield in the range of a few tons, and is detonated in air at a relatively short distance from a target, say a few meters, most of the forwards going X-rays will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
<br>
<br>The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.</p></blockquote>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>A first significant difference between <i>DT</i>-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.</p></blockquote>
<p>When Dr. Sunder of NIST was making his (faulty) case for a gravity-driven pile-driver, he made the valid argument against conventional explosives that the amount required would have resulted in a deafening audio signature.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 39</p>
<blockquote><p>NIST concluded the following:
<br>- [T]he minimum charge (lower bound) required to fail a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have produced a pressure wave that would have broken windows on the north and east faces of the building near Column 79. The visual evidence did not show such breakage....
<br>- [T]he noise level at a distance of . mile would have been on the order of 130 dB to 140dB... People on the street would have heard 9 lb of RDX go off a mile away....
<br>- Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection...<sup>1</sup>
</p></blockquote>
<p>{<a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/his_job_was_to_keep_the_world.html">Source</a>}</p>
<blockquote><p>1. Linda Raisch-Lopez "The building was vibrating "
<br>2. EMT RUSSELL HARRIS I looked at the building and it started vibrating
<br>3. EMT JOHN ROTHMUND "The noise and the vibrations."
<br>4. CHARLES WELLS "- a very strong vibration, shaking, and a loud noise like a subway train coming through a station at speed,"
<br>5. LIEUTENANT DANIEL WILLIAMS "I heard a deep rumbling, and I felt vibrations."
<br>6. FIREFIGHTER KEVIN MCCABE SOME SORT OF VIBRATION LIKE VRR VRR VRR GETTING LOUDER AND LOUDER
<br>7. LIEUTENANT JAMES MCGLYNN "THAT VIBRATION THAT WE FELT WAS THE SOUTH TOWER" Hour Later Big Big Explosion </p></blockquote>
<p>{<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXaNBzm90m4">Source</a>}</p>
<blockquote><p>Mineta Transportation Institute Reported 30 Seconds of vibrations
<br>"People inside the South Tower felt the floor vibrate as if a small earthquake were occurring. Instinctively, they sought shelter behind the massive pillars in the lobby, then everything went black. The vibration lasted for about 30 seconds. The doors were knocked out, and a huge ball of flame created by the exploding diesel fuel from the building’s own supply tank shot from the elevator shaft and out the doors of the South Tower, consuming everything in its path."
<br>Mineta Transportation Institute's 30 Seconds of vibrations BEFORE collapse clearly was not caused by 1. planes 2. fires or 3. falling debris. Therefore it's something else was used to help the building turn to dust. </p></blockquote>
<p>{<a href="http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm">Source</a>}</p>
<blockquote><p>"You’re hearing the rumble and you don’t see a thing. Everything is shaking around you. building is pulling me in"
<br>
<br>"Then all the sudden I get hit with a blast of heat like I was being burnt in an oven — like a sun’s rays just hitting you "</p></blockquote>
<p>{<a href="http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm">Source</a>}</p>
<blockquote><p>"You’re hearing the rumble and you don’t see a thing. Everything is shaking around you. building is pulling me in"
<br>
<br>"Then all the sudden I get hit with a blast of heat like I was being burnt in an oven — like a sun’s rays just hitting you "</p></blockquote>
<p>When the directly coupled energy of FGNW is considered that does not use a shock-wave through air, one could expect its audio signature to be different, too, and much suppressed as observed.
<br>
<br></p></div><!-- section 14 -->
<a name="x15"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#15">15</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_15');">
Directed Energy</a></h2>
<div id="sect_15" style="display: none;">
<p>Disinformation needs to have a foundation of truth in order for the disinfo skew to be effective. Getting others to believe (for a time) the skew is a short-term goal whose success doesn't really matter. A more important long-term goal is for the disinformation vehicle to be exposed and discredited, which in turn can take the valid nuggets of truth in the vehicle out of consideration in a guilt-by-association manner.
<br>
<br>The Anonymous Physicist once critisized Dr. Judy Wood for gathering together most of the evidence that 9/11 was nuclear and then associating this with <i>"batshit crazy"</i> theories: beams from space, DEW from hurricanes, the Hutchison Effect, etc. Dr. Judy Wood is credited by the 911TM for bringing awareness to directed energy weapons (DEW). Her work is often dismissed (with prejudice) as disinformation. It does have three main problems. (1) Dr. Wood was not specific enough. (2) Dr. Wood did not connect together information presented. (3) Dr. Wood did not do enough research, didn't address criticism, and consequently comes up short.
<br>
<br>In classic straw-man fashion, detractors of DEW on 9/11 often framed the discussion around one type of DEW, proved that it wasn't applicable, and then extrapolated a conclusion that implied all types of DEW weren't applicable. Dr. Wood, her close associates, and many shallow internet followers / defenders did not correct the framing. Nor did they acknowledge the valid points of their critics so that research directions could be improved.
<br>
<br>For example, anyone researching the information publicly available about DEW would quickly learn that lasers and high powered microwaves (HPM) are just manifestations of the same thing: the electromagnetic spectrum. Their wavelengths occupy different realms of that spectrum.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The interaction of radio waves -- {long part of the EM spectrum the covers wavelengths from a tenth of a centimeter [EHF, or extremely high frequency wves) down to waves over 100 kilometers in length [VLF, or very low frequency]} -- with matter is well known and has been documented for years. ... [W]aves of the electromanetic spectrum generally have to be the same size of the target or object ot cause any damage. In a simplified view, lasers burrow into solid material quite well because their wavelengths are about the same size as molecultes. Lasers can thus deposit their energy and "resonate" with the size of the solid material they hit, including metals.
<br>
<br>On the other hand, although high-power microwaves can penetrate building walls and sirupt computers, they can't penetrate metals and don't do much damage to things like trucks or missiles. Instead, they interact with targets that are the same size of its wavelength (meters to millimeters), such as human skin and sires in electronics. This coupling, a measure of the amount of interaction, is greater for things that are the same size as an HPM wavelength.
<br>
<br>This means that radio waves don't interact efficiently with targets unless they are the same size. And since radio waves are hundreds of meters to hundreds of kilometers long, they pass through most material and aren't much of a threat.
<br>
<br>High-power microwave wavelengths are the longest part of the EM spectrum that can be used effectively as a weapon. </p></blockquote>
<p>{Source for this section: <i>"THE E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought"</i>, Doug Beason, Ph.D., 2005.}
<br>
<br>The above information about wavelengths is also applicable to optics and local results when beamed from space. Some wavelengths cannot get through atmospheric weather. Some disperse and spread their limited amount of energy over a larger surface area, reducing the impact. Plus, many DEW devices create their coherent energy from chemical reactions. Getting quantities of such chemicals to space is not trivial. Nuclear energy sources are possible. The true limiting factor in considering 9/11 beams from space is that such would interact with the structure top-down, but the observed destruction initiated from within.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Directed Energy (DE) encompasses a wide, cross-disciplinary field of science and engineering. It is nearly impossible to enumerate the many academic and technical disciplines that make up DE, as it includes fields as diverse as physics and engineering to psychology (for studying the Active Denial effect). The people who have advanced the research and development of DE are just as numerous.
<br>...
<br>DE research and development has been shrouded in a veil of secrecy. there are national security reasons for not revealing certain applications or vulnerabilities.
<br>...
<br>Largely shrouded in highly classified environment, directed energy weapons research is conducted by a cadre of closed-mouthed technical wizards.</p></blockquote>
<p></p></div><!-- section 15 -->
<a name="x16"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#16">16</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_16');">
The History of W-54</a></h2>
<div id="sect_16" style="display: none;">
<p>{Source for this section: <a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/03/vt-nuclear-education-history-of-mini-nukes/">VT Nuclear Education: History of Mini-Nukes</a> By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor on September 3, 2014.}
<br>
<br><img src="http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/6662e4177fcc704074690cfbf3f7fe42.jpg">
<br>Davy Crockett nukes – the early days
</p>
<blockquote><p>Among various other types of hydrogen bomb warheads, the W54 nuke was developed in 1961. The W54 was a micro-nuke that weighed 51 pounds and could be fired from a slightly modified ordinary bazooka. Different versions of the W54 ranged from .01 kt to 1 kt yield. Between the mid 1950’s and the mid 70’s both types (large yield dirty and small yield clean), of 2nd generation H-bombs were refined.
<br>
<br>Focused nuclear explosions were envisioned in 1959. The mere directing of the yield was obviously known prior to 1959. Samuel Cohen has stated that a low yield neutron bomb may be tailored to direct yield and proposed the concept more than 35 years ago. An underground detonation causes shaping of the direction of yield as well.
<br>
<br>Around 1960, the relatively pure H-bomb was modified for selective effects creating the first 3rd generation H-bomb – the Neutron bomb, Enhanced Radiation Warhead, or a mostly fusion bomb. The neutron bomb’s energy was mostly based on fusion using Deuterium/Tritium with only a small fission component to ignite the fusion reaction.
<br>
<br>The neutron bombs are designed to release at least 80% of its yield as neutrons at the expense of blast and heat as compared to previous fission-fusion warheads.
<br>
<br>It was during a trial regarding Chinese espionage that forced the revelation of the neutron bomb. Shortly thereafter, Reagan deployed the W70 (re-manufactured W-54’s) version with a yield range of 0.8 kt to 1.6 kt.
<br>
<br>In November 1972, the following sentence was declassified: <i>"The fact of existence of weapons with tailored outputs, e.g., enhanced x-ray, neutron or gamma-ray output, that we are hardening our weapons to enhanced weapon outputs and that high-Z materials are used in hardening nuclear weapons against high-energy x-rays."</i> Note: the date is the declassification date, not the development date.
</p></blockquote>
<p></p></div><!-- section 16 -->
<a name="x17"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#17">17</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_17');">
Blackmail of Bush 1 & 2: Sales of the W-54</a></h2>
<div id="sect_17" style="display: none;">
<p>The following passage can be read in full at its <a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/20/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/" target="_blank">source, :
<br>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/20/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/</a>
<br>
<br>Disclaimer: The following does not completely agree with other FGND premises given in this article. However, it has sufficient <i>nugget of truth</i> overlap for it to be of interest to readers.
</p>
<blockquote><p>According to a retired FXX agent specializing in Israeli counter intel: The type of nuclear devices used on 911 were a modified version of the W-54 nuclear artillery shells that were covertly provided to the Israelis between 1988 and 1998 from US surplus stockpiles illegally exported during the Bush/Clinton era.
<br>
<br>Chemical analysis done by DOE Sandi was able to identify the chemical/radiation footprint or fingerprint of the warheads based on samples taken after 911 of the fallout at ground zero.
<br>
<br>All plutonium based warheads have a chemical fingerprint that can identify the type of design and where the PU was made and how old it is. This was the 911 blackmail on Bush 1 and 2, the illegal transfer of surplus US nuclear weapons to the Israelis and why the continued cover up, along with the stolen gold and stock fraud that was going on Wall Street etc.
<br>
<br>Only a 2 kiloton device was needed to drop the buildings. A 2 kiloton device will produce a fireball of apx 150 to 200 feet in diameter at over 4000 degrees Centigrade. Just large enough to melt the I beams of the central core of the building and drop them in place. The light flash would last less than 1 second and primarily be in the UV light range. Overpressure would only be at 60PSI max and directed upwards with the blast.
<br>
<br>Fallout would be minimal and located to within ground zero range only. Radiation would drop to acceptable levels within 72 hrs. after the blast. Most fall out was trapped in the cement dust thus causing all of the recent cancer deaths that we are now seeing in NYC amongst first responders.
<br>
<br>Melted steel and iron oxide or “nano thermite” is a byproduct of the very high gamma ray / Neutron flux induced into the central steel core. The radiation dissolves the steel into iron oxide consuming the carbon and silicone in the steel.
<br>
<br>This explains the missing steel columns and the very important clue of the “vaporized’ 20 ton antenna tower atop the south tower. The upward blast of radiation literally vaporized it. Video evidence proves this to be true.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>Illegal distribution of US nuclear material to foreign allies was not limited to Israel. Virtually all NATO allies were in on this scam too. Dick Cheney was the bad guy on this one. Bush2/Cheney traded nuclear pits to foreign country as IOU’s in order to get what they wanted. Tom Countryman a well-known Israeli operative is curiously now in charge of N.N.P. at the State Department under Obama.(?) He was put there by Ram Emanuel.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>It appears that the weapon of choice for the Israelis were the W-54 and follow on series of nuclear pits taken from the Amarillo TX storage dump. This was what Carnaberry was working on for Bush senior in Houston.
<br>
<br>A total of over 350 pits were transferred to the Israelis over a 10 to 20 year period of time. The W-54 type of pit design were the most desirable due to the 2 point implosion pit design. This is the easiest to re manufacture and modify as compared to other circular pit designs.
<br>
<br>The pill shaped design of the W-54 type weapon contains over 1.5 times more plutonium than a standard pit. This would allow enough Plutonium to be recovered that was still of weapons grade use even after 32 plus years of age. Americium build up in the pit over time eventually makes the Pit unusable as a weapon so they have a limited shelf life based on how fast or slow the Plutonium was produce in the reactor at Stanford.
<br>
<br>Usually it was about 150 days max. Irradiation time in the reactor during production determines the shelf life of the pit as weapons grade material. All of the micro nukes used by the Israelis are re-manufactured W-54 type series devices.
<br>
<br>These devices were used in the Bali bombing and the London bombing and in Japan on their reactors. Also used in Damascus, Iraq and Afghanistan by the US.
<br>
<br>These are stored in most Israelite embassies for ease of deployment. The one’s used on 911 were kept at the Israeli consulate in NYC until put in place. After 911 the FBI now checks all diplomatic pouches with a Geiger counter before entering or leaving the US. The South African weapons were also surplus W-54 artillery shells acquired from Israeli and final assembly and testing was done in South Africa with Israel assistance.
<br>
<br>This was done because the Israelis needed a testing ground in order to make sure that there rebuilt weapons would work as designed. The North Korean weapons are also of the 155 mm artillery design as provided by Israel.
<br>
<br>The Saudi’s also have a stash of W-54’s acquired from the US under Bush2. The Israelis have also provided them to India, Brazil, China, Taiwan, Japan, North and South Korea etc.
<br>...
<br>On the W-54 pit design it is pill shaped and it is only about 4 inches in diameter and weighs about 24 pounds. Most of the fuel is consumed in the plasma fire ball when detonated so there is very little plutonium fallout left to escape. If it is salted with other materials the fallout can be even reduced to lower levels such as in an enhanced radiation device or the so called neutron bomb. This is what was used on 911.
</p></blockquote>
<p>The above quoted passage deviates from this article in the choice of nuclear materials: plutonium versus Deuterium-Tritium.
<br>
<br>Mutual exclusivity of any destructive mechanism over another plays right into the hands of disinformation. Such a large operation with multiple targets and multiple devices would have redundancy and back-up plans.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The primary purpose of the nuclear weapon used on 911 was to produce a massive Gama ray / neutron flux that would vaporize about 150 to 300 feet of 6 inch thick steal I beams that constituted the central core of the WTC buildings. This created a free fall event as seen on TV that day.
<br>
<br>The flash would be hidden from sight due to the underground detonation. Most of the light was in the non-visible light spectrum any way. Over pressure would be reduced to 6 psi due to the blast traveling up the central core and neutron radiation vaporizing the TV antenna at the top of the building as see on TV.
<br>
<br>The fallout would be mainly vaporized concrete cement and iron oxide. This is why after 911 they told everyone on TV that the beta radiation burns that people were getting were due to the caustic cement dust and not due to the radiation effects from the radioactive cement fallout.
<br>
<br>The iron oxide found all over the place was what was left of the steel I beams. This was the so called Nano Thermite that was found everywhere. Fallout was limited to a 1 mile area around down town NYC.
<br>
<br>Radiation decay was reduced to safe low levels after 72 hrs., outside of ground zero its self. This is why the area was blocked off from the public for 3 days after the event, in order to let the radiation drop to safe levels.
</p></blockquote>
<p>The above passage makes a statement for underground detonation. Certainly, this is true for the last device in the series of FGND in use, but a sole underground device doesn't have to be the only destructive mechanism in play.
<br>
<br>If the situation were -- <i>Over pressure would be reduced to 6 psi due to the blast traveling up the central core and neutron radiation vaporizing the TV antenna at the top of the building</i> --, much of the destruction <b><i>"traveling up"</i></b> would be observed on video. Instead, destruction happens at first near the impact levels.
<br></p></div><!-- section 17 -->
<a name="x18"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#18">18</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">
The Dirt on That</a></h2>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: none;">
<p>Highly-energetic neutron radiation ejected from FGND energizes comparatively small amounts of short-lived alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in things they hit. One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat. <a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt3.html">This page on Dr. Wood's website</a> with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
</p>
<blockquote><p></p><p class="image"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWuVLi9Gtg7435h-OdBjHzpagcXG8KlSaLgozW0d8x5uh85eYNRlGjcThFQwTX8wf7RxWCXVgZTF2XTn5i4Rf5fkzkr3vzY8ecvzFtNxvIT9qRw9rQFGPi5zQZzaITuk9gyGW2u0Us1Ps/s1600/3885.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWuVLi9Gtg7435h-OdBjHzpagcXG8KlSaLgozW0d8x5uh85eYNRlGjcThFQwTX8wf7RxWCXVgZTF2XTn5i4Rf5fkzkr3vzY8ecvzFtNxvIT9qRw9rQFGPi5zQZzaITuk9gyGW2u0Us1Ps/s320/3885.jpg"> </a>
<br>Figure 89. Why would there be dirt sprinkled on top of the rubble pile?
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRY0kdH2kaD8oqBUy_d2LV7tisDMk3eXYohpGbewww8MATu_N89yGGk47B5THmZikBPZFniNSK7h1qSAzWB1FEOTQbGLOClLuir-sCI7xmfkbI1jioMtCH12oR-rZ_X1TSZws0gjk2saY/s1600/3897.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRY0kdH2kaD8oqBUy_d2LV7tisDMk3eXYohpGbewww8MATu_N89yGGk47B5THmZikBPZFniNSK7h1qSAzWB1FEOTQbGLOClLuir-sCI7xmfkbI1jioMtCH12oR-rZ_X1TSZws0gjk2saY/s320/3897.jpg"> </a>
<br>Figure 97. This was the pedestrian walkway over West Street, between WFC3 and WTC6. Why would it have a huge amount of dirt in it?
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd4R_hqKLylyVK3sf5ROZOfw9xO9qoLGj3pLJWFGxpo20ZH52Pi_1WbKLr0D67lrlC2rkOpPqU_UQBDvvs0SX4tsgqp9AK2g4zaC2r-mPCiYyP3BAg4APwBv_DNRcgWmZbAmD0PAOymPs/s1600/3926.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd4R_hqKLylyVK3sf5ROZOfw9xO9qoLGj3pLJWFGxpo20ZH52Pi_1WbKLr0D67lrlC2rkOpPqU_UQBDvvs0SX4tsgqp9AK2g4zaC2r-mPCiYyP3BAg4APwBv_DNRcgWmZbAmD0PAOymPs/s320/3926.jpg"> </a>
<br>Figure 91. Sprinkled with fresh dirt.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9f1rt-Yvcy_UKPQ_pXvWVlI9S6DX3caogIaSF2CsbO4ompmEEM70P8kpbHji0n_uNnGl5WoPfHcDXyW62Hhc_ZO7GWj-jq6xeKelAkIVXpTtPlZURPK_NFwIUj6qUMOHlFiyBc6YzaNo/s1600/5303.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9f1rt-Yvcy_UKPQ_pXvWVlI9S6DX3caogIaSF2CsbO4ompmEEM70P8kpbHji0n_uNnGl5WoPfHcDXyW62Hhc_ZO7GWj-jq6xeKelAkIVXpTtPlZURPK_NFwIUj6qUMOHlFiyBc6YzaNo/s320/5303.jpg"> </a>
<br>Figure 93. Clean wrinkled beams.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpfhBttuvuTSNyFjU66zWM2-Od-LAEUJ8hmZjK_i13U4e0Z2CLHA4-FERtjcsNELz5jRsYOF9QLB1pJs7C5nH-hRmTuXNRg_mx_Wi8_L_spDs2J3sxIiOobtwVjZ0gh56tr0dK3lP91Tg/s1600/3914.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpfhBttuvuTSNyFjU66zWM2-Od-LAEUJ8hmZjK_i13U4e0Z2CLHA4-FERtjcsNELz5jRsYOF9QLB1pJs7C5nH-hRmTuXNRg_mx_Wi8_L_spDs2J3sxIiOobtwVjZ0gh56tr0dK3lP91Tg/s320/3914.jpg"> </a>
<br>Figure 94. My favorite wrinkled beams now have dirt dumped on them!
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit_o3Bgw9uGMhSSr5ZxGRpt_MsXy-DjWFX3Ud2L-6iksSIK2mHpaB0piyIDAEEA9BwHoOUDHdcN6dJYr0U20AZfMtqiZ16t6SZIirdc1ueb4K-tFqzJPqNsgzuKlyd_-WX4FdC4GSTq5k/s1600/3901.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit_o3Bgw9uGMhSSr5ZxGRpt_MsXy-DjWFX3Ud2L-6iksSIK2mHpaB0piyIDAEEA9BwHoOUDHdcN6dJYr0U20AZfMtqiZ16t6SZIirdc1ueb4K-tFqzJPqNsgzuKlyd_-WX4FdC4GSTq5k/s320/3901.jpg"> </a>
<br>Figure 98. If this amount of dirt had been contained in planting pots, there wouldn't have been room for pedestrians.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixtw-rG3anUNLmd33GiZEN_LXkv2O4SPSHcIpnhiPRy9Xlvwgtb9NhYtL1ysMynzVigWhBy4JWe27wRlWsix22Za1UArgPVodQuRRjexnKot-zKQrQvbVTjsrmQP5aehuSkG0t001XMmc/s1600/5644.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixtw-rG3anUNLmd33GiZEN_LXkv2O4SPSHcIpnhiPRy9Xlvwgtb9NhYtL1ysMynzVigWhBy4JWe27wRlWsix22Za1UArgPVodQuRRjexnKot-zKQrQvbVTjsrmQP5aehuSkG0t001XMmc/s320/5644.jpg"> </a>
<br><b>Figure 102.</b> The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, <u>toward</u> the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifw46T4rRq24HdPp9cyMUlzWETa8RFTeYrMeLY_ynT8u81HD5vGKEmHZZc8FLNqSe7TKuXOBFRHlbet2YtEEsb7LmY7eYA1XiY4G5Qx7J5CAuYw4bHAt1Q_eOBD0_6LTesm7I9_xAfhKw/s1600/5450.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifw46T4rRq24HdPp9cyMUlzWETa8RFTeYrMeLY_ynT8u81HD5vGKEmHZZc8FLNqSe7TKuXOBFRHlbet2YtEEsb7LmY7eYA1XiY4G5Qx7J5CAuYw4bHAt1Q_eOBD0_6LTesm7I9_xAfhKw/s320/5450.jpg"> </a>
<br><b>Figure 103(a).</b> This appears to be dirt being trucked away from the WTC complex. Why is so much dirt coming and going? The four trucks ahead of the green one carry a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIRgQAOdMHXGouPur_nbIAh2XwESPh43-oEdm7pllwiJwTnbknY3V6OYT6rjUudgAu4DQz7bd3O2ZpB6taNqTNQri1Ue01D7onq6J-TVK0s16yUDRfX4v2iGGRUIu5dkUSSsuk-Rrk2LQ/s1600/peopleNortheast.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIRgQAOdMHXGouPur_nbIAh2XwESPh43-oEdm7pllwiJwTnbknY3V6OYT6rjUudgAu4DQz7bd3O2ZpB6taNqTNQri1Ue01D7onq6J-TVK0s16yUDRfX4v2iGGRUIu5dkUSSsuk-Rrk2LQ/s320/peopleNortheast.jpg"></a>
<br><b>Figure 103(b).</b> The large truck headed south appears to be hauling dirt. This intersection is a block east of Church and Vesey, and the top of the photo is west. Broadway is the street from right to left. So, the big truck, which appears to be loaded down with landfill dirt, has driven south on Broadway, past the Vesey Street intersection. It didn't come to where it is from Vesey Street; there are no tracks on Vesey Street!
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_lNLRIoZJOFM8JccEkKPZBhikLLbMPnqGttLxMwBa_u7hJIVLTbjVZ_G1jidENLWjgCzkGngKMXLl8_VSs5XiWFlK_2ThuDzZ3tOMdP9cVubjsWh3GyuAFUfxqt9Xn54POoDZ3b0M234/s1600/overhead_hiresC_WFC1_Lawn.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_lNLRIoZJOFM8JccEkKPZBhikLLbMPnqGttLxMwBa_u7hJIVLTbjVZ_G1jidENLWjgCzkGngKMXLl8_VSs5XiWFlK_2ThuDzZ3tOMdP9cVubjsWh3GyuAFUfxqt9Xn54POoDZ3b0M234/s320/overhead_hiresC_WFC1_Lawn.jpg"></a>
<br>Figure 104(c). Then, yellow bulldozers appear to be scooping up and removing all of the dirt from in front of WFC1.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJtOecKZYkKmU6VVOALNWLmoUI3Nnq2CzX46MGP2C5UA9Atc2fdk8dr0HuYd9jjb35peerfqN_4C6yo3q2OJoZ3apPIO1vpgtBqJHWLaL2y3hLEWPYr1-7aM0hG4RWnqj-bZ08N-XFN4Y/s1600/5508.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJtOecKZYkKmU6VVOALNWLmoUI3Nnq2CzX46MGP2C5UA9Atc2fdk8dr0HuYd9jjb35peerfqN_4C6yo3q2OJoZ3apPIO1vpgtBqJHWLaL2y3hLEWPYr1-7aM0hG4RWnqj-bZ08N-XFN4Y/s320/5508.jpg"> </a>
<br>Figure 105. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVr8VjBEaOuXyxI7IHewXehPzh6TDwAqyJzuRaAh03ySmve8dnujmMBPAO6eLflfGVqv3BaPp5BLSUkFfwzj29OLKecxYBDrueB6pllPVBSp_6TnjdG3ID66TslJwood3wkAfL8UXWRCY/s1600/5509.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVr8VjBEaOuXyxI7IHewXehPzh6TDwAqyJzuRaAh03ySmve8dnujmMBPAO6eLflfGVqv3BaPp5BLSUkFfwzj29OLKecxYBDrueB6pllPVBSp_6TnjdG3ID66TslJwood3wkAfL8UXWRCY/s320/5509.jpg"> </a>
<br>Figure 106. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHgku0j9v__-Uv-S1spH7_CnzJ6-tOz9OF3PoLvYLj1XAy3yGxVUzKi0O47dUhFtAMQF2pyB3uWXLt8YM8WvhDKAzVS1hvNPIR2m77SZeTqPGMrL8_EmOxH3ElKdGODoHTKmxo9Mb7gEo/s1600/Image304.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHgku0j9v__-Uv-S1spH7_CnzJ6-tOz9OF3PoLvYLj1XAy3yGxVUzKi0O47dUhFtAMQF2pyB3uWXLt8YM8WvhDKAzVS1hvNPIR2m77SZeTqPGMrL8_EmOxH3ElKdGODoHTKmxo9Mb7gEo/s320/Image304.jpg"></a>
<br>Figure 106. Why are they still hosing down the "pile" in March 2002? And why is there so much dirt, still?</p></blockquote>
<p>Note the references to <i>"still fuming from the wet dirt"</i> and <i>"still hosing down the 'pile' in March 2002"</i>, which are two other indications of nuclear fizzle.
<br>
<br>Readers' attentions is called to figure 93 above, aptly titled <i>"clean wrinkled beams"</i> and is an external wall assembly. This is one example of a major anomalous phenomenon observable everywhere whereby protective coatings and paint have been <i>"burned"</i> off of the steel. Also, the wrinkling (not just the bending) would not have been possible without a massive heat source in its vicinity in the towers to make the steel pliable before a horizontal blast wave did the shaping.
<br>
<br>Readers' attention is also called to figure 94 above, where Dr. Wood notes that wrinkled beams now have dirt on them. Only really makes sense for steel beams to be getting dirt piled on them if they somehow became slightly radioactive from their proximity to a neutron nuclear destructive mechanism.
<br></p></div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#19">19</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_19');">
Dr. Thomas Cahill and the Continually Regenerated Fine Particles</a></h2>
<div id="sect_19" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br>From October 2, 2001 until mid-December 2001, a volunteer research team from the DELTA Group monitored the levels of atmospheric particles and aerosols in the atmosphere of New York, following the collapse of the World Trade Center. Professor Thomas Cahill of the he UC Davis DELTA Group (Detection and Evaluation of Long-range Transport of Aerosols) described some of this finding on February 11, 2002. {<a href="http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/nuclear-atmospheric-physicist-dr-thomas-cahill-on-911">Source</a> with direct quotes from Dr. Cahill}
</p>
<blockquote><p>"The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles, probably associated with high temperatures in the underground debris pile. Normally, in New York City and in most of the world, situations like this just don’t exist."
<br>
<br>"Even on the worst air days in Beijing, downwind from coal-fired power plants, or the Kuwait oil fires, we did not see these levels of very fine particulates."
<br>
<br>The amounts of very fine particles, particularly very fine silicon, decreased sharply during the month of October.
<br>
<br>"The US Davis DELTA Group’s ability to measure and analyze particle size, composition and time continuously, day and night, is unequalled. There were numerous events when bursts of wind lasting 6 to 8 hours carried unprecedented amounts of very fine particles to the sampling site. In the largest spike, the DELTA Group analysis found 58 micrograms per cubic meter of very fine particles in one 45-minute period – "an extremely high peak" Cahill said.
<br>
<br>Many different metals were found in the samples of very fine particles, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States.
<br>
<br>Some of the metals for which there are no guidelines that were present in very fine particles in relatively high concentrations were Iron, Titanium (some associated with powdered concrete), Vanadium, Nickel (often associated with fuel-oil combustion), Copper and Zinc. Mercury was seen occasionally in fine particles but at low concentrations. Many of those metals are widely used in building construction, wiring and plumbing. Some are common in computers. The metal of the coarse particles is still being analyzed.
<br>
<br>Very small particles are particularly dangerous since they can bypass the bodies natural defence mechanisms and if breathed in, enter directly into the bloodstream. They can also pass through HEPA filters, the finest grade of gas mask available and they can even enter the body through the skin. They are a serious hazard.
<br>
<br>Anything with a diameter of less then 2.5 millionths of a meter is to be considered dangerous for these reasons.
<br>The press release further states:
<br>
<br>"There are no established safe limits for inhaled very fine particles. The closest reference is the US EPA "PM2.5" standard, which limits the allowable mass of airborne particles 2.5 micrometers to (0) Zero micrometers. That standard is based on health studies of typical air samples, in which very fine particles are a small fraction of the total mass. In contrast, in the World Trade Center dust samples analyzed at UC Davis, the very fine particles are a large fraction of the total mass."
<br>
<br>So we can understand that Professor Cahill would want to draw attention to the fine particulates for health and safety reasons. But is there more to it?
<br>
<br>Prof. Cahill also explained the meaning of the generation of the particles to reporters more clearly:
<br>
<br>"The presence of coarse particles immediately after days of rain indicated that they were being <b><i>continually re-generated</i></b> from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces."
<br>
<br>Cahills words. <i><b>Continually Regenerated.</b></i>
<br>
<br>Is this another subtle hint by a man who can't speak his mind freely that a nuclear reaction occurred?
<br>
<br>"The very fine particles were high in a number of species generally associated with combustion of fuel oil – such as Sulfur, Vanadium and Nickel, and incineration of plastics and other organic matter."
<br>
<br>"There were also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing aerosol. This latter type of aerosol can be produced only by very high temperatures, including vaporisation of soil and glass."
</p></blockquote>
<p></p></div><!-- section 19 -->
<a name="x20"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#20">20</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">
Decontamination and First Responder Ailments</a></h2>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: none;">
<p>Earlier in this article, the work of Lioy et al was mentioned. Buried in their work was their main focus of discussing the health impacts of 9/11 and to caste the blame on asbestos and pulverized gypsum dust. As was written by a supporter:
</p>
<blockquote><p>This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.</p></blockquote>
<p>True. But the sudden onset of ailments and their kind is paralleled only by incidences of nuclear mishap. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome">Acute radiation syndrome</a> would have been experienced by few.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), also known as radiation poisoning, radiation sickness or radiation toxicity, is a constellation of health effects which present within 24 hours of exposure to high amounts of ionizing radiation, and may last for several months. ... Radiation exposure can also <b>increase the probability of developing some other diseases, mainly different types of cancers</b>. ... Radiation sickness is caused by exposure to a large dose of ionizing radiation (>~0.1 Gy) over a short period of time. ... <b>Alpha and beta radiation have low penetrating power and are unlikely to affect vital internal organs from outside the body.</b> Any type of ionizing radiation can cause burns, but <b>alpha and beta radiation can only do so if radioactive contamination or nuclear fallout is deposited on the individual's skin or clothing. Gamma and neutron radiation can travel much further distances and penetrate the body easily</b>, so whole-body irradiation generally causes ARS before skin effects are evident. Local gamma irradiation can cause skin effects without any sickness. </p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/191226.php">What Is Radiation Sickness?</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Ionizing radiation is radiation that produces immediate chemical effects on human tissue. X-rays, gamma rays, and particle bombardment (neutron beam, electron beam, protons, mesons, and others) give off ionizing radiation. ... <b>Radiation exposure can also increase the probability of developing some other diseases, mainly cancer, tumors, and genetic damage.</b> </p></blockquote>
<p>From <a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/04/04/911-nuke-demolition-proof-firefighters-radiation-cancers-off-the-scale/">9/11 NUKE DEMOLITION PROOF: Firefighters Radiation Cancers "Off the Scale" (2011-04-04)</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Firefighters who recovered bodies at Ground Zero are developing cancer at a faster rate than those who worked before the atrocity, medical officials have revealed. ... A seven-year study by the New York Fire Department has claimed that there are "unusual rises" in the number of cancer cases among firefighters who worked in the aftermath of 9/11. Some types of cancer among 9/11 firefighters are even "bizarrely off the charts," according to sources who have seen the as-yet-undisclosed federal-funded study. ... Dr. David Prezant, the Fire Department's chief medical officer, has reportedly said that cancer cases across "all ranks" of the FDNY who worked at Ground Zero are "up significantly". ... The New York state Health Department has confirmed that 345 Ground Zero workers have died of various cancers as of June 2010.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br>From Prager <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-79644cfa.html">Page 52: Part One Conclusions</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>1. Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.
<br>2. All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.
<br>[See: Robert W. Miller, M.D., and William J. Blot, Ph.D., and others, US National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Japanese National Institute Of Health Of The Ministry Of Health And Welfare, Atomic Radiation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also see Ionizing Radiation 911, parts 1, 2 and 3 linked on a previous page. Also see: CDC study of K25 workers linked previously]
<br>3. Increases in these cancers using September 11th as the 'start date,' specifically and most importantly; Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma along with increases in esophageal, prostate & thyroid cancers with all of them very rapid increases often in young and otherwise healthy people indicates clearly, without ambiguity and with certainty that further study into a radioactive component of some type and design is critically required.
<br>4. The government, in all its wisdom, decided not to cover cancer in the Zadroga Bill while cancer deaths in First Responders are exploding like the Twin Towers on 911.
<br>5. The EPA, Congress and the military and other governmental and environmental agencies responsible for the disaster cleanup knew from the very beginning that the dust in New York City was highly toxic, caustic and contained 100s of known human poisons. Very few people knew it was radioactive.
<br>7. Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will show that there are and were bombs tested that were 'salted' such or designed such that over 97% of their radiation was eliminated from the detonation. There was radiation, but not much, not easily measurable without sophisticated equipment, certainly not with a Geiger Counter, and not long-lasting. And it wasn't alpha, beta or gamma radiation; these are the types we usually measure. But enough to kill people, as we're seeing now. It was neutron radiation. </p></blockquote>
<p>Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder, rescue worker, counselor, and FEMA consultant has made <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305newrevelations.htm">many remarkable statements related to the nuking of the WTC</a>.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The rescue people - when our clothes got so contaminated, we were told not to bring our clothes off that site. Don't wear anything on the site you're not prepared to leave there because it's contaminated. ... <b>My teeth are falling out.</b> ... Most everybody has chronic sinusitis. They have ringing in the ears. Some people's teeth and gums are bothering them. In the last year, I've lost seven teeth. They have just broken while I was eating. I have three or four more teeth that are just dying. And my dentist says, "I've never seen anything like this in someone who's healthy. There is something wrong with you but I cannot find what it is. And I can't stop it either." ... The doctor said to me, I have - 97% of the population in American breathes more efficiently than I do. And that most of the people who are in that 3% are the people from Ground Zero. It's this debilitating, death-bed type of lung problems. </p></blockquote>
<p><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pxVbXyB9OLeWJCOElMMWgxbHc/view">Source</a></p>
<blockquote><p>The magnitude of the disaster was unprecedented. The amount of people needing decontamination was enormous.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html">Officer Sue Keane:</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>I had burn marks, not like you'd have from a fire, but my face was all red, my chest was red</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.albany.edu/news/15948.php">UAlbany Alumna and 9/11 First Responder Dr. Terri Tobin</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Since 2001, Tobin has had surgery each year and had two-thirds of her teeth replaced.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/911-responders-plagued-cancer-asthma-ptsd/story?id=14427512#.T_2i1fXD_mE">9/11 First Responders Plagued by Health Problems From Toxic Dust and Debris</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Those who worked at the WTC site seem to be at increased risk of cancer, especially thyroid cancer, melanoma and lymphoma. According to a study released of nearly 10,000 New York firefighters (half of whom worked at the WTC site), those from the site are 32 percent<b> more likely to have cancer.</b> </p></blockquote>
<p>From <a href="http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-evidence-testimony-indicating.html">On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist"</a>, that also critiques Dr. Jones:
</p>
<blockquote><p>It later became known that they found high levels of (asbestos, mercury and other) toxins shortly after 9/11, and yet told the world, and the responders, that "the "air was safe." They lied, for quite some time, about what they had found in this sense. Now if the EPA tested for, and found, significant radiation, and/or radionuclides, and failed to tell the responders this; it resulted in the responders not wearing radiation-shielding, protective clothing. This would then likely lead to cancer and other illnesses. I note that there has been cancers, in 9/11 responders, and people living nearby; and asbestos is known to usually take far longer for its victims to get cancer. Could these cancers be the result of radiation? Cancer can be caused by even the very lowest levels of radiation. The father of the field of health physics, Dr. Karl Ziegler Morgan, has so stated.
</p></blockquote>
<p></p></div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#21">21</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_21');">
EMP and Electromagnetic Energy</a></h2>
<div id="sect_21" style="display: none;">
<p>An EMP (electromagnetic pulse) is one of the side-effects of a nuclear detonation. The EMP would have been mitigated by many factors, like
<br>
<br>(1) the design of the device in terms of tactical yield,
<br>(2) the placement of the device, like all of the steel surrounding at the core where they would have placed the devices plus the outer wall assemblies,
<br>(3) debris,
<br>(4) the distance from the detonation, and
<br>(5) other buildings.
<br>
<br>It is speculated that the FGNW deployed on 9/11 were staged in the WTC towers' core. The core, the outer steel wall assemblies, and the floor assemblies would have helped shield this side-effect. Of the small EMP produced by these tactical neutron devices, much of could be contained. What wasn't could have slipped out through window slits or gaps in the debris to cause the vehicle damage on West Broadway and the parking lot.
<br>
<br>An EMP can induce large Eddy currents in metal that it hits line-of-sight. The magnitude of the Eddy currents depends on magnitude of source, distance from source, and how much surface area gets hit (e.g., isn't shaded by obstacles.) Sufficiently large Eddy currents would generate heat in the metal that could be great enough to cause paint on the metal as well as rubber & plastic & things touching the metal to burn (e.g., door seals, door handles, plastic gas caps, etc.) Once a portion of the car is on fire, it becomes easy for other combustible things on the car to burn (or not).
<br>
<br>An EMP can destroy electronics in a similar fashion just from the induced currents heating circuit boards to fuse traces together, as well as from overwhelming the doping and biases of semiconductor devices.
<br>
<br>EMP would induce electric currents in metals, but not flags, trees, leaves, paper, or people.
<br>
<br>Very telling is <a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html">EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony</a>, where a car's door popped right off its hinges and laterally outwards and actually smacked her into the wall. It could be indicative of an EMP heating the door and expanding it within its constraining door frame to the point it pops out. <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF">Patricia Ondrovic</a> does talk about her hair and paramedic coat catching on fire. She left the impression that it was <i>not</i> the dust, but was the after-effects of another car exploding right next to her.
</p>
<blockquote><p>As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the West Side Highway. ... I ended up running through this park, and I couldn't even see where I was running anymore. I kept running North [through North Park]... As I was running up here, two or three more cars exploded on me. They weren't near any buildings at that point, they were just parked on the street. The traffic guys hadn't gotten a chance to tow anything yet, cause this was all during the first hour I guess of this thing happening. So there were still cars parked on the street that were completely independent of that. Three cars blew up on me, stuff was being thrown.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://anonymousphysicist.com/combating-the-fetzer-prager-jones-op-plan-of-denying-the-massive-evidence-of-emp-during-wtc-destruction/">Anonymous Physicist writes:</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>"She [Patricia Ondrovic] tried to enter WTC 6, but was forbidden by guards. But as she looked into the lobby of WTC 6, she "saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that chase in pattern."
<br>This is best explained by one or more EMPs passing through that area and causing wires or lighting fixtures to "pop."
</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br>From <a href="http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-evidence-testimony-indicating.html">On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist"</a>, that also critiques Dr. Jones:
</p>
<blockquote><p>In a similar vein, is anyone foolish enough to trust a certain physicist's {Dr. Jones} alleged data on his tests of a single steel beam and a friend's apartment? ... When this same physicist tries to shoot down the fact that mini-nukes were used to demolish the twin towers, he rightly knows that he has to address the issue of the evidence of EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses). But he barely mentions it, and simply says that other factors could have caused the power outages. No mention of the toasted cars -- and not people or paper right next to them. See Ondrovic's statements already alluded to by me. Read how she was knocked down by the car door right next to her overheating from the EMP and exploding off the car and hitting her. ... That physicist knows well that there is no other explanation for these events, except EMP, so he does not include this evidence of the toasted cars or Ondrovic' eyewitness (heavily redacted) testimony.
</p></blockquote>
<p></p></div><!-- section 21 -->
<a name="x22"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#22">22</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">
Vehicle Damage</a></h2>
<div id="sect_22" style="display: none;">
<p>The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance. It didn't affect shaded vehicles or those around corners, or lots of more easily combustible things, like flags, paper, leaves, trees, or people. The pattern to the burns on vehicles is notable, and just as important is the pattern of what combustible things were not torched (e.g., leaves, trees, flags, people).
<br>
<br>Consider why cars were seemingly targeted; they contain sheet metal. Depending on magnitude, duration, & distance, electromagnetic energy can induce Eddy currents in metal, heating up the metal, causing its paint to burn, and torching rubber & plastic things affixed, touching, or adjacent to such.
<br>
<br>Thereafter, the rest of the vehicle may or may not burn depending on other factors. Once one vehicle has flames, this can become the source for neighboring vehicles starting to burn. Dr. Wood presents <a href="http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html">More Toasted Cars</a> to further your research.
<br>
<br>Something of note from the fire damage exhibited in some of the images of torched vehicles in Dr. Wood's collection are the delineation of where certain burn patterns start and end. Some instances (like a police car 1 on West Broadway facing away from the WTC) seem to show its rear end having been burned by a line-of-sight EMP, but the fire did not progress beyond the natural boundary of the rear doors, as if the Eddy currents were generated there.
<br>
<br>
<br></p><p class="image">
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwKpPcDytvEuu3wtbbz2Ng0PmuRnOf69W7L5SqHQQAZk9npm6ycKTtFpI1xTPgJAloYuwhS6J13eabO3l1pLSfUGq6I6RElC8J4TBUxioxpmkJIFSB1cfv5MAPsJjPjPl90J_OsYb0iA8/s1600/Image18swamp.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwKpPcDytvEuu3wtbbz2Ng0PmuRnOf69W7L5SqHQQAZk9npm6ycKTtFpI1xTPgJAloYuwhS6J13eabO3l1pLSfUGq6I6RElC8J4TBUxioxpmkJIFSB1cfv5MAPsJjPjPl90J_OsYb0iA8/s320/Image18swamp.jpg"></a>
<br>Police car 1
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrK_hNR9aL10e8j-04wBTyW-OUW7cKHGwNNQv8Z8sTb-RPn-CDAbk3BDMvPEFf73gADYtgwrh7WV-YuxpWiK7wkaNQseDc_VwP0BqtqfB-99mj6YuX9JzDUTr0TPrlW4Dn1vD1vtghDGw/s1600/Image19swamp.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrK_hNR9aL10e8j-04wBTyW-OUW7cKHGwNNQv8Z8sTb-RPn-CDAbk3BDMvPEFf73gADYtgwrh7WV-YuxpWiK7wkaNQseDc_VwP0BqtqfB-99mj6YuX9JzDUTr0TPrlW4Dn1vD1vtghDGw/s320/Image19swamp.jpg"></a>
<br>Police car 1 (another view)
<br>
<br><b>Disclaimer</b>: police car 1 was just behind a mail truck that was also on fire (seen below). <a href="http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html">More views from this police car, Figure 9(a)</a>. In this one instance, it could be argued that the proximity of a burning mail truck to the rear of the police car caused the fire damage on the police car. However, one is left with still explaining how the mail truck as well as vehicles not as close on the same side of the street <b>and</b> the other side of the street caught on fire, as seen in the image before WTC-7 came down. Plus, explanations for the other anomalous "pattern" fire damage from other vehicles are needed, which EMP does.
<br>
<br>
<br></p><p class="image"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7fCYwiQd0RV3VDDi05bScLFkLFyJJA3lpEjl_Ljp7mUBs24kUvBrBFI4NEG0UPwIlIYpxbMQpbVK_VK5TpBsx5A7vybdDrp3Ch0pADar3gzTCIZe5WBYXRQ2j0ieib_nclOb2SJ0posI/s1600/Image168.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7fCYwiQd0RV3VDDi05bScLFkLFyJJA3lpEjl_Ljp7mUBs24kUvBrBFI4NEG0UPwIlIYpxbMQpbVK_VK5TpBsx5A7vybdDrp3Ch0pADar3gzTCIZe5WBYXRQ2j0ieib_nclOb2SJ0posI/s320/Image168.jpg"></a>
<br>Police car 2
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGYtDUhB9zIMYWLOd2YWoYbbFSVQ42vehiQpbkJDePgUKxCKycnlQYq5Yp7AWjGspvx_smh8bZcsQe1eKawLlJz93BwMBrEcYiYabVTWA61JSpYavFFiTyEOPtlwWgx2GEdMSI_uR8hS0/s1600/Image11.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGYtDUhB9zIMYWLOd2YWoYbbFSVQ42vehiQpbkJDePgUKxCKycnlQYq5Yp7AWjGspvx_smh8bZcsQe1eKawLlJz93BwMBrEcYiYabVTWA61JSpYavFFiTyEOPtlwWgx2GEdMSI_uR8hS0/s320/Image11.jpg"></a>
<br>Police car 3. Car 2723 was towed here to the bridge. Other pictures exist of it at another location.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3ZtxVTvkUIJL16XqXxN3NifxdmRRBWbkkF0lusmPxZbCfzawmK6mdcYuT9Gdba0F726_xpm1fZGnOepYMCE73Kuz2HVTfgXdynAuJfXBkOaNQI4REirnJxrlg7HBmzF7VG9crzxH6qlY/s1600/Image155.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3ZtxVTvkUIJL16XqXxN3NifxdmRRBWbkkF0lusmPxZbCfzawmK6mdcYuT9Gdba0F726_xpm1fZGnOepYMCE73Kuz2HVTfgXdynAuJfXBkOaNQI4REirnJxrlg7HBmzF7VG9crzxH6qlY/s320/Image155.jpg"></a>
<br>Police Pickup
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPbDPiWeEc6NvAK03rnL3eW0W2I6l3z2FwBWV7iQnOyyCPt-59CLggJ-yZ9atrAX6RSi6N2US8MNTrgn2ef4byS1zhyphenhypheniVxJ88cgGE9hHgn2GA_H-ACcCnRyg5I_onBsqEJK1Q9bW0gDq4/s1600/Image156.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPbDPiWeEc6NvAK03rnL3eW0W2I6l3z2FwBWV7iQnOyyCPt-59CLggJ-yZ9atrAX6RSi6N2US8MNTrgn2ef4byS1zhyphenhypheniVxJ88cgGE9hHgn2GA_H-ACcCnRyg5I_onBsqEJK1Q9bW0gDq4/s320/Image156.jpg"></a>
<br>Ambulance
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJVLhaePqPNoGh4IarUut7Nu5RHwe3DngFQoqtcSVtlws0IQD5vfelVTCTiq27ui-IcYCjsDDoUvUbPM87ZQ6Q9qKGXxpDJiIUx4lVKp5bwB55Q9Oo1xTes7MdqSIQULb79JXYZ-V76nc/s1600/Image170.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJVLhaePqPNoGh4IarUut7Nu5RHwe3DngFQoqtcSVtlws0IQD5vfelVTCTiq27ui-IcYCjsDDoUvUbPM87ZQ6Q9qKGXxpDJiIUx4lVKp5bwB55Q9Oo1xTes7MdqSIQULb79JXYZ-V76nc/s320/Image170.jpg"></a>
<br>FDNY car
<br>
<br>
<br>Proximity of one flaming vehicle to another can and does determine whether or not the second vehicle will go up in flames. The issue is in accounting for the torching of, say, the first vehicle in a cluster.
<br>
<br>
<br>A discussion opponent <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-5886">once wrote:</a></p>
<blockquote><p>[Dr. Judy Wood's] "toasted cars" for example are simply cars that were exposed to the heat and damage of the explosives and/or pyroclastic flow generated by the explosives.</p></blockquote>
<p>It is the <b>"specificity"</b> of the destruction that rules out <b>"pyroclastic flow generated by explosives"</b> and suggests that we look for another mechanism as the destruction source. For example, had there been a "hot" (or flaming) pyroclastic flow, it would have torched paper, leaves, trees, flags, humans, etc. in its path.
<br>
<br>Instead, we see things like sheet metal in cars targeted and not always completely, as if of a directional nature and if shading or blocking occurred (like it slipped out through window slits). It suggests something of electrical-magnetic influences that could induce large Eddy currents in the metal that would heat the metal to an extent to ignite materials with lower ignition temperatures (e.g., car paint, seals, plastic gas caps, plastic door handles, etc.)
<br></p></div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#23">23</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_23');">
Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars</a></h2>
<div id="sect_23" style="display: none;">
<p><i>"Hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers"</i> has been brought up many times. Unfortunately, this pyroclastic cloud had a considerable distance -- a cooling one at that -- to locate the sheet-metal on vehicles along West Broadway and in the car park. Moreover, this pyroclastic cloud easily went around corners and into places much closer with more easily combustible materials, like neighboring buildings, without causing the expected fires, if the cloud had been so <i>"hot and spicy."</i>
<br>
<br>Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins gets it right by faulting Dr. Wood for her analysis of vehicles that were towed to new locations, like the police car at the bridge. No doubt that serial-type burning of vehicles parked closely in the parking lot occurred to a degree. However, he makes light of the damage to the vehicles.
<br>
<br>Dr. Jenkins speculates:</p>
<blockquote><p>One mechanism which would ignite vehicles, buildings, paper, and other flammables in the vicinity of GZ is burning material ejected during the collapse of the towers. Also, it is well established that extremely hot metal and glass were ejected from the collapsing towers which could easily ignite flammable material.</p></blockquote>
<p>If such ejaculations of hot metal and glass happened, the issues are: (a) Remnants of such items would have been present on the targets. They weren't, except for dust in cases. (b) The targets wouldn't have been just vehicles but would have been trees, leaves, paper, and humans.
<br>
<br>Here's some nuggets of truth from <a href="http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html">Dr. Wood's website</a>. They show the sequence of when fires started in the parking lot. The quotations are from Dr. Wood. She correctly asks why the <i>"hot-and-spicy dust"</i> does not catch paper, leaves, people, etc. on fire? The fires do not all originate in the engine/battery area [and I am presently stumped to speculate on where within a turned-off automobile a fire from conducting dust could be achieved other than right at the battery. Due to configuration of air conditioning vents, it would be a challenge for unfiltered, conductive dust to wind its way to the insides of the vehicle and then into the compartments of powered-portions of a turned-off vehicle (e.g., security system, clock) in order to short them into igniting a fire.]
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p></p><p class="image">
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDZ-eLkP4cCpfJvQlCHRwScd23TQA5VYT5cH8JAlxuhBLOYiwsWIFrZ9bCoaWRy-3dtrYmwS59D8iUoWjl37LcL5QnDtpbJbiiIw5EFemYTeVHonOo0wB3z8woIcoxjaXYTwO5wcNoAtM/s1600/GJS-WTC017.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDZ-eLkP4cCpfJvQlCHRwScd23TQA5VYT5cH8JAlxuhBLOYiwsWIFrZ9bCoaWRy-3dtrYmwS59D8iUoWjl37LcL5QnDtpbJbiiIw5EFemYTeVHonOo0wB3z8woIcoxjaXYTwO5wcNoAtM/s320/GJS-WTC017.jpg">
<br><b>Figure toast1.</b></a> After WTC2 was destroyed there don't appear to be any fires.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsctON5s1CpvQ-n9dXMH5pqaeP9uevJX5XkgIkom2o8UNxZMIn_qiaVuLsCw2kExgGjnuBxChCZYLiKyM2pRyOpedz5wa0qEypZsbjyKjG7fp9rOVbEqS_xGXx7W4Aig9imq298SxkLfg/s1600/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsctON5s1CpvQ-n9dXMH5pqaeP9uevJX5XkgIkom2o8UNxZMIn_qiaVuLsCw2kExgGjnuBxChCZYLiKyM2pRyOpedz5wa0qEypZsbjyKjG7fp9rOVbEqS_xGXx7W4Aig9imq298SxkLfg/s320/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif">
<br><b>Figure toast2a.</b></a> The cloud from the destruction of WTC1 rolls toward the parking lot.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMkQLnGf1nUGDUujEHldmRM2TSMzvyr8IqSXpauwgeY-SSR72Elf-GWVpq_FHHkHAZXIZxDYn32M3lIGAOXMNZPtE-1Mc6W9c-MoiSfDniFoD27v5cV5BsYlhQCCXtVYFqQK-7DbfJbWM/s1600/18wtc099sl7.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMkQLnGf1nUGDUujEHldmRM2TSMzvyr8IqSXpauwgeY-SSR72Elf-GWVpq_FHHkHAZXIZxDYn32M3lIGAOXMNZPtE-1Mc6W9c-MoiSfDniFoD27v5cV5BsYlhQCCXtVYFqQK-7DbfJbWM/s320/18wtc099sl7.jpg">
<br><b>Figure toast2b.</b></a> Just after WTC1 is destroyed, fires start to burn the vehicles in the large lot, but not the paper. Why?
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoNDmjoU-tHid5EcKpdmqSx0x3SjiLB7JWxow30VrPjvnKflU8LPCflZKqadr3gv0z0WJd6ni7X4ehzaI5EHOc5Sc0gsfZiEm7shs4OBHBozulrUBCtIrGitKrXhaxRsDt20ve_PrQzvg/s1600/GJS-WTC101_toasted.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoNDmjoU-tHid5EcKpdmqSx0x3SjiLB7JWxow30VrPjvnKflU8LPCflZKqadr3gv0z0WJd6ni7X4ehzaI5EHOc5Sc0gsfZiEm7shs4OBHBozulrUBCtIrGitKrXhaxRsDt20ve_PrQzvg/s320/GJS-WTC101_toasted.jpg">
<br><b>Figure toast3.</b></a> The vehicle fires increase in strength as sun light begins to emerge through the clearing dust cloud.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2kmSFp3BTWiOPspCvvfMtUY4tONnn08wEEB7iKszt_r_HxnZxHIjv8NCProfJ8x1jBHpFMua-iHJdPRpVwikch7HYrq_BaXFa_qMxxkmlyny3xLtuQlLN5ARZ_Wpfa2eL58kycHuEcb8/s1600/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2kmSFp3BTWiOPspCvvfMtUY4tONnn08wEEB7iKszt_r_HxnZxHIjv8NCProfJ8x1jBHpFMua-iHJdPRpVwikch7HYrq_BaXFa_qMxxkmlyny3xLtuQlLN5ARZ_Wpfa2eL58kycHuEcb8/s320/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg">
<br><b>Figure toast4.</b></a> The air upwind of the WTC has visibly become clearer. The vehicle fires continue increasing and flames can be seen.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGT1s-GSoUcGZ6KVbG6ZbMOhkUNc2MrloQCeeYmHfjCfViYJqggI5MvmF249z24QsPI9rIOyNM2MAgD9WnKGAHwDVN6LGMvWu86fWtnPqJeHWCwQiSk_kzYefcH_ugviyxNByqKrPnFFE/s1600/GJS-WTC106.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGT1s-GSoUcGZ6KVbG6ZbMOhkUNc2MrloQCeeYmHfjCfViYJqggI5MvmF249z24QsPI9rIOyNM2MAgD9WnKGAHwDVN6LGMvWu86fWtnPqJeHWCwQiSk_kzYefcH_ugviyxNByqKrPnFFE/s320/GJS-WTC106.jpg">
<br><b>Figure toast6.</b></a> Sunlight begins streaming through the intersection.
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj34rKK_vWnYtfB_2xXAWHAo1y3b8DKsJGn6qyqUSwN-LJBnJ7kNIg_IhOcYXo5aQuksRXwVqXmEcIkBIQX7ZAIgcj9whC6blz6aUN23kCqjEVh9TIkBs4CbWpP0QNYbHETjrZ3qLMogB4/s1600/GJS-WTC109.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj34rKK_vWnYtfB_2xXAWHAo1y3b8DKsJGn6qyqUSwN-LJBnJ7kNIg_IhOcYXo5aQuksRXwVqXmEcIkBIQX7ZAIgcj9whC6blz6aUN23kCqjEVh9TIkBs4CbWpP0QNYbHETjrZ3qLMogB4/s320/GJS-WTC109.jpg">
<br><b>Figure toast7</b></a> The intersection and the grassy lot are covered with paper and dust that did not burn. So, what caused the vehicles to suddenly catch fire?
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFIdO343k8QfW2eTwGh14i3cccV1vKit7bvMmvk07jJVrey_ckHYHT1lCcEhdVq62dPIntC4MElm63335lM8Wk_ZS37A4yrXdRIBgdbkeaBUdVG_shJtQp9f0UkniWjoruaiVVbhSh1y4/s1600/19wtc108rj0.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFIdO343k8QfW2eTwGh14i3cccV1vKit7bvMmvk07jJVrey_ckHYHT1lCcEhdVq62dPIntC4MElm63335lM8Wk_ZS37A4yrXdRIBgdbkeaBUdVG_shJtQp9f0UkniWjoruaiVVbhSh1y4/s320/19wtc108rj0.jpg">
<br><b>Figure toast8.</b></a> How did these cars catch on fire?</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br>
<br>Pay attention to the trees and their leaves in the following four images.
<br></p><p class="image">
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyY5AEp3UKn1jhmCCUkwUw6x9LScfkEZjoX0qxLhecAdaZ2EB45PCW1GMccQ-rEsgf6hGQeO4TrWm-i_WxHo7rGDObIADzF14BgWD9JFcyd1vd3aLqadrTRFirVzQtr77KCVf4SFvyb2E/s1600/Image20swamp.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyY5AEp3UKn1jhmCCUkwUw6x9LScfkEZjoX0qxLhecAdaZ2EB45PCW1GMccQ-rEsgf6hGQeO4TrWm-i_WxHo7rGDObIADzF14BgWD9JFcyd1vd3aLqadrTRFirVzQtr77KCVf4SFvyb2E/s320/Image20swamp.jpg">
<br>[Image20swamp.jpg] West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. You can see WTC-7. </a>
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJaCzwIPlLJ9u_Zu_AS5xIyntURF_oJ9-Z-dkHKDFF_qGIvIn-MiNRA3F2bbLGyGnME4hu-WIzreJnbE-luzW_91Il8NESprXfn12wYFIqV41mZGdIcGYu8C4jkvTZiOFQgVaU3szCd0M/s1600/Image16.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJaCzwIPlLJ9u_Zu_AS5xIyntURF_oJ9-Z-dkHKDFF_qGIvIn-MiNRA3F2bbLGyGnME4hu-WIzreJnbE-luzW_91Il8NESprXfn12wYFIqV41mZGdIcGYu8C4jkvTZiOFQgVaU3szCd0M/s320/Image16.jpg">
<br>[Image16.jpg] West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus. </a>
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7TcvntD9wvpIkvoIRWI62Z7ZHL1Jl9bzI1PDe4dfy3B5XTpu5d0Ji8SnnGoHy1lBSOQ_Gk9CpF-MPgAZhDjOnYnxKoJTusBY4AVpU_HTsrW71NysELFIcmDYE-ydr4CI1-K1LbsaXjI8/s1600/081swamp.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7TcvntD9wvpIkvoIRWI62Z7ZHL1Jl9bzI1PDe4dfy3B5XTpu5d0Ji8SnnGoHy1lBSOQ_Gk9CpF-MPgAZhDjOnYnxKoJTusBY4AVpU_HTsrW71NysELFIcmDYE-ydr4CI1-K1LbsaXjI8/s320/081swamp.jpg">
<br>081swamp.jpg </a>
<br>
<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisH_pR4AvwwgSTQTkeBckIRlVesVQXs-qkoHGs2l1zqtwYwqDaS1VuxIljW67BeZXg7OHZExWV03dAtl_OLDMWQzF_oCvufTlJwwpXUJn5OiapTCArynNjDwe-_k9tHp11055t04vgFvg/s1600/080.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisH_pR4AvwwgSTQTkeBckIRlVesVQXs-qkoHGs2l1zqtwYwqDaS1VuxIljW67BeZXg7OHZExWV03dAtl_OLDMWQzF_oCvufTlJwwpXUJn5OiapTCArynNjDwe-_k9tHp11055t04vgFvg/s320/080.jpg">
<br>080.jpg</a>
<br>
<br>Very selective those burning particulates in the dust cloud.
<br>
<br>When all four images are taken into consideration, only one tree looks charred mostly because of the overall darkness of the scene due to smoke clouding the sun and soot on the trees. When the same trees are observed several days later [after a rain storm that may have washed some of the soot away], the tree in the middle still has greenish leaves (not brown, black, or missing). The trunks of all of the trees show little in the way of fire damage from burning particulates in the dust clouds.
<br>
<br>What caused the vehicles (line-of-sight) to get torched, and not other combustible things and things not line-of-sight (as shown by the reporter's video)?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>There's a great video of WCBS reporter Vince Dimentri coming out from WTC-7 who didn't know really where he was [West Broadway and Barkley] but was commenting on the damage looking like a war zone.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Car after car after car and buses completely obliterated and burned down to the steel... That gaping hole? That's where one of the twin towers stood.</p></blockquote>
<p></p><p class="image">
<br><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NR0IL7K39v4?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4&feature=related</a>
<br>
<br>
<br><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6Szgj5yUSdc?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related</a>
<br>
<br>
<br><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZI10oG1Gzrg?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>The timing of when images were taken can mislead. Certainly much paper debris came flowing in with the dust (although <b>it wasn't flying in on fire</b>). The amount of dust on paper can provide some indication of how long the paper might have been there. Possibly some [but not necessarily all] of the undamaged emergency vehicles near WTC-7 observed in the background of the reporter's piece may have arrived after the torching of vehicles on West Broadway but before the reporter. But some of the undamaged vehicles appear to have been ~not~ line-of-sight to where the towers were and may have been shielded by the Federal Building and WTC-7.
<br></p></div><!-- section 23 -->
<a name="x24"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#24">24</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_24');">
Conductive, Corrosive and Abrasive Dust and Vehicle Fires</a></h2>
<div id="sect_24" style="display: none;">
<p>Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins made some statements in <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf"><i>"Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence"</i></a> relating to the vehicle damage (with <i><b>author's emphasis</b></i> added):
</p>
<blockquote><p>Dust which <i><b>may</b></i> be conductive can short electrical systems in vehicles which <i><b>might</b></i> spuriously ignite vehicle fires. Metallic particles, various carbonaceous molecules (constituents of soot, graphite, some office toners, etc.), moisture mixing with the many cations, anions, and salts, are all constituents of the dust which conduct. The electrical conduction of the dust will depend upon the thickness deposited. Thicker dust results in higher electrical conduction.
<br>
<br>This <i><b>may</b></i> explain why the Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place vehicles were not ignited by the initial dust cloud from the South tower, but required the subsequent added dust from the North tower collapse. Once the fires had stripped the paint from the vehicles, the heated steel from the fire caused rapid surface oxidation. Steel will rapidly oxidize on the surface when exposed to high temperatures, moisture, and a ready supply of oxygen.</p></blockquote>
<p>[1] This is a highly speculative effort from Dr. Jenkins used to explain torched vehicles. And it doesn't match real world expectations. Farm/Ranch work is a very dusty endeavor. It takes a very long time for dust and environmental (e.g., humid) conditions to reach accumulation levels that would lead to shorting or other electrical problems in such equipment.
<br>
<br>[2] More troubling to Dr. Jenkins speculative theory is that the vehicles were torched in certain cases seemingly from the outside-in or strange patterns that did not impact the engine/battery area. The vehicles were turned off and parked, which significantly limits the active electrical circuits & places within the engine/battery/starter area that could be shorted together to start a fire immediately: like between the two battery terminals. If you put a highly conductive metal screw driver across the battery terminals, you'll get a spark; you might even get the battery to explode; whether or not this will lead to fire in the engine compartment depends. Right across the battery terminals or at the starter are pretty damn near the only locations within the engine area that could <i>possibly</i> cause a fire, and the electrical conduction of the dust would have to be assured and not intermittent or flaky.
<br>
<br>Dr. Jenkins drops a lot of innuendo about conductive elements measured within the dusts (true), but that doesn't measure up when talking <i>"point A to point B conductivity"</i> that would cause a fire igniting short. Dr. Jenkins seems to believe in <b><i>"magic dust"</i></b> that can wind its way under the hood and across the battery terminals (or starter terminals) in sufficient <i>and</i> conductive quantities, or that could wind its way through the air filters and into the passenger compartment behind the dash and into the cooling vent holes of constantly powered electrical devices (e.g., security systems, clocks, or stereos) to cause conductive-dust shorting leading to vehicle fires.
<br>
<br>While dust can cause electric shorting in real-world dusty and humid environments, it is something that often takes significant time to happen.
<br>
<br>[3] Dr. Jenkins speculative theory does not match the evidence of timing of the <i>"spuriously ignited vehicle fires"</i>. He implies that a thicker layer of dust deposits <i>may</i> have been required to ignite the vehicles Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place. <a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html">EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony</a>, among others, discounts this view. The cars were <b>"popping off"</b> well before a <i>"thicker layer of dust deposits"</i> could work its way into the engine cavity and, say, short the battery. She also talks about a car door popping horizontally right out of its hinges and smacking her into a wall. It was not because the car was on fire, because it wasn't. [Refer to the section on <i>"EMP and Electromagnetic Energy."</i>]
<br>
<br>
<br><a href="http://anonymousphysicist.com/patricia-ondrovic-emt-and-the-truth-of-the-nuclear-destruction-of-the-wtc-a-witness-to-electromagnetic-pulses-along-with-emt-robert-ruiz/">Another Witness to EMP:</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>[Robert Ruiz, EMT] his utter incredulity at watching a car completely catch on fire for no discernible reason is clear…. Ruiz just barely escaped WTC 2 being destroyed. First he describes the ground near him shaking before the "collapse" starts. This could be evidence of an underground nuclear bomb going off before the top was brought down. He says, the ground shakes, then WTC 2 starts to come down, and he runs and survives under a nearby doorway. Ruiz then states, <i>"I was trapped there. Like things weren't bad enough already, the car that's parked right on that corner catches on fire. I don't mean a little fire, the entire thing. Don't ask me how. The entire car caught on fire. You would think maybe just a motor part or just the engine part. But this entire car just goes up in fire."….</i>
<br>
<br>Again both Ondrovic would have been vaporized or melted if neutron fluxes did that to the cars right near them. They were not directly affected by the cars catching fire, except for Ondrovic being injured when the door flung off the car and hit her. This was not neutrons; nothing but EMPs can account for this.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://anonymousphysicist.com/combating-the-fetzer-prager-jones-op-plan-of-denying-the-massive-evidence-of-emp-during-wtc-destruction/">The Massive Evidence of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) During WTC Destruction on 9/11, & Combating the Fetzer-Prager-Jones Op-Plan of Denying It</a>
<br></p></div><!-- section 24 -->
<a name="x25"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#25">25</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_25');">
Embrittlement</a></h2>
<div id="sect_25" style="display: none;">
<p>The Banker's Trust Building across from the WTC at 130 Liberty Street had facade damage from the decimated towers, which they repaired after 9/11. But before the building could be occupied, the building was torn down. Why?
<br>
<br>Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins made some statements in <a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf"><i>"Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence"</i></a> relating to his analysis of an extensive study of the Banker's Trust building performed by the RJ Lee Group.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances contaminating the Buildings' mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are conductive, corrosive and abrasive. WTC Dust has permeated every component in the [Banker's Trust] Building. The WTC Dust has been shown to be corrosive to unprotected metal, to affect the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent failures, and to be severely abrasive when present in lubricants at only five percent of the volume.</p></blockquote>
<p>While the concerns over the unique nature WTC dust are valid, they do not add up to sufficient reasoning to demolish a building. Otherwise, the same reasoning would have been applied to all other buildings in a much greater radius from the WTC. The steel in the building had protective coatings intact. The mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are all designed to be maintained and to have critical portions replaced. Dust -- no matter how conductive, corrosive, and abrasive -- can be cleaned out.
<br>
<br>Owing to the severity of the facade damage from some heavy pieces of the wall assemblies that were thrown great distances, maybe this served to unprotect critical structural elements. From what? The Banker's Trust was not set on fire.
<br>
<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrittlement">Embrittlement, perhaps?</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Embrittlement is a loss of ductility of a material, making it brittle. Various materials have different mechanisms of embrittlement. ... Metal-induced embrittlement (MIE) is the embrittlement caused by diffusion of atoms of metal, either solid or liquid, into the material. Neutron radiation causes embrittlement of some materials, neutron-induced swelling, and buildup of Wigner energy. </p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v308/n5954/abs/308051a0.html">Is neutron radiation exposure always detrimental to metals (steels)?</a> </p>
<blockquote><p>We talk about <b>radiation damage and environmental degradation of metals following radiation exposure.</b> Indeed, there have been numerous conferences and symposia held and planned on this subject, which include research work and discussions with the central theme being <b>the damage created in materials by neutron radiation exposure.</b> Radiation embrittlement in metals is believed to be due mainly to (1) changes in flow properties because of the interaction of dislocations with irradiation-produced defects, and (2) precipitation of transmutation-produced gases and irradiation-induced segregation at grain boundaries which are potential fracture sites.</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, the Banker's Trust Building may have been torn down, because close inspection of the supporting steel may have discovered such <i>"fracture sites"</i> due to embrittlement by the neutron weapons used to destroy the WTC. Brittle supporting columns in a skyscraper are undesirable for their inability to flex without failure to wind loads. The building was hence probably deemed unsafe and demolished accordingly.
<br></p></div><!-- section 25 -->
<a name="x26"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#26">26</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">
Cover-Up, Tight Security, and Destruction of Evidence</a></h2>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: none;">
<p>As <i>New York Times</i> reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]he investigation was financed and given its authority by [FEMA], with which [lead investigator Gene] Corley’s team had a shaky relationship from the start. For months after September 11, the investigators…were unable to persuade FEMA to obtain basic data like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. Bureaucratic restrictions often kept the engineers from interviewing witnesses to the disaster, making forensic inspections at ground zero, or getting crucial information like recorded distress calls from people trapped in the buildings. For reasons that would remain known only to FEMA, the agency refused to let the team appeal to the public for photographs and videos of the towers that could help with the investigation.<sup>2</sup></p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/">Beyond Misinformation</a> page 12</p>
<blockquote><p>Most detrimental to the team's ability to conduct forensic analysis was the City’s recycling of the buildings' steel, which continued despite requests from the investigators — and outcry among the victims' families and the fire safety community — for the steel to be saved.<sup>3</sup> Although investigators were eventually granted access to the scrap yards, nearly all of the steel, including most of the steel from the upper floors of WTC 1 and WTC 2, was destroyed before it could be inspected.<sup>4</sup></p></blockquote>
<p>The WTC after 9/11 was <b>~not~</b> a place that just anyone could walk right into. From Kevin R. Ryan's <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378743767&sr=1-1&keywords=Kevin+R.+Ryan">Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects</a></i>. [Use the endnote number to locate the exact position in the book.]
</p>
<blockquote><p>During the five-month cleanup effort, there were unprecedented measures taken to control access to the site. The site was restricted, and photographs were banned, by order of Rudy Giuliani. [808] Anthony Mann of E.J. Electric, one of the contractors for the WTC towers, said that "Security is unbelievable. It's really on a need-to-be-down-there basis."[809]
<br>[808] Jim Hoffman, Access Restrictions: The Closure of Ground Zero to Investigators, 911Research.WTC7.net
<br>[809] Amy Florence Fischbach, CEE News, September 20, 2001.
<br>
<br>... Evidence Recovery Teams (ERTs) involved in the sorting process stole pieces of debris, and kept or disposed of them. This removal of debris was condoned and encouraged by the FBI agents in charge. ... The claim that these were merely souvenirs seemed unlikely considering the volume of materials stolen, and considering the WTC building 7 was the focus of much of the theft.
<br>
<br>The restrictions on FEMA investigators and photographers and the extensive site security are all indications that something was being hidden.
<br>
<br>... highly secure site, as well as the authority to <b>hire suspected crime syndicate companies</b> to perform the actual cleanup.
</p></blockquote>
<p>The above quotations sets the scene. If the outcome was as the official conspiracy theory spins, there would have been no reason for the unprecedented and tight security at Ground Zero. Pictures of a gravity collapse would not be damning to anyone.
<br>
<br>On the other hand, if the truth is something else, pictures of anomalous would have to be controlled. And the ERTs (Evidence Recovery Teams) would have to purge damning pieces of evidence.
<br>
<br>Another scene setting quote from <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305newrevelations.htm" rel="nofollow">Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia</a>, a WTC responder and FEMA consultant:</p>
<blockquote><p>They would tackle you and take your camera away. ... When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn't go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. ... If you spoke to civilians, you actually were reprimanded by not being allowed to go back to the pile per hour, per occurrence. So if you talked to four people, they wouldn't say anything to you on the pile. But when you got back, to come back and got ready at the Port Authority, got showered, dressed and ready to return, they'd say, "Tartaglia, you have to hold up a second, we need to talk to you for a second." And then you would have nonsensical conversations for two or three hours. [Alex Jones: Now we know that by day two, they arrested anybody with cameras. They said no over-flights, no cameras.] First of all they didn't take cameras away from everybody. They took them away from people they couldn't control. ... </p></blockquote>
<p></p><p class="image"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3xIsgdAmBWVBIGpQAhNkqtWNVt_DfkCkrk8IE6R96Gf_cQEzw1wzKa9sDew8COrsnQ1_ymvVDnkLnhR7fsQkKQaxvzqlHfoBfe3nC_09vaP-JYu1S0dQXBHBh8u0hcY45Cds3Q2uGpDA/s1600/WTC_steel_cut_and_shipped_off_core_columns_I_beams_outer_box_columns.jpg">
<br><img class="image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3xIsgdAmBWVBIGpQAhNkqtWNVt_DfkCkrk8IE6R96Gf_cQEzw1wzKa9sDew8COrsnQ1_ymvVDnkLnhR7fsQkKQaxvzqlHfoBfe3nC_09vaP-JYu1S0dQXBHBh8u0hcY45Cds3Q2uGpDA/s320/WTC_steel_cut_and_shipped_off_core_columns_I_beams_outer_box_columns.jpg">
<br>WTC steel cut and shipped off. Core columns I beams, outer box columns</a>
<br>
<br>Quotes from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378743767&sr=1-1&keywords=Kevin+R.+Ryan">Kevin R. Ryan's <i>"Another Nineteen"</i></a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>... shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel -- including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns -- were gone. ... bargain price, the WTC debris was considered highly sensitive. ... The recycling of the most important steel evidence was done in a hurry, ... done so fast that the City took much less than market value for the scrap metal.</p></blockquote>
<p>The WTC clean-up were in such a <i>"hurry to remove evidence"</i>, they sold it as scrap at below-market (bargain) prices. Note the critical pieces that <i>"were gone"</i>, either by removal and/or the demolition means.
<br>
<br>From <a href="http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-evidence-testimony-indicating.html">On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist"</a>: </p>
<blockquote><p>Regarding 9/11, never forget that whatever radionuclides may have been created were sent to China, or otherwise were not allowed to be studied. This remarkable article states that before the steel was shipped to China, <a href="http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341768.shtml">it was "first sent to be washed down" - a standard method of decreasing radiation levels!</a> ... The same demolition expert said of the 1993 nuke - after he examined the basement of that tower:<b> "The particular type of construction type micronuclear device is mostly radiologically clean."</b> So, as I indicated in my WTC nuclear demolition article, recent nuclear devices can be designed to be "steered" towards blast capability, and away from any (significant) radiation release.</p></blockquote>
<p>From <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378743767&sr=1-1&keywords=Kevin+R.+Ryan">Kevin R. Ryan's <i>"Another Nineteen"</i></a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>... {The response had the appearance of a} careful rescue operations. [802] But the facts also align with the hypothesis that authorities were actually in a hurry to remove evidence that pointed to the use of explosives.
<br>[802] Suzanne Mattei, Pollution and Deception at Ground Zero: How the Bush Administration's Reckless Disregard of 9/11 Toxic Hazards Poses Long-Term Threats for New York City and the Nation, Sierra Club, <a href="http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/sierraclub_report.pdf">http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/sierraclub_report.pdf</a></p></blockquote>
<p>The above is one of many instances where Mr. Ryan frames the discussion to be <i>"the use of explosives."</i> However, remnants of nuclear devices (like multiple <i>neutron nuclear DEW</i>) would exhibit the same <i>"hurry to remove evidence."</i>
<br>
<br>From <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378743767&sr=1-1&keywords=Kevin+R.+Ryan">Kevin R. Ryan's <i>"Another Nineteen"</i></a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>... hypothesis that unexplained explosive or incendiary events were occurring at the site during the cleanup efforts. The fires in the debris pile, which were violent and long-lasting, could not be extinguished even through extreme firefighting efforts, and indicated the presence of energetic materials. [901]
<br>[901] Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center.</p></blockquote>
<p>It isn't hard to agree that <i>"unexplained explosive or incendiary events occurred at the site during the cleanup efforts."</i> The cited paper notes a half dozen or so of these; spikes in the release of toxic gases. Yes, this indicates the presence of energetic materials (e.g., chemical explosives or incendiaries). The issue is that these spikes were different than what would be required to maintain the <i>long-lasting</i> nature of the fires.
<br>
<br>If we're talking remnants of nuclear devices -- maybe even nuclear fizzling -- then this explains the ineffectual <i>"extreme firefighting efforts"</i> on the <i>"violent and long-lasting" "fires in the debris pile"</i> as well as the <i>"unbelievable security."</i>
<br>
<br></p></div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#27">27</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_27');">
Nuclear Scientific Research</a></h2>
<div id="sect_27" style="display: none;">
<p>
The US Government took the position many decades ago to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available in publications, because publishing such could enable those with bad intentions against us. Those who wish to study, and have professions involving, nuclear science in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties, or they are left out of all of the interesting research.
<br>
<br>If the question is asked <i>"where are all of the nuclear scientists who should be weighing in one way or another about 9/11 and who could clear up piles of misinformation?"</i>, the answer is that they know where their funding comes from, who pays the research bills, and what their non-disclosure agreements say. It benefits them in no way to come forward and correct the public record. And were they to be so bold, the retaliation from the <i>"you are either with us or against us"</i> crowd has proven to be very effective. (It is beyond the scope of this article to provided details into the authorship of the USA PATRIOT ACT and its lightning quick passage in Congress in a time period shortly after 9/11 that included Anthrax attacks against the House Majority Leader and a news media icon.)
<br>
<br>If the US government wanted to steer the public's perceptions regarding nuclear involvement in 9/11, it could be achieved with a small group of PhDs and experts who balanced the requirements of the <i>"message-controlling"</i> assignment with their own personal ethics. The mistakes that they made might have been purposeful with the intent of being discovered, precisely so an article could raise public awareness to <i>"what is really going and has been going on!"</i>
<br>
<br>Although most nuclear research does not get a wide public viewing, some of it does, particularly if it is only offering an overview, speculation, and omissions of details that would help others' implementation. The work of Dr. Andre Gsponer fits into such requirements. Noteworthy is also (A) nothing has been published over many years to contradict, discredit, or debunk Dr. Gsponer's <i>"speculation"</i> into where nuclear research was headed, and (B) Dr. Gsponer continually improved his work over many editions prior to 2001; then-current and re-enforcing information was gathered to refine the direction of his nuclear speculation.
<br>
<br>Damning for 9/11 Truth and AE911Truth: the omission of Dr. Andre Gsponer's FGNW work from Dr. Steven Jones' peer-reviewed <i>"letter"</i> that repudiated 9/11 nuclear devices for the 9/11TM and the world at large. Of course, Dr. Judy Wood's work is guilty of the same omission.
<br>
<br>Were a wide-spread public revelation come to fruition that the US Government (with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the <i>"figurative"</i> nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo. This risk could be and was significantly reduced by controlling the messager's message away from themes nuclear, or into skewed nuclear variants that do not address the evidence correctly (e.g., deep underground nukes, beams from space) and are thus easily debunked in classic straw-man fashion.
</p>
</div><!-- section 27 -->
<a name="x28"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#28">28</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">
Summary: Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices</a></h2>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: none;">
<p>A "standard" nuclear weapon typically has a heat wave, a blast wave, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and radiation. All of these are features that can be tweaked or mitigated in the implementation (e.g., EMP inside a steel box). To be sure, an FGNW is designed with the trade-off of sacrificing much of its heat wave and blast wave in order to release energy at given wavelengths in a targeted fashion.
<br>
<br>The multiple tactical FGNW of 9/11 each were small <b>directed energy weapons</b> that were aimed where they wanted the energy: up. This can be observed in the <i>"fountain"</i> effects of the debris mid-way through the towers' pulverization. [Some of the damage to neighboring buildings and vehicles could be attributed to FGNW becoming misaligned in the destruction.]
<br>
<br>The radiation signature of a FGNW? Primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived - contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.
<br>For additional reading on this topic, refer to this <a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/29/mini-neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle/">Veteran's Today article</a>.
<br>
<br>To be successful in this nuclear plan, the perpetrators would have to limit access to the WTC: no errant measuring devices or cameras. They would have to run out the clock as best they could in terms of keeping investigators and scientific researchers at bay while giving time for alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation to deplete and for tritium to dissipate. And then they would have to manage the reports. Meanwhile, though, they couldn't keep the first responders out, and like a canary-in-a-coalmine, the rapid onset of poor health of the 1st responders resembled that of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
<br></p></div><!-- section 28 -->
<a name="x29"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#29">29</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_29');">
9/11 Tetris: The Theory Stack with the Fewest Gaps</a></h2>
<div id="sect_29" style="display: none;">
<p>David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: <b>"None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."</b>
<br>
<br>In the game of <b>9/11 Tetris</b>, the pieces of evidence come down at weird intervals and angles and must be oriented into a <b><i>"theory stack"</i></b> that leaves the fewest and smallest gaps. A given piece of evidence might fit equally well in multiple theory stacks. However, all of the valid evidence must be accounted for in a reasonable manner. And to make the game more challenging, disinformation is part of the mix. A piece of evidence coming from a disinformation source is not invalidated by this association.
<br>
<br>With regards to 9/11 and the shock-&-awe global agenda that 9/11 put into effect, one could argue that all sources of information are in some ways disinformation. Remember that in order to be credible and hence successful, all disinformation must have copious amounts of truth. Owing to this and that some truths are inconvenient to the agenda, some disinformation is fashioned as a straw-man, such that when the deceit of the disinformation vehicle is discovered or purposely exposed, all <b><i>"Nuggets of Truth"</i></b> contained therein might be knocked from the table in the hopes of no further public consideration. <i>"All or nothing"</i> is the charge given those with less discerning, meaning <i>"either everything in a work is true, or nothing is true and it can be dismissed without further study... And trust the 2nd- and 3rd-hand accounts that label it disinformation, because it was a PhD who said so."</i>
<br>
<br>No! <b><i>"Nuggets of Truth"</i></b> must be actively mined, re-fined, and re-purposed from (dis)information sources, because often they are the only source of information. In a disinformation world, you must <i>"distrust but verify."</i>
<br>
<br>The <i>"theory stack"</i> that supposes only chemical-based explosives and incendiaries for pulverizing the towers comes up short. It has glaring gaps out of which tritium stares and astronomical quantities of unspent explosive materials spill.
<br>
<br>The <i>"theory stack"</i> for <b><i>FGND</i></b> orients the evidence with fewer and tighter gaps that can even explain concerted efforts to prevent the public from discovering that 9/11 was nuclear.
<br>
<br>Evidence of <b><i>"nuclear anything"</i></b> has about the same PR stigma as a <b><i>"toxic waste dump"</i></b>: nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of NY city shrivel up & die as inhabitants and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that "nuclear something" was involved. Even though the spectrum of <b><i>"nuclear somethings"</i></b> is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The <i>"Field of Dreams"</i> message to Silverstein paraphrased: <i>"If you re-build it, ain't nobody gonna come."</i>
<br>
<br>All over the internet, intelligent thinkers offer hints at much deeper causes, motives, and players to what is happening in the world. If any of that is given any credit as being valid with respect to the players and the nookies-and-cranies of all the arsenals of the world, then it seems rather contradictory that nuclear mechanisms get taken off the table so quickly with regards to 9/11. That was a showcase event with redundancies to their redundancies, but with shock-&-awe, baby, being first and foremost. They did not care WTF it looked like, because they were going to PR tell the masses what they wanted the masses to believe. And so it was.
<br>The roots of government-controlled messaging are deep, but have been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions for well over a decade. A more recent embodiment of this is <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585">a 2008 Harvard paper</a> co-written by Cass Sunstein now in the Obama administration who proposed that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites - as well as other activist groups - which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.
<br>
<br>Mr. Daniel Noel wrote (<a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/debate-scrapped-but-dc-911-conference-will-still-examine-what-happened-at-the-pentagon/#comment-18091">2013-07-30</a>):</p>
<blockquote><p>Accordingly, the most dangerous 9/11 conspirators, contrary to what many 9/11 dissidents believe, are not the actual agents of terror, nor the much more numerous public servants who engineered their cover and protection, but <b>the still more numerous watchdogs</b> who have knowingly been sending for a decade their gullible supporters on wild goose chases - like ending the open-ended Afghan war - that 9/11 Truth would nullify.</p></blockquote>
<p>The news and media have tried to advertise themselves as being one of those watchdogs, the fourth estate, right? The representatives of our local interests who should have been aware, or listening to their constituents (and as a result researching on their own) would be another. I guess it would be fair to say that this is a great example of how money in politics talked, because money for elective office was given by TPTB (the powers that be) through their tax-dodging 501(c)3 [or whatever IRS designation they got] to candidates who did ~not~ even speak of 9/11.
<br>
<br>An excerpt from <a href="http://www.zengardner.com/911-the-defining-line-of-conscience/">9/11 - The Defining Line of Conscience</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p><b>The Litmus Test</b>
<br>It should go without saying that anyone who promotes the official story of 9/11; anyone who accepts the official story, who oppresses those who doubt the official story, who does not question the official story, is involved or stupid.
<br>Any presidential candidate, senator, congressman, fireman, pilot, engineer, architect… anyone who, knowing the facts, does not dispute the official story is a traitor to their nation and a tool of those who accomplished the attack.
<br>Whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not, every violation of our basic rights we so docilely accept - TSA cavity searches, being forced to remove your shoes in order to board a flight, metal detectors and X-Ray scanners (even in hospitals), ID checks at every turn - they all came about because of 9/11. Everything that curtails, inhibits, or restricts your everyday life today is a direct or indirect result of 9/11. Think about it.
<br>
<br>And every one of these violations of our personal freedoms is based on a lie.
<br>Therefore, everyone in government, in the media, in entertainment, in organized religion, in the public eye and in the public who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool.</p></blockquote>
<p>They have acted as part of 9/11 Censors against the fact that 9/11 was nuclear, which has its very own figuratively <i>"nuclear"</i> connotations with regards to how the public <b><i>would, should, or could</i></b> react with respect to the status quo, leadership, government, government institutions, banking institutions, etc. This is in addition to the literal <i>"nuclear"</i> connotations with regards to what the military reaction <b><i>would, should, or could</i></b> be with respect to nuclear responses to those <i><b>framed as the aggressors.</b></i> The spoils of war that they hoped to gain would go up in mushroom clouds. What profit $$$ is there in that?
<br>I have no doubt that the PTB could have nuked us and blamed someone else in a very false-flag sense. They could have even kept with the meme of 19 Muslim extremists. And the nation and I would have been eager to believe that fairy-tale, too. I suspect that the PTB through its MIC institutions were squashing this -- <i>"9/11 censorship"</i> --, because the ground-swell from the FOX & CNN viewers to <i>"nuke them into a parking lot because (according to the fairy-tell) them foreign rag-head SOBs done nuked us first"</i> would be counter-productive with the war-profiteering.
<br>
<br>In fairness with the nuclear theme, the USA did <i>"nuke them foreign rag-head SOBs"</i> with depleted uranium weapons against the better judgment of just about anybody. [My mocking of the sentiments of FOX-style Hawks is not mine; it is an indication of how <i>"the enemy was de-humanized"</i> in the PSYOPS perpetrated on us.] The USA instigated rendition, torture, enemy combatant legal limbo status, indefinite detention without trial, drone killings, and a host of other atrocities against our nation's laws, its Constitution, and its moral & religious underpinnings.
<br>
<br>Nuking of Iraq and Afghanistan via depleted uranium is another one of those dots in the trend line that says, <i>"if their morals & ethics permits them to nuke their alleged enemies, then a 9/11 nuclear Pearl Harbor event at the WTC isn't beneath them either,"</i> particularly if it furthers the PNAC goals.
<br>
<br>A gem to be plucked from all of this is that the PTB nuked us, and then went to great effort to tell us via the media and lots of <i>"authority figures"</i> it was something else: gravity driven pancaking pile-driver. Jonesian Thermite and Woodsian DEW were back-stops to prevent full nuclear revelation and its subsequent <i>"hair-on-fire panic."</i> And I believe it is why lots of <b><i>9/11 Censors</i></b> who were late to the game and should've (or did) known better but played ball anyway: to preserve status quo. And it was probably <i>"personally incentivized"</i> upon them as well in a <i>"deal with the devil"</i> sense. Those who didn't play didn't last very long in Congress.
<br>
<br>
<br>Like Iceland before us, we the people in order to form a more perfect union must establish government anew. The house-cleaning will be deep; the re-organization significant, even down to the drawing of new regional borders; could make <i>"the guvmint of Merika"</i> and all its institutions obsolete.
<br>
<br>The danger is that such radical talk, instead of carving Merika into several manageable regions of autonomy, might consolidate us into the NWO plan, thereby having us play directly into their hand like sheeple that we are.
<br></p></div><!-- section 29 -->
<a name="x30"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#30">30</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">
Acknowledgements and Credits</a></h2>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: none;">
<p>This article relies on information and verbiage previously published in an article titled <i><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html">"Nuclear 2001-09-11"</a></i> (as well as two predecessor and one derivative article.) The chief difference is that those earlier works speculated into <i>neutron DEW</i> or neutron devices. This article advances the discussion into actual Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices.
<br>
<br>My thanks goes out to Craig McKee and Vatic Master for having places on the Internet that can talk about nuggets of truth objectively.
<br>
<br>This article would not have been possible without the challenges regularly posed by William Whitten (aka Hybridrogue1 or <i>"Mr. Rogue"</i>), a staunch debate opponent on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com">Truth & Shadows</a>. He helped me coin the phrase <i>"neu nookiedoo."</i>
<br>My deep, heart-felt gratitude is extended to him for his assistance in honing my argument, although he did so unknowingly, unwillingly, would deny supporting the contentions presented here, and probably truly despises me in every conceivable way.
<br>
<br>I do not know Dr. Judy Wood or the Anonymous Physicist personally, and have never communicated with them directly (although I tried.) I have never championed their work 100%, and today deviate from their theories. Nonetheless, I must thank them for their contributions to the cause of truth. In particular, I am grateful for Dr. Judy Wood's 2010 textbook, <i><a href="http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/">"Where Did The Towers Go?"</a></i> and her <a href="http://www.drjudywood.com">website</a>. Yes, they have disinformation, but they also have the best collection of pictorial evidence and nuggets of truth that need to be addressed by any 9/11 theory-du-jour. Her book also proved to be an excellent <b>objectivity test</b> that many leaders of the 9/11TM failed. I speculate that some of her disinformation was forced upon her, which is why her crafty quote about <i>"listening to the evidence"</i> is important. A sneaky hint to objectively look at her collective evidence and not be distracted by what she puts around it.
<br>
<br>To my knowledge, Dr. Andre Gsponer has never written anything about 9/11. However, his decades of effort into documenting the research directions of fourth generation nuclear devices is commendable.
<br>
<br>Mr. Jeff Prager also deserves large amounts of praise for his <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html"><i>Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis</i></a> [8MB], and his two part eMagazine of a few hundred pages <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-79644cfa.html">Part 1</a> [86MB] and <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-51eec327.html">Part 2</a> [56MB]. The 9/11TM was awaiting a thorough analysis of the dust that its resident (nuclear) physicists glaringly neglected.
<br>
<br>Dr. Ed Ward deserves praise for the high school math calculations into what it takes for explosives and incendiaries to burn for long periods of time, and for discovering the re-definition of <i>"background and trace levels"</i> in the tritium reports.
<br><a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/"><i>Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11</i></a> By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager</p>
<blockquote><p>"Thank you for having the courage to look at the evidence."~Dr. Judy Wood</p></blockquote>
<p> </p></div><!-- section 30 -->
<a name="x31"></a>
<hr><h2><a href="#31">31</a>.
<a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_31');">
Enough to Alter Conclusions?</a></h2>
<div id="sect_31" style="display: none;">
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" ~John Maynard Keynes </p></blockquote>
<p>Much debate on many specific topics from this article has already transpired, with the above both laying down the neutron nuclear DEW arguments and addressing counter-arguments brought up at various points in time. This does not mean that this is the final story or even applicable to all destroyed WTC buildings. [WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 are worthy of their own reports.]
<br>
<br>With properly applied science to all of the 9/11 evidence, I could easily be <i>duped</i> into believing something else and will henceforth issue a heartfelt & public apology for having led others astray. But as this work brings to light, much of what supports the non-nuclear beliefs of the 9/11TM does not stand up to deeper scrutiny. The above is my present understanding of 9/11 at the WTC.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 31 -->
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a>
<a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
</p>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com61tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-40907680253831303742015-04-01T01:11:00.000-07:002015-09-08T11:41:37.420-07:00Another one discredits himself<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
<br>Toggle - <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part4');">Part 1: Historical Exchanges with Mr. Ruff</a>
<br>Toggle - <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part5');">Part 2: Bloviating Mr. Ruff's Flumuxed 2nd Chance to ~not~ be a Hypocrite</a>
</p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<hr>
<h2><b><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_1');">Introduction</a></b></h2>
<div id="sect_1" style="display: block;">
<p>
<blockquote><p>Isaiah 42:16 <i>"And I will bring the blind by a way that they know not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and the crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them."</i></p></blockquote>
<p>Legacy can be a bitch for disingenuous debaters. Legacy (or lack thereof) cuts them on the back-swing if they haven't been collecting and preserving their genius efforts made in other people's forums, because it can be disappeared and then nothing remains to substantiate them having supposedly made such stellar effort. Legacy (of others) can cut them on the fore-swing when someone else faithfully [OCD: el-oh-el] collects their words and handily proves them <i><b>hypocrites, liars, weasels, game players,</b></i> etc.
<a name='more'></a>
<br>
<br>
Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff have been the most vocal -- if not near duet -- voices against my nuclear DEW premises. The disingenuous debating of Mr. Rogue comprise a huge portion of this blog in recent years. Although Mr. Ruff has had representation those years, it isn't until his participation with me is collected in one place that disingenuous patterns emerge.
<br>
<br>
On <a href="#x221">2015-03-06</a>, I provided an example of how Mr. Ruff <i>could</i> save face and demonstrate some integrity, were he so inclined. He would write words like:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"I was shocked to discover through my research -- seeded by Mr. SEO {aka Mr. MCB} -- that time delays in sampling, small numbers of samples, and scope-limited reports indeed provide sufficient wiggle room in the evidence analysis to make plausible the involvement of 4th generation nuclear devices on 9/11 at the WTC. I was personally disappointed to learn how lacking were the good faith estimates into chemical based destruction methods by various PhD's, how absurd the implied quantities, and how pitiful the nuclear considerations."</p></blockquote>
<p>But this doesn't appear to be how Mr. Ruff is presently playing his cards. Walt Disney wrote:
<blockquote><p>"<b>Everyone needs deadlines.</b> Even the beavers. They loaf around all summer, but when they are faced with the winter deadline, they work like fury. If we didn’t have deadlines, we’d stagnate."</p></blockquote>
<p>Stagnant appears to be Mr. Ruff, because not only after one month did he blow by his first deadline without as much as a single on-blog, on-venue, courteous request:</p>
<blockquote><p>"I'm reviewing your links [Andre Gsponer 2005 <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071"><i>Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects</i></a>] but am not finished with my analysis and write-up. Might you be so kind as to grant me a humble extension of ____ days?"</p></blockquote>
<p>... But then Mr. Ruff let a second month blow by without any estimation on when he'd get to his previous promises:
<blockquote><p>- [<a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423553337883#c5378300210161194139">2015-02-09</a> or <a href="#x204">x204</a>] <i>" I will get back to you about the mini nuke (or whatever you want to call it) issue when I have time to do so. "</i>
<br>
<br>- [<a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423602072522#c1528750729068513339">2015-02-10</a> or <a href="#x206">x206</a>] <i>"I will get to this bullshit argument when I have time to do it properly."</i></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Adam Ruff has my sincere hopes to publicly change his mind -- or at least <i>hop onto the fence</i> -- with regards to 9/11 nuclear DEW devices playing significant roles at the WTC. But, nope. Mr. Ruff has played games, defaulted, and subsequently failed his objectivity test administered (below).
<p>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/educators-holocaust-group-join-sept-11-museum-in-teaching-children-official-911-lies/#comment-23371">2014-05-27</a>
<blockquote><p>Applicable definitions of <i>"Discredit"</i> in this situation with this particular disingenuous debate opponent:
<br>- to cause (someone or something) to seem dishonest or untrue
<br>- to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of
<br>- loss of credit or reputation
<br>- lack or loss of belief or confidence</p></blockquote>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
<br>Toggle - <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part4');">Part 1: Historical Exchanges with Mr. Ruff</a>
<br>Toggle - <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part5');">Part 2: Bloviating Mr. Ruff's Flumuxed 2nd Chance to ~not~ be a Hypocrite</a>
</p>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_1');">Hide Introduction</a></p>
</div><!-- section 1 -->
<a name="x68"></a><hr>
<h2><b><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part4');">Part 1: Historical Exchanges with Mr. Ruff</a></b></h2>
<div id="sect_part4" style="display: block;">
<p><b><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">Introduction to Part 1</a></b></p>
<div id="sect_2" style="display: none;">
<p>
<p>Sometimes the patterns aren't seen until the collection. Then the hypocrisy, game-playing, and stalling become clear.
<br>
<br>
DISCLAIMER: Everything in this part was published previously in other works, in addition to the source venues. What makes this collection unique is its focus on Mr. Ruff's exchanges with me. Pay attention to the date stamps, both for the time of the discussion (going back to 2012) as well as for links that go to the source discussion, which validate the veracity of Mr. Ruff's words and quotations... before getting shredded.
<br>
<br>
Compared to Mr. Rogue, my total communication with Mr. Ruff is small, particularly when considering the years that this section spans. Yet out of those years we see Mr. Ruff playing the same games in avoiding a rational debate on nuclear DEW. He cycles through the same arguments, because he ignores the counter arguments each time. The repetition is astounding. He attempts to peg discussions at straw-men (Dr. Wood, holograms), because he thinks he can knock them down.
<br>
<br>
One could argue based on this collection alone, that Mr. Ruff has long ago discredited his participation in any future discussion about 9/11 nuclear DEW themes by his unwillingness to do the legwork. Worse, he boasts about already having done the legwork (on the DEW issue) in the past, but alas it was not saved outside of other venues and was supposedly removed by vengeful administrators. Aside from showing damn little of the artist's ego in preserving one's own words one self, when a data accident forces work to be recreated a second time, the second version is usually better. Mr. Ruff has had need in debates of that second version for literally years and has had intention for years to get to it.
<br>
<br>
Everyone is entitled to redemption from their past deeds and procrastination, which the Part after this one gives/gave Mr. Ruff ample opportunity to achieve. Alas, the next Part will demonstrate more of the same game playing and carousel that this historic record already exposed.
</p>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_2');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 2 -->
<a name="x69"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x69</a>
Adam Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_69');">a DEW fires essentially a beam</a></b></p>
<p>2012-06-03</p>
<div id="sect_69" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-5802">June 3, 2012 at 6:48 am</a>
<br>
<br>I too have no problem having the discussion about Judy Wood. It is in the spirit of free speech to do so. Although I have spent a good deal of time in the past debunking Wood those blogs are now gone so I will reluctantly agree to spend some time doing it again. To start with however I will post a short outline of some of the major issues with Wood that I sent to a friend a while back. I will be glad to expand on the points I made in that letter if anyone wants a clarification or more detail.
<br>
<br>“I have not read her book but I have studied her theories and conclusions. I have also debated this issue extensively with one of Wood’s staunchest supporters on-line. An anonymous blogger that goes by the name “WHO” which may actually be Wood herself I am not sure. At any rate I debated this exaustively with WHO down to the fine details and in the process learned a lot about directed energy weapons. One of the biggest issues with the DEW theory is that no matter how you slice it a DEW fires essentially a beam. It could be a particle beam, a laser beam, a pure energy beam, or whatever kind of beam. The reason that is important to think about is because a DEW beam must have a path of destruction consistent with a beam. In other words a beam fired from the side of the tower would destroy the closest side first and essentially burrow through the building until finally piercing the opposite side. If the beam were fired from space for example it must destroy the building from the top down with the top floor going first and progressively destroying the building floor by floor down. This damage pattern was not seen on 9/11. The buildings were destroyed symmetrically, from the inside out, starting from well below the top floor. A space based DEW can therefore be ruled out. There are other reasons a space based DEW can be ruled out as well which I can get into if you want me to. A ground based DEW can also be logically ruled out because of the way the buildings exploded. Think of a DEW beam as a red hot sword swinging lightning fast through a tower made of butter. No matter how you slice it and no matter from what angle the blade comes in, it still MUST start slicing from one side to the other. The damage on the close side would be blasted inward and the damage on the far side would be outward. No way around that. What we see in the towers is explosives from inside blasting all four sides out simultaneously. This observation is fatal to Wood’s theory when you get right down to it.
<br>
<br>There are a whole assortment of other issues with her analysis. Her photo analysis for example is very poor and she mistakes explosive damage and fire damage for something inexplicable. Her “toasted cars” for example are simply cars that were exposed to the heat and damage of the explosives and/or pyroclastic flow generated by the explosives. Another major problem with her theory is that a DEW powerful enough to destroy the WTC towers would require a massive energy source. Think on the order of enough power to light up New York state. There is a video out there somewhere I will try to find that shows a powerful laser melting through a 12 foot thick bank vault door in 2 seconds flat. Only problem was it required an entire solar power plant with thousands of panels operating at maximum to power the laser. Impressive as hell yeah, but the power needed made it completely impractical. Wood’s theory is full of holes I am afraid and it does not and cannot explain how the towers exploded from the inside out. A DEW cannot skip past the outer walls and destroy the building from the inside out. Anyway I hope I explained this reasonably well. I will go into more detail about specifics if you want me to XXXX. Just let me know.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>++++++++++
<br>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-5802">June 3, 2012 at 6:48 am </a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>A space based DEW can therefore be ruled out. There are other reasons a space based DEW can be ruled out as well which I can get into if you want me to. A ground based DEW can also be logically ruled out because of the way the buildings exploded.</p></blockquote>
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_69');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 69 -->
<a name="x70"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x70" class="tiny">x70</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">Not so fast and be more specific</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-5886">2012-06-04</a></p>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. RuffAdam, you wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>A space based DEW can therefore be ruled out. There are other reasons a space based DEW can be ruled out as well which I can get into if you want me to. A ground based DEW can also be logically ruled out because of the way the buildings exploded.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not so fast and be more specific.
<br>
<br>If you want to rule out space-based DEW for the towers and WTC-7, I'll probably be in agreement. But let's not take it off the table too quickly for WTC-6, WTC-5, and WTC-4 that don't have adequate explanations.
<br>
<br>In a similar vein, you frame ground-based DEW in a stilted fashion.
<br>
<br>The proper framing is multiple DEW devices and "spire-based DEW".
<br>
<br>You write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>There are a whole assortment of other issues with her analysis. Her photo analysis for example is very poor and she mistakes explosive damage and fire damage for something inexplicable.</p></blockquote>
<p>I can find agreement with what you say. Sometimes her analysis is questionable. I have found errors (repeated in her book), but not to the extent that it discredits everything.
<br>
<br>You write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Her "toasted cars" for example are simply cars that were exposed to the heat and damage of the explosives and/or pyroclastic flow generated by the explosives.</p></blockquote>
<p>I disagree with this strongly. It is the <b>"specificity"</b> of the destruction that rules out <b>"pyroclastic flow generated by explosives"</b> and suggests that we look for another mechanism as the destruction source. For example, had there been a "hot" (or flaming) pyroclastic flow, it would have torched paper, leaves, trees, flags, humans, etc. in its path.
<br>
<br>Instead, we see things like sheet metal in cars targeted and not always completely, as if of a directional nature and if shading or blocking occurred (like it slipped out through window slits). It suggests something of electrical-magnetic influences that could induce large Eddy currents in the metal that would heat the metal to an extent to ignite materials with lower ignition temperatures (e.g., car paint, seals, plastic gas caps, plastic door handles, etc.)
</p>
<blockquote><p>Another major problem with her theory is that a DEW powerful enough to destroy the WTC towers would require a massive energy source. Think on the order of enough power to light up New York state. There is a video out there somewhere I will try to find that shows a powerful laser melting through a 12 foot thick bank vault door in 2 seconds flat. Only problem was it required an entire solar power plant with thousands of panels operating at maximum to power the laser.</p></blockquote>
<p>You are very much correct that DEW would require a massive energy source. This is why my modification to Dr. Wood's "hinting" has been "nuclear-powered spire-based DEW". A small nuclear reactor akin to what the US Navy uses seems to me would be easier to come by that trying to get "free-energy from Hurricane Erin". Radiation was measured at ground zero; the govt did write up reports on those readings; Dr. Jones did comment on those readings and did a nifty slight-of-scientific hand by saying: <i>"These don't match three known nuclear weapons types, so no nukes were used."</i> [... and no further speculation was made into the source of such radiation.] First responder ailments also mirror that of Hiroshima survivors.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Wood's theory is full of holes I am afraid and it does not and cannot explain how the towers exploded from the inside out. A DEW cannot skip past the outer walls and destroy the building from the inside out. </p></blockquote>
<p>I'll bite that Wood's theories are full of holes. Of course, we don't eat the holes from Swiss cheese, so let's not get hung up on too many of the holes with Dr. Wood. Case in point, both a space-based and a ground-based DEW device could not get its beam to <i>"skip past the outer walls and destroy the building from the inside out."</i> But gee, a spire-based DEW wouldn't have to skip past outer walls; it'd be destroying the building from the inside out, as observed.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<a name="x71"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x71</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_71');">massive power supply</a></b></p>
<p>2012-06-04</p>
<div id="sect_71" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-5930">June 4, 2012 at 5:38 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Senior,
<br>
<br>This claim you make is typical of the errors Wood herself makes when analyzing photos:
<br>
<br>“It is the “specificity” of the destruction that rules out “pyroclastic flow generated by explosives” and suggests that we look for another mechanism as the destruction source. For example, had there been a “hot” (or flaming) pyroclastic flow, it would have torched paper, leaves, trees, flags, humans, etc. in its path.”
<br>
<br>Paper and leaves could very easily have floated down and landed near burnt cars AFTER the pyroclastic flow passed. In fact that is almost certainly what happened, and since photos capture only a single moment in time you cannot say different because you don’t know what happened before the photo was taken, or after. As to people not being burnt well maybe they were inside a building as it passed, maybe they were protected by obstructions, maybe they moved after it passed, etc . This kind of assertion is very typical of Wood and it is sloppy and also not very specific. Show a specific photo and point out what you consider the anomalies to be and we can discuss it.
<br>
<br>One of the reasons space based DEW’s can be ruled out has to do with the two different types of satellites in the sky. If you take a look at the orbit of the kind that travels around the earth you will discover how fast it has to move in order to stay in orbit. From the time of the first tower destruction event to the second such a satellite would literally be over another country. So for this type to explain the destruction there would have to be two of them in orbit at least. A stationary satellite has to be positioned at a VERY high altitude in order to escape Earth’s gravity. Hundreds of miles up in fact. So the DEW fired from such a platform would have to travel hundreds of miles to reach its target AFTER passing through the atmosphere. This type of platform cannot move in relation to the ground so it could only ever be used against NYC and surrounding area. Would the military want a weapon like that which they couldn’t use against anyone else ever?
<br>
<br>Power supply is also a HUGE issue for either type of space based platform. These hypothetical weapons MUST have a massive power supply in order to power the weapon right? Getting heavy objects into space like a power plant big enough for the job for example is not realistic at all. The space station for example does not have even a fraction of the power needed for a weapon capable of destroying the WTC.
<br>
<br>A HUGE question also is, is there such a weapon in existence capable of destroying the WTC? There is no evidence at all supporting such a claim. Wood’s claims when you look closely at them are actually the claims NOT supported by the evidence. More later.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_71');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 71 -->
<a name="x72"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x72" class="tiny">x72</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">more easily combustible materials than paint on cars did not ignite</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-5944">2012-06-04</a></p>
<div id="sect_72" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Adam wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Paper and leaves could very easily have floated down and landed near burnt cars AFTER the pyroclastic flow passed.</p></blockquote>
<p>Paper was scattered about from the plane impacts. Even more paper was scattered about after the first tower came down.
<br>
<br>As for the leaves, they were on the trees. The flags were on the flag poles.
<br>
<br>The point is, materials that were more easily combustible at lower temperatures (than paint on cars) were readily available and did not ignite.
<br>
<br>You write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>As to people not being burnt well maybe they were inside a building as it passed, maybe they were protected by obstructions, maybe they moved after it passed, etc.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. OneSliceShort wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I read recently of an EMT who arrived on the scene at the WTC7 loading dock triage as the north tower collapsed and stated that as she was running away her hair and jacket caught fire.</p></blockquote>
<p>That would be <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF">Patricia Ondrovic.</a>
<br>
<br>We don't know exactly what lit her hair and parametric coat on fire. She left the impression with me that it was NOT the dust, but was the after-effects of a car exploding right next to her. If memory serves me, said in one of her interviews that the door of one car popped right off of its hinges and out and slammed her into a wall.
<br>
<br>You write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>This kind of assertion is very typical of Wood and it is sloppy and also not very specific.</p></blockquote>
<p>I'll give you that Dr. Wood has been sloppy in some areas, but she had been very specific in others. She has at least two web pages full of fire damage to vehicles (but sloppy in regards to where they were when they got damaged). I've pointed out to you before the fires to vehicles along West Broadway next to the WTC-7 before it came down. If the pyroclastic flow was as hot as you claim and because we know this flow went around corners, we would have seen more fires in a more radial pattern from the source. That camera filming the news reporter should have picked up fire damage all over (e.g., on the cross-street), not just on West Broadway.
<br>
<br>Instead, my understanding is that much happened line-of-sight as if it snuck out through gaps in the debris and window slits.
<br>
<br>
<br>You write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>One of the reasons space based DEW's can be ruled out has to do with the two different types of satellites in the sky.</p></blockquote>
<p>I'm okay with that.
<br>
<br>I guess I'm okay with space-based DEW being completely trashed, despite it being one of the things hinted at by Dr. Wood.
<br>
<br>The reason I'm okay with it is that it is not my position or belief (on the towers) for reasons of the destruction originating within albeit high up in the towers. Space-based DEW would have scorched it from the roof on down.
<br>
<br>You write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Power supply is also a HUGE issue for either type of space based platform. These hypothetical weapons MUST have a massive power supply in order to power the weapon right? Getting heavy objects into space like a power plant big enough for the job for example is not realistic at all. The space station for example does not have even a fraction of the power needed for a weapon capable of destroying the WTC.</p></blockquote>
<p>I'm not earnestly arguing this point.
<br>
<br>You are correct in the HUGE power requirements. Dr. Wood makes reference to free Tesla energy and tapping into hurricane Erin.
<br>
<br>However, you should be aware that meeting the energy requirements of a space-based DEW isn't so hard to come by. In the 1980's when Star Wars and the Strategic Defense Initiative were in full swing, one serious idea was to detonate a type of nuclear bomb in space and to channel its "useful" wavelengths (into targeting and destroying incoming missiles and whatnot) before the blast and heat waves obliviated the portions of the device doing that channeling.
<br>
<br>In such an event, Hurricane Erin could be useful in hiding that nuclear detonation in space from prying eyes on Earth.
<br>
<br>Again, it is not my intent to be arguing AGAINST you FOR space-based DEW. The purpose of this comment is to help you think out of the box.
</p>
<blockquote><p>A HUGE question also is, is there such a weapon in existence capable of destroying the WTC? There is no evidence at all supporting such a claim.</p></blockquote>
<p>Sure, no evidence attributed to such devices exists in the <b>public realm.</b> As I've wrote before:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Star Wars and SDI were not some sort of <i>jobs creation programs</i> for the overly educated with no expectations of ever producing anything useful to the Defense Department.</p></blockquote>
<p>How does the expression go? <i>"We could fill libraries with the information the public doesn't know."</i>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 72 -->
<a name="x73"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x73</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_73');">make your observations about what the photo shows</a></b></p>
<p>2012-06-04</p>
<div id="sect_73" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-5951">June 4, 2012 at 10:05 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Post a specific photo(s) and make your observations about what the photo shows and we will discuss it. Without a specific photo(s) to evaluate we cannot have a real discussion about the claims being made.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_73');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 73 -->
<a name="x74"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x74" class="tiny">x74</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">specific photos of WTC-7 and West Broadway</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-5985">2012-06-05</a></p>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Señor Adam,
<br>
<br>I apologize in my previous post that was written initially with me thinking Señor Rogue and making references to our previous discussion. Before posting I managed to catch the error on whom I was addressing and quoting, but not some of the internal references to, say, West Broadway vehicle destruction.
<br>
<br>You asked for specific photos. Because you are not Señor Rogue, it allows me to re-post passages from <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/consensus-911-panel-resignations/#comment-5295">an earlier thread [2012-05-07]</a> for analysis here.
<br>
<br>++++++
<br>
<br>The first image is West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. More importantly, you can see WTC-7. The second image is West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image20.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image20.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image16.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image16.jpg</a>
<br>
<br>There's a great video of WCBS reporter Vince Dimentri coming out from WTC-7 who didn't know really where he was [West Broadway and Barkley] but was commenting on the damage looking like a war zone.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"Car after car after car and buses completely obliverated and burned down to the steel... That gaping hole? That's where one of the twin towers stood."</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4&feature=related</a>
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related</a>
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related</a>
<br>
<br>You are correct that timing of when images were taken can mislead. Certainly much paper debris came flowing in with the dust (although <b>it wasn't flying in on fire</b>). The amount of dust on paper can provide some indication of how long the paper might have been there. Possibly some [but not necessarily all] of the undamaged emergency vehicles near WTC-7 observed in the background of the reporter's piece may have arrived after the torching of vehicles on West Broadway but before the reporter. But some of the undamaged vehicles appear to have been NOT line-of-sight to where the towers were and may have been shielded by the Federal Building and WTC-7.
<br>
<br>Pay attention to the trees and their leaves in the following four images.
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/081swamp.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/081swamp.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/080.jpg">http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/080.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg</a>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg</a>
<br>
<br>Very selective those burning particulates in the dust cloud.
<br>
<br>When all four images are taken into consideration, only one tree looks charred (Image19swamp.jpg and Image20swamp.jpg) mostly because of the overall darkness of the scene due to smoke clouding the sun and soot on the trees. When the same trees are observed several days later (081swamp.jpg and 080.jpg) [after a rain storm that may have washed some of the soot away], the tree in the middle still has greenish leaves (not brown, black, or missing). The trunks of all of the trees show little in the way of fire damage from burning particulates in the dust clouds.
<br>
<br>Ergo, WTF caused the vehicles (line-of-sight) to get torched, and not other combustible things and things not light-of-sight (as shown by the reporter's video)?
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x75</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_75');">the spire is indeed falling</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-5986">2012-06-05</a></p>
<div id="sect_75" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Señor RuffAdam writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Regarding the spire Andrew I have studied that particular issue quite a bit and I can tell you from looking at full screen videos in the highest possible resolution that the spire is indeed falling and not turning to dust.</p></blockquote>
<p>I agree, too.
<br>
<br>However, the standing spire has various amounts of concrete, drywall, and such still afixed to it and acts partially as "glue", in addition to "piled" dust from other parts of the pulverized contents. IMHO something (probably from below) hit the spire with a DEW beam causing the residual water molecules in that left-over concrete/drywall/etc. to turn into steam and whose rapid volume expansion dustified it. The steam and dust linger in the air and no longer act as "glue" causing the steel to fall.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_75');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 75 -->
<a name="x76"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x76" class="tiny">x76</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">embrace it and own it</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-11685">2012-08-16</a></p>
<div id="sect_76" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ruff Adam,
<br>
<br>In my multiple laps around the 9/11 block, I have been dealt rhetorical blows at times that would seem at first reading to be crippling. In deed, were I in a social gathering among friends or colleagues and had someone's identical ad hominem rant been verbally aimed at me, I would have been caught tongue-tied and flat-footed with no witty comeback while the ranter high-five's his lackey's with their agreeing <i>"b-b-b-b-bur-r-r-rn!"</i> or <i>"sco-o-o-o-o-ore!"</i> yelps.
<br>
<br>Online can or ought to be more contemplative. From my moments of pause in contemplating the <i>"burn"</i>, the divine inspiration that came to me was: <b>"embrace it!"</b> This is applicable on so many levels of meaning.
<br>
<br>A logical derivative of <b>"embrace it!"</b> is <b>"own it!"</b>
<br>
<br><i>"Bat-shit crazy"</i> I probably already am, because it is a fitting explanation for thinking that expressing my meager opinion that uses evidence and science properly-applied would ever sway the juggernaut of media-hyped patriotism regarding talking-point opinions on where in the world <i>"the next parking lot should be nuked into place"</i> (or other equally brain-dead tough-talking expressions.)
<br>
<br>I discovered that when I <b>owned the slur</b>, it couldn't be added to or enhanced by the opponent without it reflectively making them look like unoriginal and repetitive idiots and weakening the slur itself: a real two-for-one deal.
</p>
<blockquote><p>When someone calls me a conspiracy theorist (which really means nutjob) I call them a koolaid drinker (meaning they will swallow any BS fed to them).</p></blockquote>
<p>With respect to 9/11, I often deployed as the opposite of the <i>"conspiracy theorist"</i> slur the phrase <i>"coincidence theorist"</i> until our Saint Dr. D.R. Griffin started pointing out that the official story is also a <i>"conspiracy theory."</i> Thus, the divine inspiration along the <i>"embrace it"</i> lines would be to <b>not</b> start new tracks & attacks (e.g., <i>"koolaid drinker", "coincidence theorist"</i>), but to put a period at the end of the existing track: <i>"You are a conspiracy theorist, too."</i>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_76');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 76 -->
<a name="x77"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x77" class="tiny">x77</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_77');">does not have any idea what he is talking about. Astounding!</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12088">2012-08-28</a></p>
<div id="sect_77" style="display: none;">
<p>I apologize to all [except the F-Troops], but I just can't resist.
<br>
<br>Dr. Fetzer writes [with my emphasis] <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12008">August 27, 2012 at 11:45 am</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p> And <b>Richard Hall's study seems</b> to me to be <b>impeccable</b> in taking some 56 videos and sorting out the flight path (locations and times) based upon those that were useful for that purpose, so I am not entirely clear why OBF wants to dispute it.</p></blockquote>
<p>Dr. Fetzer writes <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12015">August 27, 2012 at 12:32 pm</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>How can this guy, ruffadam, post something this ignorant while complaining about posts on NPT, when he OBVIOUSLY does not have any idea what he is talking about? Astounding!</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>The backstory that eventually makes it so funny?
<br>
<br>Mr. RuffAdam commented on the video <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K-WjsHa_2k&feature=player_embedded" rel="nofollow">last twelve seconds of UA175</a> previously <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-11868" rel="nofollow">linked by me</a> and <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-11972" rel="nofollow">embedded by Mr. OneSliceShort</a>:
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>Outstanding video OSS I am adding it to my collection immediately. I am glad a lot of the debunking work has already been done of NPT so I don't have to do it again.</p></blockquote>
<p>The punchline: <b>When Dr. Fetzer praises Richard Hall's <i>"impeccable ... taking some 56 videos and sorting out the flight path"</i>, he is in fact referencing the exact same video.</b> At this point, let's quote Dr. Fetzer back to himself:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[Dr. Fetzer] OBVIOUSLY does not have any idea what he is talking about. Astounding!</p></blockquote>
<p>My recollection is that the work was not Mr. Hall's and that he makes no claims of ownership. Mr. Hall's <i>value-add</i> is in malframing and dis-interpretting the radar data in order to promote holograms.
<br>
<br>More important to the hilarity, the video in question does mortally wound the NPT theory.
<br>
<br>And I should know, having been chumped by NPT and championed NPT for four years waiting for something like this to convince me otherwise. A cornerstone of my chumping was the <i><b>seeming</b></i> multiple flight paths, hyped by September Clues and its offshoots. When these <i>seeming</i> multiple flight paths are proven to be a singular flight path AND in agreement with two sets of rada data that only ping off of physical objects, not photons from holograms or video manipulation, then the probability of an actual <i>special</i> plane being used starts approaching 1. The <i>impossible speeds</i> and targeting accuracy were only impossible for the alleged aircraft of known model type, not <i>special</i> <b>plane-looking-missiles</b> of a different unknown model type or modification.
<br>
<br>Dr. Fetzer writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p> NPT means Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower. </p></blockquote>
<p>"NPT" [No Plane Theory] means "no planes" and would also exclude Dr. Fetzer's <i>special <b>cloaked</b> plane</i>, as well as <i>special</i> <b>plane-looking-missiles</b> that, after all, look like planes and may even have the infrastructure of a plane.
<br>
<br>Correction to the language used by an esteemed former professor of logic and scientific reasoning:
</p>
<blockquote><p> NCPT [No Commercial Plane Theory] means Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower. </p></blockquote>
<p>Because I think it is important to document the depth of the purposeful disception, let's look at Dr. Fetzer's <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12049">August 27, 2012 at 5:16 pm</a> posting:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I AM SUPPOSED TO BE AN OP BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PHYSICS? ... How do you explain the tracks on the military radar that are parallel to the path of the plane approaching the South Tower, which Richard Hall presents in his <b>fine study</b>? How do you explain that?</p></blockquote>
<p>This was addressed in my <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12044">August 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm</a> posting, so a quick summary is merited here.
<br>
<br>Rhetorically speaking, the military radar tracks are parallel to what, Dr. Fetzer? They are parallel to the civilian radar tracks, which were proven the same as the tracks in the <i>fine source video</i> referenced by Mr. Hall in his <i>not-so-fine study</i>. Neither the civilian radar nor the military radar record two objects. When the accuracy of each system is taken into consideration, greater uncertainty enters the path for where exactly an aircraft flew. In the case of the military radar, the aircraft could have flown a path (a) that overlaps civilian radar or even to the left of it, (b) that is the data point from military radar that is 1400' to the right of the civilian radar path, or (C) that is 2800' or more to the right of the civilian radar path. See this image:
<br>http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/radar_ual175_path_block.jpg
<br>
<br>Let us now mangle Dr. Fetzer's rhetorical question:
</p>
<blockquote><p><i>{Dr. Fetzer is}</i> SUPPOSED TO BE AN OP <i>{in part}</i> BECAUSE <i>{he proves he doesn't}</i> UNDERSTAND PHYSICS <i>{but mostly because he purposely skews physics to push bullshit.}</i></p></blockquote>
<p>I wish to offer my condolenses to Dr. Fetzer for the loss of income that ought to result from <b>losing all credibility</b> that only has a few (non-mutually-exclusive) explanations ranging from <i>early onset of dimentia</i> to <i>being on an agency's payroll.</i> Dr. Fetzer has other outlets for his free-speech, so thankfully maybe his paid-to-post income won't suffer too tremedously from such a pounding to his reputation.
<br>
<br>Alas, any additional postings from Dr. Fetzer (and his wingman Mr. Tamborine Man) permitted on T&S will be looked at by me <i>for amusement purposes only.</i>
<br>
<br>// a naive and gullible psuedo-intellectual
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_77');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 77 -->
<a name="x78"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x78" class="tiny">x78</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">disinformation techniques and logical fallacies</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12468">2012-09-11</a></p>
<div id="sect_78" style="display: none;">
<p>ruffadam says:
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12468">September 11, 2012 at 9:41 am</a>
<br>
<br>Objection: Asked and answered.
<br>
<br>Furthermore your honor the following disinformation techniques and logical fallacies are being employed in the many statements above by Fetzer.
<br>
<br>Cireulus in probando – Cireulus in probando is a specialized and very attractive form of
<br>the petitio principii. It consists of using as evidence a fact which is authenticated by the very conclusion it supports. It is thus arguing in a circle. (I.E. "I didn't do it, sir. Smith minor will vouch for my honesty.' ‘Why should I trust Smith minor?' ‘Oh, I can guarantee his honesty, sir)
<br>
<br>Nauseam, argumentum ad – Simple repetition of a point of view does nothing by way of supplying additional evidence or support. Yet it can erode the critical faculty. There is a completely mistaken supposition that a thing is more likely to be true if it is often heard. The argumentum ad nauseam uses constant repetition, often in the face of massive evidence against a contention, to make it more likely to be accepted.
<br>
<br>Bifurcation – The presentation of only two alternatives where others exist is called the fallacy of bifurcation. Sometimes known as the ‘black and white' fallacy, it presents an ‘either/or' situation when in reality there is a range of options.
<br>
<br>Affirming the consequent – To those who confuse hopelessly the order of horses and carts, affirming the consequent is a fallacy which comes naturally. An occupational hazard of those who engage in conditional arguments, this particular fallacy fails to recognize that there is more than one way of killing a cat.(I.E. "When cats are bitten by rabid hedgehogs they die. Here is a dead cat, so obviously there is a rabid hedgehog about")
<br>
<br>Apriorism – Normally we allow facts to be the test of our principles. When we see what the facts are, we can retain or modify our principles. To start out with principles from the first (a priori) and to use them as the basis for accepting or rejecting facts is to do it the wrong
<br>way round. It is to commit the fallacy of apriorism.
<br>
<br>Definitional retreat – A definitional retreat takes place when someone changes the meaning of the words in order to deal with an objection raised against the original wording. By changing the meaning, he turns it into a different statement.
<br>(I.E. ‘He's never once been abroad/ ‘As a matter of fact, he has been to Boulogne. ‘ ‘You cannot call visiting Boulogne going abroad!'
<br>
<br>Hominem (abusive), argumentum ad – If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer. While an insult itself is not fallacious, it is if made in a way calculated to undermine an opponent's argument, and to encourage an audience to give it less weight than it merits. When this is done, the famous argumentum ad hominem abusive is committed.
<br>
<br>Poisoning the well – The most attractive feature of poisoning the well is that the opposition is discredited before they have uttered a single word. At its crudest, the fallacy consists in making unpleasant remarks about anyone who might disagree with a chosen position. When some willing victim steps forward to dispute that position, he only shows that the unpleasant remarks apply to him, (I.E. "Everyone except an idiot knows that not enough money is spent on education".)
<br>
<br>The straw man – The straw man of logic does not scare anyone. No self-respecting crow would even rustle a feather at him; he is too easy to knock down. Precisely. The straw man is made incredibly easy to knock down so that when you are unable to refute your opponent's argument, you can topple the straw man instead. The straw man is, in short, a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, created by you for the express purpose of being knocked down.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_78');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 78 -->
<a name="x79"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x79" class="tiny">x79</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_79');">appealing to your own authority</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12476">2012-09-11</a></p>
<div id="sect_79" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Adam,
<br>
<br>Your posting is so well done, that I've saved a copy of it for future reference.
<br>
<br>I guess the one disinformation technique that you missed is <i>"appealing to your own authority."</i>
<br>
<br>How did I know that your reference posting will come in handy in the future? How did I know that <i>appealing to your own authority</i> was a trick you missed and is soon to be replayed upon us?
<br>
<br>From this thread <b>alone</b>, here's some <i>"triggered patterns"</i> that were spouted out of the keyboard of our former Marine Corps officer and professor extraordinar.
<br>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-11809">August 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>I am an authority in the areas of logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning...</p></blockquote>
<p>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12194">August 30, 2012 at 11:47 am</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>I am sorry to be so frank with you, ... but after teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, I can spot a mental mediocrity, especially when they are obvious as you. Intellectually and morally speaking, you are the equivalent of white trash.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12395">September 8, 2012 at 9:23 pm</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>You would have flunked my courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning...</p></blockquote><p></p>
<p>{mcb: <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/and-then-there-was-one-supreme-court-is-last-hope-for-911-widow-ellen-mariani/#comment-13102">pseudoscience punk sauce</a> from Mr. Rogue to Mr. Ruff.}
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_79');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 79 -->
<a name="x80"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x80" class="tiny">x80</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">ticks that tock into a boom</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/official-911-propaganda-embraced-by-truthers-who-say-that-a-plane-hit-the-pentagon/#comment-13401">2012-10-03</a></p>
<div id="sect_80" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. RuffAdam, you wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Things are to the point in my 9/11 research that the source of the material I am looking at tends to tell me more about its merits than the material itself.</p></blockquote>
<p>It isn't that I dispute this. I just urge caution and to recognize the distinction between the 9/11 realm and our daily lives.
<br>
<br>The analogy I use is that of a movie critic. I was lucky enough in the 1980's to have media exposure to two such critics who sensibilities so aligned with mine, all it took was a <i>"two thumbs up!"</i> from them for me to not just put the movie on my "to watch" list, but to actively seek out where it was playing at funky art cinemas. Similarly, my professional and personal activities put me in contact with "nice" people whose tastes and styles so differed from mine, I could hardly ever take their (movie) advice at face value. But due to their consistency and sincerity, I could actually come to rely on their opinions in a <i><b>negative</b> critic</i> sort of a way. That is, in the areas where their judgment was proven questionable, I learned to filter their words into different meaning for my subsequent actions, and also to run their words against those of others while establishing trend-lines.
<br>
<br>The important distinction to be made here is that all of those who became to me <i><b>positive or negative</b> critics</i> [on some subject] were <b>sincere</b>. There was no disingenous bent to lie about their opinions to achieve some nefarious goal [e.g., to get me to chunk down money for a ticket and "enjoy" some movie.]
<br>
<br>With regards to 9/11, sometimes the opinions (or analysis) are not sincere, sometimes purposely.
<br>
<br>And this is where our tactics for evaluating their works must change.
<br>
<br>Specifically, <b>ticks</b> to them and their agenda might become exposed in an <i>ah-ha moment</i>, sometimes purposely, so that it <b>tocks into a boom</b> to decimates all of their works, the <b>good</b> as well as the <b>purposely bad</b> and a large guilt-by-association fallout area.
<br>
<br><b>Good</b> cannot and should not so easily be dispensed with. It must be preserved. Paraphrasing myself:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Sometimes disinformation is the best source for valid tidbits of information (nuggets of truth). Disinformation by design contains large swaths of truth, otherwise it will not be effective. We must mine, re-fine, and re-purpose those nuggets of truth even after the <b>ticks have tocked to a boom</b> regarding the overall merits of that source, lest we inadvertently play into the hands of <i>(nuggets of) truth suppression.</i></p></blockquote>
<p>The ticks of the <b>source of the material</b> should be used to gauge the number of bullshit-filters you apply to the material and how much second-source validation you apply to any extracted nuggets of truth.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people's mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. Nowadays I skip right over posts from them. I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.</p></blockquote>
<p>This may or may not be leveled at me. For the sake of discussion, allow me to hijack it by making the <b>ass</b>-umption that I fall into that category. I hope to have (honest) instances where I <i>operated dishonestly</i> pointed out, and I will apologize profusely for my actions in those instances. [If my <b>ass</b>-umption was wrong, then allow me to humbly give my imitation of the Emily Latella (the late Gilde Radner of SNL): <i>"Oooh... Nevermind.</i>]
<br>
<br>Skipping over my postings can be the right thing for many participants to consider... [particularly if certain individuals don't want <i>"nookiedoo"</i> getting squished into the waffle treads of their govt-issued black paratrooper boots.]
<br>
<br>I would hope that I don't have that <i>"certain personality type"</i> with whom engaging in debate is <i>"futile"</i>, because I try to cultivate an open-mind and objectivity in considering that which I haven't before. [In my younger days, I listened to both Punk and Classical. Nowadays it is World Music; if I don't understand the words, I'm more likely to enjoy listening.]
<br>
<br>Evidence and science properly applied on 9/11 can get this <i>duped useful idiot</i> to change his opinions.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The ego is NOT our friend and our adversaries know that very well and use it to their advantage to keep us separated as individuals instead of unstoppable as a group.</p></blockquote>
<p>Agreed. This is why it is best to circle our wagons around what we perceive to be <b>nuggets of truth</b> that we've separated from its original publishing source (e.g., ego) albeit while giving credit where credit is due (for the sake of their ego).
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_80');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 80 -->
<a name="x81"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x81" class="tiny">x81</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_81');">not trusting a single word</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/official-911-propaganda-embraced-by-truthers-who-say-that-a-plane-hit-the-pentagon/#comment-13462">2012-10-04</a></p>
<div id="sect_81" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/official-911-propaganda-embraced-by-truthers-who-say-that-a-plane-hit-the-pentagon/#comment-13374">RuffAdam wrote on October 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people's mouths because I have seen them <b>operate dishonestly</b> before. ... I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.</p></blockquote>
<p>Gee, in this very thread, maybe we should evaluate one particular source of information.
<br>
<br>Until I posted this, he capped this thread with <strike><s>three</s></strike> four in a row:
<br>October 4, 2012 – 10:06 am
<br>October 4, 2012 – 3:25 pm
<br>October 4, 2012 – 3:42 pm
<br>October 4, 2012 – 4:02 pm
<br>
<br>Allow me to repost the second one in its entirety, because it is such a great example of <b>a PR hypnotic suggestion</b> sprinkled with vulgarity:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So now, rather than every single thread here being sprayed with "NPT", "Holograms" & "V-Fakery" – we are now treated to the Rhapsody in DEW, and it's attendant nuclear rantings.
<br>
<br>Enough whizz biz, drop the fizz. That is of course unless we are now to believe that the Pentagon was nuked and dewed and screwed by the same jolly green dildo.</p></blockquote>
<p>Here's another great re-inforcing <b>PR hypnotic suggestion</b> from Lord No-Nookie's third one:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Again, I assert with increasing confidence that this whole "New Wave 9/11? of "NPT" "Video Fakery" "Holograms" "Nukes" and "DEWS" is PSYOPS THEATER. A Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation'.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is in addition to Lord No-Nookie's attempts at steering the nuclear discussion <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/and-then-there-was-one-supreme-court-is-last-hope-for-911-widow-ellen-mariani/#comment-13159">in another thread</a> and covering for Dr. Jones.
<br>
<br>September 28, 2012 – 10:04 am
<br>October 4, 2012 – 10:53 am
<br>October 4, 2012 – 2:16 pm
<br>October 4, 2012 – 2:21 pm
<br>
<br>Why is Lord No-Nookie so invested in propping up the work of Dr. Jones?
<br>
<br>The work either stands or falls on its own.
<br>
<br>Here's the quote from Nietzsche right back at you (and Dr. Jones):
</p>
<blockquote><p>The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.</p></blockquote>
<p>Gotta love his accusations that I:
</p>
<blockquote><p>... [breeze] through the real empirical data and rational conclusions based on those.</p></blockquote>
<p>Lord No-Nookie can't seem to handle that my <i>"breezy"</i> review of Dr. Jones' <i>"empirical data and rational conclusions"</i> has Nietzsche nailed how Dr. Jones and his swornsword, Lord No-Nookie, are <i>"defending [no-nookiedoo] deliberately with faulty arguments."</i>
<br>
<br>The phrase <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb"><b>neutron bomb</b></a> as being applicable to 9/11 has been dropped before, yet do you think Lord No-Nookie would google it and Wiki it (as I have done in this very paragraph) to find out how <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/and-then-there-was-one-supreme-court-is-last-hope-for-911-widow-ellen-mariani/#comment-13458">it relates to 9/11</a>?
<br>
<br>Lord No-Nookie's posting frequency combined with the tenor of his unobjective words might just resemble the <i>"Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation' and PSYOPS THEATER"</i> that he would peg on others. Of the 70 postings to this thread, Lord No-Nookie has 31.4% (while I have only 8.6%). <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/and-then-there-was-one-supreme-court-is-last-hope-for-911-widow-ellen-mariani/#comment-13458">On the other thread at 69 postings as well</a>, Lord No-Nookie has 27.9% (while I'm at 19%).
</p>
<blockquote><p>The [Lord No-Nookie] doth protest too much, methinks.</p></blockquote>
<p>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_81');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 81 -->
<a name="x82"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x82" class="tiny">x82</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">demand for substantiation of belittling Professor Jones</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/and-then-there-was-one-supreme-court-is-last-hope-for-911-widow-ellen-mariani/#comment-13549">2012-10-06</a></p>
<div id="sect_82" style="display: none;">
<p>Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, wrote an unsubstantiated assertion that I demand he substantiate:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Why does this useful idiot make it his crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones?</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Ser Rogue should prove it with exact quotes from me, citing his sources with links.</b>
<br>
<br>Ser Rogue regularly gets his knight's helmut rung to refresh his faulty medium- and long-term memory in the discussions here. I'll wager that the instances of me <i>"belittling"</i> Professor Jones or otherwise attacking him personally -- other than references to Dr. Jones doing the govt's bidding by steering the public from a nuclear 9/11 -- will turn out to be <b>illusions</b> that slipped into Ser Rogue's thinking relative to me exclusively from the <i>"belittling"</i> and unwarranted personal ad hominem attacks coming from his own keyboard and aimed at me. Do we need look any further than <i>"Señor El Periwinkle Skuzzyphrenic?"</i> Or how about <i>"Señor El Sashadik"</i> from not all that long ago?
<br>
<br>In case any one missed it from much earlier threads, two of the reasons Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, is so knowledgable and eloquent in discussing Bernays and <i>"public relations"</i> treatment into <b>public perceptions</b> (such as what the comments of <i>Truth & Shadows</i> projects) are that his professional career was in visual media industries using his artistic talents and that PR was one of the subjects of his personal study.
<br>
<br>Applying what he learned, here is but one example of such a <b>PR hypnotic statement:</b>
</p>
<blockquote><p>It is correct that Jones' information stands on it's merits. It is also correct that his detractors disinformation fails by the demerits.</p></blockquote>
<p>Both statements are false. The former is wrong, because it should be that Dr. Jones' information <b>"stands <i>or falls</i> on its own merits."</b> It is the missing <i>"or falls"</i> phrase that disproves the former, because I've legitimately exposed some of the demerits in Dr. Jones work, thereby disproving the latter.
<br>
<br>And I maintain that I accomplished this repeatedly without having to attack or belittle Dr. Jones personally other than speculations on a much larger agenda that would conceivably tap Dr. Jones as a resource, not much different than I do with Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord.
<br>
<br>Three (3) falsehood's addressed.
<br>
<br>Mr. RuffAdam wrote <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/official-911-propaganda-embraced-by-truthers-who-say-that-a-plane-hit-the-pentagon/#comment-13374">in another thread</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people's mouths because I have seen them <b>operate dishonestly</b> before. Nowadays I skip right over posts from them. I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile. </p></blockquote>
<p>Speaking of <i>"operating dishonestly,"</i> the rest of Ser Rogue's posting <i>"[tries to] stand but <b>falls</b>"</i> on its own (de)merits, needing no further comment from me.
<br>
<br>// the bizarre character, Señor El Periwinkle Skuzzyphrenic
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_82');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 82 -->
<a name="x83"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x83" class="tiny">x83</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_83');">spurious nonsense</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/and-then-there-was-one-supreme-court-is-last-hope-for-911-widow-ellen-mariani/#comment-13562">2012-10-06</a></p>
<div id="sect_83" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 6, 2012 – 6:24 pm
<br>
<br>Señor says, that I should prove his attacks on Jones. I need not as he has admitted to references to it thus:
<br>> "other than references to Dr. Jones doing the govt's bidding by steering the public from a nuclear 9/11…"
<br>. . . . . . . . . . .
<br>This charge is in itself spurious nonsense.
<br>
<br>But he continues as follows:
<br>>"Both statements are false. The former is wrong, because it should be that Dr. Jones' information "stands or falls on its own merits." It is the missing "or falls" phrase that disproves the former, because I've legitimately exposed some of the demerits in Dr. Jones work, thereby disproving the latter."
<br>. . . . . . . . . .
<br>This boast of legitimately exposing demerits in Jones' work is spurious nonsense as well.
<br>
<br>I did not say nor intimate that Señor Useful Idiot, called Jones names or used "ad hominems" or "belittled Jones' PERSONALLY "- I am speaking to the empty boasts such as those just made above, to the fact that he does indeed belittle Jones' work.
<br>
<br>I am speaking to the charges that Jones in some way had to do with the scientific community coming down so hard on Pons and Fleischmann. He has continually reinforced this slur begun by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds which has absolutely no foundation in the facts.
<br>
<br>I am speaking to his claiming that Jones' first paper disputing the nuclear theory for the WTC destruction, is "scientific slight of hand",that is in some way useful for ‘government propaganda – when it is a fact that our useful idiot simply does not grasp the issues spoken to. Any "demerits" the useful idiots has spoken to is from his own fevered imagination.
<br>
<br>Señor Idiot's disingenuous combining of my personal studies into Bernays and the topic of propaganda with my career as a special effects artist, is in itself the use of the very same PR tactics he accuses me of using.
<br>
<br>Señor claims his engineering teacher advised him to get into law rather than continuing engineering, I think that was bad advice – Señor should have stuck with the Tango.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 6, 2012 – 6:58 pm
<br>
<br>I will also mention that Señor's quoting of Mr. RuffAdam in the midst of his hyperbole is a particularly cheesy and underhanded tactic. To insinuate that Adam was making reference to me in that statement is especially odious, and we both know that it is a lie – a baldfaced filthy lie to say that Adam had me in mind when he posted that.
<br>
<br>It is obvious to me that Señor has no ethics nor sense of shame, and will say ANYTHING to win an argument. He is already chugging from Circe's poisoned goblet and will soon turn into a complete pig to be roasted for her feast.
<br>
<br>Or perhaps she will keep him alive awhile for entertainment, a tango dancing pig is a pretty funny thing to picture in the minds eye.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>October 6, 2012 – 9:45 pm
<br>
<br>As what I hope will be my last comment on this here…
<br>
<br>Rather than continue this flaming nonsense, I have some simple advice for Señor:
<br>
<br>STOP.
<br>
<br>It is in your own interest Señor, to lay off this persistent spamming and sales pitch for this particular ‘product' – it is the exact technique used by the F-Troop, to spin off into their sales pitches and disrupt the dialog of every thread.
<br>
<br>Regardless of the merits you see in your nuclear thesis is beside this point. Try participating with the rest of the forum rather than trying to jam this down our throats.
<br>
<br>I am sure that Mr McKee will provide you with an article on the topic where you rhetorically tango away to your hearts desire. Until then, let it be digested that you are becoming a fanatical bore with your constant trip of pushing.
<br>
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_83');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 83 -->
<a name="x84"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x84" class="tiny">x84</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">operating dishonestly: the [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/and-then-there-was-one-supreme-court-is-last-hope-for-911-widow-ellen-mariani/#comment-13585">2012-10-06</a></p>
<div id="sect_84" style="display: none;">
<p>Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, posts three in a row as a clear indication of his hasty <i>"shoot from the hip"</i> ways. Damage control, I suppose, because the details of his threesome try to weasel out of the dishonesty in his attacks on me.
<br>
<br>Ser Rogue stated that I had a <i>"crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones."</i> I demanded that he prove this assertion <i>"with exact quotes from me, citing his sources with links."</i>
<br>
<br>None of his responses had any URLs in them. None of his responses proved anything of a multi-posting <i>"crusade."</i> None of his postings proved anything of the <i>"belittling"</i> language that I might have used on Professor Jones.
<br>
<br>So this glaring lie remains at Ser Rogue's feet as but one example of him <i>"operating dishonestly."</i>
<br>
<br>My references to Dr. Jones doing the govt's bidding by steering the public away from a nuclear 9/11 is not a <i>"belittling"</i> remark. Ser Rogue tries to change the playing field by saying: <i>"This charge is in itself spurious nonsense."</i>
<br>
<br>The fact of the matter is, a significant portion of a university professor's salary -- particularly those doing scientific research -- is <i>"soft-money"</i> obtained by proposing research projects that someone will fund. That <i>"someone"</i> in most instances -- particularly when the area is nuclear physics -- is the government. Dr. Jones has been beholden to the government for his entire career, such is the level of this <i>"spurious nonsense."</i>
<br>
<br>Ser Rogue feebly paries with another dishonest unsubstantiated hypnotic suggestion:
</p>
<blockquote><p>This boast of legitimately exposing demerits in Jones' work is spurious nonsense as well.</p></blockquote>
<p>Does fifty-five (55) ring a bell? As in Dr. Jones re-defining tritium trace levels to be 55 times greater than they were prior to 9/11. Or how about his 1989 papers that prove that tritium is a by-product of fusion reaction, yet he had no good explanation for any of the tritium on 9/11/2001?
<br>
<br>Here's a great gem! Dr. Jones make a big show of having taken his Geiger Counter to the dust samples and measured no radiation. Yet, Dr. Jones knows from his very own research that neutron radiation is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect; a Geiger Counter will not produce results from a Deuterium-Tritium detonation. Scientific slight of hand, no?
<br>
<br>Ser Rogue has never been able to defend the logic error in Dr. Jones work that makes my assertion of him steering the movement away from a nuclear event a bit more substantial than <i>"spurious nonsense."</i> Does Dr. Jones no-nukes paper on Tritium ever mention neutron bombs or enhanced radiation weapons (ERW)? No.
<br>
<br>Ser Rogue also trips over an imaginary garden hose many hundreds (of thousands of) miles long packed with super-duper nano-thermite (NT) that, by rights, Dr. Jones should have laid at his feet to explain how it could possibly explain a single hot-spot. Of course, maybe it could be said that Dr. Jones always advocated NT in conjunction with other materials and recently even states: <i>"Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)."</i> When Dr. Jones saw NT being extrapolated into explaining 9/11 features that clearly it could not, he should have set the record straight with the science-challenged 9/11 yeomen. He did not. Quite the contrary, he encouraged it.
<br>
<br>Ser Rogue tries to weasel out of his lie:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I did not say nor intimate that Señor Useful Idiot, called Jones names or used "ad hominems" or "belittled Jones' PERSONALLY "- I am speaking to the empty boasts such as those just made above, to the fact that he does indeed belittle Jones' work.</p></blockquote>
<p>First of all, Ser Rogue's lie was that I <i>"belittled"</i> Dr. Jones. How can this be accomplished if I didn't call him names or deploy ad hominem? Oh, that's right! It's <i>"the empty boasts... just made above"</i> that I've proven aren't so empty.
<br>
<br>Ser Rogue makes this refined accusation without substantiation:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I am speaking to the charges that Jones in some way had to do with the scientific community coming down so hard on Pons and Fleischmann. He has continually reinforced this slur begun by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds which has absolutely no foundation in the facts.</p></blockquote>
<p>Your hypnotic PR statement about what <i>"has absolutely no foundation in facts"</i>... well, it has no substantiation. I suggest you google the 1989 or so video with a younger Dr. Steven Jones making comments on behalf of the US govt regarding the merits of Pons and Fleischmann, which appeared to pour cold water on cold fusion for lots of researchers, when in truth with 20/20 hindsight, inspired areas where Dr. Jones continued to research.
<br>
<br>Another dishonest technique by Ser Rogue:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I am speaking to his claiming that Jones' first paper disputing the nuclear theory for the WTC destruction, is "scientific slight of hand",that is in some way useful for ‘government propaganda – when it is a fact that our useful idiot simply <b>does not grasp the issues</b> spoken to. Any "demerits" the useful idiots has spoken to is <b>from his own fevered imagination.</b></p></blockquote>
<p>Notice how Ser Rogue does not go into details about Dr. Jones' <i>"scientific slight of hand,"</i> that I was able to mention again in this very posting. Ser Rogue doesn't address why any reader -- not just me -- would come to that conclusion. Instead he attacks me personally and <i>"belittles"</i> me. More evidence of operating dishonestly.
<br>
<br>Here's another clever strawman:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I will also mention that Señor's quoting of Mr. RuffAdam in the midst of his hyperbole is a particularly cheesy and underhanded tactic. To insinuate that Adam was making reference to me in that statement is especially odious, and we both know that it is a lie – a baldfaced filthy lie to say that Adam had me in mind when he posted that.</p></blockquote>
<p>Obviously, Ser Rogue didn't read the thread, because my first assumption was that Mr. RuffAdam was referring to me [but then he said he wasn't.] Who he was referring to, he has not revealed. Doesn't matter.
<br>
<br>My purpose for bringing up Mr. RuffAdam's quotation was not to insinuate that Mr. RuffAdam thought that of Ser Rogue. No, no, no.
<br>
<br>My purpose for bringing up Mr. RuffAdam's quotation was to juxtapose proven examples of Ser Rogue <i>operating dishonestly</i> with the penalties that it should inspire readers to apply, like <i>"not trusting a single word from [Ser Rogue's] mouth... skip right over posts from [Ser Rogue]... engaging in debate [with Ser Rogue] is futile."</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>As what I hope will be my last comment on this here…</p></blockquote>
<p>If only Ser Rogue were a man of his word when he makes such promises. More than just a several times, he was <i>"seriously finished with [this] asshole."</i> It has gotten so funny, I'll be inspired one of these days to produce a <i>"best-of Ser Rogue's throwing in the towel and wringing his hands of me."</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Rather than continue this flaming nonsense, I have some simple advice for Señor: STOP.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ser Rogue admits that it is he who <i>"continues this flaming nonsense."</i> Other than me calling him respectfully <i>"Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord"</i> that comes from his own coinage of <i>"nookiedoo"</i>, Ser Rogue will be hard pressed to find instances where I flamed him. What will be found are instances where properly-applied science and analysis of the evidence burn Ser Rogue and where Ser Rogue's own flaming words burn him back.
</p>
<blockquote><p>It is in your own interest Señor, to lay off this persistent spamming and sales pitch for this particular ‘product' – </p></blockquote>
<p>This sounds like a threat.
<br>
<br>Who is Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, to be commanding in all capital letters that I <b>STOP</b> bringing up this particular "product": <b><i>"neu nookiedoo"</i></b> [neutron nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW)]?
</p>
<blockquote><p>it is the exact technique used by the F-Troop, to spin off into their sales pitches and disrupt the dialog of every thread.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, it is not the exact technique. I'm substantiating <b>"neu nookiedoo".</b> It has properly applied science and analysis of the evidence behind it, and ties many more pieces of the puzzle together than the other conspiracy theories.
<br>
<br>It is not in my hands to STOP, but Ser Rogue's. I told Ser Rogue what he had to do. STFU.
<br>
<br>He is the one who continues to provide me with opportunities and openings to discuss <b>neu nookiedoo</b>, while bashing him with his own dishonest techniques.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Regardless of the merits you see in your nuclear thesis is beside this point. Try participating with the rest of the forum rather than trying to jam this down our throats.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ser Rogue should review how <b>neu nookiedoo</b> was legitimately brought into the discussions, and that others created the opportunity. If Ser Rogue would have taken his own advice to STOP or my advice to STFU, it would have been a single lonely posting: a rabbit-hole entrance for lurker readers to explore for nuggets of truth.
<br>
<br>As for what is truly being <i>"jammed down our throats,"</i> we only need to tabulate Ser Rogue's posting count (like the latest his-3-to-my-1) and correlate that statistic with Ser Rogue's PR tour of hypnotic assertions filled with lies, ad hominem, and other <i>dishonest operations</i> to get <b>neu nookiedoo</b> out of consideration.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.</p></blockquote>
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_84');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 84 -->
<a name="x85"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x85" class="tiny">x85</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_85');">sock-puppet and bringing in the dog and putting out the cat</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/ventura-asner-ae-film-and-a-legal-heavyweight-provide-good-news-for-911-truth/#comment-14195">2012-10-26</a></p>
<div id="sect_85" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. RuffAdam,
<br>
<br>You wrote on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/official-911-propaganda-embraced-by-truthers-who-say-that-a-plane-hit-the-pentagon/#comment-13374">October 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM:</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people's mouths because I have seen them <b>operate dishonestly</b> before. ... I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br><p>Operating dishonestly? Hmmm? I wonder how sock-puppetry fits into that category?
<br>
<br>You recently wrote to Mr. Rogue regarding his <i>"handling of Mr. Wright"</i>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Rest assured that myself and many others keep up with these conversations even in those cases where it looks as though you are the lone voice to counter the disinformationists.</p></blockquote>
<p>How would your opinion change if you learned that Mr. Rogue -- <i>"being retired and having little to distract him, as well as having time to pursue these dialogs"</i> -- wasn't the <i>"lone voice"</i>, but was singing duets with himself, batting for both teams, and arguing both sides?
<br>
<br>It has not been definitively proven but strong speculation of sock-puppetry is on the table due to <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/september-morn-a-film-set-for-theatrical-release-questioning-the-offiical-story-of-911/#comment-35826">a family affinity</a> of one partipant to the alias name of another participant.
<br>
<br>On the one hand, it might be getting back at the govt modus operandus regarding <i>the best way to control the opposition being to lead it.</i> Turns that one on its head, as a 9/11 Truther (?) controls the argument he thinks the govt would make with his sock-puppet, and then knocks the govt's strawman down.
<br>
<br>On the other hand, the suspected sock-puppet antics didn't meet my previous definitions of <i>"dishonest multiple-alias usage"</i>, because the aliases were not tag-teaming and manufacturing false solidarity to one-side of a given topic. But they were doing the pincer type attacks that Mr. Rogue was fond of reminding us about.
<br>
<br>On the third hand, all good theatrical productions require some form of conflict, otherwise they are just bland interchanges of <i>"me, too"</i> and <i>"roger that."</i> As a rhetorical tool, it serves a purpose. Here, it probably <b>served</b> its purpose.
<br>
<br>However, my previous definitions regarding <i>"dishonest alias usage"</i> can be amended. When the sock-puppet could never be a full, complete, well-rounded online entity, because differences and beliefs had to be compartmentalized and manufactured [e.g., ala the MKUltra <i>split in personalities</i>] in order to fire up contention points for debate, then the stiltedness of the sock-puppet's views verging into <b>"brain-dead unobjectivism"</b> becomes just one troubling surface aspect. The sock-puppet's beliefs, not being genuine, means that no satisfactory resolution to a debate will ever be reached, no moment of <i>"either you convinced me, or I convinced you."</i>
<br>
<br>The extent of insincere beliefs of a participant must necessarily be questioned for not just the sock-puppet, but also for the participant's other aliases.
<br>
<br>But a more troubling contemplation relates to the Thomas Pynchon quote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.</p></blockquote>
<p>If a sock-puppet can get the T&S discussion circling around <i>"pencils piercing mosquito screen doors"</i> and <i>"NORAD response times,"</i> ... well... So much for serious questions into validating (or not) my one remaining 9/11 hobby-horse of <b><i>"neu nookiedoo"</i></b> [neutron nuclear directed energy weapon].
<br>
<br>The paranoid in me sees the online debates of Mr. Wright versus Mr. Rogue -- just two personality splits -- as <i>9/11 Truther legend-establishing</i>. I found the Mr. Wright-split too <i>"intractable"</i> (today the word becomes <i>"manufactured"</i>) easily a month or two before Mr. Rogue's entrance in January 2012, and even counseled Mr. Rogue and others to not engage Mr. Wright.
<br>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/the-fog-of-words-how-we-inadvertantly-reinforce-the-911-official-story/#comment-3446">2012-02-17</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Ooooh! I like it! I never called you [Mr. Rogue] a "provocateur", but I like it. It is exactly what you are doing. [<b>As if I didn't notice how you are trying to crank up a discussion with Mr. A. Wright, who arrived just after Mr. Albury Smith was shown the moderator's door and who already has a reputation here.</b> Not a good sign.] </p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/consensus-911-panel-resignations/#comment-5482">2012-05-17</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>When you consider how you should handle me henceforth, recognize that you are under no obligation to handle me. It isn't your blog. It isn't your place. [Unless that is your assignment and your agenda.] Take a lesson from how I handle A. Wright: <b>ignore me.</b> In fact, that you engage A. Wright at all [after being told not to and after recognizing for yourself his nature] becomes a data point fitting into a trend line. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to build your legend as a 9/11 Truther. </p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/quest-for-consensus-toronto-911-hearings-navigate-pentagon-minefield/#comment-1850">2012-09-24</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I have written my advice regarding Mr. A. Wright elsewhere. In essence, don't waste too many keystrokes on him.</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>My, how ironic those earlier words look in light of today's revelation.
<br>
<br>Mr. RuffAdam wrote here:
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>If I had any arguments with what you [Mr. Rogue] have said I would have spoken up. I have not found any reason (so far) to disagree with you concerning what I have read of your posts.</p></blockquote>
<p>I didn't have any arguments with what Mr. Rogue was writing to <i>"Mr. Wright"</i> either, except for the fact that Mr. Rogue was engaging <i>"him."</i> Correction, as it turns out. Mr. Rogue was engaging <i>"himself."</i>
<br>
<br>I've got many references to Mr. Rogue operating dishonestly in other ways, like this one from <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/official-911-propaganda-embraced-by-truthers-who-say-that-a-plane-hit-the-pentagon/#comment-13462">2012-10-04</a> or this one from <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/and-then-there-was-one-supreme-court-is-last-hope-for-911-widow-ellen-mariani/#comment-13585">2012-10-06</a>.
<br>
<br>But this sock-puppetry is in a different league of craftiness. The A-team of the Q-Group, perhaps? Certainly more resemblance to the <i>"Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation' and PSYOPS THEATER"</i> regularly mentioned by Mr. Rogue.
<br>
<br>My apologies to you and the lurker-readers for the brain-f++k this twist in players turns out to be.
<br>
<br>So much for my hopes of ever convincing Mr. Rogue that I'm not: <i>"a tacky tar-baby, Señor El Goombah aka The Beancounter, a chameleon, crackpot, and a real fuckin' asshole."</i>
<br>
<br>// "bringing in the dog and putting out the cat"
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_85');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 85 -->
<a name="x86"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x86" class="tiny">x86</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">plain nuts with substantiation</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/ventura-asner-ae-film-and-a-legal-heavyweight-provide-good-news-for-911-truth/#comment-14235">2012-10-28</a></p>
<div id="sect_86" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Adam Ruff, you write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>OK Senior this post was just plain nuts. You accuse HR1 of using sock puppets but provide no proof to support your accusation which renders the accusation meaningless.</p></blockquote>
<p>I agree with your <i>"plain nuts"</i> assessment.
<br>
<br>With regards to proof to support my accusation that <i>"A.Wright"</i> is Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet, I was purposely keeping it on the thin side, because there is no call for me to reveal personal information about Mr. Rogue.
<br>
<br>As the back-story unfolds, Mr. Rogue was doing a fine job of characterizing me on his home COTO court:
</p>
<blockquote><p>2012-09-29: a tacky tar-baby that sticks to you once you engage it.
<br>2012-10-10: Señor El Once aka The Duped Useful Idiot aka Señor El Goombah aka The Beancounter…etc etc is a LIAR.
<br>2012-10-19: a pretender who uses disingenuous argumentation
<br>2012-10-20: Señor is a chameleon, either the more expert and subtle agent, or simply the 'duped and useful idiot' he claims to be.
<br>2012-10-21: It could be he is the covert agent.
<br>2012-10-21: Whatever the answer is, agent or crackpot, one thing is certain, he’s a real fuckin’ asshole.</p></blockquote>
<p>He chummed the waters with plenty of bait to lure me over there. As part of my entrance and introduction to my exit on <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/september-morn-a-film-set-for-theatrical-release-questioning-the-offiical-story-of-911/#comment-35826">October 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm</a>, I made the following observation:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Here’s a coincidence. To get the gift of a book delivered, the option chosen by the eager reader was to provide a mailing address, as opposed to ordering & paying on his own and then being re-imbursed through PayPal. Although not requested, the gift-receiver also gave a contact telephone number in the event issues in the delivery should arise. Recently when pretending to be an agent, a reverse look-up was performed on the lingering telephone number. No surprise that the physical address of the telephone number matched where the book was ordered to be sent. The surprise was the middle initial and last name of the telephone subscriber: “A.Wright”. Just a coincidence with no explanation needed. Aye. </p></blockquote>
<p>In case that is too cryptic for you, the book in question is Dr. Wood's, and the gift-receiver was a thankful Mr. Rogue who since that time has been getting regular bloody noses from that very same book snapping shut on it in lieu of him mining the book for nuggets of truth: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In order to receive the book, he had to supply the shipping address, but gave the telephone number at his on volition in case delivery problems arose. [And it isn't as if I tricked him into giving me any personal information, because he passed on on another option that did not require me learning anything about him.]
<br>
<br>It should be noted that I did not mention a first name or any gender distinctions. At the onset, <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/september-morn-a-film-set-for-theatrical-release-questioning-the-offiical-story-of-911/#comment-35831">Mr. Rogue connects some dots {with my editing} on October 25, 2012 at 9:41 pm:</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>So, yea my mom’s name is {... edit ...} Wright, having married a Wright, ...</p></blockquote>
<p>He doesn't mention the middle initial that she uses, but if it were anything other than "A", I would have had nothing to tweak Mr. Rogue about, period. [Ironically, my own pen-name also reflects familial under-pinnings of a very similar nature, so I can say with certainty that such "unoriginality" and reliance on "the familiar" is quite common in online personas.]
<br>
<br>And then <i>all hell broke loose</i> on three fronts: this thread, that COTO thread, and <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/on-the-directed-energy-weapon-hypothesis-an-open-letter-to-gage-and-cole/#comment-14218">an old T&S DEW thread </a> authored by me. Just the eifer in the fast pace of Mr. Rogue's distracting responses to build distance is of note. Oh that's right! I did note it, if you follow the link and can follow the interruptions to my righting that Mr. Rogue necessitated.
<br>
<br>It is worthwhile to read the nested postings at the DEW article, despite its <i>"plain nuts"</i> organization. Why? Because within 12 hours of me posting my reply on COTO urging caution, that posting and a few from the COTO crew (including Mr. Rogue) were removed. The COTO postings were removed before their re-purposed verbiage saw the light of day under the DEW article, due to posting delays through Mr. McKee and despite their T&S datestamp. However, the T&S posting did take six attempts that involved shutting down browsers before it would take, in addition to waiting for Mr. McKee overnight.
<br>
<br>The nature of the <i>hell breaking loose</i> is worthy of study.
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff writes the challenge:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Next you accuse HR1 of operating dishonestly but provide no specifics as to what he said or did that was dishonest.</p></blockquote>
<p>Obviously, my postings fit into the category of those you skip over [and I don't blame you.] <i>"Beancounter"</i> that I have been accused of being, I have about 11 months of on-line debate material that I can quickly reference to specific comments under various articles on T&S to prove instance after instance [but not all at once, mostly whenever Mr. Rogue was on the ropes] of <i>"Mr. Rogue's operating dishonestly"</i> in his debates against me. I spare this forum such tedium today, and it doesn't take much googling to find. I'm sure that Mr. McKee or Mr. Rogue will vouch for my abilities in this realm (if your own googling doesn't), in lieu of me distracting this thread with such busy-work.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>You only provide links to posts but make no mention of what in them is dishonest. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what specifically you find to be dishonest? I cannot read minds nor do I want to spend what little time I have trying to figure out your logic. </p></blockquote>
<p>I never asked you to read minds; sorry if I left that impression. The links took you to the culmination of a couple bouts with Mr. Rogue and explain what just went on there at that time. Aside from following the links, I expected that if curious, you would be able to scroll (up) for context to verify (or not) my assessment of those situations.
<br>
<br>To spell out but one of the links, <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/and-then-there-was-one-supreme-court-is-last-hope-for-911-widow-ellen-mariani/#comment-13585">this October 7, 2012 posting of mine</a> under <i>"And then there was one..."</i> is the culmination of a Rogue bout where he accused me of being on <i>"a crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones."</i> Again, you can read it on your own and scroll up within the thread to get more context. The <i>crusade</i> wasn't, neither were the <i>attack</i> or <i>belittling</i> of Dr. Jones; they were Mr. Rogue lying. Discussing the weaknesses in Dr. Jones work is and has been fair game for critique, which is where I've held myself pretty close to that line.
<br>
<br>Let's take a brief detour in the sudden appearance of A.Wright and your reaction:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I notice you choose not to reply to the post above of (October 25, 2012 – 12:03 am) where I discuss your straw man tactics and how you attempted to discredit Barrie Zwicker by misquoting him. So do you plan to just pretend the post is not there or will there be a meaningful response forthcoming? I will not risk holding my breath for your response because something tells me I will be waiting quite a while.</p></blockquote>
<p>Misquoting me is something that Mr. Rogue has regularly deployed as a dishonest tactic, as were copious amounts of straw man tactics. You do the math and figure out what sort of a response you could expect from a potential sock-puppet whose puppet-master is tripping on the ropes of his own games and damage control.
<br>
<br>The significance of the three other quotes from me (02-17, 05-17, 9-24) were my assessment of A.Wright based on experiences in late 2011. I could sense that he wasn't genuine, so I stopped engaging him seriously except on occassion for sport, and I was advising others (especially Mr. Rogue) to stop feeding the troll.
<br>
<br>At this juncture, neither have offered a simple:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"By jove, that is a fine coincidence worthy of our amusement that Mr. Rogue -- in a Freudian manner -- would regularly get it on with another straw man peddler "A.Wright" having overlapping initials and last name as Mr. Rogue's dear old mum. But coincidence is all it is, I'm afraid. I am not he, neither is he I. Sorry, old chap. Tally hoe."</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Adam Ruff assesses:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So, in conclusion, from my perspective you Senior are the one acting improperly.</p></blockquote>
<p>Maybe in light of the evidence and how its validity can affect the very carousel that you wish to start with "A.Wright", you'll reconsider this hasty judgment against me. I just saved you lots of time.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_86');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 86 -->
<a name="x87"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x87" class="tiny">x87</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_87');"><i>"like"</i> or <i>"don't like"</i></a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/ventura-asner-ae-film-and-a-legal-heavyweight-provide-good-news-for-911-truth/#comment-14287">2012-10-29</a></p>
<div id="sect_87" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
<br>
<br>The loss of your readership will be mourned. Before you go, let's clear up a misunderstanding. You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I am not interested in your opinion of HR1 nor am I interested in your off topic screeds related to him.</p></blockquote>
<p>The postings here were not about my opinions of Mr. Rogue. They were trying to solicit your opinion. After all, you wrote the words on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/official-911-propaganda-embraced-by-truthers-who-say-that-a-plane-hit-the-pentagon/#comment-13374">October 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM:</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before.</p></blockquote>
<p>On <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/ventura-asner-ae-film-and-a-legal-heavyweight-provide-good-news-for-911-truth/#comment-14176">October 25, 2012 – 12:34 am</a> you go on to slap Mr. Rogue on the back:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Rest assured that myself and many others keep up with these conversations even in those cases where it looks as though you are the lone voice to counter the disinformationists. If I had any arguments with what you have said I would have spoken up. I have not found any reason (so far) to disagree with you concerning what I have read of your posts. Keep up the good work, I and others are listening and occasionally, as time permits, contributing to these discussions.</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>My questions to you were:
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>How would your opinion change if you learned that Mr. Rogue ... wasn’t the "lone voice", but was singing duets with himself, batting for both teams, and arguing both sides? I wonder how sock-puppetry fits into that category [of operating dishonestly]?</p></blockquote>
<p>At other online venues, they consider sock-puppets a banning-worthy offense, although they also tend to have a low thresh-hold for labeling things "sock-puppets", lumping into that any return to the forum under a new alias, particularly if the previous one was banned.
<br>
<br>Don't let me put words into your mouth, and don't miscontrue this line of questioning to indicate that I want Mr. Rogue banned. I don't.
<br>
<br>I want his words to be <b>"distrusted until validated (or not)"</b>... which is the same thing I want for my words, except that should my words be invalidated, I would like to know about it so that I could amend my thinking.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue has tried and tried to invalidate my words and the neu nookiedoo hobby-horse that I ride. But owing to a pattern of operating dishonestly [which now includes his A.Wright sock-puppet] coupled with a <i>"genius artist's"</i> ego who won't be schooled, the discredit sought for me falls at his feet.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I just find it so remarkable that no matter what the topic is that there always seems to be at least one person set on disrupting it.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, if I am that person, it is a damn good thing that I make my postings so long but easy to skip over and ignore.
<br>
<br>Also, it should be pointed out the discussion on the topic of this thread had pretty much already petered out. Mr. Rogue's October 25, 2012 – 8:33 pm posting already started a detour.
<br>
<br>I posted here, because I knew you were still acive in the discussion -- as you awaited the response from the A.Wright sock puppet.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I get it, you don’t like him, no more needs to be said.</p></blockquote>
<p>Evidently, you do not get it. It has little to do with <i>"like"</i> or <i>"don't like"</i>. [I guess I am forced to admit that I "like" him, because out of necessity he forces me to make better arguments.]
<br>
<br>It has to do with integrity and reliability of someone's words. Even before a sock-puppet gets pegged to Mr. Rogue, he has had his issues in the "operating honestly" department... more so against me (and taboo neu nookiedoo) than anyone else, where his postings resemble legend-establishing, even his battles with A.Wright and Dr. Fetzer.
<br>
<br>When someone makes a convincing case based on sound science properly applied to all of the evidence, I'll the first to change my tune while also apologizing for having led others astray: integrity and reliability after a course correction.
<br>
<br>Whereas Mr. Rogue regularly tries to turn the tables to question the validity of my words and 9/11 beliefs (neu nookiedoo), he has been less than convincing because his alternatives have more issues addressing all of the evidence than mine. Rather than acknowledging the issues, he ignores them and then ultimately repeats his views with nary a vector change. It isn't just that he trudges on, he does so while screaming invectives in post-after-post and promptly trips over <i>a very long imaginary garden hose</i> to make his fall complete.
<br>
<br>I didn't ask for a telephone number; I didn't plan for a curious moment months later to run it through reverse-lookup. [Divine intervention, I suppose.] I think Mr. Rogue's reaction is much more revealing than "the coincidence" itself. And the much larger test of his integrity that brought a telephone number into my possession, he fails. Namely, his objective chapter-by-chapter review of Dr. Wood's textbook. He had three categories -- good, bad, and ugly -- with which to classify the nuggets. Bad and ugly, although buried, are easy, yet he don't go there. It is the "good" that Mr. Rogue struggles with acknowledging, and shoots his integrity to hell.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_87');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 87 -->
<a name="x88"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x88" class="tiny">x88</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">Ignored and unread</a></b></p>
<p>2012-10-30</p>
<div id="sect_88" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/ventura-asner-ae-film-and-a-legal-heavyweight-provide-good-news-for-911-truth/#comment-14294">October 30, 2012 at 3:28 am</a>
<br>
<br>Ignored and unread Senior.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_88');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 88 -->
<a name="x89"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x89" class="tiny">x89</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_89');">you ignored it not</a></b></p>
<p>2012-10-30</p>
<div id="sect_89" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/ventura-asner-ae-film-and-a-legal-heavyweight-provide-good-news-for-911-truth/#comment-14302">October 30, 2012 at 10:51 am</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>Unread? I can believe. But I duly note here how you ignored it not. I trust in the future that you will demonstrate more integrity by being more efficient in your ignoring efforts.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_89');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 89 -->
<a name="x90"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x90" class="tiny">x90</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">remiss and negligent in my 9/11 truthing</a></b></p>
<p>2012-11-17</p>
<div id="sect_90" style="display: none;">
<p>
<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/guy-fawkes-the-gunpowder-plot-and-how-false-flag-operations-have-shaped-history/#comment-14614">November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am</a>
<br>
<br>Well I have to say at this point that I have been remiss and negligent in my 9/11 truthing for a long while now. I have failed to fully explain and argue my case on many occasions. I have no excuses to offer except to say that I am tired of re-arguing points that have been dealt with years ago. One such issue where I have been negligent due to my “burn out” is the DEW issue. I have failed to fully explain and illustrate for the uninitiated (such as Jesse Ventura) exactly why and how Judy Wood’s theory is wrong. I am going to change that.
<br>
<br>I do not want to hijack this thread however and so I will not do so here. Suffice it to say that I agree with both Mr. McKee and HR1 on some aspects of what they each had to say about Ventura and his embrace of Judy Wood. On the one hand I have to say I was VERY dissapointed that Jesse did this last episode and gave time to Wood to express her misinformation (possibly disinformation). I cannot deny that I have lost much of my respect for Ventura because of this incident and incidentally for his ill treatment of David Icke. No I do not endorse Icke’s reptillian theories. On the other hand I agree that we should not toss Ventura aside just because he did get caught up in some clever misinformation. We cannot do that while at the same time not doing our part to detail the issues with Wood’s theories.
<br>
<br>I therefore propose that those of us who wish to collaborate on a decisive debunk of DEW thoeries do so and send that off to Jesse to consider. We can also post that debunk prominently and give opportunity for Wood herself or her supporters to challenge our work. From then onward we can simply provide the link to that debunk instead of re-arguing the case over and over. I want to do this ONCE more and never again. I did this years ago on the Randi Rhodes blog but that vast archive was lost and all my careful work debunking DEW’s was lost as well. This time I intend to keep a copy myself.
<br>
<br>I ask HR1 and OSS specifically if they would like to collaborate with me on such a project? If so simply request from Craig my e-mail address which I hereby authorize him to give you both. I have some debunks in my memory that are not in print anywhere to my knowledge which I think should be put out again. Anyway let me know if either of you are interested. I will do it myself as best I can if you are both busy but I know it will be much better if you both participate. Perhaps after this we can knock out a few other bogus theories too.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_90');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 90 -->
<a name="x91"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x91" class="tiny">x91</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_91');">multiple interpretations of what "DEW weaponry"</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/guy-fawkes-the-gunpowder-plot-and-how-false-flag-operations-have-shaped-history/#comment-14627">2012-11-18</a></p>
<div id="sect_91" style="display: none;">
<p>{ 2nd attempt: <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/guy-fawkes-the-gunpowder-plot-and-how-false-flag-operations-have-shaped-history/#comment-14628">2012-11-18</a>.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
<br>
<br>My quip about <i>"closed-minded thinking"</i> was aimed at the 9/11TM & public in general [and maybe at others for their stubbornness with regards to <b>"nuggets of truth"</b>], not you specifically. My apologies if it gave unintended offense.
<br>
<br>I have no immediate plans on listening to Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura on the subjects of Dr. Wood, DEW, nukes, and whatnot. I agree with the assessments made by others, that these two are showmen. They say and promote things for other reasons, like the shock value to draw audiences: to get eyeballs on the advertizing. I do not have a lot of faith in the depth of their scientific understanding. But please do not let my assessment take away from their important PR role of attracting a wider public audience and getting the public thinking about things outside-the-box.
<br>
<br>You hit the nail on the head with:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The problem I have is there apparently are multiple interpretations of what "DEW weaponry" actually <b>is</b> and what the evidence for each of these hypotheses actually is and what we should be looking out for.</p></blockquote>
<p>It isn't just DEW but also <i>"nuclear weaponry"</i> where multiple interpretations frame the phrase differently and introduce scope misunderstandings, and it is usually in a manner to make <i>nuclear 9/11</i> seem ridiculous rather than plausible.
<br>
<br>You gave a summary of the program with:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Jones brings up "mini nukes" and Ventura emphatically says "no" <b>but</b> insists that Woods' work entails "microwave" technology.</p></blockquote>
<p>This illustrates my point. They are both partly right, <b>but</b> when they exclude or dismiss each other's points, they both become wrong, because it means they have not grasped the true wider boundaries of nuclear and direct energy weapon themes.
<br>
<br>We have to divest ourselves of the notion of all DEW being laser-beams emitted by some apparatus, like how the active denial system works and missiles are zapped from the sky. Likewise, we have to divest ourselves from the notion that all nuclear weapons go boom with massive shock & heat waves and have the exact same radiation signatures for what is emitted and what lingers.
<br>
<br>Look up ERW (enhanced radiation weapons) which includes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb"><b>neutron bomb</b></a>.
</p>
<blockquote><p>A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon. They have X-ray mirrors and radiation case made of chromium or nickel that allow the neutrons to escape. The mirrors are what help steer the energy is useful directions. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.</p></blockquote>
<p>To see the progression of weapons technology, look up (1) Davey Crocket (1960) and its small tactical size. (2) Big Ivan (1961), the largest nuclear detonation ever: it directed its energy upwards, and had small and quickly dissipated amounts of lingering radiation. (3) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur">Project Excalibur</a> and <a href="http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aug2006/starwars1.html">X-Ray Laser</a> that were research projects of Star Wars in the 1980's.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood's textbook does have disinformation in it, like how it does not consider nuclear themes very well. But it has a wealth of evidence and nuggets of truth that, in the game of 9/11 Tetris, can be ordered to fit the other theories' stacks with fewer gaps. After all, ERW is a type of DEW.
<br>
<br>I also recommend studying Jeff Prager's work. His larger eMagazine have a few hundred pages and seem pretty slick: <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-79644cfa.html">Part 1</a> [86MB] and <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-51eec327.html">Part 2</a> [56MB]. I have not read these cover-to-cover and word-for-word to know whether or not it has disinformation. But I have read enough to mine nuggets of truth, particularly from his <a href="http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html"><i>Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis</i></a> [8MB], and they help solidify my beliefs in a nuclear 9/11.
<br>
<br>Mr. RuffAdam has invited Mr. Rogue and you to collaborate on a <i>"decisive debunk of DEW thoeries."</i> He wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I have failed to fully explain and illustrate for the uninitiated (such as Jesse Ventura) exactly why and how Judy Wood's theory is wrong. I am going to change that. </p></blockquote>
<p>Make sure that Mr. RuffAdam isn't too quick to sweep away nuggets of truth buried in Dr. Wood's work that scream for re-purposing. Also, a forewarning is that crafty Dr. Wood does not offer many theories into definitive causes or methods; what she does is plant evidence in plain sight and hint of other mechanisms, the importance being to get people to think outside-the-box. In my estimation Dr. Wood gets it wrong by not adequately addressing the nuclear theme and by inserting disinformation (e.g., her hot-spot chapters.) I'll spare you having me list other deficient areas in Dr. Wood's work that I've discovered. I am glad that at least one of you (Mr. Rogue) has Dr. Wood's textbook; perhaps he will loan his copy out or <b>pay-it-forward</b> in partial fulfillment of conditions that will <i>"get a monkey off his back."</i>
<br>
<br>One area where Dr. Wood gets it right is in talking about the disassociation of matter when describing the pulverization of the towers. I connect this with <i>"neu nookiedoo."</i> Given that multiple ERW are technically DEW devices, I will be most curious how a <i>"decisive debunk of DEW thoeries"</i> by the collaboration will be successful. I hope it doesn't play word games with overly big brooms to sweep too much into the dustbin.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_91');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 91 -->
<a name="x92"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x92" class="tiny">x92</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">I almost always skip SEO’s</a></b></p>
<p>2013-03-06</p>
<div id="sect_92" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br>
<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16664">March 6, 2013 at 7:22 am</a>
<br>
<br>Tamborine man – HR1 posts I read, yours I almost always skip along with SEO’s. HR1 is an MVP around here so please do not ever speak for the rest of us when you declare who is and is not welcome here. Your posts more often than not trail off the topic into ancient Voodoo mystical riddles or channeled messages from the alien entity Tarlack from Alpha Centari so please spare me the BS where you presume to speak for the membership of this blog. You do not.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_92');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 92 -->
<a name="x93"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x93" class="tiny">x93</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_93');">an agent is you SEO</a></b></p>
<p>2013-03-07</p>
<div id="sect_93" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16672">March 7, 2013 at 10:57 am</a>
<br>
<br>The bottom line with Judy Wood is that she is putting out disinformation either knowingly or unknowingly.
<br>
<br>Her very first statement in her book and the basis of her whole argument is that the materials of the tower essentially “dissapeared” thus the title of her book “Where did the towers go?”
<br>
<br>Her entire foundation for making that claim is as bogus as a three dollar bill simply because she does not quantify the amount of material left behind at ground zero and so she cannot say with any degree of certainty that material vanished or that there is not enough debris to account for the towers volume. This is the whole basis of her argument and it is a bogus claim without a doubt. She cannot say how much material was on the ground because it is impossible to quatify it without knowing the entire parameters of the debris field including debris that filled up basement areas. Next she cannot quantify how much dust was spread all over manhatten, in fact she cannot even come up with a reasonable approximation because the dust cloud flows were far too complex and dynamic to even estimate. Next issue is that she does not define the size of the debris field at ground zero because again it is a far too complex situation to even estimate since debris was blasted out in all directions and spread out over a wide area.
<br>
<br>JUDY WOOD IS FULL OF SHIT!!! Her entire foundational argument is based on total speculation from her. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? They fell to the ground after they were blown up Judy and the debris and dust was all over manhatten to prove it. Nothing dissapeared Judy except perhaps your adherance to the scientific method.
<br>
<br>SEO you sir are FULL OF SHIT as well and no way in hell I am going to spend the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Judy Woods crappy book page by page when I have shown already that the entire basis for her stupid theory is bogus speculation on her part to begin with. I am not and HR1 is not stupid enough to be drawn into such a monumental waste of time.
<br>
<br>If Judy Wood had a leg to stand on she could and would explain in detail how much debris was on the ground and how much dust was spread out over manhatten and describe in detail how much is “missing”. She would also be able to explain how she calculated her answer. But she can’t do that can she? You know why SEO? Because it is completely impossible to calculate that and she just pulled the whole meme out of her ass. JUDY WOOD HAS BEEN DEBUNKED TOTALLY SO GET A GRIP ON REALITY SEO!
<br>
<br>If anyone around here is an agent it is you SEO for pushing this crap and trying to bait us into wasting our valuable time doing a line by line debunk of her book. HR1 was absolutely right to line his bird cage with the pages of her shitty book. It is really a shame that people like Jesse Ventura got suckered into her BS.
<br>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_93');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 93 -->
<a name="x94"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x94" class="tiny">x94</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">Where's the chapter-by-chapter debunking?</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16674">2013-03-07</a></p>
<div id="sect_94" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>Proving yourself a liar, too, because you said you didn't read my postings and that they didn't merit responses. Whatever. I won't make hay on your backpeddling and will do you the favor of a serious response. You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The bottom line with Judy Wood is that she is putting out disinformation either knowingly or unknowingly.</p></blockquote>
<p>Agreed. The foundation of all disinformation is a copious amount of truth. <i>"Nuggets of Truth"</i>, I called them. If you don't take the effort to sift the disinformation from the nuggets of truth, then you are playing right into the hands of disinformation.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Her very first statement in her book and the basis of her whole argument is that the materials of the tower essentially "dissapeared" thus the title of her book "Where did the towers go?"</p></blockquote>
<p>If you want to frame it that way, so be it.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Her entire foundation for making that claim is as bogus as a three dollar bill simply because she does not quantify the amount of material left behind at ground zero and so she cannot say with any degree of certainty that material vanished or that there is not enough debris to account for the towers volume. This is the whole basis of her argument and it is a bogus claim without a doubt. She cannot say how much material was on the ground because it is impossible to quatify it without knowing the entire parameters of the debris field including debris that filled up basement areas.</p></blockquote>
<p>You overstate your case if you think this is <i>"her entire foundation"</i>. Reeks to me as if you don't have her book, nor have you read it.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, I'll grant you your point, for indeed she does not qualify the amount of material left behind. And she has another grave error in pointing to the "spire" as an example of dustification when other view points of that expiring spire clearly show it falling over. She's made gross mistakes in her analysis that she never corrected going from the website to the book; she never addressed the valid criticism of her work (website) nor any of the valid ideas of others (e.g., the Anonymous Physicist).
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Next she cannot quantify how much dust was spread all over manhatten, in fact she cannot even come up with a reasonable approximation because the dust cloud flows were far too complex and dynamic to even estimate. Next issue is that she does not define the size of the debris field at ground zero because again it is a far too complex situation to even estimate since debris was blasted out in all directions and spread out over a wide area.</p></blockquote>
<p>Because I'm not defending 100% of Dr. Wood's work, I'll grant you the validity of this criticism as well.
<br>
<br>But what you are failing to note is that she rightfully points to the energy requirements needed to produce that dust. Obviously gravity didn't do it, but not so obviously is that chemical explosives could ~not~ have done it either ~WHILE~ also addressing the observed outcomes of under-rubble hot-spots and a very short logistics period when bomb-sniffing dogs took several pre-9/11 holidays. Occam Razor says it wasn't conventional bombs, period.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>JUDY WOOD IS FULL OF SHIT!!! Her entire foundational argument is based on total speculation from her. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? They fell to the ground after they were blown up Judy and the debris and dust was all over manhatten to prove it. Nothing dissapeared Judy except perhaps your adherance to the scientific method.</p></blockquote>
<p>Again, the above appears to be written by your lofty position of not having her book nor having read it. Her book actually makes few predictions or statements of cause-and-effect. If anything, she throws lots of ideas out but does not definitively connect them together under one grand theory.
<br>
<br>If you had any scientific background, you would not be writing so ignorantly: <i>"[The buildings] fell to the ground after they were blown up."</i> What blew them up? How much would it take? How loud would that be? The fact of the matter is, the buildings were pulverized in such a spectacular manner that defied historic trends in conventional explosives and controlled demolition, such simplistic reasoning doesn't cut it.
<br>
<br>For all of the faults in Dr. Wood's textbook and website that I will readily concede, she is still right on the money to call our attention to the manner in which the buildings were decimated. And Dr. Jones led us astray.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>SEO you sir are FULL OF SHIT as well...</p></blockquote>
<p>Prove it. Where am I wrong?
<br>
<br>9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/">http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/</a>
<br>
<br>9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/">http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/</a>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>... and no way in hell I am going to spend the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Judy Woods crappy book page by page when I have shown already that the entire basis for her stupid theory is bogus speculation on her part to begin with. I am not and HR1 is not stupid enough to be drawn into such a monumental waste of time.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is just plain ignorant, Mr. Ruff. If you want to debunk Dr. Wood, it has to be done chapter-by-chapter, if not page-by-page. Why? Because it is not all bad and the nuggets of truth have to be preserved. Because there is not a single (highly) public member of the 9/11 Truth Movement who doesn't have skeletons in their closet, who doesn't have purposeful disinformation mixed in with truth, who isn't knowingly peddling incomplete truths.
<br>
<br>If you aren't willing to get your hands dirty and sift the truth from the error, then you are no adherent to truth; you're just another disinfo agent trying to steer us away from considering the true mechanisms of destruction.
<br>
<br>What are you afraid of in Dr. Wood's book, Mr. Ruff? Afraid you might find something that is actually valid yet doesn't fit the paradigm of what the other 9/11 PR hacks are promoting? Afraid it will jar your understanding and take it into new realms?
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>If Judy Wood had a leg to stand on she could and would explain in detail how much debris was on the ground and how much dust was spread out over manhatten and describe in detail how much is "missing". She would also be able to explain how she calculated her answer. But she can't do that can she?</p></blockquote>
<p>Now replace <i>"Dr. Judy Wood"</i> with <i>"Dr. Steven Jones"</i> in your paragraph above. Seems to me that he is "missing" such calculations as well.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>You know why SEO? Because it is completely impossible to calculate that and she just pulled the whole meme out of her ass. JUDY WOOD HAS BEEN DEBUNKED TOTALLY SO GET A GRIP ON REALITY SEO!</p></blockquote>
<p>Where's your chapter-by-chapter debunking? Where's Dr. Jones' chapter-by-chapter debunking? Where's the 9/11 Truth Movement's chapter-by-chapter debunking? Doesn't it seem strange to you that ignorant people such as yourself get on their soap-boxes and decry things as disinformation from hearsay alone and without the benefit of specifics?
<br>
<br>I'll be happy to provide you specifics of where Dr. Wood got it wrong -- and there are lots -- but it will be at the expense of also acknowledging what is right and deserves some attention.
<br>
<br>It isn't that I'm propping her up as being the whole story. I'm propping up her as providing important pieces to the story that you ignore... <b>Hell, you haven't even read her book, so how objective are you really?</b>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>If anyone around here is an agent it is you SEO for pushing this crap and trying to bait us into wasting our valuable time doing a line by line debunk of her book. HR1 was absolutely right to line his bird cage with the pages of her shitty book. It is really a shame that people like Jesse Ventura got suckered into her BS.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Ruff, first of all, I'm still betting money that Mr. Rogue was <b>lying</b> to us when he said he used it to line his bird cage. Keep that in mind as but one example of his character, someone willing to pass little lies as truth.
<br>
<br>Secondly, her book is proving to be an excellent test of one's integrity and objectivity that Mr. Rogue has spectacularly failed, and you are failing as well. You are obviously afraid of the VALID evidence that will turn up.
<br>
<br>If you don't have the smarts or courage to reach into the jaws of the disinformation source and snag the nuggets of truth, then you are no friend of truth. Nope, you become a pawn of the disinformation.
<br>
<br>It'll never be about proving Dr. Wood's work 100% correct (or even 50%), because I don't even do that. It is about the collected evidence, which any objective review of her efforts ~has~ to readily acknowledge and address. I grab what is valid and move on.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood was correct that directed energy weapons were involved. Among her failings was giving short-shrift to the nuclear evidence (e.g., hot-spots, etc.) and any intelligent review of the nuclear means that could accomplish it.
<br>
<br>A gross omission by Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones is consideration of neutron bombs and how they could be configured as tactical nuclear weapons that don't take out entire city blocks and don't pollute the detonation point for centuries to come with radiation.
<br>
<br>Get with the program, Mr. Ruff. If you think I've been promoting Dr. Wood because you think I believe she doesn't have disinformation, you haven't been reading what I've been writing. You're just going off half-cocked and making things up, maybe because strawmen are easier to knock down than truth.
<br>
<br>And as a final point, you better throw some grains of salt into your unwavering support of Mr. Rogue, because he doesn't merit it. The instances of him <i>lying and cheating</i> in this very thread are pretty obvious. The saying goes that you have to be faithful in the small things before you are worthy of being entrusted with the bigger things. Mr. Rogue fails that test, and your attitude has you about to make the same mistakes. Grow-up.
<br>
<br>P.S. I'm so confident that Mr. Rogue was <i>"lying about the small things"</i> when he wrote that he defaced his copy of Dr. Wood's book to line his bird's cage that I suggest you contact him so that he can send you his copy. Admission of this lie will be a small price for him to pay to <i>"get the monkey off of his back"</i> that expected him to have some integrity in following through with that which he promised in terms of the objective <i>good, bad, and ugly review</i>. Passing-the-book on to you could help him fulfill obligation and prevent the book from bloodying his nose further.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_94');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 94 -->
<a name="x95"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x95" class="tiny">x95</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_95');">decline your bait SEO</a></b></p>
<p>2013-03-07</p>
<div id="sect_95" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16677">March 7, 2013 at 11:29 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I decline your bait SEO and as I said before I will not be wasting the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Wood page by page. I will not waste my time responding to your goading for me to do so again either. Her foundation is cracked and broken and so there is no need to adress the rest of her disinformation. If you want to search for “nuggets of truth” in Judy Woods garbage pile go for it man, knock yourself out. Meanwhile I will be searching for truth from people who have not been exposed as total charletans such as Dr. Jones.
<br>
<br>By the way your whole meme that CD cannot account for the destruction we observed is as bogus as Woods “where did the towers go” meme. CD can and does account for what we saw including the dust clouds. Other CD’s have shown the same pattern and there is nothing in the WTC destruction that cannot be accounted for by CD. You, like Wood, have just pulled that meme out of your ass in a vain attempt to tarnish the smoking gun nano-thermite evidence uncovered by Dr. Jones. Funny how disinformation seems to be focused on Dr. Jones and the CD evidence and on CIT and their pentagon evidence. Just a coincidence I guess huh? NOT!
<br>
<br>Like I said SEO you sir are full of shit. You admit it when you say Judy Wood is off base on various points she makes but you are still going to spend time digging out “nuggets of truth” from her garbage pile. Myself, I stop looking at or respecting someones work once I see that it is disinformation, I am funny that way. Once a person lies to me I stop trusting them, strange concept I know, but hey that is just the way I am.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_95');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 95 -->
<a name="x96"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x96" class="tiny">x96</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">Most Vocal Participant</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16690">2013-03-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_96" style="display: none;">
<p>{Also re-posted on <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-42549">2013-04-22</a>.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>You want to bestow the MVP title onto Mr. Rogue. That will only be true if MVP equals <i><b>Most Vocal Participant.</b></i> Mr. Rogue is proven to have no integrity and gets by through cheating and even lies when he has to. Just yesterday, he lied twice about what words were attributable to me versus him.
<br>
<br>A more deserving recepient of the MVP award is Mr. OneSliceShort.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I decline your bait SEO and as I said before I will not be wasting the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Wood page by page.</p></blockquote>
<p>I love your backhanded <i>"declination of my bait"</i> as the lead-in to nibbling on it.
<br>
<br>You misjudge the assignment. You don't have to waste a single second debunking Dr. Wood page-by-page.
<br>
<br>What is required of you is to have the cajones to acknowledge <b>nuggets of truth</b>, however few and far between they may be spaced, in Dr. Wood's work. Working towards this goal will get the 9/11 Truth Movement much farther along than any thrash-and-burn debunking effort.
<br>
<br>In a moment you'll have you're first assignment, but first, here's a lovely quote from you:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I will not waste my time responding to your goading for me to do so again either. Her foundation is cracked and broken and so there is no need to adress the rest of her disinformation. If you want to search for "nuggets of truth" in Judy Woods garbage pile go for it man, knock yourself out. Meanwhile I will be searching for truth from people who have not been exposed as total charletans such as Dr. Jones.</p></blockquote>
<p>I defy you to find a single high-profile PR wonk in the 9/11 Truth Movement whose <i>"foundation ~isn't~ cracked and broken."</i> Just because someone hasn't been exposed to <i><b>you</b></i> (or your satisfaction) as a <i>"charletans"</i> doesn't mean that they aren't. Dr. Jones is no exception.
<br>
<br>Your brain-dead defense of Dr. Jones proves you haven't read what I wrote about him. Give it another try:
<br>
<br>9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/">http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/</a>
<br>
<br>9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/">http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/</a>
<br>
<br>Tell me where I error.
<br>
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, you write from your ignorance:
</p>
<blockquote><p>By the way your whole meme that CD cannot account for the destruction we observed is as bogus as Woods "where did the towers go" meme. CD can and does account for what we saw including the dust clouds. Other CD's have shown the same pattern and there is nothing in the WTC destruction that cannot be accounted for by CD. You, like Wood, have just pulled that meme out of your ass in a vain attempt to tarnish the smoking gun nano-thermite evidence uncovered by Dr. Jones. Funny how disinformation seems to be focused on Dr. Jones and the CD evidence and on CIT and their pentagon evidence. Just a coincidence I guess huh? NOT!</p></blockquote>
<p>Whereas controlled demolition using essentially chemical explosives could account for the dust clouds, it cannot account for:
<br>
<br>- the damage to 1400 vehicles, some at a considerable distance.
<br>- the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
<br>- Steel Beam Bent Like a Horseshoe
<br>http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/image/horseshoe_r1_c2.jpg
<br>- Multiple pieces bent
<br>http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/DSCN0941_s.jpg
<br>- Horseshoe Beam
<br>http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hanger17/core4.jpg
<br>
<br>Kindly have Dr. Jones explain the configuration of super-duper nano-thermite (e.g., where it was attached, how close was it to the depicted beams, etc.) that would result in the above images, compliments of Dr. Judy Wood's image collection. Don't get me wrong; Dr. Wood's analysis of these beams is whacked out. (I say that one of several neutron nuclear DEW devices achieved this.) The point is that the evidence is there, can't be ignored just because it sits inside of a <i>"disinformation vehicle"</i>, and all theories-du-jour must address all pieces of evidence in order to be considered complete and valid.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Like I said SEO you sir are full of shit. You admit it when you say Judy Wood is off base on various points she makes but you are still going to spend time digging out "nuggets of truth" from her garbage. pile.</p></blockquote>
<p>And which garbage pile are you going to go digging in to get <i>"nuggets of truth?"</i> You're starting to sound <i>"pretty ignorance and closed-minded"</i> there, Mr. Ruff, you are.
<br>
<br>Please enlighten me as to the perfect source or repository of 9/11 Wisdom & Understanding that, as but one example, addressed the lucky horseshoe beams linked above? [Busy work warning: that is a fool's errand, because control of the 9/11 message is so complete, there isn't a single, reliable source.] But because you believe, cough it up. Prove me wrong, hombre.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Myself, I stop looking at or respecting someones work once I see that it is disinformation, I am funny that way. Once a person lies to me I stop trusting them, strange concept I know, but hey that is just the way I am.</p></blockquote>
<p>Shit, then I guess the proven instances in this very thread of cheating and lying ought to have you snatching back the MVP crown that you want to nail to Mr. Rogue's head.
<br>
<br>It is easy for you to dismiss sources of (dis)information for x-number of instances of proven bull-shit. But that's not really how it should work (unless you want to admit to being duped and playing right into the hand of disinformation.) Nope, when the (dis)information source is proven tainted, the appropriate response is to flag the instances of such and to then have initial, healthy distrust of all further (dis)information from that source, but all the while given each nugget its due consideration and not throwing those babies out with the bathwater.
<br>
<br>Try again.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, Mr. Rogue wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I find it most curious, that it is suggested that I have some sort of "obligations" as per this piece of junk book by Judy Wood. No such obligation exists.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is Mr. Rogue demonstrating what a cheat he is, not living up to his part of the bargain and deceitfully trying to change the terms of the agreement in a one-sided fashion midstream. No dice.
<br>
<br>Pay-it-forward or pass-it-along were two options given but with the caveat that they happen after an objective <i>"good, bad, and ugly"</i> review.
<br>
<br>At this point, Mr. Ruff, you lay your cards squarely down in the <i>"ignoramous camp"</i> that says <i>"we don't need to read no stinkin' books and we don't need to crack no stinkin' covers in order to pass our holy judgment of the (de)merits of the entire work."</i>
<br>
<br>*Clap* *clap* *clap*
<br>
<br>I didn't think it was possible for a worthy participant to expose himself as an ignorant red-neck hill-billy for your close-minded attitude, but evidently Mr. Rogue is your hero, too, and your role-model for action in this forum.
<br>
<br>I was contemplating the option of relieving Mr. Rogue of his obligation were he to pay-it-forward or pass-it-along to you, but you <i>out</i> yourself as far less than open-minded or objective. Doesn't really matter; important nuggets of truth were cherry-picked from Dr. Wood's work and are a published in this very comment in the form of the links to the horseshoe images. Explain.
<br>
<br>Oh, and take your time, Mr. Ruff. Late next week I'm leaving on vacation and may have limited access to the internet for over a week.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_96');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 96 -->
<a name="x97"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x97" class="tiny">x97</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_97');">I skipped right past SEO’s posts</a></b></p>
<p>2013-03-09</p>
<div id="sect_97" style="display: none;">
<p>
<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16716">March 9, 2013 at 8:26 am</a>
<br>
<br>For the record I skipped right past SEO’s and TM’s most recent posts and will not be reading them at all. I will henceforth treat Judy Wood supporters, nuke supporters, video fakery supporters, and hollogram supporters the way I treat the Mormon missionaries that come to my door now and then. In other words I am not going to answer the door.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_97');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 97 -->
<a name="x98"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x98" class="tiny">x98</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">shoot a hole in your credibility, reputation, and foot</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16721">2013-03-09</a></p>
<div id="sect_98" style="display: none;">
<p>Bravo, Mr. RuffAdam! Bravo!
<br>
<br>Way to go and shoot a hole in your credibility, reputation, and foot with that excellent exposition of Amerikana Ignorance and burying your head in the sand!
<br>
<br>I don't blame Mr. Ruff for not doing any legwork to substantiate or debunk the hypothesis that I champion, which involve Dr. Wood and nukes, because that can be a time suck.
<br>
<br>But to admit skipping right passed my postings, not reading them, and with a promise never to read them, why that takes the cake in setting new standards about what constitutes intelligent & rational debate. A "belief" in what caused the WTC destruction that is so iron-clad and foolproof, it can't stand having inconvenient evidence and analysis presented that would ruffle feathers.
<br>
<br><i>"Ignorance is Strength."</i>
<br>
<br>If Mr. Ruff is inclined to give his MVP a hand or even a vote of moral support, he does him (or this forum) no favors.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_98');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 98 -->
<a name="x99"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x99" class="tiny">x99</a>
Adam_Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_99');">exposing charlatans, fraudsters, liars, and provocateurs</a></b></p>
<p>2013-07-20</p>
<div id="sect_99" style="display: none;">
<p>Adam_Ruff
<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/debate-scrapped-but-dc-911-conference-will-still-examine-what-happened-at-the-pentagon/#comment-17965">July 20, 2013 at 11:59 am</a>
<br>
<br>Yeah I have to say that is really rich! Take this to the government, the government which did it and is actively attempting to cover it up? What a joke. Seriously did you even think before you wrote that?
<br>
<br>By the way I called out Honegger and Deets long before this article was written and I don’t buy into their BS at all. So please don’t lump us here in with fledgling truthers who may still be listening to disinformationists and not realize what they are.
<br>
<br>We here are in the business of exposing charlatans, fraudsters, liars, and provocateurs. We have done the best we can towards that goal. We have not “won” the entire battle yet, that is true, but what have you done towards victory? Who are you? What is your real name? What is your plan for ultimate victory and why haven’t you achieved it yet?
<br>
<br>Bashing us for the actions/non-actions of others is out of line. Many of us here have done many many things towards truth and justice for 9/11 and other false flags and I will bet you we have individually each done more than you have. Let me know if I am wrong and when you find the courage to do so sign your real name to your comments huh?
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_99');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 99 -->
<a name="x100"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x100" class="tiny">x100</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">Who are you? What is your real name?</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/debate-scrapped-but-dc-911-conference-will-still-examine-what-happened-at-the-pentagon/#comment-17975">2013-07-21</a></p>
<div id="sect_100" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. A. Ruff,
<br>
<br>In <i>"The Dark Knight Rises"</i> movie, Batman gives some advice to the Police Officer (an orphan with middle name <i>"Robin"</i>) that <i>"the hero dons the mask not to protect himself but to protect those he cares about."</i>
<br>
<br>It is important that an author stand behind their words and be willing to defend those words, to admit error or uncertainty, and to change opinions, when new information necessitates such. This proves how genuine the person is. <i>"Standing behind your words"</i> can be accomplished in many ways, such as consistency in alias-usage forum-to-forum, a "home court" to consolidate words, or a revealing of identities at a time and choosing of the author (e.g., to a select audience.)
<br>
<br>You charged Mr. Broken Record:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Who are you? What is your real name?</p></blockquote>
<p>I find this line of attack distasteful and immaterial, <b>despite having sympathy with the other points in your cranky posting. </b>
<br>
<br>Integrity ought to be exhibited in the comments that participants make. When it isn't, readers note it.
<br>
<br>ECHELON and PRISM, and Google/Facebook/WordPress/YouTube's single-login and tying together of aliases with IP addresses with street addresses with individuals and credit histories, assures us that our <i>"permanent digital record"</i> has detailed reading for those with a badge and a need to know. No sense making it easier.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, given the vast distances over which the internet serves, it isn't as if knowing a real name will enable you to drive across town to punch someone in the nose for their disingenuous views. And on the flip-side, only those who are independently wealthy, retired, or otherwise out of the workforce (e.g., for physical reasons) [and have no spouses or relations in the workforce] can have some degree of freedom in voicing their views under their real name without blow-back from <i>"Google Background Checks"</i> on their next employment search.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_100');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 100 -->
<a name="x101"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x101" class="tiny">x101</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_101');">little bit loose with the <i>"troll"</i> word</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/debate-scrapped-but-dc-911-conference-will-still-examine-what-happened-at-the-pentagon/#comment-18012">2013-07-23</a></p>
<div id="sect_101" style="display: none;">
<p>{2nd Attempt}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. RuffAdam,
<br>
<br>This is not a defense of Mr. A.Wright, who appears to have been involved with torture. How else could he have known of a successful trial substitution for waterboarding? <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/debate-scrapped-but-dc-911-conference-will-still-examine-what-happened-at-the-pentagon/#comment-17979">2013-07-21</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>@Hybridrogue1: I didn't realize you were passing on your title of resident crank... I'm honored. I'd better brush up on the old Hegelian Dialectics and start some interminable discourse with El Senor Once, the reading of which to interrogation subjects has been successfully trialled as a viable substitute for waterboarding.</p></blockquote>
<p>Other parallelisms occur to me when I read your charges against Mr. A.Wright:
</p>
<blockquote><p>If A.Wright refuses to answer all questions and fails to respond to critics points then he is not following the rules of this or any discussion forum. He evades or ignores when he should by all rights be required to respond yet he is still given latitude to question and badger others. ... Any debate rules you care to look at require opponents to address the topic at hand AND respond to each others statements and rebuttals. Failure to do so means YOU LOSE the debate. Failure to respond effectively with a substantial counter argument means YOU LOSE the debate.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16721">On another thread</a> and another topic near and dear to my one-trick-pony hobby-horse, which goes by the name of <i>"Neu Nookiedoo"</i>, you were guilty of the same offenses. You even made <b>a big deal out of not reading and ignoring my comments</b> instead of just ignoring them, particularly when they had you cornered with respect to ~not~ doing your due diligence on <i>"the good, the bad, & the ugly"</i> in the work of Dr. Judy Wood that would demonstrate an open-mind. The higher calling to which you subscribe your 9/11 Truth endeavors dictates that <i>"the good"</i> nuggets of truth be preserved, cherished, and re-purposed... even from disinfo sources.
<br>
<br>My hobby-horse ain't yours, so we can let mention of that nuclear topic slide by without further adieu. What persists from that example?
<br>
<br>A little bit loose with the <i>"troll"</i> word you have been. Be careful of what you wish for.
<br>
<br>Triple-W was chided in the past for engaging Mr. A.Wright, particularly when the engagement so quickly devolved into off-topic flames. Be careful that you don't become entwined as one of the pincers in his <i>"old Hegelian Dialectics"</i> that derails this discussion.
<br>
<br><b>WITH REGARDS TO THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION</b>
<br>
<br>Mr. B. Record on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/debate-scrapped-but-dc-911-conference-will-still-examine-what-happened-at-the-pentagon/#comment-17993">2013-07-22</a> tries to plant the seeds of discouragement and futility in searching for the Truth of 9/11.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Well where have all the debates and discussions gotten ya so far? ... So everyone in the gov't is bad and there is no hope of taking the evidence to gov't officials so your solution is to just discuss/debate the evidence with other truthers and infiltrators ad nauseum? I'm sure the next answer will be that we need to raise awareness with people so that they will do something, right? And what are they supposed to do after they are made aware? Tell other people? How has that worked so far?</p></blockquote>
<p>The purpose of <b>"blah-blah-blah"</b> in this forum and at any conference on the 9/11 topic is to raise awareness to a critical point where distributed and massive action can make a change.
<br>
<br>As Mr. B. Record hints, the solution is not to take our gripe <b>to the bad government.</b> No, the solution is to <b>re-make government</b>... in order <i>"to form a more perfect Union"</i>, given that the present one isn't anything other than an oligarchy.
<br>
<br>As was so aptly quoted by Triple-W:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~R. Buckminster Fuller</p></blockquote>
<p>Because I don't want to sully this comments section with more instances of <i>"viable substitutions for waterboarding"</i> and because this comment is nested under a thread where the following is relevant and applicable, I'll append something written earlier but not posted.
<br>
<br>++++++
<br>
<br>Agreed, NSA and Echelon continue to grow our digital dossiers, and <i>"[t]here is no making it easier than it already is"</i> in terms of them knowing who we are, assuming that the wealth of data collected on everyone can be filtered down and have our names pop-up in their search results (top-1000) as <i>"persons of interest"</i> today, tomorrow, or whenever.
<br>
<br>I'm not worried about <i>"them"</i>, because they have to prioritize and I can't fathom how I'd make the cut. They also have some rules (albeit many are written on the fly) to guide their actions. But when & if that fateful moment arrives, the juggernaut will be so massive, so consuming, so pervassive, I won't be able to fight it. I'll be caught in a net like thousands of other minnows. It'll roll over me and squash me into nothingness like so many others.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, what I worry about are those who operate without rules; those on the fringed; those whose <b>blinding patriotism</b> -- not to the Constitution but to corrupt government institutions or <i>military-esque brotherhoods</i> -- misguides them; those who take matters into their own hands.
<br>
<br>By accident or on purpose, their lack of morals and ethics might lead them like a Middle Schooler into doing unethical things on-line from a distance just to tweak with someone for fun, or to really mess with them. I'm talking ~not~ about hacking that could screw with email or deplete banking accounts (but they are to be considered); I am talking about the low-hanging fruit of the <i>Google-lingering</i> effects of tarnishing another individual's reputation on-line... Oh how easy it is to smear and libel another <i>"on the internets"</i> from the safety of a keyboard.
<br>
<br>Mr. McKee [who knows the <i>Bruce Wayne</i> to my <i>Batman</i>] can attest to how such a gambit was played out against my <i>Bruce Wayne</i> on <i>"Screw Loose Change"</i> without me participating there or even being aware of it until late... but not beyond the statute of limitations for taking the culprits to court for criminal libel. [Alas, victory in court does not equate to actual collection of judgment, let alone legal fees. And the efforts to get justice would have a blow-back tarnishing effect on "name" and "reputation" in the meantime.]
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_101');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 101 -->
<a name="x102"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x102" class="tiny">x102</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">What are you deluded by?</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/debate-scrapped-but-dc-911-conference-will-still-examine-what-happened-at-the-pentagon/#comment-18039">2013-07-25</a></p>
<div id="sect_102" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. RuffAdam, Mr. Syed, and the Triple-Dubya have given great (if snippy) responses to Mr. B. Record. (I offer my respect to RuffAdam and Mr. Syed for their activism.) It turns out that Mr. Paul Craig Roberts has also done the same from another angle.
<br>
<br>Before I offer up Mr. Roberts views, allow me to address something that Mr. B. Record wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So how did it work out when everyone took 9/11 truth to "the people of the world"? ... I just see all of this as delusion and zero direction.</p></blockquote>
<p>And what are you deluded by? The under-current of your several postings has been <i>"why bother with anything? 9/11 was in the past. Informing citizenry doesn't work. Nothing to do. Let's sit on our thumbs and let the political currents sweep us away and drown us. No sense paddling or swimming against the stream. All is hopeless. Nothing can be done."</i> And in copping this attitude, you play right into the role that the powers that be (PTB) have for everyone: Do nothing, because nothing can be done. Watch your <i>"Merika's Got Talent"</i> and tune out to considering anything that you could do personally to change matters.
<br>
<br>
<br>+++++
<br>
<br>Here's some brief exerpts from <i><a href="http://www.infowars.com/role-reversal-how-the-us-became-the-ussr/">Role Reversal: How the US Became the USSR</a></i> by Paul Craig Roberts {with my comments in curly braces}:
</p>
<blockquote><p>In Washington politicians of both parties demand that Snowden be captured and executed. Politicians demand that Russia be punished for not violating international law, seizing Snowden, and turning him over to Washington to be tortured and executed, despite the fact that Washington has no extradition treaty with Russia.</p></blockquote>
<p>{And despite the fact that Snowden hasn't had a trial by a jury of his peers, maybe because <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury+nullification">Jury Nullification</a> is a very real danger for the PTB (powers that be). <i>"Jury nullification occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a verdict."</i> In doing so, they set legal precedence that can be far reaching. Remember this for when you or those you know are called to jury duty.}
</p>
<blockquote><p>Snowden did what Americans are supposed to do–disclose government crimes against the Constitution and against citizens. Without a free press there is nothing but the government's lies. In order to protect its lies from exposure, Washington intends to exterminate all truth tellers.
<br>
<br>The Obama Regime is the most oppressive regime ever in its prosecution of protected whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are protected by law, but the Obama Regime insists that whistleblowers are not really whistleblowers. Instead, the Obama Regime defines whistleblowers as spies, traitors, and foreign agents. Congress, the media, and the faux judiciary echo the executive branch propaganda that whistleblowers are a threat to America. {According to the PTB} It is not the government that is violating and raping the US Constitution that is a threat. {According to the PTB} It is the whistleblowers who inform us of the rape who are the threat.</p></blockquote>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p></p><p>What Americans have learned in the 21st century is that the US government lies about everything and breaks every law. ... Snowden harmed no one except the liars and traitors in the US government. Contrast Washington's animosity against Snowden with the pardon that Bush gave to Dick Cheney aide, Libby, who took the fall for his boss for blowing the cover, a felony, on a covert CIA operative, the spouse of a former government official who exposed the Bush/Cheney/neocon lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Whatever serves the tiny clique that rules america is legal; whatever exposes the criminals is illegal.</p></blockquote>
<p>//</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_102');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 102 -->
<a name="x103"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x103" class="tiny">x103</a>
Adam_Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_103');">A.Wright is such a koolaid drinking troll</a></b></p>
<p>2013-07-29</p>
<div id="sect_103" style="display: none;">
<p>Adam_Ruff
<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/debate-scrapped-but-dc-911-conference-will-still-examine-what-happened-at-the-pentagon/#comment-18079">July 29, 2013 at 8:18 am</a>
<br>
<br>Dan,
<br>
<br>I humbly suggest that Broken Record is correct when it comes to the strength of the Pentagon evidence and (s)he is correct about the weaknesses of the CD case. I recommend that you take a crash course in the Pentagon evidence because once you do give it the time and effort you have given to the case for CD you are going to experience a real revalation. You are going to KNOW why the Pentagon evidence is so conclusive and powerful proof of an inside job. The case for CD is very strong do not get me wrong and it is strong with or without the thermite paper and evidence. Video and witness evidence is strong enough to prove CD all by itself. Broken Record is correct however in that CD if proven to the public at large can still be blamed on selected patsies or fall guys. The problem is that proving CD does not prove who did it. The staged crime scene at the Pentagon however can ONLY be blamed on government insiders simply because no one else could stage a crime scene at the pentagon. The Pentagon evidence is therefore in a different category than the CD evidence and is much more dangerous to the real perps. Study CIT’s materials and study Pilots For 9/11 Truth materials related to the Pentagon in depth and you will have your revelation believe me.
<br>
<br>As far as A.Wright goes I recommend you do not waste your time with such a koolaid drinking troll. He is only here to waste your time.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_103');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 103 -->
<a name="x104"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x104" class="tiny">x104</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">the most dangerous 9/11 conspirators</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/debate-scrapped-but-dc-911-conference-will-still-examine-what-happened-at-the-pentagon/#comment-18091">2013-07-30</a></p>
<div id="sect_104" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Ruff wrote above on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/debate-scrapped-but-dc-911-conference-will-still-examine-what-happened-at-the-pentagon/#comment-18079">July 29, 2013 – 8:18 am</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The case for CD [controlled demolition of the WTC] ... strong with or without the thermite paper and evidence. Video and witness evidence is strong enough to prove CD all by itself. Broken Record is correct however in that CD if proven to the public at large can still be blamed on selected patsies or fall guys. The problem is that proving CD does not prove who did it. </p></blockquote>
<p>Proving CD could certainly narrow down the list of suspects significantly, particularly when ~all~ of the evidence is considered and when the thermite paper is cast into the proper light.
<br>
<br>What is that proper light? Namely, that thermite -- if truly involved at all -- did not act alone for either pulverizing the towers or maintaining under-rubble hot-spots. Dr. Jones has admitted such, even while allowing Mr. Gage and the yeomen of the 9/11TM to extrapolate those thermitic findings to explain WTC anomalies that physics says it cannot and isn't comparatively Occam Razor.
<br>
<br>I know you don't want to mount my Neu Nookiedoo one-trick pony, despite aligned evidence and despite the omissions & games of Dr. Jones in his <i>"no nukes"</i> efforts. Does Dr. Jones ever discuss in that <i>"no nukes"</i> paper possible configurations of neutron bombs that could match tritium measurements, correlated elements in the dust, 1st responder ailments, energy requirements of pulverization, ease of installation, etc.? Nope, making that a pretty glaring omission for a nuclear physicist to make. He malframes in that work by only considering big fission or big fusion devices, as well as by accepting 100% and misusing the govt commissioned study on tritium, a report that had valid but speculative and stilted goals.
<br>
<br>Triple-Dubya and I have made too many carousel spins discussing in a Tetris way how the evidence blocks could be oriented for a CD using either <i>"chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)"</i> or <i>"special configuration of neutron nuclear bombs"</i>. [And remember that the CD does ~not~ have to be of the same form for all buildings in the WTC complex.]
<br>
<br>Obviously, I'm of the opinion that the gaps are fewer with neu nookiedoo. But for the sake of discussion, let's say that the evidence stacks up equally well either way. The cover-up activities of the government & a complicit media are what suggest strongly it was neu nookiedoo.
<br>
<br>How so? Because if the CD was <i>"chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)"</i> [primarily], <b>TPTB could still try to scapegoat a third-party</b> (e.g., 19 stripper-loving, coke-snorting, cave-dwelling, Muslim-extemists) for the <i>"relative"</i> ease (compared to nukes) with which the <i>"chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)"</i> could be obtained or manufactured, albeit while stumbling over the facts of: (a) massive [& unreasonable] quantities that can't be acquired at just any WalMart; (b) extended access to secure facilities for CD installation; and (c)_ observable evidence showing massive overkill [e.g., pulverization, free-fall speeds] above and well beyond what was needed for the goals of destruction of two symbols of capitalism [the towers].
<br>
<br>The neu nookiedoo hobby-horse, on the other hand, would require, say, only a dozen devices per tower, thus shorter facility access for CD installation, and by their very energetic nature gives the observable and unpreventable overkill effects that really mucks with those lame pan-cake & pile-driving excuses from NIST.
<br>
<br>Aside from the United States, the list is rather short regarding who would have this unique configuration of neutron bombs: England, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel come to mind, but there might be more (or less). The Dubya sabor-rattling with China over a downed spy-plane prior to 9/11 might suggest China, except that none -- not even the USA -- were even considered as suspects. TPTB through the media named Osama bin Laden before the dust had settled.
<br>
<br>++++++
<br>
<br>Mr. Noel has made several excellent postings, although underlying agreement between Mr. Noel and Mr. Ruff on the true substance of each leg that they respectively champion from the large, multi-faceted, shock-&-awe, neo-con con-job is sometimes missed in the disagreement over which aspect of the public-duping plan should have a priority in bring a sheeple to enlightenment. Of course, my Neu Nookiedoo hobby-horse says y'all both been trumped by the message -- whether directly or through surrogates -- <i>"the guvmint of Merika dun nuked Merika"</i>. Worse, is the pawning of Merika into a frightened, liberty-surrendering TSA/DHS/FEMA-victim.
<br>
<br>Mr. Noel wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Accordingly, the most dangerous 9/11 conspirators, contrary to what many 9/11 dissidents believe, are not the actual agents of terror, nor the much more numerous public servants who engineered their cover and protection, but <b>the still more numerous watchdogs</b> who have knowingly been sending for a decade their gullible supporters on wild goose chases — like ending the open-ended Afghan war — that 9/11 Truth would nullify.</p></blockquote>
<p>The news and media have tried to advertise themselves as being one of those watchdogs, the fourth estate, right? The representatives of our local interests who should have been aware, or listening to their constituents (and as a result researching on their own) would be another. I guess it would be fair to say that this is a great example of how money in politics talked, because money for elective office was given by TPTB through their tax-doging 501(c)3 [or whatever IRS designation they got] to candidates who did ~not~ even speak of 9/11.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.zengardner.com/911-the-defining-line-of-conscience/">9/11 - The Defining Line of Conscience</a>, an excerpt:
</p>
<blockquote><p><b>The Litmus Test</b>
<br>
<br>It should go without saying that anyone who promotes the official story of 9/11; anyone who accepts the official story, who oppresses those who doubt the official story, who does not question the official story, is involved or stupid.
<br>
<br>Any presidential candidate, senator, congressman, fireman, pilot, engineer, architect… anyone who, knowing the facts, does not dispute the official story is a traitor to their nation and a tool of those who accomplished the attack.
<br>
<br>Whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not, every violation of our basic rights we so docilely accept — TSA cavity searches, being forced to remove your shoes in order to board a flight, metal detectors and X-Ray scanners (even in hospitals), ID checks at every turn — they all came about because of 9/11. Everything that curtails, inhibits, or restricts your everyday life today is a direct or indirect result of 9/11. Think about it.
<br>
<br>And every one of these violations of our personal freedoms is based on a lie.
<br>
<br>Therefore, everyone in government, in the media, in entertainment, in organized religion, in the public eye and in the public who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool.</p></blockquote>
<p>Like Iceland before us, we the people in order to form a more perfect union must establish government anew. The house-cleaning will be deep; the re-organization significant, even down to the drawing of new regional borders; could make <i>"the guvmint of Merika"</i> and all its institutions obsolete.
<br>
<br>The danger is that such radical talk, instead of carving Merika into several manageable regions of autonomy, might consolidate us into the NWO plan, thereby having us play directly into their hand like sheeple that we are.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_104');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 104 -->
<a name="x105"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x105" class="tiny">x105</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_105');">to level charges at others and make claims about them and then refuse to discuss it</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-05</p>
<div id="sect_105" style="display: none;">
<p>ruffadam August 5, 2013 at 4:17 am
<br>
<br>Adam Syed,
<br>
<br>I appreciate what you have done here and the time it took to do it. It is very important that we speak up about this kind of stuff (Ryan’s book) and express the issues with it. If none of us do speak up it gets cemented into the movement as credible and accepted. I find myself lacking the time and energy to say all these things that need to be said. Your review is therefore invaluable and important for all of us and I for one appreciate you taking the time to do it.
<br>
<br>I will add to the discussion of Kevin Ryan by expressing what to me seems to be the biggest red flag of all about him. Namely that Ryan refuses to debate those he backhandedly attacks. To me this is the mark of a dishonest and cowardly person, to level charges at others and make claims about them and then refuse to discuss it in the open with them or with anyone. What real truther does not want to uncover the facts and evidence about 9/11, a fake one that’s who!
<br>
<br>Look I am not going to mince words here. Ryan’s Pentagon position is a provable load of crap, easily refuted, and he is way too smart to not know that. Why would someone as smart as Ryan promote provable garbage and simultaneously attack the NOC evidence? Why? Because he is NOT a truther and his agenda is something else entirely. If his position had any merit whatsoever he would embrace debate just like he did with Popular Mechanics (by the way I was NOT impressed with that debate and he seemed to let golden opportunities to crush PM slip right by). If his attacks on CIT had any basis in fact he would confront them in public and expose them for what they really are in order to advance the truth and the cause. But he refuses to face CIT or any of us in the light of open debate instead hiding like a cockroach he lobs his garbage from behind an electronic Berlin Wall. Chandler and Cole do the same and so I have come to recognize this characteristic of refusing debate to be one of the strongest signs that the person is not a genuine truther.
<br>
<br>Another issue with Ryan and his laughable Pentagon position is that he appears to think that his background in chemistry somehow makes him an expert on the Pentagon evidence. It doesn’t. He is no more of an expert on the issues we are dealing with at the Pentagon than a plumber or a cardiologist or a TV weather man. Where did ANYONE in the movement get the gall to even try to list people like Ryan and Legge and Chandler as “experts” on par with P4T and the CIT who actually conducted the investigation themselves? None of those men have any particular skills or experience that makes them authorities on the Pentagon. Why is their opinion important at all concerning the Pentagon? The answer is it isn’t! The only reason Ryan and the others I mentioned have not simply been laughed off as cranks similar to our resident crank A.Wright is because of their work on the CD evidence and their college degrees.
<br>
<br>In point of fact what is going on here is that some in the movement including DRG are trying to pigeon hole 9/11 truth by suggesting that PhD truthers are the only real truthers. In fact it was even suggested by DRG’s assistant that the CIT evidence needs to be peer reviewed! Really? Peer review is what is needed to validate the NOC evidence? What a giant load of crap and what a cowardly excuse to avoid the powerful NOC evidence, totally unacceptable and fraudulent line of reasoning. Ryan, Woodworth, and DRG should be ashamed of themselves for even going down that road in the first place.
<br>
<br>This whole meme about peer review and publishing in a scientific journal is GARBAGE! I don’t need a peer review (especially from a chemist) to tell me that the NOC witnesses are authentic nor do I need a peer review to validate the implications of the NOC flight path. I can do it all on my own. To make it even more maddening is the fact that Ryan and others are pushing this meme about “expert” peer review and journal papers while NOT having the relevant expertise to conduct the reviews or write the papers. The P4T do have the relevant expertise and they endorse the NOC evidence whole heartedly. So the idea being pushed here by Ryan and DRG and others is that “experts” are the only ones who have anything to contribute to the truth movement and it is they alone who shall decide what is truth and what isn’t and they will come to a “consensus” among themselves and present that as representing the truth movement. Not only that but that they themselves are THE experts even when we are dealing with issues and evidence that has nothing to do with chemistry or physics. Hell we are supposed to accept them as THE experts over and above P4T on aviation questions! They aren’t and I don’t.
<br>
<br>Ryan doesn’t represent me nor does the consensus panel represent the truth movement. Ryan is a chemist so according to his own rules of “peer review” and scientific journalism we should disregard his opinion about the pentagon as worthless since he does not possess the relevant scientific credentials to evaluate the aviation issues at play here nor does he have the relevant criminal investigation skills to properly evaluate the NOC witness testimony. By his own rules his opinion is worthless. By my own rules his opinion is worth as much as a plumber’s opinion when it comes to the Pentagon.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_105');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 105 -->
<a name="x106"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x106" class="tiny">x106</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">piling on poor Mr. Kevin Ryan</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/#comment-18171">2013-08-05</a></p>
<div id="sect_106" style="display: none;">
<p>As long as everybody is piling on poor Mr. Kevin Ryan, I might as well contribute my feather-of-weight by starting with something Mr. Adam Ruff wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The only reason Ryan and the others I mentioned have not simply been laughed off as cranks similar to our resident crank A.Wright is because of their work on the CD evidence and their college degrees. </p></blockquote>
<p>Regarding their work (e.g., Dr. Steven Jones and Mr. Ryan) on the CD evidence, this ties in with the words of Mr. Daniel Noel with his <i>"9/11 censorship"</i> claims. You see, their framing of the discussion around super-duper nano-thermite was one of those so-called <i>"limited hang-out's"</i> out of which they got lots of mileage despite parking <i>"further research"</i> in a cul-de-sac. The high school chemistry and math extrapolated backwards from the evidence (e.g., pulverization energy, long duration under-rubble hot-spots, tritium, correlated elements in dust indicating nuclear involvement, 1st responder ailments, etc.) was always eventually going to expose the inapplicability and non-Occam Razorness of super-duper nano-thermite with any combination of [name your] chemical explosive CD mechanisms (as primary).
<br>
<br>All along, <b>they</b> have known of the weaknesses of their postulated mechanisms, which is why they never produced papers with even <i>"back-of-envelope calculations"</i> of ball-park guestimates on chemical CD (including thermite) quantities. All along, <b>they</b> have known that they needed to be looking towards other sources for the energy and destruction. Dr. Judy Wood's <i>"disinformation vehicles"</i> comes closest from the other direction regarding at least <i>"thinking out of the box"</i> into other sources of destruction.
<br>
<br><i>"9/11 censorship?"</i> Yep, neither Mr. Ryan, Dr. Jones, Mr. Chandler, Dr. Legge, nor Mr. Cole have ever offered up a detailed <i>"good, bad, and ugly"</i> book review on Dr. Wood's <i>"disinformation vehicles"</i>. Why, because certainly one can find some <i>"bad and ugly?"</i> Why was it mostly off-hand dismissals and hand-waves of "looney" aimed at low-hanging disinformation fruit (that I call <i>"get-out-of-assassination cards"</i> played by Dr. Wood) like Hutchison Effects and Hurricane Erin?
<br>
<br>The reasons for their silence may have been (1) out of respect to keep the <i>"limited hang-out"</i> efforts of Dr. Wood in play while running down the clock on the public's attention span; and (2) to ~NEVER~ call attention to the <b>good</b> in Dr. Wood's work, because the <b>good</b> are valid anomalies that all 9/11 theories-du-jour must address to be complete, and their thermic aspirations couldn't.
<br>
<br>They have acted as part of 9/11 Censors against the fact that 9/11 was nuclear, which has its very own figuratively <i>"nuclear"</i> connotations with regards to how the public <b><i>would, should, or could</i></b> react with respect to the status quo, leadership, government, government institutions, banking institutions, etc. This is in addition to the literal <i>"nuclear"</i> connotations with regards to what the military reaction <b><i>would, should, or could</i></b> be with respect to nuclear responses to those <i><b>framed as the aggressors.</b></i> The spoils of war that they hoped to gain would go up in mushroom clouds. What profit $$$ is there in that?
<br>
<br>I have no doubt that the PTB could have nuked us and blamed someone else in a very false-flag sense. They could have even kept with the meme of 19 Muslim extremists. And the nation and I would have been eager to believe that fairy-tale, too. I suspect that the PTB through its MIC institutions were squashing this -- <i>"9/11 censorship"</i> --, because the ground-swell from the FOX & CNN viewers to <i>"nuke them into a parking lot because (according to the fairy-tell) them foreign rag-head SOBs done nuked us first"</i> would be counter-productive with the war-profiteering.
<br>
<br>In fairness with the nuclear theme, the USA did <i>"nuke them foreign rag-head SOBs"</i> with depleted uranium weapons against the better judgment of just about anybody. [My mocking of the sentiments of FOX-style Hawks is not mine; it is an indication of how <i>"the enemy was de-humanized"</i> in the PSYOPS perpetrated on us.] The USA instigated rendition, torture, enemy combatant legal limbo status, indefinite detention without trial, drone killings, and a host of other autrocities against our nation's laws, its Constitution, and its moral & religious underpinnings.
<br>
<br>Nuking of Iraq and Afganistan via depleted uranium is another one of those dots in the trend line that says, <i>"if their morals & ethics permits them to nuke their alleged enemies, then a 9/11 nuclear Pearl Harbor event at the WTC isn't beneath them either,"</i> particularly if it furthers the PNAC goals.
<br>
<br>A gem to be plucked from all of this is that the PTB nuked us, and then went to great effort to tell us via the media and lots of <i>"authority figures"</i> it was something else: gravity driven pancaking pile-driver. Jonesian Thermite and Woodsian DEW were back-stops to prevent full nuclear revelation and its subsequent <i>"hair-on-fire panic."</i> And I believe it is why lots of <b><i>9/11 Censors</i></b> who were late to the game and should've (or did) known better but played ball anyway: to preserve status quo. And it was probably <i>"personally insentivized"</i> upon them as well in a <i>"deal with the devil"</i> sense. Those who didn't play didn't last very long in Congress.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_106');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 106 -->
<a name="x107"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x107" class="tiny">x107</a>
ruffadam & hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_107');">do not wish to engage with Senior El Once</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_107" style="display: none;">
<p>++++++++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45640">2013-08-08</a> <b>ruffadam</b>
<br>
<br>I will only post once here because I do not wish to engage with Senior El Once in an endless merry go round. This is what I have to say about the mini nuke theory.
<br>
<br>When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.
<br>
<br>No radiation = no nuke.
<br>
<br>++++++++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45692">2013-08-10</a> <b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>
<br>"No radiation = no nuke."
<br>
<br>Hmmm....brilliant in its simplicity. Isn't it.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>+++++++++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18277">2013-08-19</a> <b>ruffadam</b>
<br>
<br>My last comment on Amazon told Gretavo that I would not be continuing the discussion on his forum but that he could come here and discuss it. I am not going to his forum he will have to come here. The reason for that is that Gretavo is dishonest and is using various disinformation and evasion techniques in his arguments and I would not put it past him at all to post something, let me respond, and then edit what he originally said in order to make me look bad or crazy. If he comes here he will have no such options for trickery. So the ball is in his court. FTR here is my comment to Gretavo aka RT on amazon in which I make this point clear:
<br>
<br>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1P4ZYCITNJOZ3/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg3?ie=UTF8&asin=1489507833&cdForum=Fx201AN65PYHTJ8&cdPage=3&cdThread=Tx1U1LWHE144UL9&store=books#wasThisHelpful
<br>
<br>RT,
<br>
<br>Yeah it is "disruptive" and an "attack" to question Mr. Chandler and his Pentagon work. What a joke you are RT for even going down that road. To top it off you go right into an off topic rant about Jeff Hill and Chandlers association with him following your scolding of CIT and Judy Wood supporters for going off topic. Wow that is some hypocrisy there RT. At any rate my comments were not off topic to begin with since they focused on Ryan's book and specifics about the Pentagon position he espouses in the book. My other comments were directed towards Chandlers review of Ryans book. So stuff it RT you don't have a leg to stand on and neither does Chandler after calling us trolls and disinformation operatives and then having the gall to call us the disruptive ones. Hypocrisy all around it seems. The truth is neither of you guys can handle valid criticism. It isn't an "attack" to point out the massive gaping holes in Chandler's paper or Ryan's book it is valid and proper criticism of sloppy work that just happens to be dead wrong.
<br>
<br>I will not be continuing the conversation with you on your blog RT but you and Chandler and Ryan can come to Truth and Shadows and discuss the Kevin Ryan book review posted there if you wish. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/ Or you can talk about any of the other blog entries you wish. I don't expect to see any of you but the option is available and unless you flagrantly violate the rules of free speech with threats or nonsense like that you will not be censored in any way shape or form unlike the cess pit of censorship 911Blogger.
<br>
<br>——————————————————————————————
<br>So by posting this reply on his own blog which I said I was not going to Gretavo is again demonstrating dishonesty. He is attempting to paint me as the one running from debate when in reality it is him doing so.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_107');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 107 -->
<a name="x108"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x108" class="tiny">x108</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">could there be other instances of scope-limiting?</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_108" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Syed has found Mr. Ryan's premise on the Pentagon very wanting and offers lots of examples.
<br>
<br>If the Pentagon is one instance of scope-limiting leading to false conclusions in Mr. Ryan's work, could there be others?
<br>
<br>Lo and behold, there is! In his nano-thermite (NT) work done with Dr. Jones.
<br>
<br>The problems in that NT work has already been alluded to in my previous posting, but Mr. Ryan's Pentagon-misdirections only underscores the importance of revisiting the misdirections in that NT work.
<br>
<br>P.S. Mr. Rogue has not proved his hypnotic allegations of my <i>"smearing"</i> of Dr. Jones while at the same time avoiding my valid criticisms of Dr. Jones' and Mr. Ryan's work. Ergo, I've earned the right to have him STFU.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_108');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 108 -->
<a name="x109"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x109" class="tiny">x109</a>
HybridRogue1 & Adam Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_109');">Hit & Run</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-08</p>
<div id="sect_109" style="display: none;">
<p>++++++++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18248">2013-08-08</a> ruffadam
<br>
<br>Ok it is clear to me that Ethan does not wish to have a rational debate taking on one issue at a time and instead prefers to have a free for all where multiple unrelated questions and issues are thrown together so as to confuse and tangle up the whole discussion. I am not going to participate in that sort of circus because it leads nowhere. We can say flyover witness and he will respond with what about Betty Ong. We will say look at the Lloyd england story and he will respond with what about the witnesses who say the plane hit and around and around we go never resolving a single point. I have been there done that too damn many times I know how it goes.
<br>
<br>The other reason I am not going to deal with you Ethan is that you are apparently too lazy to look at the evidence under discussion, namely the CIT presentation. You are apparently put off by the 2 hours you would have to spend watching it and want us to put it into little bite size chunks for you, spending our time and effort to do that, when you should spend your time to do by simply watching the videos CIT produced. Nice! Well my answer to you is hell no, do it yourself, if you are a genuine truther you would want to look at the evidence, you would seek it out all on your own and consume it as fast as you could and then consider it and evaluate it. The fact that you can't be bothered to spend the two hours tells me a whole lot about you. By the way to really get a handle on all the evidence from P4T as well it would require more than two hours so I guess that cuts you out huh?
<br>
<br>Since you are not familiar with the evidence and apparently will not spend any time getting familiar with it I see no point whatsoever in any of us continuing to engage you on this topic. You literally don't know what we are talking about. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the pentagon evidence BEFORE you engage us and tell us all how wrong we are about it and Kevin Ryan.
<br>
<br>As to your statement that: "I stand by the approach to this book, and you all seem to at least agree that Ryan put together some worthwhile info on some of the most likely perpetrators."
<br>
<br>I repeat what I said above in response:
<br>
<br>"This statement and line of reasoning is a red herring on your part because we have to accept that the truth should be tailored to the sensibilities of the very people who refuse to accept the truth, the "911 deniers" as you call them. That is illogical and wrong in every possible way. The truth is the truth no matter how many believe it and no matter how many don't believe it. The moment you start tampering with that you have gone off the rails. Kevin Ryan has gone off the rails by taking this approach and so have you by accepting it as a valid approach. Keep in mind that this is the 9/11 TRUTH movement not the 9/11 Public Relations movement. Real truthers should accept only as much of the official story as is proven to be true by the evidence and not one tiny bit more. The entire premise of "accepting as much of the official account as possible" is as bogus as a three dollar bill and therefore the foundation of Kevin's book is cracked and I question if it is worth the paper it is printed on. I have to wonder now about everything he says in the book and I have to do my own research to verify each item in the book because Ryan cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the pentagon so what else is he misleading us on?"
<br>
<br>++++++++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45640">2013-08-08</a> ruffadam
<br>
<br>I will only post once here because I do not wish to engage with Senior El Once in an endless merry go round. This is what I have to say about the mini nuke theory.
<br>
<br>When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.
<br>
<br>No radiation = no nuke.
<br>
<br>++++++++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45692">2013-08-10</a> hybridrogue1
<br>
<br>"No radiation = no nuke."
<br>
<br>Hmmm....brilliant in its simplicity. Isn't it.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>+++++++++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18277">2013-08-19</a> ruffadam
<br>
<br>My last comment on Amazon told Gretavo that I would not be continuing the discussion on his forum but that he could come here and discuss it. I am not going to his forum he will have to come here. The reason for that is that Gretavo is dishonest and is using various disinformation and evasion techniques in his arguments and I would not put it past him at all to post something, let me respond, and then edit what he originally said in order to make me look bad or crazy. If he comes here he will have no such options for trickery. So the ball is in his court. FTR here is my comment to Gretavo aka RT on amazon in which I make this point clear:
<br>
<br>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1P4ZYCITNJOZ3/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg3?ie=UTF8&asin=1489507833&cdForum=Fx201AN65PYHTJ8&cdPage=3&cdThread=Tx1U1LWHE144UL9&store=books#wasThisHelpful
<br>
<br>RT,
<br>
<br>Yeah it is "disruptive" and an "attack" to question Mr. Chandler and his Pentagon work. What a joke you are RT for even going down that road. To top it off you go right into an off topic rant about Jeff Hill and Chandlers association with him following your scolding of CIT and Judy Wood supporters for going off topic. Wow that is some hypocrisy there RT. At any rate my comments were not off topic to begin with since they focused on Ryan's book and specifics about the Pentagon position he espouses in the book. My other comments were directed towards Chandlers review of Ryans book. So stuff it RT you don't have a leg to stand on and neither does Chandler after calling us trolls and disinformation operatives and then having the gall to call us the disruptive ones. Hypocrisy all around it seems. The truth is neither of you guys can handle valid criticism. It isn't an "attack" to point out the massive gaping holes in Chandler's paper or Ryan's book it is valid and proper criticism of sloppy work that just happens to be dead wrong.
<br>
<br>I will not be continuing the conversation with you on your blog RT but you and Chandler and Ryan can come to Truth and Shadows and discuss the Kevin Ryan book review posted there if you wish. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/ Or you can talk about any of the other blog entries you wish. I don't expect to see any of you but the option is available and unless you flagrantly violate the rules of free speech with threats or nonsense like that you will not be censored in any way shape or form unlike the cess pit of censorship 911Blogger.
<br>
<br>——————————————————————————————
<br>So by posting this reply on his own blog which I said I was not going to Gretavo is again demonstrating dishonesty. He is attempting to paint me as the one running from debate when in reality it is him doing so.
<br>
<br>+++++++++++ John Albanese via Adam Syed <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18308">2013-08-11</a>
<br>
<br><a href="http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1783/hzfo.jpg">http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1783/hzfo.jpg</a>
<br>
<br>There were numerous videos that were taken up close. In some of the videos you hear the actual rumbling of the collapse. No bangs. In the Naudet brothers documentary BOTH collapses were caught up VERY CLOSE. no bangs. In the live TV feed showing buildings 7's collapse - again - you hear the low frequency rumbling of the collapse - but no high frequency bangs.
<br>
<br>9/22 was perhaps one of the most documented historical events ever recorded. this was new York with millions of people - many carrying video devices - every major network with multiple camperas transfixed in the buildings. No explosions no bangs.
<br>
<br>Do u have any idea how loud a controlled demolition is? The idea that ambient noise - even screams - could drown it out is laughable.
<br>
<br>+++++++++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-45689">2013-08-10</a> hybridrogue1
<br>
<br>I think this comment is worth saving on this side of the fence for safe keeping
<br>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
</p>
<blockquote><p>I will only post once here because I do not wish to engage with Senior El Once in an endless merry go round. This is what I have to say about the mini nuke theory.
<br>
<br>When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.
<br>
<br>No radiation = no nuke.</p></blockquote>
<p>~ ruffadam <br>on August 9, 2013 at 1:12 am
<br>
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/">http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/</a>
<br>
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_109');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 109 -->
<a name="x110"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x110" class="tiny">x110</a>
HybridRogue : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">too much of a weasel to post here</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45718">2013-08-12</a></p>
<div id="sect_110" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: The following is written by Mr. HybridRogue, who I call triple-W, because he is too much of a weasel to post here and be challenged directly.}
<br>
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-45610">2013-08-08</a>
<br>
<br>"To assume that these twisted beams are the immediate result of the explosions is without foundation. You do not know that they were not bent and twisted while deep within a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them, nor do you consider the reports of it being "like a foundry" down in that mess."~Rogue
<br>
<br>"What was it that sustain the foundry like temperatures? Let me guess. I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling"~Senor
<br>
<br>Notice that Senor does not answer my point at all, but leaps to another topic entirely. And he never comes back to the point that he has no proof of when those beams were deformed, after his assertion it happened during the explosions. The whole post is at the URL below on December 26, 2012 at 11:28 am for you to see for yourself.~Rogue
<br>
<br>http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
<br>
<br>And the issue I just covered as an example of Senor leaping ahead spewing encyclopedic rhetoric, while never actually addressing a given point, is his constant MO. While I have attempted to get him to address head-on the known profile of a chemical demolition, and he fact that both the towers and Bldg7 have every single attribute. Senor will not address this point, but will insist that "we must take the whole event as the profile" – this is a clear and obvious dodge – we WILL take the whole event as profile, after we address the prime questions first. And one of those primary questions is, how is it that the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail, if it is not in fact, chemical explosive demolition?
<br>
<br>He simply insists that it couldn't have been because of the 'hot spots', but that is another issue that does NOT answer the primary question, but leaps ahead to his argument about hot-spots.
<br>
<br>The fact is that the profile of a nuclear destruction of the WTC would differ substantially from the known profile of the chemical demolition. One of these would be the tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation. The walls of the buildings would not contain this like normal light. This is also accompanied by an electromagnetic pulse which would have fused electronics for miles around the Trade Center. That would mean there would have been no videos or broadcasting of the events at WTC on 9/11.
<br>
<br>Senor's come back is always 'but these were tiny little nukes', that is also why they didn't make any radiation. The nuclear flash would take place if the explosion came from a device the size of a grape. If this had the power to turn the concrete to dust as Senor exaggerates, then the profiles of such a powerful device would be apparent.
<br>
<br>But Senor does attempt to address an EMP, but again he misframes the actual physical effects, claiming it can scorch steel and blow up cars. A powerful enough atomic blast can cause such damage. But that would be a blast that would have been even more visible. But more; all of the materials would be radioactive. Not some little bit of tritiated water in a basement, the whole place would have been hot with real radiation. All of Senor's pleading otherwise is simply unmitigated bullshit.
<br>
<br>And this is a discussion about the profile of the destruction of the WTC – the actual explosive event.
<br>
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_110');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 110 -->
<a name="x111"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x111" class="tiny">x111</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_111');">lives up to the <i>"weasel"</i></a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45719">2013-08-12</a></p>
<div id="sect_111" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45719">2013-08-12</a>
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/#comment-45720">2013-08-12</a> {Expect it to be deleted or not pass moderation.}
<br>
<br>
<br>Triple-Dubya lives up to the <i>"weasel"</i> that I append to his initials. It starts out that he is too weasely to post on my thread, posting <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-45610">here instead 2013-08-08</a>. He charges:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Notice that Senor does not answer my point at all, but leaps to another topic entirely. And he never comes back to the point that he has no proof of when those beams were deformed, after his assertion it happened during the explosions.</p></blockquote>
<p>Triple-W previous wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>To assume that these twisted beams are the immediate result of the explosions is without foundation. You do not know that they were not bent and twisted while deep within a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them, nor do you consider the reports of it being "like a foundry" down in that mess.</p></blockquote>
<p>There are four main pieces of evidence the the weasel tries to brush aside by not addressing specifically: (1) the arches <a href="">A</a> & <a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/DSCN0941_s.jpg">B</a>, (2) the horseshoe <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hanger17/core4.jpg">C</a> & <a href="http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/image/horseshoe_r1_c2.jpg">D</a>, (3) the <a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/steel11_hires_s.jpg">twisted-up stuff E</a>, and (4) the steel doobies <a href="http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg">F</a> and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/ ">G</a>.
<br>
<br>In order to create the horse-shoe <a href="http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/image/horseshoe_r1_c2.jpg">D</a>, the physical space needs to be available for one end of the beam to be bent to "kiss" the other end, after of course something heated its mid-section to be bent. That physical space would not have been available once the pile had come crashing down and was sitting smoldering.
<br>
<br>Just as importantly, take a look at the multiple examples of what I call a "steel doobies". In <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/ ">G</a>, it stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image (I'm told this is Liberty Street, which means it got thrown out of the towers that distance as well.) The "steel doobie" is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands. It was ~not~ found under the rubble. In fact, steel doobie <a href="http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg">F</a> wasn't under the rubble either.
<br>
<br>So, one can't malframe the discussion, as attempted by Triple-W, that <i>"a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them"</i> deformed them into what they are. In fact, Triple-W has no explanation for how chemical explosives with or without thermite could make this doobie.
<br>
<br>What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a "steel doobie"? Hint: the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors. The "steel doobie" clearly shows that violent horizontal forces were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of "steel doobie" and its ejection so far away.
<br>
<br>Triple-W's game playing:
</p>
<blockquote><p>And the issue I just covered as an example of Senor leaping ahead spewing encyclopedic rhetoric, while never actually addressing a given point, is his constant MO.</p></blockquote>
<p>Or maybe this proves Triple-W's MO in not addressing the point: arches, horseshoes, and steel doobies!
</p>
<blockquote><p>While I have attempted to get him to address head-on the known profile of a chemical demolition, and he fact that both the towers and Bldg7 have every single attribute.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, they don't have the complete known profile of chemical demoltion. The decimation of those buildings was too quiet to be chemical demolition. The damage to vehicles on West Broadway in the parking lot (and not to flags, people, paper) could not have been achieved by <i>hot-and-spicy burning thermitic dust from the towers.</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Senor will not address this point, but will insist that "we must take the whole event as the profile" – this is a clear and obvious dodge – we WILL take the whole event as profile, after we address the prime questions first. </p></blockquote>
<p>I addressed the point... again. Ho-hum. It is Triple-W who does the dodge. Been smokin' a doobie, but not a steel one.
</p>
<blockquote><p>And one of those primary questions is, how is it that the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail, if it is not in fact, chemical explosive demolition?</p></blockquote>
<p>Notice the hypnotic suggestion of Triple-W: <i>"the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail."</i> Again, it does not.
</p>
<blockquote><p>The fact is that the profile of a nuclear destruction of the WTC would differ substantially from the known profile of the chemical demolition. One of these would be the tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation. The walls of the buildings would not contain this like normal light. </p></blockquote>
<br>
<br><i>The tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation?</i> What type of detonation is Triple-W trying to frame this as being? Is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? Triple-W assumes too much, because with the configuration that I have outlined, the structure -- both inner core and outer wall assemblies -- would shield the tactical nuclear detonation.
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>This is also accompanied by an electromagnetic pulse which would have fused electronics for miles around the Trade Center. That would mean there would have been no videos or broadcasting of the events at WTC on 9/11.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is Triple-W spinning like a top and lying. The EMP would have been mitigated by many factors, like (1) the design of the device in terms of tactical yield, (2) the placement of the device, like all of the steel surrounding where they would have placed the device plus the outer wall assemblies, (3) debris, and (4) the distance from the detonation.
<br>
<br>The fact is, of the small EMP produced, much of could be contained. What wasn't, I speculate, slipped out through window slits or gaps in the debris and cause the vehicle damage on West Broadway and the parking lot. (Remember, the damaged vehicles are evidence that Triple-W can't explain reasonably, and for sure doesn't match the profile of chemical explosives.)
<br>
<br>The electronic devices were a significant distance from the towers and out of the range of the minimized EMP.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Senor's come back is always 'but these were tiny little nukes', that is also why they didn't make any radiation. The nuclear flash would take place if the explosion came from a device the size of a grape. If this had the power to turn the concrete to dust as Senor exaggerates, then the profiles of such a powerful device would be apparent.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, my come-back is <i>"these were neutron bombs whose design and yield are different from little nukes of the run-of-the-mill fission or fusion variety."</i> The neutron profiles are apparent.
</p>
<blockquote><p>But Senor does attempt to address an EMP, but again he misframes the actual physical effects, claiming it can scorch steel and blow up cars.</p></blockquote>
<p>*BEEP* *BEEP* Nope, weasel. You do the misframing. I never said that the EMP would <i>"scorch steel and blow up cars."</i> What I said, and you failed to understand, was that EMP would induce electric currents in steel (and not flags, trees, leaves, paper, or people). The currents would heat the steel, and if great enough, that heat would cause things like paint, seals, and plastic handles to burn. Get enough things on fire on a vehicle, and the gas tank could blow up.
<br>
<br>However, more telling is <a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html">EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony</a>, where a car's door popped right off its hinges and laterally outwards and actually smacked her into the wall. I could see that happening with EMP heating the door and expanding it within its door frame to the point of popping off.
</p>
<blockquote><p>A powerful enough atomic blast can cause such damage. But that would be a blast that would have been even more visible. But more; all of the materials would be radioactive.</p></blockquote>
<p>Weasel efforts from Triple-W. He completely neglects the radiation signature of a neutron device: primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived -- contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.
<br>
<br>Triple-W doesn't have the government reports that measured systematically and promptly alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, tabulated the results, and prove they were zero, so he can't claim the framing of radioactive levels as he does.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Not some little bit of tritiated water in a basement, the whole place would have been hot with real radiation. All of Senor's pleading otherwise is simply unmitigated bullshit.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ho-hum, Triple-W. The little bit of tritiated water was (1) 55 times greater than expected background levels, (2) wasn't measured everywhere -- not the hot-spots or even close, (3) wasn't measured in a timely or systematic fashion before dilution and dissipation.
<br>
<br>If Triple-W does not want to rationally go down neutron bomb avenue, then he should have Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan explain:
</p>
<blockquote><p>What was it that sustain the foundry like temperatures?</p></blockquote>
<p>I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling. Mr. Rogue-the-weasel has no explanation.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_111');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 111 -->
<a name="x112"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x112" class="tiny">x112</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">No radiation = no nuke?</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45717">2013-08-12</a></p>
<div id="sect_112" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45717">2013-08-12</a>
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/#comment-45721">2013-08-12</a> {Expect it to be deleted or not pass moderation.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
<br>
<br>For the moment, I will set aside your trollish hit-and-run behavior and its claims that you will limit yourself to <b>one</b> posting that itself cranks another spin out of the <i>"endless merry-go-round of Señor El Once."</i> [You will not be held to your self-proclaimed limit, but you will be made fun of.]
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.
<br>
<br>No radiation = no nuke.</p></blockquote>
<p>First of all, you malframe the nuclear devices, Mr. Ruff. They were not <b><i>"mini-nukes"</i></b>, because without further clarification (demonstrating your understanding of nuclear devices) these imply to the science-challenged readers "fission or fusion" devices that have much larger explosive yields and leave the kind of radiation signature that you're foisting up as a red herring.
<br>
<br>The discussion is about <b><i>neutron devices</i></b>, which are a variant of fusion, expel the lions share of its nuclear yield as energetic neutrons, can direct those neutrons and subsequently the blast and heat wave, and do ~not~ leave significant levels of long-lasting, lingering alpha, beta, or gamma radiation. If not measured promptly, such radiation from the neutron devices depletes quickly and would not be measured at all.
<br>
<br>Secondly, you malframe the radiation argument by challenging me to find <i>"valid documentation that ANY nuclear device that does NOT emit radiation post detonation."</i>
<br>
<br>No, no, no. You obviously did not read <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/">the article above</a> or <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/">its predecessor</a>, nor have you googled <b><i>"neutron bombs"</i></b> (or "Big Ivan").
<br>
<br>The search isn't for a nuclear device that <i>"does NOT emit radiation post detonation."</i> No, no, no. The search is for a nuclear device that emits radiation in a targeted fashion and does not leave <i>long-lasting, lingering levels</i> of alpha, beta, or gamma radiation.
<br>
<br>For the duration of this paragraph, accept the premise of <b><i>neutron devices</i></b> and assume this was the PTB's plan. To be successful, they would have to limit access to the WTC: no errant measuring devices or cameras. (Issue "fake" badges that don't work for radiation.) They would have to run out the clock as best they could in terms of keeping investigators and scientific researchers at bay while giving time for alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation to deplete and for tritium to dissipate. And then they would have to manage the reports. Meanwhile, though, they couldn't keep the 1st responders out, and like a canary-in-a-coalmine, the rapid onset of poor health of the 1st responders resembled that of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff, of course I can't prove <i>"measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero"</i> for the same reason <b>you can't prove the opposite</b> of <i>"~NO~ measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero."</i>
<br>
<br>(1) If a crew of researchers was permitted to make prompt radiation measurements in a systematic fashion all around the WTC;
<br>(2) If those measurements were tabulated into a report (with nothing omitted);
<br>(3) If (nuclear) scientists provided analysis of those tabulated findings in that report (without scientific sleight of hand);
<br>(4) That report was buried and never made public.
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>M-16 armed military security dropped down quickly around the WTC. If you popped out an errant Geiger Counter or camera, those devices were confiscated, and you were ordered in an unfriendly fashion to <i>"leave and don't ever come back."</i>
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>Mayor Bloomberg even tried to pass a law that made possession of Geiger Counters illegal in NYC.
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>the NIST report on the WTC-1 & 2 stopped its analysis at the initiation of the collapse. How long was it delayed?
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>the 9/11 Commission report didn't even mention WTC-7. How long was it delayed?
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>the EPA issued false proclamations into the <i>"healthiness"</i> of the NYC air regarding all of the pollutants released in the WTC destruction.
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>the FTC destroyed CDs and tapes recording the actual conversations of air traffic controllers.
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>the military brass changed their story several times regarding responsiveness of the air defenses.
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>the NYC Fire Investigators were upset by the destruction of evidence and that they weren't permitted to test for conventional explosives (or anything else, like the proof of the radiation that you seek.)
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>the NIST report of WTC-7 in its DRAFT form didn't mention the observable free-fall and in its FINAL form analyzed only the first 18 floors of its demise, broke that into 3 stages, admitted that stage 2 over 8 floors (100+ feet) was indistinguishable from gravitational accelaration, and then concluded with a straight-face that these three stages when averaged together were slower than free-fall. How long was it delayed?
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>the government commissioned a study to speculate on possible "civilian" sources for tritium that was sampled ~LATE~ (as in "not promptly") in the run-off from the WTC after much delution. The sampling was also not systematically performed in lots of locations, was not performed at any of the hot-spots, and was in fact HALTED because they were measuring miniscule quantities that were well below the EPA threshold on what is considered safe for humans ALTHOUGH in cases 55 times the expected trace background levels. They speculated into aircraft exit signs, sites from munitions stored at the WTC, and time pieces worn by victims to account for the elevated tritium levels, although very imperfectly.
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>the USGS did collect in a systematic fashion dust samples. As far as I know, these samples did not contain nano-thermite. No nuclear physicists from the government or any institution -- including Dr. Jones -- studied the correlation between elements in the dust. Jeff Prager did and noted they correlate as proof of nuclear fission. (Think <i>"fission triggered fusion configured as a neutron bomb."</i>)
<br>
<br><b>Ah yes, </b>Dr. Jones provides no analysis of the USGS dust sample data so therefore saw no correlations in the elements indicating nuclear hijinx. Dr. Jones accepted without question as being the totality of the tritium story at WTC the flawed government commissioned study & its speculation into potential tritiums and stilts this into his no nukes conclusions, but never once mentioned or considered <b>neutron devices</b> and the variety of ways they can be configured. Dr. Jones & Mr. Ryan speculate that thermite might be responsible for six energetic spikes from the hot, under-rubble fires, but does not speculate into what maintained the hot-spots between spikes.
<br>
<br>Here is a recent quote from you, Mr. Ruff <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18277">2013-08-10</a>, used here to pre-emptively shut up Triple-Dubya. Substitute "Dr. Jones" for "Chandler" and "Ryan":
</p>
<blockquote><p>It isn't an "attack" to point out the massive gaping holes in [Chandler's] paper or [Ryan's] book it is valid and proper criticism of sloppy work that just happens to be dead wrong.</p></blockquote>
<p>The point of all the <b>"ah yes"</b> items was to demonstrate examples of government pressure applied to agencies charged with writing reports and to get those reports stilted. Or to get them suppressed.
<br>
<br>Again, I ask, where is the government report that systematically & <b>promptly</b> samples for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, tabulates those measurements, and offers analysis that concludes <i>"no radiation"</i>? Give me the sample numbers taken closest to the hot-spots.
<br>
<br>And in case you were wondering, tritium is not an output of conventional controlled demolition with or without nano-thermite; it is, however, an output of neutron bombs (and fusion devices).
<br>
<br>And what about the damage to vehicles along West Broadway and in the caticorner car park? For the specific (e.g., metal) and targeted (e.g., line-of-sight) nature, they can't be attributed to hot-and-spicy clouds of burning thermite.
<br>
<br>The Banker's Trust Building had facade damage from 9/11 and was repaired. Before occupancy, it was torn down. Why? Maybe because errant neutron radiation can lead to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrittlement">embrittlement of steel.</a>
<br>
<br>Over the weekend 2013-08-11, <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18308">Adam Syed posted</a> something from <a href="http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1783/hzfo.jpg">John Albanese</a>, a denier of controlled demolition (using conventional chemical explosives including thermite.)
</p>
<blockquote><p>There were numerous videos that were taken up close. In some of the videos you hear the actual rumbling of the collapse. No bangs. In the Naudet brothers documentary BOTH collapses were caught up VERY CLOSE. no bangs. In the live TV feed showing buildings 7's collapse - again - you hear the low frequency rumbling of the collapse - but no high frequency bangs.
<br>
<br>9/11 was perhaps one of the most documented historical events ever recorded. this was new York with millions of people - many carrying video devices - every major network with multiple camperas transfixed in the buildings. No explosions no bangs.
<br>
<br>Do u have any idea how loud a controlled demolition is? The idea that ambient noise - even screams - could drown it out is laughable.</p></blockquote>
<p>Dr. Sunder in his NIST reports and interviews made a similar argument with a straight-face: <i>"insufficient decibel levels for controlled demolition (using chemical explosives)."</i> Make a note of how Dr. Sunder and Mr. Albanese dubiously frame the argument, which they want the science-challenged to conclude means: <i>"no controlled demolition; gravity did it by itself; no energy was added."</i> In reality, energy had to have been added, but it wasn't in the form of loud, chemical, conventional explosives. It was a controlled demolition, but who is to say how loud tactical <b>neutron bombs</b> would be by comparison?
<br>
<br>On the surface, your request to <i>"show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero"</i> seemed somewhat rational and even gets <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45692">2013-08-10</a> Triple-Dubya's panties into a wad <i>"Hmmm....brilliant in its simplicity. Isn't it?"</i>
<br>
<br>However, if dust samples can be collected in a systematic fashion (and reveal nuclear evidence) and if tritium measurements even in a haphazard fashion reveals elevated levels, then where is the prompt, systematic, complete and total collection of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation measurements? [Guess what? Any anomalous readings debunks the "gravity-driven pile driver" of the OCT, as well as conventional, chemical explosives with or without thermite. Ergo, shouldn't be a surprise that any such report -- if it existed -- would be quickly buried.]
<br>
<br>
<br>The neutron nuclear DEW primise does not live or die without a report on radiation. And even if a report were coughed up supposedly providing tabulated data samples with consistently no radiation (particularly next to hot-spots), is the track record really there that it could be trusted? The sum total of all of the other evidence keeps neutron nuclear DEW devices in play as explaining 9/11 at the WTC.
<br>
<br>Here's something you wrote to RT, I believe, on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18248">2013-08-08</a>. Change the focus to be <i>neutron nuclear DEW</i> research and apply it to yourself:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You are apparently put off by the 2 hours you would have to spend [researching neutron nuclear DEW] and want us to put it into little bite size chunks for you [...] Nice! Well my answer to you is hell no, do it yourself, if you are a genuine truther you would want to look at the evidence, you would seek it out all on your own and consume it as fast as you could and then consider it and evaluate it. The fact that you can't be bothered to spend the two hours tells me a whole lot about you.</p></blockquote>
<p>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_112');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 112 -->
<a name="x113"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x113" class="tiny">x113</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_113');">where is the report that documents "no radiation"</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-18381">2013-08-13</a></p>
<div id="sect_113" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
<br>
<br>I'm not sure if you subscribed to the comments section under the article <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2">"9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (2)"</a> where you posted a hit-and-run comment, trying to avoid my carousel. Therefore, I call your attention to <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45717">my 2013-08-12 response</a> here.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff, you said "no radiation = no nuke" and that I must <i>"show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero"</i> before you'll consider nuclear-anything as an option.
<br>
<br>This is a little unfair. If the PTB knew they were going to use nukes, this is the one report above all others that would never see the light of day.
<br>
<br>Moreover, it can easily be turned around with: <i>"Where is the report that tabulates the timely & thorough measurements of radiation at the WTC -- all measurements at zero or background levels -- and conclusively says there was no radiation?"</i> It ain't available. Dr. Jones never had a conniption fit about it being MIA.
<br>
<br>At this late date if it were to pop up, would we trust it? Had it been published decades earlier (and maybe we missed it) and in light of all of the other stilted reports (<a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45717">examples in my 2013-08-12 response</a>), would it merit being trusted? Would it stand up as being a model of scientific work, or would it be torn apart like so many other 9/11 "scientific reports"?
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff, you also neatly do a number in malframing things as <b>"mini-nukes"</b> that have their own connotations and radiation signatures that would be different from the proposed neutron devices. When radiation measurements are not done systematically, thoroughly, and above all promptly, -- when the clock is purposely run out --, such expected nuclear radiation from neutron devices would have quickly dissipated and not be there... but not quickly enough to prevent 1st responders from illnesses akin to Hiroshima.
<br>
<br>Ergo, your charge to find a nuclear device that has no radiation is malframed. All have radiation signatures, the question is: which ones produce only low-level and short-lived radiation? Neutron devices.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_113');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 113 -->
<a name="x114"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x114" class="tiny">x114</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">Reading a Book</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/#comment-18379">2013-08-13</a></p>
<div id="sect_114" style="display: none;">
<p>Ah yes, maybe parallels with Dr. Judy Wood are to be drawn regarding <i>"the BOO-oook! Read the fookin' BOOK!"</i>
<br>
<br>Don't have <i>"the fookin' BOO-ooook"</i> [from Kevin Ryan]?!! Then get it and <i>"read the fookin' BOOK"</i>, preferably before trying to put together <i>fookin' BOO-oook</i> reports about it.
<br>
<br>I recently purchased the Kindle version of Kevin Ryan's <i>"BOO-oook!"</i> I am now <i>"reading the fookin' BOO-oook,"</i> but ain't too far and expect it to be a slow-go, because I got a life. Using a Kindle while family camping just don't feel right. But it also don't feel right to have a dead-tree book on my shelves for years after cracking its cover.
<br>
<br>So far, so good. No issues. His preface and intro are preaching to a choir boy.
<br>
<br>I commend Mr. Adam Syed for having purchased and read the book before offering his review. I hope to be able to follow in his noble footsteps.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_114');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 114 -->
<a name="x115"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x115" class="tiny">x115</a>
Adam_Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_115');">I am not getting his book</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-13</p>
<div id="sect_115" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Adam_Ruff</b> <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/#comment-18383">August 13, 2013 at 6:11 pm</a>
<br>
<br>SEO,
<br>
<br>You said: “So far, so good. No issues.” Well how about the whole premise of the book that says: “the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to “accept as much of the official account as possible.”
<br>
<br>How about that giant elephant in the room? You see no issue with that huh? WOW just WOW.
<br>
<br>By the way I do not want to put any money in Ryan’s pocket which is one of the reasons I am not getting his book. If Ryan or anyone else thinks Adam Syed’s review is wrong then they are not speaking up about it that is for sure. Until I have reason to NOT trust Adam’s review I am basing my comments on it.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_115');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 115 -->
<a name="x116"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x116" class="tiny">x116</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">Got ignorance much?</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/#comment-18402">2013-08-14</a></p>
<div id="sect_116" style="display: none;">
<p>Dearest Mr. Adam Ruff,
<br>
<br><b>"Got ignorance much?"</b> Because, man, you are exceptional at displaying it. Paraphrased:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"I am such a high and mighty Truther that I don't even have to crack a book, much less read it, in order to be able to pass my holy judgment and declare it unfit for consumption. And this concludes my book report sans having read the book."</p></blockquote>
<p>To repeat your actual quote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You see no issue with that huh? WOW just WOW. </p></blockquote>
<p>Sure, I'm allowed to say <i>"so far, so good"</i> because in my reading (now somewhere in Chapter 2) I have literally not come across the context for the cherry-picked quote that has your panties in a wad:
</p>
<blockquote><p>the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to <i>"accept as much of the official account as possible."</i></p></blockquote>
<p>I'm not saying that I won't find any fault with Mr. Ryan's work (or that cherry-picked premise). I'm already a bit annoyed at the style of writing that resembles in some ways a fiction mystery writer, where he writes eloquent passages that foreshadow some nefarious connection that he'll make in detail in some later chapter. I'm unhappy with some of his innuendo like into Rumsfeld's two years at an investment company in the early 1960's before a tour in Congress or into Cheney's deferment years where he <i>"had other priorities."</i> I would have preferred to have substantiation right then and there, but this is all pre-mature nit-picking at this point; Mr. Ryan might pull it off. I am more annoyed with my ancient & faulty-scroll-button Kindle that makes it difficult to follow footnotes that I usually love to read.
<br>
<br>At least I am open minded enough to give this a go.
<br>
<br>You, Mr. Ruff? Won't read Mr. Ryan's book. Won't read Dr. Wood's book (to strip that disinformation vehicle of still valid and useful nuggets of truth.) Won't consider a nuclear 9/11 without an official government report that states <i>"alpha, beta, and gamma radiation were way out of whack,"</i> the very same report that coincidently is missing-in-action for documenting the <i>"alpha, beta, and gamma radiation were at or below expected trace background levels"</i> to alledgely prove <i>"no radiation."</i>
<br>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait#comment-18386">Dr. Fetzer writes 2013-08-14 on that neu nookiedoo theme</a> but also applicable to Mr. Ryan's (and Dr. Wood's) work:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Ruffadam is a great example of a core problem within 9/11 research: those who take strong stands and shoot off their mouths when they haven't done their home work and don't know what they are talking about.</p></blockquote>
<p>Maybe if you put on lipstick and kiss Mr. Ryan's ass, he'll comp you a copy of his book so you don't have to worry about putting money into Mr. Ryan's pocket and instead would be taking it out of his pockets.
<br>
<br>I'm such a nut, I've been known to purchase people copies of a controversial book so that -- TOGETHER -- we can get on the same literal page and discuss it point-by-point in a rational manner and perhaps come to be on the same figurative page. [Mr. Chandler, Mr. Shack, Mr. Jayhan, Mr. Cole, and dearest Mr. Rogue have failed this simple test of their integrity and objectivity.] You, Mr. Ruff, have already given ample evidence that you would fail it, too, so I'm not even extending the offer. <i>"Pearls before swine"</i> and all that jazz, ya know?
<br>
<br>Nothing quite like shooting a hole into the foot of your 9/11 Truther reputation so handily, eh, Mr. Ruff?
<br>
<br><i>"Read the fookin' BOO-oook, or STFU with your lame-ass fookin' book reports."</i>
<br>
<br>P.S. This response is no reflection -- positive or negative -- on Mr. Syed's book review. Maybe I'll find myself in Ethan's camp and validating Mr. Ryan's approach. One thing for sure, if Mr. Ryan's book unravels to be just another <i>"disinformation vehicle"</i>, I'll be found stripping it of re-useable nuggets of truth (some of which have been found in my reading to date) and be glad of my objective efforts.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_116');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 116 -->
<a name="x117"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x117" class="tiny">x117</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_117');">a tighter, more restrictive use of language</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-18404">2013-08-14</a></p>
<div id="sect_117" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Dr. Fetzer,
<br>
<br>Nice posting. Thanks for the quotes from Jeff Prager and the links to your work.
<br>
<br>In the future (as in the past), I recommend a tighter, more restrictive use of language with detailed explanations. Otherwise, the public's perception & common (but weak) understanding of some word or phrase used by you could cause confusion. Or as I have seen, it opens the door for a straw-man attack by an opponent hinging on the fuzziness of those words or phrases.
<br>
<br>An example is when you wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p> There is ample proof that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of a sophisticated arrangement of micro and mini nukes.</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>A possible improvement to this wording would be:
<p></p>
<blockquote><p> There is ample proof that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of a sophisticated arrangement of micro and mini nukes <i>configured as neutron bombs that direct the energy in a strategic manner and having differing radiation signatures.</i></p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>//<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_117');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 117 -->
<a name="x118"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x118" class="tiny">x118</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">the best way to challenge the official story</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/#comment-18414">2013-08-14</a></p>
<div id="sect_118" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Syed,
<br>
<br>Thanks for the hint in where it is located. Does the printed book have preface material in roman numerals, because that would assist in me locating it? Kindle doesn't do page numbers in any shape or form that correlates to the paper document. Also, where Kindle opens a "book" upon first reading isn't always predictable (e.g., it wasn't the title page.)
<br>
<br>Would you be so kind as to also indicate what chapter it was in and how close to a bolded subheading it may have been? Maybe the first sentence of the paragraph containing it?
<br>
<br>Maybe Kindle skipped over it, or I read over it, or I ain't got to it yet.
<br>
<br>This being said and assuming it was me who missed it, I'll take that cherry-picked quote -- <i>"the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to accept as much of the official account as possible"</i> -- and place it up on my "belief fence" that straddles "validated" and "invalidated" in the hopes that my further reading will nudge it to one side or the other.
<br>
<br>In my present ignorant state (that slowly changes each opportunity I get to sit in <i>"the throne room sanctuary"</i> to sneak in reads), I will say that Mr. Ethan did have a point. Making too much hay out of this premise can be misleading.
<br>
<br>By that, I mean that in discussing 9/11 with others, often, you've only got so many minutes to punch significant holes in the foundation of the belief in the official story before interests & opportunity fade. I have often couched my 9/11 discussions <i>"assuming 19 hijackers got on the planes, assuming the planes even took off, assuming the planes flew the routes proposed, assuming this or that, here's a major anomaly..."</i>
<br>
<br>It really can be a useful strategy to <i>"accept as much of the official account as possible"</i> in order to target large low-hanging fruit elsewhere. Dispensing with that proves the first crack in the pile of lies; it opens the audience's mind to an instance of deceit that they previously may not have been aware of. If the discussion flow merits, you can later double-back and explain why the assumption was actually invalid.
<br>
<br>The gist of this tactic is that by first finding common ground with the audience (or debate partner), you work from various angles to take out or unravel the rug beneath their feet, which can sometimes be more effective than systematically starting in a far corner and sequentially unraveling a row at a time in painstaking details and well outside their interests or scope of expertise. When you unravel what is directly beneath their feet (e.g., where they are coming from, their interests, their knowledge, their paradigm) and then unravel it everywhere they subsequently step (e.g., flow of the discussion), maybe some hope exists that their beliefs will trip, instill reflection, and lead to a change. [Alas, not my experience of late on FBI_book.]
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[Kevin Ryan] doesn't really give much of an explanation other than for the sake of "simplicity." ... Take it to mean what you will.</p></blockquote>
<p>I find Mr. Ryan a bit wordy in a crafty, teasing sense with lots of fluff, innuendo, and cliff-hanger foreshadowing, mostly because I'm part of the choir maybe not his primary audience (and I'm still not very far.) I know how intro material sometimes gets written (like after you've figured out where the rest of the chapters are going) and re-written (like after lots of suggestions by others) such that it can become a different beast from the rest of the work.
<br>
<br>Obviously, if I've read over it and missed it, it didn't impress me in context to be foreshadowing a major flaw in his work... but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise; your analysis already taints my perceptions.
<br>
<br>Because I'm still so early in the book, I can't really say where I've found instances of that initial <i>"accept as much as possible of the official account"</i> premise leading me astray. I'm still mulling <i>"deep state"</i>, <i>"Continuity of Governmnent"</i> name dropping, various dangling of potential connections between major players, the edited history of Rumsfeld & Cheney, and other things that he teases me with in the early chapters to be validated either in later chapters or from exploring the sources of his footnotes.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_118');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 118 -->
<a name="x119"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x119" class="tiny">x119</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_119');">consulted with his <b>bird's brain</b></a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/#comment-18418">2013-08-14</a></p>
<div id="sect_119" style="display: none;">
<blockquote><p>I can say as well as far as Judy Wood's book is concerned, that it is simply false advertising to claim that she addressed anything unique in her book that was not already on her website. One did not need her book to address her assertions. And one did not need to pretend to be giving a "book report" in order to criticize her "science".</p></blockquote>
<p>I guess Mr. Rogue has consulted with his <b>bird's brain</b> in regurgitating this tripe, because he's already admitted <b>not having read</b> Dr. Judy Wood's <i>"disinformation vehicle"</i> to completion. He has produced nothing that indicates any form of a detailed analysis or review. His criticism has always relied on others (e.g., Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Legge) yet from well before the publication of her book and much of that skewed (e.g., <i>Smash 'em up Derby: Disinformation vehicle versus Disinformation Vehicle</i>). And he has <b>violently defaced</b> that 500-page full-color, hard-cover book for the benefit of his bird's poop leaving nothing that he can refer back to today in order to substantiate his assertions.
<br>
<br>When accepting the free gift, he was told of the overlap with her website, but also of the differences which were many -- some good, some bad. No false advertising given, just faulty expectations & analysis on his part. And he even expressed gratitude at one point for the consolidation of destruction images and correlation to map positions in her hefty tome.
<br>
<br>Yep, it is easy for me to call her book a <i>"disinformation vehicle"</i> while at the same time blatantly stealing her hubcaps and wheels, and chopping & stripping sundry valid & viable materials from within for re-use in another jalopy. Mr. Rogue's inability and unwillingness to do the same speaks -- like a rapper from a low-rider -- <b>volumes about him.</b>
</p>
<blockquote><p>The charges made here against the larger portion of the commentators here, that we lack integrity, or are in some way hypocritical for criticizing Mr Ryan for his out of hand dismissal of the Pentagon flyover hypothesis is preposterous and based in self indulgent arrogance.</p></blockquote>
<p>I don't know about the integrity of others, but I do know about Mr. Rogue's. Hypocritical for sure. If Mr. Ryan can be faulted for <i>"his out of hand dismissal of the Pentagon flyover hypothesis,"</i> does he have other work requiring a revisit with a more critical eye? Yes, can we say: <i>"nano-thermite?"</i> Co-authored with Dr. Jones (lots of issues with his work on NT not adding up & his no nukes conclusions not considering neutron devices) and Dr. Jenkins (the very one with whose outdated stilted work Mr. Rogue tries to debunk Dr. Wood's more recent work). If Mr. Rogue doesn't see a pattern, he isn't paying attention.
<br>
<br>P.S. Kindle isn't in hand. Maybe later tonight after bedtime stories. Maybe on this weekend's camping trip.
<br>
<br><b><i>Woes to us all</i></b> that Mr. Rogue has fallen from such artistic cinematic heights on the California coast near the turn of the century to the level of a starving artist a decade later within the nation's bread-basket & bible belt, for his inability to afford to stream lengthy videos or to purchase (or acquire) books to which he might read and offer his witty, first-hand, and knowledgeable commentary. We are so handicapped.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_119');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 119 -->
<a name="x120"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x120" class="tiny">x120</a>
HybridRogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">slurmiester maximus</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-14</p>
<div id="sect_120" style="display: none;">
<p>++++++++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18419">2013-08-14</a>
<br>
<br>I hope a simple fuck you will do for our slurmiester maximus.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>++++++++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-45812">2013-08-14</a>
<br>
<br>>"I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling. Mr. Rogue-the-weasel has no explanation."~By: Señor El Once on August 12, 2013 at 3:37 pm
<br>
<br>. . . . .
<br>More sludge from Maxifuckanus' cesspool. I have made an articulated explanation for the hot-spots. This involves the FACT that the thermate reactions contain their own source of oxygen needed in an under rubble scenario. It is another blatant lie from this defaming scoundrel. That he will not accept such an explanation is not the same as my not having made one available.
<br>
<br>Maxipad wants to pretend that the rubble pile is some stable landscape that isn't shifting and changing throughout the period we are discussing. This false view dismisses all of the possibilities of embers reigniting areas that were once kept from the smoldering fires until a shift or collapse put the two potentials together.
<br>
<br>I speak to the allegory of a fireplace wherein the logs may be smoldering until something weakens and gives way and the smoldering embers alight some new found fuel {unburned wood} and a flame comes up again. Or a change in the wind, sending oxygen to a smoldering area giving flame anew.
<br>
<br>This Maximum prevaricator dampens his own imagination whenever it suits his fancy to give wieght to his tepid and forced argumentation.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>++++++++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-45837">2013-08-15</a>
<br>
<br>>"Woes to us all that Mr. Rogue has fallen from such artistic cinematic heights on the California coast near the turn of the century to the level of a starving artist a decade later within the nation's bread-basket & bible belt, for his inability to afford to stream lengthy videos or to purchase (or acquire) books to which he might read and offer his witty, first-hand, and knowledgeable commentary. We are so handicapped."~Slurmiester Maximus
<br>
<br>>"Weasel efforts from Triple-W. He completely neglects the radiation signature of a neutron device: primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived — contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety."~Maxasshole
<br>
<br>On the contrary: "A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device." Tritium has a relatively short half-life, but it is not days or weeks, it is 12.32 years. Directing "the neutrons upwards" by what mechanism? Radiation means to radiate, that is to travel outward in all directions.
<br>
<br>Neutrons are the only type of ionizing radiation that can make other objects, or material, radioactive. This process, called neutron activation, is the primary method used to produce radioactive sources for use in medical, academic, and industrial applications. Even comparatively low speed thermal neutrons, will cause neutron activation (in fact, they cause it more efficiently). Neutrons do not ionize atoms in the same way that charged particles such as protons and electrons do (by the excitation of an electron), because neutrons have no charge. It is through their absorption by and the creation of unstable nuclei that they cause ionization. Such neutrons are "indirectly ionizing." Even neutrons without significant kinetic energy are indirectly ionizing, and are thus a significant radiation hazard.~Wiki
<br>
<br>>"The tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation? What type of detonation is Triple-W trying to frame this as being? Is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? Triple-W assumes too much, because with the configuration that I have outlined, the structure — both inner core and outer wall assemblies — would shield the tactical nuclear detonation."~Maxifuck
<br>
<br>Anyone who has seen a photo of the World Trade Towers at sunset with the glow behind them knows that this is absolute bullshit – you can see right through the buildings.~ww
<br>
<br>Mr Ruff says Mr Eleven is "batshit crazy" I say Mr Eleven is 'crazy as a shithouse rat….I guess were in tune, "close enough for rock'n'roll"….
<br>
<br>Whether Senior el Once is crazy, a total pretender when it comes to nuclear physics, or just a fuckin' liar; his mixmash 3,000 word woowoo-posts prove some sort of wacko this way comes….
<br>
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_120');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 120 -->
<a name="x121"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x121" class="tiny">x121</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_121');">completely misinterpret the assignment</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/#comment-18444">2013-08-15</a></p>
<div id="sect_121" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Adam Ruff (and others) have a tendancy to completely misinterpret the assignment of the sincere truth seeker in a movement that has been infiltrated and where nary a single publication can be trusted 100%. Honest mistakes will be present in all endeavors, and material will be omitted for a host of reasons ranging from the author's low confidence level in its viability (or their expertise on the subject) or its rabbit-hole nature requiring never-ending effort to document or being a distraction from other more obvious things. One could argue that purposeful mistakes and omissions are made, maybe at the behest of an agenda orthogonal to truth, but the bottom-line is that criticism should still focus on what is printed.
<br>
<br>In such an environment, the assignment becomes to classify each published nugget as (1) true, (2) false, or (3) don't-know. Then one studies each classification pile to see what structure it builds or if the intended larger structure of the endeavor still stands when various pillars are knocked out.
<br>
<br>No question, lots of <b><i>"Disinformation Vehicles"</i></b> are at hand. The perfect ride isn't available. And Mr. Ruff sounds like the petulant teenager: <i>"I ain't touching that mint condition Porche 911 and driving it nowhere, because it has orange carpeting and an 8-track player, and doesn't have an MP3 jack, fuzzy-dice on the mirror, or an 'I (heart) NY' bumper-sticker."</i>
<br>
<br>The intelligent, objective, and resourceful truth seeker will be ever the cannibal, chopping & stripping those <b><i>"Disinformation Vehicles"</i></b> of truth in the creation of the jalopy that can go the distance.
<br>
<br>I am not far enough into Mr. Ryan's book to label it disinformation, but I am far enough to have picked up facts here and there that are memorable. Kudos.
<br>
<br>As far as Dr. Judy Wood's <b><i>"Disinformation Vehicles"</i></b> goes, it should be pointed out the crafty nature with which information is presented and then left dangling with no connection or supposition that ties it together into anything resembling <i>"a cohesive theory."</i> Because Mr. Ruff does not have and has never had Dr. Wood's book in his grubby little fingers -- much less read it or gawked at its collection & correlation of pictures --, a rational person must naturally raise an eyebrow to his boastful ability to <i>"say with total confidence that her book really isn't worth the paper it is printed on."</i>
<br>
<br>How <i>"extensively"</i> could the over-confident Mr. Ruff actually have look into Dr. Wood's <i>"DEW theory?"</i>
<br>
<br>More importantly from a chop-shop perspective in considering the true, inherent value of Dr. Wood's <b><i>"Disinformation Vehicles"</i></b> and its components, what should be preserved from a <i>"DEW theory?"</i> How about the meaning of the DEW acronym: directed energy weapon? Any shaped-charge consisting of chemical explosives (including nano-thermite) fits into this category. As do unique configurations of <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2">neutron nuclear devices</a> that I have been championing. All in all, her <i>"DEW theories"</i> ain't far off.
<br>
<br>Other components worthy of preservation are the images of the totality of the destruction; her chapters that debunk with cascading pool balls the official theories (of that day) of gravity collapses; her pointing out the media black-out of hurricane Erin and its anomalous movement; ...
<br>
<br>Astute thinkers would do well to approach Mr. Ryan's <b><i>"(dis)information vehicles"</i></b> in an equally fair and objective manner, keeping a keen eye out for components worth salvaging, those pesky nuggets of truth.
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff charges:
</p>
<blockquote><p>If Ryan or Wood have something to say to me or to us they can show up any time they want and confront us with their best evidence and arguments.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hello?!!! Anybody home, Mr. Ruff? Their words are published in their books. <b>That's</b> what they have to say to you. Are you listening? Are you reading?
<br>
<br>Maybe if Mr. Ruff read their works and could talk knowledgeably about what is (right and) wrong in them, maybe those authors would have cause to come here to defend themselves. Until he puts up with specifics, (in Mr. Ruff's words) his <i>"criticism is just a lot of hot air."</i>
<br>
<br>At this premature stage in the reading & digestion of the works, Mr. Ruff comes across like a cheapskate trying to avoid purchasing the books in the hopes that the authors will come here and essentially re-post their whole books, a posting at a time.
<br>
<br>In any event, sweeping & openly ignorant dismissals of their work <i>without having read them</i>... well... Mr. Adam Ruff's own words apply:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So [Mr. Ruff] can stuff his snide remarks where the sun doesn't shine. ... So really quit with the BS [Mr. Ruff, you] have every opportunity in the world to [read their works and] make your case... [You] won't do it!</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br><p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_121');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 121 -->
<a name="x122"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x122" class="tiny">x122</a>
Adam_Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">I reject all of their work</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18450">2013-08-15</a></p>
<div id="sect_122" style="display: none;">
<p>SEO,
<br>
<br>The main point of your lengthy lecture seems to be to take what is good and solid out of these two books in question and discard the rest. I reject that totally. The reason I reject it is simple. Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.
<br>
<br>Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth. It is foolish and a waste of precious time to spend hours and days pouring over information from a disinformationist to look for "nuggets of truth" that may or may not be in their book. Even if I did find something in their work that seemed to be true I could not trust the information until I verified it from another source. You see it could just be another deception from a clever disinformationist, another con.
<br>
<br>Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity. If you choose to lie down with dogs you are going to come up with flees. I choose to avoid flees whenever possible because I don't like them, they are itchy and carry disease.
<br>
<br>You choose to spend your time studying information from known liars and as a result you have gotten some flees such as the DEW flees and the Nuke flees. Since you have those flees on you I choose to stay away from you and the (dis)information you promote, perhaps unwittingly. I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust. I will also spend my money purchasing books and/or videos from credible sources such as CIT and P4T. My money will NOT be used to line the pockets of disinformationists such as Wood and Ryan. No way in hell buddy, you will NEVER get a penny out of me to go in their pocket. I have read enough of their information that is freely available to conclude that they are spreading disinformation and therefore their information can and should be rejected as untrustworthy.
<br>
<br>You can wallow in all the flees you want SEO but I will not be joining you.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_122');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 122 -->
<a name="x123"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x123" class="tiny">x123</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_123');">throwing in a screw ball</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45850">2013-08-16</a></p>
<div id="sect_123" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45850">2013-08-16</a>
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/#comment-45851">2013-08-15</a> {Expect it to be deleted or not pass moderation.}
<br>{Also posted on <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45850">2013-08-16</a>, where the discussion is happening.}
<br>
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/#comment-37037">2012-12-05</a>, <a href="http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/03/09/social-engineering-and-the-21st-century-truth-emergency/#comment-7652">2013-03-12</a>, and <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-16990">2013-04-15</a> prove that Triple-W regurgitates and it doesn't get more tasty:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I have made an articulated explanation for the hot-spots. This involves the FACT that the thermate reactions contain their own source of oxygen needed in an under rubble scenario.</p></blockquote>
<p>Let's first refine that FACT. Thermate reactions <i>with steel</i> contain their own source of oxygen, namely from the steel, and leave iron as a by-product. Being a chemical <b><i>REACTION</i></b>, when one of the components needed for the reaction is exhausted, the reaction should stop. Likewise, measuring the amounts of by-product, one can work backwards with high school chemistry to estimate original quantities of components of the reaction.
<br>
<br>Were this THEORY of nano-thermite's primary role (with any combination of other chemical explosives) valid, one would expect a huge blob of by-product (cooled off) iron at the location of every (dowsed) hot-spot. How big would those resultant iron blobs be for such a long chemical reaction, and were they found? I recall seeing only one such blob that they called "the meteorite", but its volume is no where near big enough to account for the unproven theory for one hot-spot, and there were many.
<br>
<br>How much of each component (thermite & steel) is needed to sustain a hot-spot whose duration is several weeks long?
<br>
<br>How much volume of said component does this represent? [Can be calculated from the burn-rate and duration time. Does hundreds of THOUSAND of miles of imaginary garden hose filled with thermite & any combination of other chemical explosives ring a bell?]
<br>
<br>The answers to these are not trivial. Aside from not being Occam Razor, the blobs weren't in the pile in great abundance as would be suggested from such chemical reactions.
<br>
<br>As an aside, small iron spheres were found in the dust of the buildings across the street from the towers. Under the assumption that thermitic reactions in the towers generated them before or as they fell, Dr. Harrit calculated backwards to estimate initial quantities of reactants. Also a massive number.
<br>
<br>Continuing with the theory and throwing in a screw ball:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[My debate partner] wants to pretend that the rubble pile is some stable landscape that isn't shifting and changing throughout the period we are discussing. This false view dismisses all of the possibilities of embers reigniting areas that were once kept from the smoldering fires until a shift or collapse put the two potentials together.
<br>
<br>I speak to the allegory of a fireplace wherein the logs may be smoldering until something weakens and gives way and the smoldering embers alight some new found fuel {unburned wood} and a flame comes up again. Or a change in the wind, sending oxygen to a smoldering area giving flame anew.</p></blockquote>
<p>So according to this premise: (A) is the chemical reaction of thermite with steel from which it obtains oxygen to burn and generate a hot-spot; and (B) is the combustion of building content and requires oxygen from air. B produces flames, smoke, and "smoldering embers" (still requiring air) but let's set that aside.
<br>
<br>The scenario presented is that: [START] chemical reaction A happens for a time under the rubble without air. Before the limiting reactant (thermite or steel) in A at a hot-spot is consumed, movement within the pile allows air to creep below, such that the heat from A ignites B. B burns and consumes combustible content, moving the burn location. Before it fully consumes either the combustible content or oxygen from the available air, its heat finds another pocket of A that B is able to ignite and get to chemically react. [Go to START for another cycle.] Continue said cycle for many weeks.
<br>
<br>This has several problems with respect to the actual evidence and 1st-responder efforts, starting off with the amount of water from fire hoses and rain that were dumped on the hot-spots and continuing with the amount of chemical flame retardant also pumped into them. [Refer to the introduction of the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan article on speculation into the source of several spikes in the release of gasses off of the pile.] The extent of B type fires under the rubble lasting or being re-ignited "from smoldering embers" would have been severely limited, owing to lack of air and to drowning water & the fire retardants; B type fires could not have <i>gone the duration</i> or held up its leg of the aforementioned burn cycle.
<br>
<br>The extent of A type hot-spots is limited to the amount of thermite (or other chemcial explosives) in the pile, whereby the burn-rate of thermite dictates the quantities needed to <i>go the duration.</i> If the primary purpose of A was to bring down the structure & pulverize content, how likely is it that <b>additional, mind-blowing overkill amounts</b> would be unspent and left-over in the pile from their original purpose to account for this several week long after-effect? How much proof do we have of iron by-product blobs in the pile that correlate to the quantities of thermate reacting with steel to achieve long-lasting hot-spots?
<br>
<br>Lots of people on both sides of the 9/11 divide have stated over and over again that most of the steel in the buildings has been accounted for from the rubble and clean-up efforts. [An example are the discussions with Dr. Jenkins trying to debunk the <i>dustification of steel</i> comments from Dr. Wood.] If the steel is accounted-for as steel (and if we have little evidence of iron by-product blobs), then the steel wasn't consumed and altered by a reaction with thermite. Therefore, high school chemistry tells us (in yet another way) that thermite was not present in sufficient quantities to account for the hot-spots.
<br>
<br><b><i>"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite.)"</i>~Dr. Steven Jones, September 2012</b>
<br>
<br>I had written:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[Triple-W] completely neglects the radiation signature of a neutron device: primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived — contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.</p></blockquote>
<p>Triple-W responds with more weasel games:
</p>
<blockquote><p>On the contrary: "A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device." Tritium has a relatively short half-life, but it is not days or weeks, it is 12.32 years. Directing "the neutrons upwards" by what mechanism? Radiation means to radiate, that is to travel outward in all directions.</p></blockquote>
<p>The application goals for standard, run-of-the-mill neutron bomb that most of the literature covers and was fear-mongered hyped in the media is completely different. It refers to a battlefield situation where a spherical radiating of neutrons (and blast & heat wave) has tactical advantages. Triple-W knows the application goals for a tactical neutron device is different, for it has been explained many times. He tries to skew things with his <i>"radiate... outward in all directions"</i> word-smithery from one cherry-picked quotation about a different application of neutron devices.
<br>
<br>However, his question is valid: <i>"Directing "the neutrons upwards" by what mechanism?"</i>
<br>
<br>The difference between a fusion device (thermonuclear weapon) and a neutron bomb is <b>the casing.</b> The casing of the former contains the highly energetic neutrons, causing them to bounce around more inside and generating more and more chain-reactions in the core to generate a massive blast & heat wave. The casing of the latter allows the highly energetic neutrons to escape. Because of this, the blast & heat wave are significantly reduce (but still dangerous) and the highly energetic neutrons can penetrate structures and cause cell damage to life forms (and embrittlement in metals).
<br>
<br>What would you get if you combined the spherical casing from these two devices such that, say, most of the spherical casing was from a standard fusion device except for only a small cap on top from a neutron casing, which then permits those highly energetic neutrons to escape? ANSWER: a neutron directed energy weapon that targets its energy through the circle of the cap on top. Consider it a shaped-nuclear charge. The neutrons would be directed in a cone shape. As the circle of the neutron cap is made smaller and smaller, the effective angle of the cone gets narrower and narrower.
<br>
<br>Triple-W quotes from Wiki without understanding the significance:
</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Neutrons are the only type of ionizing radiation that can make other objects, or material, radioactive.</b> This process, called neutron activation, is the primary method used to produce radioactive sources for use in medical, academic, and industrial applications. Even comparatively low speed thermal neutrons, will cause neutron activation (in fact, they cause it more efficiently). Neutrons do not ionize atoms in the same way that charged particles such as protons and electrons do (by the excitation of an electron), because neutrons have no charge. It is through their absorption by and the creation of unstable nuclei that they cause ionization. Such neutrons are "indirectly ionizing." Even neutrons without significant kinetic energy are indirectly ionizing, and are thus a significant radiation hazard.</p></blockquote>
<p>The significance of the bolded statement is that if your device is directing neutrons through, say, a pin-hole cap in the casing and is aimed upwards, the amount of building material that gets hit with ionizing radiation to become radioactive is vastly limited. Yes, you'd end up with some radioactive material, but a manageable cleanup operation and not the thorough spherical dowsing of anything and everything at ground zero and the expected radiation signature of a full-fledged fusion device.
<br>
<br>I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation? What type of detonation is Triple-W trying to frame this as being? Is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? Triple-W assumes too much, because with the configuration that I have outlined, the structure — both inner core and outer wall assemblies — would shield the tactical nuclear detonation.</p></blockquote>
<p>Triple-W plays his games again:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Anyone who has seen a photo of the World Trade Towers at sunset with the glow behind them knows that this is absolute bullshit – you can see right through the buildings.</p></blockquote>
<p>Wrong! Whereas for much of the floor space for the picture in question (when the towers were nearing completion, <i>"you can see right through the buildings."</i> But there is an area where you cannot see right through the building: namely the buildings' core. It is rather pronounced, like a spine in an X-ray. So who is trying to spin the <i>"absolute bullshit."</i>
<br>
<br>In addition, allow me to introduce some controversy from the Let's Roll Forum disinformation site. Whether or not we give credit to the hollow-towers theory, what is true is that some form of window coverings were installed, maybe precisely because of the picture in question and its see-through result. I've seen no other pictures than that one, yet there were lots of days (after sun up or before sun down) over 30 years when a clever photographer in a helicopter would have tried to recreate it. As far as I know, for most of the towers' lifetime, it was never again possible to see through the towers in the same way.
<br>
<br>Now that Triple-W's somewhat rational arguments have been addressed and his premise debunked, let us turn briefly to his other excellent & convincing substantiating arguments. I am utterly speechless at their wit, eloquence, and reason. Touche'!
<br>
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-45812">2013-08-14</a>: <i>More sludge from Maxifuckanus' cesspool ... defaming scoundrel... Maxipad... Maximum prevaricator...</i>
<br>
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-45837">2013-08-15</a>: <i>Slurmiester Maximus... Maxasshole... Maxifuck</i>
<br>
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-45812">2013-08-14</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>This Maximum prevaricator dampens his own imagination whenever it suits his fancy to give wieght to his tepid and forced argumentation.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-45837">2013-08-15</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Mr Ruff says Mr Eleven is "batshit crazy" I say Mr Eleven is 'crazy as a shithouse rat... Whether Senior el Once is crazy, a total pretender when it comes to nuclear physics, or just a fuckin' liar; his mixmash 3,000 word woowoo-posts prove some sort of wacko this way comes...</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18419">2013-08-14</a>: <i>I hope a simple fuck you will do for our slurmiester maximus</i>
<br>
<br>Meh.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_123');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 123 -->
<a name="x124"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x124" class="tiny">x124</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">a void exists of valid alternative explanations for EVERYTHING presented</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/#comment-18475">2013-08-16</a></p>
<div id="sect_124" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Adam Ruff writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The main point of your lengthy lecture seems to be to take what is good and solid out of these two books in question and discard the rest. <b>I reject that totally.</b> The reason I reject it is simple. Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.</p></blockquote>
<p>I would agree with Mr. Ruff if he were talking about a math or science book that had lots of other competing volumes available that didn't have <i>"intentionally misleading or deceptive information."</i>
<br>
<br>But that is not what this discussion is about. Our sources of 9/11 information aren't as cut-and-dried and logically accurate as textbooks, and we don't have alternative textbooks to reference that can be considered closer to 100% accurate and that put the faulty ones to shame to be relegated to the $1 table of Barnes and Noble.
<br>
<br>No. As much as our good citizenship upbringing would have us wanting to trust the government's publication efforts, a small army of intelligent internet researchers puts them to shame. Not to be outdone, the government has a documented history of meddling with media and infiltration, such that once trusted "alternative" websites -- like 9/11 blogger -- suffer, and we bemoan the censorship. Yet still, the 9/11 keyboard warriors hoist cries of "mole" for the efforts of researchers, leaders, and speakers when they go <i>"off-" (or "on-") script</i> about some niche topic.
<br>
<br>To take the ignorant and boastful stance of <i>"rejecting"</i> the totality of someone's work based on the discovery of untruths or outright deceit WHEN a void exists of valid alternative explanations for EVERYTHING presented in the foundation of truthful evidence isn't just short-sited. I'd be inclined to call such actions <i>"playing right into the hands of disinformation."</i>
<br>
<br>If honest & sincere 9/11 Truthers don't reach into the maw of disinformation sources to rescue and re-purpose the valid truthful nuggets, who will? The government? The PTB? The true perpetrators of 9/11? Seems to me they are ecstatic when ignorant slobs like Mr. Ruff brush the whole works into the fire so that there is no more rememberence among fellow citizens of anomalous nuggets lacking explanations, no, not from even in the few trusty truthy sources remaining.
<br>
<br>The expression goes, <i>"you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts."</i>
<br>
<br>The issue isn't about the inaccuracy of the opinions uttered in the sources that you label "disinformation." The issue is about collecting and preserving the facts that are independent of the opinions.
<br>
<br>Such should be the case for both Mr. Ryan and Dr. Wood (and Dr. Jones, Dr. Legge, Dr. Jenkins, the NIST reports, the 9/11 Commission Reports, the USGS dust data, etc.)
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth. </p></blockquote>
<p>No one is recommending <i>"overlooking intentional disinformation,"</i> assuming that intentional motive can be proven. In fact, if it can be so indentified, <b>the intentional disinformation should be studied</b> precisely to gleam their <i>"agenda other than truth"</i> so that proper weighting can be assigned to their other opinions or skew.
</p>
<blockquote><p>It is foolish and a waste of precious time to spend hours and days pouring over information from a disinformationist to look for "nuggets of truth" that may or may not be in their book. </p></blockquote>
<p>No, it is not foolish, particularly not in the 9/11 environment where valid information can be torpedoed and sunk with nary a rescue publication that presents, let alone (properly) analyzes, those nuggets. A simple example is Dr. Wood highlighting the pictures with the horseshoe, the arches, and the <i>steel doobies.</i> What other 9/11 publication accuratly accounts for these?
</p>
<blockquote><p>Even if I did find something in their work that seemed to be true I could not trust the information until I verified it from another source. You see it could just be another deception from a clever disinformationist, another con.</p></blockquote>
<p>Exactly. Verify it from another source. If that other source isn't available, what do you do? Your ignorant solution is to bury it anyway.
<br>
<br>Moreover, I should point out that you conflate <b>the presentation of evidence and facts</b> <i>with</i> <b>the analysis or interpretation thereof</b>. Are you playing disinfo games that you refuse to see the difference? If you -- as a leader of sorts in the 9/11 Truth Movement (moreso than I) -- want to make it easy for the lazy truthers, you should <b>lead</b> and be investigating the material thoroughly first hand and then documenting <i>"the good, the bad, and the ugly."</i> But this, apparently, you can't be bothered to do. You're happy with the second-hand, lame assessments of others ... even after those assessors are found wanting and dishonest based on other endeavors. [Don't get me wrong, the overall assessment could remain valid. But given a proven dishonest agenda of an assessor, what might their previous assessment of a work be hiding in its dismissal?]
</p>
<blockquote><p>Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity. </p></blockquote>
<p>What if your trusted source lacks the time, energy, or capacity to assess some new work? Do you ignore that new work?
<br>
<br>What if your trusted source suddenly becomes untrusted? How do you circle back and make sure his agenda didn't con you in some other way? Dr. Jones is one such example. <i>"For simplicity"</i> let's assume the involvement of nano-thermite; the fact remains that it cannot be ascribed all of the anomalous features of the WTC destruction that he has purposely led the entire movement to believe; high school chemistry & math disproves it handily. His "no-nukes" dismissal relies on a skewed tritium report and didn't even mention neutron devices. September 2012, he admits <i>"Something maintained those under-rubble hot-spots (not just NT)."</i> And Dr. Jones led the charge against Dr. Wood, <i>"looney beams from space."</i> Where is his review (or that of any leader of the 9/11 truth movement) of Dr. Wood's book for <i>the good, the bad, and the ugly</i>? M.I.A. Dr. Wood got more right than she got wrong, period.
</p>
<blockquote><p>If you choose to lie down with dogs you are going to come up with flees. I choose to avoid flees whenever possible because I don't like them, they are itchy and carry disease.</p></blockquote>
<p>If you lie down with dogs, you can enjoy their warmth on cold winter nights. The dogs accept you and might even defend you from attackers. Regular doggy baths can rid them of flees.
</p>
<blockquote><p>You choose to spend your time studying information from known liars and as a result you have gotten some flees such as the DEW flees and the Nuke flees.</p></blockquote>
<p>Guess what? Because Dr. Jones has never corrected the record with regards to the true limits and capabilities of nano-thermite and skewed his no-nukes report, he enters into the category of <i>"known liar."</i>
<br>
<br>As for the flees who have taken up residency in my crouch hair, his actual name is <i>"neu nookiedoo"</i>, which is short for Neutron Nuclear DEW (directed energy weapon).
<br>
<br>And you have not debunked it. You have not even addressed it. You have taken <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45640">a stilted position</a> that you don't have the gonads to defend -- <i>"No radiation = no nuke"</i> -- when it is served back at you for why it is stilted and unfair, while at the same time misinterprets and malframes... my poor, iddy-biddy little flee <i>"neu nookiedoo"</i>. Where's your proof of "no radiation"? M.I.A. Maybe you should have a chat with the sick 1st responders.
</p>
<blockquote><p> Since you have those flees on you I choose to stay away from you and the (dis)information you promote, perhaps unwittingly. I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust. </p></blockquote>
<p>Did you read the NIST reports on the towers and WTC-7? How about the 9/11 Commission Report? I bet you did. OH SNAP!!! I wager all of the money in my wallet that these happen to be from sources that you do ~NOT~ trust. Does this make you a liar, Mr. Ruff?
<br>
<br>So why did you read them if you didn't trust the government sources? To gain information. You spotted both the truth and the stilted lies. You made hay out of both in your online battles, didn't you?
<br>
<br>Oh, and please, please, pretty please <b>list</b> all of the sources on 9/11 that you trust implicitly (other than Dr. David Ray Griffin, cuz I like him too.) What are their works of outstanding integrity, quality, research, and complete truth?
</p>
<blockquote><p>I will also spend my money purchasing books and/or videos from credible sources such as CIT and P4T. My money will NOT be used to line the pockets of disinformationists such as Wood and Ryan. No way in hell buddy, you will NEVER get a penny out of me to go in their pocket. I have read enough of their information that is freely available to conclude that they are spreading disinformation and therefore their information can and should be rejected as untrustworthy.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hey, dude, Mr. Ruff, man, if you weren't such a pompous dick, it would be worth EVERY penny for me to purchase those books and send them to you for review -- GRATIS! No charge! ... Just to get us on the same literal page and validate or debunk each point LEGITIMATELY. [And I have a proven track record of delivering on such promise.]
<br>
<br>And because I am reading Mr. Ryan's book at the moment, I know that your ignorant, off-hand, dismissals-sans-review is giving Rumsfeld and Cheney (among others) a free-pass. You're too stubborn to read the book and validate the (valid) sorid history of these people that makes them viable candidates for Mr. Ryan's <i>alternative conspiracy.</i>
<br>
<br>And don't get me wrong on the topic of Mr. Ryan. I have reason to ~not~ trust him, because of his nano-thermite work with Dr. Jones. Or more correctly stated, for the nano-thermite work he didn't do (e.g., calculations into quantities needed for pulverization or hot-spot durations, and mixtures with other things, that might make it a tad unreasonable.) On this venture, though, I don't have reasons (so far) to find fault.
</p>
<blockquote><p>You can wallow in all the flees you want SEO but I will not be joining you.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>You can walloo in all of the closed-minded ignorance you want, Mr. Ruff, but I will not be joining you.</b> I prefer to read things for myself and make my own assessments (albeit often times influenced by reviews of others to see thing I might have missed.)
<br>
<br>
<br>+++++++++ Here's me being lazy and pissing off Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue with a single mondo posting. Consider it a test of your reading ability. Consider it also a blessing, because why suffer from TWO postings from me, when ONE posting is so much easier to scroll over.
<br>
<br>
<br>While we are on the subject of both Mr. Ryan and his book, I went back and found the quote-mined passage that got everyone's panties in a twist.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes."</p></blockquote>
<p>The entire context of this does not make this nefarious. Mr. Ryan writes that his book's purpose isn't to debunk aspects of the official conspiracy theory, because many other works are present (and referenced in his footnotes) that already do that handily. His purpose is to identify potential members of <i><b>the alternative conspiracy</b></i> (e.g., not the 19 patsy hijackers). To aid in this effort, he would look into (paraphrased) <i>"the things that didn't happen but should have, as well as the things that did happen and shouldn't have"</i>, because these hint at the levels of power and authority that could effect such. Also, who benefitted ultimately from this?
<br>
<br>The official conspiracy was four planes and the damage wrought. For the purposes of identifying potential members of <b>the alternative conspiracy</b>, it doesn't matter whether a plane hit the Pentagon or whether it flew over it. Either scenario still points out systematic failings that point to the same conspirators. For the purposes of the book in getting at the <b>the alternative conspiracy</b> group, you can <b>simplify</b> the task by accepting the official account and then doing the old questioning <i>"what should have happened but didn't [e.g., to prevent aspects of 9/11], or what shouldn't have happened but did [e.g., to cover it up]?"</i> The clout it takes to get numerous agencies to published flawed works is telling, as is getting the media to propagate it and suppress the tough questions.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ryan mentions often in that introductory chapter the phrase <b>the alternative conspiracy</b>. Meaning the conspiracy other than the 19 patsies. Meaning it is a speculative effort, and other alternative conspiracies could be drawn up, but would most likely overlap or outright include everyone Mr. Ryan identifies, where <i>for the sake of simplicity</i> he limits himself to 19.
<br>
<br>P.S. Another blessing I give you is that I'll be off-line at the beach and camping starting the moment this goes up and lasting ALL WEEKEND LONG. Means you have time to compose INTELLIGENT and not so ignorant responses on the fronts where you're confronted. Means no postings from me, and might also mean more time with my nose in my Kindle getting further along in Mr. Ryan's book. Have a good weekend, all!
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_124');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 124 -->
<a name="x125"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x125" class="tiny">x125</a>
Adam_Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_125');">better things to do with my time than read your book length crappol</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-17</p>
<div id="sect_125" style="display: none;">
<p>
<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/#comment-18487">August 17, 2013 at 6:22 am</a>
<br>
<br>I find your arguments unconvincing and WAY too lengthy. I have better things to do with my time than read your book length crappola.
<br>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_125');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 125 -->
<a name="x126"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x126" class="tiny">x126</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">I poked at his ignorance</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/#comment-18521">2013-08-19</a></p>
<div id="sect_126" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Book Report Progress</b> on <i>Kevin Ryan's latest</i>
<br>
<br>Before I share my good vibes from being partway through Kevin Ryan's book, it is with sadness that I highlight the actions of a respected 9/11 Truther in being less than truthful.
<br>
<br>In an earlier posting, Mr. Adam Ruff was boastful about his ignorance:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research, my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity. ... I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust. </p></blockquote>
<p>I poked at his ignorance with:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Did you read the NIST reports on the towers and WTC-7? How about the 9/11 Commission Report? I bet you did. OH SNAP!!! I wager all of the money in my wallet that these happen to be from sources that you do ~NOT~ trust. Does this make you a liar, Mr. Ruff?</p></blockquote>
<p>The entirety of Mr. Ruff's response (below) is a statement of self-contradiction and admitted ignorance:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I find your arguments unconvincing and WAY too lengthy. I have better things to do with my time than read your book length crappola.</p></blockquote>
<p>How is that Mr. Ruff had <i>"better things to do with his time than read"</i> my posting yet could boast from this self-admitted <b>strong-hold, argumentative position of ignorance</b> that he finds my <i>"arguments unconvincing?"</i> Evidently, Mr. Ruff doesn't need to read <i>anything</i> to remain <i>unconvinced.</i> Evidently, Mr. Ruff doesn't need to read <i>anything</i>, period. He knows what's inside every book without even seeing its cover, such is the progress of his brand of ignorance.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff, I do not believe it was Mr. Rogue's intention to foreshadow your subsequent actions with his uncredited quotation from Magus Maverik: <i>"The puss that crusts and seals thine eyes is not worth an empty wager."</i>
<br>
<br>Here's a brief detour just to keep readers in suspense about my <b>assessment of Kevin Ryan's book</b> (so far), it should be pointed out that (<a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45640">2013-08-09) Mr. Ruff laid down</a> what he and Mr. Rogue thought was an impregnable gauntlet for <i>neu nookiedoo</i> with his statement: <i>"no radiation = no nukes."</i> However, Mr. Ruff has been exceptionally silent on my response that said essentially <i>"prove that the left-hand side of the equality is valid"</i> for 9/11. Where is the official report that systematically, thoroughly, and timely measures alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation at the WTC, tabulates the results, analyzes it properly, and publishes this for public consumption?
<br>
<br>*Oh SNAP!* This <i>"no radiation"</i> publication must come from a source that Mr. Ruff <b>cannot</b> <i>"trust because of their track record of (dis)honesty and (lack of) integrity,"</i> namely the US Government. Ergo, he has not wasted his precious time on it, has not read it, has not found it, and is therefore spouting off about <i>"no radiation at the WTC"</i> from third- or fourth-hand sources who haven't been vetted and he can't recall.
<br>
<br>So, dear readers of this forum, when this same Mr. Ruff passes off his judgment concerning Mr. Kevin Ryan's new book from his <b>strong-hold, argumentative position of ignorance</b>, ... well, enough said, eh?
<br>
<br>Without further delay, <b>MY ASSESSMENT (so far) THRU CHAPTER 5 OF MR. KEVIN RYAN'S BOOK.</b>
<br>
<br>This book is going to be a silent best-seller among those in the know and the powers-that-be. You see, every individual has an ego; everyone wants to be recognized for their deeds. The problem with (auto)biographies is that, if they were deep and truthful, they throw away the subject's fifth amendment rights about self-incrimination and would probably get themselves "suicided" before publication. Plus, the subjects have a lot of thanks and praise to bestow upon others for helping them achieve the heights of their noted fame.
<br>
<br>So after a long tenure on the world's stage, what does great-grandpa do to impress upon his lineage of his truly unbelievable exploits "for freedom and democracy?" Why, gramps lets the likes of Kevin Ryan research as many sources as he can, mine them for nuggets of truth, amass them as data points, publish them creatively next to one another, and let readers create the trend lines in their minds into what a <b><i>bad-ass, tricky, mother-fucker</i></b> they really were.
<br>
<br>The trend line is nothing short of <b><i>"kick ass,"</i></b> and a manual for domestic (& foreign) terrorism that puts to shame the Germans of the 1930's and early 1940's. We've all heard about the real Gold Rule: <i>"He who has the gold, makes all the rules."</i> Mr. Ryan's book proves that if you have all of the watchdogs of politics sucking on your teet of cash or favors -- from Congress to Committees, to judges, to the press -- you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want, and change the rules as you go along, and propagate works of complete fiction that literally writes <i>the glorious history of the victors</i> that the majority of the public still sheepishly believes. This is literally a stunning achievement akin to the use of tazers to get protesters into the "free-speech zones"!!! Yet without the likes of <i>"fringe 9/11 truther"</i> Kevin Ryan writing about it, few would know the depth of their exploits. Few would know how long these stars were toiling to pull off the con of all cons.
<br>
<br>The 9/11 Truth Movement has spent all of its time saying <i>"insiders did 9/11"</i>, but other than Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, the movement has refrained from detailed finger-pointing under the belief (a concession) that just listing <b>the anomalies of what happened</b> would be sufficient to motivate representatives to escalate it into a new, thorough, and accurate investigation, trials of those charged, and justice. Hasn't happened. So Kevin Ryan's book pushes the notion of <i>who</i> a bit further with example of those <i>back-slapping college buddies, frat brothers, and secret society pledges</i> who had finnigled their careers to be in a position of responsibility and authority where their purposeful actions (or conveniently timed in-actions) assisted the 9/11 (domestic) terrorists' acts and/or its cover-up.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ryan's book is an example of what real power can accomplish. [Just saying this doesn't mean I agree with the goals or the means to the goals of the 9/11 endeavors.]
<br>
<br>If Mr. Ryan's book is disinformation as Mr. Ruff speculates (without reading), well it is disinformation that <i>theoretically</i> (in a very <i>"conspiracy theory"</i> sense) would not be flattering to the careers and lives of those hoisted up by the juxaposition of data points from their own careers. It should wind them up in jail awaiting trial. But because his book demonstrates how thorough the infiltration, those named in Mr. Ryan's book with lots of substantiation have the influence to keep the wheels of justice from running them over.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, though, they remain proud of all of the secret, world-changing actions that they contributed to make (so the <i>"conspiracy theory"</i> goes) offspring for several generations proud. I expect Mr. Ryan's book to be a hot-selling Christmas stocking stuffer for the well heeled and connected, particularly those named, in giving hours of <i>"bad-ass grandpa (or grandma)"</i> reading pleasure for the entire extended (crime) family.
<br>
<br>Those of us not in their family tree? Well, time-and-time again we get to have our noses rubbed in how the rules are made to govern us, but not those making the rules. Ethics and honor applies to us, but those of our "superiors" seemingly gloat that <i><b>"the ends always justify the means."</b></i>
<br>
<br>I won't bore people with lots of interesting data points that I did not know before reading Mr. Ryan's book. One that comes to mind from these early chapters is that a particular securities trading firm had been in trouple for some of its 9/11 associated transactions (like put options against airlines, never redeemed but I may have this transaction confused with another.) Former FBI Director Louis Feech and former CIA Director George Tenent both managed to snag slots on its board of directors on that same firm after leaving their respective agencies. The world is small.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_126');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 126 -->
<a name="x127"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x127" class="tiny">x127</a>
Adam Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_127');">grossly distorting</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-28</p>
<div id="sect_127" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18800">2013-08-28</a> ruffadam
<br>
<br>You are grossly distorting what I said in regards to your "nuggets of truth" argument. I ACTUALLY said that mistakes are understandable and can be forgiven. I also ACTUALLY said that I reject everything from a particular researcher ONLY AFTER FINDING DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION in their work. I go on to explain that once they deliberately try to deceive you that it is unwise to trust ANYTHING they say from then on because they may be trying to deceive you again. That is what I actually said.
<br>
<br>You have now grossly distorted what I said and attempted to assign an entirely new meaning to it (your own) and I find that to be dishonest to the extreme. I expect a retraction from you for this "mistake" and if none is forthcoming I am going to assume from now on that it wasn't a mistake at all but was in fact deliberate. At that point I will regard you as a disinformationist who should be ignored, much like Judy Wood.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_127');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 127 -->
<a name="x128"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x128" class="tiny">x128</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">rejects EVERYTHING from them</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18821">2013-08-27</a></p>
<div id="sect_128" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18819">2013-08-27</a> {Requested be deleted.}
<br>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18821">2013-08-27</a>
<br>
<br>{Mr. McKee, could you please remove my August 27, 2013 – 12:25 pm posting. I've corrected a shocking number of typo's and added some reference links. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks.}
<br>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Adam Ruff wrote on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18800">2013-08-26</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You are grossly distorting what I said in regards to your "nuggets of truth" argument.</p></blockquote>
<p>I disagree. We shall see who is distorting what. [Here's Mr. Ruff's original <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible#comment-18450">2013-08-15</a> statement of ignorance, and my <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/#comment-18475">2013-08-16</a> response. Links provided because they are on another thread.]
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff goes on to spin:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I ACTUALLY said that mistakes are understandable and can be forgiven. I also ACTUALLY said that I reject everything from a particular researcher ONLY AFTER FINDING DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION in their work.</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, once a given researcher has been proven to have a single instance (or area) of <i>"DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION"</i>, then Mr. Ruff <b><i>"rejects EVERYTHING from them"</i></b>... even <b>the VALID nuggets of truth</b> that nobody has ever questioned or had issue with (or addressed). <b>How stupid is that?</b>
<br>
<br>If this were an academic endeavor (like physics), maybe Mr. Ruff would be justified. But it is not. It just so happens to be in a realm that has the United States Government and its agencies ~ACTIVELY~ producing disinformation.
<br>
<br>Moreover, Mr. Ruff purposely leaves two voids. The second void is an alternative analysis that explains a certain set of evidence, because obviously he may have felt that the analysis in question might be deliberate disinformation. More shocking, the first void is simply presenting a certain set of evidence so that it gets public consideration; Mr. Ruff rejects this and throws it out. [And if I error in this, Mr. Ruff should correct me by stepping through Dr. Wood's work image-by-image and list all of the other places/publications (1) where this evidence is presented and (2) properly analyzed.]
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff continues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I go on to explain that once they deliberately try to deceive you that it is unwise to trust ANYTHING they say from then on because they may be trying to deceive you again. That is what I actually said.</p></blockquote>
<p>I agree. To paraphrase Ronald Reagen, <i>"(dis)trust but verify."</i>
<br>
<br>In other words, just because sincere seekers of truth have reason to distrust a particular researcher, this does not relieve the seeker of the obligation to independently review ~all~ information from that information source precisely to validate nuggets of truth and to expose the dross of disinformation.
<br>
<br>When an information source is proven untrustworthy, it just means that nothing can be accepted at face value and requires validation. It does mean neither that studious efforts into that research should be halted nor that validated portions of that research should be rejected.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff continues with his faux outrage:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You have now grossly distorted what I said and attempted to assign an entirely new meaning to it (your own) and I find that to be dishonest to the extreme.</p></blockquote>
<p>No distortion was made except by Mr. Ruff in trying to save his ignorant ass, because he just clarified under no uncertain terms that he would <i>reject everything</i> <b>including valid nuggets of truth</b> from a particular researcher upon discovering deliberate disinformation.
<br>
<br>Of course on this front, Mr. Ruff is a liar. How so?
<br>
<br>(1) Has he discarded all reports and all information contained therein produced by agencies of the US Government, particularly when they have been proven to have disinformation? No.
<br>
<br>(2) Dr. Jones has fed the world deliberate disinformation about (a) nano-thermite and its capabilities and (b) nuclear devices that could account for the tritium, yet Mr. Ruff has yet to denounce him, let alone <i>reject everything</i> from the man.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I expect a retraction from you for this "mistake" and if none is forthcoming I am going to assume from now on that it wasn't a mistake at all but was in fact deliberate.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Ruff, no retraction is requisite from me, because you are the one with the ignorant and unsupportable position. And you ain't very good about spinning your way out of it.
</p>
<blockquote><p>At that point I will regard you as a disinformationist who should be ignored, much like Judy Wood.</p></blockquote>
<p><i>There you go again.</i> I'm still waiting for you to stick your nose up the crack of Dr. Wood's textbook (and Mr. Ryan's). I want you to point out the specific instances of disinformation while also preserving the valid nuggets of truth.
<br>
<br>As another indication of Mr. Ruff's level of dishonesty, he promised me awhile ago that he would ignore my postings. Meanwhile, ample evidence exists that he hasn't, including a lame-ass hit-and-run on <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/">9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW</a>. I'm still waiting for him to prove the left-hand side of the <i>challenging</i> equality as being valid at the WTC on 9/11: <i>"no radiation = no nukes."</i> Show me the reports that systematically, thoroughly, and timely measure all forms of radiation at or below background levels.
<br>
<br>And as long as he's gorded me into rising up to respond to his totally stupid <i>rejection</i> explanation, here's a nugget of truth brought more fully to my attention by Kevin Ryan's book that I (unlike he) am open-minded enough to continue reading.
<br>
<br>Among the drills happening on 9/11 were Apollo Guardian, Global Guardian, and Vigilant Guardian.
<br>
<br>From http://www.dod.mil/pubs/dswa/document.html
</p>
<blockquote><p>GLOBAL GUARDIAN
<br>
<br>Annual command-level exercise sponsored by the U.S. Strategic Command in cooperation with Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The primary purpose of the exercise is to test and validate nuclear command and control and execution procedures.</p></blockquote>
<p>From http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=apollo_guardian
</p>
<blockquote><p>Ken Merchant in fact told the 9/11 Commission that Apollo Guardian had been "running on September 11, 2001." HE is NORAD's joint exercise design manager, the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon. Ken Merchant called Vigilant Guardian a "full-blown nuclear war" exercise.</p></blockquote>
<p>It should be pointed out that the annual Global Guardian drill both pre- and post-9/11 has always been in October, yet in 2001 they re-scheduled it for September.
<br>
<br>If 9/11 had no nuclear component, why was Global Guardian scheduled for the 9/11 drill dates?
<br>
<br>It should be pointed out that Apollo Guardian was sponsored by Space Command. What would space command have to do with the exercises?
<br>
<br>BRIEF DETOUR: A hallmark of 9/11 has been the conflating of individual events with one another when really they need to be separated. For instance, <i>"we saw on the telly aircraft hitting the towers,"</i> therefore it is assumed that the Pentagon and the Shanksville hole were hit by aircraft.
<br>
<br>With 20/20 hindsight into September Clues, one of its meme's was <i>"no planes hit the towers because it was digital fakery."</i> The disinformation effort had many purposes but was designed to fail. The failure was a success, because once the 9/11 Truth Movement had been through the wringer on the "No Planes Theory" (at the tower), they are in no more mood to consider the valid instances of "no plane in Shanksville hole" and "no plane hitting the Pentagon."
<br>
<br>Many other examples of this exist, such as assuming that the destructive mechanisms that destroyed WTC-1 were identical to WTC-2, were identical to WTC-7, were identical to WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6. They didn't have to be.
<br>
<br>I've never disputed the involvement of nano-thermite (but I could be convinced it wasn't given that nano-thermite did not come up in the USGS dust samples and wasn't scraped off of beams and analyzed). What I disputed was nano-thermite's "primary role" in the destruction and being unable to account for pulverization, hot-spot duration, and anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car park.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood's textbook has many nuggets of truth and -- surprise, surprise -- scant few actual operational theories that give a cohesive explanation for the observed destruction. [The lack of an objective & thorough review by any leader of the 9/11 Truth Movement should be a glaring flag.] Of the elements -- mostly from her website -- to which someone could point of Dr. Wood advocating a theory like "directed energy weapons", she could not power it or explain in a real-world operational sense how it would get its energy, while at the same time giving nuclear themes a disinfo treatment. Her detractors always want to couch her work as <i>"beams from space."</i>
<br>
<br>With regards to the towers, I believe that <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/">neutron nuclear DEW</a> achieved it. Given the hot-spots below WTC-7, it may have been the same.
<br>
<br>However, the giant crater in WTC-6, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice at a line with its North Wing? Apollo Guardian, a US Space Command exercise? And the overplaying of the belittling and derogatory hand against the entirety of Dr. Wood's presented evidence and concepts as <i>"beams from space"</i>? Well, maybe beams from space were involved for those buildings. (I'm on the fence, but open to the suggestion.)
<br>
<br>I mean, if I were going to try to pull off a massive destruction project at the WTC, I would use mixed methods for two reasons. (1) To validate various weapons, from nano-thermite to neutron nuclear DEW to space-based lasers (powered by Tesla or Hurricane Erin). (2) To be able to play the evidence of one off of the evidence of another to confuse the honest researcher and general public; to purposely distract and have the public make simplified extrapolating assumptions; to purposely throw off research into one root cause by conflating with the evidence from another.
<br>
<br><b>In Summary:</b> Mr. Ruff is mentally handicapped from providing the proper scope to the efforts of sincere 9/11 Truth seekers, because he is too eager to <i>reject everything</i> from (allegedly) discredited sources without first salvaging the valid nuggets of truth and assuring they have a reasonable alternative explanation. Plays right into the hands of disinformation purposes.
<br>
<br>Ergo, who is the disinformationalist?
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_128');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 128 -->
<a name="x129"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x129" class="tiny">x129</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_129');">So works the hands of disinformation.</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18829">2013-08-27</a></p>
<div id="sect_129" style="display: none;">
<p>
</p><p>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>Meh.
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff brought up Dr. Wood first, in a dubious manner, I might add. Like you, he has no testicles to extract the nuggets of truth from therein. Like you, he thinks he can play cheesy word games and not get marks of "F" for a lame sophomoric effort that employs over-generalizations that can and should be rammed uncomfortably back into his and your orifices.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff: <i>"I reject <b>everything</b> from a particular researcher ONLY AFTER FINDING DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION in their work."</i>
<br>
<br><i>"Everything... in their work"</i> that is rejected isn't limited to <i>"the dubious and deceitful points,"</i> and is a very big brush that sweeps away both the bad and ugly as well as <b>the good.</b> <i>"Everything... in their work"</i> would include nuggets of truth, validated points, points that no one disputes, and items that no one else addresses.
<br>
<br>So works the hands of disinformation.
<br>
<br>Glad to see that you so readily and eagerly expose your masterbating hand in such endeavors as well. Over-generalizations regularly trip you up, as does high school chemistry, math, etc.
<br>
<br>P.S. What's your posting count -- I mean, <i>hypnotic sales pitch</i> count -- on this thread and the last one? Yesterday, I stop counting but it was like 52/172 (30%) and 113/290 (38%). Today it grows like your Pinochio nose.
<br>
<br>Ergo, <i>"REGARDLESS OF THE SUBJECT"</i> who has to weigh in with his <i>"learned opinion"</i> <b>in overwhelming measures?</b> Who is <i>"a virus, a one poster plague, a fatigue on the spirit, a monotonous motormouth?... It is obvious YOU ARE!"</i>
<br>
<br>Your stellar *cough* debunking attempts at neu nookiedoo -- mostly with such witty ad hominem -- reflects those disinformation charges back onto you. Gracias, amigo!
<br>
<br>//</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_129');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 129 -->
<a name="x130"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x130" class="tiny">x130</a>
Adam Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_130');">Your reasoning is unreasonable and your logic is illogical.</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-27</p>
<div id="sect_130" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18842">2013-08-27</a> Adam Ruff
<br>
<br>SEO why don't you throw the full text of war and peace into every comment you make that way you can be sure no one will have the time or patience to read it. Christ on a cracker man you are seriously disturbed.
<br>
<br>Anyway here is the relevant quote from my post which backs up what I said above please note what I ACTUALLY SAID since you linked to the comment yourself but obviously never read it in the first place:
<br>
<br>"Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.
<br>
<br>Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth."
<br>
<br>As to the rest of your insane ranting I am not going to spend my time reading it. Your reasoning is unreasonable and your logic is illogical. My original criteria for rejecting someones work or not stand and nothing you have said changes the fact that my logic is sound. Giving a con artist a second chance to con you is just stupid. Your "look for the nuggets of truth" argument is stupid and I reject it completely. Furthermore I am no longer interested in reading anything you have to say. You have intentionally distorted what I said and therefore you are a disinformationist in my book. From here on out I reject everything you have to say and will ignore it all unless and until I choose not to.
<br>
<br>I request that Craig McKee read over these posts carefully and admonish SEO for grossly distorting what I actually said and put him on notice that such distortions and outright lies will not be tolerated.</p>
</div><!-- section 162 -->
<a name="x131"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x131" class="tiny">x131</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_131');">perpetual twirlytwat</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-27</p>
<div id="sect_131" style="display: none;">
<p>+++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18831">2013-08-27</a> hybridrogue1
<br>
<br>
<br>Like I said Eleven, the most meager excuse for your perpetual twirlytwat.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>+++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/#comment-46084">2013-08-27</a>
<br>By: hybridrogue1 on August 27, 2013 at 8:02 pm
<br>
<br>SEO
</p>
<blockquote><p>Mr. Adam Ruff brought up Dr. Wood first, in a dubious manner, I might add. Like you, he has no testicles to extract the nuggets of truth from therein. Like you, he thinks he can play cheesy word games and not get marks of "F" for a lame sophomoric effort that employs over-generalizations that can and should be rammed uncomfortably back into his and your orifices."</p></blockquote>
<p>, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
<br>So now this arrogant son-of-a-bitch pretends he can grade the commentary of the participants of the forum at T&S.
<br>
<br>And then this closing:
<br>"Your stellar *cough* debunking attempts at neu nookiedoo — mostly with such witty ad hominem — reflects those disinformation charges back onto you. Gracious, amigo!"
<br>
<br>Wherein he complains in an utterly hypocritical manner about "ad hominem" while every word he mews about others is indeed built of ad hominem.
<br>
<br>But the pathetic part to all of this is that the rest of the participants on T&S don't give a flying shit about Señor El Nannyshit's raving postings and just breeze over them as if they do not exist. In fact I only scanned this one enough to glean the scrabble I wanted to use as examples here.
<br>
<br>This delusional fuck had better grok that referring to me as "amigo" is the biggest lie in his whole load of bullshit.
<br>
<br>The only point most take away from this crap is that he is a complete asshole.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>+++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-46111">2013-08-28</a>
<br>
<br>Señora claims I don't know anything about science, but he/she is the one that was taken in by Fetzer's 'bullshit physics', not me. Señora blows huge chunks because I said, "I don't need to do the math" – throwing the statement totally out of context, when I have explained that context over and again. I meant and mean; I don't need to do the calculations to his proposed problem, solving the wrong problem automatically provides a wrong answer.
<br>
<br>And I have gone to great lengths to explain why he is asking the wrong questions…that they are in fact bogus questions based on misconception.
<br>
<br>But all of this is past. I am not making these arguments to the Señora any longer. My argument now is that I don't have to make any further arguments, and that this disingenuous entity is in fact taunting me for no other reason than spiteful harassment. Señora is a nag and acts like he/she has a twat, that is why I doubt that there are testicles involved in it's thinking at all.
<br>
<br>Nookeedoodoo: A Supposition built on Conjecture wrapped in Bullshit!
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>+++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18844">2013-08-28</a>
<br>
<br>I will here point out that the Timing of Señor suddenly flushing of his septic tanks onto this thread; 'JUST HAPPENS' to coincide with OSS finishing his Honegger Report on P4T. Of course no coincident theorist worth their salt would make anything of such perfectly timed DISTRACTION techniques.
<br>
<br>And of course pointing something this glaringly obvious out, will be interpreted as "ad homenim" by our pretend el Zorro. Whereas all of the long twisted rhetorical twine he spins to stretch across an abyss of the absurd as an excuse to call myself and Mr Ruff "Liars" should be taken as just an "innocent truther looking for nuggets" in the 9/11 Dumpster.
<br>
<br>I hope that "dear mister" Señor will have the decency to spare this forum another 3,000 word apologia to smother the conversation here yet more.
<br>
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_131');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 131 -->
<a name="x132"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x132" class="tiny">x132</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">proper recourse to suspected disinformation</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18848">2013-08-28</a></p>
<div id="sect_132" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>With your <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18842">2013-08-27</a> posting we have ample evidence now that you, along with Mr. Rogue, flunked sophomore English in high school, because (a) you seem to have no appreciation for reasoned writing, even if lengthy, (b) you get burned for the <i>third time in the row</i> by the misuse of over-generalizations (e.g., <i>"everthing" and "all"</i>), and (c)_ your ego is too big to see your ignorance in not recognizing when your argumentative position has been utterly destroyed. Case in point with emphasis added:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject <i><b>all of their work</b></i> because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer.</p></blockquote>
<p>There's that catchy phrase, <i>"I reject <b>all</b> of their work"</i> that is little different from your ignorant & misguided explanation in this thread <i>"I reject <b>everything</b> from a particular researcher"</i>... once, of course, intentionally misleading or deceptive information is discovered. <i>"All"</i> and <i>"everything"</i> leave no room for exceptions (e.g., <i>those pesky gaddammit nuggets of truth that ain't nobody had no issues with</i>).
<br>
<br>It isn't a question about whether or not we can trust their work, because obviously, we can't.
<br>
<br>But the proper recourse to suspected disinformation is to:
<br>
<br>(1) Label and compartmentalize the instances of blatant disinformation.
<br>(2) Rewind and review their past and present (and future) work with a jaundice eye to classify items as <b>(a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don't know.</b>
<br>(3) Research independently to solidify classifications.
<br>(4) [Optional] Speculate into their disinformation motives and goals.
<br>
<br>Finding instances of disinformation -- particularly in the realm of 9/11 that has active disinformationalists practicing in government agency reports, the mainstream media, and cyberspace -- does not absolve fair & objective researchers from reviewing their work anew for items of merit. You get no free passes that permit a rejection of a body of work, its substantiating evidence, and nuggets of truth out-of-hand; you've got to justify the rejection on each and every item individually.
<br>
<br>Remember the 20th hijacker, KSM? He was tortured so badly that he admitted to terrorists actions that he couldn't have possibly been involved with. If Mr. Rogue were rendered to Guantanamo for a thrilling weekend, he'd come back admitting bestial relations with his birds. The threats don't even have to be physically against us, but perhaps hinted at a loved one, and many of us (me) would flip-flop 180 degrees on a debate position.
<br>
<br>The crafty ones under such pressure would bow to the disinfo demands but maintain their integrity by inserting clues:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don't know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic." ~Dr. Judy Wood</p></blockquote>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote><p>"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just NT)." ~Dr. Steven Jones</p></blockquote>
<p>The relevance of the above quotes is that (1) we need to study the evidence presented in Dr. Wood's textbook and not get distracted (e.g., by Dr. Wood's explanations) from seeing what the evidence is telling us -- massive influx of energy; (2) we need to keep looking for that "something" that maintained those hot-spots.
<br>
<br>Again a reflection on your poor grades in sophomore English, I love how you get burned <b>a second time</b> for an offense of the exact same nature. You write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>As to the rest of your insane ranting I am not going to spend my time reading it. Your reasoning is unreasonable and your logic is illogical.</p></blockquote>
<p>Wait a minute! Rewind! Back-up!
<br>
<br>How can you conclude that <i>"[my] reasoning is unreasonable and [my] logic is illogical"</i> when you admit in the preceding sentence that <i>"[you are] not going to spend [your] time reading it"</i>?
<br>
<br>Really puts a fine point on who is being <i>unreasonable</i> and <i>illogical</i> when you have the ability to come to such conclusions about my statements without having read them. [Because you fall into sophomoric traps so easily, don't come back and try to say <i>"actually I did read your work objectively and fairly and thus came to those conclusions"</i> because I'll make hay out of you being a blowhard liar.]
<br>
<br>This fits well into the theme of <i>willful ignorance</i> that you display. (Mockingly) <i>"I reject the notion of looking for nuggets of truth, because there is no such thing. Either it is <b>all</b> true or <b>everything</b> is false; ain't no in between. And don't expect me to be pointing out sources of 9/11 information who meet my own ignorant criteria of being <b>100%</b> truth, because... because... I'm too ignorant to know that there ain't such a thing."</i>
<br>
<br>Unlike the con-artists in the streets, who take their deck of cards with them and undoubtedly cleaned out Mr. Ruff many times over in his ignorant youth, the con-artists who ply their trade in agency reports, self-published books, mass media, and cyberspace, have to contend with fair and objective readers' ability to re-read passages, to verify with other sources, and to get a good handle on classifying each nugget of information as (a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don't know.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff's habit of not reading things (and boasting about it) is akin to him giving the con-artist his money without the cards being dealt, much less flipped.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff concludes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I request that Craig McKee read over these posts carefully and admonish SEO for grossly distorting what I actually said and put him on notice that such distortions and outright lies will not be tolerated.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Oh, please do, Mr. Ruff! Please do!</b> Being a man of letters himself, Mr. McKee will undoubtedly agree with my speculation into your high school grades for sophomore English. And he'll be scratching his head over how you could REPEATEDLY create and fall into the same stupid, ignorant, reasoning pitfalls, particularly when they were pointed out to you.
<br>
<br><i>"Distortion and outright lies?"</i> Just saying it is, does not make it so. And as my postings prove, if such exist in this exchange, they come from boastful and ignorant you (and Mr. Rogue).
<br>
<br>+++++++++
<br>
<br>Seeing how Mr. Ruff admits he can't read long <i>"War & Peace"</i> masterpieces, I might as well use this opportunity to address Mr. Rogue. It makes it so much easier for the ignorant readers like Mr. Ruff to scroll right over.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue sets news standards for fair, objective, rational, and logical debate with these four entries: [1] <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18831">2013-08-27</a> at 3:58 pm; [2] <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/#comment-46084">2013-08-27</a> at 8:02 pm; [3] <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-46111">2013-08-28</a> at 11:32 am; and [4] <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18844">2013-08-28</a> at 12:01 pm. Readers should note that only two of the four are here; #2 & #3 are on Mr. Rogue's COTO homecourt <i>where he does not allow debate</i>. Ain't a single piece of substance to back up his hypnotic assertions regarding the demerits of my comments.
<br>
<br>After Mr. Ruff got his hat handed to him for his imprecise usage of language and for his disinformation games that aim to REJECT entire swaths of valid nuggets of truth, <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18831">Mr. Rogue's limp-wristed and misogynistic defense (2013-08-27)</a> can only muster in its entirety:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Like I said Eleven, the most meager excuse for your perpetual twirlytwat.</p></blockquote>
<p>Gems demonstrating his charming wit:
</p>
<blockquote><p>- arrogant son-of-a-bitch
<br>- Señor El Nannyshit's raving postings
<br>- delusional fuck
<br>- complete asshole
<br>- Señora is a nag and acts like he/she has a twat
<br>- el Zorro
<br>- this disingenuous entity
<br>- flushing of his septic tanks</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Rogue charges <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18844">2013-08-28</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I will here point out that the Timing of Señor suddenly flushing of his septic tanks onto this thread; 'JUST HAPPENS' to coincide with OSS finishing his Honegger Report on P4T.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, let us look at the timing. Mr. Ruff and you have ignorantly bull-dozed many times that <i>"you don't need to read no stinkin' book in order to pass judgment and REJECT all information contained therein, regardless of valid nuggets of truth not being preserved in alternative publications."</i> Just one thread over, Mr. Ruff was trying this technique on Kevin Ryan's book, and got called on it in a major reputation-impacting way. Idiot that he is, he recycles the same exact tripe here without correcting or even acknowledging its deficiencies. In fact, he tries to spin it to the moderator (Mr. McKee) as if I've lied and distorted his words. Coincidence?
<br>
<br>If there be any coincidences with the review of Ms. Honegger's work and my comments, it would be an admonishment for readers to be fair and objective, open-minded and tolerant, and vigilant to recognize & preserve nuggets of truth despite instances of bullshit in the same work.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I hope that "dear mister" Señor will have the decency to spare this forum another 3,000 word apologia to smother the conversation here yet more.</p></blockquote>
<p>I can obligue your wishes. Including quotations from you and Mr. Ruff, this posting is only 1,505 words.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_132');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 132 -->
<a name="x133"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x133" class="tiny">x133</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_133');">not credible at all as a person seeking the truth</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_133" style="display: none;">
<p>ruffadam
<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18855">August 29, 2013 at 2:27 am</a>
<br>
<br>A.Wright,
<br>
<br>I agree with OSS’s statement about you completely. You are not credible at all as a person seeking the truth. I don’t buy your BS. When you have a legitimate point to argue about CIT or P4T (involving actual information not just your worthless opinion) I will look at it but until then I have no interest in you or what you have to say. So as OSS said to you, make a legitimate, sourced, rational, argument or piss off.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_133');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 133 -->
<a name="x134"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x134" class="tiny">x134</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">I expect the same</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18858">2013-08-29</a></p>
<div id="sect_134" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18858">2013-08-29</a>
<br>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18855">Mr. Adam Ruff writes (2013-08-28)</a> to Mr. A.Wright paraphrasing Mr. OSS:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So as OSS said to you, make a legitimate, sourced, rational, argument or piss off.</p></blockquote>
<p>Doesn't apply to just Mr. A.Wright. I expect the same from Mr. Ruff, who obviously can boast them as being a standard for all to follow. (In paraphrasing Mr. OSS, I wonder why Mr. Ruff left off the adjectives <i>"mature"</i> and <i>"responsive"</i>? Coincidence?)
<br>
<br>And I expect it taken down to the nugget of truth (or disinfo) level, particularly if the disinformation ploy has been to insert these various nuggets only into a disinformation vehicle designed to fail so that they would die in its crash as well.
<br>
<br>If this is too cryptic for Mr. Ruff, <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-45640">he made the unsubstantiated, hit-and-run contention (2013-08-08)</a> that the WTC had no radiation, with which I and the illnesses of the sick first responders disagree. This contention he should prove with <i>"a <b>mature, responsive,</b> legitimate, sourced, rational, argument."</i> As part of this, he should qualify to the radiation types specifically, their expected or designed duration, the nuclear devices in question, etc.
<br>
<br>In this endeavor, Mr. Ruff should be careful that he doesn't hoist himself up by his own petards...
</p>
<blockquote><p>I reject <b>everything</b> from a particular researcher ONLY AFTER FINDING DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION in their work.</p></blockquote>
<p>... What if the "researcher" is an agency of the US Government? Other than the suppression of this report he seeks to make his case, have instances of their "deliberate disinformation" been found in other agency reports, making it worthy of rejection without reading?
<br>
<br>[The report's suppression might have been easier to accomplish than outright lying to manipulate the measurment data in tables into the range <i>"at or below trace background levels."</i> Remember, to accomplish the same in the tritium papers, they had to re-define (without telling you) <i>"trace background levels"</i> to be 55 times greater than it was previously.]
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, the unserious nature of Mr. A.Wright was known to the participants of this forum a couple of months before Mr. Rogue started flooding us in 2012. I probably have to use my fingers and some of my toes to count the number of times Mr. Rogue promised to throw the towel in at me [despite, or rather, because I do make <i>"mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational arguments"</i>], yet he has never thrown the towel at Mr. A.Wright, despite being deserving. Mr. Ruff makes promises regarding whom he's not going to read or respond to, but I don't recall him making such about Mr. A.Wright, despite being deserving. Coincidence?
<br>
<br>Here's how Mr. A.Wright needs to be handled. Option 1 is to not rise to the bait.
<br>
<br>Option 2 is when you have nothing better to do. You respectfully address him, address the issue, and thank him for his participation, because without him, you wouldn't get the opportunity to expound upon the depths of the truth of the 9/11 or world events for all of the future, newby, lurker readers and the database archeologists. When he starts grinding around in circles over territory already covered, you provide a substantiating link for this (for lurker reader's benefit and to prove claims of "circus carousel"), and then you leave it alone. No links? No go; you forfeit for attempting hypnotic lies. Bad, irrelevant, or unsupportive links? Like Lance Armstrong (or lying on a resume), you'll eventually forfeit.
<br>
<br>It takes more organization, but Mr. Rogue can attest that it is effective and can drive an opponent off of the rails into the weeds and to ad hominem-ville, which then depicts them as <i>"the insane, raving lunatic"</i> despite their attempts to afix this label to you.
<br>
<br>P.S. <i>"Wright is the typical Amerikan TVZombie..."</i> ~Mr. Rogue. I disagree. Mr. A.Wright, according to him and you forgot, isn't in or from the USA. I wager he's in Alice Springs.
<br>
<br>// Only 659 words, and my one-trick pony -- <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2">neu nookiedoo</a> -- only gets mentioned here in my signature.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_134');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 134 -->
<a name="x135"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x135" class="tiny">x135</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_135');">Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?</a></b></p>
<p>2013-08-29</p>
<div id="sect_135" style="display: none;">
<p>+++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18860">2013-08-29</a> hybridrogue1
<br>
<br>"P.S. "Wright is the typical Amerikan TVZombie…" ~Mr. Rogue. I disagree. Mr. A.Wright, according to him and you forgot, isn't in or from the USA. I wager he's in Alice Springs."~Señor
<br>
<br>I will respond to this by noting that Canada is in Amerika…as in the North Amerikan Union. That TV and it's Zombified viewers is a "typical Amerikan" phenomena, which is extant throughout the so-called "Western World". So where ever Mr Wright is, just like anyone else suffering the hypnotic trance of television he is indeed a typical Amerikan TVZombie, as the template is in fact Amerikan.
<br>
<br>Perhaps Mr Ruff understands these facts better than his enraged critic who takes it upon himself to treat all here as neophytes in his kindergarten class:
<br>
<br>7] "the first-responder ailments." – This point is addressed *in the very thread I am accused of ignoring this issue; Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust is due to its Nano-Particulate Nature:
<br>
<br>"*Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in "typical" indoor dusts."
<br>~RJ Lee report
<br>
<br>This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it. [*MARCH 5, 2013 – 9:30 AM]
<br>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/">http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/</a>
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>+++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18861">2013-08-29</a> hybridrogue1
<br>
<br>"I expect the same from Mr. Ruff"__"And I expect it taken down to the nugget of truth.."~Señor
<br>
<br>YOU "EXPECT"??? YOU? Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?
<br>
<br>Nookeedoodoo Taco:
<br>
<br>A Supposition built on Conjecture spiced with Speculation and wrapped in Bullshit!
<br>
<br>Now I am sure YOU "EXPECT" to turn this thread into a debate over whether my recipe for that taco is correct or not, thus fulfilling your mandate of derailing this whole conversation into an argument over your bullshit theory again.
<br>
<br>No dice, that is all a done deal now.
<br>
<br>All can see the counter argument to the 12 points you claim over and again has never been made; at the URL in my last post. As far as I am concerned that's all you get. It is sufficient regardless of what YOU expect.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>+++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18863">2013-08-29</a> hybridrogue1 August 29, 2013 – 5:34 pm
<br>
<br>So Let Us Speak to the Issue of Ad Hominem:
<br>
<br>http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/the-gay-porn-of-hybridrogue1/
<br>
<br>Of course what this anonymous entity calling itself 'Señor El Once' aka [DELETED] and who knows what else, was the source of many of my posts to his Nookiedoodoo thread – taken from his latest Defamation Jamboree on Truth and Shadows:
<br>
<br>So Señor drops his phony veneer of 'gentleman scholar' with this:
<br>. . . . .
<br>FEBRUARY 25, 2013 – 3:36 PM:
<br>"And I am defaming you, Mr. fookin' no-nookin' a$$hole Rogue."
<br>
<br>FEBRUARY 27, 2013 – 1:25 PM:
<br>"Let me put this in a form that your simple mind will understand: Fuck you, Mr. Rogue, and your bullshit chowder about defamation of Dr. Jones."
<br>" I call him "simple-minded" with respect to nukes and write "fuck you, Mr. Rogue" (because I know him so well.)"
<br>
<br>FEBRUARY 28, 2013 – 7:50 PM:
<br>"..you write on COTO & here about "the true nature of things", then WTF? You're not just being a clueless idiot; you're being a purposeful a$$hole whose motives we'll need to question for why you are here… in overbearing quantities."
<br>
<br>MARCH 3, 2013 – 8:28 PM:
<br>"I called Mr. Rogue a liar, a cheat, and agent, and I stand by that assessment."
<br>"Because Agent Rogue's superiors were not satisfied that his ad hominem against me would be adequate.."
<br>"Liar, cheat, and Agent that Mr. Rogue is…"
<br>"Were he not a liar, a cheat, and an agent, Mr. Rogue would have seen the light a long time ago."
<br>"Agent Rogue, where's your little pincer buddy Mr. A Wright?"
<br>
<br>MARCH 4, 2013 – 1:13 PM:
<br>"I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent… each with substantiation. So desperately does Agent Rogue desire the last word to solidify his dominance, he proves again what a liar, cheat, and agent he is."
<br>"it is more of a question of Agent Rogue failing an integrity test"
<br>"Mr. Rogue continues playing the agent to suppress nuclear means-&-methods by spouting the lie.."
<br>" just him demonstrating what a lying cheat he is."
<br>"Lying, cheating agent Rogue wants to keep framing things as minuscule and "a trillionth" and to steer readers into believing it means "nothing" and is equivalent to "zero."
<br>
<br>MARCH 4, 2013 – 7:30 PM:
<br>"Agent Rogue does not disappoint us with a further example of his lying and cheating ways."
<br>"But because he is an agent with an agenda to PREVENT knowledge of nuclear means-&-methods.."
<br>"And of course, this is the song-and-dance that Dr. Jones enlightens us with to "prove" that fission or fusion nukes weren't used. This is what the ignorant cheat and liar, Agent Rogue, wants us to believe to."
<br>" here is a "fucking lie" from Agent Rogue;
<br>[So rather than there being LESS radioactivity from a Neutron type device we have enhanced radiation.]"
<br>"Gloating Agent Rogue, as is true to his lying and cheating ways.."
<br>"It ain't as cheatin', lyin' Agent Rogue frames it.."
<br>"Agent Rogue is just paid not to see it, and to pull any trick he can to prevent others from seeing the truth, too."
<br>"When an agent is paid to promote an agenda, he can never admit fault or error; he can never give an inch; he can never allow his target (e.g., me) the last word on the agenda topic; he has to dominate the forum; he will pull out every nasty trick in the book in order to hold the line given by the agenda…"
<br>"Mr. Rogue isn't free to think for himself or to consider drawing different trend lines through the data points that are present. Agents never tire of going through the same merry-go-round points over-and-over, which Mr. Rogue has done not just with me, but with fellow agents Mr. A.Wright, Mr. TamborineMan, etc."
<br>"I stand by by assessment that Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent, as well as being an asshole. I'm sorry. The luster of having an agent as a sounding board has wore off; Mr. Rogue belongs back on this COTO crew-cut home court."
<br>
<br>MARCH 5, 2013 – 5:23 PM:
<br>"Agent Rogue demonstrates that he is a convincing liar and cheat.."
<br>" Mr. Rogue being a liar, a cheat, and an agent."
<br>"Why is Agent Rogue defending Dr. Jones so viciously?"
<br>
<br>MARCH 5, 2013 – 3:28 PM:
<br>" Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent."
<br>"Weasel, weasel, weasel! My, does Agent Rogue squirm!"
<br>"And before I forget, here's another example of Agent Rogue's fucking "genius"
<br>"Agent Rogue proves that he was lying about being a "genius" in any subject at any point in his life."
<br>"proving what a lying fucking cheat Agent Rogue is!"
<br>" Mr. Rogue, you are and have been T&S's govt infiltration, no doubt."
<br>"[*Ear-to-ear grin with middle-fingers raised in an appreciative salute to Agent Rogue*]"
<br>
<br>MARCH 5, 2013 – 7:05 PM:
<br>" TEN-TO-ONE!!! Agent Rogue never shuts the fuck up!!!"
<br>"Agent Rogue makes his living by saying "no" and ridiculing other's work."
<br>"Agent Rogue and his clackerless cowbell needs to be put out to pasture."
<br>"Agent Rogue may technically have his own blog, but if he doesn't use it, he's a liar to even consider himself a blogger."
<br>"P.S. Agent Rogue acts the innocent: "NSA 'Q Team' Agent… Whatever in the fuck that is supposed to mean." It was explained several times, thereby proving Agent Rogue lied about being a genius artist among countless other lies to steer this forum."
<br>. . . . . . . .
<br>"Because Agent Rogue's superiors were not satisfied that his ad hominem against me would be adequate.."~Anonymous Entity known as 'Señor'
<br>
<br>The staggering hypocrisy of a complaint of "ad hominem" – after reading the ungodly list of ad hominem 'Señor spewed onto the forum at Truth and Shadows, is a tell for anyone with the slightest lucidity.
<br>
<br>I do believe this anonymous entity should take on a new assignment and keep his filth off of COTO.
<br>. . . . .
<br>
<br>I posted this reply to the URL above, that led to an Anal Hurlant of defamation and slurs against my self. So I repeated some of what he had done on Truth and Shadows in the same manner.
<br>. . . . .
<br>HOWEVER; a few comments later I went back to the link for Maxifucks story on COTO and found this:
<br>
<br>ERROR 404 – FILE NOT FOUND
<br>Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
<br>. . . . .
<br>So I assume the administrators deleted the vile thing.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>+++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-46184">2013-08-30</a> By: hybridrogue1 on August 30, 2013 at 10:35 pm
<br>
<br>"Says the man without the intellect, fortitude, or integrity to read the entire textbook from Dr. Judy Wood, let alone compile any report (let alone a convincing one) on the good, the bad, and the ugly chapter-by-chapter."
<br>~ Señor El Once on August 21, 2013 at 1:49 pm
<br>. . . . . . . . .
<br>So…how long has it been since I offered to return the book to raging angry Maxidoo? This is what it is all about, all of this ranting is still about THE BOOK. It has been close to a year since I first received the book. Almost a year and Max is still bleeding_that's as long as it takes most men to get over a divorce. That is why I take this guy for a twat.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>+++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-46188">By: hybridrogue1 on August 31, 2013 at 12:27 am</a>
<br>
<br>To continue the discussion above. For it is not just this one point about the flash of a nuclear device. It also takes into account that one of the telltale signs of explosive demolition is the rows of explosions around the perimeter of a building. And the evidence for just such events is overwhelming; video, audio, and scores of witness testimonies. Unmistakable evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
<br>
<br>The published Testimonies of the First Responders is easily found in a search of the Internet. The breadth of this evidence is expansive and conclusive.
<br>
<br>And yes there will be testimony as to the furnace-like conditions with molten metal described. But this must be taken in context with the other testimony describing an explosive demolition using the known techniques thereof.
<br>
<br>The first assumption that then follows is: Isn't it most reasonable to consider such explosive products as the most likely culprits in keeping the rubble burn going? To reject this as the most likely prospect is a nonsequitur as far as reason in forensics. The reasons to reject it would need be compelling. I have made a long case as to why I do not find the nuclear, the DEW, nor the blend of the two as a compelling argument.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>+++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-46189">By: hybridrogue1 on August 31, 2013 at 1:13 am</a>
<br>
<br>To continue yet further:
<br>
<br>The seismic evidence points to explosions in the basements. We have gone over this previously. There were explosions in the basements. There is nothing else that explains the seismic evidence.
<br>
<br>So if a bomb went off, can the nuclear dew advocate claim it was a nuclear device? Not after all of the complex arguments describing the weapon as energizing a beam in a contained process. The proponent cannot have it both ways. Either they were bombs or they were beam weapons. If they were bombs all of the attendant arguments for the lack of substantive radiation fall flat.
<br>
<br>And this point is augmented by all the other arguments made showing how ubiquitous these minuscule amounts of radiation are:
<br>Why ineffective leach fields are the most likely source of most of these substances in metropolitan industrial centers. Which the city of New York most certainly is.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>+++++ <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/#comment-46198">By: hybridrogue1 on August 31, 2013 at 9:40 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Now, I want you Max, to understand something.
<br>
<br>I want this thing between us to end.
<br>
<br>I don't understand why it is you do not comprehend that you are just hurting your own reputation by continuing your attacks on me.
<br>
<br>It is only two days now since the last lambasting fusillade you laid down on the Truth and Shadows forum. When are you going to stop?
<br>
<br>If I continue putting together my thoughts on the destruction of the towers here – ON MY OWN THREAD – where few ever come anyway. I want you to understand that it is not 'arguing against you' even tho' I use your arguments as a counter. I want to develop my own presentation of how I think the towers were destroyed – in doing so I have to consider all opposing hypothesis.
<br>
<br>I don't want my final work on this to be an 'attack' on anyone. I want to address the data, that is all. But you have made it such an ugly affair that I have been totally pissed off because of your personal vile defamation.
<br>
<br>Drop it Max. Leave it be. You will only end up destroying yourself.
<br>
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_135');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 135 -->
<a name="x136"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x136" class="tiny">x136</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">Consistently missing substantiating links</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/#comment-152">2013-08-30</a></p>
<div id="sect_136" style="display: none;">
<p>El-Oh-El. Consistently missing just one tiny thing: substantiating links to the source locations so that context can be reviewed and your premises validated (or not). Afraid of the "or not", I see.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_136');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 136 -->
<a name="x137"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x137" class="tiny">x137</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_137');">Do I ever feel special!</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-46202">2013-09-01</a></p>
<div id="sect_137" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-46202">2013-09-01</a>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/#comment-155">2013-09-01</a> { expect it to not be published.}
<br>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18885">2013-08-30</a> {This sat in the moderation queue. I asked Mr. McKee either (a) to publish my response or (b) to delete my Rogue's <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18863">comment (2013-08-29)</a> and my response. I prefer (b), because it is a distraction from Mr. McKee's article and Mr. Rogue has other places where he's re-posted the same.}
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Oh man! Do I ever feel special! It wasn't just these three postings from Mr. Rogue.
<br>
<br>[1] <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18860">2013-08-29 – 2:51 pm</a>
<br>[2] <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18861">2013-08-29 – 3:22 pm</a>
<br>[3] <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18863">2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm</a>
<br>
<br>To my surprise, Mr. Rogue lets slip out <a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/"><i>Carnival d'Maxifuckanus</i> (2013-03-06)</a> dedicated to me, when I thought <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/"><i>PROLOGUE</i></a> was his only one-sided homage to me. Such attention from an <i>"Autodidact Polymath"</i> who <i>"worked for Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention"</i> <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/sanctions-in-gallop-911-lawsuit-send-a-message-seek-justice-at-your-own-risk/#comment-3299">(February 10, 2012 – 12:46 pm)</a>; who has <i>">35 years of studying the arts of espionage and has doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology"</i> <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/An-Open-Letter-to-the-9-11-by-John-Little-090318-659.html?show=votes#allcomments">(2009-03-23 at 12:42:29 PM)</a>; and who has <i>been an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years</i> and <i>9-11 Psyop... is an issue that [he understands] quite well</i> <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/An-Open-Letter-to-the-9-11-by-John-Little-090318-659.html?show=votes#allcomments">(2009-03-23 at 10:47:49 AM)</a>. One tiny thing, however, is consistently missing from his post-doctoral efforts: <b>reference links.</b>
<br>
<br>I wrote in Option 2 about how to handle a disingenuous opponent:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Option 2 is when you have nothing better to do. You respectfully address him, address the issue, and thank him for his participation... When he starts grinding around in circles over territory already covered, you <b>provide a substantiating link</b> for this (for lurker reader's benefit and to prove claims of "circus carousel"), and then you leave it alone. <b>No links? No go; you forfeit for attempting hypnotic lies.</b> Bad, irrelevant, or unsupportive links? Like Lance Armstrong (or lying on a resume), you'll eventually forfeit.</p></blockquote>
<p>Regarding his [third] retread posting (<a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18863">2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm</a> and <a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/#comment-119">here</a>) that tries to summarize all of the bad filthy words that I've used to describe Mr. Rogue -- <i>cheat, liar, weasel,</i> (in the past) <i>agent</i> --, the cherry-picked quotations from me <b>lack substantiating links.</b>
<br>
<br>Ah, too bad! Mr. Rogue forfeits on a technicality while demonstrating a major deficiency in his <i>"doctorates equivalent studies in ... the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation"</i>. Had he provided substantiating links to the source locations where I allegedly wrote those <i>terrible</i> things, the context could be reviewed and his premises validated (or not). Mr. Rogue is afraid of the<i> <b>"or not."</b></i>
<br>
<br>The strawman premise and distraction that Mr. Rogue builds:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So Señor drops his phony veneer of 'gentleman scholar' with this: ...</p></blockquote>
<p>The reason that I call it a <i>"strawman premise and distraction"</i> is that context proves that it is not me <i>"dropping [a] phony veneer of 'gentleman scholar'"</i>. No, it is me <i>"dropping down to Mr. Rogue's level"</i> using language and words that he understands better and doing an excellent job of mocking him. What is worse for Mr. Rogue is that context also proves that I substantiate with Mr. Rogue's own exhibit how I come to such dastardly opinions: <i>"cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent."</i>
<br>
<br>I don't know why Mr. Rogue keeps kicking that sleeping <i>"agent"</i> dog. Lacking proof other than my suspicions from his stubborn debates with me, it is not something that I've been holding to since even last November. <i>"Cheat, liar, weasel"</i> is another issue, and maybe him kicking the sleeping agent dog is just another example of that.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, Mr. OSS wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Either have a mature, sourced, responsive conversation with people here or piss off.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Adam Ruff dropped <i>"mature"</i> and <i>"responsive"</i> from his paraphrasing (coincidence?):
</p>
<blockquote><p>So as OSS said to you, make a legitimate, sourced, rational, argument or piss off.</p></blockquote>
<p>SEO wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Doesn't apply to just Mr. A.Wright. I expect the same from Mr. Ruff, who obviously can boast them as being a standard for all to follow.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Rogue comes unhinged with:
</p>
<blockquote><p>YOU "EXPECT"??? YOU? Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?</p></blockquote>
<p>What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Gotta walk the talk. So, yeah, <b><i>"I EXPECT"</i></b> and so do many others (including Mr. McKee.)
<br>
<br>Seeing how Mr. Rogue brings it up, what does he expect? Rhetorical question, because <a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/"><i>Carnival d'Maxifuckanus</i> (2013-03-06)</a> and <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/"><i>PROLOGUE</i></a> already demonstrate the standards of <i>"<b>mature</b>, responsive, <b>legitimate</b>, sourced, rational arguments"</i> that Mr. Rogue -- <i>"an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years"</i> with a <i>"doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in ... the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation"</i> -- EXPECTS from himself and others.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue slams some hypnotic suggestion down (<a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity#comment-18861">2013-08-29</a>):
</p>
<blockquote><p>All can see the counter argument to the 12 points you claim over and again has never been made; at the URL in my last post. As far as I am concerned that's all you get. It is sufficient regardless of what YOU expect.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ho-hum. I made 12 points. He claims that his <a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/"><i>Carnival d'Maxifuckanus</i></a> has the counter-arguments to the twelve. In actuality, <b><i>cheating</i></b> Mr. Rogue won't let me post <i>"<b>mature</b>, responsive, <b>legitimate</b>, sourced, rational <b>counter-counter-arguments</b>"</i> to that blog or <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/"><i>PROLOGUE</i></a>; I know because I tried on <a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/#comment-42451">2013-03-19</a>, but it was deleted. That's why you'll have to go <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-16990"><i>"The Judy Wood Enigma"</i> (2013-04-15)</a> to see his counter-arguments get destroyed, point-by-point and ample examples highlighted of him <i>cheating, lying, and being a weasel</i> in his effort.
<br>
<br>Yep, it demonstrates a lot about the character of Mr. Rogue that he would link to his one-sided <i>Carnival d'Maxifuckanus</i> instead of a two-sided <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-16990"><i>"The Judy Wood Enigma"</i></a>.
<br>
<br>With 243 comments to this thread at the time of writing, Mr. Rogue has 77 (31.7%) while I have only seven times less at 11 (4.5%). I am such a loser against Mr. Rogue.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue, thank you for your participation. You are so cute when you come unhinged.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_137');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 137 -->
<a name="x138"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x138" class="tiny">x138</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');">respect is mutual</a></b></p>
<p>2013-09-03</p>
<div id="sect_138" style="display: none;">
<p>
+++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18982">2013-09-03</a> ruffadam
<br>
<br>Willy,
<br>
<br>I too have only a lowly high school education and I too am a self educated person. I have found that many highly educated people are among the most misinformed. Something built into the formal education system seems to cause this phenomenon. As a result some highly educated individuals are terribly misinformed and in addition are stubborn about sticking to the misinformation they believe. This makes them almost impossible to dialogue with because they often see themselves as superior in intelligence to lowly high school grads such as me.
<br>
<br>In fact I had a "conversation" if you can call it that with RT aka Gretavo about 9/11 where my argument was clearly winning the day and instead of acknowledging that he was wrong about the issue he seized upon a misspelled word I wrote and used that as his excuse to avoid the crux of the argument. Highly disingenuous thing to do but he went to "college" you see and I did not so naturally I must be wrong and just look at the proof of that, a misspelled word!
<br>
<br>Elizabeth Woodworth and DRG's consensus panel is in my opinion a clear demonstration of this idea that college educated truthers are somehow better truthers. Woodworth pushes the laughable meme that the CIT information is not credible BECAUSE it hasn't been peer reviewed! So essentially her excuse for disregarding, what is in my opinion, the most damning evidence of an inside job that exists today is that it hasn't been stamped "approved" by academics (the academics she and David choose). Academics that don't even know the difference between the NOC and SOC flight path or why the issue is so critically important by the way.
<br>
<br>I don't care one bit about a person's academic background all that matters to me is what they say and what they do. Willy has proven himself in my book as a highly intelligent and extremely knowledgeable truther who can and does make some of the best arguments there are to be made. I hold a PhD. in 9/11 studies from self education university and I can say with confidence that some people's degrees are not worth the paper they are printed on. Some of these "academics" are indoctrinated to such a degree that they are actually stunted intellectually. For instance many universities have been pushing the global warming (rebranded climate change) meme strongly to all their students. These students emerge from these universities convinced that global warming is real and is manmade. This is where self education is actually superior to the indoctrination that goes on at universities surrounding political issues such as "climate change". I can see that the sun has by far the most impact on temperature while these indoctrinated academics cannot. To them the trace gas CO2 is the culprit and the cycles of the sun have nothing to do with the issue. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!
<br>
<br>I for one appreciate Willy's contributions to this blog and see no reason whatsoever to stifle them.
<br>
<br>+++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18988">2013-09-03</a> hybridrogue1
<br>
<br>I appreciate your kind words Adam, and you know the respect is mutual between us.
<br>
<br>The history of what has happened to schooling in Amerika is clear, it is public knowledge; Iserbyt, Gatto, Sutton and others since have detailed how the Prussian model of 'Kindergarten' was forcefully transplanted into the US by the 'Anglophile Network' that Carroll Quigley reveals in TRAGEDY AND HOPE.
<br>
<br>And by the 'Kindergarten Model', I do not merely mean the pre-school grade that is generally though of, I mean the template of mandatory regimentation and warehousing, the officially forced military discipline and conditioning and behavior modification – in essence, robot factories producing widgets as part of the larger machine.
<br>
<br>This model covers the 'schooling life' from the time the 'student' is weened from mother's milk throughout all of the grades up and through 'university'. This is the template for this psychotic society. I call the highest "educated" academiacs.
<br>
<br>The miracle seems to be that there is ANYONE who escapes brain damage in such a system. But there obviously are some portion of strong willed souls who instinctively rebel against such utter madness, or who discover how insane it all is somewhere along the way.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>+++++ <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18986">2013-09-03</a> ruffadam
<br>
<br>OSS I want to repeat this particular part of what you said because it points out something more I did not say in my original post. You said:
<br>
<br>""Peer review" is simply a way of saying that unless the evidence points to where "we", the self appointed judges want it to point, no dice."
<br>
<br>I want to emphasize the "self appointed judges" remark because it hits the nail on the head as to what one of the biggest issue is with the consensus panel.
<br>
<br>They are self appointed and therefore any pre existing bias that exists in the people selecting the panelists will manifest itself in their choices of who they select. Thus Woodworth who is biased toward academics and who is hostile to the NOC evidence selects others who are academics hostile to the NOC evidence such as Chandler and Cole etc. They in turn influence the panel away from the NOC evidence and toward bringing in more panelists that are in line with their views. It is a self sustaining cycle all predicated on their "academic credentials". Because only the uneducated Joe six pack truthers could possibly take issue with their superior brains you see. That is why people with FAR more knowledge about 9/11 and false flag terror are never even considered as panelists while relative newcommers are invited because they have a degree of some kind. That is reflective of Woodworths bias toward academics over others with more knowledge and experience.
<br>
<br>You are correct when you point out how naive many people, especially academics, are about just how bad our system really is and how evil it is. You see because these academics are doing well in the current system having good jobs etc. from their perspective the system is working relatively well. So to them the idea that the entire system is corrupt and evil to the extreme is a bogus concept. Thus you will find the people who are doing well in the system as it is are the most resistant to the reality of what the system has become.
<br>
<br>At any rate OSS I give your work a great deal more attention than I do anything from the consensus panel because quite frankly your research is more important than what a bunch of poorly informed academics can agree upon which is usually just a watered down shadow of the truth anyway. In the final analysis does it matter if these people agree on anything" Does it change the truth at all" NO! It is nothing more than an appeal to authority logical fallacy.
<br>
<br>I will stick with Joe six pack truther and his common sense approach to research and I will stick with my gut feeling about who is legit and who isn't. In my book you OSS are the real deal.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_138');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 138 -->
<a name="x139"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x139" class="tiny">x139</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_139');">obsolete words for high school graduates</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-19002">2013-09-04</a></p>
<div id="sect_139" style="display: none;">
<p>{Disclaimer: Most links on obsolete words <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">go here.</a> Enjoy the re-deploy of today!}
<br>
?<br>Will wonders never cease?! Every <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">wonder-wench</a> and <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">snoutfair</a> who particpates here graduated from high school or the equivalent! From there, it is anyone's guess the rough and rugged road they took to further their education, be it academic pursuits at an institution or <i>the school of hard knocks.</i>
<br>
<br>I don't want to <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">jirble</a> over the complaints of organized education by the <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">spermologers</a> here, because the dreadful <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">curglaff</a> of education is that we always have to be learning and can't be <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">beef-witted</a> about it. A shock-and-awe for me in these days and times is the <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">resistentialism</a> of higher education exhibited by unreasonable debt, which quickly applies slave shackles to all who attempt it (in the USA) despite employment prospects not far above a <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">soda-squirt</a>.
<br>
<br>High school math is important in this regard. Today's minimum wage is $7.25/hour ($15k/year), but an inflation adjusted 1968 mininum wage of $1.60 would be $10.96/hour (or $22k/year) [and <a href="http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/">some argue</a> that it would be $21.16/hr ($44k/year) if it had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, and if the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained.] What should really put the <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">snoutfair</a> of wage earners into a <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">pussyvan</a> is recognizing annual incomes LESS THAN $44k/year is less than 1968's equivalent decency standard of minimum wage. The outrage should bubble up the income ladder and piss more people off.
<br>
<br>Joe-Six-Pack high school graduates act like <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">California widows</a> and display their own brand of snobbery against formal education that rings a bit like <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">groaking</a>. The issue with academics in our for-profit educational system is that they know which slide of the bread gets buttered and by whom in terms of research funding. It becomes very easy to leverage silence across the board, and to manipulate, smear, control, etc. those with the vaginas to speak up. 9/11 is no exception.
</p>
<blockquote><p>[S]ome highly educated individuals are terribly misinformed and in addition are stubborn about sticking to the misinformation they believe.~Adam Ruff (<a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18982">2013-09-03</a>)</p></blockquote>
<p>And many highly <i>uneducated</i> individuals are terribly misinformed and in addition are stubborn about sticking to the misinformation they believe (Amen, Brother!), just because someone with a PhD in a focused area <i>"blinded them with science"</i> [or a purposeful misconstrue] they didn't have the background to workthrough or peer-review on their own. They punt to the academic honors and <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">lunt</a> away blunts to the <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">tyromancy</a> studio, like <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">queerplungers</a> hoping academic smarts will be bestowed on them for their <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">curglaff</a> into deep areas.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">Zafty</a> Mr. Ruff (<a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18982">2013-09-03</a>), when talking his misinformation about CO2, should first educate himself about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas">greenhouse gases.</a> Contrary to what news pundits and politicians tells him, the experts and academics are much more unified in their climate change views. Because he obviously hasn't studied it and has no research track record, he shouldn't expect to be picked for "peer review". Whether the sun is changing and whether human actions exasperate it, climate change is real.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff (<a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-18986">2013-09-03</a>):
</p>
<blockquote><p>They are self appointed and therefore any pre existing bias that exists in the people selecting the panelists will manifest itself in their choices of who they select.</p></blockquote>
<p>Take it upon yourself to self-appoint yourself as a peer reviewer, which is within your right as a 9/11 Truther. Maybe you'll be able to <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">englishable</a> works that were purposely meant to obfuscate by <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">bookwrights</a>, if you don't ignorantly <i>"reject everything contained therein"</i>.
<br>
<br>However, if my reading of Mr. Kevin Ryan reveals to be <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">with squirrel</a>, many other factors relating to genetics and which (private) school you attended go into making opportunities for the self-appointed.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff can <i>"stick with Joe six pack truther and his common sense approach to research and ... will stick with [his] gut feeling about who is legit and who isn't."</i>
<br>
<br>Me? I'll stick with just the truth even in small nuggets, because Joe-six-pack truthers also have a price and become wonder-wench <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">California widows</a> with just a few mortgage payments.
<br>
<br>Another zafty queerplunger and wannabe bookwright groaked (<a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/#comment-157">2013-09-04</a>) about leach fields leaking back tritium to the WTC (a total fabrication) and then attempts to jirble authority into the spermological tritium report that didn't have the twat to scientifically, systematically, and completely measure in a timely fashion <b>all</b> of the tritium. So whatever <i>"infinitesimally tiny amounts of tritium"</i> that the tritium report offers as englishable is <b>incomplete</b> and (using Mr. Ruff's criteria) ought to be <b>rejected</b> for its purposeful instances of deceit. Can't be trusted, so why does this snoutfair?
<br>
<br>I don't know why the soda-squirt of a bookwright (<a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-46244">2013-09-03</a>) took offense for being compared to Luntz. Reliance on a faulty tritium report and relentless skewing it (as opposed to rejecting it) is a pretty good Luntz-ish example.
<br>
<br>Another beef-witted Luntz-ish example (<a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/#comment-159">2013-09-03</a>) from this spermologer is his obvious tyromancy into divining balderdash. The curglaff is two-fold: (1) when my response didn't appear, Mr. McKee was told off-list of my preference [and a different decision might have saved that lunter exposing his pussyvan]; (2) I stand behind and can substantiate my negative assessments that deploy the L-word, the C-word, and the W-word. Here's a good substantiating exhibit of such: <a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/#comment-158">2013-09-04</a>.
<br>
<br>Words from a <a href="http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/195348/18-obsolete-words-which-should-have-never-gone-out-of-style/">wonder-wench</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.~Betty White</p></blockquote>
<p>Tyromancy told me that the "ruff" and "rogue" beef-witted snoutfairs have been tag-teaming for quite some time, ineffectually and not helped by their pussyvan.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_139');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 139 -->
<a name="x140"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x140" class="tiny">x140</a>
Adam Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_140');">a real truther we should all try to emulate</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-19095">2013-09-12</a></p>
<div id="sect_140" style="display: none;">
<p>OSS,
<br>
<br>I have been reading these posts of yours as they have gone up and have been carefully considering the points you have made throughout the entire vetting process. I am now totally comfortable in saying that Barbara Honegger is intentionally putting out disinformation and actively trying to obfuscate what happened at the pentagon. I now place her in the same category as Morgan Reynolds with his Hollogram theories and Judy Wood with her bogus DEW theories. I have no further use for miss Honegger and do not consider her to be a real truther. In fact I consider her to be an exposed operative who is actively trying to confuse and divide the truth movement.
<br>
<br>Your work is invaluable OSS and I really appreciate it. I only wish I had the time and patience to do more of the same kind of work you have done with Honegger. Well done I tip my hat to you OSS. You are an example of a real truther we should all try to emulate.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_140');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 140 -->
<a name="x141"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x141" class="tiny">x141</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_141');">The dirt on that</a></b></p>
<p>2013-09-13</p>
<div id="sect_141" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-19114">2013-09-13</a>
<br><a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-46668">2013-09-13</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff wrote [<a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/#comment-19095">2013-09-12</a>]:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I now place [Barbara Honegger] in the same category as Morgan Reynolds with his Hollogram theories and Judy Wood with her bogus DEW theories. I have no further use for miss Honegger and do not consider her to be a real truther.</p></blockquote>
<p>I admit to not having studied Barbara Honegger's videos or Mr. OSS's analysis in detail [due to other things in my life requiring focus], so such an assessment may be valid. However, this does not alleviate anyone of the task of preserving the nuggets of truth from those works that merit such.
<br>
<br>Case in point, the <b><i>"don't land here"</i></b> semaphore flags were waved with Mr. Ruff's gratuitious (negative) reference to Dr. Wood; with a whole year of Rogue-ian acrobatic circus to avoid taking Dr. Wood's work out of contention legitimately chapter-by-chapter [with my blessing and help]; and with a recent clumsy COTO clown-act [<a href="http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/#comment-46526">2013-09-11 at 3:10 pm</a>] with the frame:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[SEO] cannot even provide a clear example of what is substantively unique to the [Dr. Wood] Book in comparison to what is provided on the [Dr. Wood] website of the author of the book. It is [SEO's] responsibility to prove the case that the book is unique, rather than mine to make an argument of nonexistence; onus probandi.</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>The research required for my response (unpublished) helped me discover something very crafty in that framing that I will get to in a moment. A snippet extracted from my response tackles the skewed charge of <i>"lack of uniqueness"</i> in the book prior to the gentleman's agreement to review it:
<br>
<br>- [<a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/the-fog-of-words-how-we-inadvertantly-reinforce-the-911-official-story/#comment-3438">2012-02-16</a>] <i>"Dr. Wood's website has not been thoroughly debunked. ... In order for it to be thoroughly debunked, the debunker would have to go through image-by-image and state what is wrong with each and her questions. <b>This, nobody has done.</b>"</i>
<br>
<br>- [<a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/the-fog-of-words-how-we-inadvertantly-reinforce-the-911-official-story/#comment-3446">2012-02-17</a>] <i>"Although the above applies to the website, some themes from her website are re-purposed in her book. So, if nobody or nothing old has debunked her website image-by-image, then that same nothingness is incapable of addressing the overlap that is in her book. "</i>
<br>
<br>- [<a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/#comment-6211">2012-06-08]</a> <i>"If you have read her book and her website, you would know that there is significant overlap between the two, although the website has more errors, is more disorganized, and can't be considered Dr. Wood's final word."</i>
<br>
<br>The crafty thing from that framing -- <i>"prove the case that the book is unique" </i> -- is that it turns the focus onto the book exclusively and acts as if the debunking of <b>the evidence</b> on her incomplete, error-prone, disorganized, and several years old website were a foregone conclusion. It is not. And this was made clear to me when I attempted some of the busy work necessitated by the <i>"proof."</i>
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt3.html"><b>THE DIRT !!!</b></a>
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood's book covers the dirt differently and truncated. More importantly, the incomplete web effort on the dirt is a glaring piece of evidence for <b>neutron nuclear DEW.</b>
<br>
<br><b>Briefly:</b> Neutron nuclear devices have a different radiation signature than other nukes: namely primarily the ejected highly-energetic neutron radiation that in turn energizes comparatively small amounts of short-lived alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in things they hit (and that the blast & heat wave don't annilate). The directed energy weapon (DEW) variants of this aim the majority of the neutrons in a manner (e.g., upwards in a cone-shaped charge) that throws most of them away and reduces <i>"collateral damage"</i> to life forms that might otherwise be hit by a spherical emission of neutrons (e.g., the framing of battlefield neutron weapons). This configuration also reduces the blast and heat waves to tactical levels. Multiple neutron DEW devices would be needed for each tower with slight overkill numbers to account for the high probabilities of inter-device fracticide that can lead to device failure or nuclear fizzle (e.g., not reaching designed nuclear yields).
<br>
<br>One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt3.html">This page on Dr. Wood's website</a> with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
<br>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3885.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3885.jpg</a>
<br>Figure 89. Why would there be dirt sprinkled on top of the rubble pile?
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3897.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3897.jpg</a>
<br>Figure 97. This was the pedestrian walkway over West Street, between WFC3 and WTC6. Why would it have a huge amount of dirt in it?
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3926.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3926.jpg</a>
<br>Figure 91. Sprinkled with fresh dirt.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5303.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5303.jpg</a>
<br>Figure 93. Clean wrinkled beams.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3914.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3914.jpg</a>
<br>Figure 94. My favorite wrinkled beams now have dirt dumped on them!
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3901.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3901.jpg</a>
<br>Figure 98. If this amount of dirt had been contained in planting pots, there wouldn't have been room for pedestrians.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5644.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5644.jpg</a>
<br><b>Figure 102.</b> The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, <u>toward</u> the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5650.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5650.jpg</a>
<br><b>Figure 103(a).</b> This appears to be dirt being trucked away from the WTC complex. Why is so much dirt coming and going? The four trucks ahead of the green one carry a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/010927_5644cb.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/010927_5644cb.jpg</a>
<br><b>Figure 102(a).</b> The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/peopleNortheast.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/peopleNortheast.jpg</a>
<br><b>Figure 103(b).</b> The large truck headed south appears to be hauling dirt. This intersection is a block east of Church and Vesey, and the top of the photo is west. Broadway is the street from right to left. So, the big truck, which appears to be loaded down with landfill dirt, has driven south on Broadway, past the Vesey Street intersection. It didn't come to where it is from Vesey Street; there are no tracks on Vesey Street!
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/overhead_hiresC_WFC1_Lawn.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/overhead_hiresC_WFC1_Lawn.jpg</a>
<br>Figure 104(c). Then, yellow bulldozers appear to be scooping up and removing all of the dirt from in front of WFC1.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5508.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5508.jpg</a>
<br>Figure 105. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5509.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5509.jpg</a>
<br>Figure 106. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image304.jpg">http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image304.jpg</a>
<br>Figure 106. Why are they still hosing down the "pile" in March 2002? And why is there so much dirt, still?</p></blockquote>
<p>Note the references to <i>"still fuming from the wet dirt"</i> and <i>"still hosing down the 'pile' in March 2002"</i>, which are two other indications of nuclear fizzle.
<br>
<br>I also call readers' attentions to figure 93 above, aptly titled <i>"clean wrinkled beams"</i> and is an external wall assembly. This is one example of a major anomalous phenomenon observable everywhere whereby protective coatings and paint have been <i>"burned"</i> off of the steel. Also, the wrinkling (not just the bending) would not have been possible without a massive heat source in its vacinity in the towers to make the steel pliable before a horizontal blast wave did the shaping.
<br>
<br>I call readers' attention to figure 94 above, where Dr. Wood notes that wrinkled beams now have dirt on them. Only really makes sense for steel beams to be getting dirt piled on them if they somehow became slighly radioactive from their proximity to a neutron nuclear destructive mechanism.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff still ought to file the FOIA for the suppressed government report that may or may not prove his <i>"No Radiation"</i> assertion, but let this dirt be one of many glaring signs (a) about why the report is still suppressed and (b) what information it might contain.
<br>
<br>=====
<br>
<br>All of of this I wouldn't have discovered if I wouldn't have gone back into the maw of the Wood-sian disinformation sources to rescue nuggets of truth worth saving.
<br>
<br>If they can fly a plane low over the Pentagon from one direction, plant evidence it came from another, and through the MIC media outlets get the world to believe it hit the Pentagon, then they ought to be able to afford a few dozen neutron nuclear DEW devices as part of the missing $2.3 trillion in DOD spending.
<br>
<br>Ergo, the moral of this story is that sincere 9/11 truth seekers should be mindful of the errant, but as of yet unsaved, nuggets of truth in newly labeled <i>"disinformation"</i> sources, such as Ms. Honegger's work. Do not be too swift in REJECTING ALL OF THEIR WORK in one fell swoop.
<br>
<br>P.S. I related it to the discussion. I didn't mention Dr. Wood first. I don't champion her theories 100%, mostly because -- as this dirt work shows -- she stops <i><b>abruptly</b></i> short of appropriate nuclear conclusions. The anonymous physicists used to decry Dr. Wood as being a disinfo agent for gathering together of all the evidence of 9/11 being nuclear and camping them under "kookie" umbrellas (ala Hutchison, Tesla energy from space, etc.)
<br>
<br>// [Diagonal posting that tries to emulate real truther, Mr. OSS.]
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_141');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 141 -->
<a name="x142"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x142" class="tiny">x142</a>
Adam Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_142');">Who's Afraid?</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/complaint-filed-cable-host-michael-coren-goes-from-ridiculing-911-truth-to-calling-it-anti-semitic-hate-speech/#comment-22010">2014-04-07</a></p>
<div id="sect_142" style="display: none;">
<p>"'Who's Afraid of Truth and Shadows?'"</p>
<p>All the right people are afraid! The list of the fearful is long and distinguished. Off the top of my head the list includes:</p>
<p>David Chandler<br>
Kevin Ryan<br>
Barbara Honegger<br>
All 911blogger mods<br>
Virtually all CIT critics<br>
Virtually all DEW and Video fakery advocates<br>
Corporate media representatives<br>
Government representatives<br>
Sandy Hook and Boston bombing official story believers<br>
JREFers will not openly come here although they do troll under pseudonyms</p>
<p>I for one am proud as hell of that list. Of course many of them claim falsly that we are uncivil. They simply claim any challenge to their false beliefs is uncivil so they can maintain a facade of credibility while still avoiding a debate they know they will lose. People challenge me all the time and I argue my side of the issue, they argue theirs, and we continue until a resolution is reached. That is IF both sides debate in good faith. The problem with all of those on the above list is that when the debate goes badly for them they do not have the character or integrity to admit when they are wrong and change their beliefs accordingly.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_142');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 142 -->
<a name="x143"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x143" class="tiny">x143</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_143');">hasn't been debating in good faith</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/complaint-filed-cable-host-michael-coren-goes-from-ridiculing-911-truth-to-calling-it-anti-semitic-hate-speech/#comment-22011">2014-04-07</a></p>
<div id="sect_143" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Adam Ruff wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>People challenge me all the time and I argue my side of the issue, they argue theirs, and we continue until a resolution is reached. That is IF both sides debate in good faith. The problem with all of those on the above list is that when the debate goes badly for them they do not have the character or integrity to admit when they are wrong and change their beliefs accordingly.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ah, yes, but on the <b>"nuclear DEW"</b> front, unresolved issues remain, because Mr. Ruff hasn't been debating in good faith as evidenced by uppity statements regarding being proud of ~not~ reading what the debate opponent writes and of ignoring such postings. I do not fault Mr. Ruff for this, because it can be a time-sucking rabbit hole. But Mr. Ruff can be faulted for <i>hit-and-run</i> trolling actions, and for making bold statements about the (supposed) inapplicability of nuclear means to 9/11 and then not defending them.</p>
<p>Yes, I have not forgotten Mr. Ruff's bad behavior that is clearly hypocritical to the quoted passage above. </p>
<p>Moreover, the nuclear argument has been honed even further. Wouldn't you know it, when I thought I had come across something that I thought was definitive (e.g., neutron nuclear DEW), I recognized the validity of an argument presented by Dr. Wood's supports that has me cycling through things presented by Dr. Wood. She isn't completely right, nor can she ever be until she's willing to get us closer to make-and-model of the devices. But she's closer than all other theories, particularly when researchers are willing to separate the WTC destruction building by building. [Whereas "beams-from-space" seems inapplicable to WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7, it ought to remain on the table for other anomalously destroyed buildings.]</p>
<p>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_143');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 143 -->
<a name="x144"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x144" class="tiny">x144</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_144');">spent many months in reasoned debate</a></b></p>
<p>2014-04-07</p>
<div id="sect_144" style="display: none;">
<blockquote>"not debating in good faith as evidenced by uppity statements regarding being proud of ~not~ reading what the debate opponent writes and of ignoring such postings. I do not fault Mr. Ruff for this, because it can be a time-sucking rabbit hole. But Mr. Ruff can be faulted for hit-and-run trolling actions, and for making bold statements about the (supposed) inapplicability of nuclear means to 9/11 and then not defending them."</blockquote>
<p>This reply by the anonymous entity calling itself "Señor El Once" is spurious bullshit, as both myself and Mr Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate wherein the entity refused to bow to reasoned argument while spinning long arguments of verbosity based on nothing but assertions based on weak presumptions. "Señor" has never had "the character or integrity to admit when he was wrong".
<br>
<br>This entity calling itself "Señor" clearly has no interest in any discussion here unless he can make an attempt to make it appear plausible that something said in the commentary is ample excuse to make a sales pitch for his singular product, the faulty nuclear/DEW gambit.
<br>
<br>This shall not be construed as a challenge to once again "debate" an issue that should have long ago been relegated to the trash bin.
<br>
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_144');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 144 -->
<a name="x145"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x145" class="tiny">x145</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_145');">counting the lies</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/complaint-filed-cable-host-michael-coren-goes-from-ridiculing-911-truth-to-calling-it-anti-semitic-hate-speech/#comment-22022">2014-04-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_145" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Rogue wrote this priceless reflection of his true inner-character:
</p><blockquote><p>This reply by the anonymous entity calling itself "Señor El Once" is spurious bullshit, as both myself and Mr Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate wherein the entity refused to bow to reasoned argument while spinning long arguments of verbosity based on nothing but assertions based on weak presumptions. "Señor" has never had "the character or integrity to admit when he was wrong".</p></blockquote>
<p>I count three lies in that paragraph alone. Lie #1 is that <i>"Mr. Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate [with me]."</i> Never happened, even though Mr. Ruff has been called out by me many times to substantiate his hit-and-run <i>"no radiation at the WTC"</i> hypnotic suggestion. Every time a debate of substance tried to begin, Mr. Ruff would huff and puff and scurry from the scene under the auspices of <i>"not wanting to feed the trolls"</i> or other bullshit. He prided himself on not reading my comments.
<br>
<br>Lie #2 is contained within the same grammar-challenged sentence, re-written as <i>"Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate [with me]."</i> Lopping off Mr. Ruff and concentrating on Mr. Rogue's efforts alone, <i>"many months"</i> applies, but the <i>"reasoned debate"</i> does not.
<br>
<br><i>"Reasoned debate"</i> implies all sorts of qualities that Mr. Rogue lacks. For one, it implies objectively reviewing the material that the other side brings to the table. To this end as but one example, Mr. Rogue admitted not only to not finishing Dr. Judy Wood's textbook but also to violently defacing it to use as bird cage liner. In exchange for receiving his copy, he was charged with producing an objective <i>"good, bad, and ugly"</i> review chapter-by-chapter and with paying it forward or passing it on when finished. He welched spectacularly on the deal. I probably would have been in agreement with any of <i>"the bad and ugly"</i> he might have offered up, but his inability to acknowledge any of <i>"the good"</i> contained therein -- however closely or sparsely spaced they might be -- is an excellent example of Mr. Rogue's definition of <i>"reasoned debate"</i> that doesn't hold muster.
<br>
<br>Whereas Mr. Rogue can point to his one-sided blog as proof of his time commitment, titles like <i>"Maxifuckanus"</i> give more than a hint as to the quality of his <i>"reasoned"</i> efforts for bored readers and gluttons for punishment. What the same readers won't find is a <i>"debate"</i>, because Mr. Rogue purges dissenting views.
<br>
<br>Lie #3 is his second sentence: <i>"Señor" has never had "the character or integrity to admit when he was wrong".</i>
<br>
<br>I used to be a no-planer, but not any more. I offered up a public apology in several places including these T&S forums.
<br>
<br>I can provide other examples of me admitting being wrong, but this one suffices to corner Mr. Rogue (yet again for the umpteeth time) as being a <b>LIAR</b>, and thereby allowing me to call Mr. Rogue a <b>LIAR</b> whenever I see fit without consequence, because it was -- and now is again -- a substantiated, valid, character assessment.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue continued:
</p><blockquote><p>This entity calling itself "Señor" clearly has no interest in any discussion here unless he can make an attempt to make it appear plausible that something said in the commentary is ample excuse to make a sales pitch for his singular product, the faulty nuclear/DEW gambit.</p></blockquote>
<p>This tidbit about me supposedly having no interest in any discussion here (outside my hobby-horse nuclear area) becomes lie #4, as demonstrated by other comments to this thread and to all other threads. For example, I read Kevin Ryan's book, which neither Mr. Rogue nor Mr. Ruff did, despite them making many comments to that thread. Noteworthy is Mr. Ruff trying to bluff why he wasn't going to read it (based on hearsay), another lame excuse similar to his refusal to read Dr. Wood's book. We can't call their objectivity into question if they haven't gotten over their ignorance of the actual subject matter, a much worse reflection on their style of <i>"reasoned debate."</i>
<br>
<br>Big words that Mr. Rogue utters, <i>"the faulty nuclear/DEW gambit,"</i> but he's shooting blanks. In fact, neither he nor Mr. Ruff can prove the corner-stone of their <b>"no-nukes"</b> premise namely, <i>"no radiation at the WTC"</i>. If they had the character or integrity to admit when they were wrong, they would acknowledge that ~all~ 9/11 reports on the radiation and dust are faulty, with the delays in taking samples being the most glaring one, sufficient to cover-over the side-effects of 4th generation nuclear weapons whose radiation is not lingering.
<br>
<br>At best and in an honest moment, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue could say that neither radiation nor the lack of radiation can be proven at the WTC, so it can't be used as a determining factor either way. The case for nukes or no-nukes would need to be built on other evidence. Too bad that neither Mr. Ruff nor Mr. Rogue has ever admitted to being wrong about chemical-based explosives and incendiaries in not being able to account for all of the observed evidence, such as the duration of hot-spots and the relative quiet decibel levels.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue concludes:
</p><blockquote><p>This shall not be construed as a challenge to once again "debate" an issue that should have long ago been relegated to the trash bin.</p></blockquote>
<p>If Mr. Rogue had a better memory and more integrity, he wouldn't be so easily trapped and outed as a liar. Yet his faulty memory is actually a dubious tactic, whereby he purposely mis-remembers and <b>hypnotically suggests</b> that nuclear topics were discussed and, based on sound arguments and <i>"reasoned debate,"</i> relegated to the trash bin. Didn't happen.
<br>
<br>Mr. McKee has been dragging his feet on writing his own article on nuclear 9/11 themes, or publishing an article from me. On this forum, nuclear themes have only been touched upon tangentially.
<br>
<br>On Mr. Rogue's former home court, he was pwned so badly by me on this subject that from the onset of my arrival there he came unhinged against me and a female admin, so much so that he was |<--this close-->| to being banned. Indeed, Mr. Rogue's efforts to counter my nuclear arguments that he has re-published on his blog should have been edited & cleaned up long ago, or relegated to the trash bin. Instead, he serves them up as supposed <i>"proof"</i> of his <i>"reasoned debate."</i>
<br>
<br>Nope. <i>"Reasoned debate"</i> on nuclear themes has yet to commense here. I give my debate opponents an advantage, because almost the entirety of my nuclear 9/11 position is available on my blog and can be addressed section-by-section, point-by-point in advance. The one deviation that I haven't had a chance to write up is that I no longer champion <b>neutron nuclear DEW.</b> In yet another instance where some evidence from the Dr. Wood camp [the dust and pulverization of the towers was "cool"] had me admit where I was wrong, I've moved from nuclear devices further into Dr. Wood's DEW via Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices that tweak my proposed <b>neutron nuclear DEW</b> devices further, exchanging heat & blast wave yields for energy at wavelengths, ala Project Excalibur, Casaba-Howitzer, x-ray lasers, etc.
<br>
<br>P.S. Mr. Owen Meister, your assessment of the <i>"oh elite and pedantic one"</i> is very good.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_145');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 145 -->
<a name="x146"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x146" class="tiny">x146</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_146');">I vote for it having been thrown under a bus</a></b></p>
<p>2014-04-12</p>
<div id="sect_146" style="display: none;">
<p>ruffadam
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/complaint-filed-cable-host-michael-coren-goes-from-ridiculing-911-truth-to-calling-it-anti-semitic-hate-speech/#comment-22154">April 12, 2014 at 7:54 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I vote for it having been thrown under a bus. I find it very interesting in each new article from Craig the new posters that pop up. Invariably there seems to be an agenda other than honest discussion and debate behind their posts. I notice further that when these agendas fail that the derailers roll in to spoil the discussion. I am fully convinced that professional disinfo operatives pay attention to this blog and from time to time pop in for a little chaos creation.
<br>
<br>For the record since this thread is dead SOE continues dishonestly to portray myself and HR1 as refusing to address his/her/its nuke theories. We have both addressed them at length and debunked them thoroughly. I am sick of SEO claiming we have not done so, it is dishonest and should not be allowed to continue. I am not going to play the damn game where I answer and then a little time passes and it is claimed I never answered. That is what the troll A.Wright used to do. It is just an attempt to waste my time along with the obvious derailing of the thread. SEO claims all kinds of new nukes are out there but to my knowledge shows no evidence that these "low radiation" nukes even exist in reality much less that they existed in 2001. The nuke theory is a load of crap and I am not going to deal with it again. Count me out of any nuke discussions in the future, I will not waste my time on troll bait again.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_146');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 146 -->
<a name="x147"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x147" class="tiny">x147</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_147');">sick of SEO claiming we have not done so</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/complaint-filed-cable-host-michael-coren-goes-from-ridiculing-911-truth-to-calling-it-anti-semitic-hate-speech/#comment-22171">2014-04-13</a></p>
<div id="sect_147" style="display: none;">
<p>{Due to the number of links, it was sent to the moderation queue. It was written off-line and then posted first thing upon going online. Discovered a message from Mr. McKee saying he'd prefer me not answering. Whew! Thus, it'll probably never get out of the moderation queue.}
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff wrote on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/complaint-filed-cable-host-michael-coren-goes-from-ridiculing-911-truth-to-calling-it-anti-semitic-hate-speech/#comment-22154">April 12, 2014 at 7:54 pm</a>:
</p><blockquote><p>For the record since this thread is dead SOE continues dishonestly to portray myself and HR1 as refusing to address his/her/its nuke theories. We have both addressed them at length and debunked them thoroughly.</p></blockquote>
<p>Nothing like Mr. Ruff bringing the thread to life again with such charm.
<br>
<br>If Mr. Ruff were referring to the actual record, he'd be proven wrong, which is why he provides no links. If my nuclear theories had been debunked in a convincing fashion, I wouldn't be still peddling them. I have the ability to change my mind when proven wrong.
<br>
<br>As for the hypnotic suggestion that Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue <i>"both addressed them at length"</i>, it is interesting how Mr. Ruff tries to muscle in on Mr. Rogue's efforts and grab some credit. Mr. Ruff's efforts boil down to <i>"[Mr. Ruff] refuses to read SEO's comments or references"</i> and <i>"no radiation = no nukes"</i> even though he can't substantiate <i>"no radiation"</i> with a report having prompt, systematic, and thorough measurements that all were at or below trace background levels. Strawman alert.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff continues:
</p><blockquote><p>I am sick of SEO claiming we have not done so, it is dishonest and should not be allowed to continue.</p></blockquote>
<p>For honesty's sake, Mr. Ruff should provide the quotations from and links to all of his own comments that substantiate his alleged nuclear debunking efforts. When he comes up short, the <i>"dishonest"</i> label will be put on his forehead like a Dole banana sticker.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff continues:
</p><blockquote><p>I am not going to play the damn game where I answer and then a little time passes and it is claimed I never answered.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Ruff should put up or shut up. Quotations with links to his own words. Maybe Mr. Ruff will select this quote from <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16664">March 7, 2013 at 1:20 am</a>?
</p><blockquote><p>Tamborine man – HR1 posts I read, yours I almost always skip along with SEO's. </p></blockquote>
<p>Ooops. If Mr. Ruff doesn't even read my postings, it kind of puts him into a tough spot with regards to his claims on having answered them.
<br>
<br>Or maybe Mr. Ruff will choose this quotation from <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#comment-16672">March 7, 2013 at 10:57 am</a>:
</p><blockquote><p>... and no way in hell I am going to spend the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Judy Woods crappy book page by page when I have shown already that the entire basis for her stupid theory is bogus speculation on her part to begin with. I am not and HR1 is not stupid enough to be drawn into such a monumental waste of time.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Rogue never did any debunking of Dr. Wood's book or website, chapter-by-chapter or page-by-page (paper or web), although he promised to and struts around as if he did. To be fair, Mr. Rogue did destroy Dr. Wood's book physically, but he did not debunk concepts contained within.
<br>
<br>Unfortunately, Mr. Ruff has <b>~not~</b> ever shown <i>"the entire basis for her stupid theory is bogus speculation."</i> No. As far as I know, this is just Mr. Ruff's wishful thinking.
<br>
<br>Oh, snap! Maybe Mr. Ruff was referring to the results of this wishful collaboration from <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/guy-fawkes-the-gunpowder-plot-and-how-false-flag-operations-have-shaped-history/#comment-14614">November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am</a>:
</p><blockquote><p>Well I have to say at this point that I have been remiss and negligent in my 9/11 truthing for a long while now. I have failed to fully explain and argue my case on many occasions. I have no excuses to offer except to say that I am tired of re-arguing points that have been dealt with years ago. One such issue where I have been negligent due to my "burn out" is the DEW issue. I have failed to fully explain and illustrate for the uninitiated (such as Jesse Ventura) exactly why and how Judy Wood's theory is wrong. I am going to change that.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>I therefore propose that those of us who wish to collaborate on a decisive debunk of DEW thoeries do so and send that off to Jesse to consider. We can also post that debunk prominently and give opportunity for Wood herself or her supporters to challenge our work. From then onward we can simply provide the link to that debunk instead of re-arguing the case over and over. I want to do this ONCE more and never again. I did this years ago on the Randi Rhodes blog but that vast archive was lost and all my careful work debunking DEW's was lost as well. This time I intend to keep a copy myself.
<br>
<br>I ask HR1 and OSS specifically if they would like to collaborate with me on such a project? ... Perhaps after this we can knock out a few other bogus theories too.
</p></blockquote>
<p>A year and five months later, surely Mr. Ruff could cough up the link with results of this collaboration!
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br>Back to the present, Mr. Ruff writes:
</p><blockquote><p>[I am not going to play the damn game where I answer and then a little time passes and it is claimed I never answered.] That is what the troll A.Wright used to do. It is just an attempt to waste my time along with the obvious derailing of the thread.</p></blockquote>
<p>If that collaboration from November 2012 had any fruition, surely Mr. Ruff would be able to copy-and-paste his debunking effort, or post the URL where it is published. Its whole purpose was to be a time saver, so that in moments like this posting the URL wouldn't be a waste of time.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff continues:
</p><blockquote><p>SEO claims all kinds of new nukes are out there but to my knowledge shows no evidence that these "low radiation" nukes even exist in reality much less that they existed in 2001.</p></blockquote>
<p>It has been posted several times, although admittedly the last few times it was either stuck in or sent back into the moderation queue. Call them late-3rd-generation or early-adopter-4th-generation nuclear devices:
<br><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf">http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff continues:
</p><blockquote><p>The nuke theory is a load of crap and I am not going to deal with it again. Count me out of any nuke discussions in the future, I will not waste my time on troll bait again.</p></blockquote>
<p>Fine. Because Mr. Ruff is out, because Mr. Ruff won't read my comments anyway, and because Mr. Ruff won't read the material referenced [as proven with books from Dr. Wood and Kevin Ryan], it means that Mr. Ruff forfeits the right to even publicly utter <i>"the nuke theory is a load of crap."</i> Most likely, his sources for such erroneous beliefs have already had their errors and omissions exposed by me in my various works that Mr. Ruff can't be bothered to read.
<br>
<br>{P.S. Just after Mr. Ruff mentions the "A.Wright" name, owenmeister and A.Wright make their appearances and carousel strokes with Mr. Rogue. Coincidence?}
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_147');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 147 -->
<a name="x148"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x148" class="tiny">x148</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_148');">low-life pap smear</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/complaint-filed-cable-host-michael-coren-goes-from-ridiculing-911-truth-to-calling-it-anti-semitic-hate-speech/#comment-22185">2014-04-14</a></p>
<div id="sect_148" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Owen Meister,
<br>
<br>My apologies for the confusion and for not providing the link, held back at the time because too many links puts comments into the moderation queue.
<br>
<br>Contrary to Mr. Rogue's charge, you are not delusional about what Mr. Rogue called you. You aren't my sock puppet either. Mr. Rogue attacks me with such charges to defray the intimate athlete's hand/foot connection [and a family connection] that Mr. A.Wright and Mr. Rogue seem to have. Did you notice how tag-teamer Mr. Ruff called for Mr. A.Wright to appear; Mr. A.Wright danced his jig; and the only carousel cranker to engage him -- as usual -- was Mr. Rogue? Legend establishing.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue wrote <a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/#comment-1062">on April 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm <i>on his blog</i>:</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>What amazes and sickens me is that even now, after all of this time, Maxifuckanus is still spreading this bullshit. He even partners up with a low life papsmear like Owenmeister, who has not made a single comment of substance on the current thread at Truth and Shadows.</p></blockquote>
<p>Thus, Mr. Rogue is technically correct that <i>on this thread</i> he has not called anyone a <i>"low-life pap smear."</i> The deficit is rectified on his blog, though. Such a juvenile effort through and through. Mr. Rogue needs to get past his jejune asinine and grow up in his web presence.
<br>
<br>P.S. Herewith I proclaim to participating on T&S with only one alias. I am not Owen Meister. And my views on the <i>Protocols of Zion</i> have been previously posted here. Interesting, but not by hobby-horse.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_148');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 148 -->
<a name="x149"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x149" class="tiny">x149</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_149');">not an invited member of Mr. Rogue's readership</a></b></p>
<p>2014-04-14</p>
<div id="sect_149" style="display: none;">
<p>{The comments to the discussion were closed before this could be posted.}
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue writes:
</p><blockquote><p>One more thing Mr Once, you are not an invited member of my readership on the HR1blog. Your commentary is not welcome there either.</p></blockquote>
<p>Such a sad state of affairs that is! I am so heartbroken.
<br>
<br>Readers should note that exclusion of participation is what Mr. Rogue calls <i>"reasoned debate."</i> Were T&S his blog, Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff have both stated a preference for banning me. Mr. Rogue April 8, 2014 at 8:36 pm <b>on his blog</b>:
</p><blockquote><p>If I were McKee, I would kick Señor's ass [off] the blog right now.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>"If you can't beat it, ban it."</b>
<br>
<br>More el-oh-el funny is that Mr. Rogue sucks on my <i>"unwelcome commentary"</i> all too often, in <b>poorly quoted, poorly formatted, poorly attributed, poorly source-linked, cherry-picked statements</b> that he spins to a dubious agenda. The theme of me is just one pogo-horse on his demented carousel.
<br>
<br>I stand behind my assessment of his blog being a <b>juvenile effort</b> through and through: <b>jejune and asinine.</b> If he's not willing to edit, then he should prune. The repeated theme throughout is: <b>poorly quoted, poorly formatted, poorly attributed, poorly source-linked, cherry-picked statements, hard to read & follow.</b> Very little original thought is put into it to connect things on his <i>"show-case postings"</i>, except the <i>gutter misogynistic spice</i> with which Mr. Rogue likes to dine.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue is welcome to make his blog private. Semi-private may also be an option, whereby passwords only to select readers allows just them to see certain content. Shouldn't be too hard to distribute passwords to the <i>"8 other amazing people"</i> who follow it.
<br>
</p><blockquote><p>It is my blog, and as I say above in a previous post, I can say whatever I choose there. You have the right to read that blog, but the onus is yours when you choose to copy and paste from my blog and spread it elsewhere.</p></blockquote>
<p>... Within the limits of libel laws and other legal strictures, such as those pertaining to national security.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue should tell Google not to spread his blog elsewhere.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue says he is not Mr. A.Wright. But Mr. Rogue is about the only one who engages Mr. A.Wright. With me, Mr. Rogue has thrown in the towel a good half a dozen times and then gone back on his word. <i>["Ennis, you sonofawhoreson bitch! I wish I knew how to quit you."~Brokeback Mountain]</i> Mr. Rogue has never thrown in the towel with Mr. A.Wright, who is more deserving of being ignored.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_149');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 149 -->
<a name="x150"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x150" class="tiny">x150</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_150');">process of identification Seenyor</a></b></p>
<p>2014-05-10</p>
<div id="sect_150" style="display: none;">
<p><br><br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus#comment-1389">2014-05-10</a>
<br>
<br>As Mr Adam Ruff and I are both publicly known as who we are, and the fact that the anonymous entity makes public defamation of both of us, myself in great particulars; that the time has arrived for the entity to be identified as to who he actually is.
<br>
<br>Shall we proceed to go forward with this process of identification Seenyor?
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus#comment-1670">2014-06-06</a>
<br>
<br>No no no, the motherfucker Maxitwerp jumped back into the same thread that Mr McKee asked for an end to the argument – with another 2,000 word load of bullshit.
<br>And it begins with his beancounter mumbo jumbo, spazzes out into defaming both Mr Ruff and I and does his Nookiedoodoo hoochie dance.
<br>
<br>The obsessed fanatic should be canned from T&S for good.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/cnn-launches-cartoonish-assault-on-ae911truth-over-alternative-911-museum-pamphlets#comment-23657">2014-06-06</a>
<br>
<br>So Mr McKee,
<br>
<br>Have you changed your mind about the admonishment for no more of this argument between Señor and I on this thread?
<br>
<br>If your admonishment still stands, Señor has rebuked your authority by posting yet another load of defaming bullshit, this time including slashes aimed at Mr Ruff as well as myself.
<br>
<br>I would like a clear and final determination on this matter.
<br>
<br>I was discussing the remarks of Mr Whitesands, and asking for a clarification on something he had said. I was not confronting Mr Señor in anyway, nor continuing the argument. But as in all instances here Señor will take the slightest excuse to jump back in with his slashing character assassination attempts.
<br>
<br>What is it to be Mr McKee?
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_150');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 150 -->
<a name="x151"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x151" class="tiny">x151</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_151');">debunked garbage</a></b></p>
<p>2014-06-03</p>
<div id="sect_151" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/cnn-launches-cartoonish-assault-on-ae911truth-over-alternative-911-museum-pamphlets/#comment-23505">June 3, 2014 at 12:41 am</a>
<br>
<br>DEW's destroying the towers is debunked garbage. Funny (NOT) how these supposed truther bloggers just pop up from time to time and try to throw their debunked theories into the mix here in order to give the opposition an advantage. They can simply point to the DEW garbage and say "see how all these truthers are engaging in wild speculation based on whacky theories."
<br>
<br>Let it be known that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers have looked at the DEW, Mini Nuke, and Video Fakery theories and found them to be completely bogus. So to the corporate media whores out there who think they can equate the entire truth movement with these bogus red herring theories you had better think again. Some of us know that these theories and the ones who promote them are working for the same people who pulled off 9/11. We know they are attempting to undermine the real truth movement and their efforts are more and more transparent every day.
<br>
<br>The fact is the truth movement has already won the information war and all the other side is doing now is trying to fight a delaying action to hold off their total defeat, capture and arrest, trial, and eventual punishment for treason. That includes the corporate media by the way who are guilty up to their eyeballs in covering up mass murder and treason. Your days are numbered. As to the so called truthers who continually attempt to derail us with nonsense like DEWs or Nukes your days are numbered as well. Your attempts to derail us are not working anymore and your Sunstein tactics don't work anymore. I reject you completely and totally and recognize you for what you are and for what you are doing and so do MANY others. You are DONE!
<br>
<br>The three WTC towers 1, 2, and 7 were blown up with explosives. The pentagon crime scene was staged and the observed plane flew over the pentagon and away. The media and government are guilty of covering up these facts which makes them all traitors and guilty of treason. The truth has not been contained by ALL of their efforts and it is breaking out into the wider world and their time is running out. WE KNOW!
<br>
<br><br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/cnn-launches-cartoonish-assault-on-ae911truth-over-alternative-911-museum-pamphlets/#comment-23596">June 5, 2014 at 9:00 am</a>
<br>
<br>Personally,
<br>
<br>I skip right over any post from Senior el once and save myself a lot of time and stress. I have no obligation whatsoever to read anything he/she/it posts nor do I care at this point to address anything he/she/it says no matter how false or defamatory it may be. He/she/it can start calling me a child molester Nazi with aids as far as I give a crap at this point. I literally do not care AT ALL and will not read any response from he/she/it.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_151');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 151 -->
<a name="x152"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x152" class="tiny">x152</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_152');">The expression <i>"over-acting"</i> ought to be familiar with Mr. Rogue.</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/cnn-launches-cartoonish-assault-on-ae911truth-over-alternative-911-museum-pamphlets/#comment-23630">2014-06-05</a></p>
<div id="sect_152" style="display: none;">
<p>Out of 72 comments at time of writing:
<br>- Emmanuel Goldstein has 3 (4%)
<br>- RuffAdam has 3 (4%)
<br>- SEO has 5 (6.9%)
<br>- Mr. Rogue has 36 (50%)
<br>
<br>Emmanuel Goldstein made 3 comments that generated 7 comments from Mr. Rogue. SEO made 4 comments that generated 12 comments from Mr. Rogue [just on T&S]. The expression <i>"over-acting"</i> ought to be familiar with Mr. Rogue from his Hollywood daze.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue's hyperventilation here is but an act to distract the forum from a rational discussion of nuclear DEW or <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">fourth generation nuclear devices</a>, which is the natural extension from Dr. Wood's efforts and fills in the gaps.
<br>
<br>Mr. AlWhitesands said it best:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Willy, maybe you should've read that ferkin book.</p></blockquote>
<p>The only reason why the book came into the picture was that Mr. Rogue could not be bothered to parse the source website for the good, the bad, the ugly. This applied to Dr. Wood's website as well as September Clues and other discussion venues. Blow-hard Mr. Rogue was all about making boastful statements <i>without substantiation</i>.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue claims that I badgered him for months about getting the book. In reality, I badgered him for months to get informed first-hand about the content (book or website) and to mine nuggets of truth. I badgered him to be fair, objective, and open-minded.
<br>
<br>Getting the book into Mr. Rogue's hands was a good-faith gesture to get Mr. Rogue over his stumbling blocks and into a valid review.
<br>
<br>Talk about screwing the pooch called <i>"Mr. Rogue's Objectivity!"</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue wasn't expected to agree with every sentence in the book, or its conclusions (if they could be found).
<br>
<br>Expected was that Mr. Rogue would contemplate rationally the material and isolate the specific areas of error, down to the page number and figure caption if required. Expected was that Mr. Rogue would re-use analysis of others to help bolster his case. Expected was that Mr. Rogue with assistance from me and the forum would take down legitimately any nonsense found therein. Expected was that Mr. Rogue would acknowledge what wasn't nonsense for re-purposing in more appropriate theories.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue says that he was tricked or conned into it. If any trick was played on Mr. Rogue, it was in the facts (a) that Dr. Wood's work might have inapplicable concepts but very little nonsense, (b) that Mr. Rogue would have to acknowledge large numbers of truth nuggets that only inconveniently fit into other mainstream 9/11 theories, and (c) that the DEW/Nuke/Wood debunking resources are primarly internet echo-chambers that neither individually nor collectively achieve a definitive debunking goal.
<br>
<br>Thus Mr. Rogue was going to have a difficult time. Happens all the time in science and engineering when a stated hypothesis is disproven by the research and testing. But Mr. Rogue didn't approach the task with a hypothesis. Mr. Rogue approached it with an agenda and pre-ordained conclusions, which the (a)-(c) facts confounded.
<br>
<br>If any deceit was involved, it was entirely on Mr. Rogue's side [and gets exhibited regularly today trying dig himself out.] He lied to himself regarding his ability to read and analyze the book. He vastly over-estimated the number of debunking resources available from which he could plagarize his comprehensive debunking review. On this front, both he and Mr. RuffAdam continue to lie today with statements like:
</p>
<blockquote><p>- [RA] DEW's destroying the towers is debunked garbage.
<br>- [RA] Let it be known that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers have looked at the DEW, Mini Nuke, and Video Fakery theories and found them to be completely bogus.
<br>- [HR] [T]here is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for Wood's loopy ideas...
<br>- [HR] Her 'DEW' proposition is a scientific fraud...</p></blockquote>
<p>How can I be so sure this is a lie? Mr. RuffAdam wrote on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/guy-fawkes-the-gunpowder-plot-and-how-false-flag-operations-have-shaped-history/#comment-14614">November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>... I have been remiss and negligent in my 9/11 truthing for a long while now. I have failed to fully explain and argue my case on many occasions... One such issue where I have been negligent due to my "burn out" is the DEW issue. I have failed to fully explain and illustrate for the uninitiated ... exactly why and how Judy Wood's theory is wrong. I am going to change that.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>I therefore propose that those of us who wish to collaborate on a decisive debunk of DEW thoeries do so... We can also post that debunk prominently and give opportunity for Wood herself or her supporters to challenge our work. From then onward we can simply provide the link to that debunk instead of re-arguing the case over and over. I want to do this ONCE more and never again. I did this years ago on the Randi Rhodes blog but that vast archive was lost and all my careful work debunking DEW's was lost as well. This time I intend to keep a copy myself.</p></blockquote>
<p>Obviously, if such comprehensive DEW debunking were available in November of 2012, there would have been no need for Mr. Ruff to assemble his task-force for such an assignment. If Mr. Ruff would have completed his decisive debunk of DEW theories between November 2012 and now (June 2014), why, he would have have provided the link.
<br>
<br>Because Mr. RuffAdam admits that he doesn't read my comments, it is fitting that his own words be used to skewer him [June 3, 2014 at 12:41 am]:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Let it be known that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers have looked at the DEW, Mini Nuke, and Video Fakery theories and found them to be completely bogus. </p></blockquote>
<p>This is not true. What is true is that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers are just like Mr. RuffAdam and Mr. Rogue, two science-challenged, proud, high school graduates who defer to opinions of leaders within the 9/11 Truth Movement, particularly those with PhDs. The vast majority form their opinions from 2nd- or 3rd-hand sources, not from their own assessments of original sources.
<br>
<br>And those 2nd- and 3rd-hand sources that report on original sources? They are plagued with improper framing, improper scaling, improper analysis, and being incomplete.
<br>
<br><b>[Video Fakery]</b> On the first pass of my tour through video fakery, I accepted the video analysis at face value. What eventually soured me were the lame and deceitful explanations filling the void once imagery was taken off the table. There was little sharing and collaboration to see how a nugget from one meme might support or undermine something in another meme. With this sour taste in my mouth, my second pass was able to detect more of the deceit in the original video analysis and many of its conclusions, like <i>"no real planes at the WTC."</i>
<br>
<br>To be sure, video fakery (leading to NPT) has unraveled to be a disinformation honey-pot.
<br>
<br>What disturbs me is that valid instances of video fakery on 9/11 exist (e.g., four versions of a helicopter shot), a persistent nugget of truth that debunkers of video fakery are all too eager to sweep from the table. If valid instances exist, what other instances are there? More importantly, to what purpose? To and/or from what is it drawing our attention?
<br>
<br><b>[DEW]</b> Most who try to debunk directed energy weapons do not have a good grasp on it, which is evident by their framing. Quick they are to say <i>"beams from space"</i> and then <i>"WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 destruction started from within the building, not from the tippy-top down, therefore no DEW."</i> Thus, potentially valid cases of <i>"beams from space"</i> in other buildings are ignored. More importantly, <i>"beams from space"</i> is not the only form that DEW devices can take. In fact, most of the <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">fourth generation nuclear devices</a> loosely fit into the category of DEW devices.
<br>
<br><b>[Mini Nuke]</b> Most who try to debunk nuclear devices do not have a good grasp on nuclear-anything. As such, they miss the skew and omissions from those with PhD's who are assumed to have a good grasp on it when their 9/11 TM reports steer thinking away from it. The unqualified expression <i>"mini nuke"</i> is actually sufficient to debunk the 9/11 nuke debunkers, because qualifications of fission, fusion, and neutron have vastly different yields and side-effects. Fourth generation nukes change further the configuration and the types of expected yields.
<br>
<br><i>"Cognitive dissonance"</i> refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. It produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in attitudes, belief, or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.
<br>
<br>We're familiar with the cognitive dissonance examples from the general public where anomalous 9/11 evidence is ignored rather than change a belief about the involvement and actions of the government. However, <b>the pains of cognitive dissonance are also visible inside the 9/11 Truth Movement</b>, like when a truther has invested lots of effort into studying, convincing themselves, and convincing others about method A being used. They apparently don't adapt very well to the premise that the evidence can support multiple methods, that more of the evidence supports method B, and that many deficiencies exist with method A being the ultimate explanation.
<br>
<br>Nano-thermite (method A) does not explain all of the evidence. It can't even address the duration of the hot-spots. And the PhD who popularized nano-thermite despite its limitation is the same PhD who waved everyone off of contemplating nuclear devices (method B) in a paper that accepted unchallenged stilted reports, didn't even mention neutron devices or their derivatives, and made no attempt to see if third or fourth generation nuclear devices could achieve what was observed.
<br>
<br>If Mr. Goldstein is still around, I would appreciate an objective review of the document about fourth generation nuclear devices with regards to it bridging the gaps from Dr. Wood's DEW into something real-world nuclear DEW.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>P.S. I apologize for the editing oversight that left Mr. Rogue's \\][// sign-off instead of mine on one of my comments.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_152');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 152 -->
<a name="x153"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x153" class="tiny">x153</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_153');">certain people refuse to debate here or anywhere</a></b></p>
<p>2014-06-21</p>
<div id="sect_153" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Ruff wrote on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24297">June 21, 2014 at 6:27 pm</a>:
</p><blockquote>My litmus test for real truthers is now the pentagon evidence and how well the persons arguments stand up here on Truth and Shadows.</blockquote>
<blockquote>The fact that certain people referred to by some as truthers refuse to debate us here or anywhere for that matter on the pentagon issue is a testament to the power and importance of Truth and Shadows. Craig you should be proud of what you have created here, it is an anvil and hammer where real truthers are forged and where fake ones are destroyed.</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_153');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 153 -->
<a name="x154"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x154" class="tiny">x154</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_154');">The <i>"challenged"</i> aren't going to come.</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24482">2014-06-26</a></p>
<div id="sect_154" style="display: none;">
<p>Meaningful comments on the Pentagon topic have petered out. The <i>"challenged"</i> aren't going to come.
<br>
<br>*Sigh.* With Mr. OSS's stellar work off-list and targeted URL bullets, the Pentagon debate was wrapped up four or more times over in as many or more other T&S threads. Somewhat *yawn* to see the two or three A.Wright carousel spins in this very thread necessitating a dizzying dive into "SOC/NOC" witness nuances, before GOTO links are applied to handle the heavy-lifting. *Snore.* But now a new crank to the merry-go-round with a <i>"challenge to cowards."</i> *Snooze.*
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff brags about skipping my comments unread. More power to him! <b>He and a few others should not read any further.</b> Get a head start on ignoring me right now! Certainly don't bother writing a <b><i>jejune</i></b> response, because it'll only engage me and allow me to make more nookiedoo-ish comments!
<br>
<br>Simply let this comment pass, unaddressed. Win-Win!
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff wrote on June 21, 2014 at 6:27 pm:
</p>
<blockquote><p>My litmus test for real truthers is now the pentagon evidence and how well the persons arguments stand up here on Truth and Shadows.</p></blockquote>
<p>Guess I passed that litmus test of my <i>"real trutherism."</i> No issue there. No debate.
<br>
<br>But there are at least a couple of fundamental insights being missed, because <b>truth isn't afraid of circling back around to get its due acknowledgment.</b>
<br>
<br>First insight: imagery manipulation. The discussion above proves an instance where it did happen with regards to 9/11. It isn't an isolated case. Yet the eifer that many had to dismiss the entirety of September Clues (and its premise of imagery manipulation) without proper rescue of valid nuggets of truth stands testament that participants in this forum could stand more <i>practicing what they preach</i> and being open-minded. What other imagery manipulation nuggets should be re-visited, and what distracting purpose did they serve? What would they have been masking?
<br>
<br>Second insight: The culprits successfully attacked the very symbol, if not center, of US military power even after ample advanced notice (e.g., two attacks at the center of financial power) and radar tracking. The attack at the Pentagon was very precise in terms of what it destroyed (ONI investigative efforts into the missing $2.3 trillion) and killed (ONI investigators into the same) and the high-tech, thoroughly-practiced, redundant defenses that the attack circumvented.
<br>
<br>Worse, the culprits made everyone believe that a real plane crashed into the Pentagon (while at the same time propping up disinfo about no planes at the WTC), even though they have yet to convincingly substantiate it with video evidence (that they themselves were Johnny-on-the-spot to confiscate), with the bulk of witness testimony, or with even sufficient serial numbered airplane parts from the crash site and untainted flight data recorders.
<br>
<br><b>What does this say about the abilities of the culprits?</b>
<br>
<br>It is a bit of the same game that the culprits would propagandize the pulverizing WTC destruction -- a massive energy sink -- as a gravity-driven pile-driver acting at physics-defying gravitional acceleration. However, that doesn't have to be the extent of the games.
<br>
<br>Genuine truth seekers need to validate their assumptions with regards to controlled demolition, particularly when such assumptions rule out exotic means. [<a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf">Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices</a> are real-world and match much of what Dr. Wood's work drives at, although she doesn't come out and say it.]
<br>
<br>If the WTC bomb-sniffing dogs took their holidays starting September 6 (Thursday before 9/11), the resulting window of time by all accounts of demolition experts would have been too short for the implementation of the observed <b>overkill</b> controlled demolition using chemical-based explosives and incendiaries, radio detonation, etc. Assuming such to be the primary mechanism of destruction begins to fall apart even before the evidence (e.g., comparatively low decibel readings, low seismic measurements, duration of under-rubble hot-spots, the tritium circus, the blatant errors and omissions by 9/11TM's resident nuclear physicist, etc.) shoots holes in it.
<br>
<br>P.S. Mr. Rogue has >46% of the total 396 comments to this thread, which makes it STFU-time in anybody's book and reason number one why he should ignore this comment.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue above all others should simply let this comment pass, unaddressed. Win-Win!
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_154');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 154 -->
<a name="x155"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x155" class="tiny">x155</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_155');">couldn't resist cranking the neu nookiedoo carousel</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24485">2014-06-26</a></p>
<div id="sect_155" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24485">2014-06-26</a> at 12:54 pm
<br>
<br>{mcb: This was published but then later was put back into moderation.}
<br>
<br>Awe, shucks. Mr. Rogue couldn't follow well meaning advice to ignore me. No. He couldn't resist cranking the neu nookiedoo carousel:
</p>
<blockquote><p>What the fuck does the disinformation about Nookiedoodoo have to do with the Pentagon?</p></blockquote>
<p>Without substantiation that fourth generation nuclear devices ("neutron nuclear DEW") are <i>"disinformation"</i> makes such statements but mere <i><b>hypnotic assertions</b></i> having no basis in reality.
<br>
<br>Removing that <i>"disinformation"</i> word from the question, the answer was in the two insights that Mr. Rogue ignored. The abilities of the culprits are underestimated and arbitrarily cut off in the cul de sac of nano-thermite, when they shouldn't be. Anything top-secret leaking into media that we could conceivable imagine as 9/11 weapons are not excluded. It is the <i>"in for a penny, in for a pound"</i> metaphor. Why limit themselves to chemical-based methods easily tested?
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue so beautifully writes the very justification for ignoring me in his very question:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Why the fuck does this asshole mention me and then suggest I ignore his bullshit technique of wanking every thread that comes along with both his attacks on myself and Mr Ruff as well as promotion of his agitprop about DEW and Nuclear?</p></blockquote>
<p>... Because Mr. Rogue doesn't debate nuclear means in good faith, and as demonstrated above, comes unhinged way too easily. Nothing from the above quoted paragraph is worthy of addressing except as being pointed out as Mr. Rogue's own wanking effort. Mr. Rogue has shot his wad (>46 of the 398 comments) both in this thread but in any type of rational, civilized debate with me, where he has been discredited at the onset by being unable to objectively review on his own much of the supporting documentation. It just ain't possible to the wanker. So he should be the bigger man and ignore my comments.
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff wrote on June 21, 2014 at 5:57 pm:
</p>
<blockquote><p>A genuine truth seeker would either debate the issues in good faith in the open or admit he was wrong and change his stance accordingly...</p></blockquote>
<p>Indeed, this has been my desire, my ambition, my consistency... when researching <b><i>"Neu Nookiedoo"</i></b> and fourth generation nuclear devices in use on 9/11 at the WTC for some of what was observed. [To apply the brakes to the repeated <i>"mutually-exclusive"</i> straw-man, please note the weasel-words <i>"some of what was observed"</i>, which leaves the door open for many destructive mechanisms -- from super-super nano-thermite, to lasers from space, to neutron nuclear 4th generation devices, to kitchen sinks -- to have been involved.]
<br>
<br>But judging from the above statement, pompous Mr. Ruff has acted in the past a bit hypocritically on this hobby-horse nuclear subject of mine, making assertions that he can't even prove (e.g., <i>"no radiation"</i>), thereby leading him to erroneous conclusions (e.g., <i>"no radiation = no nukes"</i>.)
<br>
<br>The no-nuke work of Mr. Rogue has been shredded: first by his reliance on reports that can't be trusted in either the data collection or its analysis; by his unwillingness to acknowledge errors and omissions in the same; by his habit of trumping up tidbits from such skewed reports (e.g., <i>"miniscule tritium"</i>) that itself isn't to be trusted; by introducing his own bullshit (e.g., <i>"tritium leaching back to the WTC from landfills and thus already tainting what could be considered background levels"</i>); by his inability to objectively review disinformation sources for nuggets of truth that remain valid and necessitate rescue; and lastly by his inability to debate in good faith (e.g., Mr. Rogue loves his flame-wars more than he loves getting at the truth.)
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The fact that certain people referred to by some as truthers refuse to debate us here or anywhere for that matter ... is a testament to the power and importance of Truth and Shadows. </p></blockquote>
<p>I know that some of the participants have been avoiding nuclear discussions because nuclear physics is outside their area of interest or expertise. Understandable, but the extent of knowledge that must be acquired to ascertain the viability of these 4th generation devices on 9/11 [and matching the blatantly skewed analysis of the data] isn't that great: <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x3">a hurdle easily overcome with a brief detour into nuclear weapons.</a>
<br>
<br>If a participant isn't going to pony up the effort, they should let this comment pass without reply.
<br>
<br>Reserving judgment on the specific errors in Mr. Rogue's preparation, the reasons are many why Mr. Rogue should pass by this comment, too. Leading the list,
<br>
<br>(1) Mr. Rogue has been proven untrustworthy and unhinged -- surprise, surprise -- primarily in discussions with me on my hobby-horse, Nookiedoo. Ain't nothing more <i>"good faith"</i> about it. I predict that Mr. Rogue will add a half dozen cranks to his Carnival thread before bedtime, which <i><b>will prove me right.</b></i>
<br>
<br>(2) Mr. Rogue has already made >46% of the 398 comments to this thread. [*Yawn*. STFU-time.]
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Never one to actually partake in the discussion in any meaningful way this blowhard entity is always willing to pop up for a commercial interruption for Nookiedoodoo, and another swipe at me.</p></blockquote>
<p>This isn't true. I'm just more astute at recognizing faux romps through thoroughly discussed realms as being mere props for Mr. Rogue to get <i>"street-cred in smacking down a government troll"</i> using material of Mr. OSS.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I suggest the obvious answer is that the Señor entity is part of the Sunstein infiltration movement.</p></blockquote>
<p>Gee. The phrase <i>"part of the Sunstein infiltration movement"</i> would have been exactly what I think regarding the totality of Mr. Rogue's efforts here on T&S, on COTO, and on his own lame-ass blog to <i>"shutdown with vengance"</i> any rational discussion on Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices.
</p>
<blockquote><p>And this just lit the fire for more commentary on his favorite thread on HR1blog.</p></blockquote>
<p>Better there than here.
<br>
<br>Repeating from above, I predicted that Mr. Rogue will add a half dozen cranks to his Carnival thread before bedtime, which <i><b>will prove me right.</b></i>
<br>
<br>As an aside, Mr. Rogue won't prove me <i>"A.Wright"</i>, his latest misguided belief. Why? I have a writer's ego. I preserve and take credit for my words and for <i>all</i> my online aliases. If Mr. A.Wright were my sock-puppet, (a) my blog probably would have copped to it years ago; (b) I'd be engaging Mr. A.Wright at most every opportunity for the purposes of generating wordy arguments worthy of preservation. I haven't seriously engaged Mr. A.Wright since prior to Mr. Rogue's T&S entrance (January 2012), deeming such exchanges futile and redundant.
<br>
<br>As long as we're comparing Mr. A.Wright to me, Mr. A.Wright has never once been given the white flag of <i>"surrender"</i> (or <i>"ignore"</i>) by Mr. Rogue, although Mr. A.Wright did get a couple of <i>"Wright should go fuck himself"</i> [June 22, 2014 at 3:34 pm and June 23, 2014 at 2:19 pm.] Despite cranking spins over previously-delt-with turf, Mr. Rogue tirelessly keeps pace. Despite 2.5 years of engagement, Mr. A.Wright doesn't have a Rogue-ian thread dedicated to him, with unhinged comments aimed at him <i><b>like I do</b></i>... Nyah, nyah, nyah!
<br>
<br>This exposes a couple of discordant aspects to the Rogue/Wright circus. If Mr. Rogue's commentary [tiny sample: ~46% of the total commentary in this thread] were all the <b><i>"jizzle"</i></b> and more, the writer's ego -- the artist's ego -- in Mr. Rogue would have re-purposed and re-published those tireless A.Wright shillackings on his blog -- <i><b>"real honest-to-goodness 9/11 Truther activism street cred in taking down a stilted government troll"</b></i> -- if for no other reasons than having a reference GOTO URL to put the brakes on subsequent looping carnival rides and having a forum for unchained, unhinged, Rogue-ian, flame-baiting diaria.
<br>
<br>[In the immortal words of John Belushi...] <i><b>"But NO-OOOOooooouuuuu!"</b></i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue lets his valued wisdom to great measure be pissed away on forums that he doesn't control, his memorable words not rescued and faithfully re-published on his blog as a testament to his existance and treasured wealth of knowledge. For shame, for shame, and such a massive pity and undervaluing of one's efforts in the digital realm... for posterity and future generations to judge.
<br>
<br>At the risk of redundancy, the reasons are many why Mr. Rogue should pass by this comment. Much to do the padawan still has.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue should ignore me and let this detour stop here.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_155');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 155 -->
<a name="x156"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x156" class="tiny">x156</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_156');">let me up my total</a></b></p>
<p>2014-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_156" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25588">August 6, 2014 at 4:09 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Here let me up my total comments in order to tip the balance of power in my favor! Clearly if I post more than HR1 I become the most powerful right? I am the new leader!
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25592">August 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm</a>
<br>
<br>You have just made my case for me SEO. Thank you. May I lastly point out that your lame attempt to paint your comments as being on topic are laughable. You have virtually nothing to say that is on topic ever. You are intentionally disrupting threads.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25610">August 6, 2014 at 10:34 pm</a>
<br>
<br>They will find me to be a rabid defender of free speech if they somehow succeed in getting such laws on the books here in America. The more the system tries to control us and steer us in the direction they want the more people like me resist and rebel. I honestly hope they try to pass such laws here and I hope they crack down very hard with flagrant police state tactics. I hope they do it because by doing it they create the rebellion that desperately needs to happen. As princess Lea said in Star Wars "the more you tighten your grip the more systems will slip through your fingers". I say bring on martial law now today! Put storm troopers in the streets and have them smash skulls with billy clubs! Arrest activists now and throw them into camps or hell just have summary executions in the streets. Nothing will speed up the demise of the NWO more than that. Bring it on!
<br>
<br>
<b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25618">August 7, 2014 at 1:02 am</a>
<br>
<br>Oh please TM, asking you to stay on topic is not censorship in any way shape or form and that you would suggest that Craig is flirting with 911blogger style censorship is outrageous and also for me very insightful as to your true motives. As far as I can tell you have been allowed to say what you want and I know for a fact I have been allowed to say what I want so where is the specter of censorship here at T+S? No what you are bothered by is that with my free speech here I called you out for preaching to us, which you most certainly did do. I also pointed out that it was completely off topic, which it most certainly was. Now Craig asked you to stay on topic, which you most certainly should do, and you play the victim of censorship card! So, much like the Israeli's play the victim card, you do so, when in reality you, like the Israeli's, are the one that is doing wrong. Bravo!
<br>
<br>How about you just stay on topic and quit being a troll trying to disrupt the discussion?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25620">August 7, 2014 at 1:25 am</a>
<br>
<br>Perhaps so. Maybe it will be a "Terminator" type scenario or my version of that being more like "The Road Warrior". It may just turn out like the Bundy ranch standoff though where Americans and people of all nations rise up in incredible numbers and say NO MORE! Maybe just maybe we will get together and bounce these sociopaths out of all leadership positions altogether. Perhaps the worst of them will be put on trial and hanged for crimes against humanity. I have a few I would nominate for that starting with Netanyahu and Obama and then moving on to the Bush family, Darth Cheney, Donald Scumsfeld, Condasleezy Rice, the Clintons, and how about also in the first batch of trials we throw in Brzezinski, Kissinger, and a selection of Rockefellers?
<br>
<br><br>
<b>ruffadam</b>
<br>AUGUST 16, 2014 AT 7:32 PM
<br>"HR1 says "Apparently personal concerns trump all other considerations for some."
<br>
<br>I agree 100% with this in fact I would like to point out at this time the fact that "personal concerns" were the ONLY thing talked about by two particular individuals, Gaza and Craigs article were completely ignored throughout the entire thread. That stinks of agitprop to me and now these comments popping up meant to make us all believe SEO is some kind of Icon that is very popular but here he/she/it is unfairly censored. This is highly suspect to me. A simple google search for SEO would produce plenty of results so why come in here specifically to drop these not so subtle hints that SEO is being oppressed and censored here? It is agitprop and it is BS. Anyone could have found his/her/its postings elsewhere so why come in here to make those comments? Agitprop.
<br>
<br>SEO was posting totally off topic comments and has been doing so for a long time, very disruptive, very disingenuous. I am thoroughly convinced that SEO is genuine agitprop. He/she/its comments are engineered (carefully crafted) to produce anger, confusion, and dissension. I noticed it particularly with responses to my comments where SEO's comments are specifically designed to make me angry (I recognized it as crafted provocation so it didn't work). This comment in particular caught my attention and convinced me that SEO is genuine agitprop:
<br>
<br>August 6th 430PM SEO writes in response to my saying I was not interested in his/her/its vendetta against HR1 or myself:
<br>
<br>"Is that so? Where's the beef? You've even made repeated promises the last couple of years (a) that you don't read my comments and (b) that you ignore my comments. Was this because you're too clueless to make a decent argument to counter rationally my position? Me thinks so. You've been a hypocritical blowhard from the onset. Where's your big fat IGNORE and not rising to the occasion?"
<br>
<br>Now from a psychological standpoint what SEO is doing with this comment is actually very revealing. Can you see what is going on in just that short paragraph? It is actually a powerful psychological attack crafted just for me. (BTW: I take it as a compliment that I get the attention of provocateurs and that they expend some of their time on me.)
<br>
<br>SEO may work alone or is actually a group of provocateurs with dozens or more sock puppet persona's but in either case the evidence is plentiful that this entity is NOT here to discuss Craigs articles. Scan back over this thread and see for yourself where SEO made an (on topic) post prior to this date and time. I bet you can't locate one and that should speak volumes to everyone. In scanning through past threads you will see the same pattern emerge with only a token post or two vaguely on topic followed by a plethora of off topic "psychological warfare" (in my opinion) posts.
<br>
<br>I would ask anyone reading this to actually look back at this and other threads and see the method of provocation in action. You will learn how this "infowar" for lack of a better term is actually being fought."
<br>
<br><br>_______________________________________________________________
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>AUGUST 16, 2014 AT 9:37 PM
<br>I concur with Mr Ruff's analysis. As such, perhaps the comments section can be opened to a "post topical" discussion on our take on what just occurred here on Truth and Shadows. Again, under the stated rules of engagement set by our host.
<br>
<br>I think it is apparent that Truth and Shadows is a prime candidate for targeting by what we call "Sunsteinian Agitprop". This is certainly not a new idea here, and the "paranoia" of the probability of surveillance and intervention here is not without some rational bases.
<br>
<br>Personally, I would rather that Craig gives an official go-ahead before we proceed to such discussion.
<br>\\][//
<br>___________________________________________________________________
<br>
<br>So the question arises, will the covert operator calling itself Max Bridges be stupid enough to show up under the auspices; 'the stated rules of engagement' - and give further blundering proofs of his nefarious agenda?
<br>. . . .
<br>Are you that fucking stupid Bridges? You think your standard fast-talking bullshit is going to work for you anymore? Or do you have the brains to just fade away?
<br>
<br>Well obviously your paycheck from Central Casting is in jeopardy there. You might ask for a pow wow with the Big Kahuna, see if the big boys running the show have some plan for pulling you out of the hot water. Maybe a downgrade is in order, aye? Maybe reassignment to cooler waters in a new environment?
<br>This is your problem hot shot. I would wish you 'good luck', but I'd rather see you fry, because you are a lying prick.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-2670">2014-08-17</a>
<br>
<br>"Don't cry for me in Argentina you are supposed to be anonymous…"
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-2685">2014-08-18</a>
<br>
<br>At any rate, I do not see how Agent Bridges thinks he can break into the regular scheduled program on Truth and Shadows with a commercial break for one of his attack ads against myself or Mr Ruff.
<br>
<br>And if Bridges is receiving PAC funding for his efforts, some transparency should be required. Perhaps tax receipts and tax refund documents to prove his independence from nefarious organizations.
<br>
<br>And when your finished doing that take out the dog to go kill the cat.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-2687">2014-08-18</a>
<br>
<br>Señor El Once — AUGUST 18, 2014 AT 1:23 PM
<br>"Dear Mr. McKee, Blablablablabla…."
<br>_________________________________________________
<br>
<br>So here he is again squealing like a stuck pig … hahahahaha.
<br>
<br>Back from Argentina with a vengeance I see. But thanks for the PR dumbfuck.
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><br><b>ruffadam</b> – AUGUST 20, 2014 AT 6:24 AM, says:
<br>
<br>"SEO,
<br>It is nice of you to re-frame for us what we could expect from a real agitprop agent. I will stick with my own definition though. My definition fits you to a tee."~Adam Ruff
<br>
<br>http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25892
<br>
<br>And this "re-frame" that Adam refers to is the covert entity's beancounter's accounting that attempts to frame me yet again. Delivered in the same grotesque ultra-verbose Newspeak. Bridges has no sense of brevity.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-2717">2014-08-20</a>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b> – AUGUST 20, 2014 AT 9:18 PM says:
<br>
<br>"The one fact that discredits virtually everything you just said is that in each and every case it is in fact you who starts the trouble not HR1 or myself. There was no mention of you at all on this thread until you came in and started derailing it. Sure you choose to come to the defense of Tamborine Man who was himself attempting to derail this discussion. You saw us telling TM to stay on topic as your perfect opportunity to come in here and increase the disruption. You are the aggressor SEO and the time stamps on the posts prove it.
<br>
<br>Now as to your other blather about HR1 and I working together against you I can assure you that you have earned my critiques through your own actions and if HR1 were not here at all I would still make them. Because HR1 and I happen to agree on quite a few things I can understand your mistake of thinking we coordinate all this. We don't need to coordinate anything really SEO because your pattern of abuse and your MO are obvious to both of us. I agree with HR1 most of the time for one simple reason SEO, because he is right most of the time and I know he is right from my own research. You on the other hand are often wrong and therefore I often disagree with you.
<br>
<br>In truth SEO I really believe you are "agitprop" or an "agent provocateur" who is attacking this blog and some of it's members intentionally and for nefarious reasons. Looking at your most recent post for example I find numerous reasons to reach the conclusion that you are an "agent" of disruption and disinformation.
<br>
<br>Some other time perhaps I will go through one of your posts step by step and explain in detail what is happening with them. Suffice it to say for now that I will not be responding to your "Chop-chop, Mr. Ruff" remark in any sort of timely fashion, if at all, simply because I don't bite on such obvious bait. At this point SEO you may want to have your handlers assign someone else from the Q-Group to me because your routine is played out and not working."
<br>_____________________________________
<br>
<br>Indeed, Mr Ruff has said it quite well, the proof of who the trouble maker is can be seen by the time/date stamps. The disinformant Bridges always starts the shit.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25585">August 6, 2014 at 3:29 pm</a>
<br>
<br>You know SEO your comment is completely off topic as well. Your criticism of HR1 is off topic simply because his comments you criticize are in fact on topic! You don't like him or me or our comments and that is fine and well but keep it to yourself because it is OFF TOPIC! I am not interested in your obsessive vendetta against HR1 or myself. I want to talk about the topic Craig posted and most of us were talking about it and having a good discussion until TM came in and pooped all over it. Now you come in and spread the poop even more and try to play like you are some kind of good guy? You are not a good guy you are intentionally disrupting the discussion. Stick your vendetta where the sun doesn't shine, I don't care what your opinion of HR1 or myself is. I get it and so does everyone else, you don't like HR1 or me, you do not need to say it again, we will not forget.
<br>
<br>Your posts do not address the topic. Let me say that again, you do not address the topic. Your very few on topic comments are very brief and superficial and are designed to segue into your personal rants about how much you hate HR1 or myself. If you cannot discuss the topic then you should not be here, simple as that. DAMN I wish there was an IGNORE button.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_156');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 156 -->
<a name="x157"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x157" class="tiny">x157</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_157');">tie-in's to the topic</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25590">2014-08-06</a></p>
<div id="sect_157" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Adam Ruff writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You know SEO your comment is completely off topic as well.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Not really. It had tie-in's to Mr. Syed's and Mr. TM's comments. It wasn't top-level (e.g., new off-topic point), but was nested under and in response to what already was in the forum.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Your criticism of HR1 is off topic simply because his comments you criticize are in fact on topic!</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>His first comment to Mr. TM was on topic, but ~not~ his attitude, ~not~ his language, and ~not~ the follow-up exchanges. He would have done well to STFU. Please be more observant. Classic example of a disinfo troll purposely spoiling the comments section.
<br>
<br>You bemoaned in a <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/lie-becomes-truth-palestinians-blamed-for-being-oppressed-killed-and-robbed-of-their-land/#comment-25506">August 4, 2014 at 9:47 am</a> comment:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I take personal offense each and every time this is done and I find T+S to be a constant target for Sunstein's minions... I find this derailing activity to be disgusting and insulting and damaging to the issues under consideration here... I just find it hard to believe that all the derailing that is done here is simply accidental. In fact I do not believe it is accidental at all.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>The case has already been presented regarding Mr. TM's actions possibly fitting this mold. But unobservant Mr. Ruff craftily overlooks the Bic-lighter actions of his little buddy, Mr. Rogue, in igniting the flames. Oh, no, in Mr. Ruff's book, Mr. Rogue is totally awesome MVP, can do no wrong, and doesn't fit the Cinderella slippers of a Sunstein minion. No. Can't be. Mr. Rogue would never deliberately torpedo a discussion.
<br>
<br>Yet he has. Every discussion that Mr. McKee has ever closed had Mr. Rogue as an active, flame-throwing participant.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I have come to the conclusion that some people are just mentally ill and cannot stop and never will stop.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Indeed. Count the comments in this thread. Subscribe to Mr. Rogue's blog. Be more observant.
</p>
<blockquote><p>When I do come back here I will approach this problem in an entirely new way. For now I am tired of the BS and I am cutting my losses and my stress and taking a break.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>So much for cutting losses, stress, and taking a break. Hypocrite.
<br>
<br>Back to Mr. Ruff's last posting:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You don't like [Mr. Rogue] or me or our comments and that is fine and well but keep it to yourself because it is OFF TOPIC!</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>More failures in observation, Mr. Ruff. Please point out where I expressed a dislike of either of you two in my comment. What I dislike are your hypocritical statements and diversionary over-reactions. And I'll call you out on it every time I see it, because I value truth and honesty above all else.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I am not interested in your obsessive vendetta against HR1 or myself.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Is that so? Where's the beef? You've even made repeated promises the last couple of years (a) that you don't read my comments and (b) that you ignore my comments. Was this because you're too clueless to make a decent argument to counter rationally my position? Me thinks so. You've been a hypocritical blowhard from the onset. Where's your big fat IGNORE and not rising to the occassion?
</p>
<blockquote><p>I want to talk about the topic Craig posted and most of us were talking about it and having a good discussion until TM came in and pooped all over it.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>And you two diversionary WWF tag-teamers have to go and step in it and track it all over the place well before I make my posting. Show some restraint, my good man.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Now you come in and spread the poop even more and try to play like you are some kind of good guy?</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Yep, I'm the good guy. As for the poop spreading, your comment come before mine. Check the soles of your shoes before smelling mine.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I don't care what your opinion of HR1 or myself is.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Prove it. Ignore me.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I get it and so does everyone else, you don't like HR1 or me, you do not need to say it again, we will not forget.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>As has been pointed out again and again, you ~don't~ get it. I've made favorable comments about certain things you've written. When I've objected, I've made it known.
<br>
<br>What I don't like is your hypocrisy, Mr. Ruff.
<br>
<br>What I ~get~ from your hyprocrisy, Mr. Ruff, is that your comments need to be aimed at yourself. Practice what you preach.
<br>
<br>FTR, I follow the discussions. I take in the information. I contemplate. I don't need to chime in with back-slapping <i>"me-too-isms"</i> and <i>"I agree"</i> on every single thread within every single forum. I probably know as much or more about the holocaust and Nazi practices than Mr. Syed, although from a different perspective. [I'm fluent in German and have lived there as an adult.]
<br>
<br>And when the topic is on the fringes of either my knowledge or my interests, I don't feel compelled to muscle my way in and slap down my opinions. You'll know when I disagree.
<br>
<br>Show some fortitude, Mr. Ruff, and IGNORE this.
<br>
<br>As for ego-centric, sociopathic Mr. Rogue? Notice the framing: <i>"Oh, woes me?!! I badger everyone and when someone objects, I'm the target! I'm the victim being defamed. It's all about me. Me. Me. Me. Look at my posting count!"</i>
<br>
<br>Used to be that outside my nookiedoo hobby horse topic, I disagreed with less than 10% of what Mr. Rogue posted (not necessary wrote). Thanks to his disagreeable <i>"squealing and oinking"</i> [not my words], that margin of disagreement has doubled or tripled.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_157');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 157 -->
<a name="x158"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x158" class="tiny">x158</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_158');">holocaust narrative</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25595">2014-08-06</a></p>
<div id="sect_158" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Adam Ruff writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[W]hy is it a crime to dispute the holocaust narrative in Germany...? Think about that for a moment Germany is threatening you with violence (arrest and imprisonment) if you express an opinion in opposition to their narrative.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>The victors imposed this as such into the re-written German constitution as well as the German public's "Geist". They shamed the people with the hyped, exaggerated, and even falsified elements of the holocaust propaganda. They've had their noses rubbed in for several generations now, so that they won't forget. Hollywood makes it so they won't forget... the story that the victors want told.
<br>
<br>And when inconsistencies in the holocaust narrative are pointed out, this gets labeled "holocaust denying" instead of what it is: "questioning holocaust exaggerations."
<br>
<br>The Germans were so fundamentally broken down in spirit, power, and infrastructure (with occupying armies right up until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989), fixing the exaggerations to the atrocities was out of scope particularly in light of the many bad things ~all~ observed at one point or another in that era. Kind of like, "in for a penny, in for a pound."
</p>
<blockquote><p>Guilty of X, for sure. Guilty of X+Y? If you, the victor, say so. Punishment and mental torment for X is already all consuming. Sure, add some real or fiction Y to it. Doesn't change anything to the level of our shame.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>With 20/20 hindsight [helped by the JFK, RFK, MLK, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11], we can see who benefits by tacking on fiction Y to the crimes and why those in power wouldn't want it questioned. Exposed as fiction undermines the case for the state of Israel after WWII.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_158');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 158 -->
<a name="x159"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x159" class="tiny">x159</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_159');">intentionally disrupting threads</a></b></p>
<p>2014-08-06</p>
<div id="sect_159" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25588">August 6, 2014 at 4:09 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Here let me up my total comments in order to tip the balance of power in my favor! Clearly if I post more than HR1 I become the most powerful right? I am the new leader!
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25592">August 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm</a>
<br>
<br>You have just made my case for me SEO. Thank you. May I lastly point out that your lame attempt to paint your comments as being on topic are laughable. You have virtually nothing to say that is on topic ever. You are intentionally disrupting threads.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25609">August 6, 2014 at 10:21 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Your comments above and this one are OFF TOPIC!
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25610">August 6, 2014 at 10:34 pm</a>
<br>
<br>They will find me to be a rabid defender of free speech if they somehow succeed in getting such laws on the books here in America. The more the system tries to control us and steer us in the direction they want the more people like me resist and rebel. I honestly hope they try to pass such laws here and I hope they crack down very hard with flagrant police state tactics. I hope they do it because by doing it they create the rebellion that desperately needs to happen. As princess Lea said in Star Wars "the more you tighten your grip the more systems will slip through your fingers". I say bring on martial law now today! Put storm troopers in the streets and have them smash skulls with billy clubs! Arrest activists now and throw them into camps or hell just have summary executions in the streets. Nothing will speed up the demise of the NWO more than that. Bring it on!
<br>
<br><br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25618">August 7, 2014 at 1:02 am</a>
<br>
<br>Oh please TM, asking you to stay on topic is not censorship in any way shape or form and that you would suggest that Craig is flirting with 911blogger style censorship is outrageous and also for me very insightful as to your true motives. As far as I can tell you have been allowed to say what you want and I know for a fact I have been allowed to say what I want so where is the specter of censorship here at T+S? No what you are bothered by is that with my free speech here I called you out for preaching to us, which you most certainly did do. I also pointed out that it was completely off topic, which it most certainly was. Now Craig asked you to stay on topic, which you most certainly should do, and you play the victim of censorship card! So, much like the Israeli's play the victim card, you do so, when in reality you, like the Israeli's, are the one that is doing wrong. Bravo!
<br>
<br>How about you just stay on topic and quit being a troll trying to disrupt the discussion?
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25620">August 7, 2014 at 1:25 am</a>
<br>
<br>Perhaps so. Maybe it will be a "Terminator" type scenario or my version of that being more like "The Road Warrior". It may just turn out like the Bundy ranch standoff though where Americans and people of all nations rise up in incredible numbers and say NO MORE! Maybe just maybe we will get together and bounce these sociopaths out of all leadership positions altogether. Perhaps the worst of them will be put on trial and hanged for crimes against humanity. I have a few I would nominate for that starting with Netanyahu and Obama and then moving on to the Bush family, Darth Cheney, Donald Scumsfeld, Condasleezy Rice, the Clintons, and how about also in the first batch of trials we throw in Brzezinski, Kissinger, and a selection of Rockefellers?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25671">2014-08-08</a> at 9:54 pm
<br>
<br>Where are Tamborine man and Senor El Once's posts dealing with the topic? Have they nothing to say about the topic? They seem to have a lot to say about other members of this blog and about unrelated issues such as religion but very little to say about the article itself or about Gaza. Kind of odd don't you think?
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25676">2014-08-09</a> at 1:57 am
<br>
<br>I have been upping my post count lately because I am trying to supplant you HR1. Everyone knows that it is the quantity of the posts that matters not the quality! If I had to beat the quality of your posts I would not stand much of a chance to supplant you but since all I have to do is beat you on quantity I am going to give it a real try. When I pass you do I get a prize or something?
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25677">2014-08-09</a> at 1:59 am
<br>
<br>By way of deception we make war.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25678">2014-08-09</a> at 2:03 am
<br>
<br>The tools once used to manipulate the masses (namely the corporate media) are failing. The fact of the matter is the corporate whore media is largely controlled by Zionist supremacists. It is a great thing for the world that their control of all media is in free fall.
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25681">2014-08-09</a> at 2:11 am
<br>
<br>Too bad neither SEO's comments or yours are on topic huh? Perhaps that is what you really admire is SEO's ability to derail threads? Perhaps you are attempting to emulate him/her/it?
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25683">2014-08-09</a> at 2:31 am
<br>
<br>I will say it plainly that SEO is intentionally disrupting threads and is extremely hostile but in a passive aggressive way to hide behind a very thin facade of civility. You on the other hand HR1 are very up front with your thoughts and arguments and in my opinion much more honorable for doing so. I much prefer to be told to my face that I am wrong than to have an obsessive compulsive stalker skulking around waiting to stab me in the back and hide it behind a thin facade of false civility. Your posts are usually on topic and on target while his/her/its posts are little more than lip service to the topic and a manifesto length passive aggressive tirade against you or sometimes me.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25684">2014-08-09</a> at 2:43 am
<br>
<br>Your post was a sermon, a religious sermon, there is no doubt about it. I was the one who called you out about it being preaching. It was preaching and it was religious in nature and nothing you said above changes that not even your repeated insistence that it wasn't religious. You remind me of the cops at Waco who kept saying over the loud speaker that the Davidians should come out and they would not be harmed while Flir video images captured the feds shooting them as they tried to escape the burning building. Give it a rest man it was a sermon, a preachy sermon that had nothing to do with the topic. No matter how many times you claim it was not religious IT WAS.
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25685">2014-08-09</a> at 2:45 am
<br>
<br>Why is it that you cannot comment on the topic?
<br>
<br><br>
<b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25719">2014-08-11</a> at 7:43 am
<br>
<br>I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to put words in my mouth by suggesting that I advocate "forceful" resistance to the evils of the world. I do not advocate such and never have, I advocate self defense and I advocate non violent non cooperation with "evil" period. Please mention me by name next time when you are talking about me, it makes it so much clearer for the readers.
<br>
<br>I also wonder why it is Tamborine man that you are completely unable to speak to the topic of this thread? All you seem to be able to post about are your concepts of spirituality which would be better suited to a religious discussion forum. You are preaching here and it is unwelcome because it distracts from the discussion of the topic. I personally find what you say to be mostly incoherent ramblings and I would not turn to you as any sort of authority on spiritual matters.
<br>
<br>If we wanted to discuss life after death, reincarnation, the soul living on forever, and other religious topics we would go to a forum for those topics and discuss it there.
<br>
<br>If David Icke came onto this forum I am sure he would be capable of speaking to the topic and would do it in a very coherent way while still getting his decidedly spiritual perspective across quite well. That would be welcomed, I am sure, by all here and we would all probably learn something from him. You on the other hand are NOT discussing the topic AT ALL. You are simply launching into incoherent sermons about your views of cosmic Karma and eternal life which I for one am not interested in. For spiritual lessons I turn to teachers worthy of my time and attention. I go to them, they do not come to me.
<br>
<br>Why don't you start a blog about these spiritual topics if you want to discuss them so much? This blog is meant for discussing in this case Craig McKee's article entitled: (Dismantle Gaza and relocate ‘non-belligerent Arabs': Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.)
<br>
<br>Why is it you can't discuss that topic Tamborine man? Why are you having so much difficulty talking about that?
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_159');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 159 -->
<a name="x160"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x160" class="tiny">x160</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_160');">topic to the fourth level discussion</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25725">2014-08-11</a> at 2:15 pm</p>
<div id="sect_160" style="display: none;">
<p>Technically, Mr. Adam Ruff's <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25681">2014-08-09 at 2:11 am</a> was published ~before~ my <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25668">2014-08-08 at 5:48 pm</a> comment, because an accidental third URL sent my comment into the moderation queue over the weekend.
<br>
<br>Contrary to Mr. Ruff's wishful and ignornant predictions, my actual comment was on topic to the fourth level discussion about links.
<br>
<br>Curious, my unpublished comment [2014-08-08 at 5:48 pm] accurately predicted how Mr. Rogue's <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25651">2014-08-08 at 7:18 am</a> chumming of the waters would lead to a topic distraction that came into fruition on 2014-08-09 at 1:30 am.
<br>
<br>As if a baton were handed off between agents, Mr. Ruff writes on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25588">2014-08-06 at 4:09 pm </a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Here let me up my total comments in order to tip the balance of power in my favor! Clearly if I post more than HR1 I become the most powerful right? I am the new leader!</p></blockquote>
<p>And on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25676">2014-08-09</a> at 1:57 am:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I have been upping my post count lately because I am trying to supplant you HR1. Everyone knows that it is the quantity of the posts that matters not the quality!</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>At the time of writing, there are 101 comments: Mr. Ruff had 30, Mr. Rogue 39, and I had 5 (not including the unpublished comment).
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff boldly writes on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25681">2014-08-09 at 2:11 am</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Too bad neither SEO's comments or yours are on topic huh? Perhaps that is what you really admire is SEO's ability to derail threads? Perhaps you are attempting to emulate him/her/it?</p></blockquote>
<p>And then chums the waters again immediately (<a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25683">2014-08-09 at 2:31 am</a>) with:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I will say it plainly that SEO is intentionally disrupting threads...</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Ruff evidently is never going to live down be called a <i>"hypocrite,"</i> because he offers so much fodder to the label. It doesn't take much Ctrl+F (on-page searches) with a given participant's alias to quickly see badgering disruption to the threads by the baton-passing conspirators.
<br>
<br>Here is a bit of an oxy-moron by a proud high school graduate:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[SEO] is extremely hostile but in a passive aggressive way to hide behind a very thin facade of civility.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, indeed, I use a thin facade of civility to package arguments that destroy my debate opponents' points, arguments, and cases, thus in that sense only could possibly deemed <i>"extremely hostile"</i> to their blatant and willful errors.
<br>
<br>Stroking something, Mr. Ruff writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>... [Mr. Rogue,] Your posts are usually on topic and on target... </p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>The credits leading to Mr. Ruff's high school diploma did not include any classes that could give him an appreciation of statistical analysis, let alone the chops to carry something like that out, even on the small subset of comments here. What significant percentage of Mr. Rogue's postings are nothing more than a copy-and-pasting cheat of somebody else's words to obtain <i>"reflected brilliance"</i>? [I give Mr. Rogue kudos for developing the habit, after much badgering, of crediting his sources better. Still has room for improvement.] So when Mr. Ruff kisses Mr. Rogue's hiney with:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You on the other hand HR1 are very up front with your thoughts and arguments and in my opinion much more honorable for doing so.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>How much of the above impression comes from Mr. Rogue's actual words or from words borrowed from others?
<br>
<br>In one of his bait-setting traps, Mr. Ruff writes at <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25671">2014-08-08</a> at 9:54 pm:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Where are Tamborine man and Senor El Once's posts dealing with the topic?</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>When Mr. Ruff demonstrates his abilities for <i>"irrational argument"</i> and makes good on his promises to <i>"ignore and not read comments"</i> from me, that's when we get ignorant statements like above. Already addressed on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25590">2014-08-06 at 4:30 pm:</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>... I don't need to chime in with back-slapping "me-too-isms" and "I agree" on every single thread within every single forum... [W]hen the topic is on the fringes of either my knowledge or my interests, I don't feel compelled to muscle my way in and slap down my opinions. You'll know when I disagree. ... What I dislike are your hypocritical statements and diversionary over-reactions.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Ruff's doesn't disappoint us with his hypocrisy <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25671">2014-08-08</a> at 9:54 pm:
</p>
<blockquote><p>... seem to have a lot to say about other members of this blog and about unrelated issues such as religion but very little to say about the article itself or about Gaza. Kind of odd don't you think?</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Ruff wrote <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25677">2014-08-09</a> at 1:59 am
</p>
<blockquote><p>By way of deception we make war.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>I see.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff wrote on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25681">2014-08-09</a> at 2:11 am:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Perhaps that is what you [Mr. Tamborine Man] really admire is SEO's ability to derail threads? Perhaps you are attempting to emulate him/her/it?</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Let's go with <i><b>"~it~"</b></i> for its ability to make Mr. Ruff look ridiculous for even suggesting it.
<br>
<br>Maybe the admiration is Mr. Ruff for willy... Mr. Ruff tries to emulate him both in actually derailing and then in dropping hypnotic suggestion that someone else derailed it!
<br>
<br>Through Mr. Ruff's increased spamming of this forum to 30%, Mr. Rogue gets his spam reduced from 44.6% down to 39%. The two of them alone now command 69% of the comments, nearly four times the combined but failing efforts of Mr. Tamborine Man (at 13%) and SEO (at 6%). We humbly acknowledge the supremacy of Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue to derail the thread.
<br>
<br>The theme of baiting the forum gets a third ping, also from Mr. Ruff but much earlier <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25610">2014-08-06</a> at 10:34 pm:
</p>
<blockquote><p>... I honestly hope they try to pass such laws here and I hope they crack down very hard with flagrant police state tactics. I hope they do it because by doing it they create the rebellion that desperately needs to happen. ... I say bring on martial law now today! Put storm troopers in the streets and have them smash skulls with billy clubs! ... Bring it on!</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Had about as much to do with Gaza as Mr. TM's spirituality postings.
<br>
<br>And were Mr. Ruff to justify his statements further, the counter from Mr. TM would be that Mr. Ruff's wishful rebellious thinking is but one way to confront (and assist) evil, but a different tactic would be found in understanding Mr. TM's themes.
<br>
<br>Here's the analogy. When playing the game of Monopoly, the participant who is the banker almost always cheats, temptation being so great. This might inspire participants like Mr. Ruff to violently overturn the game board and send pieces to the far-flung corners of the room, some possibly never to be found.
<br>
<br>Mr. TM, on the other hand, makes participants cognizant of the fact that they are just playing a game that has no power over their real, spiritual selves. This gives real power in being able to stand up and walk away from it.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_160');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 160 -->
<a name="x161"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x161" class="tiny">x161</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_161');">hope they crack down very hard with flagrant police state tactics</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25732">2014-08-11</a></p>
<div id="sect_161" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Ruff wrote to Mr. TM on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25719">2014-08-11 at 7:43 am</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to put words in my mouth by suggesting that I advocate "forceful" resistance to the evils of the world. I do not advocate such and never have, I advocate self defense and I advocate non violent non cooperation with "evil" period.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Hmmm. Yet within this very thread on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25610">2014-08-06 at 10:34 pm</a>, the very same Mr. Ruff wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>... I honestly hope they try to pass such laws here and I hope they crack down very hard with flagrant police state tactics. I hope they do it because by doing it they create the rebellion that desperately needs to happen... I say bring on martial law now today! Put storm troopers in the streets and have them smash skulls with billy clubs! Arrest activists now and throw them into camps or hell just have summary executions in the streets... Bring it on!</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>So the record shows that Mr. Ruff does not <i>"advocate 'forceful' resistance to the evils of the world."</i> Instead, he seems to be advocating for liberty-limiting laws, <i>"flagrant police state tactics",</i> <i>"martial law now today,"</i> and <i>"storm troopers in the streets smashing skills with billy clubs."</i> Which team is Mr. Ruff playing for?
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff seems to be cheering the arrival of NWO, because he seems to think that once its deprivations are upon us, then will rise up the resistance to overthrow it. [Or the NWO will be implemented.]
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff seems to think that having the storm trooper's boots upon our throats will only then inspire us to speak up and resist.
<br>
<br>Indeed. This is quite different than resistance. It is playing into the hands of NWO. Bad strategy.
</p>
<blockquote><p>And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like... if, during periods of mass arrests, ... people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
<br>~Alexander Solzhenitsyn</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Ruff's efforts to supplant Mr. Rogue as the most prolific contributor is still 9 comments shy of matching Mr. Rogue and fulfilling his 2014-08-07 at 4:09 pm boasts of upping his <i>"total comments to tip the balance of power in [his] favor."</i> The two of them nonetheless command 69% of the discussion.
<br>
<br>Rather ironic then that Mr. Ruff would accuse me with my pitiful five comments: <i>"SEO is intentionally disrupting threads."</i> Thread to thread, I simply don't have the numbers... Or Mr. Ruff's drive (2014-08-09 at 1:57 am):
</p>
<blockquote><p>I have been upping my post count lately because I am trying to supplant you HR1. Everyone knows that it is the quantity of the posts that matters not the quality!</p></blockquote>
<p>Gives new meaning to Mr. Ruff's comment from 2014-08-09 at 1:59 am:
</p>
<blockquote><p>By way of deception we make war.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_161');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 161 -->
<a name="x162"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x162" class="tiny">x162</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_162');">discredit me with my own words</a></b></p>
<p>2014-08-11</p>
<div id="sect_162" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25736">August 11, 2014 at 8:46 pm</a>
<br>
<br>SEO you are an obsessive compulsive stalker and your post has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC!
<br>
<br>Furthermore your pseudo analysis skills have once again failed you in your attempts to discredit me with my own words. I find it comical almost that you do not seem to understand simple points. For example when I said "bring on the NWO" you do not seem to grasp the point I was making that the worse they get the faster the resistance grows as a natural consequence. In other words they are naturally creating their own demise. That point in no way advocates violence but you just do not "get it" apparently. I think your misunderstanding stems from your obsessive compulsion to attack HR1 and myself. As to my point about upping my post count let me explain that was sarcasm aimed at you that you obviously missed. Your constant OCD driven counting of HR1 posts was getting so old and tired that I thought I would sarcastically highlight how stupid it was.
<br>
<br>Now I have opened the door for even more of your off topic ranting and raving for which I apologize to the forum in advance. I just think it is shameful that you absolutely refuse to discuss the topic at hand and instead focus all of your obsessive attention on attacking HR1 and myself. You are a stalker in every bad and scary sense of the term. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC for a change why don't you?
<br>
<br><br>
<br>
<b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25743">August 12, 2014 at 1:51 am</a>
<br>
<br>Even the quotes of mine, which you took totally out of context by the way, do NOT advocate violence in any way shape or form. I was simply theorizing about how the coming police state and resulting revolution might play itself out. You seem to be strangely unable to understand context or inference in my and HR1's comments. In any case it does not matter to me one bit if you think I contradict myself or not I am confident that most readers understand my meaning.
<br>
<br>I really am tired of you continually going off topic Tamborine Man, it is disrespectful to Craig and to us all. I sense in you the same obsessive compulsion to keep doing this though that I find in SEO. I have resigned myself to the fact that neither you or SEO are going to stop actively trying to disrupt threads. I have also resigned myself to the fact that you are both OCD to the point that you will literally NEVER stop doing it. So by all means spam the shit out of this forum with more of your off topic garbage and I will decide for myself if I want to tolerate it or not. Right now the ONLY reason I tolerate it is because I enjoy reading Craig's excellent articles and some of the superb commentary about them.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_162');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 162 -->
<a name="x163"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x163" class="tiny">x163</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_163');">discussion behavior</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25824">2014-08-15</a></p>
<div id="sect_163" style="display: none;">
<p>Some confusion exists about proper discussion behavior, whereby some have been going ape-shit over what they consider to be off-topic and derailing, somewhat purposely ignorant of the facts (a) that it takes at least two to tango and (b) that their ape-shit reactions were far more derailing than the individual off-topic comments were if simply left alone.
<br>
<br>Discussions in online forums are like ping-pong tournaments. When a ball is served over the net, one can hit the ball back or let it go. <i>If the served ball were headed out of bounds, letting it go is the wisest course of action.</i> Sure, although the last one hitting the ball has the last word, readers serious about the subject subconsciously award points for those that remain in bounds.
<br>
<br>Whether or not a served ball would have been out of bounds, if you return the serve, the opportunity is created for a valley and for the ball to be hit right back again. And again. And again.
<br>
<br>It doesn't matter whether or not your returns are <b>"smashing"</b> and energetically punctuated with curses about <i>"lame serves, wimpy hits, top-spin, back-spin, side-spin,"</i> etc. because this enables the back-and-forth volley to continue, possibly much deeper into topics <i>"undesired"</i>.
<br>
<br>Letting the ball go is how you stop the volley, at the cost of losing the last word. Leaving the ping-pong table (e.g., thread, discussion topic) for another is how you stop it. Leaving the tournament (e.g., T&S forum) altogether is how you stop it for yourself permanently.
<br>
<br>Participants should note that they get to choose the tables that they want to play at. They are under no obligation to play concurrent games with any and all who lob a ball across the net.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, it should be noted that energetic volleys starting from level 2+ do not necessarily derail discussions, even if they are off-topic. Why? Because when played by fair and objective players, theoretically a new level 1 comment can bring the overall forum's discussion back on-topic.
</p>
<blockquote><p>"Keep in mind that when someone goes off topic and seems to be provoking a thread-derailing argument, they succeed much more readily when everyone jumps in and argues with them."~Craig McKee 2014-08-13</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>What derails the entire forum are these three elements together:
<br>(1) The topic is out-of-bounds.
<br>(2) One or more participants continue the discussion but <b>with a level 1 comment</b>, being too lazy, too devious, or both to locate an appropriate level n (where n>1) comment to reply to, which would "contain" the off-topic back-and-forth and not give it the last words in the forum.
<br>(3) Ape-shit over-reactions and <b>unsportsmanlike</b> conduct.
<br>
<br>To a certain degree, #1 and #2 could be tolerated. #3 is what puts it over the top. Although some try to frame this #3 as <i>"frank and honest,"</i> when used in a knee-jerk fashion and repeatedly, it turns into a purposeful tactic designed to torpedo the forum and deserves to be called out.
<br>
<br>Here's a good example from Mr. Ruff on August 11, 2014 at 8:46 pm:
</p>
<blockquote><p>SEO you are an obsessive compulsive stalker and your post has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC!</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>It wasn't just an over-reaction. The first half of that hypnotic assertion is a lie.
<br>
<br>How so? What other forums have I <i>"stalked"</i> Mr. Ruff onto? Has Mr. Ruff ever received an email from me? What comments have I ever left on a forum that he controls? Does Mr. Ruff even have a blog for comments to be made on? Is Mr. Ruff on Facebook? Paraphrasing Jed Klampet, <i>"California is a place I don't want to be,"</i> and Mr. Ruff won't find me there <i>"stalking"</i> him. [Brings up why Mr. Ruff didn't say <i>"obsessive compulsive <b>CYBER</b> stalker"</i>. One could consider the omission of the adjective <i>"cyber"</i> to be a low-down, dirty cheat that have the facts further undermine his reputation here.]
<br>
<br>Yep, I'm a religious fanatic; fanatical about Truth with a capital "T". Dishonesty pushes my buttons and will result in me lobbing the ping-pong discussion ball back to point it out.
<br>
<br>It should be noticed that Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff have been having a field day on:
<br>http://conspiracypsychology.com
<br>
<br><b>Looks like they found a new home!</b> Kudos and please keep it up!
<br>
<br>Although Mr. Rogue has repeatedly <b>INVITED</b> me and all lurker readers to follow him there and tag-team in the fun <b>via the many links posted</b>, I have not <i>"stalked"</i> over there to give him or Mr. Ruff the raspberries. [I've got a life.] Yet another way the <i>"OCD stalking"</i> malframing gets destroyed. [And were I to venture into the discussions of that disinfo website, it wouldn't be to attack either Mr. Rogue or Mr. Ruff, but to aid and support their efforts in exposing the dishonesty of its owners-on-the-disinfo-attack.]
<br>
<br>Here's a test for those prone to ape-shit over-reactions:
<br>
<br> <b>F-F-F-FOURTH GENERATION NOOKIEDOO!!!</b>
<br>
<br>Instructions: Don't smash anything back across the net. Just let this go. Don't reply. STFU.
<br>
<br>I'm serious. I don't really want to discuss <b>NOOKIEDOO</b>, but I know how <b>NOOKIEDOO</b> pushes buttons. Ignore it and this entire comment, and you'll pass the test.
<br>
<br>Let this ball go by. Don't volley it back so I can lob another one back. Don't reply. STFU.
<br>
<br>That's the test.
<br>
<br>P.S. This comment was started on Monday. It wasn't finished. Real-life got in the way. I'm not obligated. And I might not have finished it, were it not for <a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-2626">Mr. Rogue asking so nicely for it</a>.
<br>
<br>Let the record show how I let their ping-pong balls fall to the floor. They got the last word. Woo-hoo! And they'll get the last word after this. Woo-hoo some more!
<br>
<br>But so addicted to T&S are they, they've been desperately trying to stoke conversations since. Mr. Ruff's pictures of protest at the <i>"The November Man"</i> premiere were marginally on-topic. Mr. Rogue's essay on <i>"Believe"</i> isn't just off-topic; it's as if he's trying to get Mr. Tamborine Man to come out and play with more spirituality postings. [NOT something that I advocate.] Mr. Rogue regularly uses T&S as if he were its RSS feed and as if T&S were an appropriate repository for everything he might have penned for other purposes elsewhere. Has hypocritical Mr. Ruff called Mr. Roge on any of his off-topic comments? Nope. It's why the "hypocritical" adjective applies as a valid fact and isn't ad hominem. [Pointed out so Mr. Ruff will improve his demeanor.]
<br>
<br>What comment from me would be complete without the stats? At 134 total comments so far, Mr. Rogue (55) and Mr. Ruff (39) together make up 70% of the contribution to this forum, as Mr. Ruff falls further behind Mr. Rogue.
<br>
<br>P.P.S. <b>This embodies a second test of the participants.</b> It is posted as a level 1 comment, to see how quickly and by whom another level 1 comment comes to <i>"get the last word"</i>, and what the nature of that comment will be. Will it be original and on-topic? Will it be original and off-topic? Will it be a copy-and-paste whack-job of someone else's words marginally related to the topic?
<br>
<br>// <i>"double slasher leaping out with a screech like a banshee"~Mr. Rogue</i>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_163');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 163 -->
<a name="x164"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x164" class="tiny">x164</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_164');">stinks of agitprop to me</a></b></p>
<p>2014-08-16</p>
<div id="sect_164" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25842">August 16, 2014 at 7:32 pm</a>
<br>
<br>HR1 says "Apparently personal concerns trump all other considerations for some."
<br>
<br>I agree 100% with this in fact I would like to point out at this time the fact that "personal concerns" were the ONLY thing talked about by two particular individuals, Gaza and Craigs article were completely ignored throughout the entire thread. That stinks of agitprop to me and now these comments popping up meant to make us all believe SEO is some kind of Icon that is very popular but here he/she/it is unfairly censored. This is highly suspect to me. A simple google search for SEO would produce plenty of results so why come in here specifically to drop these not so subtle hints that SEO is being oppressed and censored here? It is agitprop and it is BS. Anyone could have found his/her/its postings elsewhere so why come in here to make those comments? Agitprop.
<br>
<br>SEO was posting totally off topic comments and has been doing so for a long time, very disruptive, very disingenuous. I am thoroughly convinced that SEO is genuine agitprop. He/she/its comments are engineered (carefully crafted) to produce anger, confusion, and dissension. I noticed it particularly with responses to my comments where SEO's comments are specifically designed to make me angry (I recognized it as crafted provocation so it didn't work). This comment in particular caught my attention and convinced me that SEO is genuine agitprop:
<br>
<br>August 6th 430PM SEO writes in response to my saying I was not interested in his/her/its vendetta against HR1 or myself:
<br>
<br>"Is that so? Where's the beef? You've even made repeated promises the last couple of years (a) that you don't read my comments and (b) that you ignore my comments. Was this because you're too clueless to make a decent argument to counter rationally my position? Me thinks so. You've been a hypocritical blowhard from the onset. Where's your big fat IGNORE and not rising to the occasion?"
<br>
<br>Now from a psychological standpoint what SEO is doing with this comment is actually very revealing. Can you see what is going on in just that short paragraph? It is actually a powerful psychological attack crafted just for me. (BTW: I take it as a compliment that I get the attention of provocateurs and that they expend some of their time on me.)
<br>
<br>SEO may work alone or is actually a group of provocateurs with dozens or more sock puppet persona's but in either case the evidence is plentiful that this entity is NOT here to discuss Craigs articles. Scan back over this thread and see for yourself where SEO made an (on topic) post prior to this date and time. I bet you can't locate one and that should speak volumes to everyone. In scanning through past threads you will see the same pattern emerge with only a token post or two vaguely on topic followed by a plethora of off topic "psychological warfare" (in my opinion) posts.
<br>
<br>I would ask anyone reading this to actually look back at this and other threads and see the method of provocation in action. You will learn how this "infowar" for lack of a better term is actually being fought.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25844">August 16, 2014 at 9:37 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I concur with Mr Ruff's analysis. As such, perhaps the comments section can be opened to a "post topical" discussion on our take on what just occurred here on Truth and Shadows. Again, under the stated rules of engagement set by our host.
<br>
<br>I think it is apparent that Truth and Shadows is a prime candidate for targeting by what we call "Sunsteinian Agitprop". This is certainly not a new idea here, and the "paranoia" of the probability of surveillance and intervention here is not without some rational bases.
<br>
<br>Personally, I would rather that Craig gives an official go-ahead before we proceed to such discussion.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25892">August 20, 2014 at 6:24 am</a>
<br>
<br>SEO,
<br>
<br>It is nice of you to re-frame for us what we could expect from a real agitprop agent. I will stick with my own definition though. My definition fits you to a tee.
<br>
<br>1. You constantly try to derail good discussion by bringing up discredited theories such as mini-nukes and Judy Woods DEW.
<br>
<br>2. You use any excuse to introduce bogus material or to create conflict on the blog because in either case the discussion itself gets lost.
<br>
<br>3. You use passive aggressive attacks masked only by a very thin facade of politeness along with other disinformation techniques such as Alice in Wonderland logic in order to derail the topical discussions.
<br>
<br>4. You post intentionally confusing or conflicting information which require significant time commitments to unravel and debunk.
<br>
<br>5. You offer only token lip service to the topic but post long diatribes attacking others.
<br>
<br>6. You try to make us rehash past debunks of your theories over and over by claiming falsely that your theories have never been addressed or debunked.
<br>
<br>The bottom line is that your MO is to waste our time and derail productive discussions. In my opinion you are agitprop SEO.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25896">August 20, 2014 at 11:45 am</a>
<br>
<br>‘Agitprop': the rupture of language and cognition in social engineering.
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_164');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 164 -->
<a name="x165"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x165" class="tiny">x165</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_165');">Chop-chop, Mr. Ruff</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25899">2014-08-20</a></p>
<div id="sect_165" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>Thank you so much for your comment that allows me to respond and for being on the vanguard of this dastardly detour into alleged "agitprop" characteristics. Clearly you and Mr. Rogue are conspiring off-list in this endeavor, so he can teach you the vocabulary.
<br>
<br>It is rather funny that you are writing anything at all addressed to me about something I wrote, because you have repeatedly claimed <i>to ignore my comments, to skip right over them, and to not read them.</i> I always attributed this blatant demonstration of your (low) level of open-mindedness and objectivity as the reason why you get so many things WRONG when acting as Mr. Rogue's Gilligan.
<br>
<br>Case in point, you write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You [SEO] constantly try to derail good discussion by bringing up discredited theories such as mini-nukes and Judy Woods DEW.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Haven't been brought up by me in this forum in any serious way that could be construed as me wanting to discuss them. Go check your T&S emails for the comment that Mr. McKee removed. I didn't bring them up in the last forum either. Ergo, the adverb <i>"constantly"</i> does not apply. This over-generalization alone -- something taught in high school to avoid -- is sufficient to trash the validity of your first complaint. But I'll continue trashing it more...
<br>
<br>As for the verb <i>"derail"</i>, lovely how you ignore your Skipper's hand in all of those <i>"derailments."</i> <a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-2706">Isn't Mr. Rogue's blog just a wonderful thing?</a>
<br>
<br>As for <i>"discredited theories"</i> that you dangle in front of me as bait to get me fouled out? Must be Mr. Rogue's strategy but one that he couldn't implement himself. The theories aren't mine, aren't what I champion, and aren't affected by your hypnotic suggestion. Clearly, you understand neither the base theories nor the applicable elements of each that are merged into my deviant premise.
<br>
<br>Thus we see your #1 item -- supposedly your strongest argument -- into my alleged MO fall into the dustbin.
<br>
<br>As for #2-#5? Ho-hum. Why didn't you provide links to substantiate your words?
<br>
<br>I won't belabor this, because I've addressed your concerns and your dubious nature months ago in a special message <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/prelude-to-nookiedoo.html#x29">"sick of SEO claiming we have not done so" (2014-04-13).</a> Make sure you read the whole message, particularly those referencing your statements from November 17, 2012.
<br>
<br>You think you know where I err in my bat-shit crazy deviant premises? Take it off-list. Make a comment to the blog entry linked above.
<br>
<br>Chop-chop, Mr. Ruff.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_165');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 165 -->
<a name="x166"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x166" class="tiny">x166</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">I really believe you are "agitprop" or an "agent provocateur"</a></b></p>
<p>2014-08-20</p>
<div id="sect_166" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25904">August 20, 2014 at 9:18 pm</a>
<br>
<br>The one fact that discredits virtually everything you just said is that in each and every case it is in fact you who starts the trouble not HR1 or myself. There was no mention of you at all on this thread until you came in and started derailing it. Sure you choose to come to the defense of Tamborine Man who was himself attempting to derail this discussion. You saw us telling TM to stay on topic as your perfect opportunity to come in here and increase the disruption. You are the aggressor SEO and the time stamps on the posts prove it.
<br>
<br>Now as to your other blather about HR1 and I working together against you I can assure you that you have earned my critiques through your own actions and if HR1 were not here at all I would still make them. Because HR1 and I happen to agree on quite a few things I can understand your mistake of thinking we coordinate all this. We don't need to coordinate anything really SEO because your pattern of abuse and your MO are obvious to both of us. I agree with HR1 most of the time for one simple reason SEO, because he is right most of the time and I know he is right from my own research. You on the other hand are often wrong and therefore I often disagree with you.
<br>
<br>In truth SEO I really believe you are "agitprop" or an "agent provocateur" who is attacking this blog and some of it's members intentionally and for nefarious reasons. Looking at your most recent post for example I find numerous reasons to reach the conclusion that you are an "agent" of disruption and disinformation.
<br>
<br>Some other time perhaps I will go through one of your posts step by step and explain in detail what is happening with them. Suffice it to say for now that I will not be responding to your "Chop-chop, Mr. Ruff" remark in any sort of timely fashion, if at all, simply because I don't bite on such obvious bait. At this point SEO you may want to have your handlers assign someone else from the Q-Group to me because your routine is played out and not working.
<br>
<br><br>
<b>ruffadam</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25929">August 21, 2014 at 5:51 am</a>
<br>
<br>Wow SEO that is some fast tap dancing you did there in that comment. I have no idea what the hell most of it meant but it was lengthy I will give you that. Curious why YOU have not choosen to ignore our comments since you seem to want to scold us for not ignoring yours? I will go even one better why not ignore our comments and actually post something relevant to the topic?
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_166');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 166 -->
<a name="x167"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x167" class="tiny">x167</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_167');">pushed the buttons of my religious fanaticism</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-26026">2014-08-21</a></p>
<div id="sect_167" style="display: none;">
<p>Some participants have just pushed the buttons of my religious fanaticism regarding truth by writing things that are ~not~, with the first indication being no substantiating links.
<br>
<br>So that readers understand the stats, two comments of mine made respectively to two different topics already-in-progress netted two replies from Mr. Ruff, five replies from Mr. Rogue on-list, and five back-stabbings off-list on his blog. Woo-hoo!
<br>
<br><b>Let's give Kudos where they are warranted, such as Mr. Ruff's one-for-one restraint. Bravo! </b>
<br>
<br>Two-to-seven, though! Clearly, I am losing and will continue to lose, because those seven will only eck out one, lowly, measely reply from of me, this very message that you read.
<br>
<br>For my loyal fans requesting it, let's begin more <i>"fast-talking jabberwacky"</i>, more <i>"fast tap dancing"</i>, and more <i>"simply incomprehensible bullshit"</i>. Woo-hoo!
<br>
<br>Without further delay, here's the first gem credited to Mr. Ruff (and those following unless otherwise noted):
</p>
<blockquote><p>The one fact that discredits virtually everything you just said is that in each and every case it is in fact you who starts the trouble not HR1 or myself.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>El-oh-el! Such purposeful memory loss and humor Mr. Ruff exhibits in defending Mr. Rogue, T&S's resident WalMart greeter. The phrase <i>"in each and every case"</i> falls into the category of <i>"over-generalization"</i> and only takes one case to the contrary to disprove.
<br>
<br>The list of participants is pretty long who have experienced first hand Mr. Rogue <i>"starting trouble."</i> I'd wager that out of the last 3000 comments made to T&S, Mr. Rogue's contribution was greater than one third.
<br>
<br>Now if Mr. Ruff is referring exclusively to interactions Rogue-SEO or Ruff-SEO, in probably each and every case an assertion or action was made at some point by a member of the tag-team that inspired me to respond, quite possibly with a referenced rebuttal using their own words to prove hypocrisy, dishonesty, and/or hypnosis in the assertion.
</p>
<blockquote><p>There was no mention of you at all on this thread until you came in...</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>I agree, this is so true! And just as true, there was no mention of Mr. Ruff at all on this thread until he came came in. Funny how that works.
</p>
<blockquote><p>... and started derailing it.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Was my comment the exact point of the derailment? Or was the over-blown over-reaction the exact point?
<br>
<br>Astute readers might notice that the over-blown over-reaction to Mr. Tamborine Man's innocuous comments were the exact point of derailment. My comments would have been at the caboose to that train wreck had not -- surprise! surprise! -- there been further over-blown over-reactions. Mine was the served ping-pong ball that they should have just let flutter right on by.
</p>
<blockquote><p>You saw us telling TM to stay on topic as your perfect opportunity to come in here and increase the disruption.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>I told Mr. TM to stay on topic, too. I have two comments from that period in the moderation queue due to their link count and Mr. McKee deciding not to publish them, ergo they added nothing to the disruption. My exchanges with Mr. TM to get him to provide a relevant link weren't a disruption; they were on-topic.
</p>
<blockquote><p>You are the aggressor SEO and the time stamps on the posts prove it.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>What time stamps exactly? If Mr. Ruff doesn't list and show the correlation, then his statements aren't fact but opinion without substantiation.
<br>
<br>The record shows that at 168 total comments, I made a total of 12 comments (6.5%), but four of them are in the moderation queue due to link counts and Mr. McKee not approving them. Let's ignore their publication status and consider hypothetically all 12 of them as being stick-in-your-eye provocation on T&S.
<br>
<br>How many of Mr. Ruff's ~43 commens (25.5%) or of Mr. Rogue's ~72 comments (42.8%) or of their combined ~115 comments (68.4% of the total conversation) were devoted to my [*cough*] <i>"disruption"</i> consisting of just 12 comments?
<br>
<br>In a perfect ping-pong volley, the number ought to be between 12 (1 reply from either) and 24 (1 reply each), or between 10% and 20% of their combined comments. Of course, the 7 reactions to the last 2 of my 12 comments hypothetically suggests a trend that could be extrapolated to mean that 42 of their ~115 comments -- 36% of their effort -- were devoted to me! Woo-hoo, again!
<br>
<br>Except that even a real-world number shy of 36% -- a total output >9.5 times that of mine -- paints a different picture of who is the aggressor.
<br>
<br>BTW, time stamps reflect when a participant attempted to publish the comment, but not necessarily when it saw the light of day, as would be the case for comments in the moderation queue until approval.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Now as to your other blather about HR1 and I working together against you I can assure you that you have earned my critiques through your own actions and if HR1 were not here at all I would still make them.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>And Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue have earned my critiques of their integrity through their own actions that I'm not shy of quoting back to them and offering links to substantiate.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Because HR1 and I happen to agree on quite a few things I can understand your mistake of thinking we coordinate all this.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>... Or the mistake of thinking that one of you is the sockpuppet of the other.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I agree with HR1 most of the time for one simple reason SEO, because he is right most of the time... </p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Guess what? I agree with HR1 most of the time, too, in part because how can you disagree with someone else's innocuous work that Mr. Rogue has copy-and-pasted into the discussion? In part also for the instances when he is right, and you don't find me quibbling over it.
<br>
<br>But <i>"most of the time"</i> isn't <i>"all of the time."</i> I'll stand up and point out the <i>"part of the time"</i> when Mr. Rogue is mistaken. And that's where the truth hurts.
</p>
<blockquote><p>... and I know he is right from my own research.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Stellar research that includes purposely not reading certain books or websites germaine to the discussion, not reading my comments, and by extention not reading what substantiates my comments.
</p>
<blockquote><p>You on the other hand are often wrong and therefore I often disagree with you.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p><b>Me? WRONG! Oh for heaven's sake, do forgive me! I promise to mend my ways if you would only be so kind as to point out exactly where I am in such grave error!</b>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Some other time <i>perhaps</i> I will go through one of your posts step by step and explain in detail what is happening with them. Suffice it to say for now that I will not be responding to your <i>"Chop-chop, Mr. Ruff"</i> remark in any sort of timely fashion, <i>if at all</i>, simply because I don't bite on such obvious bait.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>... Ooops! [*Sniff* *sniff*] Smells like a mustelid was here.
<br>
<br>On the one hand, I'd like to give Mr. Ruff some slack here, because my blog is a rabbit hole. But on the other hand, Mr. Ruff has been steadfastly avoiding an objective, reasoned, rational discussion with me -- on T&S, on COTO, on my blog -- for more than a year now. He has a track record of making such promises and then failing to make good on it, such as on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/guy-fawkes-the-gunpowder-plot-and-how-false-flag-operations-have-shaped-history/#comment-14614">November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am</a>.
<br>
<br>BTW, what makes my request <i>"such obvious bait"</i> when it avoids disruptions here on T&S by having the objective, reasoned, rational discussion with me off-list? Could it be because I propose my blog as the playground, where I have home-court advantage? I promise to be fair and publish replies (that aren't ad hominem snake-piss). If Mr. Ruff had a blog, it could be discussed there (or both our blogs in parallel), and I'd let Mr. Ruff be as underhanded as Mr. Rogue is with his blog.
<br>
<br>Or is my request <i>"such obvious bait"</i> when he knows he'll get his ass handed to him.
<br>
<br>Damn. [*Sniff* *sniff*] There's that mustelid smell again.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Curious why YOU have not choosen to ignore our comments since you seem to want to scold us for not ignoring yours?</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>First of all, this individual, lowly reply comes closer to zero(=ignore) than the seven comments made by your team recently.
<br>
<br>Secondly, your tag-team has charged me with <i>"being an agent of agitprop."</i> The two of you sound like Larry and Curly with your "Moe! Moe! Moe!" nonsense. (Or was it "M.O."?)
</p>
<blockquote><p>I will go even one better why not ignore our comments and actually post something relevant to the topic?</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Done. What's the topic? Oh, that's right...
</p>
<blockquote><p>In truth SEO I really believe you are "agitprop" or an "agent provocateur" who is attacking this blog and some of it's members intentionally and for nefarious reasons. Looking at your most recent post for example I find numerous reasons to reach the conclusion that you are an "agent" of disruption and disinformation.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>If Mr. Ruff found <i>"numerous reasons"</i>, he couldn't be bothered to list a single one of them. <b>Cheater.</b>
<br>
<br>At least when I call Mr. Ruff or Mr. Rogue <b><i>a hypocrite, a liar, a cheat, or a weasel</i></b>, I substantiate the instances one by one with direct quotes and links that brought me to such conclusions.
<br>
<br><i>"Attacking this blog?"</i> My 6.5% compared to their 68.4%? El-oh-el. Someone is doing some projecting here.
<br>
<br><i>"Attacking ... some of its members intentionally?"</i> Here, <i>"some"</i> is being re-defined from <i>"four or more"</i> to being equal to <i>"two"</i>. If we were to tally all of the participants who have had border-line-nasty rows with Mr. Rogue [giving all the sock-puppets the benefit of the doubt], we'd be able to say <i>"many"</i> with no dishonest re-definitions.
<br>
<br><i>"For nefarious reasons?"</i> Here, <i>"nefarious"</i> is being re-defined to be anything that holds participants to truthful statements, to practicing what they preach, to demonstrating integrity in all their interactions.
<br>
<br>++++
<br>
<br><b>Now let's look at some of Mr. Rogue's recent work.</b> Remember, it wasn't necessarily the link that is the disruption, but what someone chooses to drag back from that link to make an issue of that could be the disruption.
<br>
<br>I wrote on <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/prelude-to-nookiedoo.html#x29">my blog (2014-04-13)</a> which Mr. Rogue chose to drag back:
</p>
<blockquote><p>If Mr. Ruff were referring to the actual record, he'd be proven wrong, which is why he provides no links. If my nuclear theories had been debunked in a convincing fashion, I wouldn't be still peddling them. I have the ability to change my mind when proven wrong.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Rogue goes on to say with much eloquence and overwhelming amounts of substantiation <b>(not)</b>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Señor is an in your face fullblown fucking liar – he has been proven wrong decisively on this muclear bullshit and hasn't changed his mind but – as you see from the above, doubles down on the anal hurland... the singing asshole of Señor Bridges.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Moi? <i>"Proven wrong"</i>? And <i>"decisively"</i> so?
<br>
<br>How ironic that Mr. Rogue chose a quote wherein Mr. Ruff was reprimanded for not providing links to substantiate his over-blown statements at the time, yet when Mr. Rogue comes to Mr. Ruff's defense, it is precisely those substantiating links that are also missing from his over-blown statements. (Pattern?)
<br>
<br>Perhaps Mr. Rogue is referring to the exact same debunking efforts who genesis was November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am and is linked earlier in this message on which he was an invited conspirator (while I was purposely shunned from the party: boo-hoo)?
<br>
<br>Perhaps Mr. Rogue is referring to lame, meandering, unsubstantiated articles penned by him on COTO and re-animated on his blog that can't make up their mind what they want to be and allow no commentary from others (e.g., moi) to improve the validity of statements or to correct statements of error?
<br>
<br>At any rate, no substantiation when a charge of <b>lying</b> is made is an automatic <b>FAIL</b> and falls neatly into the camp of <i>"attack."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue drags back to this forum references to <i>"the whole affair on COTO."</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>You schmoozed that twit JG, and she went on a rampage like Nurse Rat-shit in One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest. You pulled your agitprop game there like a pro, because those people are so jejune.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Ah, the online romancing of JerseyGirl! How could I ever forget? I wrote respectfully, was asked to become a contributor, wrote two articles, defended those articles respectfully (against heaping amounts of disrespect from Mr. Rogue), made references to the COTO rules of engagement, and decisively proved that Mr. Rogue's comments under his COTO articles (and elsewhere) were in flagrent violation.
<br>
<br><i>"That twit JG"</i> was also an admin who did not appreciate being called <i>"Nurse Rat-shit"</i> and other things more nasty and misogynistic by Mr. Rogue, with whom there was already a long-established love-hate relationship. Stamped his own exit papers, Mr. Rogue did.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I know you have the same plan for T&S, to derail it into oblivion like you did to COTO. They have gone from 70 to 80 hits pr hr down to around an average of 25 to 28 since that bamboozle you pulled there.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Let's flag this as a <b>lie</b> and a <b>cheat</b> from the onset, and I'll explain why.
<br>
<br>"Hits per hour" isn't even a metric that web analytics measures. "Pageviews" and "Unique Visitors" for a given period of time are the two most useful web statistics. The IP address among other things is used to determine the number of unique visitors from their activity on the site. [Generally] every time a bot visits the page, every time the page is refreshed, and every time a visitor makes a comment, the pageview count for that page increments. Tally these for all of the web pages on the site and maybe this is the "hits/hour" to which Mr. Rogue refers.
<br>
<br>Here are data points in Mr. Rogue's historic trend line.
<br>
<br>- Mr. Rogue made >1/3 of the last 3,000 comments to T&S (which may actually be low).
<br>- Mr. Rogue made >4,000 comments to Op-Ed News during his tenure there of a year or so.
<br>- Mr. Rogue averaged 4 comments a day to this very thread (72 comments made between August 4 and August 20).
<br>- Mr. Rogue averaged 13.5 commetns a day to a thread on his blog (108 comments made between August 12 and August 20). [The comments that weren't his are balanced by comments he made to other blog entries at the same time that aren't being considered and therefore actually makes this average low.]
<br>
<br>Between just this T&S thread and one on his blog, Mr. Rogue is already at 17.5 comments a day, a number already artifically low in representing his total daily internet activity.
<br>
<br>For the sake of discussion, let's assume some validity and meaningfulness from his statement: <i>"70 to 80 hits pr hr down to around an average of 25 to 28."</i> Based on Mr. Rogue's posting frequency, the difference of 45 to 52 hits/hour could very well be attributed to (a) Mr. Rogue's posting activities and (b) Mr. Rogue's and other's "refresh" activities as they appease their internet addiction every 5 minutes to see who has commented what and where, and to respond really fast.
<br>
<br><b>In other words, Mr. Rogue is directly responsible for inflating or deflating COTO's hits/hour, according to the level of his participation.</b>
<br>
<br>Thus, Mr. Rogue's <i>lie</i> and <i>cheat</i> is to suggest that ~my~ participation on COTO dramatically reduced its hourly hit count, when in fact it was Mr. Rogue's withholding voluntarily his high-frequency participation that drove it low.
</p>
<blockquote><p>And it wasn't long after I left of my own accord, that you abandoned COTO.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p><i>"Of [his] own accord"</i> as in <i>"one step ahead of being banned."</i> Were Mr. Rogue not so vile in his assessment of his COTO colleagues on his "Milgram" blog entry, he could probably go back and single-handedly ramp up the hourly hit rate.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue was actively tainting the perceptions of his COTO colleagues AGAINST me before I made comment #1. As can be expected from a sock-puppet, Veritable1 was lock-step with Mr. Rogue's "ban SEO" rhetoric from day 1 of my entrance, and left exactly when Mr. Rogue did to join him immediately on his blog as sock-puppet VerityTwo, where he continues his remarkable mind-meld with Mr. Rogue today.
<br>
<br>Against such PR on COTO, I didn't expect to survive. Before I drafted my own articles, each published comment was ripe in my mind to be my last. I stated up front that I wasn't going to stay. My purpose was to correct the record. That Mr. Rogue got PWNed so badly on his home court was just desserts. El-oh-el!
</p>
<blockquote><p>It is too too obvious what a vile and despicable game you play.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>... Says the man with 458 comments to <i>"Carnival d'Maxifuckanus"</i> and 113 comments to <i>"Maxwell Bridges: Disinformant"</i>, whose titles accurately reflect the quality of the comments. El-oh-el!
<br>
<br>And now we come back to the topic as given by Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[C]onvince a jury of [SEO's] peers of his innocence as far as the charge of being an agent of agitprop.</p><p></p></blockquote>
<p>Ho-hum, already done in the above <i>"fast-talking jabberwacky"</i>, and no sweaty armpits, let alone beads of sweat on my forehead.
<br>
<br>If I didn't already think that Mr. Rogue was sociopathic and probably assigned to play on the internet by his mental health professions (and their pharmacy subscriptions) as a "healthy" outlet for his frustrations, as opposed to engaging with real people face-to-face, why I'd say that Mr. Rogue was projecting agenthood onto me.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_167');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 167 -->
<a name="x168"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x168" class="tiny">x168</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">OCD to the extreme</a></b></p>
<p>2014-08-21</p>
<div id="sect_168" style="display: none;">
<p><b>ruffadam</b>
August 21, 2014 at 9:23 pm
<br>
<br>As I said before SEO has OCD to the extreme and will NEVER stop. Still to this very moment SEO has not addressed the topic of Gaza at all! Not one post about the topic but we have this war and peace length diatribe above. As far as I am concerned that says it all.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_168');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 168 -->
<a name="x169"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x169" class="tiny">x169</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_169');">customer list the most valuable thing</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/ferguson-and-911-part-of-same-plan/#comment-26142">2014-08-22</a></p>
<div id="sect_169" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>I enjoyed your OFF-TOPIC stories involving your motorcycle and your rare earth company. Can't say that either event displayed sound judgment, though. The motor cycle chase alone had many downward spiraling decision points.
<br>
<br>I'm shaking my head and rolling my eyes about the business model for your <i>"rare earth company where [you] sell novelty items (soil samples from unusual places)"</i>. And to think I've been called a <i>"carnival hawker!"</i> Your customer list was probably the most valuable thing about your business venture, because if they're willing to buy dirt, the sky's the limit what else they could be duped into buying.
<br>
<br>I'm reminded of the movie, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long,_Long_Trailer"><i>"The Long, Long Trailer"</i></a> starring Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. In particular, <i>Lucy's collection of rocks</i> and can food that weigh down the trailer on a narrow road in the mountains at the films climax.
<br>
<br>Oh the things that we collect and horde!
<br>
<br>As for behavior of the authorities, the constant procedural delays would have pushed my buttons.
<br>
<br>//</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_169');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 169 -->
<p><br>Toggle - <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part4');">Part 1: Historical Exchanges with Mr. Ruff</a></p>
</div> <!-- sect_part4 -->
<a name="x170"></a><hr>
<h2><b><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part5');">Part 2: Bloviating Mr. Ruff's Flumuxed 2nd Chance to ~not~ be a Hypocrite</a></b></h2>
<div id="sect_part5" style="display: block;">
<p><b><a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_3');">Introduction to Part 2</a></b></p>
<div id="sect_3" style="display: none;">
<p>
<p>DISCLAIMER: Everything in this part was published previously.
<br>
The significance of the older history in the previous Part did not weigh heavily in this Part's discussion, but maybe it should have. The previous Part's trend line continues into this Part, although it was a second chance and an excellent opportunity for Mr. Ruff to redeem himself from impressions: <i>"boastful, lying, weaseling, hypocrite."</i>
<br>
<br>It is interesting to note in this Part how Mr. Ruff doesn't just cycle through the exact same lame arguments from the past few years. No, Mr. Ruff also has done an exceptional job of ignoring my counter arguments and their substantiating documentation, making him guilty of <b><i>"~not~ debating in good faith."</i></b>
<br>
<br>
In January, Mr. Ruff was given until March 1 to make his case. He did not, nor did he ask for an extension. This April 1 posting documents that Mr. Ruff through all of March made zero comments to the venue, although he was very active on Truth & Shadows.
<br>
<br>
<b><i>"Shit or get off the pot."</i></b>
<br>
<br>
Mr. Ruff has had literally years to make a cohesive argument against my nuclear DEW premises based on review of my materials. I do not begrudge Mr. Ruff for purposefully [and possibly even deceitfully] avoiding this effort.
<br>
<br>
Being a no-show without even courteous requests for extensions, Mr. Ruff forfeits.
<br>
<br>
The consequences are: if Mr. Ruff makes further hypnotic assertions [on T&S, Facebook, or wherever our paths cross] regarding the alleged inapplicability of nuclear DEW on 9/11 at the WTC, this historic record will be linked into the discussion to frag his credibility and reputation. Of course, if Mr. Ruff avoids the topic and lets me say my piece without disingenuous rebuttal, his dubious history with me remains unlinked while his comments on other topics are be given the benefit of the doubt [unless they, too, can be proven wrong and disingenuous.]
<br>
<br>
Pity that Mr. Ruff so flumuxed his redemption opportunity.
</p>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_3');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 3 -->
<a name="x172"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x172" class="tiny">x172</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_172');">Mike Collins in 9/11 Truth Movement</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30224">2015-01-26</a></p>
<div id="sect_172" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>I empathize with your bad treatment, and applaud you for escalating it here to show them that you are not without an internet voice, despite your banishment. I enjoyed reading your article.
<br>
<br>I've waxed about the <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27637">inadequacies and misusage of Facebook before (2014-10-10)</a>, so I will refrain from posting a repeat except to summarize that: <b><i>Facebook is not the place for reasoned debate.</i></b>
<br>
<br>I had a minor run-in with <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204686781/permalink/10151933173066782/">Mr. Mike Collins in 9/11 Truth Movement</a> as well, but on my hobby-horse Neu Nookiedoo (of course). Readers with Facebook access and group permissions will note that the start of the discussion was an April Fools prank in bad taste by Mr. Ken Dockery that included a photoshopped portrait of Dr. Judy Wood and had one participant using the alias <i>"Judy Woodster."</i> Ms. Amanda Sedell and Mr. Joe Haley also made token tag-teaming appearances.
</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Mike Collins</b> [SEO], after youre banned from this group and you wanna go troll some other groups to trick gullible people with misinformation, make sure to skim this first!
<br>
<br><b>Mike Collins</b> [SEO], the only problem with your copy and pasted nonsense is that I actually spent 8 years studying and working my ass off to get 2 degrees in engineering. so when people start talking about nonsense shit that goes against what is physically possible, or begin to use terms which are opposite of what they actually are, its hard to debate you.
<br>
<br><b>Mike Collins</b> you aren't going to graduate with a Master of Science Degree in Youtube videos and Conspiracy Blogs my friend.
<br></p></blockquote>
<p>I was banned as well. Today my request to join the group was granted, though, and I can now get to the permalink for that discussion again.
<br>
<br>Facebook is such the perfect memory hole. All it takes is four comments in a row to push someone else's comment into the <i>"Previous Comments"</i> realm and out of sight even if the discussion itself remains at a top level in your of Facebook's News Feed. And all it takes is coordinated activity elsewhere (e.g., like posting and/or re-posting fluff discussions) to push a whole discussion down in the News Feed and way out of sight. You have to be observant to links in email notification (that have to be turned on and then filtered in your email client so as not to overrun and flood) if you want to snag the permalink. If you're not observant as most participants aren't, it can be very difficult later to get interested lurkers to powerful discussions that have been pushed down.
<br>
<br>I don't want to rain on your Facebook parade, Mr. McKee, but I truly believe that your talents are better spent writing articles for your T&S blog (than Facebook), because your blog has a greater probability of permanence and legacy. A wise spiritual leader from two centuries ago gave the advice to <i>"never enter an unhealthy environment unless in an effort to purify it."</i> These may have been your worthy motives for playing in Facebook.
<br>
<br>But if you aren't taking steps to preserve your interactions yourself -- that might include re-publishing those interactions to your blog, your book, or a private journal --, then your reasonable Facebook efforts might be in vain in the long run, lacking any public legacy whatsoever [exceptions are the Facebook database and what the NSA vacuums up that can and will be used against at your trial.]
<br>
<br>P.S. If you have email notifications turned on in Facebook, I suggest that you mine the permalink from one such email notification and update your posting accordingly. This way, those of us with access to Facebook (and membership in that group) can quickly get to source dirt.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br> </p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_172');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 172 -->
<a name="x173"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x173" class="tiny">x173</a>
Adam Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_173');">conversation with Ken Doc</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-27</p>
<div id="sect_173" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: improved the formatting.}
<br>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30235">January 27, 2015 at 5:09 am</a>
<br>
<br>Well here is my conversation with Ken Doc which I am publishing because he banned me from his forum for no reason whatsoever and I don’t particularly like being gagged.
<br>
<br>Conversation started Monday
<br>1/26, 12:33pm
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br>
<br>So now I am banned from the 911 truth group?
<br>
<br>1/26, 12:39pm
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br>
<br>Hard for me to see what you said or respond don’t you think? Oh well good luck to you Ken I guess a conversation is not possible after all. Too bad because Dany and I were actually starting to make some headway towards resolving this “fiasco”.
<br>
<br>1/26, 12:51pm
<br><b>Ken Dockery</b>
<br>
<br>The Pentagon issue has nearly destroyed this movement while wasting soooo much time. Not to mention dealing with all the other disinfo. Ive had enough of it Adam. Sorry.
<br>
<br>other disinfo, I mean Judy Wood and Holograms
<br>Monday
<br>
<br>1/26, 6:40pm
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br>
<br>We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus. Chief among those discredited theories is space beams and hologram planes. We simply wipe the floor with them using better arguments. Censorship doesn’t work Ken it just makes you look weak. I did not break any of your rules yet I am censored so whatever man I don’t need to be part of something like that. P.S. You guys who do not know the pentagon evidence are the ones making the issue divisive by the way not us and it is you guys who make it seem complicated too which its not. Anyway have a good life.
<br>
<br>1/26, 8:31pm
<br><b>Ken Dockery</b>
<br>
<br>Have a good one to, Please don;t compare T&S to the “largest 9/11 fb forum”. You guys have like 5 active posters, whereas we have 100’s that post and 1000’s that look on.
<br>
<br>For you to say that I haven’t debunked Judy Wood or Holograms, means you know nothing about me.
<br>
<br>Anyways, peace out.
<br>
<br>1:15am
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br>
<br>Ken did it ever occur to you that if you are so willing to ban me even though I broke none of your rules that your rules are meaningless? Think about it because it is true. If you are willing to silence me for no cause other than I disagree with you on a few issues then aren’t you a dictator imposing a kind of tyranny? In this case a tyranny where only your ideas and those who agree with you get to be heard. Another consideration is that if you silence all those who disagree with you have you really won the argument? I do not think so but perhaps you consider it some kind of victory I don’t know.
<br>
<br>BTW: I never said you have not debunked Wood or hologram planes I said we do not ban discussion of those topics we simply show them to be bogus with better arguments and info. We also only do the debunking one time and just refer those who bring it up again to the original debunking. By doing it this way we have developed the very best debunks there are because we have faced every challenge imaginable. I have some Judy Wood debunks that you have never even thought of my friend because I had to find the truth because I refused to silence my opponents.
<br>
<br>As to the relative size of the two forums I can say with pride that T+S is far better than your forum because it isn’t a tyranny and we can and do talk about anything we want. It is the very definition of freedom of speech while obviously your forum is the definition of well… you get the picture.
<br>
<br>Gandhi: An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
<br>
<br>1:56am
<br><b>Adam Ruff</b>
<br>
<br>As to the pentagon issue “nearly destroying the truth movement” the answer is no Ken. What the pentagon issue has done is expose the fake truthers and separate them from the real truthers. Fake truthers refuse to inform themselves about the pentagon choosing instead to follow cults of personality such as Kevin Ryan or David Chandler. You simply trust that those “leader hero’s” have done the research and come to the right conclusion because you are too lazy to do the research yourself. Well Chandler and Ryan both are dead wrong about the pentagon and have been thoroughly debunked as far as the pentagon is concerned. So you are following the pide piper literally. This is why neither of them will debate the issue in public because they will lose that debate BIG! Real truthers look at the evidence (as much as they can get their hands on) and draw their own conclusions. This is why I can win a debate about the pentagon with anyone who thinks it is too complicated or too divisive. It isn’t complicated at all the problem is you, for whatever reason, simply do not want to face the truth that the plane observed flew North of the Citgo gas station thereby proving the light poles and other damage was staged. It also proves the plane flew over the pentagon and away. It is quite simple really you just don’t want to face the truth for your own reasons. To you it is “divisive” because you do not understand the evidence very well and perhaps you do not want your hero’s (Chandler and Ryan) to be proved wrong (too late because they have been). You are stuck in cognitive dissonance and hero worship. I am not stuck and I can therefore explain rationally and calmly what the evidence is, what it proves, why it is simple, and how devastating it really is to the official narrative of 9/11. I can say with confidence that the pentagon evidence is just as important, perhaps even more so, as the controlled demolitions evidence. Simply put, who else but insiders could plant evidence of a plane crash at the pentagon? That is why it is important Ken, very important! That is also why we cannot just drop the issue because some uninformed or misinformed truthers such as yourself don’t understand it and don’t want to do the research. By your logic we should drop the CD evidence as well because some so-called truthers out there do not understand physics. We don’t want to be divisive right? They think other evidence should be focused on instead of CD. Don’t believe me Ken? Look up Jon Gold then and see for yourself. Anyway I have the very strong suspicion that I am wasting my time talking to you. I hope to be proved wrong.
</p><p></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_173');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 173 -->
<a name="x180"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x180" class="tiny">x180</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">banishment from a Facebook 9/11 Truth forum</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30244">2015-01-27</a></p>
<div id="sect_180" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Adam Ruff re-posted what he wrote on a Facebook thread or message about his banishment from a Facebook 9/11 Truth forum:
<br></p><blockquote>We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows <b>we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus.</b> Chief among those discredited theories is space beams and hologram planes. We simply wipe the floor with them using better arguments.<p></p></blockquote>
<p>If this is the case, I await post-haste the reasoned analysis about why a certain [name known to participants] hobby-horse pony is a discredited theory and bogus. To avoid derailing this thread, Mr. Ruff should publish it or re-publish it -- if we are to believe his prior stellar efforts in this regard <i><b>exist</b></i> -- on his blog or Facebook page, and then friend us and publish here on T&S advertising links.
<br>
<br>Readers should note that discussion on that [name known to participants] hobby-horse was ~not~ stopped because the opponents offered reasoned analysis as to why it was bogus. No, it was stopped due to the <b>Mike Collins-ish</b> <i>deja vu</i> bad behavior of various participants here.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff's boasting of his personal exploits continued:
<br></p><blockquote>I never said you [Ken Dockery] have not debunked Wood or hologram planes I said we do not ban discussion of those topics we simply <b>show them to be bogus with better arguments and info. We also only do the debunking one time and just refer those who bring it up again to the original debunking.</b> By doing it this way we have developed the very best debunks there are because we have faced every challenge imaginable.<b> I have some Judy Wood debunks that you have never even thought of my friend because I had to find the truth because I refused to silence my opponents.</b><p></p></blockquote>
<p>I have no intention of cranking a new Dr. Wood discussion. But as the resident left-handed defender of nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's work, I must ask Mr. Adam Ruff to come forth with the links to all T&S articles/discussions that discredit space beams in a proper manner. In particular to substantiate his personal efforts, he should retrieve his exact comments on the subject [with links].
<br>
<br>In addition, Mr. Ruff should supply the exact link to any comments that he (or others) authored that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. [I'm not saying that I'm convinced of space beams on these other towers. What I am saying is that a trick in steering the 9/11TM is to show where X doesn't apply to A, and then to falsely imply or extrapolate without proof that X also doesn't apply to B or C either. <b>The exposed agenda is that any discussion of X in any valid context isn't permissible.</b>]
<br>
<br>Further, blow-hard Mr. Ruff should give us the text to <i>"some Judy Wood debunks that you [Mr. Ken Dockery] have never even thought of my friend."</i>
<br>
<br>To my recollection -- unless Mr. Ruff is some other participant's sockpuppet here on T&S -- Mr. Ruff has not participated in any Dr. Wood discussion to a convincing degree where he hasn't turned tail and run, bragging how he <i>"doesn't read my [SEO] comments, skipping right over them"</i>. Makes him very deserving of the ridicule that I impose upon him.
<br>
<br>Also to my recollection, Mr. Ruff has never personally debunked holograms.
<br>
<br>I did, though (starting around <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/gage-concedes-his-entry-into-911-pentagon-quagmire-has-been-divisive/#comment-4695">2012-02-24</a>). I followed Dr. Fetzer's rabbit hole and found it lacking in supportive scientific documentation to prove holograms could real-world achieve what was observed. [And the 9/11 hologram argument involved grossly misrepresenting and misinterpreting two sets of radar data.]
<br>
<br>I do not expect Mr. Ruff to read -- much less step up to dutifully answer -- my rhetorical challenges for him to cough up <b><i>his work</i></b> in debunking all nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood's work [and that support my hobby-horse].
<br>
<br>I suppose it is one thing for Mr. Ruff to make boastful and dubious claims in other forums, but quite another for him to drag them back here and have us, who lived it, believe them true as if we were just like his rare-earth customers.
<br>
<br>The whole point of the above exercise in pushing Mr. Ruff's buttons was to chide Mr. Ruff into being not quite such a hypocrite and to champion truth at all times. Otherwise, his less than truthful endeavors will bite him back.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 180 -->
<a name="x182"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x182" class="tiny">x182</a>
ruffadam : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_182');">choose another venue</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-27</p>
<div id="sect_182" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30259">January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm</a>
<br>
<br>SEO I refuse to derail this thread so choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy. So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all. Keep this crap out of this thread and do not try and derail it again.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_182');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 182 -->
<a name="x183"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x183" class="tiny">x183</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_183');">no intention of allowing a Judy Wood discussion</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-27</p>
<div id="sect_183" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30260">January 27, 2015 at 11:46 pm</a>
<br>
<br>No worries, I have no intention of allowing a Judy Wood discussion on this thread.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_183');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 183 -->
<a name="x184"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x184" class="tiny">x184</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_184');">all the dings</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-27</p>
<div id="sect_184" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5159">2015-01-27</a>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5232">2015-01-27</a>
<br>
<br>“For all the dings that I’ve given the near cult-heroes of the 9/11 Truth Movement, the focus was their work and deficiencies therein. Their reputations could be saved with a simple:
<br>
<br>“In light of new analysis that exposes data points that were near hidden in plain sight in many official documents, purposely never connected, and purposely skewed or omitted to give false impressions to downstream efforts (e.g., me and my work), I change my opinion and see where such-and-such is just as plausible — if not more so — than that in which I have been promoting with a vested interest these last N years. I apologize for the oversight and for any misinformation that I might have spread. I amend my views accordingly…”
<br>
<br>Personal honesty and integrity.” // Maxwell Bridges on:
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/
<br>
<br>. . . . . . . . . . .
<br>“For all the dings that I’ve given the near cult-heroes of the 9/11 Truth Movement…”?!?!?!
<br>
<br>One might inquire, WHAT DINGS? This is a boast without foundation. Bridges has given no “dings” to anyone’s reputation but his own. If he really had this, “Personal honesty and integrity” he claims for himself, he would be the one to apologize for the oversight and for any misinformation that he might have spread. I amend his views accordingly.
<br>. . . . . . .
<br>While I am delighted that T&S has stirred back to life somewhat with this new post from Craig, the downside that comes with it is having to put up with the bullshit from this twat Bridges again.
<br>“Personal honesty and integrity” what fucking bullshit!
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5234">2015-01-27</a>
<br>
<br>SEÑOR EL ONCE ? 2012-11-22
<br>
<br>Old news is not news.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/in-context-v-2015#comment-5235">2015-01-27</a>
<br>
<br>Hey Maxitwat, if you have a message for me, man-up and come out with it on the current T&S page. This slinking about making blank commentary here on HR1blog is dickspittle.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5245">2015-01-28</a>
<br>
<br>So this agitprop son-of-a-bitch Maxitwat is at it again, full guns on T&S targeting Mr Ruff with his usual defamation tactics. And a verbose load of steaming bullshit it is.
<br>
<br>I won’t have anything to say to this anonymous cocksucker unless he targets me personally. But if he does, it won’t be to discuss his nookiedoodoo shit, that is said and done. But I will point out that this disingenuous shit he spews about not wanting to hijack the thread again is clearly a lie. He’s a fucking pussyboy.
<br>
<br>Go fuck your mama Max.
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_184');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 184 -->
<a name="x185"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x185" class="tiny">x185</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_185');">COMMENT REMOVED: treated to some huge amount of verbose bullshit</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-28</p>
<div id="sect_185" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30275">January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm</a>
<br>
<br>COMMENT REMOVED
<br>
<br>hybridrogue1
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30275">January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm</a>
<br>
<br>{mcb: Retrieved from email, here's the content of the COMMENT REMOVED.}
<br>
<br>Let’s see Craig,
<br>
<br>You have “no intention of allowing a Judy Wood discussion on this thread.”
<br>And yet we are treated to some huge amount of verbose bullshit on the matter by Señor El Once, who is again simply attacking Mr Ruff, using the Wood issue and the handle to his club.
<br>
<br>And on this same thread you asked for no more mention of Fetzer, and yet we have this massive tome of turgid trash from Dwil at: dwil -January 28, 2015 at 12:30 pm.
<br>
<br>I am not going to bother answering either of these assholes here. But again I am confused if your “requests” not to have certain issues continue here, are simply that, “requests” or are they the actual rules of the game here?
<br>\\][//
<br>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_185');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 185 -->
<a name="x186"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x186" class="tiny">x186</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_186');">the agitprop bullshit laid on me</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-28</p>
<div id="sect_186" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30280">January 28, 2015 at 1:52 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Well now that the stew has already boiled over I will make mention of the agitprop bullshit laid on me for those months and years. As you likely already surmised I was speaking to the defamation agenda of our resident stalker, Señor.
<br>
<br>As you will note, again this anonymous nutjob has made an attack on Mr Ruff in his usual ultra verbose fashion. We, that is Mr Ruff and I, are his targets. I don’t think he cares about his nookiedoodoo bullshit. What he gets off on is defaming those who have shown him for what he is, an agent of disruption.
<br>
<br>As is such I hope Mr McKee will stand to his “requests” that this crap come to an end.
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_186');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 186 -->
<a name="x187"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x187" class="tiny">x187</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_187');">not enforcing my own rules</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-28</p>
<div id="sect_187" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30281">January 28, 2015 at 2:37 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Let’s see, HR. To make something clear once again. I work during the daytime and can’t deal with comment moderation until I get home. As it is I am blowing my lunch break to deal with this. I really don’t appreciate the implication that I am not enforcing my own rules, particularly when comments, as you know, go up in real time and unmoderated (unless the person posting has never posted here). Are you recommending that I return to having all comments sit until I can approve them? Please let me handle my job, okay?
<br>
<br>Dwil’s comment is indeed off topic (at least part of it). I will look at it when I have time. Dwil may choose to send another version without the Fetzer stuff. Perhaps I should impose a permanent word limit as I did on a previous thread.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_187');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 187 -->
<a name="x188"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x188" class="tiny">x188</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_188');">load of horseshit from pussyboy</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-28</p>
<div id="sect_188" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5247">2015-01-28</a>
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30283
<br>
<br>Señor El Once – January 28, 2015 at 4:25 pm: Another even longer load of horseshit from pussyboy.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies#comment-30288">2015-01-29</a>
<br>
<br><b>Déjà vu all over again!</b>
<br>
<br>How many times have we sat stunned and dazed like this after the spook storm passes?
<br>
<br>“where have all the flowers gone…?” and et cetera …
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5254">2015-01-29</a>
<br>
<br>Señor El Once – January 28, 2015 at 4:25 pm
<br>
<br>THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT WAS ABOUT A CHALLENGE REGARDING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON TOPIC ON THIS THREAD.
<br>______________________________________________________________________________
<br>
<br>Déjà vu all over again!
<br>
<br>How many times have we sat stunned and dazed like this after the spook storm passes?
<br>
<br>“where have all the flowers gone…?” and et cetera …
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5255">2015-01-29</a>
<br>
<br>“Personal honesty and integrity.”~Maxwell Bridges
<br>
<br>This is the same kind of scurrilous bullshit you get from the CIA, and all the other fucking psychos in this pathological society. How anyone can be fooled by this clad disguise is beyond me.
<br>\\][//
<br>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_188');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 188 -->
<a name="x189"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x189" class="tiny">x189</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_189');">COMMENT REMOVED: Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-28</p>
<div id="sect_189" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30283">2015-01-28</a>
<br>
<br>{mcb: The original comment was modified by the T&S moderator as follows.}
<br>
<br>THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT WAS ABOUT A CHALLENGE REGARDING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON TOPIC ON THIS THREAD.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>{mcb: Original Comment follows.}
<br>
<br>I am surprised to see Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges, when he wrote:
</p><blockquote><p>SEO I refuse to derail this thread so choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Stay tuned to this message for information on the off-T&S venue chosen.</b>
<br>
<br>Because I am a fair and generous fellow in search of understanding, I offer Mr. Ruff choices [A] and [B] as amendments to the original challenges and his anxiously-awaited participation. These modifications come about entirely due to my present state of understanding, whereby neither of us needs to waste time on debunking what we are already more or less agree on.
<br>
<br>Specifically, I've debunked holograms myself, as stated and linked in one of my last comments. I don't need more convincing of the same. I would only be interested in such links if it takes me to Mr. Ruff's authored words that make a unique and substantiated argument why holograms were not involved. Otherwise, he shouldn't waste his time. Choice [A] is a modification of Mr. Ruff's proposal, minus hologram planes.
<br>
<br><b>++++ Choice A ++++</b>
<br>
<br><b>Choice [A]:</b> Direct me to where Dr. Wood's work has been debunked. Great if it is page-by-page, but section-by-section (applicable also to sections on web-pages) is a more likely granularity.
<br>
<br>He'll get bonus points if some on the list of links to <i>"Dr. Wood debunking"</i> analysis are Mr. Ruff's authored words that make unique and substantiated arguments.
<br>
<br>Should Mr. Ruff set up the frame of space beams, he should remember that I'm mostly interested in analysis that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. [I've already ruled out space beams for WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7.] If Mr. Ruff's debunking of Dr. Wood starts and stops at space beams and/or doesn't go to those odd-ball towers, however, he fails.
<br>
<br><b>The only reason I'm entertaining Choice [A]</b> is that no one has comprehensively analyzed Dr. Wood's work [nor rescued those pesky nuggets of truth]... other than my piddly and humble efforts, I guess. <b>If Mr. Ruff actually found such and can provide a comprehensive set of the links, excellent news for the 9/11 Truth Movement! Mr. Ruff does us a great service!</b> Woo-hoo!
<br>
<br>Because I only champion the nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's work and re-purpose them in my 4th generation arguments, this suggests a way for Mr. Ruff's efforts to be focused in a reasonable and logical manner. <i><b>He knows where I'm headed.</b></i> Otherwise, if he doesn't heed this directional detail, he could find himself going off on a complete <b>derailment</b> (or straw-man) over areas of Dr. Wood's work that have no or little bearing to the deviant nuclear considerations, which is my overt agenda.
<br>
<br>Further, <b>debunk the nuggets, or acknowledge them as nuggets of truth.</b> Be aware that each acknowledged nugget of truth could necessitate re-evaluation of prior beliefs, if Mr. Ruff is exhibiting true objectivity and integrity.
<br>
<br>If Mr. Ruff comes up with zero nuggets, he fails, because nuggets of truth are the foundation of all disinformation. A result of zero nuggets will shoot Mr. Ruff's objectivity all to hell in the eyes of the latter-day lurker readers / judges. Such a lashing is avoidable, but requires learning from the mistakes of Mr. Ruff's rogue companions.
<br>
<br><b>++++ OR ++++</b>
<br>
<br><b>++++ Choice B ++++</b>
<br>
<br><b>Choice [B]:</b> <i>Mr. Ruff should slap a saddle on my old hobby-horse, <b>Neu Nookiedoo</b>, and take 'er for a spin or two around the coral before headin' up to the high country. The saddle bags can store the nuggets of truth collected from all sorts of disinformation sources along the way.</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff, you and the readers should know that 4th generation nuclear devices is my present state of understanding about some of the primary mechanisms of WTC destruction, my hobby-horse, my holy grail, the mindset that needs to be corrected if I'm to sheepishly return to the fold of mainstream 9/11 Truth.
<br>
<br>I choose [B] and will probably bring my discussion around to [B] even if you attempt the <b>[A] Dr. Wood distraction.</b> [B] is what Dr. Wood left out of her book, what Dr. Jones left out of his analysis, what fits the evidence, what fits the song & dance and dog & pony show up and down the media circus, and what merits the much bigger disinfo campaigns in forums at suppression and at sidelining via <i>ridicule</i> as opposed to reasoned argument. Hell, we already have one proven-objectivity-challenged participant trying to put the skids on such discussions happening <b>even off-list</b> [which is my objective], by calling foul to the moderator:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]his anonymous nutjob [SEO] has made an attack on Mr Ruff in his usual ultra verbose fashion... I don't think he cares about his nookiedoodoo bullshit... I hope Mr McKee will stand to [SEO's] "requests" that this crap come to an end.</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>Neu Nookiedoo is a hobby-horse. Therefore, the <i>"nookiedoodoo bullshit"</i> is ridicule coming from another bullshitting source, like the very one who gets credit for helping coin the hobby-horse's namesake.
<br>
<br>I care about Neu Nookiedoo very much, and contest any such disingenuous comments that suggest I don't. Of course, if Mr. Ruff et al is successful in those off-list endeavors at convincingly debunking the premise with substantiation, I won't be flogging that dead horse no mo'. I'll change my belief, apologize to the public, and move on.
<br>
<br>Choice [B] says to not waste such unstructured time on Dr. Wood's work, because to do so would be to create an unnecessary, time-sucking, <b>distraction</b> that could run your objectivity through the wringer if integrity is lacking. Plus, if you don't find the requisite, comprehensive debunking section-by-section (that also has the moxie to acknowledge nuggets of truth) -- like a hybrid failed to achieve before you --, then this exercise will deflate significantly your boastful claims and reflect poorly on your character.
<br>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff wrote:
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>choose another venue</p></blockquote>
<p><b>With one caveat</b>, I choose my blog (some links below). I promise to be a fair and impartial moderator, publishing your remarks as long as they remain reasonable. In the next few days or week, I'll create an entry with re-purposing of comments here to serve as an introduction and starting point. The discussion can go then forth in the comments there under.
<br>
<br><b>The caveat from above</b> about my choice in venues? <b>Mr. McKee</b> is welcome to host an article on T&S where the discussion can happen. [It would be a most interesting experiment to see who shows up and what arguments they make.]
<br>
<br>Because I am fair, I want my debate opponents to be as knowledgeable as possible in what my beliefs are and what evidence substantiates them, so they will know <i>"what"</i> to attack [and not <i>"who"</i>]. In that spirit, I call Mr. Ruff's attention to these.
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/prelude-to-nookiedoo.html#x29">A 2014-04-13 comment with the title <i>"sick of SEO claiming we have not done so"</i></a> is a direct response to some burrs that Mr. Ruff tried to insert under Nookiedoo's saddle. It was not published on T&S. Curious readers and serious debate opponents should follow some of the rabbit hole links contained therein.
<br>
<br>I haven't had a chance to write the revision and extension of <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/01/nuclear-9112001-for-vt.html">an article intended for VT but never published there, <i>"Nuclear 9/11/2001 (for VT)"</i></a>, but it is on my list of things to do. However, I linked the 2014-01 article because it lays down a foundation of truth nuggets mined from lots of (disinfo) sources that remain valid as my beliefs shifted into 4th generation nuclear mechanisms.
<br>
<br>Thus, if Mr. Ruff finds issue with something on my blog relating to these themes, he can make a comment directly there.
<br>
<br>
<br>++++ More Fair Advice ++++
<br>
<br><b>Write your response off-list in an editor.</b> Save it locally, so that you'll have it to re-purpose other places. [You don't want my blog to be the sole repository of your excellent words. CYA.] Record a list of links on where you posted it, otherwise you'll defeat your stated purposes of dispatching future discussions of this sort with a mere go-to URL.
<br>
<br>Take your time. Complete your thoughts and make a big case. Be logical and thoroughly. Starting with a copy of my works could be the structure and framework needed to debunk it, point-by-point.
<br>
<br>Because the size of each comment on my blog is restricted by Blogger, be prepared to divide up your big response off-list with "Part x/N" reader affordances so that that readers will know to look for all parts of a multi-part response.
<br>
<br>Minor HTML mark-up goes a long way to making a polished presentation that is easier to read.
<br>
<br>++++ Summary ++++
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff can start to put together his all-star comments and links to the same. If Mr. Ruff takes a week or more to craft a more perfect debunking production, that would really help me out time-wise. I could be nudged to completing that aforementioned <i>revision and extension</i> of my previous belief into 4th generation nukes as a new blog entry, and that could be where our rational discussion continues.
<br>
<br>P.S. <b>To Mr. Rogue.</b> You claim that I attack Mr. Ruff!
<br>
<br>No, I am holding Mr. Ruff accountable for his boastful statements that I don't think were honest particularly with respect to the extent of his personal efforts. I want him to have some integrity and not be such a hypocrite. I'll hold his feet to the fire, because, -- GOD DAMN IT -- the effort will strengthen the truthful arguments, be they his or mine or both. [If they're his, I've got the integrity to admit and acknowledge such.]
<br>
<br>In case you didn't notice, Mr. Ruff promises to finally set the record straight on [A] but hopefully [B], something you were spectacularly incapable of in the most agitprop sort of ways. For the 9/11 Truth Movement's sake, let's hope that Mr. Ruff isn't stepping into some of his own blow-hard bullshit.
<br>
<br>Off-list, Mr. Rogue, on my home court. You can come play, too. I'll be fairer to your words than you are to mine.
<br>
<br>By the way, Mr. Rogue, your "January 28, 2015 at 1:52 pm" comment -- quick on the heels of your "January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm" REMOVED COMMENT -- was purposely made where it doesn't belong. And... *boo-hoo*... It wasn't very kind to me! *sob*
<br>
<br>It all is like Albert Einstein's theory of relatively. From your perspective:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I will make mention of the agitprop bullshit laid on me for those months and years. As you likely already surmised I was speaking to the defamation agenda of our resident stalker, Señor.</p></blockquote>
<p>Relative to my perspective and underscored by your ridiculing efforts in this very thread (and the larger picture of how your antics have long resembled those of <b>Mr. Mike Collins</b>), the source of the <b>agitprop bullshit</b> was the other way around.
<br>
<br>Proof of this was your inability to avoid the spot-on, discrediting dings to your objectivity and integrity <b>... by having some</b>. On stupid shit, no less. Don't believe me? Check out the lack of cyber-qualifiers on the expression <i>"our resident stalker, Señor"</i>. Without such, you make a serious charge with far-reaching criminal implications that has no bearing in reality or truth. Careless in the small things; careless in the big as well.
<br>
<br><b>++++ TO BE CONTINUED OFF-LIST ++++</b>
<br>
<br>... unless otherwise sanctioned by Mr. McKee.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_189');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 189 -->
<a name="x190"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x190" class="tiny">x190</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_190');">Behave</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-29</p>
<div id="sect_190" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies#comment-30289">2015-01-29</a>
<br>
<br>To everyone: I do not want to see any more of the attacks that have popped up on this thread. No more name calling and no more off topic “side” discussions. If I think someone is deliberately derailing the thread, as testing me to see what they can get away with, I will get very annoyed. The article offers many opportunities for on-topic comment. Adam Syed, for example, has made numerous comments that are right on topic – so let’s all follow that example, shall we?
<br>
<br>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_190');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 190 -->
<a name="x191"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x191" class="tiny">x191</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_191');">COMMENT REMOVED: editing left out possible URLs for venue</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-30</p>
<div id="sect_191" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30306">2015-01-30</a>
<br>
<br>{mcb: Comment Removed.}
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>Your lunch hour was well spent moderating the comments to this thread, which included one of mine. Kudos, and no hard feelings.
<br>
<br>However, <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30259">Mr. Adam Ruff was clearly begging for a venue</a> where he could go to town:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[C]hoose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. ... So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all.</p></blockquote>
<p>Your editing left out possible URLs for that, so that my earnest desires -- and those of Mr. Adam Ruff -- to not derail T&S could be fulfilled. As luck would have it, I still had a thread creatd from 2014-08-06 intended for die-hard Dr. Wood supporter, Mr. Jeff.
<br>
<br>- <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x18">Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices</a>
<br>
<br>Alas, after Mr. Jeff's few comments on T&S to stir the pot, he was a no-show on my thread.
<br>
<br>The thread remains an excellent place for Mr. Adam Ruff to <i>"school me correctly."</i> I encourage him to use it.
<br>
<br>Let's hope that Mr. Adam Ruff does better than Mr. Jeff and at least shows up to carry out that which he has been boasting. I'll give him a reasonable amount of time (until March 2015) to compose his glorious work.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_191');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 191 -->
<a name="x192"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x192" class="tiny">x192</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_192');">out of order</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-30</p>
<div id="sect_192" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30309">January 30, 2015 at 4:43 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Señor, This latest comment is just as out of order as the much longer one that preceded it. If you want to connect with ruffadam in another arena I could put the two of you in touch with each other privately – if both wish this. But I don’t want any more discussion here about Judy Wood or the prospects of discussing her.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_192');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 192 -->
<a name="x193"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x193" class="tiny">x193</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_193');">trying to get the discussion elsewhere</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-30</p>
<div id="sect_193" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: email to Mr. McKee.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>I have never in the past been offended by actions you've taken in moderating the comments, even when mine were the victims.
<br>
<br>But I must protest the deletion of the last one. I'm trying to get the discussion elsewhere, as requested by ~ALL~ parties. I can't do that if you remove the links and the comment itself.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff specifically requested it. Go back and read his words.
<br>
<br>If you're not even going to let me specify a venue -- and if sure as shit, you're not going to create a venue for this to play out on your home court --, then WTF, Mr. McKee? You should go and heavy-hand edit his January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm commment in like fashion.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff is a blow hard caught in the middle of a lie, namely of having (or of being willing to produce) a set of links that decisively debunks something. It isn't the first time he's bragged about doing it or going to do it. I'm holding his feet to the fire.
<br>
<br>I suggest you take a step back and consider the significance of those who failed in spectacular fashion their objectivity and integrity tests, yet battled on from their ignorance anyway.
<br>
<br>What is ironically funny about this affair is the reflection of the FB tactics that you experienced elsewhere, but on your home court. With you on the other side of the censor chair.
<br>
<br>The Pentagon isn't the only contentious issue that inspires bad behavior of participants (Pentagon, SimVictims, exotic weapons). I might be a stubborn duped useful idiot, but that doesn't make my analysis wrong. And every turn I take to get someone to consider it and seriously debunk it (from Gage to Chandler to Cole to Mr. Rogue), I get squat.
<br>
<br>Worse that squat. I get Rogue/Ruff tag-teaming that is the first to expose itself as being hypocritical of the very rules they'd apply to the forum.
<br>
<br>By all means, have Mr. Ruff contact me (maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us) and point him in the direction of this blog entry as you're contacting him:
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x18
<br>
<br>//</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_193');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 193 -->
<a name="x194"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x194" class="tiny">x194</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_194');">arrogance is overwhelming and fanatical</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-30</p>
<div id="sect_194" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5270">2015-01-30</a>
<br>
<br>YET AGAIN!!!!
<br>
<br>Bridges arrogance is overwhelming and fanatical. He is clearly insane. Just under the comment that Craig eliminated just the day before, he again makes this challenge to Adam Ruff, EXACTLY the reason Craig gave for removing his comment in the first place! Astonishing and absurd.
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30306
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5274">2015-01-30</a>
<br>
<br>So this cunt Bridges wants to challenge both Mr Ruff and I to a debate. The he/she/it thing even suggests it’s own blog site for such. But there is nothing to debate. That debate is long over, it is done. As I pointed out before:
<br>Debating whether nukes were used at WTC on 9/11, is like debating whether Martians actually attacked during Orson Welles’ broadcast of War Of The Worlds.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5277">2015-01-30</a>
<br>
<br><b>“Judy Wood is offering the hypothesis that the twin towers were taken down by directed energy weapons, and the problem is that nobody knows what she is talking about, including herself.”~Niels Harrit</b>
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5292">2015-02-01</a>
<br>
<br>Hey Max, have you gone into hiding? You rolled up in a fetal position babbling to yourself?
<br>I thought you were hot to “debate” Mr Ruff! Why haven’t you answered his emails?
<br>Did pussyboy Max make peepee in his diaper again and is crying to his mommy?
<br>Hahahahahahaha!!!!
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_194');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 194 -->
<a name="x195"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x195" class="tiny">x195</a>
Adam Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_195');">give my e-mail address to SEO</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-31</p>
<div id="sect_195" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30319">January 31, 2015 at 10:17 am</a>
<br>
<br>Fine with me Craig you have my permission to give my e-mail address to SEO or to suggest a venue for this “discussion”.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_195');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 195 -->
<a name="x196"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x196" class="tiny">x196</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_196');">deadline until March unless requested to extend</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-5294">2015-02-01</a></p>
<div id="sect_196" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Although posted to Mr. Rogue's blog, it is not published.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>I have not received any emails from Mr. Ruff, even after checking spam. I'm not sure if Mr. McKee communicated to him my email address. At one point, the two of you were in communication, because you were going to work on the ultimate nuclear/Wood debunking. Therefore, you could always route to him a valid email address from me.
<br>
<br>Because I have not received any of his emails, I am not sure he sent any. How do you know he sent any? Did they bounce?
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, going with the information that I know for sure -- no emails, no comments on my blog --, then your negative assessment does not apply to me, but to Mr. Ruff: <i>"a pussyboy making peepee in his diaper again and is crying to his mommy."</i>
<br>
<br>I'm not in any hurry. I gave him until March, a deadline I'd be happy to extend if requested.
<br>
<br>Still, it'd be nice to know if he got the messages I left for him. Although removed from T&S, they form the introduction on the venue that I'm making available.
<br>
<br>It'd be nice if he'd validate the communication path through my blog just by leaving a comment.
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x18
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, I've got way too many real-life things to attend to. When I think 9/11, it isn't the prospects of discussing with Mr. Ruff or you, both of whom I know to be closed-minded to the point of being almost agency-agenda-toting. Mr. McKee's latest with Dr. Harrit is worthy of an analysis, which floats around in my mind when I do think 9/11 but hasn't been entered into the computer as a draft yet. Plus, I've got a couple of other related projects started but back-burnered that are more deserving of my literary talents.
<br>
<br>//</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_196');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 196 -->
<a name="x198"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x198" class="tiny">x198</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_198');">a face-saving way for you to get out of this pickle you're in</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-06</p>
<div id="sect_198" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>You know me as Señor El Once, or SEO, on Truth & Shadows. You gave Mr. McKee permission to pass your contact information to me.
<br>
<br>I make no excuses for my delay in contacting you directly, on top of Mr. McKee's delay in performing his match-making services. I'm busier than ever with other priorities, thereby demonstrating the priority I give to cranking the "rhetorical challenge."
<br>
<br>It would be nice if we could come up with a face-saving way for you to get out of this pickle you're in. Pickle? Yes, many-fold so.
<br>
<br>For starters, you boasted the claim of intent to post the definitive set of links (and/or author the definitive verbiage?) that debunks whole genres (Dr. Wood & Holograms); and I'm having you pony-up. Otherwise if you default or fail, I will gain considerable leverage over your integrity under the meme "boastful lying hypocrite" etc., something I am loathe to use and is just another distracting detour from my hobby-horse.
<br>
<br>Secondly and maybe more importantly, Dr. Wood's (Dr. Jones) efforts didn't go the distance required and to all the proper corners. The abrupt stops that several of their research venues make is a clue, because rational logic thought-momentum in those directions naturally would have the inquisitive and curious mind step precisely into Neu Nookiedoo, 3rd and 4th generation.
<br>
<br>Thirdly, Dr. Wood's work can't be debunked without acknowledging nuggets of truth, which ends up serving as an effective objectivity test. "Faithful in the small, faithful in the large..." It can be a risk to your character if mishandled.
<br>
<br>Therefore, I hope that you will consider my proposed modifications to the parameters of our discussion, as given at this link:
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x18
<br>
<br>The above blog entry re-creates the T&S discussion as an introduction. It includes comments that you might have missed, owing to Mr. McKee's moderation efforts. You should give those removed comments a read. The x18 comment "Señor El Once : COMMENT REMOVED: surprised to see Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges" offers to scope limit your efforts and not have you do busy work.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, the comments that we make below the introduction would then be our discussion realm.
<br>
<br>I would rather have you choose option [B] and attempt to debunk 4th generation nukes. Were we to tango through Dr. Wood's tulips, this is the topic that stops her short. Also stops Dr. Jones short.
<br>
<br>A few addendum to that x18 comment.
<br>
<br>- I've got many things in my life in flux at the moment. I'm not eager to get involved in a time-sucking discussion, particularly if I start detecting disingenuous arguments, lack of acknowledgment of truth nuggets, and overall lack of objectivity.
<br>
<br>- I'll applaud and cheer every substantiated nugget of disinformation that you or your research brings up. But that research and analysis is expected to go the distance A-to-Z.
<br>
<br>- I did not relish shalacking Mr. Rogue with <i>"liar, cheat, and weasel,"</i> because my earnest desire was an objective discussion. But as was substantiated, he earned those valid assessments of his character that made him an untrustworthy participant.
<br>
<br>- I do not wish a similar fate for you, Mr. Ruff. Learn from Mr. Rogue's mistakes by doing the opposite of what he done. Take this somewhat seriously and apply some earnest effort. [Or back out now.]
<br>
<br>- The test of your objectivity -- and that of your sources -- is measured in nuggets of truth acknowledged and re-purposed from disinformation vehicles.
<br>
<br>I assigned a deadline of March 1 for your results. If you need more time, make notification of such. Endeavor to be above board and honest regardless of what you attempt.
<br>
<br>This being said, I repeat: "It would be nice if we could come up with a face-saving way for you to get out of this pickle you're in."
<br>
<br>I'm open to suggestions.
<br>
<br>If your heart isn't into it? Even though I'm burned out on 9/11, don't under-estimate the religious fanatic in me. Fanatical about Truth. If you're not into it, back out now.
<br>
<br>All the best, Mr. Ruff.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_198');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 198 -->
<a name="x199"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x199" class="tiny">x199</a>
Adam Ruff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_199');">who has who beaten</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-06</p>
<div id="sect_199" style="display: none;">
<p>{Email from Mr. Adam Ruff.}
<br>
<br>Wow you really think you have "got me" on this huh? OK Maxwell we will see who has who beaten on this one eh?
<br>
<br>Shall we start with Judy Wood and her DEW theory?
<br>
<br>First problem with her theory is: She has no defined theory other than some unknown type of DEW weapon somehow caused the destruction of the towers. So I would like you to define for us all:
<br>
<br>
<br>1. What type of weapon was used (according to Wood) and what are it's capabilities? Was it a particle beam? A laser? A rail gun? An x-ray beam? A sonic weapon? A super mondo cool (Hutcheson) beam made up of future tech stuff us mortals cannot understand? What type of weapon was it?
<br>
<br>2. Was it space based or ground based when it was supposedly used on the towers?
<br>
<br>3. What are the power requirements for this weapon and from where did the power come?
<br>
<br>4. Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality? In other words is there any proof at all that this weapon is actually operational and not mearly theoretical at this point?
<br>
<br>Once you can provide some answers to these basic questions I can provide the promised debunks of her theory (whatever it actually is).
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>Adam Ruff
<br>
<br>PS. I have BCC'ed a few people who will be kept informed of this "debate" but who do not want to engage in it.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_199');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 199 -->
<a name="x200"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x200" class="tiny">x200</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_200');">Post to the venue</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-06</p>
<div id="sect_200" style="display: none;">
<p>{Email to Mr. Adam Ruff sent from smartphone.}
<br>
<br>Please post that as a comment to the blog whose <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x18">URL was given</a>.
<br>
<br>Also, you need to specify the amendment to the challenge that you're taking on. So we will know what is in and out of bounds.
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood is easy to frame. I suggest we go right to nookiedoo, and when appropriate, I'll insert evidence collected (or put on display) by Dr. Wood. I'm not going to waste my time defending all her rabbit side tunnels.
<br>
<br>//</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_200');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 200 -->
<a name="x201"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x201" class="tiny">x201</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_201');">according to Wood?</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-08</p>
<div id="sect_201" style="display: none;">
<p>{Response to Mr. Adam Ruff's email.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>I do declare, but you should pay heed to the biblical edict to be faithful in the small things first, before big things are entrusted to you. What are latter-day lurkers going to think of you in our discussion when (1) after you asked for a public venue, you are a no-show in making comments there?
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html
<br>
<br>(2) You response shows little indication that you've read my words. Specifically, my x18 entry above asks for some reasonable scope-limits to your efforts via options on which I've gotten no outright selection or objection: [A] Dr. Wood + Holograms; [B] Dr. Wood alone; [C] Neu Nookiedoo.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Wow you really think you have "got me" on this huh? OK Maxwell we will see who has who beaten on this one eh?</p></blockquote>
<p>I know I do, and this is evident by the way you frame the strawman.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Shall we start with Judy Wood and her DEW theory? First problem with her theory is: She has no defined theory other than some unknown type of DEW weapon somehow caused the destruction of the towers.</p></blockquote>
<p>Indeed. This was a major criticism of Dr. Wood's work that I have already written about many times. Her book does not connect together in any cohesive fashion any of the varied concepts brought up. Neither her book nor website definitively tells us the nature of the device.
<br>
<br>You go on to write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>So I would like you to define for us all:
<br>
<br>1. What type of weapon was used (according to Wood) and what are it's capabilities?</p></blockquote>
<p>I need not go any farther than this in torching your Dr. Wood strawman, well before you get a chance to knock it down and parade around as faux-hero. The phrase <i>"according to Dr. Wood"</i> flags your disingenuous intent right from the get-go, because owing to your first identified problem of Dr. Wood having no defined theory, it becomes a fool's errand to defend Dr. Wood in her non-statements about specific types of weapons used.
<br>
<br>Removing the phrase <i>"according to Dr. Wood"</i> and slapping a saddle on Neu Nookiedoo, I can proceed in answering your inquiries about the primary mechanism of WTC destruction. In the process, Dr. Wood, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Harrit among others will get skewered, because they demonstrate such a lack of an engineer's curiousity in researching and exploring nuclear solutions to the observed WTC events.
<br>
<br>- Dr. Wood has a whole web page devoted to the fresh dirt observed being trucked in, spread out, then a few days later scooped up and trucked out. Classic radiation mitigation techniques. Yet she doesn't go there. She doesn't address tritium. Doesn't address in any real-world what could power her devices, and gives nuclear means the bum's rush.
<br>
<br>- Dr. Jones in his article that attempts to debunk nukes DOES NOT EVEN MENTION neutron devices or any 3rd/4th generation [DEW] devices. This is on top of relying on flawed and scope-limited reports as the final authority on tritium and radiation. Garbage in, garbage out.
<br>
<br>- Dr. Harrit even in his recent interview with Mr. McKee talks about the results of the RJ Lee study of the dust from the lobby of Banker's Trust and how it contained a high percentage of iron spheres. He tries on the shoes of nano-thermite and says these could have been the result of a thermitic reaction, but neither he nor Dr. Jones walks in them far enough to estimate the initial quantities in question, which would be massive. Dr. Harrit does not ever put on the shoes of 3rd/4th generation [DEW] devices and walk around in them to see if they can account for the evidence.
<br>
<br>You parrot some of the same questions as Dr. Harrit in his McKee interview: <i>"Was it a particle beam? A laser? An x-ray beam?"</i> Good questions. Why didn't Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, or Dr. Wood attempt to answer them?
<br>
<br>You asked:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality?</p></blockquote>
<p>Why, yes there is. From a Google search, eventually these items came up:
<br>
<br>- http://web.archive.org/web/20111026110252/http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/NeutronBomb.pdf
<br>
<br>- http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>
<br>The second link is to <i>"Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects."</i> Although written in 2005, the author Andre Gsponer co-authored in 1999 a book called <i>"Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon: The Physical Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And The Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons."</i> Do the math with regards to 9/11/2001.
<br>
<br>http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/700503.Fourth_Generation_Nuclear_Weapon
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Public and university libraries do not have their databases in Google. A person on site at just about any university's engineering, math, and physics library will be able to dig up mountains of more references -- books, technical journals, etc. -- that specify at the time of writing where various nuclear technologies were at and where research was heading. [These would be the public records, and not anything hidden behind <i>national security</i> labels.]
<br>
<br>Yet seemingly none of the professors listed above could be bothered to perform such research in their universities' libraries. Even a failed venture to find plausibility of neu nookiedoo in the (public) nuclear research is a result worthy of publication and promotion, kind of like a hypothesis that testing disproved. However, this wasn't done, because the venture wouldn't have been a failure; it would have netted Andre Gsponer's work and that of many others.
<br>
<br>You might find this re-purposed Facebook discussion of interest,
<br>
<br>http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html
<br>
<br>++++ quote from 0510071v5.pdf
</p>
<blockquote><p>Fourth generation: 25 mg DT => 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency
<br>
<br>Consequently, going from the first to the fourth generation implies a total change of perspective about nuclear weapons: A "change of paradigm" where the concept of very-large-yield and big nuclear weapons for deterrence-use is shifting towards the concept of very-high-precision and compact nuclear weapons for battle-field-use — with yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, that is intermediate between conventional and contemporary nuclear weapons.
<br>
<br>...
<br>
<br>Third generation nuclear weapons are basically "tailored and special effects" warheads and systems developed between the 1960s and 1980s, mainly for tactical uses or ballistic missile defense. Examples of these developments comprise the following concepts:
<br>
<br>- ERW — Enhanced Radiation (neutrons, hard X-rays)
<br>- RRR — Reduced Residual Radiation (enhanced blast)
<br>- EMP — enhanced ElectroMagnetic Pulse
<br>- DEW — Directed Energy (plasma-jet or X-ray laser-beam)
<br>- EPW — Earth Penetrating Warhead
<br>- ETC —
<br>
<br>...
<br>[M]ost third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.</p></blockquote>
<p>++++ end quote
<br>
<br>
<br>According to me (and not Dr. Wood), each tower had 6 or so devices of the 3rd and 4th generation nature. Each was fusion based, leaving little lingering radiation. Each probably had elements related to neutron devices, because aiming various amounts neutrons out of the way would help scale down side-effects (blast wave, heat wave, EMP) and prevent the pre-mature killing of neighboring tandem devices.
<br>
<br>Further, these devices would direct energy at specific wavelengths, that further takes away energy from side-effects and neutron output. What wavelengths? Weapons that used X-ray wavelengths are known to exist and were speculated in the Reagan presidency. Here's where the fun comes in for diligent researchers. They can pick representative sample wavelengths across the spectrum of energy to (mentally) test what would happen to materials. Of interest is when wavelengths are on the order of, say, molecular distances or when multiple wavelengths are output whose interference pattern could be destructive (which then puts it into the realm of Hutchison.)
<br>
<br>Even wavelengths in the microwave realm could produce with sufficient amplitude interesting outcomes. For instance, concrete, drywall, and porcellan have residual amounts of water buried in their structure. Sufficiently large microwaves could turn such water instantly into steam with a very strong outward force to the point of blowing apart the structure that contained it. Concrete has aggregates as well that act like a fork in a microwave oven.
<br>
<br>Dr. Harrit has been an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. Although not a physicists, he should have sufficient knowledge of atomic structures to speculate knowledgeably about what sudden influxes of energy at various wavelengths would do. <i>Molecular disassociation</i> and <i>dustification</i> might be applicable in the description.
<br>
<br>I find it very disingenuous of Dr. Harrit and Dr. Jones (and many leaders of the 9/11TM with science or engineering backgrounds) to not attempt the research and to not attempt strapping on nuclear shoes and go for a stroll.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
</p><blockquote><p>4. Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality? In other words is there any proof at all that this weapon is actually operational and not mearly theoretical at this point?</p></blockquote>
<p>I ask the same questions about nano-thermite devices. Sure, thermite has a long history. (So do nuclear devices, although most of it is classified.) But ramping up thermite to achieve the brissance required for pulverization, where's the real-world example of that? And when you cough up such a device, ask yourself if it could then go the distance with regards to the duration of hot-spots attributed to it? And if so, how much of that ramped up super thermite would be required?
<br>
<br>Other than the above being a glaring flaw in the limited hang-out known as <i>"nano-thermite"</i>, your inability to produce real-world, operational NT devices does not prevent you from speculating into its 9/11 involvement. I expect the same leeway for 4th generation nukes. Your #4 questions are not gating.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_201');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 201 -->
<a name="x202"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x202" class="tiny">x202</a>
AdamRuff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_202');">moved the goal posts</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423514281588#c5108403687415145335">2015-02-09</a></p>
<div id="sect_202" style="display: none;">
<p>Well Maxwell I have not responded yet for two reasons.
<br>
<br>1. I have very little time lately.
<br>
<br>2. You moved the goal posts. Originally I said I would debunk Judy Wood and hologram planes and you are clearly shifting the topic to mini nukes.
<br>
<br>I accept your admission that Wood has no cohesive theory. So as far as I am concerned Judy Wood has been debunked. Since Wood is the only topic I have addressed so far all we can say at this point is that you have failed to defend her from my very basic questions so I do not even need to proceed with a complete debunk of her non theory. Now as to the mini nuke argument you are now trying to shift the discussion to I will have to get back to you on that when I have time and I do contend that the mini nuke argument is bunk. I will address it later though as I get time to do it properly.
<br>
<br>I assume that because you are shifting the discussion away from hologram planes that you are not going to be defending that bogus crappola either, is that right? </p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_202');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 202 -->
<a name="x203"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x203" class="tiny">x203</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_203');">desire to shift debate dates back years</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423535672230#c5973178597159493437">2015-02-09</a></p>
<div id="sect_203" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>It is not that I'm <i>"trying to shift the discussion."</i> Without a shift in the discussion, all you'd be doing is flailing at a straw-man, and doing a poor job of it, too. Without a shift in the discussion, truth cannot be found and there is no discussion.
<br>
<br>I take minor offense with your insinuation that my 2015-02-08 comment is where the shifting happened, as if in response to your 2015-02-06 email and a complete weasel move. No! My desire for you to reconsider the scope of the debate dates back to 2015-01-28 [if not <b>years</b> prior]. You obviously are not subscribed to articles on T&S or you are not reading my comments, because otherwise you would have a record of my comment before Mr. McKee removed it and know my desires.
<br>
<br>Certainly the tedium of reading my blog leaves no doubt in anyone's mind what my hobby-horse is.
<br>
<br>Only a technicality allows any hollow victory claim today in debunking Dr. Wood: she doesn't give explicit theories, has problems powering what does leak out, and stops dead short of analyzing nuclear evidence as such. Had you been reading what I've been consistently writing, you'd know this.
<br>
<br>However, once you properly address the neutron nuclear DEW argument and 4th generation devices (and ~not~ <b>"mini nuke"</b>, as you wrote), you will discover not only their validity, but vindication for Dr. Wood's efforts in bringing more awareness to DEW. You'll see where she was closer to being right with DEW than anyone else leading the 9/11 Truth Movement ever was with nano-thermite.
<br>
<br>Based on the above, you could risk damage to perceptions about your integrity and objectivity. The quick way that you'd like to dispatch Dr. Wood's work -- without page-by-page analysis and rescue of nuggets of truth -- on a technicality, no less, that'll do the negative number on your reputation. It was for your own good (and my sanity) that I graciously presented other discussion options for you to consider to <i>"shift the debate"</i> from Dr. Wood. It would be a complete bummer and massive deja vu if your ass was fragged in the same manner as Mr. Rogue's was: with a spectacularly failing of a simple objectivity test that involved taking down Dr. Wood's premises legitimately, and not on technicalities.
<br>
<br>Be that as it may, using the 4th generation goal posts: Don't be tempted to try similiar tricks with neutron nuclear DEW, ala previous simplistic statements from you <i>"no radiation = no nukes".</i> You can't prove the <i>"no radiation"</i> premise, because no measurements of samples were taken in the narrow 24-48 hours window of time when radiation from fusion-based (and neutron-based) devices would have been present and measureable. Prompt, systematic, and thorough measurements for radiation even after that narrow window don't exist, or if they do, they weren't published. These are major failings to your <i>"no radiation"</i> premise that are only compounded as being wrong when tritium is brought up.
<br>
<br>I posted the links regarding my debunking of hologram planes. I have no desire to go there.
<br>
<br><b>Take your time in responding</b>, and be sure to review the reference material before responding. In particular:
<br>
<br>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
<br>
<br>//</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_203');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 203 -->
<a name="x204"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x204" class="tiny">x204</a>
AdamRuff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_204');">I will get back to you about the mini nuke issue when I have time to do so</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423553337883#c5378300210161194139">2015-02-09</a></p>
<div id="sect_204" style="display: none;">
<p>I quote from my very first remark which spurred on this so called debate which you ARE attempting to shift to mini nukes or low yield nukes or 3rd or 4th generation nukes or low radiation nukes or fusion instead of fission nukes or whatever you want to call them. My quote was:
<br>
<br>"I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy."
<br>
<br>So it is clear that I had intended to debate Wood and hologram plane theories. You have moved the goal posts as I said.
<br>
<br>Regardless of all that I will get back to you about the mini nuke (or whatever you want to call it) issue when I have time to do so.
<br>
<br>In the mean time please provide links to the source material for your 3rd and 4th generation nukes so that I can evaluate those materials. If it is all theoretical at this point and you have no verifiable proof that these weapons actually exist then please indicate that. Thank you. </p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_204');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 204 -->
<a name="x205"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x205" class="tiny">x205</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_205');">no pleasure to point out you being disingenuous</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-10</p>
<div id="sect_205" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423593991162#c5574628316300931384">Part 1/3</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>It gives me no pleasure to point out you being disingenuous, in the simple things no less. But I do so as a gentle warning of what you can expect if you are found being dishonest going forth.
<br>
<br>Your very first remark in this latest Wood genre was not <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30259">2014-01-27 at 11:36 pm</a> (or <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x13">x13 comment</a> above):
<br>
<br><i>"I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy."</i>
<br>
<br>No. First of all, there is no "again" about it, because if you had done it before elsewhere, you instinctively would have preserved the link and had it readily available to plunk down. Secondly, what I consider your first remark to the genre was a blow-hard re-purposing of comments from Facebook on <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30235">2014-01-27 at 5:09 am</a> (or the <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x8">x8 comment</a> above).
<br>
<br><i>"We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus."</i>
<br>
<br>My response to your blovocating was <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30244">January 27, 2015 at 1:46 pm</a> (or the <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x12">x12 comment above</a>). It leads off with requesting your <i>"reasoned analysis"</i> into my hobby-horse topic, something you've been avoiding for literally years and even had you try to assemble an A-Team to debunk in late 2012 (that obviously got no-where).
<br>
<br>My x12 response continued into the realm of Dr. Wood:
<br>+++ begin quote
<br>[A]s the resident left-handed defender of nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's work, I must ask Mr. Adam Ruff to come forth with the links to all T&S articles/discussions that discredit space beams in a proper manner. In particular to substantiate his personal efforts, he should retrieve his exact comments on the subject [with links].
<br>
<br>In addition, Mr. Ruff should supply the exact link to any comments that he (or others) authored that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. {...}
<br>
<br>Further, blow-hard Mr. Ruff should give us the text to <i>"some Judy Wood debunks that you [Mr. Ken Dockery] have never even thought of my friend."</i>
<br>+++ end quote
<br>
<br>So, Mr. Ruff.
<br>
<br>- If you're not going to avail yourself of the opportunity to shift the discussion into more worthwhile, fruitful, and meaningful topics: namely 4th generation nukes...
<br>
<br>- If you're going to hold to the straw-man premise of directing me to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked on T&S (which was the tenor of your comment but I'll be gracious by permitting other sources) , ...
<br>
<br>Then chop-chop, Mr. Ruff. You're making your bed, so now lie in it...
<br>
<br>End Part 1/3
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423594019890#c420815550114187555">Part 2/3</a>
<br>
<br>You be sure that your Wood debunking links go the full A-Z distance. Keep in mind these items:
<br>
<br>(1) <b>Viability of a concept is different from applicability to specifics of an event.</b> If reasoned analysis proves a concept wasn't applicable to ~all~ particulars of an event, participants/sources will fail their objectivity test if concept viability isn't acknowledged, should it not be debunked.
<br>
<br>(2) The event needs to be analyzed in your links by WTC building. Unacceptable are the red-herrings <i>"destruction of X didn't happen from the tippy-top, so space-beams don't apply to X... so therefore by no logical reason, applies to neither Y nor Z... so therefore by further faulty reasoning to advance a disinfo agenda, DEW in all shapes and forms didn't happen."</i> *BEEP* *BEEP* ... That dog don't hunt.
<br>
<br>(3) Failure in your collection of Wood debunking links to acknowledge any good in Wood efforts is an indication that they didn't go the full A-Z, that they may not be completely objective, and that they could even be individually promoting a disinfo agenda of their own.
<br>
<br>(4) If your collection of links and/or your reasoned analysis do not go into <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">4th generation nuclear devices</a> (or equivalent), your blow-hard ambitions fail. Why? Because most of these fall into the category of directed energy weapons (DEW), the very same category to which Dr. Wood alludes but doesn't give specifics.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff, if you continue with your present course as indicated by the re-posting of your words from <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30259">2014-01-27 at 11:36 pm</a> -- <i>"I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked"</i> -- then my role is to help you avoid being perceived as a hypocrite and other negative nouns by hounding your ass with the above until this wonderful and glorious task of legitimately debunking Dr. Wood for the entire 9/11TM and world to greatly benefit is achieved.
<br>
<br>
<br>++++ OPTION B
<br>
<br>I am a reasonable fellow. Proof thereof, I'm allowing another opportunity for you to save face and lots of busy-work that could possibly damage your reputation if not handled honestly and properly.
<br>
<br>Start with #4. If you can debunk <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">4th generation nuclear devices</a>, then much attributed to Dr. Wood's is by extension debunked and you won't even have to go there (to convince me). Why? Because these are the DEW to which she alluded but gave no specifics; these are the nuclear weapons that Dr. Jones never mentioned is his greatly flawed <i>"no nukes on 9/11"</i> work. This is the holy grail.
<br>
<br>If you can't debunk #4, then it must be acknowledged as a new standard. [And from there, if one desires, one can work backwards into Dr. Wood's efforts to flag the disinfo and rescue appropriate nuggets of truth.]
<br>
<br>Either way, if you start with #4, Mr. Ruff, you probably won't have to perform the integrity-testing busy-<i>fucking</i>-work in finding further debunking analysis of Dr. Wood's work.
<br>
<br>As a further token of my reasonableness, if you start with #4 ~and~ do a reasonable, objective, logical analysis thereof, not only will I ~not~ hold you to #1 through #3 with regards to Dr. Wood, but I will also throw out hologram planes, meaning you won't have to go there at all.
<br>
<br>This is the choice I earnestly hope you will accept.
<br>
<br>If you stick with your present choice and not avail yourself of my gracious options, then I have already exposed my game plan, and you should prepare accordingly. I am going to hold you to Wood's A-to-Z ~AND~ to holograms A-to-Z, otherwise I do you no services in helping you avoid being labeled a hypocrite in not following through with ~all~ of your boastful claims.
<br>
<br>
<br>End Part 2/3
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423594037142#c5904900773147136888">Part 3/3</a>
<br>
<br>Point of clarification, Mr. Ruff. Many of my comments above show good-faith attempts to negotiate the boundaries for the discussion before either of us invests any significant amount of time of the little time available to either of us. The charge of <i>"moving goal posts"</i> can only be applied after the game has started, should such dastardly play occur.
<br>
<br>Reasonable fellow that I am, I consider everything that has transpired so far just warm-up while we come to agreement on the game boundaries, and while you experience some taste of what will happen to you if you are less than honest and objective.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br><i>"Regardless of all that I will get back to you about the mini nuke (or whatever you want to call it) issue when I have time to do so. In the mean time please provide links to the source material for your 3rd and 4th generation nukes so that I can evaluate those materials."</i>
<br>
<br>*Sigh*
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff, I earnestly want you to review the <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071 ">4th generation nuclear materials</a>, which is why I dutifully perform the busy-work that you request by posting more repeated links to it here:
<br>
<br><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071</a>
<br>
<br>Because I earnestly want you to read it, I'm not going to ride your ass too hard about why you didn't see this at the end of my last comment as well as in many other comments from me, thereby giving your request a disingenuous hue of time-consuming busy-work.
<br>
<br>In <i>"The Art of War,"</i> we are told to <i>"Know Your Enemies."</i> Extrapolated to debate, you need to know your opponent's argument, which can't be done if you so blatantly demonstrate that you aren't reading my words and following substantiating links.
<br>
<br>Let's remove this failing from your future debating tactics, shall we?
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br><i>"If [4th generation devices are] all theoretical at this point and you have no verifiable proof that these weapons actually exist then please indicate that. Thank you."</i>
<br>
<br>Be careful about the standards for measurement that you wish to set forth.
<br>
<br>Are you foreshadowing one of your moves in the game? Are you going to play the card that say: <i>"Because no verifiable proof that such weapons actually exist, therefore no need to discuss"?</i> I know that I'm never going to show up at your doorstep with DEW device to convince you by taking out a mini-van, house, building, or bridge. But I will have three decades of research into Star Wars, Strategic Defense Initiative, and newer names that you'll have to prove was just a work-creation program for the overly educated PhD's having no expectation ~ever~ of producing anything operational.
<br>
<br>Further, if you hold to those standards for measurement and attempt that tactic against 4th generation nukes, in a <i>"good for the goose/gander"</i> turnabout you will inadvertently destroy your base position, namely that of nano-thermite. You aren't going to show up on my doorstep with a NT device (in any combination with other chemical-based weapons) that can pulverize content while at the same time burning hot for months in the resulting debris pile. Mr. Rogue will tell you that high school chemistry puts at conflicting odds brissance and duration [massively unreasonable quantities excepted]. Design for one -- brissance or duration --, sacrifice the other.
<br>
<br>Dr. Steven Jones let slip in September 2012: <i>"Something maintained those hot-spots, (not just NT.)"</i>
<br>
<br>Let that be a clue.
<br>
<br>//
<br>End Part 3/3
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_205');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 205 -->
<a name="x206"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x206" class="tiny">x206</a>
AdamRuff : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_206');">get to this bullshit argument when I have time to do it properly</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423602072522#c1528750729068513339">2015-02-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_206" style="display: none;">
<p>Hey can you get a little bit more verbose in those comments? Let us get one thing straight here from the outset. I do not like you at all, in fact I think you are quite literally insane with some kind of serious obsessive compulsive disorder. I was VERY reluctant to give my contact details to you for that reason. That having been said you can just stop right now with the bullshit that I march to your orders. I will get to this bullshit argument when I have time to do it properly. You can stuff your snide remarks up your asshole as well pal because you are not as fucking smart as your arrogant attitude would suggest.
<br>
<br>By the way since you did shift the goal posts I will do the same for you. In your remarks above you indicate that the nano-thermite evidence either doesn't prove anything or is somehow false. Prove it big mouth. You haven't offered jack shit that shows the nano-thermite evidence is bogus other than your opinion which is worthless to me.
<br>
<br>So I will respond later on the mini nuke bullshit and as I said if you don't like that tuff shit.
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_206');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 206 -->
<a name="x207"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x207" class="tiny">x207</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_207');">marched right into it with ample opportunity to take a hike early</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-10</p>
<div id="sect_207" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423621597273#c5944779161027705877">Part 1/2</a>
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Ruff,
<br>
<br>Your negative feelings for me are of no consequence, except that they cloud your judgement.
<br>
<br>Moreover, if your honest opinion was that I am -- ho-hum --, <i>"quite literally insane with some kind of serious obsessive compulsive disorder"</i>, then WTF are you doing discoursing with me? Why am I always getting the better of you?
<br>
<br>As for your contact details, that was your doing. Not mine. I posted the links TWICE to where you should go, the exact venue you were begging for. Ok, maybe your ass was too slow to read them on Mr. McKee's blog before -- after a long day's work -- he comes home to the task of replacing the contents of those comments to avoid others acting the <i>Mike Collins</i> on his blog in response.
<br>
<br>Still, you would have got two email notification with the unadulterated version, no? (And if not, why not? How do you even know if someone responded to you?)
<br>
<br>Still, the T&S blog shows placeholders for my removed comments as direct responses to you; surely you would have been curious. Surely Mr. Rogue could have updated you.
<br>
<br>Still, I told Mr. McKee off-line to pass along to you a link to the venue (did he do so?) before he got around to passing your email address to me.
<br>
<br>The point is, had you been paying attention at multiple junctures to learn where to post your comments to me and had you done so early, by golly I would not be in possession of your email address. I haven't abused the privilege.
<br>
<br>But I'll hand this to you. You might have something going on with your <i>"obsessive compulsive disorder"</i> charge against me. Just look at my effing blog!!! I can't say that it was everything I ever wrote in my quest for 9/11 Truth, but so far, it is the best-of; and woe unto those who venture to read it all, such a repetitive bore it has become, even for me!
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br><i>"That having been said you can just stop right now with the bullshit that I march to your orders. I will get to this bullshit argument when I have time to do it properly."</i>
<br>
<br>You're the one who marched right into it, with ample opportunity to take a hike early. I didn't order you. You volunteered. All I'm establishing are the ground rules. FTR, it was always understood and strongly encouraged, Mr. Ruff, for <i>"{Mr. Ruff to} get to {SEO's} argument when {Mr. Ruff has} time to do it properly."</i> But if you want frame that as an order, so be it. Just see that it gets done eventually.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff, look what happens when I quote you back to you:
<br><i>"You can stuff your snide remarks up your asshole as well pal because you are not as fucking smart as your arrogant attitude would suggest."</i>
<br>
<br>Neither a pretty sight nor your best work.
<br>
<br>// Part 1/2
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423621629474#c1812912064564754563">Part 2/2</a>
<br>
<br>Maybe I should hand this one to you, too: <i>"{SEO is} not as fucking smart as {SEO's} arrogant attitude would suggest."</i> But sure as shit, I'm better organized with better tactics and more truth. And you're on my home court. If you're not nice to me, my game plan is to mock you mercilessly with your own words by embracing the insult and giving it center stage. In other words, Mr. Ruff, I plan on picking up your figurative ammo and firing it back at you. With this foreknowledge, maybe you should adjust your tactics accordingly going forward.
<br>
<br>You wrote an attempt at assigning me busy-work:
<br><i>"In your remarks above you indicate that the nano-thermite evidence either doesn't prove anything or is somehow false. Prove it big mouth. You haven't offered jack shit that shows the nano-thermite evidence is bogus other than your opinion which is worthless to me."</i>
<br>
<br>Au contraire! And ho-hum.
<br>
<br>Read what I wrote at the section <i><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x18">Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite</a></i>. Do the high school math for yourself. Be sure to venture into other sections of this work for enlightenment, although know that my beliefs have shifted to 4th generation nukes since authoring that article.
<br>
<br>See? I told you I was better organized with better tactics and more truth. You've completely under-estimated the value of <i>"quite literally insanely seriously obsessively compulsively disorder"</i>, or how much of a religous fanatic I am: I'm fanatical about Truth.
<br>
<br>In moments of defeat like this, I bet you wish you were nearly as well organized so that you would have at you handy acess links to where you debated such topics and won -- if they really exist -- so that you could serve them up here, and be like *ho-hum*, too.
<br>
<br>Want to know the irony of that blog article? You helped me hone it! Yes, indeed, there are sections of that article that I can attribute to coming directly from discussions I've had with you. If memory serves me, <i><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x15">"No Radiation"? Really?</a></i> and <i><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x30">"The dirt on that"</a></i> are two examples.
<br>
<br>So, thank you, Mr. Ruff. I owe you a debt of gratitude in the creation of this <i>"quite literally insanely seriously obsessively compulsive"</i> blog!
<br>
<br>Let the revelations contained in this short response and associated links be a token of the continuance of me being a fair fellow towards you! What supports my contentions are readily available.
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<br><i>"So I will respond later on the mini nuke bullshit and as I said if you don't like that tuff shit."</i>
<br>
<br>If you would but read my words and understand them, there's no immediate pressure from me on you to respond quickly. Just don't run out the clock like Mr. Rogue did. Beginning of March is soon enough. If you need more time, communicate that request.
<br>
<br>// Part 2/2
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_207');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 207 -->
<a name="x208"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x208" class="tiny">x208</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_208');">COMMENT REMOVED: an opportunity for an objective discussion on my hobby-horse topic</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30515">2015-02-16</a></p>
<div id="sect_208" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Comment as edited by Mr. Craig McKee.}
<br>
<br>
<br>COMMENT REMOVED
<br>
<br>Señor El Once, it seems that I need to be more specific about what I don’t want discussed on the blog. Not only do I not want Judy Wood brought into the discussion, but I don’t want any updates on a discussion of her on another blog. I don’t want the fact that she isn’t allowed to be the subject of comments. Least of all do I want a comment that lets readers know where they can read opinions that I previously removed here.-CM
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>{mcb: Original comment from me.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>Let me take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. McKee!
<br>
<br>That which I have most desired is about to come to fruition! Namely, an opportunity for an objective discussion on my hobby-horse topic [OFF-LIST], so that I can be set straight in my beliefs and then welcomed like a black sheep back into the fold of 9/11 Concensus Truth.
<br>
<br>FTR, it was never my intent to have a discussion *here* on T&S about Dr. Wood's work. Sorry if you took my efforts the wrong way. All along, I was trying to establish an appropriate off-list venue. Ended up being my blog.
<br>
<br>For that matter, though, I had no real desire to discuss Dr. Wood's work, which is why it was for me a <i>"rhetorical challenge"</i>. However, if I was unsuccessful in shifting the debate boundaries beforehand, I was going to make Mr. Ruff pay the piper for his boastful words by having him back them up as a lesson in <i>"integrity in the small things..."</i>
<br>
<br>Thanksfully after much cajoling on my home court, Mr. Ruff has agreed to a change in topic to my hobby-horse. Mr. Ruff promises:
</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423553337883#c5378300210161194139">February 9, 2015 at 11:28 PM</a>
<br>Regardless of all that I will get back to you about the mini nuke (or whatever you want to call it) issue when I have time to do so.</p></blockquote>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423602072522#c1528750729068513339">February 10, 2015 at 1:01 PM</a>
<br>I will get to this bullshit argument when I have time to do it properly... So I will respond later on the mini nuke bullshit and as I said if you don't like that tuff shit.</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>I post this for my fan base... and the lurker readers: so that they will know:
<br>
<br>(1) what they missed in some of the REMOVED COMMENTS above and
<br>
<br>(2) where the off-list [off-T&S] discussion continues...
<br>
<br>... With the caveats (a) that Mr. Ruff was given an arbitrary deadline of March 1 with no requests for extensions so far, and (b) that Mr. Ruff determines his own research and writing schedule.
<br>
<br>Although I find it most curious how eight of Mr. Rogue's comments from several nested discussions at various times stack up at the bottom of the thread to put a cap on it, I'll repeat a worthy nugget Mr. Rogue brings to our attention in one of his two trolling comments from February 15, 2015, because it is ironically applicable to Mr. Ruff and in his endeavors.
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>"The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water and breeds reptiles of the mind." ~William Blake</p></blockquote>
<p>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_208');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 208 -->
<a name="x209"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x209" class="tiny">x209</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_209');">progress report</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-19</p>
<div id="sect_209" style="display: none;">
<p><br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30534">February 19, 2015 at 6:50 am</a>
<br>
<br>Do we really need a ‘progress report’ on this bullshit that has already been determined to be off limits on this thread?
<br>Another slinky underhanded advertisement for this clown’s rocking horse.
<br>
<br>And every fucking time he has to bring my name into his junk-pile rhetoric.
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_209');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 209 -->
<a name="x210"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x210" class="tiny">x210</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_210');">COMMENT REMOVED: my treatment on T&S runs very much parallel</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30541">2015-02-19</a></p>
<div id="sect_210" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Comment as edited by Mr. Craig McKee.}
<br>
<br>COMMENT REMOVED – See explanation for removal of Feb. 16 5:50 p.m. comment. While there may be a couple of points that were on topic in this 1,356-word comment (I didn’t feel like editing it), most of it was a repeat of themes that I don’t want to see. These include anything related to discussions of Judy Wood, whether here or on another site. When you “relate” your “hobby horse” to a point in the article, it appears to just be a disguised way of slipping it in.-CM
<br>
<br>
<br>{mcb: Original comment from me.}
<br>
<br>The topic of this article was the treatment of Mr. McKee on the 9/11 Facebook group "9/11 Truth Movement". About that endeavor, he wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>There is another bone of contention that leads to toxic exchanges – the idea Collins and moderators Dockery, Haley, Sedell, Carmady, and others seem to have that it's their job to purge the movement of believers in no planes at the WTC and Judy Wood. Collins actually believes that by calling those people names and attacking their intelligence, he can reduce their number. What it does instead is focus MORE attention on the alleged disinformation. If a real agent is being paid to bring up no planes or Judy Wood, they aren’t going to go away because they are called names. Instead, they’ll succeed in setting the agenda. This point is continually missed by those listed above.</p></blockquote>
<p>Gee, my treatment on T&S runs very much parallel to this. Here's Mr. Rogue from this morning:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Do we really need a 'progress report' on this bullshit that has already been determined to be off limits on this thread? Another slinky underhanded advertisement for this clown’s rocking horse. And every fucking time he has to bring my name into his junk-pile rhetoric.</p></blockquote>
<p>Maybe Mr. Rogue should have followed Mr. Collins' lead by emphasizing his JEJUNE labels in all-cap's?
<br>
<br>For the record about off-limits <i>"bullshit"</i> for this thread:
<br>
<br>(1) The theme of Dr. Wood was deemed off-limits but:
<br>
<br> (a) Not off-limits are links off-list that would take curious readers to the venue where she was to be discuss.
<br>
<br> (b) Not off-limits are subtle references to <i>"this clown’s rocking horse."</i> [I have no plans on going there *here* -- unless Mr. McKee establishes an appropriate T&S venue -- because there is already an off-list venue that seems to meet the immediate need.]
<br>
<br>And more importantly:
<br>
<br> (c) ~NOT~ off-limits is the on-topic theme of the TREATMENT that one receives for championing aspects of 9/11 with which not all truthers agree.
<br>
<br>
<br>(2) Even as I was giving Mr. Ruff the raspberries for his unsubstantiated boastings about having debunked Dr. Wood, my words published here (including those removed from T&S but <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x18">re-published on my blog</a>) show utmost respect and courtesy to the forum via several earnest efforts on my part to take the taboo discussions off-list so that the thread would not be derailed.
<br>
<br>(3) As part of Mr. Ruff's bloviating personality [January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm], he himself demanded me to <i>"choose another venue"</i> where Mr. Ruff will supposedly debunk said premises. His comment remains in tact. Thus, the <i>"venue"</i> subject itself is acceptable, as are advertising links to the requested <i>"venue"</i>, which sincerely demonstrates a desire to take the discussion elsewhere and not derail the discussion about <i>"the TREATMENT that one receives for championing certain aspects."</i>
<br>
<br>Ergo, my comments that provide links to that venue are very much on-topic... And important for my fan-base and the latter-day lurker readers.
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue should have felt flattered that I repeated his William Blake quotation, indicating my objectivity in acknowledging how Mr. Rogue does sometimes (even often) make statements with which I have no disagreement. Here's the agreeable quotation again:
</p>
<blockquote><p>"The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water and breeds reptiles of the mind." ~William Blake</p></blockquote>
<p>Yet Mr. Rogue claims:
</p>
<blockquote><p>And every fucking time [SEO] has to bring my name into his junk-pile rhetoric.</p></blockquote>
<p>The above statement should be juxtaposed (at the time of writing) to eight of nine trolling-for-life comments appearing at the end of this thread, all from Mr. Rogue, and the last one [February 15, 2015 at 10:10 pm] gasping for communication from others:
</p>
<blockquote><p>We are standing still.
<br>\\][//</p></blockquote>
<p>Silly Mr. Rogue -- with 29.3% of the comments and starving for conversation -- for not knowing why his name was brought into my <i>"junk-pile rhetoric"</i>! [Ooo! I like that, Mr. Rogue. One of your better and more creative belittling descriptions.] Although plenty have gone before it, let's label this one Exhibit A in the Treatment that I, Mr. SEO, get on T&S.
<br>
<br>In Exhibit B, note the irony:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Another slinky underhanded advertisement for this clown’s rocking horse.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ooo! I like this even better! If it wasn't ironic enough that I agree with Mr. Rogue's statement, by typing that trollish statement, Mr. Rogue not only <i>"focus(es) MORE attention on the alleged disinformation" [Mr. Mckee quote]</i> but also gives me an opportunity to respond... AT LENGTH!
<br>
<br>What makes my <i>"slinky advertsement"</i> even more <i>"underhanded"</i>, is that it puts on record that Mr. Ruff is in the middle of an objectivity test.
<br>
<br>How he will fair? Is anyone's guess.
<br>
<br>I have my <i>"William Blake"</i>-ish running-water hopes and dreams for its outcome that differ from Mr. Ruff's trend line so far. I've gone out of my way to have Mr. Ruff avoid obvious traps, like those that damaged Mr. Rogue's credibility.
<br>
<br>I'll be sad if Mr. Ruff fumbles badly, although that is what expectations suggest I prepare for, come March.
<br>
<br>Further making this comment on-topic -- whether or not Mr. Rogue labels this, too, as <i>"slinky underhanded"</i> --, Mr. McKee wrote in his article:
</p>
<blockquote><p>If a real agent is being paid to bring up no planes or Judy Wood, they aren’t going to go away because they are called names. Instead, they’ll succeed in setting the agenda.</p></blockquote>
<p>I do not accuse Mr. McKee of aiming his statement at me, Señor El Once, or of calling me <i>"a real agent"</i>, even though I have been the resident left-&-back-handed champion of no planes and Dr. Wood in the past on T&S. [But others have and will accuse me of such.] In fact, it was through such left-&-back-handed tactics that many a brain-dead supporter of such were handled and dealt with on T&S by me.
<br>
<br>Demonstrating my objectivity in the matter, were I a paid agent -- no longer on no planes, no longer on Dr. Wood but today -- for blatantly rattling the saddle of my hobby-horse in these here parts, I could think of many ways in which I could be more effective, like in increasing my output from its present 4% in this thread to, say, 29.3% just on this forum alone.
<br>
<br>Another option would be to create my own "A.Wright"-sockpuppet just for my hobby-horse that I could dutifully battle and vanquish regularly.
<br>
<br>And my! Seems like I'd be shooting holes in my Agent 86 shoe-phones with my legacy and demeanor: consistency, courtesy, respect, integrity, objectivity, persistance, and an ability to change opinions. [My views have morphed when presented with new information, which is difficult for real agents with agendas to demonstrate.]
<br>
<br>So, yeah. I'll try on that agency shoe and hobble around for you with my best, batting-eye "come-hither" look, but double-oh-seven don't really fit. Instead, I embrace the label <i>"duped useful idiot"</i>, but made sure that what duped me (... err, <b><i>"convinced me"</i></b>) was evidence and proper analysis; and that all alternative theories would be rationally considered in the hopes that their evidence and their proper analysis would be more convincing (and I could be duped another way.)
<br>
<br>What I earnestly sought was rational, objective discussion. Particularly in my hobby-horse area(s).
<br>
<br>Instead I'm called a <i>"clown"</i>, and <i>"bullshit"</i> is the label eagerly applied to that of which I have been convinced.
<br>
<br>*That* is the treatment I get, as it tries to set the negative tone and establish the agenda: that of a flame war on T&S to distract.
<br>
<br>Gosh darn it! Where's that agency shoe I just took off? Maybe we should slap that on somebody else!
<br>
<br>+++
<br>
<br>The only questions left in reader's minds are:
<br>
<br>Why didn't Mr. Rogue ignore me?
<br>
<br>Indeed, why did Mr. Rogue ~have~ to reply to (or about) me?
<br>
<br>Why couldn't he have ignored my errant comment in the middle of all 174 comments?
<br>
<br>Why couldn't he have rested on the laurels (a) of eight of the last nine comments at bottom or (b) of his commanding 29.3% of the total comments.
<br>
<br><i>"By their fruits ye shall know them..."</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Do we really need a 'progress report' on this bullshit...?</p></blockquote>
<p>Oooo, yeah, baby!
<br>
<br>Watch out for the back-fire!
<br>
<br>//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_210');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 210 -->
<a name="x211"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x211" class="tiny">x211</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_211');">COMMENT REMOVED: I have a feeling</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-19</p>
<div id="sect_211" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30545">February 19, 2015 at 9:20 pm</a>
<br>{mcb: Comment as edited by Mr. Craig McKee.}
<br>
<br>COMMENT REMOVED – This comment was a response to a comment that was removed.-CM
<br>
<br>{mcb: Original comment as submitted by Mr. Rogue.}
<br>
<br>Mr Once, I have a feeling you have just submerged yourself in a vat of boiling water.
<br>
<br>I refer to the fact that Mr McKee has removed your comment of February 16, 2015 at 5:50 pm
<br>
<br>Which is much less verbose and insulting to Craig’s stated wishes than this current one.
<br>
<br>Yes indeed Mr Once, Watch out for the back-fire.
<br>\\][//</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_211');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 211 -->
<a name="x212"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x212" class="tiny">x212</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_212');">more of his anal hurlants</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-18</p>
<div id="sect_212" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5529">2015-02-18</a>
<br>
<br>I notice the Maxitwat has posted more of his anal hurlant on T&S.
<br>
<br>Nobody gives a shit about his rocking horse nookiedoodoo. He should just fuck off and fade away like a good little troll.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30534">February 19, 2015 at 6:50 am</a>
<br>
<br>Do we really need a ‘progress report’ on this bullshit that has already been determined to be off limits on this thread?
<br>Another slinky underhanded advertisement for this clown’s rocking horse.
<br>
<br>And every fucking time he has to bring my name into his junk-pile rhetoric.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5540">2015-02-19</a>
<br>
<br>Max, you are out of your fucking mind!!!
<br>
<br>Seriously you are a blithering idiot! You need to be put in restraints and sedated. You are a danger to yourself and those around you.
<br>
<br>I don’t know why the fuck Craig puts up with your flaming bullshit…
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30545">February 19, 2015 at 9:20 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Mr Once, I have a feeling you have just submerged yourself in a vat of boiling water.
<br>
<br>I refer to the fact that Mr McKee has removed your comment of February 16, 2015 at 5:50 pm
<br>
<br>Which is much less verbose and insulting to Craig’s stated wishes than this current one.
<br>
<br>Yes indeed Mr Once, Watch out for the back-fire.
<br>\\][//
<br>
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_212');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 212 -->
<a name="x213"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x213" class="tiny">x213</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_213');">you respond and keep things going</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-19</p>
<div id="sect_213" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30546">February 19, 2015 at 9:29 pm</a>
<br>
<br>And every time you respond and keep things going. Perhaps it would be more effective to led me deal with what is on and off topic.</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_213');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 213 -->
<a name="x214"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x214" class="tiny">x214</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_214');">grit me teeth</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-19</p>
<div id="sect_214" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30547">February 19, 2015 at 9:38 pm</a>
<br>
<br>My apologies Craig.
<br>
<br>It just makes me grit me teeth.
<br>\\][//</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_214');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 214 -->
<a name="x215"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x215" class="tiny">x215</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_215');">link is required as a relief value</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-20</p>
<div id="sect_215" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: email to Mr. McKee}
<br>
<br>
Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>What's done is done. I do you the favor of an off-list message rather than escalating on the blog(s). As always, I harbor no ill will against you for your editorial actions. I'll even show you my cards in the course of this message so that you can mentally prepare.
<br>
<br>You wrote in your editing:
</p><blockquote>"Least of all do I want a comment that lets readers know where they can read opinions that I previously removed here."<p></p></blockquote>
<p>I disagree. The link is required as a relief value, particularly as you clamp down on certain themes and if you want to avoid an all out flame wars on your turf.
<br>
<br>I have always maintained that links should be considered a secondary playing field with different rules and allowances.
<br>
<br>Why is it that you don't want readers knowing where they can read opinions that you removed from T&S? That's sort of overstepping your bounds, and puts you into the role of a censure and gate-keeper. Rather ironic.
<br>
<br>
<br>Let me show you some of my cards. Mr. Rogue over the course of our discussions has discredited himself: <i>"liar, cheat, weasel"</i> and substantiated. Although I hope for other outcomes, I expect that Mr. Ruff is going to fail his in-progress objectivity test as well: <i>"blow-hard, liar, hypocrite</i>". You should note that, if these aren't the only nay-sayers of nookiedoo, they are certainly the most vocal, and lately with mostly colorful ad hominem. Yet the words of both of them can't be trusted, because they haven't been <i>"faithful in the small things."</i>
<br>
<br>I've already pin-pointed the weaknesses in what Dr. Harrit peddled to you in your interview. I'm just waiting for an appropriate opportunity and enjoying the lull. Neu Nookiedoo unchained can put hoof-prints into the asses of Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, Dr. Harrit, Richard Gage, and a good portion of the leaders of the A&E9/11 Truth group.
<br>
<br>Unfortunately, I can see where your writing contract gigs with A&E9/11 may now give you some conflict of interest. Might also be a factor in some of your deeper editorial moves (against me).
<br>
<br>I have endeavored to write words worthy of preservation, because I knew I was going to re-purpose them, to own them, to stand behind them. I didn't always advertise that I was doing this, but anybody googling my alias would quickly find this out. It has become a pretty formidable tool.
<br>
<br>Just be careful, Mr. McKee, because when those latter-day lurkers eventually find my worthy words, you don't want that collection to reveal a pattern of your gate-keeping on my hobby horse subject, particularly when it was laid out in a rational, objective, manner and particularly when it is a subject that you fence-sit. (Still surprises me. My efforts ought to have tipped you one way or another.)
<br>
<br>Now that you've demonstrated your prowess in editing the comments of others, <b>I humbly ask you to:</b>
<br>
<br>(1) Revisit the February 16, 2015 at 5:50 pm comment.
<br>
<br>(2) [Optional] Remove your sentence "Least of all do I want a comment that lets readers know where they can read opinions that I previously removed here."
<br>
<br>(3) Add the link:
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html</a>
<br>
<br>(4) Done. And nobody who is prone to unhingement will probably even notice.
<br>
<br>Consider it a good-faith compromise and the needed relief value.
<br>
<br>Without the link -- without the compromise --, the religiously fanatic in me will always have me bounding back and inserting it in every (n-th) thing I post. I'm unemployed at the moment: you don't want me making "a project" out of T&S to consume my time and make you work much much harder at reigning me in.
<br>
<br>Not in either of our best interests for us to partake in such petty games.
<br>
<br>So why the link? The link is the other venue demanded by Mr. Ruff and that also holds Mr. Ruff accountable for his boastful words from January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm.
<br>
<br>Has to be done, Mr. McKee, so that the trolls can be identified and separated.
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, Mr. McKee, I believe I'm following Truth. I make no apologies for what I champion (today... until evidence and more proper analysis convinces me of something else.) If you aren't going to field an appropriate venue for a rational discussion on my hobby-horse, then you'll have to watch me closely for what I sneak in.
<br>
<br>Mr. Adam Ruff, Mr. Adam Syed, and you have all re-published Facebook exchanges in the pursuit of on-line truth with Mr. Ken Doc (and Mr. Mike Collins). In a fair and just world, I could re-publishe my Facebook exchanges with Mr. Doc and Mr. Collins. Let me place the playing card on the table for you to see:
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html">http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html</a>
<br>
<br>Take the wind out of my sails by publishing the link (<a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html">first one above</a>) for me as part of the compromise. Then I'll just let Mr. Rogue troll on, trolling on... without me.
<br>
<br>
<br>Have a great weekend.
<br>
<br>//</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_215');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 215 -->
<a name="x221"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x221" class="tiny">x221</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_221');">sincere hopes to publicly change his mind</a></b></p>
<p>2015-03-06</p>
<div id="sect_221" style="display: none;">
<p>Upon reviewing Andre Gsponer's work from 2005 <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects</a> and his pre-9/11 work, Mr. Adam Ruff has my sincere hopes to publicly change his mind -- or at least hop onto the fence -- with regards to 9/11 nuclear DEW devices playing significant roles at the WTC. He could say words like:
<br>
<br><i>"I was shocked to discover through my research -- seeded by Mr. SEO -- that time delays in sampling, small numbers of samples, and scope-limited reports indeed provide sufficient wiggle room in the evidence analysis to make plausible the involvement of 4th generation nuclear devices on 9/11 at the WTC. I was personally disappointed to learn how lacking were the good faith estimates into chemical based destruction methods by various PhD's, how absurd the implied quantities, and how pitiful the nuclear considerations."</i>
<br>
<br>The above could be how Mr. Ruff saves face and demonstrates some integrity.
<br>
<br>But this doesn't appear to be how Mr. Ruff is presently playing his cards.
<br>
<br>Walt Disney wrote: <i>"<b>Everyone needs deadlines.</b> Even the beavers. They loaf around all summer, but when they are faced with the winter deadline, they work like fury. If we didn’t have deadlines, we’d stagnate."</i>
<br>
<br>Hence, over a month ago, Mr. Ruff was given multiple times a deadline of March 1 for his DEW debunking master piece. With that date now already blown by and the clock run out, no where do we have Mr. Ruff's analysis nor any courteous request along the lines:
<br>
<br><i>"I'm reviewing your links but am not finished with my analysis and write-up. Might you be so kind as to grant me a humble extension of ____ days?"</i>
<br>
<br>Nope.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff is on the fast-track to failing his objectivity test administered above and thereby may legitimately earn the descriptive labels: <i>"blow-hard, liar, hypocrite."</i> And to think that it all started with these ironic bloviating comments?
<br>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30235">2014-01-27 at 5:09 am</a>
<br><i>"We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus."</i>
<br>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30259">January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm</a>
<br><i>"SEO {...} choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy. So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all."</i>
<br>
<br>// Part 1/2
<br>
<br>Part 2/2
<br>
<br>One month ago, I wrote as a well intentioned warning in <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x20">Saving face and the pickle you're in:</a>
<br><i>+++ begin
<br>{Mr. Ruff,} you boasted the claim of intent to post the definitive set of links (and/or author the definitive verbiage?) that debunks whole genres (Dr. Wood & Holograms); and I'm having you pony-up. Otherwise if you default or fail, I will gain considerable leverage over your integrity under the meme <b>"boastful lying hypocrite"</b> etc., something I am loathe to use and is just another distracting detour from my hobby-horse...
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood's work can't be debunked without acknowledging nuggets of truth, which ends up serving as an effective objectivity test. <b>"Faithful in the small, faithful in the large..."</b> It can be a risk to your character if mishandled. ...
<br>
<br>I did not relish shalacking Mr. Rogue with <b>"liar, cheat, and weasel,"</b> because my earnest desire was an objective discussion. ... I do not wish a similar fate for you, Mr. Ruff. ... Take this somewhat seriously and apply some earnest effort. [Or back out now.]
<br>+++ end</i>
<br>
<br>
<br>Nope. Instead, Mr. Ruff makes more ironic statements on Truth & Shadows.
<br>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/sun-news-goes-bust/#comment-30697">March 5, 2015 at 5:23 am</a>
<br><i>"So it has naturally degenerated into a cess pit of Stalinist selective censorship {...} huh? Sad to see another potentially good place for 9/11 truth go down the crapper the same way 911Blahhhger did. It is embarrassing for those who run the place although some of them are just willfully blind about why they should be embarrassed."</i>
<br>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/sun-news-goes-bust/#comment-30663">February 28, 2015 at 6:54 am</a>
<br><i>"I have to say though that the group is of no use if people cannot even discuss the evidence and disagree with {...} without getting booted with no warning?"</i>
<br>
<br><a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/sun-news-goes-bust/#comment-30698">March 5, 2015 at 5:38 am</a>
<br><i>"I think 9/11 trolls do what they do not only to waste our time but also and perhaps more importantly to make us feel hopeless and defeated and to wear us out."</i>
<br>
<br>How many total times was a <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">link to Andre Gsponer's work into Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons</a> run under Mr. Ruff's nose that he ignored yet boasted about wanting to review and debunk? What about his trollish attempt to waste time that I shut down with <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x18">Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite</a>?
<br>
<br>So far, I am mighty disappointed. Zip was presented by Mr. Ruff, thus literally nothing that could change anyone's mind. Except in their trust and esteem in Mr. Ruff himself.
<br>
<br>I still hold out hopes for Mr. Ruff to save some face and his integrity.
<br>
<br>// Part 2/2
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_221');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 221 -->
<a name="x222"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x222" class="tiny">x222</a>
Adam Ruff & hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_222');">never ending bullshit carousel</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5722">2015-03-07</a></p>
<div id="sect_222" style="display: none;">
<p>M. C. Bruecke has left a new comment on the post “Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices”:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Part 2/2
<br>
<br>One month ago, I wrote as a well intentioned warning in Saving face and the pickle you’re in:
<br>+++ begin
<br>{Mr. Ruff,} you boasted the claim of intent to post the definitive set of links (and/or author the definitive verbiage?) that debunks whole genres (Dr. Wood & Holograms); and I’m having you pony-up. Otherwise if you default or fail, I will gain considerable leverage over your integrity under the meme “boastful lying hypocrite” etc., something I am loathe to use and is just another distracting detour from my hobby-horse…
<br>
<br>Dr. Wood’s work can’t be debunked without acknowledging nuggets of truth, which ends up serving as an effective objectivity test. “Faithful in the small, faithful in the large…” It can be a risk to your character if mishandled. …
<br>
<br>I did not relish shalacking Mr. Rogue with “liar, cheat, and weasel,” because my earnest desire was an objective discussion. … I do not wish a similar fate for you, Mr. Ruff. … Take this somewhat seriously and apply some earnest effort. [Or back out now.]
<br>+++ end</p></blockquote>
<p>____________________________________________________________________________________
<br>
<br>Maxwell,
<br>
<br>I find it amusing that you think your opinion of me is somehow important. I don’t consider it important at all and I really do not think there are many people out there who do consider your rantings and ravings important either. So as far as I am concerned you can proceed with whatever contrived BS statements you want to make about me to whoever you want to make them to. You slander me though and all bets are off. I doubt there is anyone out there who will give a shit what you say about me. I originally said I would debunk Judy Wood and hologram planes and that is what I agreed to “debate” you about. You quickly and very deceitfully attempted to change the debate to nukes. I pointed out you moved the goal posts, which you did, and then I said I would get around to debunking the nukes meme when I had time to do so. I have not had time to do so properly yet, and to be frank with you, you are very low on my priority list and I am involved with other things that are far more important to me. I will eventually get to it but it will be on my time frame not yours and your attempt to badger me is useless because I do not value your opinion AT ALL nor do I care what you say to others about me. I will tell you this right now though:
<br>
<br>The nuke theory is stupid and unprovable disinformation because there is literally no physical evidence at all that you can point to which shows conclusively that nukes were used at the WTC. On the other hand there is all sorts of physical and eye witness evidence that explosives and incendiaries such as thermite/nano thermite were used. You also have no actual verifiable evidence that these 4th generation nuke devices are anything more than theoretical at this point in time let alone in 2001. Yes there are scientists talking about them but do they actually exist in physical reality? You have no proof they do. Furthermore you have no eye witnesses to such devices nor any video evidence which shows anything other than that which can be easily explained by conventional explosives and incendiaries. In other words you haven’t got shit to back up your speculations with. Finally there is no physical need to use nukes in the first place to bring down the WTC buildings since conventional explosives and incendiaries could do the job just fine. There was therefore no logical reason to leave behind a radiological signature from a nuclear device that could be traced back to a source reactor and possibly expose the responsible parties. It would have been moronic to use nukes for that exact reason because it could be traced back to a specific reactor. So your disinformation was DOA in the first place for all these reasons and a few others but since you are literally OCD to an extreme level you will never be capable of admitting your mistake or stopping your OCD behavior of pushing this crappola. At this point you are like an insane priest spouting biblical revelations as though it is all literally coming true right now. You will NEVER stop because you can’t stop. At any rate this is all the time I have for you now.”~Adam Ruff
<br>. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<br>The never ending bullshit carousel of the Maxifuckanus… what a bore. Mr Ruff should just shine on this lunatic and let him bounce around his rubber-room at his blog.
<br>\\][//
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_222');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 222 -->
<a name="x224"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x224" class="tiny">x224</a>
James 1:19, 22-25 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_224');">swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath</a></b></p>
<p>2015-02-20</p>
<div id="sect_224" style="display: none;">
<p>James 1:19, 22-25
<br>
<br>19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
<br>
<br>22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
<br>
<br>23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
<br>
<br>24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
<br>
<br>25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_224');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 224 -->
<a name="x225"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x225" class="tiny">x225</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_225');">Mickey Mouse Games</a></b></p>
<p>2015-03-10</p>
<div id="sect_225" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1426018983614#c5713095926571147401">Part 1/7</a>
<br>
<br>Backstory:
<br>Mr. Ruff boasted of his debunking prowess.
<br>Mr. Ruff is among the some who would say that my nuclear DEW hobby-horse needs to be debunked.
<br>Mr. Ruff's bluff was called.
<br>Mr. Ruff boasted to choose a venue, although he had opportunities and was encouraged to establish the venue himself, such as through his Facebook page.
<br>Mr. Ruff was given links to my blog from T&S [since removed] and then emails [once permission granted for sharing contact info.]
<br>Mr. Ruff took more than one email before he availed himself of his ability to make comments under the designated blog posting.
<br>Mr. Ruff required a considerable amount of reasoning before Mr. Ruff conceded to a shift in topic to my hobby-horse [e.g., his reputation would get punked if he mishandled the Wood debunking.]
<br>Mr. Ruff was provided a March deadline multiple times starting in January, either for the initial delivery of the "debunking product" or for a request for an extension.
<br>Mr. Ruff over ran his deadline without as much as a courteous request for an extension.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff was notified through <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1425668529516#c5143220199231872808">a blog comment (2015-03-06)</a> that such discourteous behavior to an earnest attempt at a rational discussion would not weigh favorably on his character [and standing in the debate] in the judging minds of the morbidly-curious, latter-day, lurker-readers.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff allegedly responded within twelve hours.
<br>
<br>- Not as a replying comment on my blog.
<br>- Not as an email to me.
<br>- Not as a comment initiated by Mr. Ruff to Mr. Rogue's blog.
<br>- But as [an email notification of] <a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-5722">a comment made by Mr. Rogue to his blog (2015-03-07)</a> under Mr. Rogue's wonderful thread dedicated to me as being an alleged <i>"agitprop disinformant"</i>. This blog comment made by Mr. Rogue contained a passage supposedly authored by Mr. Ruff and addressed to me!
<br>
<br>If one looks at the communication path a bit squinty-eyed, it has almost the appearance of a <i>"sockpuppet fail,"</i> but let's not.
<br>
<br>These Mickey Mouse games of avoiding a direct, on point, on time, on blog discussion are becoming telling of Mr. Ruff's character that readers can deduce for themselves. But let's set this aside, too.
<br>
<br>Due to the communication path, some doubt could exist in the accuracy or authorship of the passages attributed to Mr. Ruff in Mr. Rogue's comment. Therefore, the following assumes the validity of Mr. Ruff's words and takes them at face value. If this assumption proves invalid, an apology, retraction, and modification to the following will be made.
<br>
<br>// Part 1/7
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1426018999221#c7170704249224877174">Part 2/7</a>
<br>
<br>I will now decompose relevant statements from Mr. Ruff's reply. Mr. Ruff began with [A]:
<br><i>"I find it amusing that you think your opinion of me is somehow important."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff doesn't get it. It doesn't matter what I think. What matters are our actions and how others will judge them. Mr. Ruff is game playing, and puts himself on the fast track to not just losing the debate before it even can get started, but of impugning his own character and reputation that will flag him an unreliable if untrustworthy participant in all further discussions.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff writes [B]:
<br><i>"I don’t consider [SEO's opinion of Mr. Ruff] important at all... "</i>
<br>
<br>This cavelier attitude is apparent. And it is also contradicted by his later words.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [C]:
<br><i>"... and I really do not think there are many people out there who do consider your rantings and ravings important either."</i>
<br>
<br>I commend Mr. Ruff for this hynotic suggestion. Today, perhaps his statement is true. Mr. Ruff underestimates legacy and what distant tomorrows might bring when this discussion gets linked in.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [D]:
<br><i>"So as far as I am concerned you can proceed with whatever contrived BS statements you want to make about me to whoever you want to make them to. You slander me though and all bets are off."</i>
<br>
<br>Were it not for the fact that <i>"slander"</i> is verbal and <i>"libel"</i> is written -- a mistake that Mr. Rogue always makes, too, despite correction --, these [D] statements are contridicted by Mr. Ruff's [B] statements.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff need not worry about defamation of his character through libel (much less slander) from me. Why? Because defamation implies an element of unsubstantiation.
<br>
<br>What Mr. Ruff needs to worry about are the substantiated instances of Mr. Ruff's integrity not measuring up [to standards that Mr. Ruff in cases laid forth himself], which then would make negative statements about Mr. Ruff <i>"valid character assessments"</i> and not defamation or libel at all.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [E]:
<br><i>"I doubt there is anyone out there who will give a shit what you say about me."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff is entitled to his doubts about the readership numbers, but he should not play his cards as if it were a done deal for all time.
<br>
<br>// Part 2/7
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1426019262943#c2571273387822814691">Part 3/7</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [F]:
<br><i>"I originally said I would debunk Judy Wood and hologram planes and that is what I agreed to "debate" you about. You quickly and very deceitfully attempted to change the debate to nukes. I pointed out you moved the goal posts, which you did, ..."</i>
<br>
<br>(1) Mr. Ruff was going to fumble the ball spectacularly in debunking Dr. Judy Wood -- like Mr. Rogue before him -- and suffer massive casualties to his reputation for his shoddy efforts. The stoic manner in which Mr. Ruff refused to read Dr. Wood's book already pegged his objectivity at an unbecoming level and practically guarantees a poor personal outcome. Even though I would have been the ride operator, out of kindness to us both, I sought harmonious ways to prevent the need for cranking that carousel.
<br>
<br>(2) Mr. Ruff's attempts to cement the discussion goal posts at Dr. Wood and hologram planes is a straw-man ploy and red-herring. Dr. Wood did not take her published research far enough and was never considered the end-station, so it is deceitful to limit rational discussion to its bounds.
<br>
<br>(3) Mr. Ruff misses the destinction that <i>"the DEW issue"</i> does not have to constrain itself to power sources suggested or hand-waved by Dr. Wood. <i>"The DEW issue"</i> encompasses nuclear power sources as well. Most of the devices considered <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf">Fourth Generation Nuclear devices</a> fall into the category of DEW.
<br>
<br>It wasn't out of <i>"deceit"</i> but out of <b><i>"mercy and kindness"</i></b> that I strongly encouraged modifying the boundaries of the debate to the more productive realm of nuclear DEW, to which Mr. Ruff already had agreed to discuss twice.
<br>
<br>In this discussion, let that be the last time that Mr. Ruff cranks the <i>"moving goal posts"</i> carousel [as a weak attempt to smear my character and to get out of discussion my hobby-horse.] Nuclear DEW should have been always on the table in considering <i>"the DEW issue"</i>.
<br>
<br>(4) Moreover, it isn't as if the nuclear DEW goal post hasn't been in the playing field and inteferring with Mr. Ruff's game for quite some time. <a href="https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/guy-fawkes-the-gunpowder-plot-and-how-false-flag-operations-have-shaped-history/#comment-14614">November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am</a>, Mr. Ruff boasted:
<br>
<br>+++ begin quote<i>
<br> One such issue where I have been negligent due to my “burn out” is the DEW issue. I have failed to fully explain and illustrate for the uninitiated ... exactly why and how Judy Wood’s theory is wrong. I am going to change that. ... I therefore propose that those of us who wish to collaborate on a decisive debunk of DEW thoeries do so... From then onward we can simply provide the link to that debunk instead of re-arguing the case over and over. I want to do this ONCE more and never again. I did this years ago on the Randi Rhodes blog but that vast archive was lost and all my careful work debunking DEW’s was lost as well. This time I intend to keep a copy myself. ... I ask HR1 and OSS specifically if they would like to collaborate with me on such a project?
<br></i>+++ end quote
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff did not ask me to participate. Pity, because I could have provided them point-by-point all of the things that they needed to address in order to be able to claim a complete and thorough debunking.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff obviously has had no follow-through, nor meat, nor substance to his blovicating from late 2012. Otherwise in theory by now, Mr. Ruff could have boasted about having the definitive Wood debunk with actual substantiating URLs right in the comment.
<br>
<br>But let us set that all aside, too, and not let Mr. Ruff's personal failings from 2012 (until now) taint this fresh opportunity for Mr. Ruff to deliver on his debunking promises within a reasonable time frame.
<br>
<br>// Part 3/7
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1426019281642#c4782114242188052556">Part 4/7</a>
<br>
<br>Back to the present, Mr. Ruff wrote [G]:
<br><i>"... and then I said I would get around to debunking the nukes meme when I had time to do so. I have not had time to do so properly yet,... "</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff is given the benefit of the doubt regarding his available time to do a proper analysis. Given that even Walt Disney wrote <i>"everyone needs deadlines,"</i> then Mr. Ruff should have respectfully communicated his status, the new delivery dates, and a request for an extension ON THE BLOG where it was relevant in order to avoid being accused of playing Mickey Mouse games.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [H]:
<br><i>"and to be frank with you, you are very low on my priority list and I am involved with other things that are far more important to me. I will eventually get to it but it will be on my time frame not yours ..."</i>
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, though, if Mr. Ruff is going to <i>"eventually get to it"</i> on <i>"his time frame,"</i> Mr. Ruff is expected at the least to document that time frame with actual calendar dates. When does Mr. Ruff expect to <i>"eventually get to it"</i>?
<br>
<br>Without a concrete commitment to new deadlines [yet to be provided by Mr. Ruff himself], then all Mr. Ruff is doing above is running out the clock in his blovicating, Micky Mouse games.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [I]:
<br><i>"... and your attempt to badger me is useless..."</i>
<br>
<br>If Mr. Ruff had good intentions, my words would be called simply a <i>"friendly reminder"</i>. Bad-faith intentions on not doing squat would find it necessary to label the reminder as <i>"badgering".</i>
<br>
<br><i>"... because I do not value your opinion AT ALL nor do I care what you say to others about me."</i>
<br>
<br>Contradicted by the existence of the alleged message to me.
<br>
<br>Maybe Mr. Ruff should value my opinion and what is truthfully written about him and substantiated, in the hopes that it might improve Mr. Ruff's reasoning, debating, and following-through skills.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [J]:
<br><i>"I will tell you this right now though: The nuke theory is stupid and unprovable disinformation because there is literally no physical evidence at all that you can point to which shows conclusively that nukes were used at the WTC."</i>
<br>
<br>What is <i>"the nuke theory"</i> to which Mr. Ruff alludes? There are many -- as many nuclear DEW devices as are given the <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071">4th generation nuclear device document.</a> Were Mr. Ruff to wade into the specifics, he would have a hard time proving any of them <i>"stupid,"</i> although he might find himself stupid in understanding them and some of them not applicable to 9/11 at the WTC.
<br>
<br>Unprovable? Mr. Ruff has obviously not been reading anything I've written, a re-occurring theme and an early indication that Mr. Ruff is not debating in good-faith.
<br>
<br><i>"No physical evidence"</i> is a two-edge sword that does more damage against nano-thermite than it does against nuclear DEW.
<br>
<br>- Show me where the RJ Lee Group, the USGS analysis on the dust, and Paul Lioy reports prove the existence of NT in the dust. They don't have it; only Dr. Jones' dust samples do. Yet NT is supposed to be the source of the pulverization as well as the hot-spot duration!
<br>
<br>- Show me where Dr. Jones and AE9/11 Truth analyze Dr. Jones's dust samples for other explosive elements that Dr. Jones speculated was used with NT to make pulveration possible. Dr. Jones admits in September 2012 that something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT. Where's the analysis into that?
<br>
<br>The delays and data gaps in the various reports were sufficiently large to allow whole classes of 4th generation nuclear (DEW) devices to stretch out and have a party, supposedly undetected.
<br>
<br>The report on Tritium and Dr. Cahill's air sampling stand in direct opposition to Mr. Ruff's boastful <i>"no physical evidence"</i> hypnotic suggestion.
<br>
<br>// Part 4/7
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1426019325699#c6056009340927747143">Part 5/7</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [K]:
<br><i>"On the other hand there is all sorts of physical and eye witness evidence that explosives and incendiaries such as thermite/nano thermite were used."</i>
<br>
<br>The above is a glaring misrepresentation.
<br>
<br>(1) The eye witness evidence only alludes to hearing and seeing explosions. Nuclear DEW might not be immune from having an audio signature that sounded and look like explosions.
<br>
<br>(2) The use of thermite/nano-thermite isn't questioned in these discussions. What is questioned if it could be considered the primary mechanisms of destruction, or if the 9/11 Truth Movement should continue looking for the true primary mechanisms? As Dr. Jones is considered a God to the 9/11 Truth Movement, he repeatedly declared <i>"something was mixed with NT"</i> and <i>"something else maintained the hot-spots (not just NT)."</i> Yet these words haven't been heeded by most.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [L]:
<br><i>"You also have no actual verifiable evidence that these 4th generation nuke devices are anything more than theoretical at this point in time let alone in 2001. Yes there are scientists talking about them but do they actually exist in physical reality? You have no proof they do."</i>
<br>
<br>Ho-hum, this is a repeat of previous statements from Mr. Ruff in this discussion, so <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1423594037142#c5904900773147136888"> here was my response</a>.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [M]:
<br><i>"Furthermore you have no eye witnesses to such devices nor any video evidence which shows anything other than that which can be easily explained by conventional explosives and incendiaries."</i>
<br>
<br>Involvement of conventional explosives and incendiaries isn't the issue, and maybe some of the observed squibs can be attributed to this.
<br>
<br>Exact opposite to what Mr. Ruff wrote: the issue is that the evidence in total is <b>~not~</b> <i>"easily explained by conventional explosives and incendiaries."</i> They don't go the distance in accounting for the duration of hot-spots, in addition to having literally massive logistics hurdles. They do <b>~not~</b> have representation in the reports, yet evidence of nuclear hijinx slips out even when the reports are scope-limited and skewed in their data collection.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [N]:
<br><i>"In other words you haven’t got shit to back up your speculations with."</i>
<br>
<br>Another glaring example of Mr. Ruff spouting his mouth off without having read anything written by me or referenced by others.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [O]:
<br><i>"Finally there is no physical need to use nukes in the first place to bring down the WTC buildings since conventional explosives and incendiaries could do the job just fine."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff should publish the calculations from Dr. Jones (and Dr. Harrit) regarding their estimations on the amount of said materials needed to account for (a) the observed overkill pulverization and (b) the duration of hot-spots. (Assuming something is found) These amounts are massive and explain very clearly to the math oriented that they represent an unreasonable logistics hurdle that is made even more difficult by the scant few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday prior to 9/11.
<br>
<br>// Part 5/7
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1426019361043#c3126970511072052957">Part 6/7</a>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [P]:
<br><i>"There was therefore no logical reason to leave behind a radiological signature from a nuclear device that could be traced back to a source reactor and possibly expose the responsible parties."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff gets dinged again for proving that he did not read my material, because radiological signatures are discussed. They vary depending upon the actual nuclear device, and can certainly slip into the delays in sample taking, shoddy sampling, and other skew introduced to reports as well as security clamp-down at the WTC that prevented even the investigations and analysis by professional Fire Investigators from the fire departments.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff gets dinged for not having any imagination when writing his <i>"no logical reason"</i> statement. The logical reasons were:
<br>
<br>(a) A half dozen 4th gen nuclear DEW per tower would be logistically easier to implement in a short time frame than the needed massive amounts of conventional explosives and incendiaries [required to achieve the observed overkill].
<br>
<br>(b) Generals and Majors with itchy trigger-fingers were literally just dying to use devices from their arsenals and prove the concept of "low radiation nuclear weapons."
<br>
<br>(c) They controlled the WTC, the media, the committees, the reports. They can and did tell the public whatever they want the public to believe.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [Q]:
<br><i>"It would have been moronic to use nukes for that exact reason because it could be traced back to a specific reactor."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff spreads misinformation with his misunderstanding and munging together of nuclear topics. Mr. Ruff's statement applies to some nuclear devices, but not all.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff [R]:
<br><i>"So your disinformation was DOA in the first place for all these reasons and a few others ..."</i>
<br>
<br>Oh the wonders of modern truth! What once was considered DOA has been revived, point-by-point, and the signs of death were clearly, purposely, and disceitfully interpretted... by someone playing cowardly and repetitive games.
<br>
<br>Mr. Ruff's [S] concluding remarks:
<br><i>"... but since you are literally OCD to an extreme level you will never be capable of admitting your mistake or stopping your OCD behavior of pushing this crappola. At this point you are like an insane priest spouting biblical revelations as though it is all literally coming true right now. You will NEVER stop because you can’t stop. At any rate this is all the time I have for you now."</i>
<br>
<br>// Part 6/7
<br>
<br><a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1426019418235#c1055623646232523707">Part 7/7</a>
<br>
<br>Because Mr. Ruff's comments to me weren't sent to me or made to my blog, but instead were inside a comment from Mr. Rogue on Mr. Rogue's blog, Mr. Rogue comments get to be studied as well. Mr. Rogue wrote [T]:
<br><i>"The never ending bullshit carousel of the Maxifuckanus... what a bore. Mr Ruff should just shine on this lunatic and let him bounce around his rubber-room at his blog."</i>
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue continued with [U]:
<br>+++ begin quote
<br><i>Adam, The key to this whole argument is in the title of Maxitwat’s prize source for his info on the topic of fourth generation nuclear weapons.
<br>The term “Quest” is the operative word here. The military is hoping to someday achieve such weaponry. It is speculative at the current level of research.
<br>
<br>I have notified the twat about this countless times, that the whole thing is conjecture and speculation. Just like his whole “theory” it is speculative fiction at this point. “Speculative Fiction” is popularly known as “Science Fiction”, and that is what Maxhole is trying to sell with his Nookiedoodool nonsense.
<br></i>+++ end quote
<br>
<br>The above is a classic cheat from Mr. Rogue. How many different 4th generation weapons were discussed in Andre Gsponer's work? Mr. Rogue doesn't say. He hasn't analyzed a single one of them. No indication is given that Mr. Rogue even read the work beyond its title, where the word <i>"quest"</i> seems to trip him up, as if the debate can be won on a technicality.
<br>
<br>Having only a high school education, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue are both crippled by ~not~ knowing the wonders contained within any decent university's engineering, math, and science library. Much of it won't be found on Google (although this changes every day). But even before a researcher smacks against barriers of <i>"national security," "need-to-know," "with approval"</i> in researching nuclear themes, the scope and abilities of nuclear devices in what is "public" makes clearer what is and isn't "Speculative Fiction" on the <i>"quest continuum"</i> for low-radiation nuclear devices. The good PhD's of the 9/11 Truth Movement are expected to have better research skills (if not minions to do the legwork) at the very university libraries they walked passed daily, yet very little research was provided into the existing literature in the shoddy reports offered to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
<br>
<br>// Part 7/7
</p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_225');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 225 -->
<a name="x227"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x227" class="tiny">x227</a>
Maxwell Bridges : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_227');">Mr. Ruff's reputation and integrity are reaching the lows of Mr. Rogue</a></b></p>
<p>2015-03-14</p>
<div id="sect_227" style="display: none;">
<p>{Portions of an email.}
<br>
<br>[T]hank you for the idling opportunity.
<br>
<br>I'm writing to fill [lurker readers] in on some "Mickey Mouse" activity of two most-vocal regulars that I know morbid curiosity will have it read. <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html?showComment=1426018983614#c5713095926571147401"> This link shows no deviation in the trend line for boastful Mr. Ruff and what he was being called on.</a> He has not delivered on that on which he promised. He's run out the clock once already.
<br>
<br>As it stands now, Mr. Ruff's reputation and integrity are reaching the lows of Mr. Rogue. With his present course, he'll be legitimately flagged as an unreliable if untrustworthy participant in all further discussions.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
<p><a class="jsexpand" href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_227');">Hide Above</a></p>
</div><!-- section 227 -->
</div> <!-- sect_part5 -->
<hr>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
<br>Toggle - <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part4');">Part 1: Historical Exchanges with Mr. Ruff</a>
<br>Toggle - <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_part5');">Part 2: Bloviating Mr. Ruff's Flumuxed 2nd Chance to ~not~ be a Hypocrite</a>
</p>
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-58030171484394672662015-01-11T11:11:00.000-08:002015-01-16T10:32:24.488-08:00Hypnotic Suggestion: Nuclear Case Closed<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
</p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<a name="x18"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x18" class="tiny">x18</a>
Señor El Once: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">Intro: Hypnotic Nuclear Innuendo</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-14</p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: block;">
<p>If my discussions with Mr. Rogue were a tennis match with energetic back-and-forth volleys, I'd be saying -- and have for quite some time -- <i>"the ball's in your court, <b>love.</b>"</i>
<br>
<br>
The way I see it, our many exchanges early in our relationship helped hone my case. This was laid down in two similar articles: <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html">1. <i>"Nuclear 2001-09-11"</i></a>, <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/01/nuclear-9112001-for-vt.html">2. <i>"Nuclear 9/11/2001 (for VT)"</i></a>. Since then, my beliefs have deviated somewhat, but these remain core elements of 4th generation nukes. They have not been debunked point-by-point.
<br>
<br>
Mr. Rogue has authored some rebuttals over time, like a re-tread about the ten characteristics of controlled demolition. Unfortunately, none of the ten characteristics exclude the 4th generation nuclear devices that I am championing. I went through them point-by-point. In fact, the two articles above were built on substantiated rebuttals to Mr. Rogue's <i>debunking efforts.</i> <b>The ball has been in Mr. Rogue's court for quite some time.</b> *sigh*
<br>
<a name='more'></a>
<br>
The disinformation circus being what it is, Mr. Rogue seems obligated to regularly drop his <i>hypnotic suggestion</i> regarding nuclear discussions already having been discussed and resolved, supposedly in favor of no nukes. But they haven't. And lying Mr. Rogue can't reference (a) where these nuclear themes were fairly debated, (b) where these themes were soundly defeated, ~AND~ (c)_ where responses-to-rebuttles were addressed. I mean, if my response to a debunking rebuttle thoroughly trashes that rebuttle and the foundation it rests on, then not only does my final response stand but it also leaves standing much of the original nuclear musings. <b>The ball is in his court.</b>
<br>
<br>
Having shot his load and standing on the limits of his intellectual capacity, all Mr. Rogue can do is drop his <i>"hypnotic innuendo"</i> about <i>"chemical controlled demolition destroyed the WTC Towers"</i> and the pre-mature <i>"(nuclear) case is closed."</i> Just another one of those stalling game tactics.
<br>
<br>
At any rate, this collection takes us on one more spin on Mr. Rogue's carousel. My comments were posted on his blog, but were not (nor will they ever be) published and exposed to the world there. Mr. Rogue read them and replied through his blog.
</p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
</p>
<a name="x68"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x68" class="tiny">x68</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_68');">chemical controlled demolition destroyed the WTC Towers</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911#comment-4813">2014-12-28</a></p>
<div id="sect_68" style="display: none;">
<p>Proving beyond reasonable doubt that chemical controlled demolition destroyed the WTC Towers, in itself proves any and all alternative methods false.
<br>\\][//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 68 -->
<a name="x69"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x69" class="tiny">x69</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_69');">sophomoric, moronic, logic mistakes...</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-29</p>
<div id="sect_69" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>You're an idiot too proud to acknowledge flaws in your logic as well as in the evidence you rely on.
<br>
<br>Evidence of involvement of chemical based explosives -- to the meager extent it was provided having chain of custody issues as well as lack of collaboration by several reports -- does NOT equate to them being both the primary as well sole cause of the destruction for everything at the WTC. Such sophomoric, moronic, logic mistakes...
<br>
<br>Your only consistency is that to the extent you ignore these flaws, you also ignore the evidence (and collaboration by several stilted reports) and the very real probability of 4th generation nuclear devices which no one including the government and Dr. Jones has decisively debunked. It is the very GLARING weaknesses in the BYU nuclear physicists' efforts that leave such nukes on the table. Yet you give him a fawning pass, proving your actual intelligence level being far below what your brain-dead copy and pasting would lead others to believe.
<br>
<br>Moreover, were nukes truly off the table, any number of suspects could have been and would have been scapegoated by the government to explain away what you believe. Not so easy with nukes, which is why they don't go into any involvement of anything premeditated, because looking into any cause exposes risks of discovery the true (nuke) causes and their undeniable complicit actions.
<br>
<br>But go ahead and repeat your stupid mantras that leave no wiggle room for anything super high tech for even the buildings that you also ignore (WTC 4, 5, 6). You only hurt your own credibility.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 69 -->
<a name="x70"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x70" class="tiny">x70</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_70');">Bridges his standard harangue</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4825">2014-12-29</a></p>
<div id="sect_70" style="display: none;">
<p>"Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>You’re an idiot too proud to acknowledge flaws in your logic as well as in the evidence you rely on.
<br>
<br>Evidence of involvement of chemical based explosives — to the meager extent it was provided having chain of custody issues as well as lack of collaboration by several reports — does NOT equate to them being both the primary as well sole cause of the destruction for everything at the WTC. Such sophomoric, moronic, logic mistakes…"~Señor El Once on my "Controlled Demolition thread"
<br>. . . . . . . .
<br>
<br>Thus begins Bridges in his standard harangue, put to me over and again for years.
<br>He calls the evidence of chemical based explosive "meager". I am sure he is referring to the ‘physical’ evidence, which is not meager, nor weak in any sense. But there is more in the visual and testimonial evidence of chemical based explosives, that indeed combine to proofs beyond reasonable doubt.
<br>
<br>Whereas with Bridges nookiedoo "theory", there is nothing but conjecture and square pegs forced into round holes. As is pointed out, his main source for the 4th generation nukes states clearly in the title of the paper that such devices are still in the realm of speculation. And if the word "meager" is applicable to anything it is the amount of Tritium that seems to excite Bridges prurient interests to the point of hysteria.
<br>He would have a better time with a blow-up sex doll than riding his rocking horse.
<br>\\][//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 70 -->
<a name="x71"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x71" class="tiny">x71</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_71');">overlaps with 4th generation nukes</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-30</p>
<div id="sect_71" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>The vast majority of the evidence that you could point to regarding chemical-based weapons overlaps with 4th generation nukes. The meager amount that suggests NT (solely) has no correlation anywhere other than what Dr. Jones was handed with chain of custody issues, logistics issues, physics issues, etc.
<br>
<br>Nukes on the other hand have traces that do creep out in ALL reports that on the surface and in their conclusions avoid 4th generation nukes. The framing of ALL nuclear discussions that avoid 4th generation advancements in their considerations is a major tell in THEIR bluff for which you have been suckered, hook, line, and sinker.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, your shoddy analysis of the 4th gen papers highlight a repeated flaw in your logic that loudly and belligerently tries to con people with the premise "if one point doesn't apply, then no points apply." Wrong. Specifically, when several types and configurations of 4th gen nukes are brought up -- even in the speculative sense --, they need to be addressed INDIVIDUALLY with regards to 9/11 applicability. This you haven't done, in part because you don't have the chops, and in part because you've found nothing to debunk them. So you pull stupid argumentative tricks.
<br>
<br>You know this (or should know this by now), which just makes you a Dick for your continued argumentation to the contrary.
<br>
<br>Were my words side by side with yours, yours come up way short in substance and must stoop to ad hominem, further discrediting you in the long run.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 71 -->
<a name="x72"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x72" class="tiny">x72</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_72');">science fiction tale about nukes</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4852">2014-12-30</a></p>
<div id="sect_72" style="display: none;">
<p>"Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>The vast majority of the evidence that you could point to regarding chemical-based weapons overlaps with 4th generation nukes. The meager amount that suggests NT (solely) has no correlation anywhere other than what Dr. Jones was handed with chain of custody issues, logistics issues, physics issues, etc." ~Señor El Once
<br>. . . . . .
<br>
<br>Are you trying to convince me Bridges? Do you seriously think that anything you can add to your science fiction tale about nukes at WTC is going to have any effect? Just your opening sentence above, which you repeat ad nauseam, becomes a dull headache as I have countered this too many times to remain amused by your raving nonsense.
<br>
<br>I will repeat one more time Max, you have zero evidence of nuclear devices being used on 9/11; nothing. The only overlap of evidence is in your fevered imagination.
<br>
<br>You are wasting your time here Señor, take it up with others I have had enough. Seriously.
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 72 -->
<a name="x73"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x73" class="tiny">x73</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_73');">tritium disputes zero evidence of 9/11 nukes</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_73" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>You are in no position intellectually to distinguish fiction from science. Were it otherwise, you would be just a little more critical of Dr. Jones' work. To my recollection, you have never acknowledged any flaws (not a single one) in his efforts either in "reputing" nukes or in NT going the high school science distance, your nose being too far up his ass evidently.
<br>
<br>You claim (erroneously):
<br>"you have zero evidence of nuclear devices being used on 9/11"
<br>
<br>Deploying your repetitious argumentative tricks amounting to nothing more than hypnotic suggestion, I see. Can you say "tritium"? I'll leave it at that as being sufficiently greater than zero to prove you wrong.
<br>
<br>On the theme of zero evidence, you should double check that your NT doesn't run much much closer to zero than the nuke case. You would know this were you to be as critical of Dr. Jones' work as you were to Dr. Fetzer's. Normally I would have also included a reference to Dr. Wood, but you gloriously screwed the pooch on that front and shot both your objectivity and your credibility full of holes in the process. All the more damning when considering your boastings of being an expert in the PR game and disinfo deployment that you have been consistently closed-minded in rescuing nuggets of truth from those efforts... Played right into the hands of it with your sweeping denials.
<br>
<br>Yep, all in all, if you couldn't located someone else's words (and understanding) to copy and paste in your response, you couldn't refute it. Which is a why Dr. Wood's is such a sore spot for you. Not that it doesn't have disinfo, but it has never been A to Z debunked and subsequently leaves too many un-re-incorporated nuggets of truth glaringly around.
<br>
<br>You write:
<br>"You are wasting your time here Señor, take it up with others I have had enough. "
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>If there were any truth to your sentiments, not only would my un-published comments NOT push your buttons into making hypnotic claims under "my" articles on your blog, but also you would probably hide, un-publish, or just delete your failed homages to me.
<br>
<br>Just for the record, I made my case and substantiated it. You get kudos for a 10 point rebuttal awhile back. However, as per the rules of debate, your points were addressed one by one (and thoroughly trashed, a fact you know all too well). The ball has been technically in your court for quite some time to rebut the rebuttal, but you dropped that ball spectacularly and can only muster very repetitive hypnotic suggestion and ad hominem.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 73 -->
<a name="x74"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x74" class="tiny">x74</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_74');">I proclaim the case closed</a></b></p>
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911#comment-4857">2014-12-31</a></p>
<div id="sect_74" style="display: none;">
<p><b>The case for the use of nuclear devices at WTC on 9/11 is a frivolous argument. I have made my case and stand by it. I proclaim the case closed.</b>
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 74 -->
<a name="x75"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x75" class="tiny">x75</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_75');">Hypnotic Innuendo.</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-31</p>
<div id="sect_75" style="display: none;">
<p>
Hypnotic assertions.
</p>
</div><!-- section 75 -->
<hr>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-46530126101406634162015-01-01T20:33:00.000-08:002015-01-16T09:51:15.694-08:00Zapruder and a Special Effects Artist<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
</p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<a name="x5"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x5" class="tiny">x5</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_5');">Intro: Rising to the Occasion</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-14</p>
<div id="sect_5" style="display: block;">
<p>This posting has the rare feature of me rising to the occasion of what Mr. Rogue put on his blog by actually posting comments, un-published but read and responded to by Mr. Rogue.
<br>
<br>
The summary is that ludite Mr. Rogue attributed buggy T&S comment sequencing and valid HTML tricks repeatedly explained to <i>"agent hands"</i>: my hands.
<br>
<br>
Mr. Rogue gets his ass handed to him in more ways than one, starting with proof that the juking comment was ironically his own, a knee-jerk response to Mr. Emmanual Goldstein and his brain-dead Dr. Wood's promotion. [Mr. McKee's administrator actions of sending Mr. Goldstein's comment back to the moderation queue left Mr. Rogue's response as an orphan.]
<br>
<a name='more'></a>
<br>
Owing to the juked sequencing, I started pre-pending notes to my comments with the date stamp of the comment to which I was responding and sometimes with a prediction (often wrong) on where the comment would appear.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div><!-- section 5 -->
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
</p>
<a name="x54"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x54" class="tiny">x54</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_54');">Zapruder, Fetzer, and a Special Effects Artist</a></b></p>
<p><a href="truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29222">2014-12-05</a></p>
<div id="sect_54" style="display: none;">
<p>I have been a real-time lurker on this thread, but until recently I haven't had sufficient opinion to put on my waders, despite a corporate re-organization at the end of the October fiscal year that gave me almost as much free time on my hands to play on the internet as a retiree, were I not successfully avoiding the temptation (this comment exempted).
<br>
<br>Two links. Mr. Rogue posted the first link already and at a top level, which sets the direction of the discussion that I won't be pursuing beyond this comment, although I look forward to the on- and off-list circus act that it will generate. Woo-hoo! The second link is owned by Mr. Rogue and is relevant but not pretty.
<br>
<br>- http://www.takeourworldback.com/fetzersunstein.htm
<br>
<br>- https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/
<br>
<br>I have to admit that the first link is a rather convincing ding against Dr. Fetzer and runs parallel with my suspicions. The second link is not very convincing, although Mr. Rogue will thank me for the free advertising. Alas, anyone -- like me -- foolish enough to dive into the content of the 2nd link and the spirit of the endeavor taken in both isolation and as a blog whole readily sees Mr. Rogue ultimately ding himself with it.
<br>
<br>My two cents on this JFK discussion and the players here, are that both Mr. Rogue and Dr. Fetzer have both truth and error in their arguments and tactics. Sometimes the error is put there on purpose, sometimes by stupid stubborness to re-arrange the evidence to support more viable theories.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue, the self-proclaimed visual effects expert, has consistently taken the position with regards to JFK and 9/11 that imagery manipulation did ~not~ happen to great measure and to the extent that it changed what was viewed to affect perceptions and understanding. To clarify on 9/11, I know of one instance for sure where Mr. Rogue says the image was manipulated, and of a second instance [4 versions of helicopter shot: (1) nothing, (2) orb, (3) plane, (4) mask-and-use in new perspective] where Mr. Rogue would agree to the obvious manipulation.
<br>
<br>Yet despite this, Mr. Rogue demonstrated a strong unwillingness to mine (for example) September Clues for other nuggets of truth in this vein and right up his alley of expertise. Once Mr. Rogue had convinced himself that the over-arching concept of "no planes at the WTC" (NPT) was disinformation, he exerted no more effort to find other instances of imagery manipulation, to apply the known cases to a different paradigm, or to speculate into what the NPT circus was distracting from.
<br>
<br>[The strong unwillingness to mine disinformation sources for nuggets of truth is one of Mr. Rogue's consistent traits demonstrated previously and rather thoroughly with regards to Dr. Wood's work.]
<br>
<br>With regards to JFK and the Zapruder film, Mr. Rogue has essentially said that he finds it authentic. I followed the discussion about the ghosting supposedly caused by the sprockets and its double-exposure. In the course of the discussion, Mr. Rogue made two comments that had me raise flags. The first paraphrased was that the experts didn't know what caused the ghosting until much later. The second paraphrased was that this film couldn't be faked because of the ghosting. Unfortunately, these, together with the stamp of authentication, expose a chink in our visual effects expert.
<br>
<br>Given the history of the Zapruder film and its many versions -- like those edited for television --, IT WAS MANIPULATED and we're foolish to believe otherwise. Probably no version made public can be trusted to be exactly what Zapruder's camera captured raw. Given our distance from the source material and our analyzing the analysis of others 2nd and 3rd hand, a broad stamp of authentication calls into question the agenda of the visual effects expert, particularly when factored with the following.
<br>
<br>Somewhere on the internet is a video that explains how the Zapruder film could have been manipulated using Hollywood techniques of that era, otherwise known as trick photography. It involves making copies from the original from which masks for background and foreground (e.g., limo) are created [manually]. Once separated, foreground and background can be manipulated independently from one another, such as inserting or removing frames, before being overlaid into a single composit. In this manner, they could hide an event such as the JFK limo at one point coming to a complete stop. Ghosting would be one of the side-effects of inattentive overlaying efforts. Another side-effect would be aspects of the background no longer being congruent with the foreground.
<br>
<br>One example of this that I recall (hazily) is of a red coated lady with camera on grass who seemingly wasn't focusing her attention or camera on the limo. The theory goes that she was part of the background mask and that after limo-stopping frames were removed from the foreground mask, the background lady's body positioning was out of synch with the limo.
<br>
<br>Duped useful idiot that I am, I buy into the interpretation of the Zupruder film artifacts that suggest the entire film was manipulated with near state-of-the-art 1960's Hollywood technology. The delay in its public release helped soften its bombshell that multiple shooters were involved; the manipulation of the film itself helped obscure elements (like a stopped limo) that would suggest active enablement.
<br>
<br>The sprockets double-exposure argument? Many decades experience with film and many generations of cameras [and the flaws they introduced] leading up to 1963 would surely have pointed the experts to the equipment [and to test using Zapruder's actual camera] for explanations on ghosting. It wouldn't have taken over a decade to say "sprockets." "Sprockets" becomes a back-stopping afterthought that the PTB invented a decade late to help DISTRACT from the lingering questions and anomalies of the JFK event.
<br>
<br>I believe that a true visual effects expert would have exhibited more open-mindedness with regards to viability of imagery manipulation with both JFK and 9/11. The broad brush with which it gets so confidently dismissed raises a flag and gives the whole Rogue-Fetzer discussion a bit of a MAD-style spy-vs.-spy feel.
<br>
<br>In light of similarly executed accusations of me being an agent, guess that makes this comment a classic Mexican stand-off.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 54 -->
<a name="x55"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x55" class="tiny">x55</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_55');">Video Fakery</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-05</p>
<div id="sect_55" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29223">2014-12-05</a>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist#comment-4430">2014-12-05</a>
<br>December 5, 2014 at 6:43 pm
<br>
<br>Addressing Señor's post of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm
<br>
<br>As far as Señor's assertions that I agreed to any of the claims of video fakery is simply false.
<br>As far as the Orb goes my opinion at the time was that the orb (the most simple form to model digitally) was not from an original attempt to mask in a plane where there was nothing – it was an after the fact tampering with the shot of the plane coming in, and the orb had simply been inserted where the plane actually was.
<br>
<br>>>"The first paraphrased was that the experts didn't know what caused the ghosting until much later. The second paraphrased was that this film couldn't be faked because of the ghosting. Unfortunately, these, together with the stamp of authentication, expose a chink in our visual effects expert."~Señor
<br>
<br>Señor misframes this argument grossly. Any one who wishes to can go back through the thread and see that it was Fetzer's original misframe that Señor now repeats as my words.
<br>I did not say " until much later" – I said specifically it was not until 34 years later that anyone knew the cause of the ghost frames. And I have made the argument fully as to why this point disproves tampering with the original Z-film.
<br>
<br>The issue here is that Señor has no more understanding of film, video or special effects than Fetzer.
<br>
<br>>> "Mr. Rogue demonstrated a strong unwillingness to mine (for example) September Clues for other nuggets of truth in this vein and right up his alley of expertise. Once Mr. Rogue had convinced himself that the over-arching concept of "no planes at the WTC" (NPT) was disinformation, he exerted no more effort to find other instances of imagery manipulation"~Señor
<br>
<br>I in fact "mined" the Clues forum extensively and found not a single instance of anything even approaching expertise in their so-called "video analysis".
<br>
<br>As far as NPT, it connects to video fakery but is not the same issue. My critique of video fakery was substantial and to my (yes expert) opinion, false beyond any reasonable doubt.
<br>
<br>As far as NPT,Señor himself finally came to reject the "theory" – is he now retracting such rejection?
<br>. . . . .
<br>And as far as the rest of Señor's post, it is simply the result of his almost total ignorance of film, video and special effects. Señor is in the same shoes as Fetzer and his minions, they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the issues of film and special effects'
<br>
<br>Finally; Señor has been repeatedly warned by Mr McKee and myself not to bring my blog up on T&S. So no, I am not pleased with the anonymous entity's PR for HR1blog, nor his refusal to attend to Craig's admonitions on the issue.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4432">2014-12-05</a>
<br>
<br>Once again, Señor attempts to confront me on issues he is utterly ignorant about on T&S
<br>
<br>Addressing Señor's post on T&S of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm
<br>
<br>As far as Señor's assertions that I agreed to any of the claims of video fakery is simply false.
<br>As far as the Orb goes my opinion at the time was that the orb (the most simple form to model digitally) was not from an original attempt to mask in a plane where there was nothing – it was an after the fact tampering with the shot of the plane coming in, and the orb had simply been inserted where the plane actually was.
<br>
<br>>>"The first paraphrased was that the experts didn't know what caused the ghosting until much later. The second paraphrased was that this film couldn't be faked because of the ghosting. Unfortunately, these, together with the stamp of authentication, expose a chink in our visual effects expert."~Señor
<br>
<br>Señor misframes this argument grossly. Any one who wishes to can go back through the thread and see that it was Fetzer's original misframe that Señor now repeats as my words.
<br>I did not say " until much later" – I said specifically it was not until 34 years later that anyone knew the cause of the ghost frames. And I have made the argument fully as to why this point disproves tampering with the original Z-film.
<br>
<br>The issue here is that Señor has no more understanding of film, video or special effects than Fetzer.
<br>
<br>>> "Mr. Rogue demonstrated a strong unwillingness to mine (for example) September Clues for other nuggets of truth in this vein and right up his alley of expertise. Once Mr. Rogue had convinced himself that the over-arching concept of "no planes at the WTC" (NPT) was disinformation, he exerted no more effort to find other instances of imagery manipulation"~Señor
<br>
<br>I in fact "mined" the Clues forum extensively and found not a single instance of anything even approaching expertise in their so-called "video analysis".
<br>
<br>As far as NPT, it connects to video fakery but is not the same issue. My critique of video fakery was substantial and to my (yes expert) opinion, false beyond any reasonable doubt.
<br>
<br>As far as NPT,Señor himself finally came to reject the "theory" – is he now retracting such rejection?
<br>. . . . .
<br>And as far as the rest of Señor's post, it is simply the result of his almost total ignorance of film, video and special effects. Señor is in the same shoes as Fetzer and his minions, they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the issues of film and special effects'
<br>
<br>http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29222
<br>
<br>>>"I believe that a true visual effects expert would have exhibited more open-mindedness with regards to viability of imagery manipulation with both JFK and 9/11. The broad brush with which it gets so confidently dismissed raises a flag and gives the whole Rogue-Fetzer discussion a bit of a MAD-style spy-vs.-spy feel.
<br>
<br>In light of similarly executed accusations of me being an agent, guess that makes this comment a classic Mexican stand-off."~Señor
<br>. . . . . . . . .
<br>
<br>"..a true visual effects expert"?? Whatever is this supposed to mean? My experience in the field is well acknowledged. And everything I say about it is attended by full explanations to my best ability to convey it to those without such experience.
<br>. . . . . . . . .
<br>
<br>>>" The broad brush with which it gets so confidently dismissed raises a flag and gives the whole Rogue-Fetzer discussion a bit of a MAD-style spy-vs.-spy feel."~Señor
<br>
<br>This obvious innuendo that I am somehow in league putting on some sort of theater takes us back to "the good old days" of Señor's allegations as to my being a Q-group agent, and all the other defaming squattle he has attempted to frame me with.
<br>
<br>No there is no "Mexican stand-off," Señor is laying in the sand mortally wounded,.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29224">2014-12-05</a>
<br>December 5, 2014 at 7:09 pm
<br>
<br>>>"I believe that a true visual effects expert would have exhibited more open-mindedness with regards to viability of imagery manipulation with both JFK and 9/11. The broad brush with which it gets so confidently dismissed raises a flag and gives the whole Rogue-Fetzer discussion a bit of a MAD-style spy-vs.-spy feel.
<br>
<br>In light of similarly executed accusations of me being an agent, guess that makes this comment a classic Mexican stand-off."~Señor
<br>. . . . . . . . .
<br>
<br>"..a true visual effects expert"?? Whatever is this supposed to mean? My experience in the field is well acknowledged. And everything I say about it is attended by full explanations to my best ability to convey it to those without such experience.
<br>. . . . . . . . .
<br>
<br>>>" The broad brush with which it gets so confidently dismissed raises a flag and gives the whole Rogue-Fetzer discussion a bit of a MAD-style spy-vs.-spy feel."~Señor
<br>
<br>This obvious innuendo that I am somehow in league putting on some sort of theater takes us back to "the good old days" of Señor's allegations as to my being a Q-group agent, and all the other defaming squattle he has attempted to frame me with.
<br>
<br>No there is no "Mexican stand-off," Señor is laying in the sand mortally wounded,.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4433">2014-12-05</a>
<br>
<br>So, what's up with the anonymous entity this time? Is he again fronting for Fetzer? Or is he just stupid?
<br>If Fetzer shows up anew on that thread, I will lay you odds that this was a set up to massage the forum for another fucking circle jerk.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4434">2014-12-05</a>
<br>
<br>So how does the Maxifuckanus do it? How does he place his comment where it is? Does he use his blank post technique to save that space and come back again with text?
<br>
<br>His post should have ended up at the bottom of the thread if he pushed a reply button, it he had used the standard box at the bottom his comment would have ended up high into the thread like mine have when I forgot about the thread being off whack sequentially.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4435">2014-12-05</a>
<br>
<br>My comment of December 5, 2014 at 6:56 am was originally just below Jiffydiver's comment of December 5, 2014 at 6:43 am
<br>It was that way for at leas the last day and a half, now suddenly Señor has a comment posted between those two comments with a date/time stamp of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm
<br>
<br>This is obvious tampering with the sequencing of the thread. How was this accomplished? I have no idea.
<br>But I think it is worth investigation.
<br>
<br>This ties into another situation on another thread where I responded to a comment by Señor, and rebuffed by Adam Syed for it addressing something Señor hadn't said. But I knew he had said it as an extension of what was then found lower in the tread. I was convinced I had seen that comment all together as a whole earlier. But gave in because I couldn't prove it. Now I am again convinced that this anonymous entity has the ability to fuck with the comments section in some way.
<br>
<br>First of all, the comment Señor made that appears between Jiffydivers comment and the one I posted just below it: hybridrogue1 — December 5, 2014 at 6:56 am:
<br>"An argument against Fetzer's cheesy bullshit is not an argument for the official story."
<br>Has a time/date that is ealier than either mine of Jiffydivers — but it has been placed IN-BETWEEN the two!
<br>
<br>So, WTF is going on?
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4437">2014-12-05</a>
<br>
<br>I have a screen shot now of this comment by Max with a PM time stamp sandwiched between two AM posts…
<br>
<br>Visual evidence of hanky panky with the sequence on T&S.
<br>
<br>I have also verified that when using the regular reply box at the bottom of the thread it throws the comment way up further into the middle of the thread.
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 55 -->
<a name="x56"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x56" class="tiny">x56</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_56');">only jerking Mr. Rogue's chain with my spy-vs.-spy reference</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29250">2014-12-06</a></p>
<div id="sect_56" style="display: none;">
<p>Allow me to put Mr. Rogue at ease on several assumptions:
<br>
<br>- I am not championing NPT (at the WTC using imagery manipulation). I believe real aircraft were used at the WTC, but leave the type of aircraft open to conjecture. Variants of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville, however, still apply, which is probably why the whole NPT (at the WTC) meme and video fakery meme even got started and cranked.
<br>
<br>- I was only jerking Mr. Rogue's chain with my spy-vs.-spy reference because the whole imagery of us three accused disinformation agents accusing the other two of being Sunstein agents makes us laughingly look like one of them thare Mexican stand-off's, where three banditos each with two cocked pistols have them aimed right at the other two bandito's heads.
<br>
<br>My opinion at this point in time is that Mr. Rogue is not an agent, but a cantankerous curmudgeon retiree with too much time on his hands, a chip on his shoulder, long-standing social interaction issues, and age-related mental problems.<b> And I love him so!</b>
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I in fact "mined" the Clues forum extensively and found not a single instance of anything even approaching expertise in their so-called "video analysis".</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Rogue is blowing hot air. Given his alleged area of expertise, his outspoken nature, and his fondness for heated debates, did he ever join the Clues forum and set its participants straight? No. Did he ever do an episode-by-episode analysis of "September Clues" on his blog? No. Does anything on his confused blog attempt to do address item-by-item what is presented in the film or on the forum? No. Par for his course, Mr. Rogue is all talky and no walky.
<br>
<br>Don't construe the above criticism as support for "September Clues", its Clues forum, or their over-arching premises of NPT (at the WTC) as well as ~all~ images being faked. My concern is and has been for the proper acknowledgment and preservation of nuggets of truth that reside in all disinformation. In this case, the nugget of truth is that instances of digital manipulation did happen; the question is how much? Mr. Rogue has a demonstrated nasty habit of using a too broad of a broom in his sweeping dismissals.
<br>
<br>Why is Mr. Rogue making purposeful and hasty lies that are so easy to disprove?
</p>
<blockquote><p>As far as Señor’s assertions that I agreed to any of the claims of video fakery is simply false. </p></blockquote>
<p><i>"<b>Any</b> of the claims of video fakery?"</i> Shit, don't I love how Mr. Rogue's 1960's era high school education betrays some of the things he should have learned, but didn't, like how over-generalizations are so easy to disprove just by finding one exception.
<br>
<br>I'm too lazy to look up the T&S discussion where Mr. Rogue went deep into why some particular 9/11 image was digitally manipulated. Were Mr. Rogue foolish enough to deny this, though, he'll be served up the links and be deserving of not just the ire but the distrust of all participants. Be that as it may, this made up CLAIM #1 of imagery manipulation that Mr. Rogue acknowledges.
<br>
<br>I provided an example of 9/11 imagery manipulation regarding the four versions of the helicopter shot. Although I had never discussed this directly with Mr. Rogue, I knew that he would have no problems labeling this a case of imagery manipulation. Sure enough:
</p>
<blockquote><p>As far as the Orb goes my opinion at the time was that the orb (the most simple form to model digitally) was not from an original attempt to mask in a plane where there was nothing – it was an after the fact tampering with the shot of the plane coming in, and the orb had simply been inserted where the plane actually was.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not only does the second sentence acknowledge CLAIM #2 of 9/11 imagery manipulation, it handily contradicts and disproves Mr. Rogue's first sentence. <b>Mr. Rogue agrees to AT LEAST two claims of video fakery.</b>
<br>
<br>This whole insignificant episode highlights flaws in Mr. Rogue, and hence in his arguments: <i>"All or nothing."</i> It refers to the false paradigm that all of something has to be valid for the premise to be valid, and its corrillary that if something supporting the premise was found invalid then nothing supporting the premise was valid. This has other variants just as disenguous.
<br>
<br>The point of this exercise was for a shoe to be placed into the door of the closing mind in a bid to keep an open mind about continued validity of evidence even when presented in works unraveled as disinformation.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue wrote regarding the Zapruder film and its ghosting:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I said specifically it was not until 34 years later that anyone knew the cause of the ghost frames.</p></blockquote>
<p>Contrary to Mr. Rogue's bluster about grossly misframing the argument, this is in agreement with my assessment: <i>"[T]he experts didn’t know what caused the ghosting until much later."</i> I find the sprocket explanation too weak and too late.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>And as far as the rest of Señor’s post, it is simply the result of his almost total ignorance of film, video and special effects.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is a round-about way for Mr. Rogue to appeal to his own authority as a visual special effects expert while dismissing the learned observations of others without his credentials. As for the "authority" that Mr. Rogue claims, it doesn't have anything to do with cameras, photography, trick-photography, or modern-day pixel-pushing. He pushed clay, pencils, and paintbrushes. I wouldn't be surprised if he pushed chairs (e.g., ride administrator) at the amusement places where he claimed to work. The web doesn't have much of his work. Or much about him. A thin cover story. But I'll let him have it.
<br>
<br>Final thoguhts about comment sequencing. Mr. Rogue has performed insufficient tests to be able to predict where comments will appear in a juked thread. The comments in this thread were already hosed from last year. Faulty indentation is another symptom.
<br>
<br>Owing to Mr. Rogue's lazy nature, most of his recent comments to this thread (including December 4, 2014 at 9:59 pm and December 5, 2014 at 6:56 am) were created by the "Leave A Reply" field at the bottom of the comment section. This creates them as top-level comments.
<br>
<br>Mr. JeffyDiver's December 5, 2014 at 6:43 am comment and my December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm comment were created, not by a top-level "Leave A Reply", but by a direct "Reply" to Mr. Rogue's comment, thereby posting them following Mr. Rogue's comment (of December 4, 2014 at 9:59 pm) and before his comment of December 5, 2014 at 6:56 am.
<br>
<br>[This comment will be made as a "Reply" to Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 6:43 pm comment to see where it lands. I expect that it will appear in front of Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 7:09 pm, but with faulty indentation.]
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 56 -->
<a name="x57"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x57" class="tiny">x57</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_57');">Señor Covert Op posting a PM comment in-between two AM comments</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-06</p>
<div id="sect_57" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4457">2014-12-06</a>
<br>
<br>So now I will be quite clear here regarding Señor Covert Op, and his mistake of posting a PM comment in-between two AM comments on T&S yesterday.
<br>
<br>This is clear evidence of hacking and manipulating the sequence of the thread. I am sure that the entity would deny this emphatically, but who would expect anything but a denial of guilt by a covert operator?
<br>
<br>I am sure Mr McKee would never dream of Mr Bridges ever doing anything so dastardly behind his back, as it is so underhanded that most anyone who believes they are friends would find such hard to expect.
<br>But Bridges is a lie, he lives a lie, and has proven himself a highly qualified agent of deception. Among those qualifications is the entity's expertise with high tech and with computers specifically.
<br>
<br>I have experience with such outside manipulation of comments on both COTO1 & C2. One involved an obvious and open agent of the state posting under the gravitar of "Shooter" and also using "AEAffiliates".
<br>On a 9/11 discussion on C2 this operator was able to totally rearrange a series of comments, making a jumble out the argument so that it was incomprehensible.
<br>
<br>On C1 this same poster and one of his affiliates made comments on one of my administrated threads. The were posting in tandem and making jokes about "conspiracy theorists".
<br>
<br>After a day or so the comments from the associate simply disappeared. Of course I was the moderator and the only way that they could have been disappeared was for someone to hack into the moderators dashboard, or some other hightech hacking technique.
<br>
<br>As I had the dashboard for this thread I was able to take note of the email address of both of these agents. One traced back to a dentist. This dentist was easily found with a web search. I found out the dentist's name, but wasn't certain that it wasn't someone else in the office using that computer for nefarious work.
<br>
<br>This tale grew very complex over the next few days in ways that are beyond the the reason I am writing about, so I won't delve into it.
<br>
<br>At any rate these are the only other two examples of what I detected Bridges doing with the T&S thread
<br>
<br>If Bridges isn't a real agent, he is certainly a skunk. I vote for both options.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4469">2014-12-06</a>
<br>
<br>In my view it matters little that Bridges has since renounced NPT and video-fakery, the point to me is that he was stupid enough to fall for such hoaxes in the first place, and had to be led by the hand to finally get it.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4470">2014-12-06</a>
<br>
<br>By the way, if anyone reading this page get's it, it is Bridges himself who fully understands the error he made, and what it proves.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4472">2014-12-06</a>
<br>
<br>I see that Bridges made commentary on the JFK thread again. He totally reversed what I was describing as the effect of using the Reply button and the standard box at the bottom of the thread…
<br>And in his faulty experiment when he finally did use the standard comments box, well WTF do you know?
<br>His comment ended up right there with Lilaleo's and mine just above – jfetzer2012 -November 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm
<br>
<br>As Bridges is oft times dense purposely, I think that is what he was doing with his ass-backward experiment. I see it as another flimsy see-through ploy to confuse a very simple issue.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4473">2014-12-06</a>
<br>
<br>Of course it is understood that it would go counter to Bridges' "professional ethics" to reveal any means and methods of his craft. So there is little to be gained by questioning him on this matter.
<br>However he surely understands that I am keeping a close eye on his machinations, and will keep a record in much the manner as above, His luck will run out at some point should he persist in monkeying with the threads at T&S.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist#comment-4475">2014-12-06</a>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4476">2014-12-06</a>
<br><b>Señor El Once</b> Submitted on 2014/12/03 at 7:34 pm to, PROFILE OF A STOOGE – ALBURY SMITH
<br>& Submitted on 2014/12/01 at 4:23 am to, JAMES FETZER PROFESSIONAL CONSPIRACY THEORIST
<br>He also Submitted on 2014/10/14 at 3:05 pm to, IN CONTEXT: Current Events
<br>
<br>All of these were blank, empty posts.
<br>
<br>These aren't the only ones Bridges has read however, just the ones he posted a blank on. I know he is likely back on the followers list, so could just be reading his email updates. Either wqy he responded to my commentary here by trying the test out, regardless of how clumsily or spuriously that was. These very blank postings are one of the most troubling issues. In my experience it is impossible to post a blank email. The comment box frame turns from black to red when I push the button to post, and it simply does not post the empty box. And I postulate there is something in this little magic trick that is part of posting out of sequence and rewriting posts he has already posted.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4477">2014-12-06</a>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist#comment-4478">2014-12-06</a>
<br>
<br>Maxitwerp said that my page on Fetzer is "ugly". He has no taste! I think it is laid out quite nice. The photograph of Fetzer is certainly an ugly person, but well representative of him. The balance of the title and subtitle is nice. The introduction is brief, to the point and joined by a clever little story called 'Little Bird Meets Big Plane: A Fetzer Tale', which is a scathing and informative critique of our dear subject. There is plenty of meat and substance to the following commentary, with opinions of quite a few others added to my own, in fact even Señor is represented making some prescient arguments – which shows he is capable when not seeing to his agenda of attacking me.
<br>
<br>No his criticism of that page is biased, he knows just as well as I do that Professor Humpty Dumpty is either stupid or he's the cops…and there is the chance that it was theater between Fetzer and he. Nothing is certain in "Mad Magazine, Spy v Spy" flavored Psyops.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29257">December 6, 2014 at 8:38 pm</a>
<br>
<br>As far as the Orb goes my opinion at the time was that the orb (the most simple form to model digitally) was not from an original attempt to mask in a plane where there was nothing – it was an after the fact tampering with the shot of the plane coming in, and the orb had simply been inserted where the plane actually was.~a quote that Señor uses to set up the following comment:
<br>
<br>>>"Not only does the second sentence acknowledge CLAIM #2 of 9/11 imagery manipulation, it handily contradicts and disproves Mr. Rogue's first sentence. Mr. Rogue agrees to AT LEAST two claims of video fakery."~Señor
<br>
<br>Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking Mr Once. I stated clearly that this example of "video fakery" was not a before the fact matter. I stated that someone after the fact took a video of the plane coming in, matted that out and replaced it with the Globe. So this is not a matter of "video fakery" in the sense of what was taped and filmed on 9/11, which was the context of the "video fakery" argument being made.
<br>
<br>You always "seem" to have a problem with context Mr Once, but I think there is another possibility we might consider…
<br>. . . . . .
<br>Now as per definitions, what I consider "top level comments" are ones such as these which flow with the conversation, which can only be accomplished once the thread is compromised with the glitch caused by removing a comment.
<br>
<br>So you are reading my commentary in reverse. If you wish to test what I am referring to all you have to do is use the original box at the bottom of this thread and see that your comment will end up near Lilaleo's and my commentary further upstream.
<br>
<br>I know you are remarking on the PM sandwiched between the two AM's from "another blog".
<br>Now test the assertion by using the standard box at the bottom of this thread and see where it ends up.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29261">December 6, 2014 at 9:06 pm</a>
<br>
<br>* The only way to get a comment to go at the bottom of the line of comments is then to push the Reply button of a post just above or in that particular line of comments. This is clearly not what happened to the PM comment sandwiched between two AM comments in this case. *
<br>
<br>This is exactly what I wrote – and you misinterpreted it!
<br>And I assert that you did so on purpose.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29260">December 6, 2014 at 8:46 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Now Señor, as you see you missed my meaning and see exactly what I was talking about.
<br>both of our recent comments end up just above:
<br>
<br>jfetzer2012
<br>November 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm
<br>
<br>So do you have an excuse for your magic trick of placing your PM comment between the two AM comments?
<br>Yes, yes I am sure you are "completely baffled" as to how that happened – grin.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29262">December 6, 2014 at 9:10 pm</a>
<br>
<br>The only way to get a comment to go at the bottom of the line of comments is then to push the Reply button of a post just above or in that particular line of comments. This is clearly not what happened to the PM comment sandwiched between two AM comments in this case.
<br>
<br>These are my exact offsite words…and Señor 'somehow' misinterpreted it and did the exact opposite of the test I suggested…
<br>
<br>So now again: the AM – PM – AM situation… your excuse?
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29263">December 6, 2014 at 9:44 pm</a>
<br>
<br>My last comment for this evening is some advice for Señor:
<br>
<br>You are way out of your league in video and film manipulation and effects, so step back from the topic for our own good.
<br>
<br>Secondly, whatever technique you used to misplace your comment we are discussing, don't do it again. if you are ever proven to be hacking the queue, your ass will be grass.
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 57 -->
<a name="x58"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x58" class="tiny">x58</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_58');">comments juked before my return</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29298">2014-12-08</a></p>
<div id="sect_58" style="display: none;">
<p>Posted in reply to December 6, 2014 at 9:44 pm comment.
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>Bravo in your speculative innuendo regarding my <i>"agent"</i> hand in the juking of the recent comments to this thread! Too bad that this thread had its comment sequencing juked <strike><s>back in 2013</s></strike> {before my return}. Comments in the moderation queue and deleted comments were part of the cause and remain so today, to everyone's consternation.
<br>
<br>I also commend you on the mighty fine, crafty little hair-split that you've manufactured.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I stated clearly that this example of "video fakery" was not a before the fact matter.</p></blockquote>
<p><i>"After-the-fact"</i>, <i>"before-the-fact"</i>, or <i>"quasi-real-time"</i>: video fakery happened in the 9/11 realm. We're in rabid agreement. As such, I kindly ask you to reframe from making further overblown, over-generalized, hypnotic assertions that tries to take the whole meme of video fakery in 9/11 off of the table. It is okay to say when you think specific examples are authentic (e.g., not imagery manipulation).
<br>
<br>Your wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Now as per definitions, what I consider "top level comments" are ones such as these which flow with the conversation, which can only be accomplished once the thread is compromised with the glitch caused by removing a comment.</p></blockquote>
<p>That is a pretty sucky definition of <i>"top level comments."</i> Let's get on the same page on at least this! A "top level comment" [in a non-juked discussion] should only be achieved by using the bottom-most "Leave A Reply" field. Using the "Reply" below under any rendered comment by definition should never become a "top level comment", but instead are <i>child</i> comments. When a <i>parent</i> at whatever level is removed or placed into moderation, where should the <i>orphan child</i> and their offspring tree be placed in the rendered heirachry?
<br>
<br>The comment section is generated, the result set of a database query. The query includes walking recursively through a parent-to-child heirarchy of all of the comments in the result set. If you are logged into the blog, this identity information gets included in the query and does affect the result set. Specifically, you will see comments that you posted but sit in the moderation queue at the location in the thread where they belong as well as their offspring tree regardless of their status (published or moderation queue). Anybody else (other than the admin) will not see the moderated comments from you. When a parent comment is relegated to the moderation queue (or deleted), its published children become orphans. In ambiguous cases, the algorithm seems to favor placing these orphans (and their offspring tree) ~AFTER~ the heirarchy that it was able to parent-child step through properly. Hence introducing a juke.
<br>
<br>The T&S blog supports only n-levels of discussion heirarchy. When discussion replies reach the n-th level, the parent-child relationship is perverted so the parent n is always assigned even when replying to a child of parent n; all discussion at the n-th level are placed in a queue based on time stamp; normal rendering indentation goes flat-line, because it helps with readability.
<br>
<br>The present blog behavior indicates some n-th level parent having been relegated to the moderation queue (or deleted); this orphaned its children and locked in n-th level behavior at the (top) level where the orphans get published and sequentially ~after~ the valid heirarchy is rendered. Dr. Fetzer's comment from November 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm appears to be an n-th level orphan. Right in front of his comment appears to be where the tail grows (comments are inserted) of the valid heirarchy. Juked.
<br>
<br>My PM comment posted between two AM comments referenced T&S only, although my hypothesis at the time proved incorrect, due to not considering the n-th level effects being imposed when the orphans are published at the top-level. AM-PM-AM comments on another blog, I know not, nor do I care.
<br>
<br>Here is a clue to the mystery that was supposed to peg me as an agent with superior IT hacking skills: WordPress comments support a limited amount of HTML. Look at the source code on a page that renders my moderated submission.
</p>
<blockquote><p>So do you have an excuse for your magic trick of placing your PM comment between the two AM comments? ... So now again: the AM – PM – AM situation… your excuse?</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, I do! Would you believe... that my fellow agents at the NSA were trying to find a way to fuck up the readability of this JFK discussion while at the same time introducing an event that can be spun (by you) in a suspicious way (against me)? So they purposely changed the parent-child sequencing on my entry, dropped a note in your input, and told you to make spy-vs.spy hay.
<br>
<br>Me? I believe this (on T&S) AM-PM-AM anomalous comment sequence to be a side-effect of (1) orphaned comments, (2) their offspring trees, (3) n-th level rules being applied at top-level, and (4) the specific Reply links used by each in the AM-PM-AM sequence.
</p>
<blockquote><p>You are way out of your league in video and film manipulation and effects, so step back from the topic for our own good.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Rogue, you under-estimate both my knowledge and ability to learn complicated/scientific things, probably to the same extent that you inflate and fake your knowledge and abilities. Your threat sounds like a shove-off so that I don't get involved and then find other weaknesses to your arguments and you.
<br>
<br><i>"Step back... for my own good?"</i> What bad would happen if I pursued my present course of pointing out the obvious?
</p>
<blockquote><p>Secondly, whatever technique you used to misplace your comment we are discussing, don’t do it again.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Rogue, I do not have a track record of screwing with the comments when the sequencing is normal. You do. You've been reprimanded in other threads for placing comments where they don't belong. You regularly continue discussions by needlessly forking too soon to a new top-level comment. Your technique of multi-comments in response to one <i>deviant</i> or <i>"bat-shit-crazy"</i> comment often involves posting a "child" response, a "sibling" response, and sometimes a top-level response as a cap to the thread and the last words in the forum to date. An agenda of shutting down the <i>deviant</i> (already with multi-responses and multi-prong tactics from ridicule to malframing) would benefit from sequencing juking for its negative effects on latter-day-lurker readability.
<br>
<br>Juked comments are not in my agenda's best interests.
<br>
<br>Applies to you, too, Mr. Rogue:
</p>
<blockquote><p>if you are ever proven to be hacking the queue, your ass will be grass.</p></blockquote>
<p>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 58 -->
<a name="x59"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x59" class="tiny">x59</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_59');">cantankerous curmudgeon retiree</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-07</p>
<div id="sect_59" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4479">2014-12-07</a>
<br>
<br>"My opinion at this point in time is that Mr. Rogue is not an agent, but a cantankerous curmudgeon retiree with too much time on his hands, a chip on his shoulder, long-standing social interaction issues, and age-related mental problems. And I love him so!"~Maxitwat
<br>
<br>My observation is that Bridges is totally disingenuous in practically all that he writes.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4486">2014-12-07</a>
<br>
<br>Addressing Bridges' assertions: "long-standing social interaction issues, and age-related mental problems."
<br>
<br>I have addressed these issues with the question; What does it mean to be well adjusted in a psychopathic society?
<br>
<br>So how does one 'interact' with a society that is terminally psychopathic? Is such interaction healthy?
<br>I think not, I think a large degree of isolation is preferable in order to inoculate oneself from what is in fact a contagion of psychopathy.
<br>
<br>It is not that I am isolated in toto, I have interactions practically everyday with the TVZombies. I can amicably chit chat with these brainwashed creatures. I can even make subliminal hints as to the actual situation they are in, and they will often say, "Oh yea! I never looked at it that way". But it is not within my means to 'reprogram' these people.
<br>
<br>The following paragraph may help in understanding what Bridges interprets as a profile of "curmudgeon":
<br>
<br>"If you choose to travel the road to the truth, then you must be prepared for the obstacles that await you. You may be condemned or criticized by your family, your friends, your lovers, or your co-workers. This is their programming that began at birth that is doing exactly what it's supposed to do. You're going to have to be stronger than that. You must realize that there is a reality that exists outside of this controlled artificial system. Like Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade, he took that 'leap of faith' over the bridgeless canyon in an attempt to get to the other side. Like Neo in the Matrix, he took the red pill from Morpheus in his attempt to cross over to his real self. Once you wake up, it's as if a hypnotist came along and snapped his fingers. You wake up and say to yourself, "Oh my god. I can see it now. Why did it take me so long to wake up?!" For some of you it can be a major shock. Like anything else, take this information and knowledge in stages. If it took a lifetime for them to mold your reality for you, then you know that it may take longer than a day to fully awaken. Remember, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
<br>
<br>http://www.alexansary.blogspot.com
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4487">2014-12-07</a>
<br>
<br>So now the question attendant to my comment above should be briefly addressed: What is Bridges' problem? He obviously has a problem with me, he is fanatical on it. He said at the end of the quote I am addressing; "And I love him so!"
<br>
<br>Yes a love-hate dialectic drives his emotions here. I see admiration twisted into jealousy, plus a rage that I do not love him back. I love humanity as a whole, and Bridges is not excluded from that generalization. But I also do not want his attentions – that is something he cannot seem to grasp. I find him an exhausting bore. This "relationship" is forced upon me, I am coerced into it by his constant sniping.
<br>
<br>I do not need his psychosis slathered on me with the constancy it has been. I want him to go away. I want him to refrain from addressing me on T&S, and I want him not to refer to me in anyway. I have had too much of this attention. Enough!
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 59 -->
<a name="x60"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x60" class="tiny">x60</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_60');">agent: accusing you point blank</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-08</p>
<div id="sect_60" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4496">2014-12-08</a>
<br>
<br>So I see it is easy enough to post a blank when one has control at the dashboard. as I do as moderator here. My problem is the mystery of having the ability to post a blank off site without hacking a dashboard.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4499">2014-12-08</a>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29300">December 8, 2014 at 2:26 pm</a>
<br>
<br>>>"Bravo in your speculative innuendo regarding my "agent" hand in the juking of the recent comments to this thread! Too bad that this thread had its comment sequencing juked back in 2013. Comments in the moderation queue and deleted comments were part of the cause and remain so today, to everyone's consternation."~Señor El Once – December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm
<br>. . . .
<br>It is not "innuendo" in any sense of the word whatsoever. I am accusing you point blank.
<br>
<br>Your pointing out "comment sequencing juked back in 2013? is a hand-wave of the issue I have pointed out that you refuse to acknowledge, having nothing to do with the out of sequence posts that you, and I, and even Mr McKee tested. No your post of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm is entirely unique and has nothing to do with the standard "juke" that occurs on many wordpress threads when a comment is removed.
<br>
<br>Your post of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm, does not end up in the thread as per such a standard glitch as we are all aware of. That PM post ends up between two AM posts which were in sequence before you comment was posted and mysteriously ended up sandwiched between them.
<br>
<br>Your pretense continuing here, that you do not notice the distinction is very telling.
<br>
<br>I will address your other squattle meant to distract from your spurious "missing the point of PM between AM" in another post.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4500">2014-12-08</a>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29302">December 8, 2014 at 3:01 pm</a>
<br>
<br>>>"I also commend you on the mighty fine, crafty little hair-split that you've manufactured.
<br>After-the-fact", "before-the-fact", or "quasi-real-time": video fakery happened in the 9/11 realm. We're in rabid agreement. As such, I kindly ask you to reframe from making further overblown, over-generalized, hypnotic assertions that tries to take the whole meme of video fakery in 9/11 off of the table. It is okay to say when you think specific examples are authentic (e.g., not imagery manipulation)."~Señor
<br>. . . . .
<br>It is hardly a "crafty little hair-split" to explain that the issue of the Orb video is not one of the videos that can be characterized as one of the items that were manufactured 'Before the fact' as something shown on television on 9/11. This video is something that was later manufactured – 'After the fact', and has no bearing on the original "Video Fakery" charges. Again your pretending that you do not grasp this distinction is just more of your spurious rhetoric.
<br>
<br>"We're in rabid agreement" in absolutely nothing here, and don't pretend that we are.
<br>
<br>The whole section here beginning with: "The comment section is generated, the result set of a database query…" is absolutely irrelevant – this thread is not under moderation. Thus this section is again argumentum verbosium – a lengthily stretch of text having no bearing on the question at hand.
<br>. . . .
<br>>>"Mr. Rogue, I do not have a track record of screwing with the comments when the sequencing is normal. You do. You've been reprimanded in other threads for placing comments where they don't belong. You regularly continue discussions by needlessly forking too soon to a new top-level comment. Your technique of multi-comments in response to one deviant or "bat-shit-crazy" comment often involves posting a "child" response, a "sibling" response, and sometimes a top-level response as a cap to the thread and the last words in the forum to date. An agenda of shutting down the deviant (already with multi-responses and multi-prong tactics from ridicule to malframing) would benefit from sequencing juking for its negative effects on latter-day-lurker readability."~~Señor
<br>
<br>More distraction; when I posted something "out of sequence", it was clearly done on purpose and had nothing to do with the problem we are addressing today – those comments you complain of were clearly dated later and are "children" of a comment made before – I did not place them there by any subversive technical means – which IS the question we face today.
<br>
<br>As far as your grasp of film and video manipulation, I stand by my advice to stay away from the topic as you continue to show no understanding of the topic. The only topic you clearly are masterful at is disingenuous rhetoric and fraudulent gamesmanship.
<br>
<br>Now, as I know you are attending my blog, you know perfectly well that I abhor these continuing hijackings of a thread's subject matter. Again, you set out the whole argument on the Zapruder film. When you finally did comment, it was bereft of any substantial discussion of this topic; it was AGAIN an attack on me.
<br>I have told you too many times how old and boring this situation is.
<br>
<br>I repeat, I do not need his psychosis slathered on me with the constancy it has been. I want you to go away. I want you to refrain from addressing me on T&S, and I want you not to refer to me in anyway. I have had too much of this attention. Enough!
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="">2014-12-08</a>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29304">December 8, 2014 at 3:54 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Well, it is pretty obvious that Señor is attempting to bury the AM PM issue with a bunch of other bullshit. There is no connection between the standard glitch we all know that happens from deleting a comment. That is proved by the other test comments that used the standard box at the bottom on this thread.
<br>
<br>I suppose that Señor thinks the issue is "heady" enough to pile on the bullshit so those who can't follow the argument will be lost. Again the "appeal to the lowest common denominator", so often the technique of shills like he and Fetzer.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4501">2014-12-08</a>
<br>
<br>Obviously Maxifuckanus does not want this page to come to an end, as he continues to harass me at T&S with utter tripe.
<br>
<br>Bridges again dodges the question and makes up long spurious distractions to hide the fact that he will not explain the PM sandwiched between two AM comments. Worse than simply claiming that he simply doesn't know, he goes on and on with bullshit to baffle and confuse the very clear issue that must be cleared up, and this spew of mud does the opposite of clearing up.
<br>
<br>"I think the twat doth protest too much" is a good point to make here.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer#comment-29307">2014-12-08</a>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4505">2014-12-08</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>There has been another post that has gone up on high by error here. May I direct you to this one – in the same area of the thread as the rest doing test comments:
<br>
<br>Al Heyward – December 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm
<br>"What I find oddest in amongst the oddities on this thread is the fact that a p.m. comment can end up between two a.m. comments."
<br>. . . . .
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29309">December 8, 2014 at 8:04 pm</a>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4506">2014-12-08</a>
<br>
<br>Let us deconstruct the latest jibber-jabber presented by Señor el Once:
<br>
<br>>> "The comment section is generated, the result set of a database query. The query includes walking recursively through a parent-to-child heirarchy (sic) of all of the comments in the result set. If you are logged into the blog, this identity information gets included in the query and does affect the result set. Specifically, you will see comments that you posted but sit in the moderation queue at the location in the thread where they belong as well as their offspring tree regardless of their status (published or moderation queue). Anybody else (other than the admin) will not see the moderated comments from you. When a parent comment is relegated to the moderation queue (or deleted), its published children become orphans. In ambiguous cases, the algorithm seems to favor placing these orphans (and their offspring tree) ~AFTER~ the heirarchy (sic) that it was able to parent-child step through properly. Hence introducing a juke."~Señor
<br>
<br>This entire comment is immaterial to the issue. This thread is not moderated., so this whole exercise is just Señor doing his standard distraction ploy.
<br>
<br>Then after two more immaterial paragraphs we finally get to this:
<br>
<br>>> "My PM comment posted between two AM comments referenced T&S only, although my hypothesis at the time proved incorrect, due to not considering the n-th level effects being imposed when the orphans are published at the top-level. *AM-PM-AM comments on another blog, I know not, nor do I care.*"~Señor
<br>
<br>So his "hypothesis at the time proved incorrect" … yes indeed, NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
<br>
<br>It "proved incorrect" because it was scrambled bullshit used as a distraction. As for his "AM-PM-AM comments on another blog" .??? WTF? No one has said anything about any AM-PM-AM comments on another blog.
<br>
<br>I mention his ability to post blank comments on my blog, but never anything about AM-PM-AM comments.
<br>
<br>His final exclamation of "I know not, nor do I care," in fact refers to this blog.
<br>Max finally admits via subtext that he is claiming ignorance as to how his AM-PM-AM comment was accomplished on T&S. And this is hidden between all manner of needless verbosity.
<br>
<br>This scurrilous and disingenuous verbal runaround has become all too typical fare for the anonymous covert operator Señor el Once.
<br>
<br>So Señor claims innocence, leaving only the blatant circumstantial evidence and grins like the conman he is because he gets out of one more tight spot.
<br>
<br>How anyone could buy his story is beyond me.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4508">2014-12-08</a>
<br>
<br>It makes no difference to me whether Maxitwat is a real agent or simply a raging psycho-stalker. I want him to get off of my ass.
<br>
<br>From my experience with this lunatic, I would say he is an agent as well as a psycho. But which ever it really is the bottom line is the same. His constant harassment should be reined in on T&S. And I don't want any of this nonsense about just ignoring him and he will go away. He comes in slashing with his psycho-shank out of the blue whether anyone has mentioned him or not. He is a fucking fanatic if nothing else.
<br>
<br>He needs permanent residence in a rubber room.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4509">2014-12-08</a>
<br>
<br>And you attempt to turn these words of mine back against me:
<br>
<br>>> "if you are ever proven to be hacking the queue, your ass will be grass."
<br>
<br>This is redefining the term "hacking", when my actions entailed no special technique of breaking into a system by stealth with expert methods.
<br>
<br>So far just about every word you have written in your post of, December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm, has been shown to be bullshit of one flavor or another.
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 60 -->
<a name="x61"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x61" class="tiny">x61</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_61');">Narcissist Mr. Rogue Counters</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29323">2014-12-09</a></p>
<div id="sect_61" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Initially was placed into the moderation queue; must have been nuclear keywords, because it had insufficient links to trigger moderation. <strike><s>May never get published.</s></strike> It did get published and did not linger long in the queue. It did not appear where anticipated.}
<br>
<br>[Replied made to my December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm comment. Owing to juking, I predict that it will be published at a top-level below Mr. Rogue's December 9, 2014 at 3:50 am.] {mcb: The prediction was wrong.}
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue makes agenthood accusations against me based on his own faulty reasoning, poor observation skills, poor online habits, and poor technical understanding of just about anything [unless it is handed to him to cut and paste.] And even then, he won't get it.
<br>
<br>In this latest round of agency charges, Mr. Rogue seems to have three pillars. (1) The comment sequencing is juked. (2) I have the ability to post blank comments. (3) I was able to insert a PM comment in between two earlier AM comments.
<br>
<br>Unless ludite Mr. Rogue has changed his habits, he is not subscribed to the comments on any of T&S. [This poor online technique alone makes a reader re-think what it means to <i>stalk</i> and <i>troll</i>, because without email notifications, the task of locating new comments on all T&S threads manually would be time-consuming, mostly fruitless, and contributary to a combative attitude.] Thus, Mr. Rogue probably can't review the comment emails to verify my statements, but readers can expect him to pipe many-fold in with his ignorance anyway. On T&S alone, I got five and then seven responses from Mr. Rogue to my last two comments. I must be doing something right. He could have ignored me, and been much better off, which we will soon see.
<br>
<br><b>Pillar #1</b> of the latest <b>SEO-is-an-agent</b> charge is that the comments in this thread are juked. <b>Mr. Rogue directly accuses me this dastardly deed, to hell with any innuendo!</b>
<br>
<br>Using the blog and emails together in an outline notation, the following shows the original hierarchy, commenter, time-stamp, comment number, and intro to the comment.
<br>
<br>x. Emmanuel Goldstein November 29, 2014 at 11:12 am [#comment-29041]: contents replaced with a strong rebuke by Mr. McKee.
<br>x.1 jfetzer2012 November 29, 2014 at 1:29 pm [#comment-29048]: <i>"This is the kind of moronic drivel I have come to expect from Judy Wood and her cult."</i>
<br>x.1.1 hybridrogue1 November 29, 2014 at 1:36 pm [#comment-29051]: <i>"This is the equivalent of the intellectual performance of hybridrogue1"</i>
<br>x.1.2 Emmanuel Goldstein November 29, 2014 [#comment-29053]: This comment plugged "WDTTG" and was removed by Mr. McKee.
<br>x.1.2.1 hybridrogue1 November 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm [#comment-29054]. <i>"It is enough to have one fruitcake here"</i>. This comment appears on blog at top-level (x+y).
<br>
<br>Here's the irony of this. <b>Mr. Rogue's November 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm is the exact point of juking.</b>
<br>
<br>How so? Notice how Mr. Rogue's comment is at the 4-th level. When I talked about <i>n</i> as being the maximum number of discussion nesting levels and n-th level effects, four nesting levels (n=4) is what Mr. McKee implemented.
<br>
<br>According to parent-child information from the email, Mr. Rogue's replying comment (x.1.2.1) should be 4th level nested. But if you look on the blog, it isn't. Mr. Goldstein's [x.1.2] comment was removed, turning Mr. Rogue's comment into an orphan at the top-level (e.g., no indentation).
<br>
<br>This thoroughly <b><i>nukes</i></b> Mr. Rogue's Pillar #1 of the latest <b>SEO-is-an-agent</b> charge.
<br>
<br><b>Pillar # 2</b> of Mr. Rogue's latest <b>SEO-is-an-agent</b> charge is that I have the <i>"agent IT trick"</i> of being able to make blank comments (like on his blog.) HTML syntax is not an empty comment, even if rendered as a "blank." Mr. Rogue and the vast weaknesses of his arguments do not permit any direct replies from me on his blog, so it doesn't behoove me to write anything. Just because a comment never gets out of the moderation queue or is deleted doesn't mean that checking the box for <i>"notify me of new comments via email"</i> won't be honored.
<br>
<br><b>Pillar # 3</b> of Mr. Rogue's latest <b>SEO-is-an-agent</b> charge is that an afternoon (PM) comment from me was able to appear between two earlier comments from the same morning (AM). <b>Talk about a disingenuous Mr. Rogue!</b> Any participant could go to any non-juked T&S article and to any discussion that isn't already at the n-th level and insert a comment of today that sits between comments with earlier time stamps. This is by-design and how it is supposed to work.
<br>
<br>Accoring to the parent-child information obtained from the emails, this is what the heirarchy was supposed to look like. [xxx represents a large number of replies/levels where Mr. Rogue was doing replies to postings in order to seemingly get the last rendered position on the thread.]
<br>
<br>x.1.2.1.xxx.1 hybridrogue1 December 4, 2014 at 9:59 pm [#comment-29204]: <i>I am reposting this as it ended further up in the thread</i>.
<br>x.1.2.1.xxx.1.1 jeffydiver December 5, 2014 at 6:43 am [#comment-29207]: <i>Yeah, that's a long one</i>.
<br>x.1.2.1.xxx.1.1.1 hybridrogue1 December 5, 2014 at 6:56 am [#comment-29208]: <i>An argument against Fetzer's cheesy</i>].
<br>x.1.2.1.xxx.1.2 Señor El Once December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm [#comment-29222]: <i>I have been a real-time lurker</i>.
<br>
<br>The juked thread published them instead in this order:
<br>[#comment-29204]
<br>[#comment-29207]
<br>[#comment-29222]
<br>[#comment-29208]
<br>
<br>With m>n and n being the maximum number of levels, the juked thread's alghorithm grouped together two (m)-level replies before it rendered any (m+1)-level replies. As far as we know, this is by-design for when the maximum (n)-levels has been exceeded. But all bets are off, because a known (n)-level orphan comment from Mr. Rogue already juked the thread.
<br>
<br>Because Mr. Rogue is attacking me for allegedly being an agent, let's not waste another opportunity to show another ironic example of <b>how disingenuous Mr. Rogue is.</b> Days before I re-entered the discussion, we have this curious juking of the sequencing of comments <b>rendered at the top-level.</b>
<br>
<br>hybridrogue1 November 29, 2014 at 1:47 pm
<br>jeffydiver December 1, 2014 at 7:12 pm
<br>hybridrogue1 November 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm
<br>
<br>How come Mr. Rogue didn't come unhinged at Mr. JeffyDiver for this obvious <i>"agent IT trick"</i>, days before my involvement? <b>Because Mr. Rogue is thoroughly disingenuous.</b> Nothing is there to stop Mr. Rogue's stupidity and ignorance from jumping (purposely) to wrong conclusions.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I am accusing you point blank [regarding being an "agent" and having a hand in the juking of the recent comments to this thread].</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Rogue has some nerve. How soon he forgets the comments (from others) in late November that were handled by Mr. McKee and lead to this juked section. How convenient to shift the blame to me.
<br>
<br>I see his tactics as nothing more than CYA antics.
<br>
<br><b>Now back to the real subject.</b> I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I also commend you on the mighty fine, crafty little hair-split that you've manufactured.
</p>
<blockquote><p>[Mr. Rogue had written:] I stated clearly that this example of "video fakery" was not a before the fact matter.</p></blockquote>
<p>"After-the-fact", "before-the-fact", or "quasi-real-time": video fakery happened in the 9/11 realm. We're in rabid agreement. As such, I kindly ask you to reframe from making further overblown, over-generalized, hypnotic assertions that tries to take the whole meme of video fakery in 9/11 off of the table. It is okay to say when you think specific examples are authentic (e.g., not imagery manipulation).</p></blockquote>
<p>Mr. Rogue replies:
</p>
<blockquote><p>It is hardly a "crafty little hair-split" to explain that the issue of the Orb video is not one of the videos that can be characterized as one of the items that were manufactured 'Before the fact' as something shown on television on 9/11. This video is something that was later manufactured – 'After the fact', and has no bearing on the original "Video Fakery" charges. Again your pretending that you do not grasp this distinction is just more of your spurious rhetoric.</p></blockquote>
<p>Spurious rhetoric charges and an inability to grasp distinctions applies to Mr. Rogue in this case.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue's argument is that the original video fakery premise only applied to manipulation of imagery ~before~ (or ~at~) the event so they could be played on the day of the event. He wants to exclude all imagery manipulation relating to 9/11 if it was "created" and/or made public ~after~ 9/11. How much "shocking" video of 9/11 was aired on 9/11? Versus, how much trickled into the public domain in the days, weeks, months (and years) after 9/11? The answers to these questions alone prove that Mr. Rogue's "after the fact" argument is pulled directly from his rear.
<br>
<br>Getting Mr. Rogue to the point where he will even admit isolated instances of imagery manipulation relating to 9/11 is a watershed event. Pisses him off, because he undermines one of his agenda items to prevent, shut down early, and derail any form of rational and contemplative discussion of anomalous 9/11 things [including imagery manipulation.]
</p>
<blockquote><p>As far as your grasp of film and video manipulation, I stand by my advice to stay away from the topic as you continue to show no understanding of the topic. The only topic you clearly are masterful at is disingenuous rhetoric and fraudulent gamesmanship.</p></blockquote>
<p>It would be wrong to assume that Mr. Rogue has a commanding grasp of film and video manipulation, despite his boasting to the contrary, just like it is wrong to assume that others are weak in comparison. Mr. Rogue wants me to shove off [and <i>I would have after my first comment this December, if he would have simply ignored me</i>], because I hold him accountable and regularly <b>nuke</b> his arguments, antics, and his closed-minded positions.
</p>
<blockquote><p>[Y]ou set out the whole argument on the Zapruder film. When you finally did comment, it was bereft of any substantial discussion of this topic; it was AGAIN an attack on me.</p></blockquote>
<p>What is my earliest comment on the blog? 2013-12-10. Not a typo: indeed, almost one year ago. I didn't leave out the Zapruder Film. Moreover, when speaking about <i>"masterful at disingenuous rhetoric and fraudulent gamesmanship,"</i> this would include Mr. Rogue's two postings on 2014-12-04 that radically change the subject [<i>Top Ten Reasons: Jim Fetzer and Friends are Sunstein Shills</i>]. Any lazy lurker can find my 2014-12-05 comment and read to discover that it walked the fine line between the article's subject and the new, disingenuous one that Mr. Rogue was actively derailing the thread into.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I want you to go away. I want you to refrain from addressing me on T&S, and I want you not to refer to me in anyway.</p></blockquote>
<p>Then simply STFU. Ignore me, Mr. Rogue. Do not feed the trolls.
<br>
<br>Your five-to-one and seven-to-one replies to individual postings from me have zero indication that you are sincere in wanting me to go away.
<br>
<br>Further proving his ignorance, Mr. Rogue writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The whole section here [from SEO] beginning with: "The comment section is generated, the result set of a database query…" is absolutely irrelevant – this thread is not under moderation. Thus this section is again argumentum verbosium – a lengthily stretch of text having no bearing on the question at hand.</p></blockquote>
<p>It was too relevant, ignorant Mr. Rogue, and you are absolutely wrong in your assumption that <i>"this thread is not under moderation."</i> First of all, any comment containing three or more links immediately goes into the moderation queue, which blows your assumption out of the water. Secondly, Mr. McKee edited one comment and removed another (either by deletion or moderation queue), further blowing holes in your assumption about the thread not being under moderation. Thirdly, if you respond (a) to a comment of yours whose link count put it into the queue & never gets published, or (b) to a comment of someone else's that later gets put into the queue: these are the conditions that juke the thread's comment sequencing and create orphans.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue writes:
</p>
<blockquote><p>... when I posted something "out of sequence", it was clearly done on purpose and had nothing to do with the problem we are addressing today...</p></blockquote>
<p>Thereby admitting that Mr. Rogue does whatever in his ludite powers to juke the readability of the thread. I posit that Mr. Rogue knew that one or both of Goldstein's comments would get sent into moderation. Wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Rogue was being a nasal-whiney tattle-tail to Mr. McKee behind the scenes ~after~ he posted his shoot-from-the-hips juking replies: <i>"Goldstein brought up Dr. Wood's book and was plugging it, and this is against your wishes, Mr. McKee. Please do something about it! Now!"</i> Therefore, all Mr. Rogue had to do was make sure they each had inane replies from him as children to get the comments juked.
<br>
<br>Oh, shit! Despite mouthing the words of <i>"leave me alone"</i>, Mr. Rogue proves his insincerity with still more <i>"jibber-jabber deconstruction."</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>This entire comment is immaterial to the issue. This thread is not moderated., so this whole exercise is just Señor doing his standard distraction ploy.</p></blockquote>
<p>Already addressed. My comment was not immaterial to the issue. Just because Mr. Rogue lacks the intellect to understand, doesn't make it bullshit.
<br>
<br>In fact, I charge that Mr. Rogue has regularly deployed the tactic of <i>rude participant</i> precisely so that unhinged comments would get deleted (but not before an offspring tree was created that would go orphan to undermine thread readability). <b>Deployed during discussions that Mr. Rogue was losing on multiple levels.</b>
<br>
<br>I maintain that if Mr. Rogue were sincere, he'd be able to take his own sweet, contemplative time to make one-for-one replies to any <i>"nonsense"</i> I might champion. But no! Mr. Rogue always shoots from the hip at least one shot immediately. Then, being too impatient to wait for a thoughtful response to be composed, Mr. Rogue comes back over time with several more shots, generally with different tactics to each as if Mr. Rogue were multiple people or multiple personalities. The purpose hasn't been for rational discussion, but to implode things if it can't be commandeered and controlled with his overwhelming posting count.
</p>
<blockquote><p>So Señor claims innocence, leaving only the blatant circumstantial evidence and grins like the conman he is because he gets out of one more tight spot. How anyone could buy his story is beyond me.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ho-hum.
<br>
<br>I wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Juked comments are not in my agenda's best interests.</p></blockquote>
<p>Narcissist Mr. Rogue counters:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Certainly they are when your actual agenda is to aggravate me.</p></blockquote>
<p>My agenda is Truth (even in small nuggets), and indeed that seems to aggravate Mr. Rogue as more of a side-effect than actual plan.
<br>
<br>If my agenda were to aggravate Mr. Rogue as his paranoid, narcissistic self wants to hype, why Mr. Rogue could expect me going toe-to-toe everywhere on everything on T&S. I'd stalk Mr. Rogue across all of his self-published links to other forums where he participates and give him the what-ho there. I'd be taking pot-shots on his blog, regardless of whether or not they got published. I'd be burying his email inboxes. I'd be creating blog entries with titles like <i>"Willy Whitten: Professional Conspiracy Theorist", "Willy Whitten: Agitprop Disinformant", "Carnival d'WillyWhittenFuckAnus."</i> And each of them would be followed by hundreds of derogatory, one-sided, unfounded, ugly comments that can't stand up to debate. Why, Mr. Rogue's blog sets the standard for so much of what kharma would serve back to him with my hypothetical efforts, were my actual agenda to aggravate Mr. Rogue.
<br>
<br>But no.
<br>
<br>I largely ignore Mr. Rogue. And he knows it. When he doesn't have the hairy <strike><s>balls</s></strike> vagina to write something in a venue that allows a response, I don't rise to the occassion. I just note its occurrence and carry on as if it didn't. This probably aggravates him to no end, in addition to the dreadfully long wait for me to post something -- anything -- to T&S in response. Worse for Mr. Rogue: the larger the comments sections of Mr. Rogue's hit pieces become, the more any nuggets of worthiness get buried in the unworthiness of Mr. Rogue's actual character.
<br>
<br>In conclusion, if Mr. Rogue's earnest desire is to have me leave him alone (and stop pointing out all the weaknesses to his arguments and his persona), then he must take the first step. STFU. Don't reply. He should crank some things on his blog to discredit himself further, but remain silent on T&S. And gee? His comment count and domineering ratios over E.V.E.R.Y.B.O.D.Y else on T&S gives him plenty of laurels to rest on.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 61 -->
<a name="x62"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x62" class="tiny">x62</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_62');">bullshit of one flavor or another</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-09</p>
<div id="sect_62" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29314">December 9, 2014 at 3:50 am</a>
<br>
<br>>> "[1]You've been reprimanded in other threads for placing comments where they don't belong. [2]You regularly continue discussions by needlessly forking too soon to a new top-level comment. [3]Your technique of multi-comments in response to one deviant or "bat-shit-crazy" comment often involves posting a "child" response, a "sibling" response, and sometimes a top-level response as a cap to the thread and the last words in the forum to date."~Señor – December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm
<br>
<br>. . . .
<br>[1] I have been reprimanded by who? By YOU! Because I did it on purpose to piss you off for your nannybitch bullshit that you are repeating now, which includes the next two points: [2&3] Which are nothing but your own personal gripes. Your gripes 1 & 2 were in fact what prompted me to piss you off for breaking Your Rules, not the rules of the forum.
<br>
<br>So this section of your immaterial commentary is another blast of anal hurlant, having zero to do with the actual issue of a PM post sandwiched between two AM posts. In plain words another distraction.
<br>. . . .
<br>>> "Juked comments are not in my agenda's best interests."~Señor
<br>
<br>Certainly they are when your actual agenda is to aggravate me. Don't attempt to evoke this lame excuse as a reason to accept your innocence in this affair.
<br>. . . .
<br>And you attempt to turn these words of mine back against me:
<br>
<br>>> "if you are ever proven to be hacking the queue, your ass will be grass."
<br>
<br>This is redefining the term "hacking", when my actions entailed no special technique of breaking into a system by stealth with expert methods.
<br>
<br>So far just about every word you have written in your post of, December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm, has been shown to be bullshit of one flavor or another.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4503">2014-12-08</a>
<br>
<br>Today on HR1blog:
<br>7 referrals from: truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/
<br>
<br>People may not be piping up on T&S Bridges, but they are coming over here to check on the facts
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4515">2014-12-09</a>
<br>
<br>Anyone inclined to give Bridges the benefit of the doubt on this issue is quite gullible and naive.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4524">2014-12-09</a>
<br>
<br>Wow!! Señor just proved me wrong!
<br>
<br>Not by anything he said, just by showing how a later comment can be posted between earlier ones. It's to bad he had so much more to say, I would have apologized for my mistake. But of course he had to go on and on about other shit, which really sorta spoiled his victory on the other point.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29328">December 9, 2014 at 11:43 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I am also now replying to Señor's post of December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm. So let us see if it ends up sandwiched between my two earlier posts like Señor's just did…
<br>
<br>"Señor El Once
<br>December 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm
<br>[Replied made to my December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm comment. Owing to juking, I predict that it will be published at a top-level below Mr. Rogue's December 9, 2014 at 3:50 am.]"
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29327">December 9, 2014 at 11:35 pm</a>
<br>
<br><b>Señor El Once</b> – December 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm
<br>
<br>This post now appears sandwiched between my former posts of:
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b> – December 8, 2014 at 2:26 pm
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b> – December 8, 2014 at 3:01 pm
<br>. . . . .
<br>
<br>So yes Señor, regardless of the jabber contained in your new post we see it mysteriously placed again, sandwitched between two earlier comments – which says more in it's material effect than any of the massive verbosity of your present comment.
<br>
<br>I rest my case.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29329">December 9, 2014 at 11:50 pm</a>
<br>
<br>Señor's explanation seems to have worked after posting a reply to his December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm comment. My comment indeed ended up sandwiched between my earlier posts!
<br>
<br>I concede to Señor's explanation.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29330">December 9, 2014 at 11:59 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I DO concede to Señor's explanation, and see that I was in error about how a comment can be placed in between earlier comments even down here after the glitch has taken effect.
<br>
<br>However the rest of his rebuke I reject in toto, as the same nannybitch nonsense he has blown at me for the entire time I have been on T&S. If it were not for the rest of his wank, I would be inclined to apologize to Señor, but his overbearing arrogance alas prevents such.
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 62 -->
<a name="x63"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x63" class="tiny">x63</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_63');">cheesy tango when wrong</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-10</p>
<div id="sect_63" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29333">December 10, 2014 at 7:30 am</a>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4525">2014-12-10</a>
<br>
<br>>> "[Replied made to my December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm comment. Owing to juking, I predict that it will be published at a top-level below Mr. Rogue's December 9, 2014 at 3:50 am.]"~Señor El Once – December 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm
<br>
<br>It did not, it appeared just below my top-level December 8, 2014 at 2:26 pm post, as another top-level.
<br>But I suppose his prediction is close enough for rock'n'roll…
<br>
<br>>> "Pillar # 2 of Mr. Rogue's latest SEO-is-an-agent charge is that I have the "agent IT trick" of being able to make blank comments (like on his blog.) HTML syntax is not an empty comment, even if rendered as a "blank." Mr. Rogue and the vast weaknesses of his arguments do not permit any direct replies from me on his blog, so it doesn't behoove me to write anything. Just because a comment never gets out of the moderation queue or is deleted doesn't mean that checking the box for "notify me of new comments via email" won't be honored."~Señor El Once
<br>
<br>I understand that it doesn't "behoove" him to write anything – that still doesn't explain how he can post an empty 'comment'. The only way I can- and only on my own blog, is to write something, post that, and then Edit that and remove the text, and then 'Update comment'.
<br>
<br>My question remains; how does Señor accomplish the same thing without having access to the dashboard as a moderator would? Note that this is not an allegation but a simple question.
<br>
<br>>> "Mr. Rogue's argument is that the original video fakery premise only applied to manipulation of imagery ~before~ (or ~at~) the event so they could be played on the day of the event. He wants to exclude all imagery manipulation relating to 9/11 if it was "created" and/or made public ~after~ 9/11. How much "shocking" video of 9/11 was aired on 9/11? Versus, how much trickled into the public domain in the days, weeks, months (and years) after 9/11? The answers to these questions alone prove that Mr. Rogue's "after the fact" argument is pulled directly from his rear."~Señor El Once
<br>
<br>Let's get this straight once and for all. The argument Shack makes for digital fakery is made to what was broadcast on television during the event and up to a couple weeks of the TV show "Attack on America" on MSM. And this is the "Video Fakery" argument I have disputed.
<br>
<br>There is no doubt, and I do not dispute that years after the even that more modern video editors being in the hands of a larger public, that "video fakery" is more common place. And it is in this later era that this Orb video was produced as an AFTER-THE-FACT fake video. Many After-the-fact fake videosof 9/11 have been produced in the years since 9/11. There is no question as to this fact. I do not argue that modern day video manipulation is available on a mass market scale. But this was NOT the case in 2001. One had to have some very sophisticated and EXPENSIVE equipment, and great skill to achieve these ends back then.
<br>
<br>Now to address the arrogance of Señor in the rhetoric used in this issue. Whether he misinterprets my meanings on purpose, or simply doesn't get it is beside the point. The same state of mind he accuses me of attends to his state of mind: Assuming the worst – guilty until proven innocent. That is both of our attitudes towards one another. And I say fucking so-be-it. There will be no reconciliation, so WTF?
<br>
<br>This is why there will be no apologies offered to Señor. I will concede to the facts when I am wrong. But he continues his cheesy tango when he is wrong. So fuck him.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4526">2014-12-10</a>
<br>
<br>One more comment, because Bridges tries to make hay out of it; I said he sat out the Z-film discussion, and he points out his few comments of 2013 during that years round of debates. I think any reasonable person would agree that he sat out the 2014 episode, and that is what I meant. But taking the cheesy lawyer stance, he bawls at me for a 'technicality'.
<br>
<br>All I will say about that is, big-fucking-deal
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4538">2014-12-10</a>
<br>
<br>Bridges squawks about my not getting email notifications for comments made on the threads.
<br>I don't need email notifications – I get notifications directly from WordPress. And they are archived chronologically, with the full text of the comments made.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4543">2014-12-10</a>
<br>
<br>As mentioned above, I get notifications directly from WordPress. And they are archived chronologically, with the full text of the comments made.
<br>
<br>I just collected these time/dates with the beginning remarks of each:
<br>
<br>Dec 5, 4:45 pm > "I have been a real-time lurker on this thread, but"
<br>Dec 6, 6:15 pm > "Allow me to put Mr. Rogue at ease on several assumptions:"
<br>Dec 6, 6:21 pm > "Reply to Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 6:43 pm comment to see where it lands."
<br>Dec 6, 6:22 pm > "Reply to Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 7:09 pm comment to see where it lands."
<br>Dec 8, 1:55 pm > "Allow me to put Mr. Rogue at ease on several assumptions:"
<br>Dec 8, 1:55 pm > "Bravo in your speculative innuendo regarding my "agent" hand in the juking.."
<br>. . . . . . . .
<br>It should be pointed out that there are two comments with differing times that begin: "Allow me to put Mr. Rogue at ease on several assumptions:" they are: Dec 6, 6:15 pm & Dec 8, 1:55 pm
<br>This is from WordPress chronological archive!?
<br>
<br>Dec 8, 1:55 pm now reads on the T&S thread: "Dear Mr. Rogue, Bravo in your speculative innuendo regarding my "agent" hand in the juking.."
<br>
<br>This being in contradiction with WordPress chronological archive; It appears that the original Dec 8, 1:55 pm post was changed to the "Bravo in your speculative innuendo.."
<br>
<br>Who is fucking with me, Señor or WordPress chronological archive?
<br>
<br>I wrote before; I understand that it doesn't "behoove" him to write anything – that still doesn't explain how he can post an empty 'comment'. The only way I can- and only on my own blog, is to write something, post that, and then Edit that and remove the text, and then 'Update comment'.
<br>
<br>My question remains; how does Señor accomplish the same thing without having access to the dashboard as a moderator would? Note that this is not an allegation but a simple question.
<br>
<br>But now again this seems to be a clue to how Bridges is manipulating the comments. He could write a quick blurb like, "Reply to Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 7:09 pm comment to see where it lands," and later come back and 'update' that with a longer complex comment – BUT only if he had the dashboard tools to do such; which are supposed to only be available to the moderator.
<br>
<br>The more I mull this over the more my suspicion is re-aroused.
<br>There is little use in confronting this covert entity about this again, it would just lead to more of his long winded spurious bullshit.
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 63 -->
<a name="x64"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x64" class="tiny">x64</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_64');"><b>stupidity</b> re-aroused</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_64" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Señor El Once</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-4558">2014-12-11</a>
<br>{mcb: This comment was submitted, but not published under two examples of "blank" comments: #comment-4554, #comment-4555. None made it out of the moderation queue.}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>I flat-out told you twice already how to create a "seemingly" empty comment. Viewing the source HTML at the point where my "comment-content" begins would have told you everything you needed to know. As with so many things, your assumptions are wrong. In this case, you assume that my comments are empty. They aren't; they are merely rendered so.
<br>
<br>I would have been inclined to give you a pass on this stupidity. But it is compounded by the idiocy of your hyping of some time stamp obtains by "WordPress chronological archive".
<br>
<br>First, of all, I have no idea what that is. Maybe you are referring to the "WordPress Reader". In my recent 10 minutes of testing, its pitfalls become clear and reminds me why I don't use it. It sucks. It is hard to get around within a thread, let alone to other articles where comments were made. Getting to last-year's Zapruder Film article was beyond my patience level. It is a bit willy-nilly with its date-stamping, preferring vague phrases like "4 weeks ago" and "one month ago" instead of publishing specifics. At one point I nagivated to an area that was interesting and possibly almost useful, but now I can't seem to find it again.
<br>
<br>You asked:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Who is fucking with me, Señor or WordPress chronological archive?</p></blockquote>
<p>WordPress. And yourself.
<br>
<br>For all I know, your manually created, "damning" record introduced a copy-&-paste error or editing mistake by having <i>"Dec 8, 1:55 pm"</i> appear twice. Go verify it through your "WordPress chronological archive." If there be any doubt, though, the T&S blog should have been the record of final authority (with one caveat).
</p>
<blockquote><p>Señor El Once: December 6, 2014 at 6:15 pm: <i>Allow me to put Mr. Rogue at ease on several assumptions</i>
<br>
<br><b>Señor El Once</b>: December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm: <i>Bravo in your speculative innuendo regarding my "agent" hand</i></p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>The caveat? The T&S date stamp reflects when the participant submitted their comment. It does not reflect when it was published and an email notification sent; this applies to comments that are initially sent to the moderation queue (like when they have too many links on T&S.) [I'll have you know that my lengthy December 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm comment on the Zapruder article, for whatever reason, was sent immediately into the moderation queue. I did not have to ask Mr. McKee to publish it.]
<br>
<br>But in visiting this blog to post two different examples of empty comments, I see that it's been juked! Oh, what irony! And oh what glorious examples of your disingenuous nature!
<br>
<br>You wrote:
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>My question remains; how does Señor accomplish the same thing without having access to the dashboard as a moderator would? Note that this is not an allegation but a simple question.
<br>
<br>But now again this seems to be a clue to how Bridges is manipulating the comments. He could write a quick blurb like, "Reply to Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 7:09 pm comment to see where it lands," and later come back and 'update' that with a longer complex comment – BUT only if he had the dashboard tools to do such; which are supposed to only be available to the moderator.</p></blockquote>
<p>Sure looks like an allegation to me. You are accusing me of having moderator abilities on your blog and on T&S. You are accusing me of post-editing comments on your blog and on T&S.
<br>
<br>I'm not even going to write, <i>"you have no proof of [moderator access],"</i> because the fact is that <b>you have no proof of any instances of this happening.</b>
</p>
<blockquote><p>The more I mull this over the more my suspicion is re-aroused.</p></blockquote>
<p>No. What you meant to write was: <i>"The more I mull this over, the more my <b>stupidity</b> is re-aroused."</i>
<br>
<br>Everything that you've been hyping as definitive signs of agency affiliation? They unravel as your stupidity. Sure, I get the concept that some arguments that make up a premise can be destroyed without destroying the premise. At what point in the destruction of supporting arguments do you jettison the premise, you senile old fool?
</p>
<blockquote><p>There is little use in confronting this covert entity about this again, it would just lead to more of his long winded spurious bullshit.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, the real reason there is little use is that you've handily been beaten back. Your stupidity continues to be exposed (although you do your best at a gruff and rude offense so this isn't always readily apparent.) You know and I know that you aren't as smart as you let on, or as the words that you copy-and-paste from others without understanding.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 64 -->
<a name="x65"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x65" class="tiny">x65</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_65');">technological issues in the future</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_65" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-4559">December 11, 2014 at 7:35 pm</a>
<br>
<br>"First, of all, I have no idea what that is. Maybe you are referring to the "WordPress Reader".~Señor
<br>
<br>No, the WordPress Archive is not that. Only if you have a WordPress yourself would you have access to your own blog's archive.
<br>
<br>I will bow to your superior technical knowledge on the matter of "source HTML", and computers in general.
<br>So I will drop the matter.
<br>
<br>You say this in the text you finally offered on this matter; "you senile old fool?" … That's pretty funny. But I am certainly of a generation that generally is not too adept at these new technologies, and only become acquainted enough with them to put to our own personal interests. If I weren't so adverse to your personality I might seek out more of what you are talking about here. But alas, I have so many other reasons to hold you in contempt that I am not at all interested in that.
<br>
<br>But I will keep away from confronting you on these technological issues in the future.
<br>
<br>Thanks for the lollipops!
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-4560">December 11, 2014 at 7:39 pm</a>
<br>
<br>By the way Bridges, I have hidden the post that you were in such a huff about. If you would rather it be displayed, I will consider letting it show again. Depends on my mood at the time.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-4561">December 11, 2014 at 7:46 pm</a>
<br>
<br>I will school myself some…
<br>
<br>http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/starthere/whatishtml.html
<br>
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 65 -->
<a name="x66"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x66" class="tiny">x66</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_66');">blog readability depends on viewer</a></b></p>
<p>2014-12-11</p>
<div id="sect_66" style="display: none;">
<p><a href="https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-4563">December 11, 2014 at 9:45 pm</a>
<br>Your comment is awaiting moderation.
<br>
<br>{mcb: Comment landed in the moderated view at the other juke location described, as expected. I do not expect this to be published.}
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue, I just thought I'd give you update on the readability of the comment section of the blog. You mentioned removing a comment (or putting it back into the moderation queue). When you as admin view the blog, you probably see that moderated commented followed by the offspring heirarchy tree that I generated (all also in the moderation queue). Stacked or nested all nice and neat, right?
<br>
<br>In one of my explanations, I made the point that each participant has a unique view. The only time two or more participants will have an identical view is when none of those given participants has comments in the moderation queue. The view of a thread by any participant with moderated comments shows such comments and their offspring tree pretty much where that participant expects them.
<br>
<br>Just thought you should know that since you sent your comment back to the moderation queue, you turned my replies into orphans in ~my~ view of the discussion and has juked sequencing.
<br>
<br>In this instance, no one else in your vast reading audience is negatively affected by this, because it involves nothing that you (or I) care to show the world on your blog; nothing was nested underneath that is important to readership to see. But if you were to publish any individual of my nested comments to yours now in the moderation queue, you will juke the comments (further) for the reading audience.
<br>
<br>The bottom line is that perspective does matter with regards to who you are when you view the comments.
<br>
<br>P.S. I'm posting this with "Leave a Reply" and expect it to land plus or minus between your two postings at the other juke point:
<br>
<br>December 11, 2014 at 7:56 pm
<br>August 15, 2014 at 8:23 pm
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 66 -->
<hr>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3244976080430727763.post-72938611068010335402014-10-22T18:54:00.000-07:002015-01-16T09:08:52.264-08:00October Surprise<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
</p>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
var maxSection = 500;
function sectionHide(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
function sectionShow(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
folder.style.display = "block";
}
}
function sectionToggle(id) {
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
if (folder.style.display == "none") {
folder.style.display = "block";
} else if (folder.style.display == "block") {
folder.style.display = "none";
}
}
}
function areaShowAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionShow(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaHideAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionHide(mySection + i);
}
}
function areaToggleAll(mySection) {
for(var i=0; i<maxSection; i++){
sectionToggle(mySection + i);
}
}
function sectionShowName(mySCName) {
var id = mapSectionNumber(mySCName);
var folder = document.getElementById(id);
if (folder != null) {
sectionShow(id);
}
}
function IsHashParam(myHref){
var strReturn = "-false-";
if ( myHref.indexOf("#") > -1 ){
var aQueryString = myHref.split("#");
strReturn = aQueryString[1];
}
return unescape(strReturn);
}
window.onload=function doOnLoad() {
var strHref = window.location.href;
var myTarget = IsHashParam(strHref);
if (myTarget != "-false-") {
window.location.hash = myTarget;
}
}
</script>
<a name="x18"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x180" class="tiny">x180</a>
Señor El Once: <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_180');">Intro: Participant Overreaction to Outlawed Topics</a></b></p>
<p>2015-01-14</p>
<div id="sect_180" style="display: block;">
<p>Most of what follows is one-side of the discussion: my side. However, I have endeavored to provide adequate quotations from my discussion partners so that some understanding of context is achieved.
<br>
<br>
The topics related to 9/11 advanced technologies. And by golly, the eifer with which people and participants do ~not~ give this reasoned or lengthy consideration is astounding.
<br>
<a name='more'></a>
<br>
My comments admittedly walked a fine lines between outlawed nuclear discussions and the actual topics under discussion. My diagonal comments could have been left alone as one-hit-wonders. [The only reason nuclear discussions are outlawed is because it seems to inspire the purposeful bad behavior of individuals that escalates while imploding the thread for others.] From a disinformation perspective, it is amazing how quickly certain participants were to shoot themselves in the foot in the nature of their attacks.
<br>
<br>
For the most part, my responses were to comments made in a public forum (T&S) that permitted a back-and-forth. Clever readers who are also gluttons for punishment may follow my links back to where the discussion transpired, and from there (or through other means) possibly follow other links to Mr. Rogue's blog. There, readers will discover everything that my main discussion parnter wrote during this time period pertaining to the subject or to me. There, readers will note the many <i>"features"</i> of the literary effort that makes it less than worthy, from the choice of language, to the tone, to flaws in the reasoning and logic, to issues with objectivity, to outright mistakes, etc. Certainly, hardly worth my time to take seriously and respond to, let alone re-publish here.
</p>
</div><!-- section 180 -->
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
</p>
<a name="x18"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x18" class="tiny">x18</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_18');">Gage's response to the DEW question</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research#comment-26685">2014-09-15</a></p>
<div id="sect_18" style="display: none;">
<p>Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth requested that I post this response to the DEW question on this post (which has received a bit of a revival of interest in recent days). I invite readers to check this out although comments on the thread remain closed.
<br>
<br>He writes: "The reason that AE911Truth finds that the DEW theory by Judy Wood is disinformation is summed up in our FAQ #3:
<br>
<br><a href="http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/597-faq-2-what-about-the-planes-that-slammed-into-the-twin-towers-wouldnt-they-have-disturbed-the-demolition-devices.html">http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/597-faq-2-what-about-the-planes-that-slammed-into-the-twin-towers-wouldnt-they-have-disturbed-the-demolition-devices.html</a>
</p>
</div><!-- section 18 -->
<a name="x19"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x19" class="tiny">x19</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_19');">Gage's response is a farce</a></b></p>
<p>2014-09-15</p>
<div id="sect_19" style="display: none;">
<p>{email}
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br>Your FAQ #3 link is wrong. It should be:
<br><a href="http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-faq-3.html">http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-faq-3.html</a>
<br>
<br>Secondly, that piece is a farce in terms of addressing Dr. Judy Wood's disinformation. I mean, they don't actually put on the DEW shoes to walk around in them to see what could be possible. They don't speculate into viable configurations of DEW that could account for things (and assuming this fails, proving it couldn't possibly have been DEW.) Instead, they spent the majority of the FAQ #3 promoting nano-thermite. This alone makes the efforts to hoist up FAQ #3 as the definitive DEW debunking pretty disingenuous on Mr. Gage's part.
<br>
<br>You can tell Mr. Gage that I'll be happy to tear apart that FAQ #3 paragraph-by-paragraph, line-by-line... and it isn't even as if I am 100% in Dr. Wood's camp, what with my nookie-doo and 4th generation nukes spin-off.
<br>
<br>Come to think of it, to a certain degree the FAQ's were address already in June of 2011.
<br>
<br><b>On the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis: an open letter to Gage and Cole</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/on-the-directed-energy-weapon-hypothesis-an-open-letter-to-gage-and-cole/">http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/on-the-directed-energy-weapon-hypothesis-an-open-letter-to-gage-and-cole/</a>
<br>
<br>Obviously, my views have shifted since writing that. It has only 14 comments, but other than the first two or so (from HR and me), I think the others should be ~DELETED~ due to the HR-SEO war dragged back from COTO. You'll probably want to do this clean-up before advertising it to Mr. Gage that he's been addressed and all.
<br>
<br>A fresh tear-apart of FAQ #3 on T&S might give the needed corner of your blog for nuclear-DEW topics to be discussed rationally. You give the go-ahead, Mr. McKee, and I'll rouse myself from my 9/11 stupor.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 19 -->
<a name="x20"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x20" class="tiny">x20</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_20');">Ten Things</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27160">2014-10-02</a></p>
<div id="sect_20" style="display: none;">
<p>[Disclaimer: Quotations from Mr. McKee which provide context do ~not~ count towards my 500 words... which came out at <650 words.]
<br>
<br>Dear Mr. McKee,
<br>
<br><b>Your best article ever!</b> To conserve my precious word count, if I don't address a specific point in your well thought out and well written article, then register my agreement, thereby making my disagreement in certain areas below just a hair-split out of the whole. The following quotes from you are not in sequence:
</p>
<blockquote><p>As a result, it has become essential that we discuss and come to understand how disinformation works, how it is being used against us, and how best to react to it (and when not to react at all).</p></blockquote>
<p>Indeed. In order for disinformation to have traction, it must have a believable foundation consisting of valid nuggets of truth. If the effort to debunk disinformation limits its scope to only the flaws, it remains incomplete and possibly even played: right into the hands of a multi-faceted disinformation agenda. Acknowledgment of nuggets of truth and their applicable re-purposing are the requisite steps for completion.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I see no value in arguing about Judy Woods and her non-theory about directed energy weapons and dustified steel. Yes, she has raised some questions. ... To Woods’ opponents, stop obsessing about her.</p></blockquote>
<p>The obsession -- those for and against -- has been a sign of a disinformation game, particularly when the objective review is missing that end-to-end would acknowledge nuggets of <b>both</b> truth and error. On top of this, yet another game is to extrapolate evidence from one aspect of the operation to other aspects.
<br>
<br>For example, discussion of WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 are often ignored in favor of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7. Yet the former three are inexplicable and strange, sufficiently so that decades of known space-based weaponry research -- framed properly -- isn't so far-fetched as being applicable.
</p>
<blockquote><p>I believe we need to continue to hack away at the official story until we find a vulnerable point that will begin unravelling the public's trust in that story.</p></blockquote>
<p>I believe that the vulnerable point is 3rd/4th generation nuclear involvement.
<br>
<br>Public realization of the literal message of 9/11 nuclear involvement should have figurative massive nuclear fall-out all over, which is why it becomes the line that cannot be crossed, and organizations will be co-opted to park it: <i>"thus far and no further."</i>
</p>
<blockquote><p>The nuclear position has been getting a lot of attention lately with the efforts of Jim Fetzer, Don Fox, Gordon Duff, and others to raise the profile of the issue and to take on established figures in the movement like Richard Gage of AE911Truth, Steven Jones, and Niels Harrit over their position that thermite (or nano-thermite) played an important, although not exclusive, role in destroying the three WTC towers. (It is important to note that AE does not claim that thermite destroyed the towers on its own; their position is that it was combined with explosives of some kind.)</p></blockquote>
<p>Although AE does not claim that thermite destroyed the WTC on its own, combining nano-thermite with other (chemical-based) explosives only addresses a portion of the observed effects and makes it <b>worse</b> for addressing other portions (e.g., vehicle damage, under-rubble hot-spot duration, implementation logistics), which is why thermite can be viewed as a limited-hangout. I fault AE for years of unobjective and uncomprehensive assessments relating to the evidence (nuggets of truth) of nuclear involvment strung through many different disinformation endeavors, such as Dr. Wood's work.
</p>
<blockquote><p>We've seen recently how local police forces have been equipped with military equipment that they could not – under any reasonable conditions – ever need. But they are using it against the population. People are no longer to be served and protected, they are the enemy to be controlled.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is key. Brief diversion, a YouTube video that was brought to my attention a few weeks ago highlights the dangers that this planet faces and gives me insight why some (political / false-flag) events unfolded the way they did.
<br>
<br>9/11 was about securing energy sources in the Middle East, almost like a last-hurrah party of gluttony and consumerism -- to get the very last beer -- to tip the climate change into crisis. Our daily creation of warming green-house gases through our unsubstainable lifestyles only ratchets things so far. The huge danger is that global warming will thaw and release deposits of methane and other gases presently frozen at the bottom of the ocean. That is the tipping point that gives us a steep acceleration in green-house gases that changes climate to unrecognizable and even unhabitable levels.
<br>
<br>In other words, rising sea levels and unprecedented violent storms are going to create refugees out of those who aren't outright culled,... err... killed. Turning local police forces into armies is seen as necessary to control the perceived migrating masses of "have-not's" to the high elevation areas with the "have's and have more's".
<br>
<br>One goal of chemtrails are a cosmetic effort to stop symptoms of global warming by reflecting sunlight back, but don't address root causes of fossil-fuel consumption, clear-cutting, pollution, etc. Another goal of chemtrails will be to cull populations to reduce need, because obviously the introduction of plastics into our consumerism (about the same time pick-up's and SUV's were first hyped) and into the "great garbage patch" isn't killing us fast enough.
</p>
<blockquote><p>And a major part of this, of course, is looking at who was and is responsible for all of these events.</p></blockquote>
<p>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 20 -->
<a name="x21"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x21" class="tiny">x21</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_21');">follow the money</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27161">2014-10-02</a></p>
<div id="sect_21" style="display: none;">
<p>Dr. Zarembka wrote to Mr. McKee:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I think you have missed the topic of "follow the money": insider trading and much more. </p></blockquote>
<p>I agree.
<br>
<br>Here's the most comprehensive report I've seen yet to justify 9/11 as an inside job, and thankfully ties in the criminality of former CIA Director G. H. W. Bush as both Vice President (to clueless Reagan) and President.
<br>
<br>- <a href="http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral_Damage_911.pdf">Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)</a></p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>"[N]ot only were the buildings targets, but ... specific offices within each building were the designated targets. ... [T]he attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which 'unknown' western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation.
<br><br>~ E. P. Heidner</p></blockquote>
<p>- <a href="http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral_Damage_Part_II_26122008.pdf">Collateral Damage of 9/11 Part II(PDF)</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>"The U.S. Subprime and global financial crises of 2008 was the direct result of a covert monetary policy implemented by the U.S. financial institutional caretakers of the World War II Black Eagle Gold Fund."
<br><br>~ E. P. Heidner</p></blockquote>
<p>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 21 -->
<a name="x22"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x22" class="tiny">x22</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_22');">Facebook for discussions?</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27637">2014-10-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_22" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Syed,
<br>
<br>Facebook long ago could have had the features in place that make it a great and addictive venue for debate, like URLs, labels, and logical navigation into discussion topics. Could have been (or still could be) an overlay to what they have.
<br>
<br>Instead, they let their sole navigation be established by algorithm that is unique for each and changes based on latest comment and by whom. Unless a person is astute enough to note the URLs in the notifications and store those in an off-list copy of one's comment, it can be very difficult to get to old discussions, let alone refer others to them (like, if you wanted to avoid looping through terrain already covered).
<br>
<br>If those others don't have a facebook account, they can't get to the URL. Sometimes you can't get to it if you aren't a member; other times you can, but you can't comment until you join; and other times if you get bounced from a group, no comments and to spite you, no free views either. I won't go into the details of groups, owners, blocking, bouncing, etc.
<br>
<br>Its commentary auto-scroll-up showing only 3 or 4 of the last comments in the default news feed view easily gets juked merely by someone posting several comments (of often meaningless filler by the spooks) in a row. I'm convinced that not all Facebook users are equal in terms of access to admin functionality. When someone pays (like a favorite record label), they are entitled to features that include placement in their fans' news feeds. Some of the 9/11 groups must pay to get some of these features. Another distinction in user functionality depends on the amount of personal information that you cough up: the more you're willing -- for security purposes, of course -- to associate your telephone number, home town, high school, college, places of employment, likes & tastes, etc., the more you can do.
<br>
<br>And competing against your rational debate on a weighty topic is the algorithmic news feed unique for you based on friends, their shares, their comments, and anything you have ever "liked" that can become, not just a distracting, but an addicting obsession that morphs into an embarrassing time suck.
<br>
<br>Yeah, I've got my Facebook account(s), but I've resorted to placing a yellow sticky with "NO FB" on my work's computer to remind me not to be tempted.
<br>
<br>I guess someone has to venture into Facebook's 9/11 forums to voice truth, but unless you are taking steps for preservation elsewhere, you are just throwing away your efforts at convincing the masses [albeit they'll be thrown right into the files of the Homeland Security to be used against you at your trial.]
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 22 -->
<a name="x23"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x23" class="tiny">x23</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_23');">marginalizing DEWers</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27639">2014-10-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_23" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Syed,
<br>
<br>With regards to the Pentagon plane (or lack thereof) you wrote on October 8, 2014 at 6:48 pm:
</p>
<blockquote><p>This is the damage that people like Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, Jon Cole, and Frank Legge are doing.</p></blockquote>
<p>You continued on October 8, 2014 at 6:56 pm with:
</p>
<blockquote><p>People like her and Ken Doc have no problem howling down and marginalizing DEWers (since that's actual disinfo), as well as blitzing them with facts that will fill the holes in their knowledge, but when we do it to them re the Pentagon, we’re perceived as somehow not being respectful to a mere difference of opinion.</p></blockquote>
<p>I agree that most "DEWers" peddle some disinformation purposely and with no openness to modifications and tweaks to their opinions when faced with new information. They try to compartmentalize DEW in a manner that excludes nuclear devices as DEW's most likely and easy-to-come-by power source. "DEWers" have an additional problem of framing -- or allowing it to be framed by opponents as -- "space-based weapons" and getting it misapplied to instances of the whole where it doesn't apply.
<br>
<br>Likewise, most "Nukers" peddle some disinformation and with no openness to modifications and tweaks to their opinions when faced with new information. They malframe the nature of the 9/11 device such that its energy output and side-effects won't match the evidence. They often exclude the collected evidence of the DEW camp, when in fact most modern nuclear weapons all fall into the category of DEW.
<br>
<br>Major disinformation is in an unwillingness to have a trial marriage between the two.
<br>
<br>Whether we're talking DEW, nukes, or chemical explosives & incendiaries, the proponents of each have been too obtuse (and other adjectives) to acknowledge that the 9/11 event was ~not~ mutually exclusive in any of the forms of destruction. The proponents add a layer of disinformation by saying <i>"X was found here at A, therefore X must apply to A, B, and C as well. And by extension of this faulty assumption, Y & Z were not involved."</i> No! The destruction of each of the seven or so buildings at the WTC needs to be studied individually to see what unique <i>collection</i> of methods might have been involved with each.
<br>
<br>I have different issues with Mr. David Chandler and Mr. Jonathon Cole, which are data points fitting your trend line.
<br>
<br>Mr. Cole did those wonderful thermite experiments. While fascinating to watch, they leave major gaps in getting super-duper nano-thermite to explain the observed destruction as well as the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. They purposely omitted the calculations and analysis to prove that NT could reasonably go the distance in the pulverization and hot-spot duration without completely whacked and obscene quantities.
<br>
<br>Moreover, the only dust samples that show NT were handed to Dr. Jones. The USGS did not report anything about NT; the RJ Lee Group reported nothing; the Paul Lioy report didn't have it either. Although we have basis to believe that such information might have been purposely edited and suppressed from those untrustworthy reports, many other damning things from those reports weren't suppressed from being measured and reported in tables, albeit the plain text explanations ignored them (like the presence of Uranium and other trace elements of nuclear involvement).
<br>
<br>Back to the DEW front, Mr. Chandler and Mr. Cole (among others) have spoken up loadly regarding (misframed) DEW being disinformation. Yet they don't offer specifics. It should have been deja vu for some T&S participants when they were challenged like Mr. Chandler was to review Dr. Wood's book for the good, bad, and ugly, something still sorely needed by the Truth Movement. The issue would not have been finding bad and ugly. The issue would have been acknowledging any of the good, because it'd have to get married in some way to other things they were propping up without getting those things shot full of holes.
<br>
<br>Mr. McKee on <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research#comment-26685">2014-09-15</a> updated the comments to a closed thread on behalf of Mr. Gage that tried to point to FAQ #3 on the AE911Truth site to supposedly debunk DEWish topics. The correct link to FAQ #3 should have been:
<br><a href="http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-faq-3.html">http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-faq-3.html</a>
<br>
<br>Of the FAQ #3's terse ~2,600 words, only a mere ~1,500 words (57%) were devoted to the topic of DEW itself and have zero references to anything specific in Dr. Wood's work. [Another case of a book report without having the book.] The remaining 43% went off topic and into the weeds with a distraction into NT.
<br>
<br>To give readers an idea of how few words that is, this comment alone is already about half of what their "final authority" FAQ #3 devoted to DEW.
<br>
<br>Thus, DEW and nuclear discussions becomes a textbook cases of Mr. McKee's #5: <b>The workings of disinformation.</b>
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 23 -->
<a name="x26"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x26" class="tiny">x26</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_26');">textbook case of disinformation</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27646">2014-10-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_26" style="display: none;">
<p>Mr. Rogue wrote that my last comment was <i>"a textbook case of disinformation."</i>
<br>
<br>If I am wrong, then it is <i>"misinformation"</i>, not <i>"disinformation."</i> I'm not deliberately disseminating false information. <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/01/nuclear-9112001-for-vt.html">I back up</a> how I get to my conclusions, and I am amiable to correcting my views when validated new information or analysis suggests such.
<br>
<br>The two problems that Mr. Rogue has reside in (1) proving where I've gotten it wrong and (2) acknowledging where he has gotten wrong, something his emotions and ego won't ever admit to.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue's prompt, knee-jerk [agenda-toting(?)] response within 48 minutes of my last comment lacks substance (or links) to prove his contention. Boils down to a personal attack that could easily be interpretted as more than just a disgruntled debate opponent, particularly in light of Mr. Rogue commanding 40% of the overall comments [153 total so far.] How quickly he forgets the <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27193">October 2, 2014 at 11:58 pm</a> reprimand:
</p>
<blockquote><p>[I]t is not your job to answer everything you think is bullshit.</p></blockquote>
<p>Is Mr. Rogue borrowing from certain chapters of that disinformation textbook?
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 26 -->
<a name="x27"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x27" class="tiny">x27</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_27');">posting where it don't belong</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27649">2014-10-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_27" style="display: none;">
<p>What exactly is Mr. Rogue objecting to when he quotes from Mr. McKee in response to my comment to Mr. Syed?
<br>
<br>Mr. Syed posted several images of off-topic conversations that he has been having in Facebook. Mr. Rogue made several comments in response to Mr. Syed relating to Facebook and the exchange. Facebook is already proven on topic.
<br>
<br>My comment to Mr. Syed about Facebook and some of the reasons why I hate it for 9/11 discussions came in at 452 words. My six (6) total comments to this discussion [including this one] are only 3.8% of the total [155]. Mr. Rogue has over ten times my contribution to this thread. He doesn't need to add to his tally by spillage directed at me, about me, or about anything I post.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue, please make better use of your blog and refrain from engaging me here, because your blatant and stupid antics put the <i>"sin"</i> in <i>"disinformation"</i>.
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 27 -->
<a name="x28"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x28" class="tiny">x28</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_28');">Mr. Rogue doesn't keep his promises</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27655">2014-10-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_28" style="display: none;">
<p>{mcb: Mr. Mckee removed the link and quote to the promise on Mr. Rogue's blog.}
<br>
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I do not agree that these postings by Mr Syed are in anyway "off topic" as is asserted by a certain anonymous poster here.</p></blockquote>
<p>Technically, Mr. Syed's comments were "off topic" in his newly found "paradox" et al on Facebook, but they were permitted and responsed to, so became on-topic.
<br>
<br>My comments have been on-topic with multiple tie-in's to the overall thread and the specific topic of this area. <b>They can be ignored.</b> In Mr. Rogue's case, I highly encourage that he ignore me.
<br>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/the-madness-of-normalcy#comment-3488">Mr. Rogue promises</a> on his blog:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I am not going to argue with [SEO] about this shit. It is your blog Craig! … FUCK!!!</p></blockquote>
<p>Given that my comments are only 3.8% of the total while Mr. Rogue's are ten times that, he can well afford to let my words pass on by.
<br>
<br>But Mr. Rogue doesn't:
</p>
<blockquote><p>I do see a "poisoning of the well" beginning to take place on this thread, yes indeed. But neither Mr Syed, Mr Ruff, <b>myself</b>, and certainly not Mr MCkee have any hand in that.</p></blockquote>
<p>Thus, we must express our wonder at Mr. Rogue's inability to see how his engagement of me -- hardly 13 minutes after his blog's promise -- becomes the very <i>"poisoning of the well"</i> that he supposedly fears. An instigator, in its purest form, eh?
<br>
<br>I have hope that Mr. Rogue doesn't repeat the slip-up and will regain hold of his resolve to stick with his own promise.
<br>
<br>I've said my piece(s). If Mr. Rogue doesn't engage with his faux hysteria and rabble-rousing, I'll have no further opportunity to express my views. If others engage (which I doubt), different story. I'll need 60 or more comments, though, before I match Mr. Rogue's output.
<br>
<br>Given that Mr. Rogue can't be bothered to lend Mr. Syed and Mr. McKee a hand on Facebook (where he belongs), Mr. Rogue should put up some more meaningless comments and filler to his blog.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 28 -->
<a name="x29"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x29" class="tiny">x29</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_29');">missile involvement at the Pentagon</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27651">2014-10-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_29" style="display: none;">
<p>Awhile back, Mr. OneSliceShort and I were on the same page about the Pentagon, missile involvement, and plane fly-over. The cattiwompus & torched construction trailer aligned with the destruction path would have been an excellent covered launching pad for a missile launched into the Pentagon.
<br>
<br>I don't see a missile per se poisoning the well. Framing it as a missile that flew a lengthly flight path somewhat parallel to the observed plane yet remaining unobserved itself, that is poisoning the well.
<br>
<br>// </p>
</div><!-- section 29 -->
<a name="x30"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x30" class="tiny">x30</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_30');">9/11 demonstrates the existence of some conspiracy against humanity</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27658">2014-10-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_30" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Noel,
<br>
<br>I regret that I was unable to reply promptly when you made your excellent comment from <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27466">October 7, 2014 at 7:56 pm</a>.
<br>
<br>At this late date, I'd like to express kudos.
</p>
<blockquote><p>... a still more valuable goal would be to investigate the possibility that the study of 9/11 would demonstrate the existence of some conspiracy against humanity that would be larger than a pattern of false flags or that would be easier to clear than 9/11. ... The 9/11 censorship is by far the most alarming 9/11 subconspiracy...</p></blockquote>
<p>Thank you,
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 30 -->
<a name="x31"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x31" class="tiny">x31</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_31');">clouding Mr. Rogue's brain</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27661">2014-10-10</a></p>
<div id="sect_31" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. Rogue,
<br>
<br>Stop your <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27660">lying</a>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>You are reading the comment after Craig edited it. SEO reposted the whole thing again farther down the thread – PLUS more BS.</p></blockquote>
<p>Nothing has been edited or deleted (yet). It probably won't be either, because it is on-topic and short & concise (for me) within allowable tolerances. Everything is as it was originally posted, typos and all.
<br>
<br>Because nothing was edited or deleted, there hasn't been any need to re-post anything.
<br>
<br>Your anger is clouding your brain and forcing you to make stupid mistakes with your promises, your stupid lies, and your hyperventilating tattle-tailing.
<br>
<br>For the record, you purposely posted your rabble-rousing comment in the wrong place to obscure your nefarious hand and got your ass handed to you.
<br>
<br>PLUS, it isn't your duty to call out the "BS".
<br>
<br>It isn't your job to put out fodder to engage me.
<br>
<br>You've got a big enough buffer in your comment count, you can afford to ignore me. Please take advantage of that lead by STFU. Your lying and disinfo antics are unbecoming to this forum.
<br>
<br>//
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 31 -->
<a name="x32"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x32" class="tiny">x32</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_32');">nothing but verbosity of rhetoric, ie; BULLSHIT</a></b></p>
<p>2014-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_32" style="display: none;">
<p>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27663">October 10, 2014 at 4:00 pm</a>
<br>
<br>The comments by SEO of OCTOBER 10, 2014 AT 11:46 AM & OCTOBER 10, 2014 AT 11:48 AM, both addressed to Adam Syed are so similar to one another that I thought the one left up at 11:46 AM was the top half of what is left at 11:48 AM …
<br>
<br>I am not lying, at most I am mistaken, but I am not sure that I am mistaken yet either. I could have sworn there was an original post that had what shows at 11:46 AM as a first part and what now shows at 11:48 AM as a second part.
<br>
<br>At any rate, now the first part is certainly on topic, but the second part is not and has been called out of bounds by the quote I made of Mr McKee from the original essay above. If anyone here is a liar it is Señor El Once.
<br>
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 32 -->
<a name="x33"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x33" class="tiny">x33</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_33');">You are mistaken</a></b></p>
<p>2014-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_33" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27663">October 11, 2014 at 10:57 am</a>
<br>
<br>You are mistaken. I did not edit anything yesterday.
<br>
<br>//
</p>
</div><!-- section 33 -->
<a name="x34"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x34" class="tiny">x34</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_34');">I agree with this assessment totally</a></b></p>
<p>2014-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_34" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less#comment-27698">2014-10-11</a>
<br>{mcb: Original comment before Mr. McKee edited it.}
<br>
<br>"Mr. Gage that tried to point to FAQ #3 on the AE911Truth site to supposedly debunk DEWish topics. The correct link to FAQ #3 should have been:
<br>http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-faq-3.html"~Señor //
<br>– – – – — – – – — – —
<br>FAQ #3: What's Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?
<br>Written by Jonathan Cole, P.E., Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts
<br>Sunday, 18 May 2014 00:00
<br>————————————————————————————————————————————
<br>Señor claims this is an insufficient argument against DEW, when actually it utterly destroys the DEW proposition, and mortally wounds the nuclear aspect as well.
<br>Señor wants 'explosive events" for the nuke aspect, and wants nukes driving DEW for other aspects. And all is based in pure speculation. There is not a single indicator for a nuclear/radiological event to have occurred at WTC. Everything is explained specifically and exactly as an explosive demolition.
<br>Señor has nothing but verbosity of rhetoric, ie; BULLSHIT.
<br>. . . . . . . . . .
<br>* Hypothesis in Search of Facts
<br>
<br>"One of the observations that seems to have motivated Wood to come up with her directed energy weapon hypothesis is that the debris pile at Ground Zero does not seem to be tall enough to contain enough steel to equal what was in the Twin Towers before they came down. She departs from verifiable fact quite early with this claim. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of what brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the official story, which cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers' mass fell outside their footprints. Indeed, the entire plaza was covered with steel pieces and assemblies. Some of the structural steel was thrown as far away as the Winter Gardens – 600 feet.
<br>
<br>Given all this, there is no reason to expect a taller debris pile at Ground Zero than the photographs show. Wood's belief that some of the steel must have been turned into dust rests on a completely spurious interpretation of the visual evidence. Her hypothesis is an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. As we will show, it can be sustained only by additional poor analysis and leaps of faith, just as in the official explanation.
<br>[...]
<br>"Hundreds of eyewitness accounts of multiple explosions
<br>
<br>The many qualified witnesses to the sights and sounds of explosions are easily explained with the controlled demolition by explosive hypothesis – but not with the DEW hypothesis. Wood questions the credibility of the witnesses of explosions (amounting to hundreds) throughout the Twin Towers.
<br>
<br>Conclusion
<br>
<br>We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence. In addition, we believe the DEW theory raises far more questions than it answers, such as the energy requirements and other issues outlined in the suggested references listed below.
<br>
<br>Based on what we know today, it is our opinion that the destruction scenario that best addresses the evidence is some type of explosive demolition using some combination of thermitic incendiaries and explosives that were placed inside the structures."~A&E FAQ#3
<br>_____________________________________________________
<br>
<br>And I agree with this assessment totally.
<br>Read the piece for yourself, don't take either of our word for it.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27698">October 11, 2014 at 7:55 am</a>
<br>{mcb: Craig McKee edited this.}
<br>
<br>THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED…
<br>
<br>…for breaking the rules set out at the beginning of this discussion. While Senor El Once's original comment from yesterday was a delicate balancing act on the line (of staying on the topic), this comment went way over. Hybridrogue, you have simply ignored my requirement that we not argue the merits or lack thereof of DEW, nukes, etc. The fact that you think SEO did the same isn't an excuse.
</p>
</div><!-- section 34 -->
<a name="x35"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x35" class="tiny">x35</a>
Craig McKee : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_35');">the rules</a></b></p>
<p>2014-10-11</p>
<div id="sect_35" style="display: none;">
<p><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27703">October 11, 2014 at 10:41 am</a>
<br>
<br><b>Señor El Once</b>, your comment comes in at 788 words. If you would like to send a 500-word version by email I will substitute it. Or I could chop it if you like. And just for simplicity's sake let's assume I mean 500 words in total (including any quotes from elsewhere). So that means when the entire comment is pasted into a Word doc, the total word count should not exceed 500 words. I just think it makes the thread much more readable this way. And rather than having long essays on many aspects of a topic, it encourages everyone to make more specific and focused comments.
<br>
<br>//
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27704">October 11, 2014 at 10:47 am</a>
<br>
<br>Señor,
<br>
<br>I have removed your link to hybridrogue1's blog. And I made clear before, I do not want Truth and Shadows to be a venue for continuing or rehashing fights that have taken place there or on your own blog. Also, I have admonished hybridrogue1 for challenging me on whether rules are going to be enforced or not, so I must also ask you to stop referring to the number of comments made by him and others. If you have a complaint or suggestion to make about this, write me an email. Thank you.
<br>
<br><b>Craig McKee</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27706">October 11, 2014 at 10:55 am</a>
<br>
<br>Hybridrogue1,
<br>
<br>I'm not sure if I have expressed this before (I'm kidding; I've said it several times), but I really hate it when people become all indignant and wonder if there are any "rules here." As you have been told, I now have a work schedule that may delay my reactions to comments. That is where the good will of the contributors comes in. If I think someone is breaking the rules when they think it won't be dealt with for a few hours, then that person will be dealt with.
<br>
<br>So if you think rules have been broken, then send me an email and I will look into it. But do not ask if this is going to be a free-for-all because you think someone has broken the rules when you know I have not had the chance to look into the situation. It's a direct shot at me, and I don't appreciate it. Thank you.
</p>
</div><!-- section 35 -->
<a name="x40"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x40" class="tiny">x40</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_40');">still XXX stalled</a></b></p>
<p>2014-10-13</p>
<div id="sect_40" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-3609">2014-10-14</a>
<br>
<br>Maybe these images will keep Maxitwerp's prissy eyes off of my blog! .. ???
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>{mcb: The <a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-3536">October 12, 2014 at 2:53 am</a> and <a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-3539">October 12, 2014 at 11:02 am</a> comments, when viewed from the blog, each had a GIF animation of female-on-male fallatio.}
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/911-disinformation-no-planes-theory#comment-3620">2014-10-15</a>
<br>
<br>This is obviously a recurring theme at T&S. Craig makes rules about no nukes in the commentary – Señor blatantly ignores the rules – then it is my fault because I confront Señor for it… WTF?
<br>
<br>Just happened again on the current thread:
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-27943">2014-10-16</a>
<br>
<br>Señor,
<br>
<br>WARNING: Do not visit "your page" on my blog anymore. It is now rated XXX.
<br>
<br>Anyone else who would be offended should be aware of this as well.
<br>
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 40 -->
<a name="x42"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x42" class="tiny">x42</a>
KP, hybridrogue1, & hadmatter : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_42');">WTC-6 giant crater</a></b></p>
<p>2014-10-16</p>
<div id="sect_42" style="display: none;">
<p><br><b>KP</b>
<br>
<br>Very good point about WTC6 – a while ago I posted on a forum the series of photos that shows that the huge hole appeared after WTC7 was destroyed and before the overhead photo was taken the next day. Can did that up if anyone is interested.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>KP,
<br>
<br>I have heard this reported and seen photo’s purporting to show this, and found those photos unconvincing. As far as what I have seen the hole in the top of # 6 was caused during the tower explosions.
<br>
<br>Can you show me where to go to see the pics you are referring to here?
<br>Thanks, \\][//
<br>
<br>HR
<br>
<br>"Some reports suggested that explosions were responsible for the holes in WTC 6 and WTC 5. 1 The depths of the holes have been cited as evidence of this, as have their clean profiles.
<br>
<br>However, it does seem plausible that falling pieces from the breakup of the North Tower could have created the holes. The steel in just the upper half of the Tower’s northeast wall weighed several thousand tons. It can be imagined, given the degree of mushrooming in the Tower collapse, that Building 6 received most of the weight of the Tower’s northeast wall. Thousands of tons falling from a thousand feet could have crushed all eight stories of such a building. Moreover, the rectangular shape of the hole, and the fact that it runs the length of the Tower’s northeast wall (whose remnants can be seen in the left side of the photo), suggests that it corresponds to the region of heaviest steel fallout from that wall. If the Tower continued to disintegrate in the uniform manner seen before dust clouds obscured the region of breakup, it is easy to imagine that the column-and-spandrel panels of the perimeter wall would be blown off fairly consistently in the direction perpendicular to the wall. That would result in a roughly rectangular distribution of fallout."- article at URL below:
<br>
<br>http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hadmatter</b>
<br>
<br>I don’t mean to steal KP’s thunder, but I believe these are the pics he was referring to:
<br>
<br>http://letsrollforums.com/wtc6-damage-analysis-originally-t20520.html
<br>
<br>which he embedded in a thread on the Let’s Roll Forum in 2010. (5th posting down in the thread)
<br>
<br>And yes, it is a mystery; one for which I’ve not seen a definitive explanation.
<br>
<br>In the first several pictures of WTC6 you can clearly see it has been damaged from the falling debris from WTC1 & 2, but the penthouse on the roof is intact. Building 7 is still up, but damaged with the smoke wall swirling on the south side. 1 & 2 are definitely on the ground at this point.
<br>
<br>Scroll down to the last pic, taken after 7 is on the ground, and the WTC6 penthouse has been obliterated. It’s gone. There’s nothing but a big hole where it was earlier in the other pics.
<br>
<br>Did 7 do this? The penthouse looked like it was more behind the Verizon building than 7.
<br>
<br>The plot thickens.
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br>On #6 WTC,
<br>
<br>These photo’s on Let’s Roll forum are from 3 different angles. It would be my assessment that this is what gives the ‘appearance’ of ‘more damage’ on the last shot of it on the page.
<br>
<br>Check out how the building is sat catercorner on a foundation in these shots. It is easy therefore to conclude this diversity of POVs:
<br>
<br>>130 jpg — the base is on R. side of frame.
<br>>131 jpg — the base is on bottom of frame.
<br>>179 jpg — the base is on the L. side of frame.
<br>
<br>It would be my opinion that it is an optical illusion caused by these differing POVs that give the appearance of different damage levels. I think all the damage was caused by the tons of steel falling on #6.
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 42 -->
<a name="x43"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x43" class="tiny">x43</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_43');">WTC-6 crater appearing</a></b></p>
<p>2014-10-16</p>
<div id="sect_43" style="display: none;">
<p>Dear Mr. KP,
<br>
<br>I'd be interested in the series of photos showing the WTC-6 crater appearing after WTC-7 was destroyed.
<br>
<br>WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 both individually and collectively are also topics for Mr. McKee to add to his list of 9/11 things about 9/11 deserving more attention.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue quoted from a http://911reserarch.wtc7.net posting. Key words and phrases are: <i>"plausible," "it can be imagined," "could have crushed," "suggests," and "it is easy to imagine."</i> Its speculative nature does not make the analysis fact or real-world cause-and-effect.
<br>
<br>http://cryptome.org/0001/wtc-nist-gjs/wtc-nist-gjs.zip
<br>
<br>gjs-wtc109.jpg
<br>gjs-wtc110.jpg
<br>gjs-wtc112.jpg
<br>gjs-wtc129.jpg
<br>gjs-wtc130.jpg
<br>gjs-wtc131.jpg
<br>gjs-wtc135.jpg
<br>
<br>Shows that WTC-7 did not impact WTC-5 or WTC-6.
<br>http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/37524ba917253f99e.jpg
<br>
<br>Guns encased in concrete.
<br>http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/37524baae38ecdbfa.jpg
<br>
<br>//</p>
</div><!-- section 43 -->
<a name="x45"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x45" class="tiny">x45</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_45');">Guns enclosed in melted aggregates to the concrete</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-28104">2014-10-24</a></p>
<div id="sect_45" style="display: none;">
<p>I wrote in error:
</p>
<blockquote><p>Guns encased <i>in concrete</i> from the WTC-6 armory hint at a different story and energy forces regarding WTC-6 not being "collateral" but part of the plan.</p></blockquote>
<p>What makes my statement in error is that the guns aren't enclosed in concrete per se; they are enclosed in the melted aggregates to the concrete.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue was not very careful in <a href="https://www.metabunk.org/threads/does-concrete-melt.2578/">sourcing the quotations from his comment</a>, giving a false impression about the extent of his actual words / knowledge versus those written <a href="http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mats05/mats05054.htm">by others</a>.
<br>
<br>Here's the situation with WTC-6 and these guns.
<br>
<br>First story line is that flaming aircraft debris started the office fires. The heat from the office fires [~not~ in open air] likely would have been insufficient to melt the differing components of concrete. For points of reference, office and hydrocarbon fires burning <b><i>in open air</i></b> have temperatures between ~216°C to 815°C; iron or structural steel melt at ~1,482°C. What happens to concrete at various temperatures: 300°C normal thermal expansion; 450-550°C cement hydrate decomposes; 500°C carbonation and coarsening of pores; 573°C rapid expansion of quartz; 600°C calcium carbonate decomposes...
<br>
<br>In other words, this first story (e.g., the government's) about office fires causing this piece of anomalous evidence is incomplete.
<br>
<br>The second, third, and fourth story lines are respectively that (2) incendiaries -- in particular super-duper nano-thermite [NT] --, (3) explosives, and (4) combinations of the two created the works of patriot PR art of metal guns fused with aggregrates of concrete. However, logistics and implementation foil such; they are incomplete as well. For example, while NT incendiaries can get very hot locally to the point of being able to cut steel columns, the desired destruction wouldn't require NT to be placed everywhere, least of all on the concrete around a weapons store supporting nothing. Likewise, while explosives also can get very hot, their true destructive energy is rapid and violent changes in air pressure to <i>"blow things to smithereens."</i> It isn't as if explosives even in combination with incendiaries would leave large, lingering patches of sizzling, unspent material to be the heat source for fusing the concrete aggregates to the weapons and creating other "meteorites".
<br>
<br>Moreover, logic combined with natural human laziness of the planners inform us that the WTC 9/11 operation might exhibit overkill in the estimated energy required, but that overkill would not have been implemented in a boots-to-the-ground sense of the planners deciding to use many orders of magnitude greater quantities of conventional, chemical based incendiaries and explosives, that in turn must be installed, controlled, and coordinated. No. The overkill would have been more of an accidental bonus of the mechanisms chosen... From the arsenals of the world and the MIC, money being no object.
<br>
<br>Thus, a story line and energy source that completes the picture must be sought.
<br>
<br>It is remarkable the twister-style gymnastics that has the 9/11 truth movement avoiding these inevitable conclusions.
<br>
<br>// ~490 words
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 45 -->
<a name="x46"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x46" class="tiny">x46</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_46');">conjecture and supposition</a></b></p>
<p>2014-10-24</p>
<div id="sect_46" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-28105">October 24, 2014 at 12:05 pm</a>
<br>
<br>The only conclusions that are "inevitable" are ones based on real data and facts – not conjecture and supposition.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-28106">October 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm</a>
<br>
<br>\\][// ~18 words (grin)
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-3897">2014-10-24</a>
<br>
<br>"For example, while NT incendiaries can get very hot locally to the point of being able to cut steel columns, the desired destruction wouldn't require NT to be placed everywhere, least of all on the concrete around a weapons store supporting nothing. Likewise, while explosives also can get very hot, their true destructive energy is rapid and violent changes in air pressure to "blow things to smithereens." It isn't as if explosives even in combination with incendiaries would leave large, lingering patches of sizzling, unspent material to be the heat source for fusing the concrete aggregates to the weapons and creating other "meteorites".
<br>~Señor El Once – OCTOBER 24, 2014 AT 11:27 AM
<br>. .. . .
<br>Maxitrwerp contends that "the desired destruction wouldn't require NT to be placed everywhere.."
<br>
<br>And yet as we can extrapolate from the Jones-Harrit paper on the explosive materials discovered in the WTC dust – NT was indeed spread "everywhere". The most logical supposition to be drawn from this is not to leap into fantasyland and nookiedoodoo nonsense, but rather to suppose that there was a good reason to salt the whole thing with nanothermetics: to eat the remains! The perps obviously wanted the crime scene destroyed as utterly as possible. It would therefore by logical that the plan was to, not only blow up the WTC, but to have the remains dissolve themselves – very like a murderer dissolving a victim in a vat of acid.
<br>
<br>\\][//</p>
</div><!-- section 46 -->
<a name="x47"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x47" class="tiny">x47</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_47');">Mr. Rogue is careless</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-28109">2014-10-24</a></p>
<div id="sect_47" style="display: none;">
<p>In my last posting, I didn't make a major issue of Mr. Rogue's careless quotations bordering on plagiarism. In this posting, I will suppress my complaint that careless Mr. Rogue likes to insert his comments where they don't belong, messing up readability and context for those reading on the web.
<br>
<br>But I won't suppress pointing out the errors in what he propagates from his faulty understanding, when he wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>And yet as we can extrapolate from the Jones-Harrit paper on the explosive materials discovered in the WTC dust – NT was indeed spread "everywhere". </p></blockquote>
<p>Extrapolation is not evidence! Least of all extrapolation based on purposely faulty assumptions!
<br>
<br>NT was <b>~not~</b> "everywhere". No, no, no!
<br>
<br>NT was only found in the dust samples given to Dr. Jones, samples whose chain of custody and integrity can leave thinkers with questions. NT was not found in the dust analyzed by the USGS, by the RJ Lee Group (relating to the Banker's Trust building), or even by Lioy et al.
<br>
<br>On the one hand, we certainly have reason to distrust the veracity of these reports. On the other hand, all of these reports had data tables that were fairly consistent in the sense that they exposed elements and compounds (heavy metals, etc.) that maybe they shouldn't have if they were trying to control the message. To cover themselves, though, they do not discuss these anomalous elements or why they were there; the tables were it. If the data tables were exposing elements important to nuclear mechanisms [that they were going to ignore in the plain text], no reason why the data tables wouldn't also validate NT. Except if the dust didn't really have NT or other such things.
<br>
<br>What the Jones-Harrit paper [that Mr. Rogue didn't link] said was that they found in the dust "everywhere" a significant percentage of iron spheres. They make a huge-ass ASSUMPTION that these iron spheres were the direct resultant of NT reacting with steel in the various buildings (primarily WTC-1 and WTC-2). Even Dr. Harrit calculated that, depending on oxygen content of the steel, the implication is for massive quantities to have been present... if going with the NT hypothesis.
<br>
<br>The kicker is that those iron spheres could be generated by other mechanisms.
<br>
<br>Most interesting that Mr. Rogue would write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The only conclusions that are "inevitable" are ones based on real data and facts – not conjecture and supposition.</p></blockquote>
<p>Most interesting that Mr. Rogue would write:
</p>
<blockquote><p>The most logical supposition to be drawn from this is not to leap into fantasyland with exotic mourning-dew nonsense, but rather to suppose that there was a good reason to salt the whole thing with nanothermetics: to eat the remains! The perps obviously wanted the crime scene destroyed as utterly as possible.</p></blockquote>
<p>When and how did the master chef behind 9/11 step in <i>"to salt the whole thing with nanothermetics"</i>? Does this conjecture and supposition have any real data and facts?
</p>
<blockquote><p>The perps obviously wanted the crime scene destroyed as utterly as possible. It would therefore by logical that the plan was to, not only blow up the WTC, but to have the remains dissolve themselves – very like a murderer dissolving a victim in a vat of acid.</p></blockquote>
<p>The very nuclear mechanisms that Mr. Rogue regularly -- like a Pavlov's dog -- drools over and poo-poo's inside 1/2 hour as <i>"leaps into fantasyland"</i> fulfill his logical plan of <i>"not only blowing up the WTC, but to have the remains dissolve themselves"</i>. The disintegration is evident in the fountaining plooms of pulverized debris from the earliest phases of each tower's demise and represents a massive energy sink that logistics say would be hard to implement with conventional chemical-based mechanisms, but most easy with special things from the depths of MIC arsenals.
<br>
<br>// ~640 total words include 140 Words from Mr. Rogue to give context
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 47 -->
<a name="x48"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x48" class="tiny">x48</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_48');">circular as he posits</a></b></p>
<p>2014-10-24</p>
<div id="sect_48" style="display: none;">
<p><br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-28110">October 24, 2014 at 2:01 pm</a>
<br>
<br>First of all, my placement of my last comment was simply due to my not being sure where it would land here…. and I don’t like my comments turning into the narrow columns that often results in using the reply button as I have done here.
<br>
<br>Secondly, I admit straight up that my proposition of the perps adding nano-thermites that would survive the initial destruction is conjecture and supposition. But it is based on actual data and evidence. This is opposed to the tack that the anonymous entity takes, wherein there is absolutely no evidence for his fantasy weapon – NONE.
<br>
<br>It all turns circular as he posits that this evidence "proves" the existence of such exotic weapons.
<br>
<br>Again, this is all gone through exhaustively on my blog at this URL:
<br>
<br>http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
<br>
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-28111">October 24, 2014 at 2:16 pm</a>
<br>
<br>140 Words from Mr. Rogue in context, the other 500 words being rhetorical jabberwacky.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-3899">2014-10-24</a>
<br>
<br>140 Words from Mr. Rogue in context, the other 500 words being rhetorical jabberwacky.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-3900">2014-10-24</a>
<br>
<br>Ah yes, the covert entity, Lol
<br>
<br>Keeping serious about "debating" with the loonball is hard to do!
<br>
<br>You see how his is a circular argument? Positing that these details from #6 are "further proofs" of something he hasn't even begun to prove!!
<br>When the "debate" has a history as ours has, I see this clearly as an extension of his whole schlep. But some who haven't kept up with this boinking blither might have no idea that Max is speaking in hot air from the seat of his trousers.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-3901">2014-10-24</a>
<br>
<br>I would hazard a guess that the great majority of the readers at T&S have no idea of the history of the scrap between the entity and myself. I would imagine that overall many don't care one way or the other. Those who have an opinion one way or the other will agree with which ever one of us supports that opinion.
<br>
<br>Yes for the most part this side-issue has become a non-issue by this late date. So what is written here on my blog is addressed to those who have followed this 'argument' between the covert entity and myself.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-28232">October 30, 2014 at 7:29 pm</a>
<br>
<br>"Moreover, nothing in the "10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition" excludes nuclear mechanisms. …"~Mr. Señor
<br>
<br>This statement is absolutely false. Both the entity and I have offered URLs where our opposing arguments are made. So flogging his rocking horse here all over again is a waste of everyone's time.
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 48 -->
<a name="x49"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x49" class="tiny">x49</a>
Señor El Once : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_49');">passive-aggressive comment placement</a></b></p>
<p><a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-28227">2014-10-30</a></p>
<div id="sect_49" style="display: none;">
<p>Tsk, tsk. Mr. Rogue's response to a complaint about a posting being made where it didn't belong gets posted... again, where it doesn't belong. Kind of a passive-aggressive way to purposely make a discussion difficult to follow.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>It all turns circular as [SEO] posits that this evidence "proves" the existence of such exotic weapons.</p></blockquote>
<br>
<br>Such a wonderful, erroneous turn of a phrase regarding <i>"this evidence 'proves' the existence of such exotic weapons."</i> In error because such exotic weapons do not need 9/11 to prove their existence. We can admire the extent with which information about them is classified and hidden. Yet still, important nuggets come to light in the published, researched, overview works of scientists that sneak out and validate the premise.
<br>
<br>Therefore, the evidence isn't proof of their existence, but of their use.
<br>
<br>Mr. Rogue is correct about things turning circular, though.
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>Again, this is all gone through exhaustively on my blog...:</p></blockquote>
<p>Again, this is all responded to exhaustively...:
<br>
<br>[1] On my blog, for instance with an entry from 2014-07-15 called <a href="http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/07/gathering-and-sowing.html#x123">how to gather, how to sow {Extended}</a>, starting about 1/2 way in.
</p>
<blockquote><p>For sport, I will address Mr. Rogue's points 6 – 9 of "Controlled Demolition" "rationally, clearly and in order." </p></blockquote>
<p>[2] On <a href="http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/complaint-filed-cable-host-michael-coren-goes-from-ridiculing-911-truth-to-calling-it-anti-semitic-hate-speech/#comment-22057">Truth & Shadows</a>, for instance from 2014-06-06, starting about 1/3 of the way.
</p>
<blockquote><p>Moreover, nothing in the "10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition" excludes nuclear mechanisms. ... Worse, Mr. Rogue has re-purposed his works from another forum, minus all dissenting and opposing comments except for what little he quotes for ridicule. Arguments strong enough to withstand reasoned challenges, Mr. Rogue does not make.</p></blockquote>
<p>//
<br>
<br></p>
</div><!-- section 49 -->
<a name="x50"></a><hr>
<p><b><a href="#x50" class="tiny">x50</a>
hybridrogue1 : <a href="javascript: sectionToggle('sect_50');">an insufferable asshole</a></b></p>
<p>2014-10-30</p>
<div id="sect_50" style="display: none;">
<p><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-3988">2014-10-30</a>
<br>
<br>Bridges, you are such an insufferable asshole. T&S isn't interested in your stupid nookiedoodoo trip.
<br>
<br>No one has shown the slightest interest in the scrap between us. At least there on those pages. However there has been a notable uptick in visitors here – quite a few visiting my Controlled Demolition thread, and they link here from two directions, one is T&S and the other the Gumshoe article [Australia].
<br>
<br>40 visits here today, and a substantial portion to Controlled Demolition.
<br>And surprisingly to this page as well.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4017">2014-11-01</a>
<br>
<br>Maxwell Bridges is a covert operation, it is a fact. His appeal to the use of nom de plumes by the Federalists is utterly irrelevant to today's situation. The corporate state already knows who this character is, the only ones who do not know who he is are we, those who have to deal with his spurious bullshit. And a blatant part of his spurious bullshit is the reference to the Federalists as an excuse for his autonomy. The argument is out of context in this panoptic police state, which already knows every single detail about this entity.
<br>His MO screams "agent provocateur"! How anyone who studies the national security state can miss this baffles me to no end…
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4020">2014-11-01</a>
<br>
<br>A continuing misperception is clearly seen in the counter commentary to what I have been saying here; and that is that is that ALL of the metallic spherules in the dust are the nanothermite. The vast majority are not, they are the RESULT of the explosion: vaporized steel. So the assumption that the mass of these are equivalent to the mass of superthermite planted in the towers is false. ~\\][//
<br>
<br>http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/disinformation-dew-nuke/#comment-28
<br>
<br>Señor contends that "the desired destruction wouldn't require NT to be placed everywhere.."
<br>And yet as we can extrapolate from the Jones-Harrit paper on the explosive materials discovered in the WTC dust – NT was indeed spread "everywhere".~\\][//
<br>. . . . . . . . .
<br>Señor contenues to answer that with:
<br>What the Jones-Harrit paper [that Mr. Rogue didn't link] said was that they found in the dust "everywhere" a significant percentage of iron spheres. They make a huge-ass ASSUMPTION that these iron spheres were the direct resultant of NT reacting with steel in the various buildings (primarily WTC-1 and WTC-2).
<br>
<br>https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-28109
<br>
<br>. . . . . . . . .
<br>
<br>And But it is hardly a "huge-ass ASSUMPTION" by Jones-Harrit, and anyone who knows the paper knows the solid proofs they show for the existence of nanothermite in the dust. There samples were from varied places, there is little reason to speculate that it was different or special in any way. And as I above in a post from 2012, I am well aware that there is a majority proportion of simple metalic spherules. Señor is the one who leaps to the conclusion that I meant all of the spherules were the solgel product. What I do mean is that it is reasonable to conclude from the Jones-Harrit samples that they were typical of the WTC dust, which they also show is in the same unique signature of the Paul Lioy et al standard for WTC dust. Therefore it is very likely that the dust is of the same general composition throughout the debris field. The constituent molecules of the nanothermate are listed in the graphs used by Paul Lioy et al.
<br>
<br>As I have gone over a rebuttal to the entirety of Bridges assertions over and again, I will not repeat that again. I only wanted to address his current erroneous contentions.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4021">2014-11-01</a>
<br>
<br>What all of this scrabble that Bridges threw onto T&S is meant to do is to distract from my assertion that it is reasonable to conclude that the perpetrators would have used whatever means available to destroy the physical evidence as part of the planning of the event. Thermitic material salted throughout the catacombs of the wreckage would have been a brilliantly devious plan.
<br>
<br>And as this would be a rational explanation for the lingering heat in the pile, the covert entity attempts to interrupt the train of thought by leading off into the weeds of his spinning yada. He asserts that "nuclear fizzle" is what heated up the pile for so long. But what is "fizzle"? It is fissile nuclear activity and it produces heat through radioactivity. There is NO RADIOACTIVITY found in the evidence. None! There are four blog pages addressing this bullshit Max is trying to sell; this one of course, 'DISINFORMATION: DEW-Nuke', and 'The Demise of WTC', and "Maxifuckanus" … all four lay out arguments against the nookiedoo nonsense.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4024">2014-11-01</a>
<br>
<br>"Mr. Rogue wrote:
<br>It all turns circular as [this] posits that this evidence "proves" the existence of such exotic weapons.
<br>
<br>Such a wonderful, erroneous turn of a phrase regarding "this evidence 'proves' the existence of such exotic weapons." In error because such exotic weapons do not need 9/11 to prove their existence. We can admire the extent with which information about them is classified and hidden. Yet still, important nuggets come to light in the published, researched, overview works of scientists that sneak out and validate the premise.
<br>
<br>Therefore, the evidence isn't proof of their existence, but of their use."~Señor El Once – October 30, 2014 @ 12:20 PM
<br>. . . . . . . . . . . .
<br>Señor maintains this same line of rhetorical nonsense despite the fact that I have revealed his sources who have brought "to light the published, researched, overview works of scientists that sneak out and validate the premise": And that is nothing more than a premise based purely on conjecture:
<br>
<br>This is Señor's prize source;
<br>'The physical principles of thermonuclear explosives, inertial confinement fusion, and the quest for fourth generation nuclear weapons'
<br>Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni Independent Scientific Research Institute Box 30, CH-1211 Geneva-12, Switzerland January 20, 2009
<br>
<br>One would note that is says right there in the title "the quest for", and in the body of the work it is made even more clear that this quest is looking some 20 years into the future for such developments to perhaps come about.
<br>\\][//
<br>
<br><b>hybridrogue1</b>
<br><a href="http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant#comment-4025">2014-11-01</a>
<br>
<br>And goddammit! It is the fact that I have made these points time and again for the past years, and they have yet to be addressed by this covert operator. All of it handwaved without any comment, as if I have never addressed these subjects, that go to show what a spurious and insincere actor this Señor Bridges is.
<br>
<br>Oh yes, he claims to address them, and then you go to his blog and you find the same fucking arguments repeated over again, without addressing the critiques I have already made of those same fucking arguments. Then when I speak to what a carousel the Maxitwat makes, he turns around and accuses me of the one driving the carousel! And by god this is all in the record for anyone who wishes to sort this mess out!
<br>
<br>And this is why I say this guy Bridges is a cunt.
<br>\\][//
</p>
</div><!-- section 50 -->
<hr>
<p style="font-weight: bold"><a href="javascript: areaHideAll('sect_');">Hide All /</a> <a href="javascript: areaShowAll('sect_');">Expand All</a> <br />
Maxwell C. Bridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14620436348190992398noreply@blogger.com0